Talk:Waterfall rail accident

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Australia: Sydney / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Waterfall rail accident is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Important article

This is an important article and must retained.

Tabletop 03:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling the tail

The following is unlikely to be correct:

It is worth noting however, that prior to this derailment, neither training nor procedures called for the guard to exercise control over the speed of the train by using the emergency brake pipe tap. Apart from the driver being considered to be the sole operator of the train, the emergency brake pipe tap does not offer the same degree of control over the automatic brake as a proper brake valve. The consensus among train crews was that a sudden emergency application from the rear could cause a breakaway and there was some evidence from previous accidents to support this view.

In the United Kingdom, guards are and have been prepared to pull the tail when the train seems out of control, such as the Norton Fitzwarren accident of 1940. It is amazing that training of guards in New South Wales is/was so different.

The emegergeny brake is about 10%-20& stronger than normal service braking, and is unlikely to cause breakaways of short 4-car passenger trains. Long freight trains with 100 wagons (say coal trains on the Hunter Valley) may be a different issue but these are not relevent here.

"Evidence from previous accidents" "that sudden breaking causes a breakaway (for passenger trains)" is unsupported here by any quoted examples.

Tabletop (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar accidents

Naka-Meguro train disaster - collision after derailment caused by overspeed

Tabletop (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conductors in US

Funny that he should say this:

Webb had also proposed that there had been attitudes that the driver was completely in charge of the train, that speeding was not an acceptable reason for the guard to slow or halt the train, which would have been a contributing factor in the accident

In the US, the conductor who is analogous to the guard IS in charge of the train.

The microsleep is excusable - passengers sometimes doze off and miss getting off at their station.

Tabletop (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling the tail

The comment quoted IS correct. I wrote it, and did so from the POV of someone who has been a guard with the NSWPTC/SRAofNSW/StateRail/RailCorp since 1979, and a trainer guard since 1987. Refer to the various editions of the GA1 and 2, or the more recent TWPs and TOMs for confirmation of my statement.

I 'd suggest that comparing our procedures to those in the UK is pointless and irrelevant -- we aren't BR, or whatever it is these days, nor do we have the same rules, procedures or safeworking.

I'd also suggest that if you aren't familiar with Westcode EP brake, you shouldn't comment on how it works. Making an emergency application on a T-set puts the same amount of air in to the brake cylinders as making a full service application, it just happens a lot quicker. It isn't 10%-20% stronger at all. 425kpa is still 425kpa, no matter how it got there.

The problem with making an emergency application from either end is that it applies the automatic brake, bypasses the EP, and so the application is progressive throughout the train, rather than simultaneous. If it's made from the front, it bunches the slack. If it's made from the rear, it stretches it. The coupling between the two halves of a four-car block is a bolted drawbar, and they have failed on at least three occasions that I know of when the tail was pulled on a T-set, hence my further comment about breakaways. Your comment about 100-car coalies is irrelevant, since they have no guards, or anyone else, at the rear to pull the tail. And you've quoted me out of context, since my comment about breakaways was specifically about T-sets, not passenger trains in general.

Dullsteamer (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conductors in the US

In the US, the conductor who is analogous to the guard IS in charge of the train.

So? The analogy isn't valid, as the rule, procedures and safeworking in NSW are quite different to those in the US.

Dullsteamer (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

driver

would it be not more correct to say that 6 people were killed following the driver being killed by a heart attack, rather than 7 people being killed in the accident? CybergothiChé (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]