Devonport derailment

 
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2018/freight-train-runaway-and-derailment/?fbclid=IwAR0P6UhqCxeFsy1KvpV257_rRg5R-YlQR9nBDoRLvXtlwP904sjZPG9DgcI
Some news on this issue.
Z1NorthernProgress2110
Doesn't say a lot other than that the 'system' was hardly fail safe.

Is Tasrail again/still using the same system for the cement train while everyone waits for the results of the ATSB investigation around this time next year?

Sponsored advertisement

  Z1NorthernProgress2110 Chief Commissioner

Location: Burnie, Tasmania
No, the have stop using it until the full report is released.
  lkernan Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I wouldn’t be surprised to see derailers at Railton and Devonport sidings before they bring it back.

It will no doubt be a very technical investigation, probably pulling apart hardware and software in the remote control units to figure it out.
It sounds like the control unit just froze up and gravity then did the rest.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I wouldn’t be surprised to see derailers at Railton and Devonport sidings before they bring it back.

It will no doubt be a very technical investigation, probably pulling apart hardware and software in the remote control units to figure it out.
It sounds like the control unit just froze up and gravity then did the rest.
lkernan
Derailer(s) should have been in place before the concept commenced. Was the whole thing designed by bean counters or MBAs?

Hardly fail safe obviously.
  iknowstuff Beginner

I know that these remote control systems are designed with serious safeguards and failsafe aspects in order to protect from these types of events being caused by the remotes. "Freezes" and the likes are engineered to be automatically recoverable in the firmware.  Need to understand the remote control controls the locomotive's brakes via the locomotive's brake system which is electronic and the train brakes in parallel. This doesn't sound like a remote control system failure to me but something else in the locomotive brake system has failed.
  trainbrain Deputy Commissioner

sounds like a lack of a human being on board the choo choo
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I know that these remote control systems are designed with serious safeguards and failsafe aspects in order to protect from these types of events being caused by the remotes. "Freezes" and the likes are engineered to be automatically recoverable in the firmware.  Need to understand the remote control controls the locomotive's brakes via the locomotive's brake system which is electronic and the train brakes in parallel. This doesn't sound like a remote control system failure to me but something else in the locomotive brake system has failed.
iknowstuff
Thanks Iknowstuff.

You may well be proven right one day! Smile

I am not a computer/electronics (whatever) person but given the failures of everything from the TV remote, the garage door opener,  Foxtel which blacks out every time it rains, the regular Telstra catastrophes and the Dry Creek Bogie Exchange 'automatic shunt engines' which sometimes had a mind of their own, I would have been demanding some physical safeguard(s) than were apparently in use.

No doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time, at the end of the day, when the necessary procedures have been completed, when the time is right. (Sir Humphrey Appleby).

The bit that amazes me is that there were apparently no catch points as a last resort.
  iknowstuff Beginner

Yes there's the question YM-Mundrabilla and not new I think.

After how many years, was it 19 that I read,  this Cement Bulk service has been operating this way, surely someone sometime would have raised it before this occurrence?

I would suggest the economics of this train's operation was set 19 years ago and perhaps it seems, there hasn't been a provocation to test the original measures of containment - until now. More likely that the old electro mechanical / pneumatic locomotives had reliability of function and resilience to the locomotive environment compared to the low sensitivity a microprocessor based systems and so there's probably not been any issues with the locomotives brake systems with the old locos

In trains that are directed to operate this way, the Driver on the train is just a different safeguard to another. The risk protection factors level out fairly early in the calculation of protection levels with the implementation of a few independent redundant safety measures in place, usually cheaper to add simplistic safety systems than human management.  

And significantly, the expectation of a human correction to an on board failure is fraught with other variances just like what has happened up in the north west of Australia.

Broad systematic common failure from place to place can be undiagnosed or unrecognised due to "administrative policy" or is it "policy administration" until a serious issue has taken place.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I hadn't considered the newer locos and possible technology changes.

That's what happens when one is a dinosaur. Rolling Eyes
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
We rely more on technology than common sense... Very sad...
  Carnot Chief Commissioner
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Oh boy.

To find liability for Negligence three things must be established:

  • That a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
  • That the duty of care was breached by the defendant
  • That the plaintiff’s harm was caused by the breach.


I am no lawyer, but for me the only of these that might be remotely in question is the first. The test for that is whether carelessness on the part of the defendant might forseeably cause harm to a person or class of persons. It would be difficult to convince a judge that a rail operator - and a vertically integrated one at that - could not have reasonably foreseen that its actions or failure to act could cause harm to people near operating rail lines.

Whether or not the duty of care was breached would be clear; there are many, many reasonable options that TasRail could have undertaken to reduce the likelihood of a runaway train.

And given this pathetic attempt to prevent legal action, damages could well be aggravated.

If this does not end up in the courts I will be amazed. It is a QC’s picnic.
  iknowstuff Beginner

It is distressing that these people were injured just going about there daily lives. I wish for them a quick recovery!
Maybe time to purchase a few lotto tickets!

I'm not a lawyer either but if this  does develop into litigation, I can't see it really as its hasn't got a coroners inquest attached, I think the duty of care, assessment of risk and safety is more than just the Railway's responsibility.  

Given that there is a beautiful foreshore park area,  a fabulous little café  and pontoon walkway, all with no buffering zones kind of calls into question the town planning somewhat one might think albeit it is understandable why the public access exists.
  Big J Assistant Commissioner

Location: In Paradise
I'm not a lawyer either but if this  does develop into litigation, I can't see it really as its hasn't got a coroners inquest attached, I think the duty of care, assessment of risk and safety is more than just the Railway's responsibility.  

Given that there is a beautiful foreshore park area,  a fabulous little café  and pontoon walkway, all with no buffering zones kind of calls into question the town planning somewhat one might think albeit it is understandable why the public access exists.
iknowstuff
Erm, not sure if I am understanding this statement. Are you saying that the town planning is a contributing factor due to historical evolution public access adjoining the rail line at this location? Might be a contributing factor but it wont change.

There are many locations in Australia where there is zero buffers, Dennison Street in Rockhampton and the Melbourne tram system are examples.  

They evolved over the years, just like this location. Sure you could provide a buffer and close public access or remove the railway to be risk free in harming the public. Is that a desirable outcome? Or the issue is that the train failed to stop. My view it is the latter.

I won't speculate as to the cause(s) for this terrible incident. That is for the investigators and they will provide the reasons and the recommendations to rectify.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: