Derailment at Trawalla 28/04/06

The Age - Families to visit rail crash site

April 29, 2006 - 9:55AM

Family members of two people killed in a horror train crash in
north-west Victoria are expected to visit the site today as
investigators continue to pick through the wreckage.

Police today said it was too early yet to determine the exact cause of
the crash. Investigators are still gathering evidence to be included in
a report to the coroner.

The high speed V'Locity passenger train was travelling from Ararat to
Melbourne when it collided with a semi-trailer at Trawalla about 3.30pm
(AEST) yesterday.

A co-driver of the train and a passenger died at the scene.

The driver was airlifted to The Alfred hospital in Melbourne with life
threatening injuries and remains in a critical condition.

Thirty-six passengers were treated at Ballarat hospital, with three
admitted.

Hospital chief executive Andrew Rowe said one of the patients underwent
emergency surgery last night for a serious leg injury and remained in a
serious but stable condition.

The other two were comfortable and would be discharged over the next
few days.

V-Line staff were at the site early this morning but were prevented
from entering the secured area around the wreckage.

Police said investigators were expected at the scene mid-morning and
would continue sifting through the wreckage for further evidence.

The train and truck are expected to be removed from the tracks later
today.

A Victoria Police spokesman said family members were expected to visit
the site today.

Meanwhile, Victorian Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said he could
not say whether the accident could have been prevented if there had
been boom gates at the level crossing.

"The police are carrying out their investigations and seeking advice
from witnesses ... the investigation has a long way to go and I don't
want to draw the wrong conclusion," he said.

AAP

MichaelJ wrote:
> Is it still on the tracks? No - therefore it is a derailment.

Who are you replying to?

While the train did come off the tracks, to call the incident a
"derailment" is misleading. That description fails to include the
primary fact that a violent fatal collision between the train and a
truck occurred.

The term derailment ordinarily implies that rail equipment or personnel
are at fault.

Paul Westcott

Paul Westcott wrote:
> MichaelJ wrote:
> > Is it still on the tracks? No - therefore it is a derailment.
>
> Who are you replying to?
>
> While the train did come off the tracks, to call the incident a
> "derailment" is misleading. That description fails to include the
> primary fact that a violent fatal collision between the train and a
> truck occurred.
>
> The term derailment ordinarily implies that rail equipment or personnel
> are at fault.
>
> Paul Westcott

Your posting ...

The V/Loctiy blends into country scenery quite will with blue (sky)
roof and green (grass) on the front.

Brian May wrote:
>
> On one hand we are being told (for country areas) that if we stop and
> give way at a level crossing, it is safe to cross.

That's a strange statement. You don't have to be *told* that - it goes
without saying (unless its a multiple-track railway!)

> On the other hand we are told (especially for metropolitan areas) that
> if we stop and give way at a level crossing we should never proceed to
> cross, even if it is obvious nothing is coming, if lights or bells or
> boom gates are operating at the time, even if it is also obvious they
> are stuck in the active state.

So do you maintain that obeying warning signals should be at the
discretion of the road user?

> So why the discrepancy? Why is it considered safe to use your own
> judgement in country areas but it is not considered safe in
> metropolitan areas?

There's no discrepancy in fact, just in the way you've put it.

> I would assume country trains travel faster and
> have longer stopping distances. So surely it would be safer (if
> anything) in metropolitan areas?

Not a very sensible assumption. There are lots of factors involved in
safety, not just speed.

> The report I heard on the radio said at this particular crossing there
> is 10 seconds from seeing a train to getting out of its way.
>
> Another report I heard suggested that if the truck driver hadn't come
> to a complete stop, he would have been able to clear the track faster.

The implication of that statement would lead to more level crossing
accidents.

> So to me, it seems the entire system was at fault, rather then any
> individual.

Could be both.

> It would appear the truck driver needs at least x seconds warning
> where x = time to cross the track, and it would appear that it is not
> possible to achieve sufficient warning by visually without the help of
> any aids (such as bells or lights at the crossing).

In the case in question, active warning systems may not have helped.
Boom barriers have been known to come down on slow moving vehicles.

> Even then, with bells and lights operating, would that have been
> enough warning for such a large truck? Reading other threads here I
> get the impression the timing is often set as late as possible in
> order to maximise the flow of traffic across the train crossing.

That's incorrect. The timing of the activation of a level crossing
warning always has the primary aim of clearing of the track in time for
the train.

> Maybe the truck driver of large trucks (presumably they are rare?)
> needs some ability to set the train signals to danger

You can't seriously advocate that truck drivers independently dictate
the signalling of trains. What about having a system by which drivers
of long or heavy vehicles have to ascertain from train control whether
there is any potential danger before entering a level crossing?

> and/or plan the
> trip to avoid scheduled trains. (note this second option isn't any
> guarantee - the train might be running late, the truck driver might
> have misread the timetable, etc).

Trains are even less likely to be on schedule if your suggestion above
was ever implemented!

Paul Westcott