Talk:Glenbrook rail accident

Trains Low‑importance

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

Low

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

Australia: New South Wales / Transport Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Glenbrook 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
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Missing facts

Where did this occur? There are many Glenbrooks around the world. slambo 01:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The train accident happened in Glenbrook (Blue Mountains of New South Wales) in Australia. (I used to live there) I hope this helps. Regards, Lauren.

On the main Western line, about 60km west of Sydney. Tabletop (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity - Sources - Enquiries

The article states:

In the accident, the second interurban passenger train passed a red signal ...

The most important factor was that the second or interurban picked up too much speed after passing the signal at stop, and was not able to see the rear of the first or .long distance train

This is rather odd/ambiguous. The first bit above reads as if the interurban passed the signal at red in error, but in that case any speed would be too much speed. The seconds perhaps suggests that the interurban was instructed to pass the signal running at caution, but the article certainly doesn't say that.

Either way, some cited sources would be good.

I'm sure rail accidents in Australia attract official enquiries and reports; why does this article not reference any of them.

From that perspective, I think the article is only half-complete, so I'm reinstating stub status.

Since there were two trains involved, it might help to label them first and second.

Came to a stop at red signal and restarted according to rules.

So far so good.

Tabletop 02:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not "so good" because clearly the article is confusing (and it wasn't "good" because there was a crash! Duh!). I believe what you're saying is that the rules for this railway allow one to pass a red signal without extra authorization, as long as you do so at a speed where you can stop for a train ahead - is that correct? This type of rule is sometimes the case but it's counter-intuitive for most people (who think red is like on the highways, stop until it changes, full stop). Thus the accident CityRail driver was going too fast since he couldn't stop in time for the Indian Pacific? It isn't obvious what the implications are, so it needs to be explained in layperson terminology. I'll keep looking for better sources. Jpp42 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most railways allow trains to pass "permissive" signals at stop with care, such as at Glenbrook. As it happens, that driver did ring up and seek authorisatiton. Passing "absolete" signals requires authorisation. The biggest problem at Glenbrook was that the driver of the second train was led to believe that he did not have to travel at an extremely slow speed, or perhaps out of habit after leaving a platform resumed normal speed. (Were there any data recorders?).

The guard

This statement seems to have been created in attempt to add greater gravitas to an action (or lack of) that was not part of the report. Is there a citation for it, other than just speculation? Ozdaren (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the guard in the Chatsworth collision does the guard in the Glenbrook accident have any role in safeworking? I would have thought so, but does the Judge mention any? Tabletop (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is an important point so I've added a fact tag. I'm a bit lazy to read the whole report to see if there's any mention of whether it was expected the guard would control the speed but I note that in Waterfall rail accident which also occured in NSW, Australia albeit a intercity rail line it was noted there was no expectation at the time for the guard to monitor the speed and apply the emergency break (also a different situation of course). There may have been different expectations of the guard in this train of course, it's not even clear where they were located but it definitely needs an inline citation Nil Einne (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]