North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

sheps wrote:most people don't care about the territory as they are only here to make a bit of cash before heading back south.

SOME people don't.. For those of us who've lived here for the better, and I do mean better, part of our lives, the Daly has held a special place. The recent disaster, with the possible ramifications, is a body blow of epic proportions. Even though I've tried to put an optimistic outlook on the whole damned mess..my inner heart is saddened beyond belief. The 'blow-ins' who are only here for the quick dollar will never understand. The Daly was here long before they arrived..and..will still be here long after they've gone. She'll recover..how long that takes, is in the lap of the gods. I'm not sure about the reputation bit, and prefer to give it some time before commenting yay or nay. Nomad, I'd never presume to know anyone elses' feelings, but most of the 'Territorians' I do know, are pretty p...ed off about this, and will express it through the ballot box. All the shoulda, woulda, coulda, in the world won't change what's happened..Seeing it never happens again has to be focus. Seano is right on the money...public opinion IS a powerful weapon, and in this case, used to force the decision makers into providing the infrastructure required to eliminate the risk.

You're right olfart, it will recover. It is just a matter pf time. Look at the oil spill in the gulf. Things are slowly coming back over there.
The main thing I was trying to get across was that there is/was a high possibility that a train, truck, ship will crash and dump its contents of toxic load into the evnironment.
The fact that the govt lets trains operate with open cars is a joke. They have had the wool pulled over their eyes in the name of income for the NT.

That they have a dept that cant proscute for breaches says it all IMHO.
Humans (including CEO) by nature are a funny lot. If there's no incentive to do something, they wont.

it will happen again, just a matter of time.

If you had to have a spill it is a good time as it is early in the wet but it is tipical of the nt's approch to any thing. If you go and look along the train tracks it has an iron ore colour but the NT official motto is don't look for a problem as you might find one. It took a lady to loose her life before trucks were required to cover there loads. Look at the arnhem highway the road has deep grooves in it on the incomming lane as fully loaded trucks are creating big grooves. It's not on the outgoing lane as trucks are not loaded. If this problem was down south it would be fixed and truck rego's would go up as they are causing it. If you go to the back of the leanyer sewage farm it is leaking raw sewage but if noone knows, no one cares.In the top end the metal power poles can be "live" so PAWA spend all wet doing tests so they pass because when the ground is dry they might not

Government relaxes regulations = whinge. Government ramps up regulations = whinge. Government supports mining, regardless of which party is in power. If they didn't we wouldn't be enjoying the stong economy that we have then there would be a mega whinge...

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2012/0 ... tnews.html

Trying to run an organic farm in today's world is like trying to run a women's refuge in Taliban territory..

The reality is that life these days consists of an ever-increasing series of risk management decisions.

These are more and complex than 50, 20 or even 10 years ago as modern living increases the type and level of life's risks.

One sure way of successful risk management (or mitigation as its also known) is to have a ploicy of no risk or alternatively don't undertake the enterprise.

Some enterprises need to be undertaken and some don't. Transport is one that does. Roads, rai, sea and air infrastructure. Having no option but to undertake, risk assessment and mitigation come to the forefront.

The cost of proofing increases with the size of the enterprise.

NT simply does not have the funds to "proof" NT transport infrastructure. The economic base isn't big enough to fund it and only federal govt assistance would be required. The feds haven't been forthcoming in other states for similar projects despite seemingly logical arguments.

However a business doesn't have to be undertaken. The process is reversed. The risk assessment and mitigation determines of the enterprise should go ahead.

Any problems encountered later mean that the risk process was flawed or didn't exist.

In the case of the Edith River, there were a number of assessments. What type of bridge etc.

On the day, there were more assessments to be made. Should the train proceed, what's it carrying if it all goes wrong. Maybe that's where it really all came unstuck.

None of us know because we weren't there.

One thing is for certain and that is that nobody wanted to wreck the train, endanger lives, wreck the bridges or dump stuff in the river.

One thing that aviation crashes teaches us is that "pilot error" seems to be responsible for a lot of things in that industry (rightly or wrongly).

Will rail be any different? Enquiries into Qld train crashes seem to indicate that.

Ronje, the line about the aviation industry...'pilot error' has no revelance in this situation at all..By the time the train reached the bridge it would have been travelling at speed, and taken around 2k to pull up, the drivers, being given no warning of the danger ahead, were nothing more than passengers..Bit like being in an out of control vehicle on a slippery surface,with no hope of recovery. Accidents simply just don't occur..There is always an underlying reason..In this case the total lack of any form of early warning system, allowing the drivers to take preventative measures, ie, stop the train, or better still, remain in Katherine, is clearly evident. The fault lies squarely with the NT government in failing to make this a fundamental requirement of the construction from the outset. We have the systems, as evidenced by the traffic light flashers at our major intersections. Yes, we still have accidents at these at times, and fault can be squarely laid on the driver ignoring them..With no such system in place at all, this was an event just waiting to happen...And it did. The case against 'self regulation' in major works such as this, could never be more clearly stated.

Hi Ol Fart

Of course it has relevance.

NT Rail (or whoever runs the rail service) would have standard operating procedures in place to address the issue of line safety. A section will deal with floods.

Pulling up a train is no easy measure (as you say). However having a train on the line in the first place is relevant. Proceding with caution means that pulling up in time doesn't mean that a safe speed will not take the 2 km you quote.

Large corporations (including Govt departments or business arms of govt) are run by procedures. If they and their employees ( by vicarious liability the govt) follow the procedures, then the outcome will be achieved. They are procedures driven

When outcomes start to conflict with procedures, we have a problem. What is the result if a train is held up? Customers get p...ed off and some suffer losses.

If the staff follow the procedures then they won't haver a problem of responsibility. If they don't follow procedures then they may (if the employer doesn't support them).

NT Rail definiely don't want a finding of negligence on their part for any after affects of the spillage. That'll leave them open to compensation claims if proven.

If NT Rail can show that its procedures were in place in weren't followed then whoever made the decision to ignore the procedures may have the problem individually. It depends on NT Rail.

Hence the pilot error comment.

U can bet that the issue of responsibility will be argued over and over to the stage where its never sheeted home.

We had a case here where the high speed tilt train went off the rails at 100+ km/hr on a bend that was rated at 80. Over that section previously the speed reached was 170km/hr.

Q Rail blamed pilot error ( the driver). The driver via the union blamed Q Rail's fail safe mechanism which was supposed to stop the driver doing more than 80km/hr.

Backwards and forwards the blame game went.

U can bet that track inspection procedures will be looked at 'cos that is what it will boil down to.

olfart wrote:Ronje, the line about the aviation industry...'pilot error' has no revelance in this situation at all..By the time the train reached the bridge it would have been travelling at speed, and taken around 2k to pull up, the drivers, being given no warning of the danger ahead, were nothing more than passengers..Bit like being in an out of control vehicle on a slippery surface,with no hope of recovery. Accidents simply just don't occur..There is always an underlying reason..In this case the total lack of any form of early warning system, allowing the drivers to take preventative measures, ie, stop the train, or better still, remain in Katherine, is clearly evident. The fault lies squarely with the NT government in failing to make this a fundamental requirement of the construction from the outset. We have the systems, as evidenced by the traffic light flashers at our major intersections. Yes, we still have accidents at these at times, and fault can be squarely laid on the driver ignoring them..With no such system in place at all, this was an event just waiting to happen...And it did. The case against 'self regulation' in major works such as this, could never be more clearly stated.

You banged the nail on the head.

Ronje, The bridge in question was touted, at the time of construction, as 'being able to cope with a 1 in a 100yr flood event'. This was no doubt a strong selling point at the time, to a private railroad company. Considering another train had passed over the bridge less than 2hrs prior,the question of 'operational procedures' the adherence to, is pure rhetoric. Given the vagaries of our Top End weather, I find it astounding there was no insistence by the purchaser, of a dedicated early warning system being in place. The best 'operational procedures' are completely nullified when, as in this case, there is no trigger, ie, warning, to warrant their implimentation. Thus, comparing this event with any other, such as your example, is like comparing apples with pears regarding relevance. The owners, despite their lack of foresight, will no doubt seek redress, and quite rightly so. For mine, while I'm less than impressed with having an ore train fall into the river system, I thank Him upstairs that it wasn't The Ghan with 200 souls on board.
regards
graham.

Well Graham

It looks like we'll just agree to disagree.

At the end of the day somebody was driving the train. They were responsible for the safety of the crew, the public and everything on the train inc the train itself.

No different to somebody driving a truck, car or bus.

If people want to seek compensation they have a right to. It can be from the owners of the train via vicarious libility, from the driver or a combination. In Qld some of the railway has been sold. A company called QR National runs trains as does another company called Pacific National. Coal companies as well.

The Qld Govt held onto ownership of the infrastructure. That makes them responsible for the safety of the track. PROVIDING that the trains are operating within limits laid down by the govt.

Where those responsibilities "blur" is the area of "wriggling room" when something goes wrong.

What responsibility does the owner of the goods causing all the ruckus carry?

I don't know if the NT rail rail system has been privatised/sold.

Your comments tend to seem that maybe it has been?

If somebody affected by the accident wants to seek compensation, then things like contributory negligence are weighed up in the compensation amount if its proved that they suffered a wrong. The contributory negligence I'm referring to doesn't include the accident itself. Just the degree to which the effect was suffered. eg poor business decisions.

This is the sort of stuff that lawyers thrive on. AND its on " balance of probability" standards of proof only even if somebody ends up convicted of something over the event.

In addition, I don't agree with the philosophy of 1 in 50 or 100 or 500 year events as assurance (any one of which could come along tomorrow).

Even 2 level headed fellas like u and I can't agree and we've got no agendas.

Ron, I can't make it any simpler, neither the drivers, nor the owners were aware of the danger.
A similar iron ore train(much heavier) passed safely over the bridge less than 2hrs prior, no sign of anything amiss.
In the interim, the river washed the bridge abutments away,leaving the bridge, for all intents and purposes, intact.
Unaware of the danger ahead, the copper train, following correct (at the time) 'procedures, departed Katherine.
By the time the drivers saw the danger it was too late to do anything, except maybe say a quick prayer.
The lead loco, and a good percentage of the leading carriages made the far side before the line collapsed, dumping the centre carriages into the river. The train completely derailed and stopped, leaving the remaining carriages on the approach side.
Emergency workers at the road bridge rescuing a motorist, saw the danger, but due to being in a comms blind spot, were unable to raise an alarm,they were in a rescue boat, and were forced to watch the disaster unfold.
There are only two questions of real importance to be asked in the inquiry.

A: At the time of departure, was anyone at the despatch point aware of the danger??
B: Why not??
The answer to A....NO.
The answer to B....Because the NT govt failed to ensure an early warning system was a fundamental priority of the construction.

The failure or otherwise of the purchaser to demand the installation of same, could largely be attributed to the assurances given at the time of negotiations, an oversight with terrible consequences, but , an oversight nontheless,( a moot point) and, on 'the balance of probability' be seen as such with little or no contributory fault.

As you stated the lawyers will play it to the hilt..But, In the final washup..The NT Govt (read, we the NT taxpayer) will be held responsible.
Yes Ron, I will agree to disagree.
Regarding the NT's reputation..Once again we've been made to look total incompetents, and most hurtful of all...WE gave these idiots the power to do it.