over 70 dead, train going to fast, and here is a CCTV of the crash
Beware - its pretty horrifying.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH_IjAxDwLo
|
|
80 kmph track speed limit. Train was doing 180+ kmph. WHY??
|
|
Think of it as a big VW Polo fitted with Carlos Fandango superwide wheels and a spoiler.
|
>> 80 kmph track speed limit. Train was doing 180+ kmph. WHY??
Comments on the video suggest that the drivers' salaries are tied to punctuality.
Now, comments on YouTube videos are not exactly a reliable source of information, but could that be the reason for the speeding?
|
I understand there is a 200kmh track speed limit prior to the bend, and the bend itself has an 80kmh track limit. Its like hitting a 30mph speed limit on the motorway.
Having said that, the driver will have been trained in route knowledge.
|
“I hope there are no deaths - they would weigh heavily on my conscience”
elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/25/inenglish/1374739593_218192.html
|
I have no idea why the driver was speeding, but my limited experience in North Eastern Spain was that the trains were always late. Usually only by 10 minutes but I wonder if this train was running late?
It is a truly horrific crash but the shear amount of deaths makes me question how safe the carriages are.
I know I was in a different part of Spain to this crash but it was operated by the same state owned firm, Renefe.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 14:15
|
|
The first coach definitely looks to already derailed as it hits the bend, if it had been on the rails the train may have probably made it around o.k. One of the you tube posters mentions this fact, at about 0.05 of the video the roof-line of the coaches shows this up quite well!
|
|
The lead traction car is steady, the second carriage is coming off early in the bend. Dont forget we don't see all the radius.
|
In this country is there anything to prevent an Intercity 125 going into a bend too fast, apart from driver training? Do they have dead man's handles to guard against nodding off?
EDIT: 'bend' includes switching tracks at points
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 14:46
|
Yes, firstly there was AWS - Automatic warning system, which could have speed warning systems in it and then we got Automatic Train Protection System which does as standard. However, the IC125 in the Southall Train crash was fitted with ATPS, which had been disabled due to a fault!
Edit, and it was suspected, but never proven, that the driver had his weighty briefcase on the "deadmans handle" foot pedal.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 14:59
|
>>>Dont forget we don't see all the radius.
Well we almost do. If you look at Google maps overhead images and the streetview right next to where the train came off you'll see this hight speed link is just being constructed. The lead in to that video clip is a straight new section through a tunnel which joins the old slow track a fraction before the curve which starts pretty well where the train passes under the motorway on that clip.
That first car to leave the track must have come off almost instantly it touched the slightest curve.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 15:05
|
>> I have no idea why the driver was speeding, but my limited experience in North
>> Eastern Spain was that the trains were always late. Usually only by 10 minutes but
>> I wonder if this train was running late?
>>
>> It is a truly horrific crash but the shear amount of deaths makes me question
>> how safe the carriages are.
>>
>> I know I was in a different part of Spain to this crash but it
>> was operated by the same state owned firm, Renefe.
>>
So, Rattle, are trains "still safer"? ;-)
|
Well it depends what you mean, in terms of Europe, World wide etc?
This year in terms of Europe at least it seems that flying would be safer you would need to work out the amount of deaths for each type of transport per passenger mile. I would still much rather travel by train though.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 15:15
|
>> you would need to work out the amount of deaths for each type of transport
>> per passenger mile.
>>
I don't see why mileage comes into it. Surely it ought to be per journey?
If a plane is going to crash on landing then it isn't going to get any safer just because it covered a long distance first.
|
>>If a plane is going to crash on landing then it isn't going to get any safer just because it covered a long distance first.
Sure it does: less fuel to go boom than when it took off ;-)
|
|
PM reckoned that trains are the safest form of terrestrial transport - flying with a British registered airline is the safest form of air-travel. No fatalities since the 80s...touch wood.
|
>> PM reckoned that trains are the safest form of terrestrial transport - flying with a
>> British registered airline is the safest form of air-travel. No fatalities since the 80s...touch wood.
>>
At least one since then Rob. Knightair Bandeirante G -OEAA off Leeds Bradford for Aberdeen in May 85. Instrument failure/discrepancy.
www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1996__g_oeaa.cfm
|
|
Wasn't that in the 80s ? :-)
|
>> Well it depends what you mean, in terms of Europe, World wide etc?
>>
>> This year in terms of Europe at least it seems that flying would be safer
>> you would need to work out the amount of deaths for each type of transport
>> per passenger mile. I would still much rather travel by train though.
>>
Trouble with trains is that here are no seatbelts. Compare the number of deaths in this 100mph + train crash to the number when the Asiana Airbus crashed at SFO at a similar speed. I don't think the issue is necessarily the construction of the carriages...
|
>> Trouble with trains is that here are no seatbelts. Compare the number of deaths in
>> this 100mph + train crash to the number when the Asiana Airbus crashed at SFO
>> at a similar speed. I don't think the issue is necessarily the construction of the
>> carriages...
But its at least 50% of the contribution. Aircraft hulls are designed to take, and distribute all the attendant stresses and forces found in flight. And its assumed at some stage they will hit the ground hard. Train carriages just sit on wheels
|
|
Well yes, but I think that underestimates how a modern train carriage is supposed to stand up to a crash doesnt it? I thought modern monocoque carriages were design to cope with high speed derailments, though throwing a corner and some large concrete structure into the mix won't have helped...
|
Its seems that this is "Talgo" rolling stock, was originally built on a frame with bogies, but was converted to HST format so taken off its own bogies and fitted with shared bogies (each end of carriage shares the bogie with the next carriage) Its old stuff, so not modern crashworthy.
Also its a strange train, its a hybrid, has two electric power cars at each end, and then a diesel power car inside that at each end, and the passenger cars sandwiched in between. The diesel cars have large heavy MTU diesels mounted quite high in the cars. So it seems the first diesel power car (second in line) tilted off the tracks, pulling everything behind off, and the heavy trailing diesel car drove the lot up the bank and on top of each other.
There was no automatic train protection system on that section of track so nothing to prevent the driver doing what he did.
|
|
That's interesting Z; who'd have thought that converting 'ordinary' rolling stock to high speed was even possible. I can't imagine it was envisaged that those cars would hit speed of 160mph when they designed them!!
|
From what I read, one of the carriages was tossed up in the air and up over the fence.
|
More things for the train to bounce off than the plane.
And were the passengers strapped in? 180kph crash unrestrained doesn't sound too survivable.
|
This Pendolino was also pretty full and the accident looks just as bad, only one person was killed.
metro.co.uk/2012/01/13/network-rail-to-be-prosecuted-over-grayrigg-train-derailment-283711/
It was going a bit slower at 155kph but don't know for sure how fast the Spanish one was travelling at yet.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 25 Jul 13 at 23:31
|
|
Speaks volumes that the carriages kept their integrity and only one fatality from that crash.
|
Sir Richard said the strength of the Pendolino train had helped to limit the number of casualties.
"The train itself was magnificent - it's built like a tank."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6392935.stm
|
After watching several episodes of Aircrash Investigations in National Geographic, I have learnt that when these types of accidents happen, a good number of different things go wrong and not just single thing.
Even if we assume it was down to drivers over speeding, initial investigation showed that there was nothing prevent them doing so! The carriages were bit shoddy, curve radius was too sharp, automatic warning not working and so on.
|
>> Even if we assume it was down to drivers over speeding, initial investigation showed that
>> there was nothing prevent them doing so! The carriages were bit shoddy, curve radius was
>> too sharp, automatic warning not working and so on.
And stuff repeats. The recent French train crash, is an almost direct carbon copy, even down to cause, of the Potters Bar train crash.
|
>>After watching several episodes of Aircrash Investigations in National Geographic,
>> I have learnt that when these types of accidents happen, a good number of different things go wrong and not just single thing
>>
>>
e.g. A 747 cargo aircraft crash. Two crew so the news interest soon goes but batteries as cargo seem to be the trigger and that should be of greater concern.
www.pprune.org/rumours-news/519857-ups-747-dubai-final-report.html
|
|
Indeed, though IST there were only around 100 passengers on the train - it was quite a late one I think- and it didn't collide with anything except itself. I though the Spanish train was designed to a similar level of safety since it was such a HST, but as Z points out above it was modified earlier rolling stock which, combined with actually hitting stuff, partly explains the staggeringly different performance. I wonder how many passengers were on board the train in Spain?
|
>> Indeed, though IST there were only around 100 passengers on the train - it was
>> quite a late one I think- and it didn't collide with anything except itself. I
>> though the Spanish train was designed to a similar level of safety since it was
>> such a HST, but as Z points out above it was modified earlier rolling stock
>> which, combined with actually hitting stuff, partly explains the staggeringly different performance. I wonder how
>> many passengers were on board the train in Spain?
Max capacity of Talgo V11 in that configuration is 240. Understand it had about 210 pax on on board.
|
|
French media this morning says one of the drivers had been boasting about speeding exploits on Facebook. Don't know how true that is.
|
|
Maybe, but he knows the train has a black box, and he knows it simply wont go round a bend at twice the track limit. Even a Hornby driver knows that.
|
>> French media this morning
Daily Mail even posted that image (from Facebook which was later removed from FB) YESTERDAY!
Last edited by: movilogo on Fri 26 Jul 13 at 11:45
|
|
DM tinyurl.com/kvjpoyo (not the boasting story)
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 26 Jul 13 at 12:22
|
Renfe Train Crash - movilogo
