MisterT
Member
This specific Flirt type is no longer built by Stadler, due to not meeting the latest crash requirements.
With social cohesion breaking down across Europe, sabotage must be considered
On this line a "blocco telefonico" is on place. That means, there's no electrical interlocking, but for each train the signallers have to ask/receive permission to send a train and keep a written record of this exchanges.
On this line a "blocco telefonico" is on place. That means, there's no electrical interlocking, but for each train the signallers have to ask/receive permission to send a train and keep a written record of this exchanges.
Token Block Working but electronic ?
That is assuming there is the UK and Europe as a two rail entities. The crashes in Germany, Belgium and Italy happened in different countries for different reasons. I am not sure, if measured on a train milage caluculation, that the UK system would fare any better than most western-European systems.
See page 14 of the link below for exactly that, fatalities and weighted injuries by train-km across Europe.
Token Block Working but electronic ?
As edwin_m said, it's just an exchange of verbal messages between signallers, no tokens of any kind are involved.
One thing that is still not clear (to me) is wheter on this specific line the train crew is requested to check train crossings (i.e. the crew knows where they must cross which train and can't move until said train is arrived or a written order is given)
With social cohesion breaking down across Europe, sabotage must be considered
That sounds both concerningly antiquated, and also very similar circumstances to those which led to the Quintishill rail disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster
My thoughts are with all involved, rail accidents like this are fortunately rare but very severe when they do occur.
Have got that link then please?
Ironic that UK railways won't serve hot soup to due EU health and safety rules, but Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century
Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century
That is neither ironic nor true.
Portugal still uses telephonic block and I dare to say the it is as safe as manual electric block!Ironic that UK railways won't serve hot soup to due EU health and safety rules, but Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century
Similar non-interlocked working methods were once common throughout continental Europe on sleepy rural lines but have been gradually phased out, and rightly so with modern more intensive, faster train services.
Ironic that UK railways won't serve hot soup to due EU health and safety rules, but Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century
With social cohesion breaking down across Europe, sabotage must be considered
That sounds both concerningly antiquated, and also very similar circumstances to those which led to the Quintishill rail disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_disaster
My thoughts are with all involved, rail accidents like this are fortunately rare but very severe when they do occur.
Portugal still uses telephonic block and I dare to say the it is as safe as manual electric block!
Well, it depends the way rules and regulations are layed. I can tell you that the Portuguese telephonic block, at its height handled a very complex mix of trains with perfect safety. Problems happened when due to traffic saturation people got slopy and facilitated.. and accidents like this I can find them in AB or even TCB.
If you have read the regulations and know how it works, I d like to know why do you find them unsafe?
The lack of partial physical interlocking (in fact the Portuguese Telephonic block has almost no signals in order to make it safer) can be sorted by plentiful other measures.
However I can agree to you but for other reasons. Telephonic block has become rarer and the heads that think have gathered the idea that some small measures have become useless and thry have serious slacked on staff training. And there, i can tell you that it has become unsafe. As a concept and properly implemented it is perfectly safe!
Ironic that UK railways won't serve hot soup to due EU health and safety rules, but Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century
Mind that I am not saying you should install such system. Only that not all telephonic block systems are "call & go". Nowadays is stupidly easy and quick to install a pair of axle counters associated to a pair of signals and control boxes !
I can t get you a detailed translation (it is a very complex as a regulation) but I can give you the principles:
- Primary safety is done the telephonic block itself with the usual dispatch exchange between station masters. The authority to proceed to the next block is given by only by a hand signal from the station master ( for this reason, small stations normally don t have starter signals as they are not the authority to proceed into the next block)
- The secondary mean of safety is the timetable, where the crossings & overtakings (by or to the train). Before entering the single track the driver must be made aware of any alterations to the timetable
- Usually there is also a Regulation post, that supervises the stations and regulates how trains shouldbe handled in case of delays. It has only regulatory powers and the only interference it has that really gets to the trains is when a crossing is altered to beyond the next station,as stations, on their own authority, can only alter crossings from their station to the next one.
- Trains are required to stop at stations where they cross ( there is a small exception where the second train can pass at 30 km/h but it is very rare).
- If a driver gets to a station where it should cross (either by timetable or by alteration given by form), even if the signals are clear he will stop at the station even if the station master is showing a proceed signal and ask for the train he should be crossing. At the very least a form stating to which station the crossing has been altered must be issued.
More or less is this!
Could Bari accident happen in GB? Unlikely due to nature of telephone block system used, but we always look to learn from overseas #aspr
Sources suggest telephone block process was outlawed for passenger services in Britain in 1889.
Not quite... The RFI telephonic block regulations (I don't have access to the ferrotramviaria regulations but assume some pretty decent similarity) are dispersed along the circulation regulation and the page 157, of this , where all dispatch formulas are compiled don't even convene crossing alteration formulas. Believe me, this is fairly simple stuff certainly not intended for heavily used lines and certainly not good for 30 trains a day!That's exactly how the Italian system discussed here works. The point is: should they have been allowed, in this century, to operate with this system and no further protection, with ~30 trains a day? I'm not sure.
The system in itself is perfectly safe, that is obvious, but it has to be considered if a human error can be easily made and what kind of consequences can such errors have. Similar incidents can happen with an AB too, but more than one error has to be made and a specific procedure has to be broken while here a simple train numbers misunderstanding is enough.