50 injured in German collision

[30907]

A Google translation of part of the article above:



So looks like the passenger driver was given an incorrect authority to move, perhaps (my speculation) by means of a Zs1.

Two comments: the headline and text talk of the passenger train being "on the wrong line" but meaning in the wrong place (ie signal section).
An eviction check means a check (by the next train) that the line is clear. The suggestion that the signaller instructed the wrong train to do this is puzzling!

 

[JBuchananGB]

I have attempted a human translation of that article. My German is a bit rusty, might not be spot-on:

Human error has probably caused the railway accident on Tuesday evening in Meerbusch. "The regional train should not have travelled on this track", said Gerd Muennich, of the RAIB. "The freight train, into which the passenger train collided, was quite rightly at a stand on the track in this section", Muennich stated.
It must now be clarified how the regional train came to be driven on the wrong line. "We have secured the on-board data recorder and information from the signalling system, which will assist in the explanation" There may be no blame to be attached to the train driver, said Muennich

In this accident, according to the Federal Police, nine people were seriously, and 41 people slightly injured. At about 19.30 the "National Express" RE7 from Cologne to Krefeld ran into a stationary DB Cargo freight train, which was waiting to continue its journey to Rotterdam. In the collision the leading carriage of the passenger train was damaged, the other carriages stayed undamaged on the rails.

Signal falsely switched?

Reports received so far indicate that the freight train was, quite normally, stopped at a signal at the entrance to Meerbusch-Osterath station. "That means the this track section was effectively closed to all following traffic", said one person distressed by the incident.The evidence will prove whether possibly a signal has been falsely switched or whether ther was an oversight by the train driver.

From an internal report of the the traffic control management, received by our editor, shortly before the accident at 19.27 a red signal showed for the track section. That meant that the the track was occupied, and the traffic control manager must make a so-called clearing check (eviction test). An insider said "Traffic manager then instructs "driving on sight". It is possible that the traffic manager issued the clearing check to the wrong train."

Train driver not to blame

From good information in railway circles considering the above information, it seems that the train driver is not to blame. "He had fatally received an instruction to drive into the occupied section, where the freight train was standing," explained the insider. The train driver should have received a block signal from the traffic manager, who is responsible for controlling the section. "That would have meant that the driver could proceed normally," said the insider.

The train driver, who was slightly injured in the accident prevented a much more serious accident by making a full brake application. He is in shock, according to a spokesman for the private operator "National Express". The section of line will remain closed for an unspecified time. At the time of the accident there were 173 people on the train. The rescue of the passengers was difficult, because an overhead cable had fallen on the train. It took about two hours before the first passengers were released. The state authorities thanked more than 400 specialists.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Th headline on latest web page with time line of events
http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte...er-erhielt-signal-zum-losfahren-aid-1.7248587

Train driver received the signal to proceed

 

[30907]

I have attempted a human translation of that article. My German is a bit rusty, might not be spot-on:

Thanks for that. I think this sentence
"The train driver should have received a block signal from the traffic manager, who is responsible for controlling the section."
should be - in UK terms -
"The train driver is said to have received a main aspect signal from the signaller."

Not necessarily a green, but by implication a proceed signal, still pointing to signaller not driver error.
A Blocksignal is a running signal not a subsidiary, but I suspect the report is using it more loosely, to mean "authority to enter the block section ahead," which would I imagine cover a Zs1.
(More accurate than my first effort, and in reponse to replies below)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's sounding more and more like Zs1 again.

 

[daikilo]

Thanks for that. I think this sentence
"The train driver should have received a block signal from the traffic manager, who is responsible for controlling the section."
should be - in UK terms -
"The train driver is said to have received a line clear (ie green) signal from the signaller."
But it's still pointing to signaller not driver error.

I question whether your interpretation in bold and in parentheses is a correct translation of the german. By that I do not mean to say that he did not receive a guidance other than just a red signal before restarting.

In particular, I wonder whether the freight train driver had been given some sort of signal to move but had not succeeded in starting his train.

 

[JBuchananGB]

The word Fahrdienstleiter was translated by Google as "dispatcher", I have taken it literally as "traffic manager", but 30907 is probably right to say that UK railway parlance would be "signaller". There is also Fahrdienstleitung, i.e. "traffic management office", which perhaps should be "controller" in UK terms.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Thanks for that. I think this sentence
"The train driver should have received a block signal from the traffic manager, who is responsible for controlling the section."
should be - in UK terms -
"The train driver is said to have received a line clear (ie green) signal from the signaller."
But it's still pointing to signaller not driver error.

No, it says "soll.........erhalten haben" which is "should have received". I don't know whether German "Blocksignal" translates in English as "line clear". As mentioned elsewhere, Fahrdienstleiter probably is "signaller".

 

[eastdyke]

Th headline on latest web page with time line of events
http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte...er-erhielt-signal-zum-losfahren-aid-1.7248587

Using the link provided in your quote and scrolling forward to the timeline 'Yesterday 04:25 PM' (yesterday at the time of posting):
has the following:

Inzwischen stehe zudem fest, dass der Güterzug, auf den der Personenzug aufgeprallt ist, im Moment des Unfalls gerade wieder angefahren war, hieß es vonseiten der Bundesstelle. Dadurch sei der Aufprall abgemildert worden.

Which google translates as:

Meanwhile, it is also clear that the freight train on which the passenger train crashed at the moment of the accident just started up again, it was said by the Federal Agency. As a result, the impact was mitigated.

That would explain why the derailed wagons are gapped by the remaining main section of intact freight train.
It also means that it is unclear as to which train had received what signals and instructions, without full context assumptions are therefore dangerous.

 

[Groningen]

The german newspaper Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger says that a third train is involved in the/this accident.

Source: https://www.ksta.de/nrw/dritter-zug...ns-loeste-unglueck-von-meerbusch-aus-29271522

This piece of track is controlled by 2 signalboxes and (al)so 2 humans.

 

[MarkyT]

The german newspaper Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger says that a third train is involved in the/this accident.

Source: https://www.ksta.de/nrw/dritter-zug...ns-loeste-unglueck-von-meerbusch-aus-29271522

This piece of track is controlled by 2 signalboxes and (al)so 2 humans.

The article suggests a befehl (order) to pass at red was issued to the driver of RE7 (the passenger train) by radio, with appropriate forms filled out at both ends, and that a 'drive on sight' instruction was included. The third train was a another freight in front of the one involved in the collision. If 'on sight' was indeed included in the order, howsoever given, that surely transfers at least some of the responsibility to the driver for not proceeding cautiously enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The article suggests a befehl (order) to pass at red was issued to the driver of RE7 (the passenger train) by radio, with appropriate forms filled out at both ends, and that a 'drive on sight' instruction was included. The third train was a another freight in front of the one involved in the collision. If 'on sight' was indeed included in the order, howsoever given, that surely transfers at least some of the responsibility to the driver for not proceeding cautiously enough.

So not Zs1, then, but an instruction you would get in the UK in some circumstances. Sounds indeed like the driver of the RE was not driving adequately cautiously, as once you're onto "drive on sight" the situation surely reverts to that found on road traffic - if you hit something from behind (that didn't pull out on you, though that of course can't apply with a train) you were by definition going too fast for the conditions.

 

[duesselmartin]

one wonders if German freight trains had tail-lights, would it have prevented the accident?
I never understood why passenger trains have tail-lights and freight trains non-iluminated tail disks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

one wonders if German freight trains had tail-lights, would it have prevented the accident?
I never understood why passenger trains have tail-lights and freight trains non-iluminated tail disks.

I suppose there's a possibility it might - particularly the flashing tail lights that are used in the UK (which is mainly done for long battery life as they are battery powered units, but as any cyclist will tell you a flashing light is much more visible and "out of the ordinary" than a static one).

 

[JBuchananGB]

Without attempting a translation, the gist of it is that there was one freight train passing through Osterath station, and another one held at a red signal behind it. The passenger train came to a stand at a red signal controlled by Weissenberg signaller. Driver called the signaller to find out why he was being held, and also made a passenger announcement. Signaller at Weissenberg called the signaller at Osterath to find out when the line would be clear.
Signaller at Osterath mistook the stationary train for the one which was passing through the station, and thought that the line was clear already, there must be a problem with the signalling system. So he told this to the signaller at Weissenberg, who then authorised the passenger train driver to pass the signal at danger, but to proceed at caution, driving on sight, not to exceed 40kph. Just before the collision, the leading freight train cleared the section, and the stationary freight train got a green signal, and was just about to move when hit from behind.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh dear. Who were all those who said that removing the driver and signaller from the loop and automating everything wouldn't be safer? Two human errors (once again) lead to injuries.

But within the procedures that currently exist, the EMU's driver was clearly not driving on sight i.e. driving at such a speed that he was certain he would be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, taking into account railhead conditions etc. I expect the sack beckons.

 

[edwin_m]

Reminiscent of some of those historical accidents in the UK when the signalman forgot about a train standing just outside the box and the crew didn't for whatever reason carry out Rule 55. Usually, like this one, the forgotten train would just be pulling away after the signals were cleared when it was rammed from behind by the train the signalman had cleared the signals for.

 

[eastdyke]

The newspaper article linked above seems to want to point the blame towards inexperienced signalling staff. Staff who have been re-trained from different backgrounds.
Source: https://www.ksta.de/nrw/dritter-zug...ns-loeste-unglueck-von-meerbusch-aus-29271522
The final paragraph:

Das Problem
Nach Recherchen unserer Zeitung hatten die Fahrdienstleiter auf den Stellwerken in Osterath und Weißenberg wenig Erfahrung. Sie sind Quereinsteiger, die nach einer Umschulung zur Bahn gewechselt sind. Das dauert fünf bis sechs Monate, die normale Ausbildung in der Regel drei Jahre.
Ein Insider sagt, dass dies bei Routineabläufen unproblematisch sei, es bei komplexen Situation schnell zu Überforderungen komme, weil Quereinsteiger das System Bahn nicht von Grund auf gelernt hätten. Die Bahn wirbt aus Personalmangel seit ein paar Jahren verstärkt um Quereinsteiger – auch bei Lokführern.
– Quelle: https://www.ksta.de/29271522 ©2017

Which google translates as:

The problem
After researching our newspaper had the dispatcher on the signal boxes in Osterath and Weissenberg little experience. They are lateral entrants who have changed trains after retraining. This takes five to six months, the normal training usually three years.
An insider says that this is not a problem in routine processes, it comes in complex situations quickly to excessive demands, because newcomers would not have learned the system train from the ground up. The railway advertises from lack of staff for a few years increasingly to newcomers - even with train drivers.
- Source: https://www.ksta.de/29271522 © 2017

Time will tell when we receive the formal accident report.

 

[30907]

I suppose there's a possibility it might - particularly the flashing tail lights that are used in the UK (which is mainly done for long battery life as they are battery powered units, but as any cyclist will tell you a flashing light is much more visible and "out of the ordinary" than a static one).

Though of course German trains, like ours nowadays, have excellent headlights.

Anyway, the latest reports clarify the circumstances of the accident.

And BTW the 5-6 months training an entrant from another trade seems to be about the same as the standard signaller training on NR. There does seem to be some "insider" concern about/prejudice against (choose one only!) these Quereinsteiger. Not unknown in other professions, of course.

 

[JBuchananGB]

The newspaper article linked above seems to want to point the blame towards inexperienced signalling staff. Staff who have been re-trained from different backgrounds.
Source: https://www.ksta.de/nrw/dritter-zug...ns-loeste-unglueck-von-meerbusch-aus-29271522
The final paragraph:

Which google translates as:


Time will tell when we receive the formal accident report.

Google does not do a very good job of translating, but it helps me a bit.

In one sentence it should be more like "these are lateral entrants who have joined the railway after some retraining", not "changed trains", and in another sentence "they would not have learnt the railways system from the ground up", not "would have learned the system train" Google translated the word "Bahn" as "train" when it should be "railway".

 

[Gordon]

The discussion about driving on sight made me think of the French 'marche a vue' (also very long standing historically, but clearly with lower speeds). I couldn't remember offhand the French speed restriction, except that I recall it being quite low. There are some speed tables for Marche a vue in various countries here:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_à_vue

Note the very slow Italian speed - literally walking pace

.

 

[Jan]

However a couple of factual points here - Zs1 is limited to 40Km/h until the next signal if it is a block signal as here - the in point area only applies to Ausfahrsignale (exit signals) as in German practice of speed signalling that is the standard over points in a station area.

That's not quite true. For block signals on the plain line, the limit of 40 km/h only applies while actually passing the signal (not least because the PZB trainstop override only works up to that speed). The only exception is when the signal is a combined main and distant signal, in which case the 40 km/h limit applies for 2 km or until the aspect of the next main signal becomes visible, whichever is shorter.

It dates from a time when you could visibly see the area under control, hence shift to Zs7 as that changes to centralised control.

As far as I've gathered, the shift to Zs 7 isn't necessarily quite universal. From what I've heard, providing a Zs 7 for new installations is indeed the norm within station areas (i.e. entrance and intermediate signals - Einfahr-/Zwischensignale) because

• if I remember correctly, the old method of initially ascertaining the safety of a route when the train detection had failed was basically "looking out of the window", which is indeed no longer really possible when the signalling is being controlled from a remote control centre
• section lengths within stations are relatively short, so the operational impact of defaulting to driving on sight isn't that large

For signals reading onto the plain line (i.e. exit or block signals), especially where block sections aren't short, Zs 1 being provided for a new installation at the very least isn't that uncommon, or maybe even still the norm, the reasoning presumably being that not all failure conditions warrant driving on sight and defaulting to that option would therefore be operationally too restrictive where longer block sections are involved, as opposed to the signaller issuing an order to drive on sight only when the line can't be proved clear or the rules require it otherwise.

 

[JonathanP]

Are you able to point to any external source English, or German to support your first statement, Jan?
I would be interested to read it. Everything I have read elsewhere up to now about the rules for Zs1 signals on double track lines supports EAD's interpretation, not yours.

 

[Jan]

The ultimate source is the rule book itself, in this case module 408.2456, section 4:
The relevant bits from paragraph (1) and (4) are:
(1) The maximum permissible speed of a train movement on special orders is 40 km/h. [...] At block signals on the plain line - junctions and crossovers excepted -, this speed restriction applies until the front of the train has passed the signal.
(4) When a train passes a signal showing danger/a defective signal that is

• a colour light main signal with an unlit colour light distant signal (the arrangement used for Hv-type signals)
  
• a main signal capable of exhibiting a "caution" aspect (i.e. the German equivalent of a British three aspect signal, found with Hl and Ks-type signals, as well as the experimental Sk signals)

the driver must observe a maximum speed of 40 km/h until being able to recognise the aspect displayed by the next main signal or 2000 m have passed, whichever is shorter.

Ergo after passing a plain two aspect block signal, no further speed restrictions apply.

 

[axlecounter]

one wonders if German freight trains had tail-lights, would it have prevented the accident?
I never understood why passenger trains have tail-lights and freight trains non-iluminated tail disks.

The primary purpose of a tail light/disk is/was for the signaller to verify if the train fully cleared the previous section. When this is delegated to some block system (track circuits, etc), tail lights are less important, and there’s no need for them to be visible in the dark, for example.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_à_vue

Note the very slow Italian speed - literally walking pace

.

That’s wrong. 4km/h is just the speed for passing open/unprotected LC. The correct “on sight” speed is 30km/h.

 

[EAD]

The ultimate source is the rule book itself, in this case module 408.2456, section 4:
The relevant bits from paragraph (1) and (4) are:
(1) The maximum permissible speed of a train movement on special orders is 40 km/h. [...] At block signals on the plain line - junctions and crossovers excepted -, this speed restriction applies until the front of the train has passed the signal.
(4) When a train passes a signal showing danger/a defective signal that is

• a colour light main signal with an unlit colour light distant signal (the arrangement used for Hv-type signals)
  
• a main signal capable of exhibiting a "caution" aspect (i.e. the German equivalent of a British three aspect signal, found with Hl and Ks-type signals, as well as the experimental Sk signals)

the driver must observe a maximum speed of 40 km/h until being able to recognise the aspect displayed by the next main signal or 2000 m have passed, whichever is shorter.

Ergo after passing a plain two aspect block signal, no further speed restrictions apply.

Jan - thanks for the digging out the rule book. Clearly you and I both speak German and indeed I have read around in there before when questions have come uo. Just one comment though, I think you have mistaken the use of Hauptsignal (main signal) in the rules. Paragraph 4 states

"Wenn ein Zug an einem Halt zeigenden oder gestörten - Lichthauptsignal mit dunklem Lichtvorsignal oder - Hauptsignal, das die Stellung „Halt erwarten“ zeigen kann, vorbeifährt, muss der Triebfahrzeugführer bis zum Erkennen der Stellung des folgenden Hauptsignals - höchstens 2000 m - mit höchstens 40 km/h fahren."

Your translation I agree with overall, but I have a different view on some parts. It covers either colour light aspect main signal showing red or unlit where there is a distant signal present (or for S/K red to be expected). When these are present then you have to drive until you can make out the next signal with a max of 40Km/h.

A Blocksignal is a Hauptsignal, just as this covers all signalling types (so Hv/Sk, etc.). There is of course a different argument about red and yellow signal plates and permissive working, but that is irrelevant here as the signal was a red plated signal I understand and it would only impact the procedure for passing the signal at red rather than the rules on how you are to drive.

EAD

 

[axlecounter]

But the difference about the 40km/h is if this specific block signal can display a caution aspect or not, isn’t it?

 

[EAD]

But the difference about the 40km/h is if this specific block signal can display a caution aspect or not, isn’t it?

Yes quite right re paragraph 4 in the rules - I bashed it out quickly at work so apologies for the slight slip - now edited.

German practice (in this case the line has H/V signals) is that the distant signal head (Vorsignal) usually appears below the main signal head (Hauptsignal). There is logic here as when the main signal is red the distant shows no aspect at all, whereas if the block was free and a bulb has failed then the distant should be showing what to expect at the next signal. Otherwise of course you would only want to proceed on sight as the block could be occupied.

On German forums the signal has been pointed out and from memory (I cannot double check the youtube clips now) it was not a simple HP0/HP1 block signal. I would need to check again whether per the rules distant aspects are present.

 

[IanXC]

The primary purpose of a tail light/disk is/was for the signaller to verify if the train fully cleared the previous section. When this is delegated to some block system (track circuits, etc), tail lights are less important, and there’s no need for them to be visible in the dark, for example.

In terms of having multiple lines of defence to protect against incidents however, a track circuit failure accompanied by (for instance) a station reporting an incomplete train, gives a much different scenario to a track circuit failure on its own.

 

[LAX54]

The primary purpose of a tail light/disk is/was for the signaller to verify if the train fully cleared the previous section. When this is delegated to some block system (track circuits, etc), tail lights are less important, and there’s no need for them to be visible in the dark, for example.

But of course a Tail Lamp is vital when a train running behind is under caution possibly looking for the back of the train ahead !