• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Head on collision in Italy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
With social cohesion breaking down across Europe, sabotage must be considered

Consider it if you wish but why on Earth would any terrorist (say) want to target a local service like this rather than say a major inter-city route or big city metro?
 

axlecounter

Member
Joined
23 Feb 2016
Messages
403
Location
Switzerland
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.
 

pjnathanail

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2012
Messages
355
Location
Nottingham
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.

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.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,397
Location
UK
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 ?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,792
Location
Nottingham
Token Block Working but electronic ?

Sounds more like the traditional American method of exchanging verbal messages and keeping a written record. Sort of like RETB without the electronic bits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
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. The UK is the second-lowest behind Ireland and most of the western European countries range up to about 2.5 times the UK figure. Eastern Europe is something else entirely.

This may of course be skewed because we possibly have fewer passengers per train than most countries, but I think the broad picture holds that UK rail is a bit safer than most western European countries and a lot safer than further east.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/19185/rail-safety-statistics-2014-15.pdf
 
Last edited:

axlecounter

Member
Joined
23 Feb 2016
Messages
403
Location
Switzerland
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)
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
As edwin_m said, it's just an exchange of verbal messages between signallers, no tokens of any kind are involved.

Nor can there then be any kind of release of section signals controlling access to the single line by issue of such tokens, whether physical, electronic etc.

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)

Either way the traffic must be under overall supervision of a controller or dispatcher. With US-style train orders in dark territory an explicit sequence is given (either by a written form handed over by local operators or usually today dictated and read back over radio) to proceed to a series of specific places and pass other specific trains as required at those locations. Any deviation from the agreed sequence arising en route must be authorised explicitly by the dispatcher issing new train orders and cancelling the originals for all crews concerned. Highly bureaucratic and reliant on humans doing their jobs faultlessly with very few safeguards built in. Maybe borderline acceptable for sparsely trafficked slow freight lines, but completely unsuitable for a fast busy passenger networks in my view.
 
Last edited:

sarahj

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2012
Messages
1,897
Location
Brighton
With social cohesion breaking down across Europe, sabotage must be considered

I think you have been reading too many newspapers. I've just come back from a long trip through Europe. According to the papers, the Brenner crossing would be chaos, with refugees, plans for wire fences, extra checks. I think I slowed down from 120 to 110 kph as a I passed NON STOP.

Germany in supposed Chaos, running just fine, tho' there were some bloody long traffic jams, mind I did see a breakdown train pass while on the Rhine, so it might have been heading to some. (152, two cranes, a mess coach, and a old coach.)

The only issue I did see first hand was watching the penalty shoot out Italy V Germany, in Italy. A taxi driver stopped in the road so he could watch it on a TV situated next to the road. Tut tut.;)
 

amcluesent

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Messages
877
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
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
Italian railways use a track-access system unchanged since the 18th century

The 'blocco telefonico' method of working is extremely rare in Italy now, remaining only on a tiny number of local systems independent from the state railway network as far as I can tell, and available as a back up method on lines with more sophisticated systems in case of failure. The line involved looks like it has experienced very significant traffic growth in recent years, like many railways in Europe, and I expect train frequency has increased commensurately. There is a project planned to double the route including a cut and cover tunnel section through Andria and this clearly includes provision of new, much safer, signalling with proper interlocking and train protection.

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.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is neither ironic nor true.

Indeed. Neither the railway nor the telephone existed in the 18th century.
 

Flying_Turtle

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
172
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
Portugal still uses telephonic block and I dare to say the it is as safe as manual electric block!
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
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.

Interesting to get that perspective. It almost makes me wonder whether this accident has parallels in the Aynho accident of 1852 or the Foxcote disaster of 1876, in the sense that a previously quiet, bucolic line with very little in the way of heavy use becomes much busier without commensurate improvements in signalling and control practice.
 

matchmaker

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2009
Messages
1,499
Location
Central Scotland

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
Portugal still uses telephonic block and I dare to say the it is as safe as manual electric block!

I disagree completely. Manual electric block systems such as the UK absolute block (AB) have proven to be extremely safe as they require cooperation between two ends of the block concerned, for UK AB on three separate occasions for each movement:

1. Ask for and, if appropriate, receive a line clear from the forward block post
2. Notify the train has entered the section
3. Confirm the movement has cleared the block intact

Each of these steps are recorded by the position of synchronised switches and indicators of a telegraphic block instrument and the events are all written down by signallers at both ends of the block in their respective train register books. Signals controlling entry to the block section are interlocked and can only be cleared once a line clear release has been agreed cooperatively through the procedures above.

It is very difficult to defeat such a system in normal operation, yet even so in UK we only use standard AB on unidirectional lines, i.e. for the normal directions of traffic on each track of a two (or more) track railway. On single bidirectional lines, traditionally UK and British colonial railways used (and in some cases still use) physical train-staffs, tokens or tablets that must be in possession of traincrew as authority to be in the section. These are operated cooperatively in a similar manner to AB using special instruments which (again) are interlocked with the signals. Later, once electrical interlocking became more sophisticated, the physical token was dispensed with in many installations under systems such as tokenless block or acceptance levers, then once continuous train detection was available, track circuit block (TCB) was adopted as the colour light signalling standard in UK, suiatble for 1-way and 2-way working alike, which it remains today. With continuous train detection, tail light observation became unneccesary at each block extremity to confirm trains had arrived complete, so much greater control centralisation became possible.

By contrast telephone block has NO tokens, NO cooperative operation of telegraphic instruments to act as formal transactional agreements and reminders and NO interlocking with signals. The only similarity is the requirement for operators to write down decisions and events in a log of some kind, and presumably today telephone and radio conversations are recorded routinely as they are for more sophisticated systems.
 

Flying_Turtle

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
172
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!
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
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.

Agreed, like Quintishill, although later measures such as track circuits in the station yard would have prevented that.

If you have read the regulations and know how it works, I d like to know why do you find them unsafe?

I'd be interested to see the Portugese regulations AND the Italian ones pertaining to the particular incident being discussed, but in a good English translation (i.e not a Google automatic one!)

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.

I agree signals without a telegraphic block is a danger. Block markers only is better. Even-non interlocked signals WITH a telegraphic block can be risky.

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!

OK can we agree in an increasingly busy railway environment with less time and money available for training of both signallers/dispatchers/controllers and drivers, such non interlocked systems are becoming increasingly unsafe and anachronistic? It's been noticeble that a number of recent tragedies have happened in rare locations that have yet to be fitted with more modern safety systems, but were intended to be so equipped shortly afterwards. Examples include this Italian tragedy (proposed doubling/resignalling), The recent Belgian rear end collision (delayed fitting of train protection) and a number of German single line accidents where train protection was due to be fitted (although not the Bavarian incident where the line was already fully modernised). Accidents seem to 'seek out' these more risky areas perhaps because the remainder of the networks being more comprehensively equipped lulls operators into a more lax frame of mind, and thus a false sense of security in the 'less sophisticated' areas. I.e elsewhere operators and their customers are largely fully protected from mistakes, but in the older areas any lack of complete discipline combined with increased traffic is a dangerous mix.
 

Flying_Turtle

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
172
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!

A practical true example:
Once a train where I got a lift with a mate passed a distant on of a station where we had no scheduled crossing. Immediately slowed down and got prepared to stop before the first points of the station (that station had no home signal). On the approach to the points, yellow hand signal allowing us into the station and two detonators to confirm the distant signal (which was mechanical without position confirmation). We crawl into the station (30 km/h) and indeed there was a train stopped on the loop and the station master with a red hand signal. when we stop I tell him that we had no from regarding that crossing and he replies:
- This train starts from this station and it is past its departure time.
And he gives the right away! (This is a very specific case where you no longer issue a form)
What had happened was that we were so late that the other train was effectively "running" albeit being delayed by the wait. Had passed that station 10 minutes earlier we wouldn't have been stopped even though the stock of the other train was probably already in the loop waiting for its time to depart !
So, as you see , a telephonic block can be far more complex and safe than a mere exchange of phone calls!
It has had its time but if places and times come where technology isn't acessible, it is a fairly simple and safe method to keep the trains running with good speed averages of a few trains.
Obviously we can absolutely agree that such systems are not to be installed but if they remain in operation I will not categorize something unsafe just because of its name!
 
Last edited:

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
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

18th century? Passenger trains and railways weren't a thing then.
 

axlecounter

Member
Joined
23 Feb 2016
Messages
403
Location
Switzerland
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!

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.
 

AlexNL

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
1,682
On Twitter, the RSSB posted this with regards to the accident in Italy:
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.


So there you have it. :)
 

Flying_Turtle

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
172
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.
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!

Portuguese regulations were built around telephonic block and still work under that spirit and are way much more complex!
Most things done in Automatic Signalling are specific exceptions to regulations!

Just for you to have an idea, the Italian regulation has roughly 162 pages while the Portuguese has roughly 448 (where each page contains 2/3 of the information of the Italian) out of which, 47 pages are dedicated to telephonic block, plus 100 pages of general regulations, which mostly are telephonic block tailored and the and 30 pages describing the 10 different forms, most of which you only see in telephonic block!

So, please don't compare the regulations of a poor country which had 90% of the network run with telephonic block until the early 90's (and no, they didn't crash every week) with the ones of a country where telephonic block is used on local lines.
BTW, this line (Between Nine and Valença) & this line (the all famous Douro line, between Caíde and Pocinho) work under Telephonic Block, with most stations only having distants... If you have the time & money, go there for a spin and have a look how it works :)

PS - all recognize that between Caide and Régua & Nine and Viana do Castelo, automatic signalling is loooooooooooonnnnnnggggg due! The irony? this lines have fibre optics all the way and the omnibus line uses the fibre optic!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top