Train Crash near Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

[Zoidberg]

In Portugal and Spain it is mandatory to maintain contact between the train and the ground.

In Spain, the Transcantábrico uses a ground-train radio and two mobile phones to always keep contact with ground.

...

Thank you for your continued informative contributions to this thread.

 

[pablo]

I wonder how pilots cope with air trafic control and flying simultaneously?

 

[jon0844]

Is there a similar circumstance for flying a plane?

I suppose it would be receiving a phone call/ATC request while landing a plane manually, but I presume that once ATC has given clearance to land then there would be no more radio communication - and pilots would ignore it anyway.

The question is, could a train driver refuse to speak on a company phone when driving?

 

[starrymarkb]

Pilots use Handsfree headsets and on commercial flights one pilot will fly the plane while the other handles the radio.

There is also the rule - AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE, in that order...

ATC can and will communicate with an aircraft after clearing to land but only things critical for safety (examples "Speedbird 234, Wind Check 200 [degrees] at 5kts", or "Virgin 321, Go Around, I Say Again, Go Around, Acknowledge")

 

[notadriver]

Is there a similar circumstance for flying a plane?

I suppose it would be receiving a phone call/ATC request while landing a plane manually, but I presume that once ATC has given clearance to land then there would be no more radio communication - and pilots would ignore it anyway.

The question is, could a train driver refuse to speak on a company phone when driving?

The company phone in this case would the train radio be it NRN, CSR or GSMR and drivers aren't obliged to answer until the train reaches a complete stand. If the message is that urgent a STOP command can be sent or more usually a signal will be held at danger.

 

[carriageline]

But the news reports are suggesting he wasn just simply "on the phone" he was also consulting a map/some paper work, even more of a distraction.

Yes it might be mandatory in them countries, that doesn't make it not dangerous does it?

 

[GB]

The question is, could a train driver refuse to speak on a company phone when driving?

If your talking about a mobile phone then our company has a strict zero tolerance policy on using mobile phones during safety critical work. If you are found to be using a mobile while driving or shunting, then regardless if its a personal mobile or a work mobile or if its your manager or control phoning you, if your caught then its a disciplinary offense that can lead to dismissal.

Using a mobile while you are in the drivers seat but stationary is no problem.

 

[reb0118]

Using a mobile while you are in the drivers seat but stationary is no problem.

This is no longer allowed on ScotRail. In fact, I believe, drivers are not allowed personal mobile phones on their person whilst on duty. [They can use them on their PNB though].

Important personal messages can be relayed to the driver via the guard who is expected to keep his company mobile switched on at all times whilst on duty.

 

[Matt Taylor]

On SWT if control or management need to speak to you while you are on duty via company mobile the first sentence in the conversation is 'are you in a position of safety?' If my company phone rings while I am dispatching a train I simply don't answer it.

 

[Zoidberg]

An update from the BBC.

An extract from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23516978

The driver of a Spanish train which crashed told authorities he does not know what he was thinking in the seconds before the crash.

A transcript of Francisco Jose Garzon's interrogation has appeared on the website of Spanish newspaper El Pais.

In the questioning - which took place before the train's "black boxes" were opened - he insists he was "not crazy enough" not to try to stop the train.

Mr Garzon has not yet been formally charged over the crash which killed 79.

...

But on this occasion, he admits, he was going at a speed between 180 and 190km/h and cannot explain why.

"It would be one thing if this took place in an instant," says the judge, "but you went for 4km at a speed much higher than you normally would".

"Four kilometres at 200km/h go very quickly," Mr Garzon replies.

It'd take only 1.2 minutes to cover 4km at 200kph - so, indeed, quite quickly, but also, perhaps, quite a long time to be distracted, but surely a distraction that could easily be broken by an overspeed or similar alarm, had there been one.

 

[Sheepy1209]

With aircraft being mentioned, it reminded me of an incident a few years ago which resulted in a TNT plane crashing at Birmingham:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7372457.stm

"In its report on the incident, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said that at a critical moment on its approach to East Midlands airport, air traffic control had wrongly passed a message to the TNT pilot from his company.
This confused the pilot, who turned off the autopilot, causing the plane to lose height, the report said.
He then failed to abort the landing in time and came down on grass alongside the East Midlands runway."

Both ATC and the pilot failed to follow procedure, while we don't know yet whether the call to the train driver was normal procedure, but the example illustrates how easy it is for a call to distract at a safety-critical moment.

 

[neonison]

A thought about Norton Fitzwarren:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=296

Driver is convinced he is not where he really is and continually cancels ATC warnings; when he eventually realizes it's too late to slow down.

 

[notadriver]

Just as an aside - its been established that the driver managed to get the speed down from 190 kph to 150 kph before the derailment. If he had become aware and applied that emergency brake just 20 seconds earlier would the speed have reduced sufficiently for the train to remain on the track ?

 

[brianthegiant]

Sorry, if this was covered elsewhere in the 19 pages of thread & I missed it..but..
Am I right in thinking that the severity wouldn't have been quite as bad with a tgv, since the tighter coupling between carriages on a tgv would have meant that the train wouldn't have jack-knifed as badly before coming to a standstill & the carriages would be more likely to remain upright?

I believe that the tgv is safer in this regard, so I wonder why the shared bogie concept is unique to Alsthom's TGV/AGVs. Gauge clearance limitations? less operational flexibilty to switch carriages? patents?

 

[rebmcr]

Sorry, if this was covered elsewhere in the 19 pages of thread & I missed it..but..
Am I right in thinking that the severity wouldn't have been quite as bad with a tgv, since the tighter coupling between carriages on a tgv would have meant that the train wouldn't have jack-knifed as badly before coming to a standstill & the carriages would be more likely to remain upright?

I believe that the tgv is safer in this regard, so I wonder why the shared bogie concept is unique to Alsthom's TGV/AGVs. Gauge clearance limitations? less operational flexibilty to switch carriages? patents?

This type of train doesn't even really have bogies at all. The wheelsets are "more shared" than on even TGVs/AGVs (for want of a better phrase).

 

[S N Barnes]

Sorry, if this was covered elsewhere in the 19 pages of thread & I missed it..but..
Am I right in thinking that the severity wouldn't have been quite as bad with a tgv, since the tighter coupling between carriages on a tgv would have meant that the train wouldn't have jack-knifed as badly before coming to a standstill & the carriages would be more likely to remain upright?

I believe that the tgv is safer in this regard, so I wonder why the shared bogie concept is unique to Alsthom's TGV/AGVs. Gauge clearance limitations? less operational flexibilty to switch carriages? patents?

Watch the crash video - the train did not jacknife. Something caused a ripple but the point at which this happens is obscured by an OHL mast in the foreground. At this point something sets up a 'ripple' through the train.

A Talgo car (about 4/5 in rake) lifts up and the following rake heads off tangentially to the curve. Heading miraculously up the slope and on to the street above.

Further down the train a second Talgo car lifts up and the light central section, with either the leading end or training end having no wheelset, heads off, whilst the trailing section with the weight of the generator car and rear loco, follows the curve around - possibly with the heavier vehicles remaining on the rails for some distance.

The front locomotive remains on the rails to a point well past the start of the retaining wall until the loose Talgo car flailing around at the end hooks on to the start of the retaining wall and jerks the train back pulling the vehicles in front off the rails. The rear section then hits the last vehicles of the front section.

Generally the stability of rail vehicles with no defects running on track with no defects is such that taking a curve at 200% of the posted speed limit will not result in a derailment. In tests for APT a Mk 1 carriage was sent down a steeply sloping branch line in Kent. It remained on the rails up to a point where there was over 20 degrees of cant deficiency for the speed it was travelling on the test curve.

Put simply the passengers inside a train would be slammed against the side of the carriage before the outer wheel climbed the rail or the carriage rolled over.

Two incidents in the UK are worth considering - in 1937 an LMS Coronation Pacific reached 112 mph at a point 3 miles South of Crewe, and then they realised that the tracks at the South end of Crewe station had a 20mph speed restriction - the train hit the first set of points at 3 times the posted speed limit and stayed on the track. The track was seriously overstressed (broken chairs etc) and those on board emerged ashen faced. Then in 1969 at Morpeth the Northbound sleeper train hit a 40mph curve at 80mph. The locomotive stayed on the rails but the next coach (a BG) apparently had the inside wheel lift and the high rail wheel climb over the railhead. The BG turns on to its side and was wiped out to a bare underframe, still coupled to the loco by the time the train came to a halt. The rest of the train split off and the leading vehicles headed out tangentially.

The 40mph limit applied to a 17 chain curve, with around 4" of superelevation, however the track had some 'bounce' through space under some of the sleepers such that they could move downwards but also, if the outer rail had a greater weight pressing down a local and transient twist would be delivered as the wheels passed over the 'soft' sleepers. Track twist is a serious defect and can often cause derailments. In addition a close measurement of the curve revealed a local reduction in radius from 17 chains to 15 chains, right at the point of derailment.

Fierce brake applications can send a ripple through a train, as each wheelset will slow down at a slightly different rate. With old loose coupled wagons the progressive build up of forces can rip drawgear off or conversely smash a wooden bodied truck to matchwood.

So returning to Santiago de Compostela - somehting happened at that point on the curve - we have very few pictures or details of the track at that point, but for so many derailments the point at which the train smashes up is generally well past the point at which the chain of events began, and a good investigator will be looking a long way back down the track

 

[brianthegiant]

sorry, got that wrong, I see it has less wheels per car than even a pacer! neat idea with the passive tilt though.
www.talgo.de/download/en_250.pdf
"Single axles, with independent wheels and Talgo RD system, located between cars"
(RD system is the auto gauge changing axle).


So if theory if this had been set with conventional bogies, say a Siemens Velaro, the outcome might have been worse?

 

[Giugiaro]

The High Speed Talgo trains are more similar to the TGV than you think. One is composed of two detachable locomotives and a non-deforming consist.


Bogie Talgo by Giacomo Giugiaro, on Flickr

I believe that even though the train was at 150kph, it would have made the curve with no problem if this was a normal S-130 set. If you watch the video, the whole train is very well stable while entering the curve, even the locomotive, because:

1 - Talgo cars are larger and lower than conventional cars.
2 - Talgo cars have very low centre of gravity.
3 - Talgo cars have a non-energy consuming tilting system triggered by the centre of gravity.
4 - The train was already in broad gauge (1668mm or 5 ft 5 2⁄3 in)

What started the derailment were the additional generator cars attached to the train, that have a far higher centre of gravity because of the diesel engine and the fuel tank.
The generator cars not only derailed instantly, they also pushed the Talgo consist off the track, including the front locomotives.

EDIT:

The generator cars have a shared axle with the Talgo consist. No way to escape.

 

[rebmcr]

independent wheels

This set me thinking.

Presumably they have some sort of electronic link to maintain the effect of coning — this electronic link might have a limit to the force exerted/absorbed and if the wheels want to turn at significantly different speeds, they might be able to in extreme circumstances, thus making a derailment more likely.

 

[Zoidberg]

This set me thinking.

Presumably they have some sort of electronic link to maintain the effect of coning — this electronic link might have a limit to the force exerted/absorbed and if the wheels want to turn at significantly different speeds, they might be able to in extreme circumstances, thus making a derailment more likely.

I may have misunderstood the point of your post, but from the first video in post #77, it appears from what's seen from around 1:00 to 1:25 that the wheels are able to rotate independently. Would that not be a good thing in the context of your post, i.e. not being constrained in the way that wheels on a fixed axle are?

 

[rebmcr]

I may have misunderstood the point of your post, but from the first video in post #77, it appears from what's seen from around 1:00 to 1:25 that the wheels are able to rotate independently. Would that not be a good thing in the context of your post, i.e. not being constrained in the way that wheels on a fixed axle are?

I don't think so, the fixed axle combined with the coned wheel treads is what normally keeps wheels on rails. Without the counterforce of the other wheel pulling in the opposite direction, I believe the only thing to stop the wheel climbing the rail on a curve is the flange.

 

[Zoidberg]

I don't think so, the fixed axle combined with the coned wheel treads is what normally keeps wheels on rails. Without the counterforce of the other wheel pulling in the opposite direction, I believe the only thing to stop the wheel climbing the rail on a curve is the flange.

Ah, thanks, I now understand the point that you are making, but I'll leave others better versed in the technicalities to comment further.

 

[edwin_m]

The coned wheel and the linking of the wheelsets isn't necessary to prevent derailment - that's what the flange is for. What it does is to keep the wheelset roughly centred on the track so that flange contact (which causes wear and noise) only occurs on tighter curves. There are ways of achieving the same thing for independent wheelsets but I don't know enough about them to say any more.

 

[WatcherZero]

Tapes of the driver conversation now been published along with the revelation that according to the black box 25 minutes before the crash the dead mans system had twice been activated and train braked automatically because there had been no driver input at the controls for 30 seconds and he had failed to cancel the audible alarm.

 

[Zoidberg]

Tapes of the driver conversation now been published along with the revelation that according to the black box 25 minutes before the crash the dead mans system had twice been activated and train braked automatically because there had been no driver input at the controls for 30 seconds and he had failed to cancel the audible alarm.

The BBC News article is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23982566

Extract:

A recording has emerged in Spanish media of a phone call made by a train driver moments after his train derailed in northern Spain, killing 79 people.

Francisco Jose Garzon is heard telling a colleague he was travelling at 190km/h (118 mph) instead of 80km/h and became distracted.

He also said he had previously complained that the bend, where the accident happened, was "inhuman".

The driver and the state-owned railway firm Renfe are on trial over the crash.

 

[BRX]

Tapes of the driver conversation now been published along with the revelation that according to the black box 25 minutes before the crash the dead mans system had twice been activated and train braked automatically because there had been no driver input at the controls for 30 seconds and he had failed to cancel the audible alarm.

Where's this info from? (it doesn't seem to be in the BBC article)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Where's this info from? (it doesn't seem to be in the BBC article)

I think the report might have been edited; it was certainly in there when I read it this morning and has definitely been shown on News 24 throughout the day.

 

[NornIronMan]

Where's this info from? (it doesn't seem to be in the BBC article)

Spanish news outlets have been carrying it all day: http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/09/06/inenglish/1378468502_039832.html (this is a translation of an article originally carried on the Spanish language version of the same site).

 

[fsmr]

Trailer being run on Discovery in the Uk that a documentary on the crash will be aired soon in the UK

 

[ainsworth74]

Have the Spanish even had time to finish a report into the accident?