# EUROPE | Rail Accidents



## RACINCPIX (Jun 30, 2006)

*At Least 41 Killed In Spain Train Accident*

*At Least 41 Killed in Spain Train Accident*
Jul 3, 9:13 PM (ET)
By CIARAN GILES
My Way News 

VALENCIA, Spain (AP) - A subway train accelerated, shuddered and flipped off the tracks Monday in the Mediterranean port of Valencia, killing at least 41 passengers and injuring 47 in one of Spain's worst rail accidents, officials and witnesses said.

Regional authorities and a witness said the train was going too fast and one of its wheels broke into pieces, derailing the first car, which overturned. Victims were strewn in the tunnel. Officials did not say if the second car derailed.

Rescue workers hustled bloodied, sooty survivors from the tunnel. Anguished relatives cried out in grief and drew each other close as they waited outside the local morgue. The accident brought back memories of the 2004 terrorist attack on Madrid commuter trains that killed 191 people.

Authorities ruled out terrorism but have not determined the cause of the crash.

Justice Ministry official Rosa Sanchez told The Associated Press that at least 41 people were killed and all but eight had been identified. She said that the driver was among those killed. Officials earlier said mistakenly that the driver was not seriously hurt.
>SNIP<
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060704/D8IKS1OG0.html 

I don't know if this is the proper site for news of this nature, and I apologize if it's not.
In any case, my heart goes out to the victims of theis horrible accident, their families, and to the people of Spain.
All are in my prayers.


----------



## exciter (Mar 2, 2005)

yes, it's a horrible accident, we all are so impressed about it in Spain


----------



## hkth (Sep 15, 2005)

News from the BBC:
Spain mourns train crash victims 

--Sorry for the accident.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I wonder how is it possible that a wheel can break like that. How fast was the train going?


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Valencia metro crash highlights safety flaws on city's oldest line *

VALENCIA, Spain, July 5, 2006 (AFP) - Two days after Valencia's fatal underground train accident, normal service resumed but serious questions were being asked on Wednesday about the ageing safety apparatus on the Spanish city's oldest metro line. 

At the moment of the accident on Monday, in which 41 people died, the black box recorder showed the train was travelling "too fast", at 80 kilometres an hour (50 miles an hour) on a curve on which there is a speed limit of 40 kilometres an hour. 

Valencia's Line One is equipped with a system that with the help of sensors next to the rails alerts the driver if the train exceeds the permitted speed, but in the section where the crash happened there were no such sensors. 

On Tuesday Valencia railway trade union spokesman Jose Aroca said that the driver, who died in the accident, must have experienced "a sort of loss of consciousness, of fainting". 

The Valencia Regional Health Minister Rafael Blascosaid said there was "no piece of data allowing us to speculate on a cause" of a possible blackout of the driver. An autopsy found no alcohol or drugs in the driver's blood, he said. 

The city's other three metro lines are also equipped with a more modern and more expensive system "which would have prevented the accident", said Pedro Diaz Caballero of the railway union SF. 

This system "works all along the line and automatically stops the train when the driver exceeds a certain speed by a single kilometre (mile) per hour," Caballero told newspaper El Pais. 

The paper also quoted a train driver with 25 years' experience who blamed the section of track where the crash happened: "Going round a corner, the train shakes and vibrates even if you're going at 40 kilometers per hour." 

The tunnel has not been renovated, the rails are "worn all along the tunnel" and there are still wooden sleepers in place, the driver added. 

Fernando Soto, secretary general of the railway union, said on Tuesday evening that the works council and management were looking into implementing a temporary alert system while more modern equipment is put in place. 

In the meantime, Line One had resumed normal operations, as a sign indicated at Jesus station where Monday's accident took place. 

"I'm taking (the train) because I work in town. But I have goose pimples," 49-year-old cleaner Teresa Marquez said. 

"I'm not scared and anyway I don't have a choice," said 27-year-old David Mateo. "On Monday I took the train at midday and the accident happened at one o'clock. That can happen no matter where, on the train or on a plane." 

Line One carries 1.5 million passengers every year, including a large number of students currently on holiday. 

Outside the station, two massive cranes used to remove the mangled carriages have been dismantled and normal traffic has resumed. 

Meanwhile a Valencia Roman Catholic Church official said that Pope Benedict XVI would pray at the scene of the accident on Saturday, stopping off there on his way from the airport when he visits the city for a Catholic festival, the World Family Meeting. 

Passers-by at the site of the accident continued to lay flowers, religious images and messages of condolence amid rows of candles.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

*Fire closes Eurostar train*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm


If it doesn't work try this one and choose the video clip on the right:

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea...ll&edition=i&q=Eurostar&go.x=35&go.y=15&go=go


----------



## Poler (Dec 15, 2004)

*TGV accident near swiss border*









*Un TGV Paris-Genève percute un camion: un mort, neuf blessés*
FRANCE VOISINE | 10h36 

Un TGV reliant Paris à Genève a percuté un camion mercredi matin sur un passage à niveau dans le département de l'Ain. L'accident a fait un mort et neuf blessés légers, a indiqué la sécurité civile. 

La victime est le conducteur du poids-lourd. L'accident s'est produit sur un passage à niveau à hauteur de Vavrette-Tossiat, à une dizaine de kilomètres au sud de Bourg-en-Bresse, selon la SNCF. Neuf passagers du train ont été légèrement blessés, selon la préfecture. 

TGV hit a truck on a railway crossing on wednesday morning near Vavrette-Tossiat. 9 passengers were hurt. Truck driver is dead. Fortunately train has not been passing the rail crossing at high speed.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

There is no crossing in high speed tracks. The TGV train could run in normal tracks. Near the Swiss borber this is not an high speed line, so the TGV could not not go at high speed here.


----------



## Hugues75 (Dec 6, 2007)

The train was running at 110 km/h just after leaving the station at Bourg-en-Bresse, according differents news.


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

In the pics, youcan always only see the end of the train which is not damaged.

The front, that hit the truck. looks like that :


----------



## Jean Luc (Mar 23, 2006)

Jeez, is the TGV driver OK?

Pity about the truck driver.


----------



## Poler (Dec 15, 2004)

Minato ku said:


> There is no crossing in high speed tracks. The TGV train could run in normal tracks. Near the Swiss borber this is not an high speed line, so the TGV could not not go at high speed here.


Yes, I do not where the separate high speed track begins. Up to the swiss border (at the side of GE canton) there is a normal track for all types of trains.









_Here small schematic plan (deviation for Geneva near Mâcon)_

@pflo777 - total devastation, all train derailed. Where is the truck?


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

the truck(or at least the poor rest of it) can be seen in the pics, where the intact head of the TGV train is visible. Of course, this was the end of the train. So the whole train passed the truck untill it came to a stop:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1631/194tgv08ap115639w1lz5.jpg


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

That's sad for the truck driver and he's familly: making a mistake doesn't desserve to be crashed by a train. Thanks god: it was an "old-fashioned TGV" with a locomotive at each end. It wasn't a "more modern HS train" with passengers just behind the driver.


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

Unbeleivable damage for 110km/h compared to previous TGV crashes. What was the truck carrying? Something very heavy?


----------



## Poler (Dec 15, 2004)

I found another truck photo


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

The TGV seems very damaged...

Why that?
:?


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Bitxofo said:


> The TGV seems very damaged...
> 
> Why that?
> :?


euh... because he hit a truck?


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

Thermo said:


> euh... because he hit a truck?


This must have been a heavy truck though. Most previous TGV crossing crashes have not been this bad. Has anyone seen a report into how heavy the load was?


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Thermo said:


> euh... because he hit a truck?


A truck made by rocks or what?
:crazy:


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Jay said:


> […]
> It seems unbelievable that this could have happened, almost not physically possible, I don't know how much an ICE loco weighs
> […]


Around 80 tons.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Minato ku said:


> ^^ Yes but they can fence the tracks with high speed train.


Yes, like here in Spain: all high speed lines are fenced and some conventional lines too.
:yes:


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

I'm against fencing everything, it has major bad effects on wildlife.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Bitxofo said:


> Yes, like here in Spain: all high speed lines are fenced and some conventional lines too.
> :yes:


Are the high speed trains in Italy fenced in as well? Amtrak seems to have no fencing for its tracks. :lol:


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Amtrak has some nice sheep fences in front of the train 
In the Netherlands most railways aren't fenced, but on heavily used tracks they are. Most of the time there is a ditch between the track and the sheep.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

FM 2258 said:


> Amtrak seems to have no fencing for its tracks. :lol:



An American train probably wouldn't derail due to an animal.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Jay said:


> An American train probably wouldn't derail due to an animal.


Sure? What's about Acela?


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> This ICE accident did remember me another accident with a ICE train that occurred a few years ago, when the train left the tracks after hitting into a car. I remember that there were many deaths.


Are you thinking of the Selby rail crash in the uk?


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Jay said:


> An American train probably wouldn't derail due to an animal.


They would if they went as fast - the reason US trains don't derail as much is because they don't go very fast apart from Acela, which in this incident at 250km/h would have a similar likelihood of derailing as the ICE.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

earthJoker said:


> I'm against fencing everything, it has major bad effects on wildlife.


They make "underground corridors" for little animals of wild life.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

elfabyanos said:


> They would if they went as fast - the reason US trains don't derail as much is because they don't go very fast apart from Acela, which in this incident at 250km/h would have a similar likelihood of derailing as the ICE.



There have been several cases where the acela has hit a car and hasn't derailed, and it was going from 80-120 mph in those cases. Acela's are also much heavier than euro highspeed trains, although they look alike (which is why they go slower). If I'm not mistaken I believe Acela loco's weigh well over 100 tons and the coaches weigh about 60, like every other train in the US. Trains are at least 20-30 tons lighter in europe.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

There have been several cases where ICE trains hit cars, and the ICEs did not derail too.

At saturday evening an ICE in direction Hamburg hit some sheep at the end of Landrückentunnel too, and nothing happened. It was only the ICE to Munich which derailed, Deutsche Bahn says because 20–40 sheep hit the first boogie at the same time.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

earthJoker said:


> I'm against fencing everything, it has major bad effects on wildlife.


I doubt if there's really any wildlife left in Germany. Anyways, you can always make ecoducts in places where animals most often cross the railway.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

terrible accidend hno:


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

geeeeez. sorry for the sheeps. At least it should have been fast for some of them.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Jay said:


> There have been several cases where the acela has hit a car and hasn't derailed, and it was going from 80-120 mph in those cases. Acela's are also much heavier than euro highspeed trains, although they look alike (which is why they go slower). If I'm not mistaken I believe Acela loco's weigh well over 100 tons and the coaches weigh about 60, like every other train in the US. Trains are at least 20-30 tons lighter in europe.


Yeah, but that's not the reason why Acela didn't derail. 1kg of carefully placed high strength steel will derail a 150 ton loco. But you can also hit a 40ton truck and not.


----------



## ZZ-II (May 10, 2006)

foxmulder said:


> geeeeez. sorry for the sheeps. At least it should have been fast for some of them.


yes, very fast


----------



## Lydon (Sep 7, 2007)

Shame! Poor sheep...the saddest part is that some were still alive afterwards


----------



## Booze (Jun 19, 2003)

JoKo65 said:


> The Hannover–Würzburg line is a LGV, a high speed line, like in Spain or France.
> 
> *In Spain or France highspeed trains often use normal tracks* – which are not fenced – too, so there is no difference to Germany, but the LGVs are fenced in France or Spain and that is the difference to Germany.


Not at all, high speed trains in Spain use 100% high speed UIC gauge tracks, properly fenced and full equiped with sensors that detect if the fence has been broken. The trains can run at 350Km/h only thanks to high tech procedures and monitoring. And they can't share the tracks with normal trains as the gauge is narrower.

I just can't believe Germany doesn't fence its high speed tracks :crazy: Even in Mallorca with our diesel vmax 100Km/h trains we do have fences.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Booze said:


> Not at all, high speed trains in Spain use 100% high speed UIC gauge tracks, properly fenced and full equiped with sensors that detect if the fence has been broken. The trains can run at 350Km/h only thanks to high tech procedures and monitoring. And they can't share the tracks with normal trains as the gauge is narrower.
> […]


The S-120 and S-130 are also high speed trains and they use parts of the ibero gauge tracks. They can change the gauge. The S-100 Euromed uses only the ibero gauge tracks.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Europeans don't tend to build their trains like armoured behemoths like they do in North America. It's a bit of a toss-up between speed, safety and energy efficiency. Most of the time this isn't a problem judging from the number of train crashes across Europe compared with North America.




Yea but most of the time when european trains collide with vehicles, even small ones like cars and pickup trucks, they are so light and fragile that many people on the train are injured or killed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here too but I still think North American trains are safer.


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

Jay said:


> Yea but most of the time when european trains collide with vehicles, even small ones like cars and pickup trucks, they are so light and fragile that many people on the train are injured or killed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here too but I still think North American trains are safer.


Usually at the designing stage you eliminate same grade crossing for HSRs so you don't have to worry about striking a car or a truck.:lol:
There are naging problems called energy effeciency and maintenance when you have to run trains that weighs like a tank.


----------



## ArtManDoo (Aug 5, 2008)

^^ What you do if you have 100car loaded consist and lightweight loco? Just sit and watch the trainhno:. And for safety. Who says where is the line? I mean are we smart and think every step we take(watch both ways before go over rail, if somebody can see train approaching then don't try to win 30sec otherways lose their life) or just pay for fences and separate level crossings.


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

Wasn't there a collision with over two dozen dead in California a while ago? I believe that the train driver was texting instead of doing his job.

At least in the German case it was only a bunch of sheep that got killed.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

Jay said:


> Yea but most of the time when european trains collide with vehicles, even small ones like cars and pickup trucks, they are so light and fragile that many people on the train are injured or killed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here too but I still think North American trains are safer.


Being lighter doesn't mean more fragile. And most of the time people aren't injured on the train. The majority of trains hitting cars in the UK at level crossings involve the car being destroyed and the train unscathed. The problem is when the trains are going very fast - which is a problem you don't really have in the USA lets face it - the higher speed is the factor that causes the danger to the passengers inside the train.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Tri-ring said:


> There are naging problems called energy effeciency and maintenance when you have to run trains that weighs like a tank.


Actually,even the old steam engines weight more than a modern tank...at least twice.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Passenger trains in the U.S. are mostly diesel powered (since very little railway is electrified), thus the engines are heavier.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

USRA Heavy Santa Fe: 380,000 lbs, steam locomotive
GE Dash 9-40C: 392,000 lbs, diesel locomotive.
BR Class 43: 154,000 lbs, high speed diesel locomotive (148mph record speed 1987)
M1 Abrams tank: 135,000 lbs.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

elfabyanos said:


> USRA Heavy Santa Fe: 380,000 lbs, steam locomotive
> GE Dash 9-40C: 392,000 lbs, diesel locomotive.
> BR Class 43: 154,000 lbs, high speed diesel locomotive (148mph record speed 1987)
> M1 Abrams tank: 135,000 lbs.


Ok,then what I've found must have meant a whole train of a HSR.


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

^^ Well you are right about the weight of a steam train versus tank. And HSR trains are a reasonable weight, a Eurostar set is 1,650,000 lbs. But then the weight per passenger and weight per axle are relatively low making it viable as a high speed train.


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

Jay said:


> Yea but most of the time when european trains collide with vehicles, even small ones like cars and pickup trucks, they are so light and fragile that many people on the train are injured or killed. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here too but I still think North American trains are safer.


This is just utter BS. You need to learn some structural engineering.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

(Edit)


----------



## HD (Sep 17, 2003)

elfabyanos said:


> The problem is when the trains are going very fast - *which is a problem you don't really have in the USA lets face it* - the higher speed is the factor that causes the danger to the passengers inside the train.


:lol:
excellent


----------



## elfabyanos (Jun 18, 2006)

..


----------



## bluemeansgo (Oct 28, 2008)

Jay said:


> Here is your "tough" Ice train after hitting a tree, seriously injuring passengers and the conductor.
> 
> Euro trains seem like they are built from tinfoil, they're like buses on rails.


Just because something looks more damaged doesn't mean that it's less safe.

Modern cars are much safer than cars of old that were built like tanks *because* they crumple.

I'm not saying trains work under the same principles, I'm merely saying you can't judge a train's safety on pictures.

You also can't measure a train system's safety by just the properties of the train. You also have to take into account the system it resides on.

A formula one car is extremely unsafe on public roads at any speed, but on the track, it's the opposite.

American trains aren't designed to travel on HSR rails, so you can't just compare the two.


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

bluemeansgo said:


> American trains aren't designed to travel on HSR rails, so you can't just compare the two.


I don't think the Americans have any intentions of having their trains run on HSR rails.:runaway:


----------



## MikaGe (Apr 7, 2006)

^^ They prefer flying instead. I don't think there will as much demand as in Europe/Japan even if they built it.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

There are just too many wild animals in America for high speed rail. Just think about all the bears and bison .


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

goschio said:


> There are just too many wild animals in America for high speed rail. Just think about all the bears and bison .


Bears and bison aren't everywhere y'know! I'm sure your average east coaster would love to see bears and bison roaming everywhere around NJ. :lol:


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

I'm sure passenger trains are more afraid of hitting these goats then anything else.:lol:


----------



## kegan (Jun 14, 2007)

Jay said:


> Here is a TGV that ran into a truck
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Talking of "tinfoil trains", an example from the US: Result of a commuter train hitting a SUV on a level crossing and derailing (pic from Wiki - Glendale train crash, LA).


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

bluemeansgo said:


> Just because something looks more damaged doesn't mean that it's less safe.
> 
> Modern cars are much safer than cars of old that were built like tanks *because* they crumple.
> 
> ...



True, unless they crumple to the point were they crush the passengers inside.


Which of these train would you rather be driving? I don't know about you but I'll take the right one thanks.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

^^ That only looks not too good for the train driver of the DMU, it's juts the front end that took the impact. The passenger compartment looks completely undamaged and I hope the train driver saw it coming and could escape through the backdoor. They were actually designed this way and with a bit of luck they could just put a new front end on the train. 

But due to EU regulation all new trains in a few years (in some countries already) must have an active crash zone that also protects the train driver.

The DMU in the picture above doesn't have a crash zone.










Same type op DMU with a crash zone










btw, the same type of train just with a different front end is also running in the US for the New Jersey Transit.


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

Jay said:


> True, unless they crumple to the point were they crush the passengers inside.
> 
> 
> Which of these train would you rather be driving? I don't know about you but I'll take the right one thanks.


Well if the train operators equips all their trains with Automatic Train Control then that kind of accident would never have happened in the first place.hno:

Says in the link; 


> While speed control is currently used on many passenger lines in the United States, in most cases it has been adopted voluntarily by the train operating company.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

goschio said:


> There are just too many wild animals in America for high speed rail. Just think about all the bears and bison .


I wonder how many animals were killed on interstates then... 

Anyway: it's pretty easy to solve the problem of the animals crossing rails, in America and Europe; just fence with grids or something else
I'm pretty sure that in Italy all HS tracks are fenced (and many ordinary railways ones as well)


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

kegan said:


> Talking of "tinfoil trains", an example from the US: Result of a commuter train hitting a SUV on a level crossing and derailing (pic from Wiki - Glendale train crash, LA).


One of the good thing with TGV it's that their structure prevent that kind of accidents. They are quite safe. Usually juist a few people are injured during an accident and it allmost never happen during High-Speed operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents

@jay : As others says before it's not because the train look totaled that it's more dangerous. If we follow your idea then modern car will be far more dangerous than older ones since they are design to absorb dammages. But the fact is they are safer than older cars because they are design to absorb dammages. It's the same with trains. It's better for

So the look of the thing after crash doesn't really mean anything nowadays.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Momo1435 said:


> ^^ That only looks not too good for the train driver of the DMU, it's juts the front end that took the impact. The passenger compartment looks completely undamaged and I hope the train driver saw it coming and could escape through the backdoor. They were actually designed this way and with a bit of luck they could just put a new front end on the train.
> 
> But due to EU regulation all new trains in a few years (in some countries already) must have an active crash zone that also protects the train driver.
> 
> The DMU in the picture above doesn't have a crash zone.


That's all fine and good but trains, passenger cars especially should not just crumple like soda cans, it is far worse for the people inside, it is better to put crash zones at either end... 

This is an example of a terribly engineered train. 











This is much better, why we can't all build them like this I'll never know.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Yet that last example is a "European tin can" train. The UK doesn't construct its trains like the US.


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

Jay said:


> This is an example of a terribly engineered train.


Yeah by the look of the passenger cars it's more an old design rather than a "terribly engineered train".

You are comparing things that can not be compared together. Modern trains, and even more HS trains, are nothing compared to an ageing egyptian train. hno:

And your second photo doesn't really make it better, a derailment can be very dangerous even if the train and the cars doesn't crumple. Depending of the speed of the accident people cans till die in that kind of accident. Don't forget, nobody wear seatbelts in a train.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

{Edit}


----------



## kegan (Jun 14, 2007)

disturbman said:


> <snip>
> And your second photo doesn't really make it better, a derailment can be very dangerous even if the train and the cars doesn't crumple. Depending of the speed of the accident people cans till die in that kind of accident. Don't forget, nobody wear seatbelts in a train.


Spot on - that photo is of the Grayrigg derailment (in the UK) which resulted in the death of one passenger.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

sotavento said:


> Some time ago a portuguese Alfa Pendular (fiat tilting train) hit a lorry/truck and this was the result:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's made of fiberglass to do less damage to the vehicles it hits? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, the train is never at fault in any collision, They should be built TO damage the vehicles they hit to protect the train, It's kind of pathetic that 500 ton vehicles are made out of fiberglass. What was the truck carrying? The one that the Pendular hit? Or the TGV?


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

kegan said:


> Spot on - that photo is of the Grayrigg derailment (in the UK) which resulted in the death of one passenger.


But still, (Use the kerang crash for example) if there were something as simple as steel girders separating these windows it could have saved people's lives in this crash.


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

I don't know about others but I believe the most important for HSR is prevention of accidents not protection from accidents.
Things like dedicted line, fencing the entire route, complete grade seperation, ATCs, periodic rail examination are all to *PREVENT* accidents.
Anything added as protection also adds extra weight making it slower in acceleration and deceleration resulting to more time and spending more energy.hno:


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

I can rely to that, in any case the worst HST accidents didn't happened on HSL, but mostly at crossroads.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

elfabyanos said:


> If it were that obvious a solution all of the very many highly skilled and highly paid railway engineers from all over the world would have thought of it. The ICE is built by probably the most highly skilled train designers on the planet, with equals only in France and Japan.


It is an obvious solution, for example whoever engineered this train was a dumbass because there is nothing protecting the front bogie, it crashed into a car at 100 mph and derailed killing 2 people on the train. Stick a small slab of metal on the front and it never would have happened.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Don't you get tired of trying to prove American train/engineering superiority? The Intercity 125's are very well engineered trains and have been in service for an awful long time now.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains. Look at what happened to this maglev after hitting a service vehicle, it's split in half. If fact it's structure is so weak the train crumpled killing everyone inside and the vehicle's drivers survived. 


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/retreadranger/magwreck.jpg


----------



## 33Hz (Jul 29, 2006)

Jay said:


> it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains.



Exactly.

'Total destruction': At least 17 die in head-on Metrolink crash










There is nothing so cheap as throwing more metal at the problem. What is so clever about over-heavy trains travelling around at no more than 80mph, wasting energy all over the place? :bash:

The reason the Maglev is so light is that it has to travel at over 300mph. If the US ever gets around to building their own, I guarantee that they will be constructed using the same techniques.

If you add up all the deaths from high speed operation in Europe and Asia, it is still lower than those from crashes of American trains which have fallen off the rails while dawdling around the place. hno:


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Sheeps... LOL.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Jay said:


> it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains. Look at what happened to this maglev after hitting a service vehicle, it's split in half. If fact it's structure is so weak the train crumpled killing everyone inside and the vehicle's drivers survived.
> 
> 
> http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/retreadranger/magwreck.jpg


Cheaply engineered? Transrapid? LOL!!!!!

Now I have heard everything. That crash was caused by driver error by the way.


----------



## disturbman (Aug 28, 2008)

This conversation is not going anywhere. jay have his opinion and nobody will get somewhere trying to make him see how wrong he is.



jay said:


> it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains.


Of course it's stupid, but who told you they were cheaply engineered? Until proven the opposite I will not believe that the trains that so many ride are cheaply engineered.

You know the goal of politics and engineers is not to build death traps. Everybody is aiming for a comprise between safety, reliability and good economics (cheap enough). If people are building the train the way they are it's because of a reason. It's not because you think that we should travel in armored tanks that it's really like that.

Don't base your opinions and some photo, just look at numbers, statistics. You will see that for the moment the trains are quite safe the way they are built and operated. I don't understand why you stick so hard on your point.

And in any case if you really don't want to get hurt, stay at home, don't go out. It's far more dangerous to walk or drive down the street than to take a train.

In any case it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered bodies.


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

If you take the Shinkansen record of *ZERO* accident related fatality record(45 years and still going) into consideration then you really do not think about enforcing the structrual strength in case of an accident BECUASE there are so many failsafe built-in to *PREVENTING* accidents.
In fact the only close call was derailment by an earthquake hitting the Tohoku region but the train stopped because the earthquake sensors built-in to the system stopped the train hitting hard on the brakes.

Prevention is always safer then protection in a closed circuit environment.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

disturbman said:


> This conversation is not going anywhere. jay have his opinion and nobody will get somewhere trying to make him see how wrong he is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that trains are generally safe, but it's because they are on tracks and hardly ever hit anything, but when they do, the way they are engineered they are not prepared for it. The fact that the maglev crumpled to pieces from hitting a vehicle, something that no other train really does at least not to that extent, is dangerous, All it takes is a light steel beam skeleton within the carriages to make them strong enough to not rip apart keeping the people inside alive. 

It doesn't have to be a literal tank but putting lightweight alloy metal frames in the cars instead of only paper thin sheet metal and fiberglass would maintain the lightweight yet make the train safer for travelers. 

If something is properly engineered it shouldn't be able to break this easily. 

http://www.realcrashes.com/photo.php?id=1569&o=d&u=all&of=16

http://www.realcrashes.com/photo.php?id=1577&o=d&u=all&of=16


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> Cheaply engineered? Transrapid? LOL!!!!!
> 
> Now I have heard everything. That crash was caused by driver error by the way.


*I thought it was a drive less train?*


----------



## Tri-ring (Apr 29, 2007)

@Jay 

Your suggestions are as meaningless as adding protection built-in to a jet passenger airplane in case it falls out of the sky.:lol:


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

American Passenger cars: stay together, people inside don't get crushed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938573_carriages300ap.jpg
http://www.survivinggrady.com/uploaded_images/train_wreck-722192.jpg

European passenger cars: Crush passengers inside, I don't know what these things are made of but looking at the pictures is unbelievable

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/08/train_wideweb__430x268.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000/images/_632840_afpcrash300.jpg

This one hit a truck.. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010623/wld4.gif

I don't understand how you couldn't see the difference. People are safer in a stronger car.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

Without the history of the accidents (like speed, parties involved, etc.) these picture comparisons are more or less worthless.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Jay said:


> European passenger cars: Crush passengers inside, I don't know what these things are made of but looking at the pictures is unbelievable


* http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/08/train_wideweb__430x268.jpg
Crevalcore, Italy -> deaths: 13

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000/images/_632840_afpcrash300.jpg
Bruhl, Germany 2000 -> deaths: 9

* http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010623/wld4.gif
Levelcrossing collision in Vilseck, Germany 2001 -> deaths: 3 (including the driver of the truck)

better pic
http://www.feuerwehr-vilseck.de/einsaetze/historische%20Eins%E4tze/Zugungl%FCck/Zug_brennt_1.jpg

it hit this type of American army truck:










* http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/080808-czeck-hmed-6a.hmedium.jpg
2008 Studénka train disaster, Czech Republic -> deaths: 7

And America

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938573_carriages300ap.jpg
2002 Crescent City derailment -> deaths: 4, injured 

It didn't even hit something.

* 1993 Big Bayou Canot train wreck -> deaths: 47

* 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois train accident -> deaths: 11

* 2005 Glendale train crash -> deaths: 11

* 2008 Chatsworth train collision -> deaths: 25

All in all, there's isn't really difference in the deathtoll between the two continents, of course there's also the Eschede ICE disaster with 101 deaths, but that train was traveling 200 km/h (124 mph) when it crashed. There might also be more passenger train disasters in Europe then in the US, but that's because there are simply more trains running on this side of the ocean.

The whole point is that in Europe the focus is more on preventing the trains from crashing in the first place.


----------



## xlchris (Jun 23, 2006)

Train accident wich happened in Amsterdam a few months ago;









This one is in the Czech Republic, don't know what happened here;









Another one in the middle of Brühl;









And a train accident in Arnhem;


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

^that just proves my point, railroad cars, although hollow and not as heavy, could still be engineered better to withstand impact with things like locomotives, like using simple crash zones, or better structural frames. Yes, the cars crunching absorbs a lot of impact but it also crushes people on the inside, which from many of these pictures seems to be the cause of more death than the actual collision.


The Czech crash was when the train hit a collapsed bridge, you can see the four lane structure of it under the train, it's nearly ripped in half.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

In israel about a week ago a passenger train hit a 40 ton coal truck, at about 130kph the entire train was destroyed... Now obviously that is a huge thing to hit at 130 kph but still..

Look at the picture
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israeltraincrash8890622.html

Even though this train was only going about 80 kph when it hit this 40 ton truck... there is still no damage at all. No crew were hurt.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

You only keep posting pictures to try to illustrate your point. You associate cosmetic damage with poor design, a flawed assumption. 

When you were countered by Momo about the number of deaths in each of your examples where your more "rigid and protected" trains actually had more deaths on them, you refused to acknowledge the point at all, instead you changed the subject and showed yet more pictures. 

There are also a number of other issues with all of your posts:

#1. How many people are actually on each of these trains which you are posting? You're not giving PAX loading at each train crash and then working out casualties as a percentage of people on board a train. This would be more accurate a measure of the crash protection afforded by each train.

#2. You're not properly factoring speed into the equation and are refusing to standardise each crash by speed. 

#3. You're often comparing freight crashes with passenger train crashes.

#4. You're comparing EMU/DMU crashes with locomotive hauled crashes. Each mode of power for trains has its advantages and disadvantages with the push-pull nature of locomotive trains usually being the more criticised.

#5. The objects being struck are of significantly different construction and composition and thus drawing any inference from some stock photos of crashes is pointless. 

Until you can account for this plethora of variables I would suggest you stop harping on about this issue and simply accept that due to passenger demand, Asia and Europe probably design better trains to cope with passengers than North America and that North American safety standards are simply not applicable when extrapolated to Asian or European conditions.


----------



## ARailSystemsEngineer (Oct 24, 2006)

Most American trains have to suffer their huge number of unprotected at-grade crossings. The number of people killed on these dwarfs the number of passengers hurt on-board the train.

Rse


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Jay said:


> American Passenger cars: stay together, people inside don't get crushed
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938573_carriages300ap.jpg
> http://www.survivinggrady.com/uploaded_images/train_wreck-722192.jpg
> ...


So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?


----------



## ARailSystemsEngineer (Oct 24, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?


THere's more to life than safety. Maybe he works for a steel company... IN the meantime, let everyone elsewhere enjoy pleasant, fast, comfortable, safe, efficient trains that don't look, sound and smell like bulldozers

Rse


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Jonesy55 said:


> So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?



They don't necessarily need to be that much heavier... I don't know how much a typical full size European passenger car (26 meters 85 feet) weighs but they are probably are only slightly lighter than American ones. American passenger cars weigh about 54 tonnes or 60 short tons (120000 lb). Bilevels weigh closer to 140000 lbs 

For example, These amfleet coaches are made out of relatively thin but strong stainless steel, and can withstand at least 400 tons of impact on each side. And it shows, they never break or crush in collisions. And they are not super heavy, they weigh 58 tons (52 tonnes) tare weight. When the kerang incident happened in australia, the side of the train was ripped off because there is just a small sheet of aluminum, not much thicker than a soda can, that you could probably break a hammer through separating the inside of the car from the outside. If it had been one of these the damage would have been far less and at least more people would have lived. Also in collisions, when the train jacknifes, the walls wouldn't crush killing people inside.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

aawww i feel shorry for those sheep, although i guess its their own fault for being on the train tracks...


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Jay said:


> Blahblahblahblah... *snip*


Yet you still don't address any points that myself or Momo made. You simply try to equate a stronger train with less casualties. Not necessarily the case.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

The easy answer to the fancy fence question: Fences hinder animals from moving freely in the nature, especially the deers from crossing! This is sadly a risk you have to accept if you do not want to fence your intire landscape! But I agree that in areas like tunnels it would be a good thing to think about, because until the animals can be seen by the conducter it is too late. On a plain landscape however I see no need for fencing!


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

MikaGe said:


> ^^ They prefer flying instead. I don't think there will as much demand as in Europe/Japan even if they built it.


Yes, HST system would be good for Amrerican agglomerations. For the rest, the country is simply too huge!


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> The easy answer to the fancy fence question: Fences hinder animals from moving freely in the nature, especially the deers from crossing! This is sadly a risk you have to accept if you do not want to fence your intire landscape!


I guess I'll just have to disagree 100% with you, Skyline: I think that animals (deers, sheep, stray dogs...) on railway tracks is infamous, and a thing to be avoided at all costs and at all times. I've been telling myself that we don't need to fence in HSLs in the middle of farming country because there are no animals running around (at least if the farmers deal responsibly with their livestock), but if I thought there were the slightest risk of deers and stags crossing the lines then the lines should IMHO be fenced. Otherwise, how about for example the German Autobahns where the pass close by the Schwarzwald in Baden-Wuertemberg? Should they also be wide open to the forrest because "it is so environmentally correct & so ennobling so see a roe jump onto the windscreen of a passing car every now and again"? I think not. And, like the Autobahns, the railways tracks need to be separated from the wildlife.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Do you want to compare Autobahn traffic to railways in rural areas? :lol: And deers do not tend ot stay on tracks, they jump over them and that's all. But why should all people pay for a sheperd to fence his animals. And as said before: THEY WERE fenced, but someone opened the fence. Such things can happen. We could also fence all the sidewalks to leave only the crossings free to pass the street in order to avois children running onto the street - a kind of accident that happens thousands of times every day!


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Do you want to compare Autobahn traffic to railways in rural areas?


Certainly not! I consider it much more important to make sure that no person and no animal can accede to a hi-speed track than is the case with a road. After all, the newer railways in rural areas operate at 300-350 km/h - more than twice that of cars on the Autobahn. You may have noticed that the entity of the LGV Est between Paris and Baudrecourt is totally fenced off from the neighbouring fields and villages? Auch recht so!  

You seem to be stuck in the German railway philosophies of the 1990s? New ICE lines "are all good and well, but they should be seen as improvements on an existing railway architecture connecting neighbouring towns - thank you very much". Well, I beg to differ. To me TGVs are a close substitute to jet planes and it is at least as important to keep animals off the tracks as it is to keep them off the runways of the Rhein-Main Airport.


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Yet you still don't address any points that myself or Momo made. You simply try to equate a stronger train with less casualties. Not necessarily the case.



No, I get your point, the easier they crush the less impact their is, but that's only to a certain point, my point is if they crush too much people inside die, and I did give examples with the Israeli train crash and the heavy diesel engine hitting a similar sized truck. Emu's and railroad cars do not have to be built like locomotives, they should just be built tougher than they are, no vehicle should simply fly to pieces upon hitting a vehicle smaller than itself, that is poor engineering and nothing else. it is dangerous to travelers for passenger cars to be that weak, they should be able to withstand their own weight in a collision and not crush like a tin can.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

hans280 said:


> Certainly not! I consider it much more important to make sure that no person and no animal can accede to a hi-speed track than is the case with a road. After all, the newer railways in rural areas operate at 300-350 km/h - more than twice that of cars on the Autobahn. You may have noticed that the entity of the LGV Est between Paris and Baudrecourt is totally fenced off from the neighbouring fields and villages? Auch recht so!
> 
> You seem to be stuck in the German railway philosophies of the 1990s? New ICE lines "are all good and well, but they should be seen as improvements on an existing railway architecture connecting neighbouring towns - thank you very much". Well, I beg to differ. To me TGVs are a close substitute to jet planes and it is at least as important to keep animals off the tracks as it is to keep them off the runways of the Rhein-Main Airport.


I ask myself how animals get on tracks anyway? Do sheperds not care for their sheep who are their income? Or do they hope to get good money on court from the Bahn? http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=42KJWpIK3f8&feature=PlayList&p=8D56AD49FCECD701&playnext=1&index=66


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

TGV isn't all fenced either: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8skXT5NQzCg&feature=related
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8yszy1wltw8&feature=related


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Netherlands:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=2_v_rufgLGk&feature=related


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=JRksiN0aNgk&feature=related


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

TGV 500 km/h without fences: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ih3-2v3FA_M&feature=related


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

^^ Auuugh, that meshuggener Frankfurter just won't let up! :lol:

Let me make two things clear: (1) I was speaking of fences to keep errant sheep and dogs away, not pallisades. They follow the landscape and are often found 20-40 meters from the actual tracks; and (2) fences of the said kind one cannot see on a video clip when the picture moves at 500 km/h. (The fact that there are no railings around the level crossings of a Dutch provincial railway line I take as a given fact - even if an ICE happens to travel on the tracks.) 

Take a look at this still photo, please: http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JP=9476. If you look carefully you'll see the fences I'm talking about to the back of the photo on the high ground. I assure you, Skyline, that they are there all the way from Baudrecourt to the suburbs of Paris. The reason I'm so sure is because I had pre-cise-ly the same discussion with a German railway fan on the train between FFM and Paris. Together we monitored the sides of track for a long time and in the end he had to agree.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

I am so meshugge, that I even agree with you! Can one be meshuggener than that?  :lol: But it is a typical Deutscha Bahn problem, not to invest in basic needs and burn a lot of money for ugly train stations like Lehrter Bahnhof. I am not even a DB fan. Actually I HATE DB. It is even considered one of the company's German customers voted as most unfriendly and incompetent!  I still think there should at least be made passages for animals to be able to live as normal as possible to not being 100% fenced! 
I have't made the whole TGV tracks yet, so I cannot tell you whether 100% of France is fenced or not.


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

^^ AGREE with me?? Oh, Sancta Simplicitas... :nuts:

On the issue of the railway lines not becoming a barrier, well, they have built a number of under-passages for the wildlife in the forrested areas that are crossed by the line. The latter includes an area in Lorraine which was previously under national protection ("Naturschutzgebiet"), the protection of which was removed by the snap of the fingers as part of the planning procedures. That would NOT have been possible in my native Denmark, nor, I take it, in Germany? :nono:

As for the rest of the LGVs I don't think they are all fenced off. - At least that was not the case five years ago when I spent 30 uneventful minutes in an immobile TGV just outside Marseille while the police lassoed a group of errant cows. hno: I think the fact that LGV Est was traced consistently for 350 km/h made the planners decide to go for a more through-composed HS concept than previously. (The reason the line is not yet APPROVED for 350 km/h has nothing to do with technology and everything with the fact that France does not yet possess such trains whereas Germany does. :lol 

Personally I think you're being too negative toward DB: IMO they're doing a much better job with the resources they have than does SNCF. ICE3 is a better train than TGV; they have a better timeliness in their "Stundenverkehr"; and the efficiency in their railway operations is much, much better. (On the latter point, in Gare du Nord you see trains occupy platforms for up to HOURS while being cleaned and checked. But... the new Airport Express cannot leave from GdN because it is "saturated"... ) It's not DB's fault that the German public has less taste for "Grands Projets" than the French. Nor is it DB's fault that they have to operate in a federalist country where every cake has to be split dozens of ways to please "Städtekönige" and "Provinzfürsten".


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Well, I do think that DB is decaying, not investing and our govenrment will try to get rid of one of Germany's companies! Okay, that Transrapid went down the drain is all politicians' fault. And I hope that it will be baught by the Japanese to get their superior technolgy and planning here. DB sucks!


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Momo1435 said:


> * http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/08/train_wideweb__430x268.jpg
> Crevalcore, Italy -> deaths: 13
> 
> * http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000/images/_632840_afpcrash300.jpg
> ...



You mentioned the two ONLY times where anyone aboard an American train was killed because it hit a vehicle. It happens countless times in Europe and elsewhere, our trains are safer because they do NOT crush crumple and break apart upon impact with a truck, they rarely derail too.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Jay said:


> You mentioned the two ONLY times where anyone aboard an American train was killed because it hit a vehicle. It happens countless times in Europe and elsewhere, our trains are safer because they do NOT crush crumple and break apart upon impact with a truck, they rarely derail too.


No, the reason is that Americans do not even have an efficient railway system! So look how many of the slow trains here in Europe crash. The only main crashes that occur are with high speed trains. And the train system in Europe is superdense and crosses all the major agglomerations also at high speed! You simply cannot compare the simple American system to hightech systems elsewhere! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

That's true

Of course you're safer in those big American trains when there's an accident, but has it ever crossed your mind why American passenger rail travel is almost non existent. If all European trains would be as heavy as the American ones, it will be just to expensive to operate all those trains even to smaller towns all over the continent. 

And if you look at the hard numbers, rail travel is still very safe in Europe. The number of casualties per train kilometer might even be much lower then in the US, so there's no actual need for heavier trains. But that doesn't mean it's not issue, we just go smart solutions like better train protection systems and active crash zones to make trains safer. 

In the end of the day, how important is safety for the average traveler. I mean, trains are much safer then cars for example....


----------



## Jay (Oct 7, 2004)

Momo1435 said:


> That's true
> 
> Of course you're safer in those big American trains when there's an accident, but has it ever crossed your mind why American passenger rail travel is almost non existent. If all European trains would be as heavy as the American ones, it will be just to expensive to operate all those trains even to smaller towns all over the continent.
> 
> ...



I don't actually think there's really any significant size difference between American and European trains, I don't know about the weight though, how much does an average 26 meter long rail car weigh there? Anyways that's not a very good excuse I don't think. Just because there's a lot of them does not mean you can't build them strong and safe, It would not take a lot of extra weight or money, just some engineering smarts.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

From the European Rail Agency 2008 Biennial Report on Safety Performance:

Safety comparisons globally

The Agency has tried to compare EU safety performance of
the railways with that of other developed countries outside
of Europe. Such comparisons are not easy to carry out, mainly
due to the lack of published data and comparable indicators
and definitions. However, a small study executed by the Agency
has allowed us to compare safety performance in the EU with
that of the USA (national rail by AMTRAK and commuter rail,
published by the Federal Railroad Administration).

The comparison provides evidence that safety on Europe’s railways is at least as good as that on the US railroads. In the period 2004 to 2007 an average of 0,24 passengers fatalities were recorded per billion passenger kilometre in the US. The EU average during the period from 2004 to 2006 was 0,18 fatalities per billion passenger kilometres. The same type of indicators are used both in the US and in Europe.


Source: http://www.era.europa.eu/core/Safety/Pages/Accident%20Investigation.aspx


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

^^ Very good find! And not to forget: It is not Amtrak technology that is sold around the world!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

earthJoker said:


> engine driver


The engine driver survived.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

This type of accident can be avoided by simply installing a barrier between the rails, but I guess it was to expensive so they obviously prefer darwin awards and expensive cleanup of the station and paralyzing the traintraffic.

I wonder what would have been more expensive, 200 meters of fence, or this accident (firefighters, policemen, hospital staff, technicians, psycologists, cleaners etc working overtime) not to mention the traintraffic beeing paralyzed for days. And of cause the investigation, not that there is anything to investigate but why not spend some more taxpayers money while we're at it.


----------



## Peloso (May 17, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Ok, got it. I was reading the news in my original language and it was translated (in English equivalent) like "bullet train running up to 280km/h split bodies in halves as passengers were forced to take a detour over the tracks", and then the journalist comments that Italy should enforce lower max speed for trains crossing stations without stopping at 80 or 60 km/h to avoid this kind of tragedy.


So let me see, people die in Barcelona, and Italy should enforce new rules? If the journalist really wrote that, then Darwin commands we tied that journalist to the rails until the first train passes, to let the press species evolve in a positive way.


----------



## Andres_Low (Apr 21, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> The engine driver survived.


Even if this is not his fault, will need psychological support after the accident


----------



## Andres_Low (Apr 21, 2010)

K_ said:


> What could be done (in my opinion) is putting a fence between the two tracks in stations. That way you signal in a very clear way to passengers that crossing the tracks is not only dangerous, but also that it won't get you anywhere...


It´s a great idea, but as far as I know its conflicting with emegency rules...


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

The most of them in this case were south american immigrants (probably all). Catalonia is living a official day of mourning and the king Juan Carlos I has suspended all his acts.
Terrible hno:


----------



## Bart_LCY (Feb 10, 2006)

> Do we need better track segregation?


Nope. What we need, what some young people need this days, is the correct upbringing. Hopefully this accident will teach them something.


----------



## Cicerón (May 15, 2006)

It was the result of an idiotic behaviour. There is an underpass which according to them was full of people so they decided to cross the tracks. According to the train event recorder, the train was running at a legal speed and *hooted for 14 seconds*. 

Also, crossing the tracks is fined with €6,001 - €30,000 in Spain.




> Ley 4/2006, de 31 de marzo, ferroviaria.
> 
> Son faltas graves:
> 
> ...








And they still say "I don't know if there is an underpass there, and I don't care" hno:

The underpass:


Danzig said:


> El paso inferior:


The train:


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Oh and please note all of you that it has little to do with ethnicity.
Most of the killed THIS TIME were Southamericans, yes, but I see it everyday, and it is not only them. IT´S EVERYBODY, even the English and German and Dutch tourists, who seem to forget about discipline once they´re here...  

My friend Albert was a Spaniard, he crossed the tracks too and got killed some ten years ago in another station of that very same line though we kept telling and telling him not to do so. 

They´ve put fences, sometimes they´ve even built them, no problem: they will break them down, sometimes even with a hammer, to keep on crossing, even if an underpass or an overpass is only some yards away, just to avoid one or two minutes of extra walking.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

^^Obviusly, I only was giving information about tragedy, don't get me wrong.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Pavlemadrid said:


> ^^Obviusly, I only was giving information about tragedy, don't get me wrong.


Tranqui tron, no pasa nada... 

I know you don´t, but other people could misunderstand.

The thing is, why this happens more often on the Mediterranean coast of Spain rather than in central Spain or the Atlantic Spanish coast...


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> The engine driver survived.


???

I assume he did, I wouldn't send him my best wishes otherwise. To wish someone dead well doesn't make sense for an agnostic. It's the living that have to live on with what have happened; that make me feel sad.


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

437.001 said:


> Tranqui tron, no pasa nada...
> 
> I know you don´t, but other people could misunderstand.
> 
> The thing is, why this happens more often on the Mediterranean coast of Spain rather than in central Spain or the Atlantic Spanish coast...


Ok 

I think it's because Mediterranean cost has looots of railways in urban areas and all the provinces are very populated, central Spain is much less populated, just Madrid metropolitan area is dense, and our railways are usually outside cities or well protected. Atlantic areas are not as urban as Mediterranean, and hasn't many railways in residential areas like BCN.
Cataluña and Comunidad Valenciana are the winners.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Pavlemadrid said:


> Ok
> 
> I think it's because Mediterranean cost has looots of railways in urban areas and all the provinces are very populated, central Spain is much less populated, just Madrid metropolitan area is dense, and our railways are usually outside cities or well protected. Atlantic areas are not as urban as Mediterranean, and hasn't many railways in residential areas like BCN.
> Cataluña and Comunidad Valenciana are the winners.


Winners? :lol:

Well if it means winners of the trophy of most overbuilt Mediterranean regions, could be...

In terms of population, I agree mosty of central Spain is not exactly overcrowded, but still there´s Madrid...
As for Northern Spain: Bilbao, Asturias and Cantabria may well be not as populated as the MEDiterranean, but railways there are dense and across urban, industrial, or rural/urban areas, so this is why I believe people there are more disciplined.

BTW could anyone please tell me what the devil is a Darwin Award?
I´m not much into computers, you see...


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

437.001 said:


> BTW could anyone please tell me what the devil is a Darwin Award?


The Awards honor people who ensure the long-term survival of the human race by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion

http://www.darwinawards.com/


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Thank you! 
I kind of suspected it, but I wasn´t entirely sure of it.
Thank you.

Come to think of it, did Darwin study the lemmings?


----------



## Pavlemadrid (Nov 30, 2006)

437.001 said:


> Winners? :lol:
> 
> Well if it means winners of the trophy of most overbuilt Mediterranean regions, could be...
> 
> ...


:lol:
Yes, it's not good to be the winner in this case.
Yes, and also southern Galicia and A Coruña metropolitan area are very populated, but there isn't many accidents like in Catalonia or Valencia, and I think these areas have dense railways and across urban, industrial, or rural/urban areas.
I'm asking in spanish forum, I can't understand it.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> The engine driver survived.





Andres_Low said:


> Even if this is not his fault, will need psychological support after the accident


Some train drivers are so traumatised after this kind of accidents that can't drive trains anymore...even if they have not any fault.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> Some train drivers are so traumatised after this kind of accidents that can't drive trains anymore...even if they have not any fault.


It must be very very hard and frustrating for them to see it coming all of a sudden and not being able to stop it.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

News: the authorities have been able to count the body parts and it turned out there was one more corpse than they thought. 

This might give you an idea of the state of the bodies...

13 dead then, and as for the injured, one very critical, two critical, and 19 injured to several degree.

Some of them will have to be identified by DNA. 

hno:hno:hno:hno:


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Same in the UK, platforms are too high for most people to easily climb up. Pictures like that would never happen here.

I remember being at school and being shown educational videos by the police. I remember one particular point being that an electric train going at 100mph is so quiet that you typically only have 3 or 4 seconds to get out of the way once your ears have noticed it (unless your listening out for it and know what to listen out for).

And then they said if the train doesn't get you the electricity will. And then they told the story of many 10 year olds (same age as the kids in that class) who won a DA. It left an impression on us.


----------



## entfe001 (Jul 2, 2005)

Also note that, as 437.001 explained before, the platforms on the station where the accident happened are higher than those which appear on my photos, which are about half a meter, so the imprudence is even worse.

If I have some spare time this afternoon after I visit the Bon Pastor - Sagrera metro inauguration I might go to the fatal station to take some pictures and post them here.

However, even in FGC stations where the platforms are more than a meter high I witnessed people crossing the tracks, although obliously fewer than on Renfe network.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

An easy way to eliminate this type of abuse is to use island platforms where it is completely impossible to enter or exit the station any other way than through the under or overpass. This is standard in many countries.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

entfe001 said:


>


This is a design flaw, if you isolate the station from the platforms people are forced to use the tunnel, now it is simply much easier to cross the tracks and humans are by their nature lazy so they always seek the shortest route.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Now here is an example of how you avoid people running across the tracks.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^Agreed. 46cm is too low to pose a challenge. In situations like this, as suggested, one should make it impossible to access the outermost platform from the street or station hall. Once someone has to take a tunnel anyway, chances are one is taking it from the island platform instead of taking a shortcut.


----------



## Aan (Nov 5, 2007)

gincan said:


> This is a design flaw, if you isolate the station from the platforms people are forced to use the tunnel, now it is simply much easier to cross the tracks and humans are by their nature lazy so they always seek the shortest route.


it's not really design flaw, we have plattforms of same height in Slovakia and I never seen anyone crossing tracks anywhere where is tunnel available, it must have something to do with education and common sense

btw. I'm big fan of high plattforms, because of quicker passenger exchange in train (about 98% of trains in Slovakia are not low floor), 55cm is very low plattform

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1048797


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Higher platforms are not the all-cure thing, though.

I´ve seen people in the Paris and Madrid underground climbing up and down those platforms, which are just as high as in the Tube in London. 
It is true though that doing that in the underground is much more dangerous, and in both cases it was suburban gangs who were crossing. 

It´s a cultural problem, people in central Spain and northern Spain (Atlantic Spanish coast) are usually much more decent about doing these things than us mediterraneans. And I could talk about many other things.

Because crossing the tracks like lemmings is NOT decent.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

entfe001 said:


> Also note that, as 437.001 explained before, the platforms on the station where the accident happened are higher than those which appear on my photos, which are about half a meter, so the imprudence is even worse.
> 
> If I have some spare time this afternoon after I visit the Bon Pastor - Sagrera metro inauguration I might go to the fatal station to take some pictures and post them here.
> 
> However, even in FGC stations where the platforms are more than a meter high I witnessed people crossing the tracks, although obliously fewer than on Renfe network.


Eloi, I suggest you to put the pics of Cerdanyola-UAB in the national thread so people from other parts of Spain can make themselves an idea of what it´s like to be a train driver in suburban Barcelona and Tarragona (just in case you haven´t done it yet...). 

It wouldn´t be a bad idea to send all these pics to a newspaper or a TV asking them to be published, either... 
It´s never been a better moment do to it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2010)

All I can add, is that I actually spend few months in Barcelona some time ago and did take Renfe to Playa de Castelldefels and witnessed the sheer carelessness of the passengers every single time the train arrived. They just crossed the tracks from front and behind of the train whenever they alighted, not even paying attention if anything is coming on the second track. Its not a surprise to me at all that it happened.


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

Only two years ago a similar accident happened close to my place. Some teenagers disembarked the train and wanted to reach the bus in front of the station as soon as possible. Instead of taking the underpass, they ran over the rail. They did not see that another train was coming on the second rail. An American girl, who was here on a year abroad, was pushed down to the ground because of the suction caused by the train. She hit her head and died on spot.

Horrible for all the teenagers there, horrible for her guest parents who had to tell the parents in the US that their daughter just died.

Still people don't learn and I often see people cross rails.


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

^^ well you can not really learn if you die, it is kinda over at that point. It is just an accident things like this happen all the time, I bet.


----------



## Andre_idol (Aug 6, 2008)

xerxesjc28 said:


> ^^ well you can not really learn if you die, it is kinda over at that point. It is just an accident things like this happen all the time, I bet.


I bet the "friends" that were with her learnt a lesson...


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

437.001 said:


> The signs are all in Spanish, so they perfectly knew what could happen to them, given the obvious fact that Ecuador, Colombia, and Bolivia speak Spanish, and they currently were living in... Spain.
> And if it´s true that the accent is rather different (just as much as the Yorkshire and Texan accents are), "salida->" ("exit->" in Spanish) has exactly the same meaning in both Spanish and Southamerican accents...


I wasn't doubting their ability to read the signs, I was doubting their ability to assess the danger they were putting themselves in.


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

Jay said:


> So if you saw a crowd of people jumping off a cliff you would go join them? Just look to see if a train is coming, and don't linger because they come fast, it's very simple.


No, because I rarely ever want to be at the bottom of a cliff. The point is that if it saves a few seconds and everybody is doing it then it could look like a good idea to someone unfamiliar. It is a similar situation if you ever travel to somewhere in the third world, you would cross a busy street like the locals do, even though you would be shocked if someone did the same at home.


----------



## Jozsef Bedenek (Aug 24, 2009)

*Prevention program of rail/road accidents*

A few days ago we could witness a simulated level-crossing accident. Here an old car was hit by two diesel engines at 20 kph, the brake distance came out to be 50 metres. Since this is an international program, and (cause there's no injuries) it's quite spectacular, I was wondering wether it was, or it's going to be held in your country too.

result of crash:


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

Here is a video of a very similar situation somewhere in northern India: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0CjDBndwc8

Luckily all escaped. This time.


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

Andre_idol said:


> I bet the "friends" that were with her learnt a lesson...


Recently someone told me that he knew one of the girls involved and that she had to visit a shrink to cope with the event.

I guess she won't cross tracks anymore, but unfortunately it doesn't prevent others from doing it.

In the end it's not really a problem of segregation, fences and banners, it's lack of awareness.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

Koen Acacia said:


> I wasn't doubting their ability to read the signs, I was doubting their ability to assess the danger they were putting themselves in.


I know, I know...
It was an ironic way to point that I seriously doubt they bothered reading them.

Two rumours going on today, but as the enquiry is going on, I can´t tell if there´s some truth behind them. One rumour says they were at the last train door trying to avoid the controller, and as the doors opened, they rushed across the rails. Another rumour says that there was a police control somewhere in the station (the underpass?) to check there weren´t glass objects as those people were going to a festival on the beach so they would have crossed the rails.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I don't support fare dodgers AT ALL, though I don't think anyone deserves do die for it. But I agree many European countries have this problem in specific routes/days: big events catering for a young crowd that don't use trains frequently and find the idea of fare dodging too tempting.

In Italy, last year, they had a mini-riot in Bologna Station at the eve of the "Notte Bianca", a night-long concert (free) held in Rome (most famous) and other cities. The youths (14-17 mostly) used for a long time to just travel without any ticket in low-speed cheap trains to Rome, attend concert and come back. But, rightfully, Trenitalia 3/4 years ago started cracking down this practice with surprisingly effectiveness (mostly by restricting access to platforms in critical days/trains to ticketed passengers only). Then, in Bologna (a major rail junction for Italy, most busy station in the country), youths that had managed to get there from North couldn't travel onward to Rome. It was chaotic, other trains were diverted to nearby stations, and at one point most trains were halt because the bastards had steeped down in the tracks demanding trains to take them to the concert in Rome.

I don't know the specifics of this crowd in this station, but I can assure that when you gather young people + too much alcohol + an arrogant entitlement sense ("c'mon, one day, I don't have money but I have a right to travel regardless") + unprepared police/security, disaster will be waiting to happen.

Maybe (just guessing) they could reinforce police presence in stations when an unusual high flow of "problematic" people (young, drunk and in crowds) is expected.

Moreover, some easy (though not always cheap) measures can curb the attractiveness of most track crossing, like cutting direct access from street to outermost platforms, channeling all passengers to the same tunnel/overpass.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

trainrover said:


> Suicide pits and (wire?) fencing came to mind from listening to the report on this mishap, wherefrom we may have an instance where third rail trumps catenary ... ... ... maybe dummy third rails coupled to sensational, electric-looking, pictogrammed warnings might prove to be the deterrence


That would do, until someone would discover the fake.


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

Unless it is actually wired into a 700V DC source, even if trains wern't running using it, it might work as good as an electric fence.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

UD2 said:


> Trains here in Canada rings a bell that can be heard 50 meters away over the sound of the engine as it enters.
> 
> Throughfare trains not stopping at a station in Canada always hit the horn if passing during day time hours.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I think whether liberal use of horns is appropriate depends on the station really.

On distant rural stations/crossings which only get a few trains per day or week, I can see them being useful.

On a busy commuter(such as the one in which this accident took place) or intercity station which can get several trains per minute and is often located in the middle of a dense residential area, it would simply be too noisy and disruptive to both the passengers and locals if trains hit their horns every time they passed through. Your description of horns in countries that implement this policy as being like "the end of the world" and "a horde of screaming elephants" doesn't exactly make it look like a good idea.

In the UK you get a pre-recorded announcement which warns of a passing train and which platforms it is passing, occasionally a quick blip on the horn, and nothing more. Horn blares are reserved for actual emergencies. Seems to work fine.

Since it was the passengers who were responsible for this accident, any solution or restriction must be imposed on them, not the railways.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

In the UK they only seem to hit the horn if theres a trainspotter on the platform, or if they can see people stood close to the platform before they enter.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

437.001 said:


> That would do, until someone would discover the fake.


Alright, but come such a time, a would-be trespasser would have had ample time within which to reflect whether her/his shortcut be worthwhile.....tricky signage would function fine for passengers' immediate awareness.....the longer somebody decides at peforming a dangerous maneuvre, I think we'd find the less likely s/he'd be inclined to endanger either her/himself or others nearby.





G5man said:


> Unless it is actually wired into a 700V DC source, even if trains wern't running using it, it might work as good as an electric fence.


^^ This is my favourite proposal thus far, although I'd lower the current to an intensity gauged for --say-- cows...






Republica said:


> higher platforms


Precisely.


----------



## kjoseph717 (Mar 2, 2010)

In many parts of Asia, there are, for crowded lines at least, platforms walls that prevent passengers from getting near the edges, suicide, hearing impared and strollers (if you recall what happened in Australia) it may seem a bit extreme, but it prevents the unwarranted travel across tracks.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

kjoseph717 said:


> In many parts of Asia, there are, for crowded lines at least, platforms walls that prevent passengers from getting near the edges, suicide, hearing impared and strollers (if you recall what happened in Australia) it may seem a bit extreme, but it prevents the unwarranted travel across tracks.


It´s okay, but the question is, is it worth it spending a lot of money in idiot-proof railways, or is it better to spend that money in far more needed extensions of the net or upgrading of stations and trains?


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

The best idoit proof..

simply plaster this news report permanently all over the train staion. with the words.

Cross the Tracks = Die.


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

Delete


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

We have Fences and announcements for our busier lines and safe crossing areas.


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

Guys, I can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff! I mean... in my native Denmark, which doesn't have ANYTHING that can be called highspeed trains, the maximum speed for passing railway stations is 140 km/h. There's an announcement over the loudspeakers that "Passthrough train is approaching. Please step back from the tracks". There are no fences, walls or (unlike the Bangkok sky train...) angry officials blowing whistles, and the train drivers are legally prohibited from using their horns except in the case of imminent danger. People simply do not cross the tracks. It couldn't be simpler. Just don't... cross... the... blinking... tracks! hno:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Republica said:


> In the UK they only seem to hit the horn if theres a trainspotter on the platform, or if they can see people stood close to the platform before they enter.


Last time I was in the UK I saw on TV that a "dangerous guy" had trespassed into the railway ... trains in an area of about 100 miles werethen STOPPPPPED untill the prevaricator was identified and removed.


Aparently it was just an old drunk that had fallen asleep in the main tracks of WCML somewhere up north ... . :lol:



Republica said:


> Wow, I've never crossed a running train track, and i cant believe people do!
> 
> Of course only the odd nut case would do this in the UK, with the higher platforms. It isn't something that would ever cross anyone mind.
> 
> When I first saw this I presumed it was a pedestrian crossing - some UK lines have these, and people are sometimes killed on them.


It's very common around most european countries ... :dunno:



Andres_Low said:


> The question is, should humans be treated as cattle when designing stations? my answer is no, people should respect the signals and be resposible. However, there is an exception, and this applies to all the stations that will be crowded at some point like near stadiums or other events... then yeah, go ahead and use kilometers or barbed wire if necessary. Somehow peoples stupidity increases when gathering in high number.



Railways on denselly urbanized corridors SHOULD/MUST be completelly segregated ... stations should be built/upgraded as to allow for safe passage even at peak times. :dunno:


Old times:











Nowadays:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

437.001 said:


> It´s okay, but the question is, is it worth it spending a lot of money in idiot-proof railways, or is it better to spend that money in far more needed extensions of the net or upgrading of stations and trains?


spending monwey in IDIOT PROOF protections is always better than spending it on psichological treatment for train drivers and massive dosis of industrial solvents to remove blood stains from EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:nuts:


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

hans280 said:


> Guys, I can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff! I mean... in my native Denmark, which doesn't have ANYTHING that can be called highspeed trains, the maximum speed for passing railway stations is 140 km/h. There's an announcement over the loudspeakers that "Passthrough train is approaching. Please step back from the tracks". There are no fences, walls or (unlike the Bangkok sky train...) angry officials blowing whistles, and the train drivers are legally prohibited from using their horns except in the case of imminent danger. People simply do not cross the tracks. It couldn't be simpler. Just don't... cross... the... blinking... tracks! hno:


You're not the only one, I'm feeling precisely the same way. It's like a country-wide warning system for pedestrians when they're approaching a highway. I thought it was common sense to all but the totally lunatic that pedestrians do not enter highways or cross train tracks. :dunno:


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

hans280 said:


> Guys, I can't believe I'm reading some of this stuff! I mean... in my native Denmark, which doesn't have ANYTHING that can be called highspeed trains, the maximum speed for passing railway stations is 140 km/h. There's an announcement over the loudspeakers that "Passthrough train is approaching. Please step back from the tracks". There are no fences, walls or (unlike the Bangkok sky train...) angry officials blowing whistles, and the train drivers are legally prohibited from using their horns except in the case of imminent danger. People simply do not cross the tracks. It couldn't be simpler. Just don't... cross... the... blinking... tracks! hno:


About seven years ago in some other Canadian city, some 160Km/Hr intercity train whipped its way through an inner-city, twin-tracked commuter station. The driver sounded its feeble bell but didn't whistle (horn); there was no announcement either over the PA-equipped platforms either (actually, there was some announcement only minutes before the intercity's passing, telling inbound commuter passengers to cross over to the other track [separate platform]! for their train, because it was being routed onto the other track). The train 'kicked' up some loose ballast really fast; I heard the pebble(?) zing by me, and wouldn't you know it, the blight of ballast hit the next passenger to me, about 20 metres away, squarely in the eye, to the point where he was blinded, in pain, and yelped out for anybody to help him as he stumbled about the *low* platform (there was another passenger waiting closer to him who was able to claw him away from the sides of the rushing coaches). Further proof why tall platforms are necessary.

Very yankeelandish, were anybody to ask me...






Nexis said:


>


Astonishing! that train was filmed bouncing around *FAR TOO* much for high speed rolling stock...


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

Koen Acacia said:


> You're not the only one, I'm feeling precisely the same way. It's like a country-wide warning system for pedestrians when they're approaching a highway. I thought it was common sense to all but the totally lunatic that pedestrians do not enter highways or cross train tracks. :dunno:


Your comparison with a highway is very good, Koen. I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps that's why - if I've understood it correctly - the victims of the Spanish accident were from South America? From what I've seen their train pass through stations (and other places...) at a snail's pace. It will not have occurred to them that a train could come thundering out of the darkness at 200 km/h. Still... when in Rome, do like the Romans.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

trainrover said:


> Astonishing! that train was filmed bouncing around *FAR TOO* much for high speed rolling stock...


From my understanding, isn't the Acela a "pseudo-high speed" train like the UK's Pendolinos, in that it runs on conventional track and uses tilting technology to navigate around curves? I wouldn't expect it to meet all the requirements of proper HSR.



hans280 said:


> Your comparison with a highway is very good, Koen. I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps that's why - if I've understood it correctly - the victims of the Spanish accident were from South America? From what I've seen their train pass through stations (and other places...) at a snail's pace. It will not have occurred to them that a train could come thundering out of the darkness at 200 km/h. Still... when in Rome, do like the Romans.


I considered that, someone from a country with little/no rail service, or where trains are huge, slow, loud things, might not expect one to quietly zoom through a small commuter station at high speed. But from what I've heard about this station, crossing the tracks seems to be a common thing by both locals and immigrants alike.

In any case, I think the best solution seems to be raising the platforms to discourage people from climbing up and down them, although if the trains are built to accommodate the lower height, then it may cause accessibility problems.


----------



## G5man (Jul 28, 2008)

Apoc89 said:


> From my understanding, isn't the Acela a "pseudo-high speed" train like the UK's Pendolinos, in that it runs on conventional track and uses tilting technology to navigate around curves? I wouldn't expect it to meet all the requirements of proper HSR..


Most definitely correct. Acela is exactly that except with electric propulsion.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

G5man said:


> Most definitely correct. Acela is exactly that except with electric propulsion.


The Pendolino is electric too btw. The Bombardier Super Voyager (aka the Vomet Comet) is used by the same train company and aren't electric but there aren't many of them.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Apoc89 said:


> From my understanding, isn't the Acela a "pseudo-high speed" train like the UK's Pendolinos, in that it runs on conventional track and uses tilting technology to navigate around curves? I wouldn't expect it to meet all the requirements of proper HSR.


Still it shouldn't be bouncing around like that. But UK Pendolinos would have done the same. And if the Acela was brought to the WCML in the UK they wouldn't bounce. The problem is the quality of that track in that footage.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

I suggest that the discussion about the accident in Spain should perhaps be moved here.

I want to post news about the high speed rail in Spain thread, but since it is sort of hijacked by people debating about the accident, and I don´t want to get those posts lost in the flood of the accident-related posts, I don´t post.

So please, if any moderator could move that.

Why do people don´t use the thread index?


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

I wouldn't say hijacked, since --from what I've read over there-- that Spanish, accident-prone track segment is a temporary measure preceding implementation of HSR service in the district.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

No it isn´t, it´s permanent, what is temporary is the speed limit there, the kind of trains that use that section, and the signalling (unfortunately). 

But you´d rather carry on talking about the accident here in this thread if you don´t mind, please. 

I´d like to post some new stuff about HSR in Spain, and I feel a bit uneasy to post it while there´s other folk talking about the accident.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

By temporary, I mean for HST services.


----------



## joseph1951 (Aug 19, 2007)

Jay said:


> No, they only have four axles.. the double decker RENFE's max out at 86 tonnes per car, (74 Tonnes tare) plus I don't know the name of them but these new italian double deckers max out at 95 tonnes per car (78 tonnes tare weight) Pic below (Also used in Morroco)
> 
> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:50&biw=1024&bih=605
> 
> ...


ETR500: locomotive 68 tons (17 T/AXLE), carriages 42 T (empty) = 10.5 t/axle.

http://www.ansaldobreda.it/Portals/...ilways/Highspeed/etr500/Pdf/86_ITA_ETR500.pdf


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

*An AVE on fire in France.*

An AVE on the route Marseille-Madrid caught fire this morning (at about 9AM) at Lunel station (between Nîmes and Montpellier, in France).
It was the AVE number 100.022. Looks like it will need a new engine. The fire only affected the engine.
Seven injured though, probably frightened passengers who got hurt when they tried to break the windows in panic.



Sr.Horn said:


> http://infos-h24.fr/blog/2015/08/02...ge/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sr.Horn said:


> https://twitter.com/infoemerg/status/627780279512510464





Caolín said:


> Otra más.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

There was a train crash in Barcelona yesterday.
Incredibly, images have leaked already:






:cripes: It was harder than I thought.

A 10-car class 465 double EMU (5+5 cars), on a Sant Vicenç de Calders to Barcelona-Estació de França R2 service, crashed at 07:15am at the end of platform 11, all platforms at Estació de França are bay platforms.

56 injured, some grave (among them the driver). Let's hope they'll recover as quickly as possible.



Only two possible explanations:

a) human mistake (lack of attention or sudden illness).

b) train failure (brakes). 

Note how the buffer stops in this station are hydraulic.


----------



## Gedeon (Apr 5, 2013)

437.001 said:


> Note how the buffer stops in this station are hydraulic.


They really don't have that much give.


----------



## ililo23 (May 15, 2016)

437.001 said:


> Note how the buffer stops in this station are hydraulic.


Hydraulic system was already withdrawn due to high maintenance costs.


----------



## suasion (Sep 7, 2015)

I was just looking at the system in Frankfurt Main Hbf the other day and I thought it was a little bit too much. Now after watching that clip, I'm of the opinion that too many stations have woefully inadequate buffer systems.


----------



## 437.001 (Mar 27, 2009)

There was another deadly Alvia accident just the other day in Spain.
That happened at La Hiniesta, just west of Zamora (NW Spain).

A class S-730 Alvia train on the Madrid to Ferrol line (or Ferrol to Madrid, don't remember right now), did hit an SUV that fell from an overpass.
The SUV driver (89 yo) and a young (32 yo) would-be train driver who was in training practice died, there were some passengers and staff injured (not sure about the actual train driver, I think he got injured?).
The pictures look horrific, but thankfully it was nowhere near as bad as the Santiago crash.

The train was running at 120 km/h.
I'm not sure whether the train did hit the SUV as it fell, or after it had already fallen onto the tracks.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 25, 2010)




----------

