Hacker News
points by peri-cl 1 day ago | 0 comments
El Pais is reporting they think it was a controller error,

https://elpais.com/espana/2026-10-28/por-que-han-chocado-dos...

An automated system[*] had failed earlier this morning, so controllers were working manually.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienzugbeeinflussung ("LZB")

[added translation]: "The LZB safety system, which controls Spain's high-speed rail network, malfunctioned on Wednesday morning, causing about eight trains to come to a halt in the area. The control center then switched to manual control and ordered all trains to resume operation. However, the Iryo, for reasons that remain unclear, was unable to start and remained stationary. And that is where human error came into play, according to these initial hypotheses."

[–] numpad0 1 day ago
They ran the trains with no blocking, not even tokens!? In 2026!? Unbelievable.
[–] hecturchi 1 day ago
There was a human override after all trains stopped.
[–] numpad0 1 day ago
Those override switches are dangerous enough to have tamper evident seals, or sometimes padlocks. And even if they are to be used, there just must be something mechanical to substitute those systems, most simply and least efficiently by physical tokens(tablets) assigned to each stations. Trains had those systems literally since late 19th century.

Passenger service with just verbal orders over a phone is simply unacceptable.

[–] agumonkey 23 hours ago
I know nothing about railroad systems but in complicated / ambiguous situations, is it possible to limit train speed to make it easier to monitor or control traffic ?
[–] numpad0 18 hours ago
You're not supposed to run trains in ambiguous situations period.

On single lines with bi-directional services, you can design and implement a token based lock system: it's literally a token, often referred to as tablets, what inspired mutexes in computer science. They are like a golden medal or a durable hunk of metal, with the name of the station it belongs to engraved, often enclosed in a leather case or something. The arriving train drops the token it holds at the station, and obtains the new one when departing. The trains traveling opposite side will return them. When a train fails to obtain it, whether because it merely failed to catch it or the new one hasn't arrived, it MUST stop once, before it technically leaves the part of the rail that is considered "the station", until one is obtained.

This won't work as-is if there's going to be a T shaped crossing in which lines branch from the trunk line into short segments to stations. The crossing must be a station with its own lock token in that case. But that also can be some sort of crude technical stop for staff uses only with just maintenance guys with helmets and vests as station masters and apprentices moving the tokens around.

If they couldn't get computers handle it or make signals turn from red to blue or at least red to nothing, and didn't even have that token system, the train cannot move. It may technically be able to, and maybe it's ok for moving just few meters back and forth, but that's it. The trains should not have been operated at all if they couldn't figure out the computers.

[–] weebull 1 day ago
Honestly, to blame the controller after the automated system has failed is pretty low. The system does not run this way normally for good reasons, and whilst the controller maybe trained to handle the situation they won't be well practised at it.

The primary reason is computer failure followed by the decision to run the system manually.

[–] martijnvds 1 day ago
When computers fail here in the Netherlands, trains are just stopped until they can be fixed.

In some cases, trains can be ordered to drive "at sight" -- slow enough (walking speed, basically) to stop if there's something visible on the tracks that shouldn't be there (train, car, person, cow, whatever)

[–] hecturchi 1 day ago
All trains stopped. Then a train was cleared to continue full speed while next one was waiting on a red light.
[–] wabDeq-sozhym-d 13 hours ago
I wasn’t waiting. They was unable to restart and they told the control of this.
[–] tosti 1 day ago
Not just when computers fail. When union negotiations fail, when it's too cold, when it's too hot, when it snows, when nature drops a leaf on the railroad tracks, or whenever they come up with a new excuse.
[–] crote 1 day ago
> When union negotiations fail

You don't want trains to collide because sick people are forced to work when they shouldn't and realistically can't.

> when it's too cold

You don't want trains to derail due to rails breaking.

> when it's too hot

You don't want trains to derail due to rails buckling.

> when it snows

You don't want trains to go the wrong way (including into another train) due to switches freezing shut.

> when nature drops a leaf on the railroad tracks

You don't want trains to collide as slippery rails made braking impossible.

> or whenever they come up with a new excuse.

Usually it's a reason, not an excuse. Train people like nothing more than seeing the trains ride past, they don't cancel them unless they absolutely have to. Just because you don't personally understand the reasoning behind it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[–] tosti 20 hours ago
That's the thing. They know it was built poorly and can't handle pretty much anything, so they don't trust the hardware and get a few extra days off as an added convenience.
[–] martijnvds 1 day ago
You haven't used trains elsewhere if you think Dutch ones are bad.

Try a few weeks of German trains. Sometimes no trains leave on time for weeks.

[–] edaemon 1 day ago
Those inconveniences prevent tragedies like this one.
[–] gpvos 1 day ago
Proper training focuses specifically on those exceptional situations (like it does for airplane pilots), with strong emphasis on always falling back on safe procedures. Even so, you can't cover 100% of possibilities.