Hacker News

points by silverFork 1 day ago | 0 comments

How is this even possible in this day and age. It can be all automated, double and quad checked enroute ..

This route is the last of the Spanish high speed lines that still has an older train protection system. There has been a similar accident in 2002 in Germany where LZB was also used: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienf%C3%B6rmige_Zugbeeinflu... . Now after 24 years you might think they had mitigating procedures in place...

[–] katbyte 1 day ago

The railroads in the USA were trying to push back and delay improvements to automated safety systems until the 2015 Amtrak 188 crash https://youtu.be/-mzaavmtT9M

Only was finally fully rolled out in I think 2020 5 years after the accident.

Delaying/avoiding spending money on safety seems to be common around the world.

[–] FranOntanaya 1 day ago

2006 subway accident in Valencia had a similar context, they used the FAP system, cheaper than ATP, which would have prevented the accident.

[–] Rapzid 1 day ago

It's the second time this year too. In Spain. Same company.

[–] nom 1 day ago

apparently even the same line

[–] dcrazy 1 day ago

It’s the main line, and Toledo is near Madrid.

[–] robotresearcher 1 day ago

Spectacular place. Look up pictures. It’s like a fairytale.

[–] manarth 1 day ago

It's been reported that the automated system had failed, so trains were being routed and instructed manually.

[–] QuantumNomad_ 1 day ago

In Oslo, Norway, we have train signaling errors all the time it feels like. It leads to a lot of delays and things. But I think that when these systems are not working, it is better to slow down everything even going as far as to put some trains on hold for some time, to avoid human errors in manual instruction and routing leading to crashes and deaths.

[–] mailund 1 day ago

"Signalfeil" (signal error) does not actually always mean that there is an error with the signaling! Happened to read up on this while stuck on a train due to signal error!

It is means that they have gotten a signal that there is an error somewhere, which might be the signaling system, but also loads of other things! [1]

The term is super confusing thought, should probably have been "error signal" instead

[1] https://www.banenor.no/nyheter-og-aktuelt/bane-nor-forklarer...

[–] QuantumNomad_ 1 day ago

Oh interesting, TIL :) Thanks!

[–] ncruces 1 day ago

But then you increase the risk of (suspected) sabotage disrupting the Dutch railway network. Which obviously is better than an deadly accident, but...

[–] formerly_proven 1 day ago

Isn't speed under verbal authorization limited to like 30-40 km/h?

[–] boringg 1 day ago

This was my immediate thought -- this is such a tragic unforced error. It seems impossible for this to happen.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

"In this day and age" means nothing when so many of these train systems are running on technology from the mid-1900s.

[–] FeteCommuniste 1 day ago

Spain didn't even have high-speed trains until the early 1990s so I don't think that's the case here.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

The network started construction in the late 1980s so that's still 40 years ago. The 90s weren't as recent as we all think..

[–] bluGill 1 day ago

Still recent enough to have computers fully able to control everything.

[–] lebuffon 1 day ago

The word "computers" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

I would think that the software is the weakest link in the chain.

[–] amiga386 1 day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation

What this chart doesn't show you is how much more expensive it is to advance the grade of automation. Systems like the Docklands Railway are only safe because all their tracks are grade separated with exclusive track. They still need a person on board to be sure that nobody is stuck in the doors or wedged between the train and platform before the train starts moving.

"Have computers control everything" is four words to say, but it's millions or billions more in money, and adds years to the projects. London's Crossrail, for example, was years late due to the complexity of switching between 4 separate signalling systems (ETCS on the Heathrow branch, AWS on the GWML, TPWS on the GEML, and CBTC in their tunnel and exclusive track.)

We're still using TPWS on the ECML, for example, because:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_&_Warning_Sys...

> TPWS was developed by British Rail and its successor Railtrack, following a determination in 1994 that British Rail's Automatic Train Protection system was not economical – ATP would cost £600 million (equivalent to £1.2 billion in 2024) to implement, compared to value in lives saved: £3 – £4 million (£6 – 8 million in 2024), per life saved, which was estimated to be 2.9 per year.

TPWS is where a little light comes on saying it would be a good idea to brake now because you passed a signal at danger. Only very fancy versions of TPWS will actually apply the brakes for you.

And then we had the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes a few years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladbroke_Grove_rail_crash

> Both crashes would have been prevented by an operational automatic train protection (ATP) system, wider fitting of which had been rejected on cost grounds. The crash severely damaged public confidence in the management and regulation of safety of Britain's privatised railway system.

But even then, an inquiry asked to look specifically into ATP determined we were right to reject it, it was just Too. Fucking. Expensive.

> Since both the Paddington and Southall crashes had reopened public debate on ATP, a separate joint inquiry considering the issue in the light of both crashes was also held in 2000; it confirmed the rejection of ATP and the mandatory adoption of a cheaper and less effective system, but noted a mismatch between public opinion and cost-benefit analysis.

[–] iggldiggl 11 hours ago

> TPWS is where a little light comes on saying it would be a good idea to brake now because you passed a signal at danger. Only very fancy versions of TPWS will actually apply the brakes for you.

You're confusing AWS and TPWS – AWS is the older system (based on pre-WW II technology but only deployed nationwide after WW II) which sort of roughly fits your first sentence, while TPWS will actually stop you if you're trying to pass a signal at danger (with the caveat that most automatic signals on the plain line aren't fitted on the basis that a train will relatively rarely actually have to stop at one – statistically that's absolutely sensible if you only have a limited amount of money and want to cover the higher risk signals first, but unfortunately the recent Elstow train crash did manage to hit that particular gap in the system…).

> But even then, an inquiry asked to look specifically into ATP determined we were right to reject it, it was just Too. Fucking. Expensive.

But you did eventually get TPWS which does deliver a quite large fraction of the safety benefits of ATP at a significantly smaller fraction of the costs.

[–] graemep 1 day ago

> "Have computers control everything" is four words to say, but it's millions or billions more in money, and adds years to the projects.

The delays, the reduced amount of infrastructure built, and passing on of those costs in ticket prices causes people to use other forms of transport that are less safe thereby causing more casualties than a slightly less safe rail system would.

[–] katbyte 1 day ago

> They still need a person on board to be sure that nobody is stuck in the doors or wedged between the train and platform before the train starts moving.

Why do they need someone?

Skytain in Vancouver is fully automated and driverless with no attendant on board. Grade separated, doors automatically close, and there are sensors that trigger if someone enters the guideway.

[–] amiga386 1 day ago

That's a "nobody's dead yet" scenario. Safety standards require full platform doors at all stations for attendant-free operation, i.e. the platform has wall-to-ceiling barriers, the train arrives perfectly aligned (which means zero variation in train configuration, which rules out almost all mainline stations that accept different operators services), and the platform doors open and close in sync with the train doors.

Anything less is begging to get someone wedged in there as the train drives off, even if it's just a limb or a trailing bag strap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors

> In June 2023, the operator of the Vancouver SkyTrain, TransLink announced a feasibility study into installing platform screen doors on the Expo and Millennium lines. Such installation was previously deemed infeasible, due to SkyTrain's diverse fleet and different door positions. However, with the acquisition of the Alstom Mark V trains, which will replace the ageing Mark I, the door positions allow for a feasibility study to proceed.

EDIT: I found some SkyTrain stats for you. 2016-2025, 1 fatal train-passenger interaction on the platform, 36 fatal in the guideway. Most were intentional suicide attempts.

https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/technologies/railways/skytr...

[–] bluGill 1 day ago

Skytrain is from the 1990s. However elevators have been fully automated since before I can remember (1960s is my guess, but that is a guess if you care to look it up I'll stand corrected)

[–] edelbitter 1 day ago

As long as vision zero is considered more of a gross infringement on personal freedums than a laudable goal, making trains as safe as they are uniquely fit to become is not exactly a great way to allocate funds to maximize impact. Trains are already very safe. Even where they currently lack 4 layers of fail-safe systems operated at a level where that still permits reliable&punctual service. The same money on making them shine could be spent on improving car infrastructure (or even removing some car infrastructure!) for greater expected harm reduction.

[–] anthk 1 day ago

In Spain the train network was neglected so car and oil companies could earn tons of money since the 70's.

But Toledo-Madrid it's a special high speed network with thousands of daily users heading Madrid to work, which is just 1h away from Toledo.

Still, I will always be pro-train because they can mass deliver goods at much higher ratio than by truck.

[–] Kurtz79 1 day ago

"In Spain the train network was neglected so car and oil companies could earn tons of money since the 70's."

That's patently false, as Spain has the largest High-speed rail network in the world after China and it has seen constant expansion for the last 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Spain

[–] hylaride 1 day ago

Maintenance and expansion are two different things. Governments of the day tend to favour big announcements for shiny new things, while simultaneously deferring maintenance whenever they can to redirect money to various other priorities.

[–] mazu3 1 day ago

I think you have to talk about how this is measured. Their network is huge, but frequencies are low and the maintenance costs per KM of track are very high relative to ridership. If you just think about the metric of KM of high-speed track, it's true, Spain has a larger network than, for example, Japan. But Japan is sending high-speed trains down some of its lines every 3 and a half minutes! Nothing remotely like that is happening in Spain.

[–] anthk 1 day ago

I'm from Spain, I know it well. Just check what happened with short-distance trains.

[–] hdhxbsbsbshs 1 day ago

With short-distance trains…

to pueblos with 50 people…

But sure, keep twisting the truth to suit your political agenda.

[–] gpvos 1 day ago

By now, I'd ask which short-distance trains...