Hacker News

points by jplrssn 17 hours ago | 0 comments

If as a driver you get told by the control centre to get the train moving again at maximum line speed, surely you should be able to trust that it is safe to do so?

I don't see how this would fall on the drivers at all.

[–] gpvos 17 hours ago

My thoughts as well. It appears that such signal failures happen so often that the controllers regularly let trains run through red under verbal authorization. I don't know the exact protocols, but I would expect a driver to ask for confirmation, as happened here, and then trust the control centre. However, there is clearly a huge systemic problem, with added complexity for the controllers, and there should at least be double checks in the control centre.

[–] 1718627440 16 hours ago

The person who controls whether the light shows red or green and gives verbal authorization is the same. It's both a tool, to transmit the same information.

[–] pixl97 9 hours ago

Same information, no.

A person saying you have a green light when you have a red light is not the same information at all. The probability that something has gone wrong and will lead to disaster is many many times higher.

[–] 1718627440 6 hours ago

That's also true, but you should also be able to trust written movement authorities, otherwise why have them in the first place?

[–] crote 16 hours ago

Trust but verify. You wouldn't drive your car into a lake just because your satnav tells you to, would you?

As we also know from the aviation industry, controllers are human and therefore will make mistakes. A controller shouldn't issue a wrong order, but a driver also shouldn't accept an order they aren't certain about, and there should be technical systems backing both sides of that up.

It doesn't "fall" on the driver, but it doesn't "fall" solely on the controller either. It's a systemic issue, and many pieces have to fail for a disaster to happen.

[–] 1718627440 16 hours ago

> As we also know from the aviation industry

The aviation industry operates like the railway industry ~1920 (somewhat by necessity).

> You wouldn't drive your car into a lake just because your satnav tells you to, would you?

You are assuming a train driver is equivalent to a car driver. He's not, the analog would be more a repairmen that you always take with you on journeys.

[–] gus_massa 9 hours ago

You can't verify, the rail has curves and other stuff that block sight.

Also stopping distance for trains is huge. This video for high speed trains says 5km (3mi) https://www.facebook.com/Renfe/videos/%EF%B8%8Fcu%C3%A1l-es-... That is probably at full speed, but IIUC the accident was at half speed so the distance should be like 1.2km (0.8mi).