Bad crash


Keith <keith47424@...>
 


gordonwis
 

A more traditional single track incident by the looks of it.

http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1193831-20130729-accident-ferroviaire-fait-plusieurs-blesses-suisse-romande

Looks like a Domino EMU and one of the remaining standard NPZ EMUs


gordonwis
 

Apologies, I should have confirmed the location for those not familiar with Suisse Romande.

Granges is on the Palézieux - Payerne 'Ligne de la Broye' which is mostly single track


Martin Baumann
 

The collision was between trains 4049 and 12976. A Swiss news report 10 minutes ago reported one of the drivers was still trapped in the wreckage. The same report stated there were 30 casualties One train was an NPZ Domino and the other a 562 NPZ with 29-35 950 leading


Martin Baumann
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "martinbaumann112" <martin98baumann@...> wrote:

One train was an NPZ Domino

560 213


Guerbetaler
 

Am 29.07.2013 22:15, schrieb martinbaumann112:
A Swiss news report 10 minutes ago reported one of the drivers was
still trapped in the wreckage
It wasn't clear until now, which driver is missing. I'm afraid that the collision was a consequence of a human error of the driver of the Domino train set. Usually there is no crossing in this station, except when the commuter train is coming, which is (during Summer holidays) an
NPZ bifr�quence. It isn't a friendly Summer for railways in Europe, is it?

Markus, still in Paris where normal service on RER C resumed today after the derailment in Br�tigny


Andrew Moglestue
 

________________________________
From: Markus guerbetaler@sunrise.ch

 
 It isn't a friendly Summer for railways in Europe, is it?


... or in Canada ...


gordonwis
 

As I had immediately suspected on seeing the time of this accident, the problem appears to have been caused because one unit was forming one of the commuter extras that are outside the standard service pattern on this line.

Normally the service is hourly stopping trains in each direction. However there are two rush hour extra REs from Lausanne (17.00 and 18.00), [and their balancing morning workings from Payerne]. The fact that these are Monday to Friday commuter extras is the clue to the problem.

They are limited stop, and the crossing of southbound regular stopper with these two REs at Granges station only happens a couple of times a day – at 17.42 and 18.42 – Monday to Friday only.

It has to be assumed that this was a factor in the accident.


bs177@...
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon" <gordonwis@...> wrote:

As I had immediately suspected on seeing the time of this accident, the problem appears to have been caused because one unit was forming one of the commuter extras that are outside the standard service pattern on this line.

Normally the service is hourly stopping trains in each direction. However there are two rush hour extra REs from Lausanne (17.00 and 18.00), [and their balancing morning workings from Payerne]. The fact that these are Monday to Friday commuter extras is the clue to the problem.

They are limited stop, and the crossing of southbound regular stopper with these two REs at Granges station only happens a couple of times a day – at 17.42 and 18.42 – Monday to Friday only.

It has to be assumed that this was a factor in the accident.
I am having difficulty in understanding how timetabling could be a factor.
This is of course the view of someone who is not familiar with how the signalling system works at that location, what provisions there are to prevent two trains from entering the same single track section at the same time, and what systems exist to stop trains automatically if they pass a signal at danger.
We do not know whether it is the Domino driver who sadly perished in which case we will never know for sure why his train entered the single line section or the northbound driver.

Cheers

Bruce


Fionnbarr Kennedy
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, Markus <guerbetaler@...> wrote:

Am 29.07.2013 22:15, schrieb martinbaumann112:

. It isn't a friendly Summer for railways in Europe, is it?

Markus, still in Paris where normal service on RER C resumed today after
the derailment in Brétigny

No it isn't. Thoughts with all the victims and may this be the last

Fionnbarr


gordonwis
 

From: "bs177@ggbooks.
I am having difficulty in understanding how timetabling could be a factor.
Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure why you are not following my explanation. Timetabling is a factor because, as I said, the two REs are unusual in that they run extra to the normal service of hourly stopping trains. So, a driver could potentially get so used to the hourly pattern that they forget that twice a day but only five days a week, there will be two extra trains in the timetable.

If I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere once that a high proportion of accidents occur when something is not 'as it normally is'. Indeed this happened to my mum years ago when she hit a parked car on her moped and broke her leg. This was only a few yards from our driveway on a quiet cul de sac but , crucially, the car was parked in a position where cars never usually parked.


OL.Guerbetal
 

Am 30.07.2013 16:43, schrieb bs177@ggbooks.plus.com:
We do not know whether it is the Domino driver who sadly perished in
which case we will never know for sure why his train entered the
single line section or the northbound driver.
Unfortunately it is 24-year old driver in the NPZ who perished and not the 54-year old driver of the Domino who accelerated against a red signal. There is very little doubt that it was the Domino-driver's fault. Unfortunately.

Markus


Andrew Moglestue
 

I'm not sure why you are not following my explanation. Timetabling is
a factor because, as I said, the two REs are unusual in that they run
extra to the normal service of hourly stopping trains. So, a driver
could potentially get so used to the hourly pattern that they forget
that twice a day but only five days a week, there will be two extra
trains in the timetable.
Yes, but on a railway there can always be a special train or a freight train or something running late or a signal being red for any other reason.


Adherence to the timetable can never be a substitute for a safety system.

It seems to me that one of the two trains spadded, and yet did not stop in time. So that would imply that the safety distances were insignificant, or that the system failed to work properly.


bs177@...
 

Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure why you are not following my explanation. Timetabling
is a factor because, as I said, the two REs are unusual in that
they run extra to the normal service of hourly stopping trains. So,
a driver could potentially get so used to the hourly pattern that
they forget that twice a day but only five days a week, there will
be two extra trains in the timetable.

If I'm not mistaken, I read somewhere once that a high proportion
of accidents occur when something is not 'as it normally is'.
Indeed this happened to my mum years ago when she hit a parked car
on her moped and broke her leg. This was only a few yards from our
driveway on a quiet cul de sac but , crucially, the car was parked
in a position where cars never usually parked. 
As has been said, the sole cause was a driver driving through a red light and into the single track section. Had it been at a different time of day and a track inspection trolley or maintenance train was in the section, the result would have been the same.

Again, I do not know how trains are worked at this location but I wonder if it is what we refer to in the UK as a "ding, ding and away accident" whereby a guard gave the right of way and the driver accelerated without checking the signal.

I read somewhere that the driver of the Lausanne bound train made an emergency stop once he realised what had happened and left the train as per procedure.

It is a pity that the Payerne bound train did not have sufficient opportunity to make an emergency brake application and jump clear.

Cheers

Bruce


Andrew Moglestue
 

It seems to me that one of the two trains spadded, and yet did not stop in time. So that would imply that the safety distances were insignificant, or that the system failed to work properly.
 
sorry, for insignificant read insufficient. The spell chucker is getting the better of me.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


bs177@...
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Moglestue <amogles@...> wrote:
It seems to me that one of the two trains spadded, and yet did not
stop in time. So that would imply that the safety distances were
insufficient, or that the system failed to work properly.
I think I am right in my interpretation of an article on bahnonline that the signalling at the location was Integra and that Zub was not fitted.

I am sure that someone will explain the difference but am I right in saying that Zub is basically a spad protection system whilst Integra is not and thus Integra would not have prevented a train from entering a single line against a red signal?

Cheers

Bruce


OL.Guerbetal
 

Am 31.07.2013 15:15, schrieb bs177@ggbooks.plus.com:
Again, I do not know how trains are worked at this location but I
wonder if it is what we refer to in the UK as a "ding, ding and away
accident" whereby a guard gave the right of way and the driver
accelerated without checking the signal.
The driver doesn't get a right of way by anybody at this station, he is allowed to leave the station as soon as the signal is green. However, the signal wasn't green but the Signum was only at the signal and that was about 350 m away from the point where thw head of the train had stopped. So the train accelerated over at least 300 m but collided still before he had passed the red signal.

I have uploaded a PDF indicating the relevant points (see automatic announcement mail by Yahoo).

Markus


OL.Guerbetal
 

Am 31.07.2013 16:24, schrieb bs177@ggbooks.plus.com:
I think I am right in my interpretation of an article on bahnonline
that the signalling at the location was Integra and that Zub was not
fitted.
This is correct

I am sure that someone will explain the difference but am I right in
saying that Zub is basically a spad protection system whilst Integra
is not and thus Integra would not have prevented a train from
entering a single line against a red signal?
I found out SPAD = Signal passed at danger (thanks Mr. Wikipdia!)

Integra Signum works as SPAD-protection at the point of the red signal while ZUB (and also Euro-ZUB) controls the braking toward the point of danger. However, when entering a station it can often happen that the signal to leave the station is still red. In this case, the balise of the distant signal gives the information that the train must not pass the next signal. This would prevent a train from leaving the station again. For this, there are two solutions:

- the driver may quit the stop announcement ("sich befreien") and proceed, saying with this act that he has seen the green signal. Still the ZUB prevents him from accelerating more than to 40 km/h until he has passed the balise of the green signal.

- a loop may be laid in the station track which allows a permanent communication over some tens or hundreds meters. Then the system itself can renew the stopping information.

Only the second solution is really safe, but - you might guess - more expensive. A program to update many points with only Signum to have Euro-ZUB (either solution of the above) is under way. I don't know if Granges-M. was on the list but think rather not.

Markus


bs177@...
 


The driver doesn't get a right of way by anybody at this station, he is
allowed to leave the station as soon as the signal is green. However,
the signal wasn't green but the Signum was only at the signal and that
was about 350 m away from the point where thw head of the train had
stopped. So the train accelerated over at least 300 m but collided still
before he had passed the red signal.

I have uploaded a PDF indicating the relevant points (see automatic
announcement mail by Yahoo).

Markus
Thanks Markus, all very clear now - still all the hallmarks of a ding ding and away accident but without the guard!
If the driver forgets an adverse signal on the approach to the station, by the time he sees the red signal, it is probably already too late. In the UK, each track would have its own signal, and these would be before the convergence but I appreciate that Swiss practice is to locate the exit signal at the start of the single line section.
If the aspect of this signal is not in view of the driver or he is blinded by low evening sun on departure, it is easy to see how it could happen. Cue SBB adopting SPAD indicators!

Cheers

Bruce


OL.Guerbetal
 

Am 31.07.2013 17:35, schrieb bs177@ggbooks.plus.com:
In the UK, each track would have its own signal, and these would be
before the convergence but I appreciate that Swiss practice is to
locate the exit signal at the start of the single line section.
The standard is an own signal for each track also in Switzerland. However, in stations where not normally two trains going in the same direction wait, one signal can do. There is no danger that the wrong train would start. Later it happened that there were two trains in the same direction in such stations and then a signal indicating the track number was added. I can't recall an accident in such a situation but sure there must have been one...

The real problem is that Swiss rules don't require that a signal must be in braking distance to the point of danger. Given the very limited space in many stations, this isn't possible at reasonable cost. An Euro-ZUB would be cheaper in most cases.

The dark side of the Granges-M. accident is, that this station WOULD have enough space to place the signal - or at least the balises - some 200 m nearer to the place where trains stop!

Markus, G�rbetal (finally, back)