Fatal Talgo Derailment in Spain

[jis]

When looking at this thing, remember that it did not hit this wall square on. It hit a glancing blow as was sliding along it. That makes it difficult to understand the extent of the damage. One posibility is that the power unit plowed into the ballast making it slow much faster greatly increasing the impact of the following lightly built cars. Even with that the damage seems excessive and the death toll all but unbelievable. Another factor is ballasted track itself makes the plowing in of equipment possible which concrete slab does not. Look at the two Shinkansen design trains that derailed in earthquakes on concrete slab track. Both slid to a stop on the concrete, stayed more or less in line and everyone walked off with nothing more than bumps and bruises despite derailing at over 100 mph in both cases.

I must admit that I don't have any working theory on the dynamics of this thing. The front power head and several cars are separated from each other, but in line in order they originally were in the train, sitting in a ditch a ways beyond the bridge. The rear of the train seems to have piled on upon itself with one car having jumped up and landed upright on the road more than 10' above the RoW and reportedly some 40' removed from it!
The power heads are both quite intact. Keep in mind that the cars immediately adjacent to the two power heads have an MTU diesel unit mounted in them to provide power for the train in non electrified territory. This might have played a significant role in that I seem to see the car immediately behind the lead power head is the one that appears to derail first. I suspect the dynamics folks in the safety board will be asking some serious questions about the weight distribution and relative buff strengths of individual units. Sort of the same concerns that you mention in your message George.

I like your characterization of a string of tin cans between a pair of bricks.

Incidentally FRA's new regulation adds energy management to the equation. I am not sure how much it reduces buff strength. But I am sure it does not reduce it below that required by TGVs which is in the range of 800klb the last I heard, which is the similar to that required for Tier 1 equipment in the US. The whole kerfuffle re FRA had to do more with the unrealistic requirements for Tier II, is what I understood. However, I could have understood wrong.

 

[wendtsc]

That is some serious speeding if it's true. This could also be caused by high heat bending the tracks. Maybe the track was designed for fast speeds but heat restrictions reduced the limit.
Bloomberg reports that at least 77 people are now dead : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-24/spanish-train-derailment-kills-45-47-people-feijoo-says-on-rtve.html

This slew of railway accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, could reduce the train's reputation worldwide as a media shock.

A kink would have been visible and talked about,, even if not in any of the published pictures. Inclined to believe serious overspeed. What I find unnerving is how mangled the coaches are from what is apparently overturning without significant collisions with other trains or major structures.

Its more than a little unnerving, its downright criminal. Talgo convinced WSDOT and Amtrak to push for FRA waivers because they said their Series VI trains were built to EU standards and were therefore safer than traditional Amtrak equipment. Yet, here we have almost a 50% fatality rate and a 100% injury (or worse) rate on a train that derailed at well below its design speed. This clearly shows European trains (talgo in particular) are not safe at speeds of 90mph and over and probably still very deadly at the current 79mph limit set by the FRA. Given how the Talgo coaches crumpled in this accident which was basically just a derailment, imagine if instead this had been a Cascades train in Washington derailing near or colliding with an American freight train on a much more crowded and compressed American ROW. We could easily be talking about death rates of 70 to 80% or higher. 150 deaths would result in the immediate end of all passenger train service in the US. The railroad equivalent of a Three Mile Island.

Given Talgos' safety promises and public ridicule of FRA safety standards, they should be immediately held accountable for the risk they have been placing Amtrak riders at in the Pacific Northwest for the last 20 years. WSDOT and ODOT should immediately demand Series VI Talgos pulled from service and the FRA should demand one be immediately sent to Colorado where it will be subjected to a real "live-fire" crash test to show if the waivers are justified. Likewise, one of the two remaining Series VIII trains parked in Wisconsin should be sent for the same "live-fire" test. If it passes, Talgo should give the remaining Series VIII train to WSDOT as a free replacement for the Series VI train. If the Series VI train fails the test, which we know it will because of this accident, Talgo will replace at their expense all of the remaining Series VI trains in use in the US within 5 years. If the Series VIII (which Talgo insists meet FRA standards) results in fatality rates above 10% in the first 3 coaches or over the entire train at Talgos claimed safe operational speed, then Talgo should be required to replace every Talgo trainset in operation in the US with one that meets every FRA specifiation and at no time will Talgo be allowed to request or negotiate for special design considerations or design compromises. Any time in the design/build process, the FRA requires a change, Talgo will make the exact change the FRA requires without question. If Talgo refuses this agreement, they will be barred from doing any future business in the US in any way, including subcontracting or even as a parts supplier.

Furthermore, while HSR crashes are rare in Europe, given the death tolls when they do happen and considering in almost every case the excessive amount of carnage was the result of design compromises, all European companies hoping to continue to do business in the US will fully meet all FRA requirements without question or compromise. At no time will they be allowed to argue for the substitution of EU or International standards for American FRA safety standards. Given the survivability demonstrated in Germany, the Alps and now Spain, clearly any further attempts to compromise our safety for the sake of using foreign HSR designs must stop now!

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

According to the YouTube video, it looks like the second unit, I think a power car, derailed first,, while the rest of the train followed behind it. The lead power car was apparently pulled off the tracks when the second unit derailed. The lead power car seems quite intact for such a deadly accident.

That is some serious speeding if it's true. This could also be caused by high heat bending the tracks. Maybe the track was designed for fast speeds but heat restrictions reduced the limit.
Bloomberg reports that at least 77 people are now dead : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-24/spanish-train-derailment-kills-45-47-people-feijoo-says-on-rtve.html

This slew of railway accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, could reduce the train's reputation worldwide as a media shock.

A kink would have been visible and talked about,, even if not in any of the published pictures. Inclined to believe serious overspeed. What I find unnerving is how mangled the coaches are from what is apparently overturning without significant collisions with other trains or major structures.

Its more than a little unnerving, its downright criminal. Talgo convinced WSDOT and Amtrak to push for FRA waivers because they said their Series VI trains were built to EU standards and were therefore safer than traditional Amtrak equipment. Yet, here we have almost a 50% fatality rate and a 100% injury (or worse) rate on a train that derailed at well below its design speed. This clearly shows European trains (talgo in particular) are not safe at speeds of 90mph and over and probably still very deadly at the current 79mph limit set by the FRA. Given how the Talgo coaches crumpled in this accident which was basically just a derailment, imagine if instead this had been a Cascades train in Washington derailing near or colliding with an American freight train on a much more crowded and compressed American ROW. We could easily be talking about death rates of 70 to 80% or higher. 150 deaths would result in the immediate end of all passenger train service in the US. The railroad equivalent of a Three Mile Island.

Given Talgos' safety promises and public ridicule of FRA safety standards, they should be immediately held accountable for the risk they have been placing Amtrak riders at in the Pacific Northwest for the last 20 years. WSDOT and ODOT should immediately demand Series VI Talgos pulled from service and the FRA should demand one be immediately sent to Colorado where it will be subjected to a real "live-fire" crash test to show if the waivers are justified. Likewise, one of the two remaining Series VIII trains parked in Wisconsin should be sent for the same "live-fire" test. If it passes, Talgo should give the remaining Series VIII train to WSDOT as a free replacement for the Series VI train. If the Series VI train fails the test, which we know it will because of this accident, Talgo will replace at their expense all of the remaining Series VI trains in use in the US within 5 years. If the Series VIII (which Talgo insists meet FRA standards) results in fatality rates above 10% in the first 3 coaches or over the entire train at Talgos claimed safe operational speed, then Talgo should be required to replace every Talgo trainset in operation in the US with one that meets every FRA specifiation and at no time will Talgo be allowed to request or negotiate for special design considerations or design compromises. Any time in the design/build process, the FRA requires a change, Talgo will make the exact change the FRA requires without question. If Talgo refuses this agreement, they will be barred from doing any future business in the US in any way, including subcontracting or even as a parts supplier.

Furthermore, while HSR crashes are rare in Europe, given the death tolls when they do happen and considering in almost every case the excessive amount of carnage was the result of design compromises, all European companies hoping to continue to do business in the US will fully meet all FRA requirements without question or compromise. At no time will they be allowed to argue for the substitution of EU or International standards for American FRA safety standards. Given the survivability demonstrated in Germany, the Alps and now Spain, clearly any further attempts to compromise our safety for the sake of using foreign HSR designs must stop now!

Bravo! I agree that safety should never be compromised for speed, attractiveness, or low operating costs. These safety compromises are not only exibited in European trains, but all types of transport vehicles. This is why I refuse to ride Megabus, and I usually ride the slower old-fashioned IC trains rather than the fast ICE in Germany.

I know accidents are rare, but there's other reasons why I avoid those options.

 

[Paulus]

Its more than a little unnerving, its downright criminal. Talgo convinced WSDOT and Amtrak to push for FRA waivers because they said their Series VI trains were built to EU standards and were therefore safer than traditional Amtrak equipment. Yet, here we have almost a 50% fatality rate and a 100% injury (or worse) rate on a train that derailed at well below its design speed. This clearly shows European trains (talgo in particular) are not safe at speeds of 90mph and over and probably still very deadly at the current 79mph limit set by the FRA. Given how the Talgo coaches crumpled in this accident which was basically just a derailment, imagine if instead this had been a Cascades train in Washington derailing near or colliding with an American freight train on a much more crowded and compressed American ROW. We could easily be talking about death rates of 70 to 80% or higher. 150 deaths would result in the immediate end of all passenger train service in the US. The railroad equivalent of a Three Mile Island.

This was not just a derailment. This was a derailment into a concrete wall at 120mph. That's beyond the design survivability of any equipment anywhere in the world and for good reason: It is not practical to design to survive it. Even if you magically held all the cars together, you would see a massive death toll from injuries incurred bouncing around the compartment.

<snip ITG nonsense>

Your ideas on what Talgo ought to do are arrant nonsense and would serve only to destroy Amtrak Cascades. Heck, let's have a quick little study of historical American crash standards.


Do you honestly think that American equipment would somehow be more survivable when slamming into a bridge and having it collapse onto it? Also, which Alps crash are you referring to?

Here is also a study by Caltrain on safety of UIC compliant sets

 

[railiner]

RIP and Quick healing to the Injured! I didnt read and watch all the various Reports so will ask: Was the Engineer(s) Killed? I know nothing about safety and engineering standards for foreign equipment so will rely on our Member experts!

Both Engineer(s) survived, and have already been interviewed by the accident investigators. They acknowledged that they were over speeding, and according to one report, one of them may be facing some criminal charges.

:hi: Thanks jis! At least they didnt run off after the Crash like that Moron Cruise Ship Captain in the Med and the Bus Drivers used to do in Mexico in the Bad Old Days!

I heard a report on the news earlier, that one of the involved engineers had actually posted a youtube video bragging about his speed. Didn't hear more details, and don't know if this is true or not. But if so, I can sure understand the criminal charges....

 

[wendtsc]

Latest is 77 dead, 130 injured. Truly tragic. They obviously aren't yet focused on a cause as rescue and recovery is much more important at this time, but a few things stand out to me. If speed was the cause and the train was traveling at twice the posted limit as some are already claiming, does that mean Spain had no PTC system on this line? Second, 77 dead out of only 222 aboard on a train traveling at 110mph built to European safety standards. So, maybe the FRA is right after all and the rest of the world is wrong. Third, is it possible this crash was much worse than it needed to be because of the Talgo design's reliance on single-axle articulated bogies, further compounded by adjustable axles designed to adjust on the fly to multiple gauges? The Talgo design basically amounts to a high-tech passenger version of a Roadrailer consist which in this case was operating in push mode. Essentially, like pushing a Roadrailer train backwards at 110mph through a sharp curve. Tragedy perhaps made more tragic because of questionable design and operating assumptions.

If the train was operating within the parameters of the legally set limit for the section, the probability of the crash would have been reduced to almost nothing and if it still crashed, it would have had much less damage.

You can't build something that is invincible. You build it to the parameters established by its operational limitations. Even if this train was going 200 KPH on track that it was allowed to do so, the likelyhood of a crash was limited, and if there was one, it wouldn't be catastrophic because it wouldn't involve the centrifugal failures.

The focus on speeding as a cause of the accident is completely beside the point. The survivability is what counts because we know accidents are going to eventually happen and given that this train is designed to operate at speeds well excess of 130mph, it should have been much more survivable at 110. What if instead of a 50mph curve the train hit a sun kink on a straightaway with a regular speed limit of 125? Your willingness to compromise safety in a crash because likelyhood of crashes are limited is very disturbing. By the logic of only building to operational limitations, US automakers shouldn't be accountable for any crashworthiness of their cars above 55/65mph. This IS NOT accepted practice in any design field as architects, structurual engineers, aerospace engineers and naval architest are all required to design buildings, bridges, planes, ships with safety parameters usually well beyond (often twice) regular operational limitations. Boeing can build a plane that can crash into a runway, break apart and burst into flames (clearly not invincible) yet 306 out of 307 survive the crash, because Boeing designed seats and cabin interiors to survive crash forces of up to 16Gs and went beyond safety minimums! Talgo on the other hand has documented history of asking for waivers and exemptions from safety minimums. How can you sweep that under the rug?

Secondly, the argument about centrifugal failures being unique because of the location of the accident does not hold up. Since Talgo relies on a single set of floating axleless wheels in an articulated Jacobs bogie suspended under one end of each coach and is further complicated by the machanics that allow for variable wheel gauge, even in a straight on accident because of the extremely limited number of wheel flange to rail contact points (only 2 per coach) and the lack of rigid axles, there is virtually no resistance to any lateral movements no matter how slight any initial force might be. Think of it as trying to make an emergency stop in a car traveling 40mph on a frozen lake without turning sideways. In other words, the train is always going to end up trying to go sideways because even the simple act of falling sideways off a railhead will create enough lateral force to trigger a cascading lateral acceleration. And because of the train's light weight and weak structural design, it will alway result in folding and crumpling both horizontally and vertically as demostrated in virtually every train derailment with speeds greater than 40mph. In fact, in this case the location of the retaining wall may have actually prevented even more deaths since the cars were prevented from swinging even further out of alignment which would have resulted in even more twisting and folding of the cars.

Thirdly, as proven by just about every rail accident in history, the zones of greatest danger are the areas within 15 feet of the end of every car because this is the point where collision forces are focused and along with the weight of the train have to be absorbed or deflected. In the case of the Talgo design, because of the extreme shortness of the coaches and the greatly increased number of connections compared to traditional Amtrak or even Japanese or German HSR equipment, virtually the entire Talgo trainset falls within these danger zones. Incidentally, 110mph also happens to be the speed of Amtrak Colonial 94 when it collided with the Conrail train on the NCE in Maryland in 1987. In that accident there were over 600 passengers riding in old Amtrak Amfleet cars (built to the FRA standards Talgo has publicly scoffed at), but only 16 people died.

Traditional FRA Safety Standards + Amfleet coaches + 110 MPH + collision with freight train + 600 passengers = 16 Dead

Modern European HSR Standards + Talgo equipment + 110 MPH + single train derailment + 220 passengers = 78 Dead

The heavy deathtoll is clear evidence of European operators, builders and safety regulators choosing expediency over public safety. There is no way anyone should be giving them "a pass."

 

[George Harris]

"This was not just a derailment. This was a derailment into a concrete wall at 120mph. That's beyond the design survivability of any equipment anywhere in the world and for good reason: It is not practical to design to survive it. Even if you magically held all the cars together, you would see a massive death toll from injuries incurred bouncing [/q]around the compartment."

It may have collided with a concrete was, but it did not hit it square on. Read what I wrote above. It turned into it at a low angle and slid along it . For that sort of collision, that much damage and casualties is unbelievable.

"Do you honestly think that American equipment would somehow be more survivable when slamming into a bridge and having it collapse onto it?"

Yes.

 

[Paulus]

The focus on speeding as a cause of the accident is completely beside the point. The survivability is what counts because we know accidents are going to eventually happen

All accidents are preventable.

and given that this train is designed to operate at speeds well excess of 130mph, it should have been much more survivable at 110.

That's an utterly nonsense argument. Do you think airplanes should be survivable in a 300 mile per hour impact? If not, why not? They're designed to fly significantly faster than that after all.

What if instead of a 50mph curve the train hit a sun kink on a straightaway with a regular speed limit of 125?

It probably would have been just fine actually. It's not the derailment that kills you, it's the high speed impact with something else.

Your willingness to compromise safety in a crash because likelyhood of crashes are limited is very disturbing. By the logic of only building to operational limitations, US automakers shouldn't be accountable for any crashworthiness of their cars above 55/65mph.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but automakers aren't even held accountable for crashworthiness at 55/65 miles per hour. IIHS tests only go to 40mph.

This IS NOT accepted practice in any design field as architects, structurual engineers, aerospace engineers and naval architest are all required to design buildings, bridges, planes, ships with safety parameters usually well beyond (often twice) regular operational limitations. Boeing can build a plane that can crash into a runway, break apart and burst into flames (clearly not invincible) yet 306 out of 307 survive the crash, because Boeing designed seats and cabin interiors to survive crash forces of up to 16Gs and went beyond safety minimums! Talgo on the other hand has documented history of asking for waivers and exemptions from safety minimums. How can you sweep that under the rug?

For starters, all the passengers in the plane were seated and strapped in; they also had significantly easier emergency crew access. As it was, an extra hundred feet short and we'd be telling an entirely different story about Flight 214.

Incidentally, 110mph also happens to be the speed of Amtrak Colonial 94 when it collided with the Conrail train on the NCE in Maryland in 1987. In that accident there were over 600 passengers riding in old Amtrak Amfleet cars (built to the FRA standards Talgo has publicly scoffed at), but only 16 people died.
Traditional FRA Safety Standards + Amfleet coaches + 110 MPH + collision with freight train + 600 passengers = 16 Dead

Modern European HSR Standards + Talgo equipment + 110 MPH + single train derailment + 220 passengers = 78 Dead

The heavy deathtoll is clear evidence of European operators, builders and safety regulators choosing expediency over public safety. There is no way anyone should be giving them "a pass."

And had the front cars been occupied in Chase, instead of nearly or completely empty, the death toll would have been significantly higher, as every report acknowledges. Both Amtrak locomotives and the head three cars were destroyed in that collision. Quoth the NTSB:

The lead car of train 94 was so thoroughly crushed that had the car been occupied,almost none aboard could have survived the crash. Fortunately,the car served as a buffer much as a baggage car would. It was also fortunate that there were only 25 passengers aboard the second car, which had 84 seats. More than half the passengers in this car were fatally injured, and the emergency response personnel had great difficulty in extricating injured passengers. Had the car been filled to capacity, as were most of the cars to the rear, the toll of fatally-injured passengers would have been much higher. More than 450 people aboard train 94 were injured.

 

[chakk]

"The railroad equivalent of a Three Mile Island"?????

Nobody died in Three Mile Island.

The bigger reason that new nuclear power construction went moribund after TMI was the deteorating financial condition of the industry, in which many utilities felt that they could not "bet their company" on the very expensive construction of one power plant, for which none of the costs could be included in the rate base until the plant was operational and generating electricity.

150 or more people have never been killed in a single American railroad accident. But that number has been exceeded many times in accidents in other parts of the world.

 

[George Harris]

The focus on speeding as a cause of the accident is completely beside the point. The survivability is what counts because we know accidents are going to eventually happen

All accidents are preventable.

All accidents may be preventable, but not all accidents are prevented. We must live in the real world and deal with occupant protection and survivability

 

[Paulus]

The focus on speeding as a cause of the accident is completely beside the point. The survivability is what counts because we know accidents are going to eventually happen

All accidents are preventable.

All accidents may be preventable, but not all accidents are prevented. We must live in the real world and deal with occupant protection and survivability

To the extent that it is reasonable and not counterproductive. Consider for instance mandatory bicycle helmet laws. A very marginal gain in individual rider safety accompanied by major drops in ridership with a net increase in risk according to the research. However, we do know that this accident was preventable so to design for survivability here is a bit odd. Better, and far cheaper, to spend the money to prevent the accident in the first place.

 

[wendtsc]

First off, sorry about the TRIPLE posting I got a databse glitch error. If there is a moderator out there, please feel free to remove the two extra posts...

But now to response to some of those critical of my stance on expecting more from Talgo and the clarify what I meant by "push" mode.

First, requiring Talgo to replace at their cost equipment that clearly does not meet FRA guidelines (which is indisputable because they had to get waivers) because of evidence (the high fatality rate) that Talgo's claim of adequate alternate safety measures designed into the equipment are clearly false is not nonsense! We have taken this kind of action many times in the past. Its why we don't have hotels and department stores collapsing for no reason and why we don't have thousands of deaths every time there is an earthquake. When structural engineers in Kansas City decided to allow a contractor to take shortcuts with a design of a skyway that eliminated the required safety margins for building for twice normal operational loads and hundreds lost their lives, our government made sure that everyone lost their licenses and no one involved in the desing or building were EVER allowed to desing or build buildings again. Simply asking Talgo to prove the safety of their trains after such a horrific accident is completely reasonable. We demanded Boeing ground an entire flight of 787s (rightly so) even though not one person was killed and the incidents were (thankfully) relatively minor. So, again how is asking Talgo to now comply with our regulations or go home (after showing they were wrong about the safety of their trains) nonsense? They need to be held to the same standards of review we hold everyone else in this country. This accident has brought HSR and HrSR safety to the forefront and our federal and state governments need to react to keep the public's trust, otherwise if this happens again (in the US), none of us will ever see HSR in this country. If anything, my suggestions of Talgo and future European contractors meeting our safety standards without question is the minimum we should be doing considering the political ground that all Rail transit in this country rests on.

The second issue was my use of the "push" mode term. I wasn't using this term in the traditional railroad sense of commuter style "push-pul" in terms of the power, but in reference to the difference in the configuration of the Talgo coaches themselves. Talgo coaches are constructed assymetrically compared to virtually every other passenger train currently operating. Each coach has only one set of wheels on just the back end of the car. (This reduced number of wheels results in added challenges when it comes to braking and is the other major reason for the "cabbage" cars needing to be added to provide more "weighted" braking power to keep the Talgo coaches from bunching up and pushing sideways.) The front end of each car is supported by the car in front of it. Very similar to Roadrailers. The result is kind of like a series of wheel barrels with the handles of one resting on the front of the wheel barrel behind it or like a camping trailer behind your car. So, when I say pulling in reference to a Talgo, I mean that the cars are being pulled like you would pull a trailer, and when I say push, I mean the Talgo train is moving in the direction you usually go with a wheel barrel, meaning wheels and axle first. What makes it possible for Talgo to push or pull this string of wheel barrels is because its on rails. You could never do this on a highway, just ask a long haul UPS driver how easy it is to back up with two or three trailers.

Now granted, in normal operation in Spain, Talgos are operated with a power unit on each end, so the forces on these "wheel barrels" are almost always "pulling" so the actual orientation doesn't make that much difference, that is until you try to stop quickly or enter a curve while not under throttle. The analogy to bricks and soda cans is exactly right! When you go into braking or ar coasting into a curve the weight of the power unit at the back is going to try to push the cars in the middle to the outside of the track and because of the assymetrical design of Talgo trains the forces can be different depending on the direction of travel. Now if you imagine that the weight of the rear power unit has now come off the tracks and is pulling the back "or handle ends" of our wheel barrels off the track, you can begin to see where some assumptions made about Talgos performing equally in either direction are flawed. Now to make things worse, I the US Talgos truly are operated in push-pull mode (both my definition in terms of coach orientation and power orientation). In this case, we truly are trying to push a string of UPS trailers backwards! Irregularities in track profile and allignment could easily cause unforseen forces that the train would have to deal with in a completely different way depending on the direction the coaches are facing and this would be a multiplier on top of the already more complex operational parameter requierd for standard push-pull power operations using passenger cars with standard symetrical designs. Hence the comparison to pushing Roadrailers at 100mph, backwards! Ohh and don't forget, not only are you pushing a string of one wheeled soda cans, but you are also trying to push a brick in front of that string!

And that is why we need to go back to 2 two-axled trucks per coach like on the Acela, the ICE, and the Shinkansen as recommended coincidently by the FRA.

 

[cirdan]

I don't know where this is leading comparing automakers to Talgo and somehow claiming that automakers are the example to be followed.

How many deaths per passenger mile on highways versus trains?

Yet if somebody speeds or drives drunk or anything like that and somebody gets killed, you don't normally blame the auto maker. You blame the guy who directly caused the accident.

Yet if somebody uses a train in a way and situation for which it was not designed, it's Talgo's fault apparently.

What's the difference?

If you were really interested in reducing deaths per passenger mile you wouldn't be barking at Talgo but at the auto industry.

 

[cirdan]

The second issue was my use of the "push" mode term. I wasn't using this term in the traditional railroad sense of commuter style "push-pul" in terms of the power, but in reference to the difference in the configuration of the Talgo coaches themselves. Talgo coaches are constructed assymetrically compared to virtually every other passenger train currently operating. Each coach has only one set of wheels on just the back end of the car. (This reduced number of wheels results in added challenges when it comes to braking and is the other major reason for the "cabbage" cars needing to be added to provide more "weighted" braking power to keep the Talgo coaches from bunching up and pushing sideways.) The front end of each car is supported by the car in front of it. Very similar to Roadrailers. The result is kind of like a series of wheel barrels with the handles of one resting on the front of the wheel barrel behind it or like a camping trailer behind your car. So, when I say pulling in reference to a Talgo, I mean that the cars are being pulled like you would pull a trailer, and when I say push, I mean the Talgo train is moving in the direction you usually go with a wheel barrel, meaning wheels and axle first. What makes it possible for Talgo to push or pull this string of wheel barrels is because its on rails. You could never do this on a highway, just ask a long haul UPS driver how easy it is to back up with two or three trailers.

I don't think the wheelbarrow comparsion is totally appropriate. The dynamics of rail vehicles are different to those of road vehicles. Think of a long freight going around Tehacapi Loop. You can get the locomotives crossing the tail of the train. The rail wheel and coupler interfaces transmit forces in a different way to roiad vehicles. Try pulling a long chain of road trailers around in a cricle like that and you'd more likely than not end with a fine mess all in a big heap.

The bricks and can analgy is more valid though. Acela also this disadvantage. If for some reason the front power car was suddenly decelerated, the heavy rear power car would push the train forcing the intermediate coaches to jacknife. Now this is why the TGV uses Jacobs bogies and the whole buffing structure of the car is optimized to not jacknife but to interlock so a derailed train does not become a string of cans but becomes one long stick. There have been several high speed derailments with TGVs in France that illustarted this principle well.

Now the present accident showed that the Talgo train also jacknifed despite using flat-ended short-coupled coaches that should really interlock. So if anything, this does not proves that the talgo concept as such is flawed, but that the interlocking ability may need to be looked at. It could of couse be that being in a curve this mechanism was outside of its axis of action (and the designers assumed nobody would take a curve that fast), and had the derailment happened on straight track, that the cars would have interlocked very neatly. But this is conjecture. We have to await the investigation results.

 

[jis]

Interesting article on the investigation from the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/spain-train-crash-investigators-black-boxes

 

[train_person]

That is some serious speeding if it's true. This could also be caused by high heat bending the tracks. Maybe the track was designed for fast speeds but heat restrictions reduced the limit.
Bloomberg reports that at least 77 people are now dead : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-24/spanish-train-derailment-kills-45-47-people-feijoo-says-on-rtve.html

This slew of railway accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, could reduce the train's reputation worldwide as a media shock.

A kink would have been visible and talked about,, even if not in any of the published pictures. Inclined to believe serious overspeed. What I find unnerving is how mangled the coaches are from what is apparently overturning without significant collisions with other trains or major structures.

Its more than a little unnerving, its downright criminal. Talgo convinced WSDOT and Amtrak to push for FRA waivers because they said their Series VI trains were built to EU standards and were therefore safer than traditional Amtrak equipment. Yet, here we have almost a 50% fatality rate and a 100% injury (or worse) rate on a train that derailed at well below its design speed. This clearly shows European trains (talgo in particular) are not safe at speeds of 90mph and over and probably still very deadly at the current 79mph limit set by the FRA. Given how the Talgo coaches crumpled in this accident which was basically just a derailment, imagine if instead this had been a Cascades train in Washington derailing near or colliding with an American freight train on a much more crowded and compressed American ROW. We could easily be talking about death rates of 70 to 80% or higher. 150 deaths would result in the immediate end of all passenger train service in the US. The railroad equivalent of a Three Mile Island.

Given Talgos' safety promises and public ridicule of FRA safety standards, they should be immediately held accountable for the risk they have been placing Amtrak riders at in the Pacific Northwest for the last 20 years. WSDOT and ODOT should immediately demand Series VI Talgos pulled from service and the FRA should demand one be immediately sent to Colorado where it will be subjected to a real "live-fire" crash test to show if the waivers are justified. Likewise, one of the two remaining Series VIII trains parked in Wisconsin should be sent for the same "live-fire" test. If it passes, Talgo should give the remaining Series VIII train to WSDOT as a free replacement for the Series VI train. If the Series VI train fails the test, which we know it will because of this accident, Talgo will replace at their expense all of the remaining Series VI trains in use in the US within 5 years. If the Series VIII (which Talgo insists meet FRA standards) results in fatality rates above 10% in the first 3 coaches or over the entire train at Talgos claimed safe operational speed, then Talgo should be required to replace every Talgo trainset in operation in the US with one that meets every FRA specifiation and at no time will Talgo be allowed to request or negotiate for special design considerations or design compromises. Any time in the design/build process, the FRA requires a change, Talgo will make the exact change the FRA requires without question. If Talgo refuses this agreement, they will be barred from doing any future business in the US in any way, including subcontracting or even as a parts supplier.

Furthermore, while HSR crashes are rare in Europe, given the death tolls when they do happen and considering in almost every case the excessive amount of carnage was the result of design compromises, all European companies hoping to continue to do business in the US will fully meet all FRA requirements without question or compromise. At no time will they be allowed to argue for the substitution of EU or International standards for American FRA safety standards. Given the survivability demonstrated in Germany, the Alps and now Spain, clearly any further attempts to compromise our safety for the sake of using foreign HSR designs must stop now!

Nothing like an over reaction..... If you want rail travel in the US to be really 'safer', start a campaign to stop the hundreds of the terminally stupid who drive out in front of oncoming trains at grade crossings every day/month/year. One day one of those fools is going to cause the mother of all stack ups.

One more point. You seem to have missed it by a country mile. If a manufacturer asks for an exemption from a set of standards from a regulatory body, then surely it is the regulatory body at fault if it later proves to be a wrong decision.

Anyway, I always thought it better to survive a crash by not actually having the crash in the first place, rather than set over hysterical standards for what happens in the ten seconds after the crash.

 

[AlanB]

Its more than a little unnerving, its downright criminal. Talgo convinced WSDOT and Amtrak to push for FRA waivers because they said their Series VI trains were built to EU standards and were therefore safer than traditional Amtrak equipment.

WSDOT and Amtrak applied for a waiver because the FRA changed the crash standards for the US after the Talgo trains had been ordered and were already under construction. And that is why the FRA granted them a waiver, with conditions like buffer cars, because they had changed the standards while the trainsets were being built.

 

[leemell]

The press is reporting that the engineer was arrested for negligent homicide and is not talking to investigators. One other possibility that no one has discussed is that he is suicidal.

 

[DET63]

Police accuse Spain train crash driver of 'reckless homicide,' minister says

Santiago de Compostela, Spain (CNN) -- Police in Spain have accused the driver of a train that derailed in northwestern Spain, killing at least 78 people, of "reckless homicide," the country's interior minister said Saturday.
The judge has until Sunday evening local time to decide whether to press formal charges against Francisco Jose Garzon, Interior Minister Jorge Fernandez Diaz told reporters in Santiago de Compostela.

The driver, who spent the past two days under detention in hospital, guarded by police, is now at the police headquarters, he said.

The data recorders from the train are still with police, he added.

 

[VentureForth]

I'm suprised they let him out on bail, being potentially suicidal. Quite honestly, I've hemmed and hawwed at what I think about this driver. The media wants to portray him as a Macho Braggardicio with the "I wanna set of radar guns" quote. But when you read the whole quote in context, it appears that he is just a man who is extremely proud of his job. The other point that will no doubtedly be investigated is his phone call with dispatch. Why would he call them to tell them he's speeding? Perhaps for some reason, the train wouldn't slow down. Who knows? It could be either way. He seems to be a cross between the arrogant Captain Scheletto from the Costa Concordia and the railfan Robert Sanchez from the Metrolink disaster.

 

[UK trainman]

The second issue was my use of the "push" mode term. I wasn't using this term in the traditional railroad sense of commuter style "push-pul" in terms of the power, but in reference to the difference in the configuration of the Talgo coaches themselves. Talgo coaches are constructed assymetrically compared to virtually every other passenger train currently operating. Each coach has only one set of wheels on just the back end of the car. (This reduced number of wheels results in added challenges when it comes to braking and is the other major reason for the "cabbage" cars needing to be added to provide more "weighted" braking power to keep the Talgo coaches from bunching up and pushing sideways.) The front end of each car is supported by the car in front of it. Very similar to Roadrailers. The result is kind of like a series of wheel barrels with the handles of one resting on the front of the wheel barrel behind it or like a camping trailer behind your car. So, when I say pulling in reference to a Talgo, I mean that the cars are being pulled like you would pull a trailer, and when I say push, I mean the Talgo train is moving in the direction you usually go with a wheel barrel, meaning wheels and axle first. What makes it possible for Talgo to push or pull this string of wheel barrels is because its on rails. You could never do this on a highway, just ask a long haul UPS driver how easy it is to back up with two or three trailers.

I don't think the wheelbarrow comparsion is totally appropriate. The dynamics of rail vehicles are different to those of road vehicles. Think of a long freight going around Tehacapi Loop. You can get the locomotives crossing the tail of the train. The rail wheel and coupler interfaces transmit forces in a different way to roiad vehicles. Try pulling a long chain of road trailers around in a cricle like that and you'd more likely than not end with a fine mess all in a big heap.

The bricks and can analgy is more valid though. Acela also this disadvantage. If for some reason the front power car was suddenly decelerated, the heavy rear power car would push the train forcing the intermediate coaches to jacknife. Now this is why the TGV uses Jacobs bogies and the whole buffing structure of the car is optimized to not jacknife but to interlock so a derailed train does not become a string of cans but becomes one long stick. There have been several high speed derailments with TGVs in France that illustarted this principle well.

Now the present accident showed that the Talgo train also jacknifed despite using flat-ended short-coupled coaches that should really interlock. So if anything, this does not proves that the talgo concept as such is flawed, but that the interlocking ability may need to be looked at. It could of couse be that being in a curve this mechanism was outside of its axis of action (and the designers assumed nobody would take a curve that fast), and had the derailment happened on straight track, that the cars would have interlocked very neatly. But this is conjecture. We have to await the investigation results.

The Talgo does not use Jacobs bogies. There is only one set of wheels beneath each end of a coach. Also the wheels are not conected by a rigid axle so there is no coning effect to steer the wheel. The bogie requires active steering to negotiate curves.

 

[cirdan]

This article may provide more insight into the talgo coning system.

http://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/finalists/2013/gomez/feature.html

 

[leemell]

There was press report a little while ago saying that at the time of the accident the engineer was on the phone and consulting paperwork in the cab.

 

[CHamilton]

There was press report a little while ago saying that at the time of the accident the engineer was on the phone and consulting paperwork in the cab.

Spain train driver was on the phone doing 95 mph

MADRID -- A Spanish court says "black box" data recorders show that a train conductor was on the phone and traveling at 95 mph (153 kph), almost twice the speed limit, when the vehicle derailed, killing 79 people.

Investigators say the train had been going as fast as 119 mph (192 kph) shortly before the derailment and that the conductor activated the brakes "seconds before the crash.”

In a statement, the court said Tuesday that the conductor was talking on the phone to an official of national rail company Renfe when the crash happened and apparently was consulting a paper document at the time.

 

[RRUserious]

Today's news says the driver was talking or texting on a mobile phone. The USA has had some headon collisions with the same cause, hasn't it? Can't they jam phones in the operator's space? And can't they just say drivers will be fired if they use a phone while on duty?