Talk:Santiago de Compostela derailment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

The articles in other languages have many sources that will prove useful in expanding this article. Whilst English-languages are preferred, there is no bar to the use of foreign language sources. Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

El País published a very well-done graphic of the accident, that some graphically-gifted Wikipedian could model ours on. http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/25/media/1374703338_483146.html --Mareklug ^talk 05:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Class?

Have we got a source for what class the loco was? I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the English-language reports and nothing obvious in what I could glean from the Spanish ones. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alvia S 730, if I am reading this page correctly: http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/07/25/media/1374703338_483146.html, so it is the class covered by our article RENFE Class 130 --Mareklug ^talk 05:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What class the loco was? People died,want to class the train asap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.193.143.203 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Images from the video and other photos show the 130 class, hybrid version. The same video shows that the diesel generator half-car beyond the first engine is the first car to flip over, probably because the heavy V12 generator sits very high in respect to the rail height. ALe801 15:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALe801 (talk • contribs)

Photos

I requested that Flickr user Contando Estrelas change a few of his images of this event to a license permissible on Wikipedia. He has obliged, changing all of his photos of this event to a cc-by license. I've uploaded a couple of these images to Wikimedia Commons (currently in commons:Category:Santiago de Compostela derailment), and, should you find more of them useful, his photo album is here. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm uploading all them using Flickr2Commons. I will finish in some minutes. emijrp (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. emijrp (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So do the cc-by rules require that the captions mention Contando Estrelas? Abductive (reasoning) 14:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The cc-by requirements are filled by the Flickr2Commons tool, and are lodged on the Commons description page of each image it transfers. --Mareklug ^talk 00:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

New tunnel

I read in the Spanish press that the train emerged from a newly constructed tunnel just before the curve. The tunnel is not shown on Google Maps, but is visible on Bing Maps. Should the newness of the tracks and tunnel be added to the article? It is being talked about in the sources, though what bearing it had on the accident remains to be seen. Abductive (reasoning) 14:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless the official report says that it did, we report nothing. As things stand now, a speed-happy train driver caused the accident. --Mareklug ^talk 00:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Túnel is with ferocaril network on openstreetmap web site.

You said a speed-happy train driver has been selected to conduct high speed trains?

Video

In case anybody is wondering what video is being talked about, it's on YouTube here. One can see that the carriage behind the locomotives derails first. Abductive (reasoning) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

that's one of the generator trailers. User talk:ALe801 —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That video may be in the public domain. Not sure about Spain, but in the UK, images taken by CCTV are not copyrightable. I would imagine that it is a similar situation in Spain, but I'm not 100% sure of this. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days to stop IPs adding unsourced info. Any admin may unprotect the article if they judge my action to be too harsh without needing to consult me first. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

numbers

222 (218 + 4) injured 140 + 78 = 218. isn't that weird? what are the 4 left? the crew? this is wrong. where is the source of this information?

and here "According to the Madrid daily newspaper El País, 78 people were killed and 145 injured" well 78 + 145 = 223. who's the mysterious 1 if there were 222 on board?

Right now we are going with Madrid's and Spain's main daily, El País, which is reporting 218 passengers and 4 crew. With 80 confirmed deaths from all sources, "around 140 injured" seems to leave no room for anybody else. Of course, as sources get updated, if at all, we will update our numbers as well. --Mareklug ^talk

Apparently they droped the number of dead from 80 back to 78. They stated it was because they were able to match body parts with each other reveling that fewer people were killed http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/26/police-detain-spain-train-crash-driver-as-suspect/?test=latestnews 207.254.33.78 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

in the surveillance video, it clearly show an explosion on the top of the second car. this clearly means that this was a terrorist bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.246.79 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the article (with a source), terrorism has been ruled out. The data recorder confirms the cause of the accident to be excessive speed on the curve. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to this Mj. The explosion is likely the cause of the air and brake lines becoming detached and/or ruptured at high speed/pressure. Just because there is an explosion does not point to terrorism. And as it was pointed out, terrorism has been ruled out. Jguy _Talk^Done 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Explosion" on the video is clearly the electrical lines above the track short circuiting207.254.33.78 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop speculating/original research. This is not a forum, and Wikipedia only accepts content from reliable, third party sources. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No speculation whatsoever, just plain observation. Thank you. --89.0.235.30 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

that makes more sense, considering how no explosive material was ever found. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.246.79 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC) As 207.254.33.78 says, what is seen is the overhead power cables shorting out when carriage flipping over strikes the supporting post, bringing them down on the train. When you hear hooves, think "horses," not "zebras." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Video analysis: 135 km/h

A frame by frame analysis of the CCTV shows that, if the train length was 143.12m, that it was moving at 134.96 km/h with a +/-5.8% error (caused by the frame uncertainty). Beware, the framerate of the video is not the framerate it was shot at. Which would show that the drivers did probably brake. Is a paragraph about this tolerated in the article ? --Mayfoev (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Train length is not 143.12 m but 186 m. On the video, the train takes 3.5 seconds to pass a fixed point along the tracks, which give a speed of about 190 km/h. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So the train length I had calculated would be erronated? I thought that the 186m length is for the 2+11 version (it would correspond : 2x20+11x13.12=184.32m). But from all report I have read, here we have a 2+8 version. 2x20+8x13,12=143,12m --Mayfoev (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By definition, all of the above is original research and thus its inclusion in the article would contravene Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the apparent use of the past-tense of erronate—a word I cannot find within the OED nor within Mirriam-Webster. I suspect the adjective erroneous is meant --Senra (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Count the cars in the pictures: there are 13 total. 2+8 is being incorrectly reported. Does having the ability to count class this as original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.38.69 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Counting is not OR but any conclusion that the train may have been travelling at a particular speed would be --Senra (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone who can see the relevant images and who can count then update the carriage numbers, even if some sources report otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.38.69 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The CCTV video is a blurry view, almost head-on. I don't see how the original research above can be verified from it, as to the number of cars and engines. Is there video somewhere which is a clearer side view of the train passing a fixed point? Edison (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides which, the on-train data recorder verifies that the train was doing 190 km/h. We don't need to do OR when we have an established fact to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Contradiction

In the infobox of this article, it states that there were 178 injuries and 78 deaths. I don't dispute the 78 deaths, but the number of injuries stated in the lede is 140, which would make more sense, since 78+140<222 while 178+78>222. The source which is cited in the infobox does not state the number of people injured, only that 178 were taken to the hospital (many of those people probably later died). 131.225.233.64 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed this (back to 140) twice now. --Mareklug ^talk 19:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in numbers

In the version I'm looking at, the lede (and the infobox) says that 140 people were injured and 78 killed; that means that four people were uninjured (since the train had 222 people overall, 218 passengers and 4 crew). But then the derailment section says that just out of the 218 passengers, 140 were injured and 78 killed (i.e., no passenger was uninjured) and plus two crew were injured.

So is the total number of injuries 140 or 142? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)7

Edit request

Please add Costa Concordia disaster to the See also section. Both alleged gross negligence and boasting on part of the conductor. 123.198.187.68 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Declined. Difficult to see any cross-relevance. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for the Santiago de Compostela derailment site. Track side video clearly shows the train derailing in a curve which has 3 parallel tracks. The coordinates specified are on a stretch of single track. I don't have the correct coordinates, but clearly the ones given in the article are wrong. —24.211.82.248 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The tracks are new. Look at Bing Maps here, not Google. Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a slight tweak in the coordinates on the basis of the gallery photos showing where the train came to rest (particularly with reference to the buildings in the background of File:Tragedia en Santiago de Compostela (c).jpg, which can be seen in Google street views of the area). Deor (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't use Google, those images are old. Use Bing. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Or openstreetmap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.114.70 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Number and types of components?

The article isn't consistent on the numbers of cars and their types. The introduction states that there were two locomotives and eight passenger carriages, while the Derailment section states that there were two engines and two generator cars. Comments in the talk page discuss the "diesel generator half-car beyond the first engine", and looking at the video [[WP::OR]] I can see that the car right after the front engine (which seems to have gone off first) was shorter than its neighbors.

I'm guessing that there were two power units (each with an engine and a half generator car) bracketing eight carriages. Does anyone have a source that gives the correct numbers (and terminology)? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed 10 to thirteen to match what the body of the article says (and the picture of the similar set on the viaduct shows) but am not certain. The BBC, and El Pias articles include graphics of 12 vehicles, and the video is to quick/blurred to count, but 12 or 13, it certainly isn't 10. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Spanish article, which says thirteen. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the table with the formation of the train according to the train's manufacturer Talgo. The two generator cars are replacements of original end-cars in order to make it possible to use the train on unelectrified sections. Generator car 1 was crushed and set on fire by loco 1 so it is easily overseen when watching the video's. The powercars are 20 metres long the generator cars as well as the Talgo-carriages are 13.14 metres each. Probably this caused the reports of cars broken in two, a standard railway carriage is 26.14 metres, but there wasn't very much standard on this trainset.--JB63 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Black box opened?

The item cited in footnote 2, from La Voz de Galicia of 24 July, states that the black box has been opened and confirms the train's speed. And yet numerous articles in the Spanish and foreign press published on the 25th, 26th, and now the 27th of July state unequivocally that the black box has not been opened yet or any data retrieved from it. I wonder whether this makes the La Voz report a bit of an outlier, and not necessarily a reliable source? Clevelander96 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"open". black boxes don't have doors. you can discuss if the data was retrieved or not. but it was. already confirmed by many sources that claim that the black box recorded that the train was travelling at X speed at the time of the incident. they couldn't make that claims without checking the black box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.13.211 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Really a "derailment"?

It seems to me, that this accident strictly speaking actually is no derailment, since it was the centrifugal force that made the train overturn. Here is the definition of derailment according to wikipedia: "A derailment is said to take place when the track of a railway or tramway fails properly to guide a vehicle running on it." Since the railway didn't fail, it is not a derailment. The catastrophe had already taken place when the train left the track. I propose that "derailment" is changed to "disaster" were appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.203.195 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The wheels of the train left the track. By definition, that is a derailment. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from "disaster", is there a more precise name for that sort of accident? Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You're missing 62.20.203.195's point. The wheels left the track, but not due to a track failure. --89.0.235.30 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikipedia no longer says that. :/ --Mareklug ^talk 23:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, now it is consistent. --62.20.203.195 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Further data is coming in [1] suggesting that the automatic train control systems may have been in conflict as the automatic braking from the previous 240kph zone was triggered far too late, complicated by a handover from fully automatic control to a more manual system and the upgrade to the train's systems that morning. The video evidence suggests the front power unit was braking while the rear continued to drive, concertinaing the train and lifting the first, and possibly last, passenger coaches off the rails before the curve was engaged, which was determinant in derailing the lot. Once that happened, the problem was exacerbated by the lack of Jacobs bogies on the conventional carriages and their relatively short length, resulting in the concertinaing of the wreck against the revetment wall.

The implication of driver error is to be avoided, as HS trains are reliant on automatic control systems, human reaction times being to slow to comprehend and react to external input in usable time. The driver's role is more one of reporting than responsibility, so when he says they were travelling at 240kph it is far more a question of the system doing so than his doing so. High speed operation would otherwise be impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

it was not a derailment. no one in spain and even RENFE or other experts. no one says it was a derailment. only wikipedia says it. the title needs to change. If it was a derailment then any train accident needs to be changed because they all are derailments because the trains always go off the tracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.13.211 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to the idea of changing the title of the article, but I would like a suggested new title first. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Train accidents are classified as follows:

• Trains collision
• Train collision with an obstacle
• Train derailment
• Level-crossing accident
• Accident to persons caused by RS in motion
• Fire in rolling stock
• Other

(see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways ) I think this is a derailment. Going around a bend, there is a certain speed above which the train comes off the rails.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sequence of events

The Wikipedia article says "The trackside camera video indicates that one of the front passenger coaches was the first to leave the rails, followed by other coaches and the engine.[citation needed] " This statement added by Hyperman 42 is not in the ref following the next sentence. It may be based on conclusions made by that editor from viewing a brief, blurry and jerky video. It could be correct, but this is like looking a video of the Kennedy assassination and determining where the shooters were firing from, or watching an American football broadcast and deciding if it was a touchdown or missed by inches. It does not belong in the article until a reliable source can be cited, since it is just not that clear in the video. In the talk page section "Video" above, there is disagreement as to whether the first car seen to derail is the first passenger coach or the second locomotive engine. I will remove the line from the article if no reliable source is added. Edison (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth mentioning that both the first passenger coach and the hybrid generator car share a wheel bogie. Saying one or the other derailed first is technically correct. 207.254.33.78 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note I re-added the above comment because it was deleted for no reason 207.254.33.78 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at page 3 of this document

http://www.talgo.com/pdf/t250_250H_en.pdf

the bogie would appear to be at the front of the passenger carriage but also bearing the weight of the rear of the generator car. I don't follow your second sentence.Rjtucker (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When the bogie that bares the weight of both the passenger carriage and the generator car goes off the track both the passenger car and the generator car have derailed. In media reports stating one or the other derailed first are technically correct because both cars derailed at the same time. 207.254.33.78 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Some Google news results state conflicting interpretations, that the first car seen to derail was either the second of 2 locomotives or the first passenger car. Perhaps the "first coach" interpretations assume a single locomotive engine. Maybe the article needs to reflect both interpretations at this early stage of the investigation, along with one or two of the news sources analyzing the video. Edison (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The trainset was composed by: electric engine car, generator trailer, a number of passenger cars (one of them a cafeteria car), another generator trailer and another electric engine car. the so-called "second car" is in fact the first generator trailer. This statement can be checked simply by pausing the derailment video. ALe801 08:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALe801 (talk • contribs)

Diesel car

"The trackside camera video indicates that one of the front passenger coaches was the first to leave the rails, followed by other coaches and the power cars."

should be something like:

The trackside camera video indicates that the front diesel generator car was the first to leave the rails flipping the front driver electric power car and dragging the carriages behind it off the track with it, which collide into it and themselves.

This is sort of noted in "Sequence of events" and "Number and types of components?" above.

The diesel generator car has a higher mass (or higher average density if you like) and so has the greater centrifugal force (or, if you will, requires the greater centripetal force to stay on the rails).

References:

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/519892-spanish-train-crash-3.html#post7960109

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/519892-spanish-train-crash-3.html#post7960166

Rjtucker (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at the crash video many times and considering the physics of the situation, I can now only think an optician's appointment might be necessary for anyone suggesting that it's other than the first generator car that derails first. Whether an all-electric train without diesel generator units would have made it round the curve and how this might have influenced the driver is, of course, much more debatable at this time.

Reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RENFE_Class_130#Hybrid_train_S130H_.2F_S730 relevant in this respect?

The YouTube video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvvvL3OTtXk

in the first few minutes provides a good moving side view of a train like the one involved in the accident stationary at Ourense station and in the last few minutes shows how a train normally slows down for the curve involved (and some of the even tighter curves that follow).

Rjtucker (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjtucker (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your references, the Professional Pilots Rumor Netwoek, do not appear to qualify as a reliable source. But, as noted above under "Sequence of events, some mainstream news sources have made contradictory statements about which car tipped first, and they may be referring to the same car under different names (coach vs locomotive or generator car). Edison (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The video from the trackside camera, however, when looked at carefully, does, in my opinion, clearly show, despite the obscuration by a mast in a key frame, the first generator car toppling over first and, of course, bringing the rest of the devastation with it. The fact would, of course, be consistent with the laws of physics.

I'm doubtful the front axle in the first passenger carriage derailing or otherwise malfunctioning or power still being applied from the rear while the brakes are functioning at the front would have produced the apparent toppling of the front diesel car to be seen in the trackside camera video.

Rjtucker (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would add another two technical cents: from what I understand (always from the video) the trainset enters the curve with brakes applied. The peculiar weight/axle configuration of the train makes the engine cars brake a lot more than the subsequent "passenger section" (engines have more weight and full bogies = more adherence than the pax cars). This causes the first diesel half-car to be compressed longitudinally, rotate on the lateral axis around the only 4-wheel bogie, yawing upwardly, lifting the rear bogie of the electric engine car. This latter bogie, being lifted, doesn't exert any centripetal force, and the rear part of the eletric engine starts to drift outward the curve, dragging the following cars out of the tracks. So to me the diesel car doesn't "flip" at first. ALe801 07:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What I see is that the diesel car first starts to lift from the inside of the curve, i.e. it essentially pivots on the outside rail of the track. Depending on the forces acting and material strengths, there are then three possibilities: the car topples over inside the outside rail of the track, the outside rail gives way or the outside wheels of the car ride up over the outside rail. In this case, the latter seems to me to happen giving a vertical element to the car's velocity.

Investigators say the brakes were activated shortly before the crash. With the brakes applied on the curve, more weight would have been thrown on the outside front wheels of each piece of rolling stock increasing their individual likelihood of derailing in the same way an automobile on a tarmac road skids out of a bend in similar circumstances.

With jackknifing, "Typically, the rail car does not turn over (initially)..." "Safe Placement of Train Cars: A Report" U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

Rjtucker (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Train formation removed

I've seen that user Kinderlander removed the table containing info about the train formation because in his opinion it isn't necesary. Rather strange argumentation taken in to account the many requests on this talk page to clarify this issue and the request for reliable sources for this. By removing the table the sources left are soft sources from the press and video not consistant with each other. Is this about accurate info or just feeding the debate ?--JB63 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of Passengers on onboard

In the lead paragraph it says 222 people (218 passengers + 4 crew) where onboard but in the infobox it says 247 passengers? Which one (if any) is correct? Likelife (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

218 is the number the Spanish media have settled on. And so has, apparently, our infobox. --Mareklug ^talk 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

But currently, the numbers don't add up correctly: 80 dead plus 178 injured exceeds the reported 218 people onboard.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the 178 refers to the number transported in ambulances, and some died? Abductive (reasoning) 14:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the dead didn't die of old age, but from being mortally injured. They may be included in the 178. Also consider that some reporters count anyone who went to hospital or was looked at by a paramedic as "injured", even if it was just precautionary. Some don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The BBC source for 142 injured in the infobox doesn't use that number, but says "more than 140" were being treated for a range of injuries. The Spanish source also doesn't use that numeral, but may spell it somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: My calculator tells me that 80 + 178 totals 258. We need to reconcile these numbers. Wikipedia ALWAYS reports deceased as apart from the injured, so there is no overlap. Either there were 218 passengers/crew per our sources, or 258, but not both. This needs rechecking. --Mareklug ^talk 21:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC TV report that one of the deceased was a woman walking her dog, thus not a passenger. Mjroots (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two different numbers mentioned now. In the lead it mentions 222 people (including 4 crew) on board, with 140 injured, 79 dead. This can be correct. In the derailement part it mentions 218 passengers, of which 140 injured and 79 dead, while the numbers on injured and dead may be correct, they can not be all passengers as suggested by the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.114.206 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Speed limits

What was the speed limit at that section of curve? Abductive (reasoning) 14:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

80 km/h, according to El País source we use. --Mareklug ^talk 00:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

El Pais source sucks. RENFE said it was 80km/h. Also machinists confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.13.211 (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard on italian TV of an "engineering 120 km/h limit of the curve structure, lowered to 80 km/h due to the closeness to the Santiago station". I'm sorry I can't cite any source. Maybe I shouldn't even write this here. ALe801 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I dont quite like the intro. The words should be highlighted and more detail should be added about. Look at the other rail accidents, they have a bette intro. Anyone agree? Thanks! Martinillo (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Hope you like it now. --Mareklug ^talk 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Generic titles should not be bolded

Unacceptable per MOS:BOLDTITLE. The article title is completely generic, not an officially or commonly recongnized name for the event. Therefore, there must not be anything bolded in the lead. Could someone please undo Mareklug's edit to bring the article back in line with the MOS? --89.0.250.114 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why there needs to be bold text there.AleixoP (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The bold title is in accordance with established practice for articles of this type. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS supersedes whatever erroneous practice has been occurring in articles of that type. In fact, I'll go around and change all of them, just for you. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The bold title is in accordance with established practice for articles of this type. -- Oh really. Then why, pray tell, was this article in line with the MOS up until Mareklug's well-intentioned but MOS-defying edit? How do you explain that, Mjroots? --89.0.231.57 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't get why it's such a big of a deal. Mareklug, and Mjroots are both admins, and they should know if it is compliance with MOS. And it is. --Martinillo (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Martinillo. Abductive, I would remind you of WP:POINT and advise against such a course of action. IP.89 - go and look at other railcrash articles and you will see a concistency of the use of bold in the lede, just as it is with this article. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant, and if they're not following the underlying rationale of the MOS, they should be changed as well. Citing bad precedent as a reason for not improving this article --and actually making it worse-- is evidently nonsensical.

Come up with sources to prove the implicit assertion that "Santiago de Compostela derailment" is the formal or most widely accepted name for the event. Then, and only then, can we treat it as such. Generic article titles are not to be treated as a proper name, because that's akin to us promoting an idea rather than reporting on existing, verifiable facts. That you as an admin (I'm shocked to hear that you are) don't get such basic encyclopedic concepts is quite unacceptable. --89.0.254.14 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"Existing verifiable facts", eh? Let's see - the accident happened at Santiago de Compostela, and it was a derailment. Thus the article is housed at its current title, which is bolded in the lede per MOS. Simples. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I would remind IP 89.0.254.14 and Abductive that WP:MOS, like other guidelines, is reflective, not determinative, of accepted practice. In any event, this does not need to be a formal edit request for discussion to continue, so I am closing the request. Rivertorch (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The admins who have answered above are correct. Only if it's very awkward do we not bold, otherwise that is standard practice, according to the MoS. I suggest the IP back off and not make weird and strained applications of widely accepted practice and application of the MoS. In this case it isn't awkward at all. Note the wording at the end of this:

• "The Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained page is a Wikipedia page about not awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence when it makes no sense to do so."

The lead of the MoS contains these words:

• "...about not awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence when it makes no sense to do so."

There is nothing "awkward" or "superfluous" here. In this case it makes plenty of "sense" to do so, and there are no compelling reasons not to do it. The Santiago de Compostela derailment occurred on..." makes perfect sense. It flows nicely, and I don't know why a newbie IP is making a big fuss over this. This reeks of disruption over something that normally is no problem. I'm going to restore Mareklug's perfectly good version. It does not violate policy. On the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the ASFA signalling system supposed to automatically stop the train or not?

There is a contradiction between the Wikipedia entry and a reliable article on the Rail Journal about what exactly the train control system does on the section of track where the accident occurred.

From the Wikipedia article on the ASFA (really just a stub):

Anuncio de Señales y Frenado Automático is a railway signaling system used in Spain. It is used to prevent trains from overspeeding on lines where it is implemented, by first signaling the overspeeding in train cab, then by automatically stopping the train if the overspeeding continues.

From this RailJournal article:

Both ASFA and the more advanced ASFA Digital are automatic train protection (ATP) systems, but the latter provides the driver with information on braking curves while standard ASFA only triggers an emergency brake application if a signal has been passed at danger. It is unclear at this stage which version of ASFA is installed on the line.

It really changes the nature of the accident, depending on which is true: If ASFA is supposed to automatically stop a train that is going over the speed limit, then we had a human failure plus an equipment failure. If the ASFA system on this section of line did not have an automatic-stop system, then it was (likely) purely human error.

Obviously, it will take some time to know for sure all the things that failed in this case. But it seems to me that the question of whether or not the particular version of ASFA that was in use on this section of track at the time of the accident automatically stops over-speed trains, is a very important one.

Geoff Olynyk (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

it was digital. the train should had stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.215.176 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

... sources pointed out that in the Spanish network there is no other point requiring trains to slow down from 200 to 80km/h. This drastic speed reduction is made worse by the fact that the operation is "disastrously badly signalled" by two analog ASFA signals, an indication sign, and the driver's handbook, which leaves in the hands of the driver the execution of ... braking http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/comment/17085

ASFA is a cab-signalling and train protection system widely used in Spain. ... The system is not fail safe, but reminds the driver of the signalling conditions and requires him to acknowledge restrictive aspects within 3s. Lamp and bell warnings are provided for the driver. http://www.railway-technical.com/atpsurvey.shtml

The CEO of ADIF, Gonzalo Ferre, speaking to Agencia Efe ... claims in the fatal 4km no signalling different from analog ASFA is available and, moreover, this is more than adequate. http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/comment/17085

The reason that the digital ASFA beacons are used as a backup throughout the high speed sections of the corridor is that the analog beacons cannot operate above 110mph. http://www.voicesonthesquare.com/comment/17085

The train is said to have been travelling at 118mph.

The driver has lost track of the tunnels he's approaching and is left with his map and a lamp and bell warning system that may not function at the speed he's going? A simple (non-aesthetic?) trackside sign board could have prevented the accident?

Rjtucker (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, trackside signaling can't be reliably sighted at speeds above 160 km/h. That's why in-cab signaling was invented.GedeonWolf (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Conductor?

Many sources are reporting that the "conductor" operated the brakes. Presumably this is a mis-translation of "driver"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a translation at all, conductor is the Spanish word for driver.--JB63 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I guess it's an easy mistake given that UK and US both usualy still have a "train conductor". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, the proper English term should be used so as not to create confusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. The normal convention should be used of "driver" for driver, "operator" for train company/franchise and so on? AS far as I can see, no other staff were involved. But was there any ticket collector or "conductor", or a guard as such, on board? Also the American term (and the current re-direct) for "Train driver" seems to be "this? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see there were four crew aboard. We know that "the train's two drivers were injured but survived". But the other two? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cause and Reaction

First let me express sorrow.

What is evident is that all over the world trains (and factories) are having very avoidable accidents.

It brings to my mind the old train the British built up a mountain in India. It is slow, reliable, still running and serving many towns after all these years.

I don't think train technology has progressed far enough to push the speeds they boast SAFELY (or cost effectively). And if I were a rider I'd be more comforted by a longer ride knowing I'd get there safely. Unless of course it was a very long way (far travel historically includes some risk).

The news is telling us the "driver is distracted" but not whether the modern train is equipped with warning lights (ie, for speed approaching bend), nor railway protocols for trains nearing bends, etc. This may get too complicated for an article.

I like to think: they can increase the (auto) speed limit above 55 mph. But should they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Driver

The speed limit at the accident point was 80 Km/h, the train was at 180 km/h.

The driver denies to respond to the police.

The driver is now accused of 'Homicidio por Imprudencia' (homicide by negligence).

The automatic speed control in the train is disabled some kilometers before the station, so that the train is under manual control.

The train Company ADIF said, that the driver should start braking 4 kilometers before (the driver has a signal to do that).

--Eriklot (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Judge Aláez in document: "...el descarrilamiento que sufrió el tren ... parece tener su causa, sin dudas, en la inapropiada e imprevisible conducción del maquinista".

De esta afirmación del auto parece desprenderse que el juez Aláez tiene una idea formada de quién sería el único culpable del accidente: el maquinista. http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2013-08-01/el-juez-alaez-llama-a-declarar-al-interventor-en-calidad-de-testigo-1276496557/

"...the derailment suffered by the train ... seems to have its cause, without doubt, in the inappropriate and unpredictable conduct of the driver."

From this statement it appears that Judge Aláez judge has formed an idea of the only one who was to blame for the accident: the driver.

Rjtucker (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Normal" speeds?

Noticed this text added to the section detailing the driver's former speed-related boasting: "However, these speeds are normal and fully permitted on the high-speed line sections." This statement is not referenced in any way. If this is accurate, is there a reputable source for this? 184.97.219.119 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical documentation of the train's manufacturer (Talgo 250 infosheet) states in Spanish: "Puede circular a velocidades máximas de 250 km/h (ancho UIC) y 220 km/h (ancho ibérico)". Ancho UIC (standard gauge) applies to real highspeedlines, Ancho ibérico (Spanish/Portugese gauge) applies to this case because the line between Ourense and Santiago is a high-speed line with Spanish gauge. By the way this train is able to use both gauges by changing the distance between the wheels.--JB63 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but it's still unsourced in the article and also lacks specificity with the language (normal by what standard? fully permitted by whom?). I'm also not understanding how the authorities were so confident in arresting this man on 79 counts of homicide by professional recklessness if, in fact, his behavior was not reckless but "normal" and "fully permitted." If this sentence is to stay, it needs clarification and proper sourcing. 184.97.219.119 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The highspeed section ends in the tunnel just south of the crashsite and it is obvious that a driver should know he has to slowdown before the ending of the highspeed line entering the "classic" section at the speed it was designed for, in this case 80 km/h. The statement that generally spoken a highspeed train is permitted to drive over 200km/h stays correct, because that is the railway's definition of highspeed. The problem in this case is that it looks like driver-bashing because no one knows were the speedometer was photographed, so it is uncertain whether the driver was speeding when the facbook photo was taken, nor if this was on the railway section relevant to this section of line. Personaly I see the whole facebook issue as not relevant but as an attempt to depict the driver as a bad guy, leaving those making the statements as the good ones (typically social media). The technical details of this railway would take serveral pages, summarized: The ERTMS calculates the safe speed for the train depending on current location and other trains on the track in front. This is a permanent repeating process that issues a permitted speed to the driver in a range from 0 to 350 km/h, in this case limited to 220 km/h. This speed is recalculated permanently so without reading the blackbox and the signalbox no one can say what speed was transmitted to the driver and therfore whether he was speeding or not. However at the point the ERTMS ends (appx 3 km before the crashsite) the classic signalling system takes over, this stops the train when passing a signal at danger but at highspeeds it is almost too late per definition because it takes serveral kilometers (it isn't a car) to stop a train from 200 km/h to zero, if there was a red signal at all.--JB63 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Without a source which ties this information to the accident, this is OR and editorializing. Note that finding an independent source which documents this fact, but does not tie it to the accident, is a [[WP:SYNTH] violation. We need both bits of information in the same source. Please find such a source. It likely exists. I'm going to tag it for now. If it doesn't get sourced soon, it should be removed, which won't damage the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, I've added the legal sources for the normal speed (United States Code Title 49 Transportation, section 26105 and European Union directive 96/48 EC, 23 July 1996) at highspeed lines. But I Agree that the Facebook matter is a statement about the characteristics of the driver and I still don't see a direct tie to this accident mainly because up till now no one came up with the transmitted permitted speed just before the accident. --JB63 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IRJ has learned from a senior source at Renfe that while ETCS is operable on the Ourense – Santiago high-speed line, class 730 sets of the type involved in the derailment operate exclusively on Asfa on this route despite the fact that they are equipped with ETCS. All other passenger trains operating on this line, including the fleet of class 121 Avant emus, operate on ETCS. The reasons for this have not yet been firmly established.

However, the final ETCS balise on the high-speed line, which is situated 4km from the crash site, would only inform the driver that he is exiting an ETCS section, that all automatic driving modes are disabled, and that manual driving mode is active. This means that if ETCS was in use the accident may still have occurred, and any train could in theory enter the 80km/h section at 200km/h. Drivers of Avant trains brake manually on the section where the accident occurred because the driver interface does not display a braking curve in the transition section between ETCS and Afsa.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/etcs-not-operable-on-santiago-crash-train.html

ASFA "clásico" ("classic") supports speeds up to 160 km/h (100 mph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuncio_de_Se%C3%B1ales_y_Frenado_Autom%C3%A1ticoRjtucker (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Worst rail accident since when?

Currently the article has conflicting statements. Which is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

1972. -Koppapa (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for deleting the contradicting claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary Committee

Senior officials from Spain's railway operators are due to be questioned by a parliamentary committee following last month's deadly train crash in Santiago de Compostela.

The heads of train operator Renfe and railway administrator Adif will face questions about rail safety.

...

The BBC's Guy Hedgecoe in Madrid says that although the appearances of the two senior officials before a congressional committee have been prompted by the train crash, the session is not expected to look at the causes of the accident.

Instead, MPs will ask what measures have been taken since then to improve safety.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23610747

... el Ministerio informó el pasado viernes de que Adif había limitado la velocidad, con carácter temporal, a 30 kilómetros por hora en el tramo del siniestro, colocando un cartelón de limitación de velocidad y una baliza, que además está «protegida» por otra anterior que limita la velocidad a 60 kilómetros por hora. Adicionalmente, cinco kilómetros antes se había instalado una baliza ASFA y otro cartelón para reducir la velocidad a 160 kilómetros hora.

En paralelo, Fomento detalló que Renfe había emprendido una revisión de sus protocolos de comunicación entre la cabina de conducción (los maquinistas) y los centros de gestión, el de personal que viaja a bordo de los trenes y el resto de comunicaciones de servicios, según detalló Fomento.

http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/santiago/2013/08/07/presidentes-renfe-adif-explican-hoy-congreso-accidente-santiago/00031375901233021655836.htm

Rjtucker (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)