Passenger Trains > Two Passenger Trains in a Head-On in Germany. 10 dead.

I didn't see this posted anywhere yet so hear it is. Too soon to know the cause.

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trains-collide-germany_us_56b9a3a7e4b01d80b247abfb

 

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/16 12:05 by darkcloud.

On the Western Board at 12.01 - "Automatic braking failure"...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

One tidbit if information seems to be left out.... What was the speed of the trains? Had they been placed into emergency before impact?

Orient Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One tidbit if information seems to be left out....
> What was the speed of the trains?

Can't remember which source it was - 100 kmph each (~60 mph)

> Had they been
> placed into emergency before impact?

Again, don't remember which source, but they found each other on a curve with very short sight distance, so even if so, it had no effect.

TAW

And this is PTC territory, and it was operational.

No, it is not PTC territory, at least not as the term PTC is and has been used by the FRA and the signalling industry in North America.   This error may be due to mistranslation or misunderstanding by the general press.

The line is equipped with PTZ, specifically PTZ90;  this is basically an ATS system [ think NYC or ATSF in the fifties ], upgraded with the ability to transmit multiple indications, and enhanced with onboard computers to provide speed enforcement and "delayed in block" capabilities.  It only replicates / enforces [ within limits ] what existing wayside indications provide;  in the case in question, think of them as manually controlled interlockings with single track between them.

Had the line been equipped with PTC, or even cab signals [ as are the main lines in Germany ], this accident would not have happened.

I hope that helps -- although it may not fit in with the agenda some TO posters seem to have.

SZ

PS   To us older guys this system, which basically dates back to the mid thirties in its original form, was known as "Indusi".

Steinzeit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it is not PTC territory, at least not as the
> term PTC is and has been used by the FRA and the
> signalling industry in North America.  
> This error may be due to mistranslation or
> misunderstanding by the general press.
>
> The line is equipped with PTZ, specifically
> PTZ90;  this is basically an ATS system [ think
> NYC or ATSF in the fifties ], upgraded with the
> ability to transmit multiple indications, and
> enhanced with onboard computers to provide speed
> enforcement and "delayed in
> block" capabilities.  It only replicates /
> enforces [ within limits ] what existing wayside
> indications provide;  in the case in question,
> think of them as manually controlled interlockings
> with single track between them.
>
> Had the line been equipped with PTC, or even cab
> signals [ as are the main lines in Germany ], this
> accident would not have happened.
>
> I hope that helps -- although it may not fit in
> with the agenda some TO posters seem to have.
>
> SZ
>
> PS   To us older guys this system, which
> basically dates back to the mid thirties in its
> original form, was known as "Indusi".

I don't have an agenda but if two trains are heading toward each other, the line is signalled???, and the signals are enforced by  some system  what ever it is called then at least one should have been stopped or at least slowed  if the signal system was working and the enforcement is working?? or is that too  simplistic view. 

Bob

Can you elaborate on the 'Delayed in Block' capabilities of the PTZ90 system?

Waybiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you elaborate on the 'Delayed in Block'
> capabilities of the PTZ90 system?

Sure, especially since I typed PTZ90 when I should have written PZB90:  Just do an internet search for  "Indusi" -- this can direct you to a PZB page, in English, and scroll down to the -90 section.  Basically, it enforces speed thresholds after restrictive signals.

SZ

robj Wrote:
 I don't have an agenda but if two trains are
> heading toward each other, the line is
> signalled???, and the signals are enforced by 
> some system  what ever it is called then at least
> one should have been stopped or at least slowed 
> if the signal system was working and the
> enforcement is working?? or is that too 
> simplistic view. 
>
> Bob

No, that's correct;  the problem is "human error" -- when someone doesn't follow the Rules and / or overrides a safety system.  "Informed sources" seem to be telling the Press this is the case;  will probably be an official announcement with preliminary findings within 36 hours, I'd say.

SZ

Orient Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One tidbit if information seems to be left out....
> What was the speed of the trains? Had they been
> placed into emergency before impact?

​75 kmh (46mph) is the max speed on the line at that location ... the 2 trains were each doing somewhere between 60-65 kmh (37-40mph) at the point of collsion ...