That is why I was questioning if this was protocol or not. I believe there were two crew on board so not sure why the other crew member wasn't tasked with trying to figure out the schedule over that phone 

 

They operate alone.

 

Anyways, the use of phone is quite standard. If I had a dime for every phone call Ive had in the cab Id be rich now. If it aint dispatch, then its the train ops central or perhaps the conductor running in the back or maybe the txp (which controls any station out of remote control option).

 

We had a similar accident in NSB february 2012

 

http://www.tu.no/motor/2012/04/12/lokforer-snakket-i-mobilen-da-flirt-toget-krasjet

 

That was a test train. There was two train drivers in the cab and one of them was talking to train ops central in Oslo. Everyone thought that it was the distraction that was to blame, but the report released by the norwegian crash investigators revealed that the one who was driving (and not talking on the phone), was understimulated. He was basically bored and tired and had the get-there-itis.

 

Phone calls are not a problem. Ive been on the phone while driving a train for long distances, stopping and what not, its not a problem.

 

However, what is a problem is when you have that one guy whos driving into a severe speed reduction without any aid from the ETCS/AFSS (which is beyond stupidity that they`d ever bulid a HST-line without a system that guards the trains in such high decreases in speed) while at the same time being distracted with something else. They cannot blame him, they should rather blame themself for building a trap like this into their HST-system.

They operate alone.

 

Anyways, the use of phone is quite standard. If I had a dime for every phone call Ive had in the cab Id be rich now. If it aint dispatch, then its the train ops central or perhaps the conductor running in the back or maybe the txp (which controls any station out of remote control option).

 

We had a similar accident in NSB february 2012

 

http://www.tu.no/motor/2012/04/12/lokforer-snakket-i-mobilen-da-flirt-toget-krasjet

 

That was a test train. There was two train drivers in the cab and one of them was talking to train ops central in Oslo. Everyone thought that it was the distraction that was to blame, but the report released by the norwegian crash investigators revealed that the one who was driving (and not talking on the phone), was understimulated. He was basically bored and tired and had the get-there-itis.

 

Phone calls are not a problem. Ive been on the phone while driving a train for long distances, stopping and what not, its not a problem.

 

However, what is a problem is when you have that one guy whos driving into a severe speed reduction without any aid from the ETCS/AFSS (which is beyond stupidity that they`d ever bulid a HST-line without a system that guards the trains in such high decreases in speed) while at the same time being distracted with something else. They cannot blame him, they should rather blame themself for building a trap like this into their HST-system.

 

This is what I thought, that phone is standard equipment, using it is standard protocol. The Media just taking out of context like he was making a phone call just creates gossip from its readers.

 

Been an interesting thread learning about trains as most of my attention is towards Aviation.

This is what I thought, that phone is standard equipment, using it is standard protocol. The Media just taking out of context like he was making a phone call just creates gossip from its readers.

 

Been an interesting thread learning about trains as most of my attention is towards Aviation.

 

In the USA under Federal Law it is an offence to operate an electronic device if you are moving, including a phone. I am not going to look for it. But if the driver is driving then the conductor needs to use the phone. The driver should not be on the phone at any time. If you want any clarification check the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) for the code (CFR) on this.

On close inspection it looks like the second carriage after the engine is already off the rails when the train comes into view. And then that carriage goes straight on pulling the engine off from its rear. Something could have failed on that carriage first. Also the cars on the bridge seem to be going quite fast, it is possible the film is not a 1:1 frame rate conversion.

In the USA under Federal Law it is an offence to operate an electronic device if you are moving, including a phone. I am not going to look for it. But if the driver is driving then the conductor needs to use the phone. The driver should not be on the phone at any time. If you want any clarification check the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) for the code (CFR) on this.

Federal regulations have little applicability to Spanish trains. Is this phone not just the standard device the train driver uses to communicate with traffic control? At the moment it sounds a bit like people complaining that a pilot was talking on his headset before a crash.

Federal regulations have little applicability to Spanish trains. Is this phone not just the standard device the train driver uses to communicate with traffic control? At the moment it sounds a bit like people complaining that a pilot was talking on his headset before a crash.

I wouldn't say that. It would be similar to a pilot crashing a plane because he was busy having a conversation with dispatch during final approach. Which would be illegal here. A phone conversation or a discussion with a dispatcher is different than 'talking on the headset' with ATC. Communications with ATC over the headsets are different than normal conversations. They are brief, standard phrases, limited to only essential instructions or numeric values required for the immediate control of the aircraft. In fact, controllers in the US are limited to communicating no more than 3 discrete items in a transmission to an aircraft. Whether on the headset or over a phone, the kind of communications we pilots have with dispatchers are of 'normal conversation' type and can definitely distract from flying. That is why when we talk to dispatch, we either set the parking brake or we hand the flying and ATC communications to the other pilot. I wouldn't dismiss the phone conversation as noncontributory to the accident. If it was sop for them to only have one driver who was also required to communicate by phone to dispatch for instructions, then there are definite issues with their operations that should be corrected.

Federal regulations have little applicability to Spanish trains. Is this phone not just the standard device the train driver uses to communicate with traffic control? At the moment it sounds a bit like people complaining that a pilot was talking on his headset before a crash.

Regardless, operating a phone in the United Sates whilst operating rail vehicles is illegal. And they do have radios on board for communication.

 

Pilots using his headset which he doesn't hold is slightly different. You can have an aircraft on autopilot and being in full IFR. There are no signals to see, people or cars to hit.

 

Spain is way behind it.

Regardless, operating a phone in the United Sates whilst operating rail vehicles is illegal. And they do have radios on board for communication.

 

Pilots using his headset which he doesn't hold is slightly different. You can have an aircraft on autopilot and being in full IFR. There are no signals to see, people or cars to hit.

 

Spain is way behind it.

 

And, you have two people in a cockpit. In the Spain accident there was a crew of one who should not have been on the phone.

From the article:

''The Renfe employee on the telephone "appears to be a controller," a person who organizes train traffic across the rail network, said a statement from a court in Santiago de Compostela, where the investigation is based.''

 

Maybe one of the train-driving people can clarify for me whether that is more comparable to a pilot talking to ATC or to his company dispatcher.

In the USA under Federal Law it is an offence to operate an electronic device if you are moving, including a phone. I am not going to look for it. But if the driver is driving then the conductor needs to use the phone. The driver should not be on the phone at any time. If you want any clarification check the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) for the code (CFR) on this.

 

Its useless to compare Us regulations with Europe simply because, as you said; They operate with radios. The entire ERTMS-system depends upon the GSM-R project taking place all over Europe. ETCS+GSM-R=ERTMS.

 

Let me give you a very hard and viable example of why we cant use radios:

 

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85sta-ulykken

 

The Åsta-train crash on the 4th of January 2000 in Åsta, Norway took the lives of 19 passangers and many where badly injured. That accident was the very reason for why Norway spent hundreds of million on building

a GSM-R network because the cell-phones both drivers had in the cab did not have a signal, neither did the cab-radio. The togleder (the guy in charge of remotely controlling the signals) tried calling both of them several times. Ambulances and fire trucks where on their way before the accident happened. Needless to say, the togleder never came back to his job...

 

So in Norway std cell phones and radios are useless. Thats why we have to have phones that has its own network.

 

 

 

Pilots using his headset which he doesn't hold is slightly different. You can have an aircraft on autopilot and being in full IFR. There are no signals to see, people or cars to hit.

 

No, but still accidents happen due to them talking, either with atc or dispatch. Point is we cant guard our behinds against every possible chain of events.. That RENFE allows their train drivers to talk on the phone in standarized calls is not a problem. That spanish authorities would allow their infrastructure to be buildt with such a trap in to their HST-system is something very different.

 

 

 

Maybe one of the train-driving people can clarify for me whether that is more comparable to a pilot talking to ATC or to his company dispatcher

 

More to company dispatcher; but heres the thing. In an aircraft you are free to move about in two more dimensions than a train. Where a train can move forward and backward, an airplane can also move up and down and turn when it wants. It takes less to crash an aircraft! All the times Ive been on the phone and thats when im more consentrated:

 

I screw up more when im not on the phone than when I am! Thats when I miss platforms and even drive by a stop because im day dreaming. We consentrate waaay better when we have one more thing keeping us busy then when we just drive. Before I was allowed to start train driver school I had to go through the same mental capacity tests as the airforce pilots in Norway do.. We ought to be able to drive a train and talk on the phone at the same time.

Its useless to compare Us regulations with Europe simply because, as you said; They operate with radios. The entire ERTMS-system depends upon the GSM-R project taking place all over Europe. ETCS+GSM-R=ERTMS.

 

Let me give you a very hard and viable example of why we cant use radios:

 

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85sta-ulykken

 

The Åsta-train crash on the 4th of January 2000 in Åsta, Norway took the lives of 19 passangers and many where badly injured. That accident was the very reason for why Norway spent hundreds of million on building

a GSM-R network because the cell-phones both drivers had in the cab did not have a signal, neither did the cab-radio. The togleder (the guy in charge of remotely controlling the signals) tried calling both of them several times. Ambulances and fire trucks where on their way before the accident happened. Needless to say, the togleder never came back to his job...

 

So in Norway std cell phones and radios are useless. Thats why we have to have phones that has its own network.

 

 

 

 

No, but still accidents happen due to them talking, either with atc or dispatch. Point is we cant guard our behinds against every possible chain of events.. That RENFE allows their train drivers to talk on the phone in standarized calls is not a problem. That spanish authorities would allow their infrastructure to be buildt with such a trap in to their HST-system is something very different.

 

 

 

 

More to company dispatcher; but heres the thing. In an aircraft you are free to move about in two more dimensions than a train. Where a train can move forward and backward, an airplane can also move up and down and turn when it wants. It takes less to crash an aircraft! All the times Ive been on the phone and thats when im more consentrated:

 

I screw up more when im not on the phone than when I am! Thats when I miss platforms and even drive by a stop because im day dreaming. We consentrate waaay better when we have one more thing keeping us busy then when we just drive. Before I was allowed to start train driver school I had to go through the same mental capacity tests as the airforce pilots in Norway do.. We ought to be able to drive a train and talk on the phone at the same time.

 

Since I haven't said it yet and won't have internet for the coming week, thanks for all the great context and information you've been supplying.

Since I haven't said it yet and won't have internet for the coming week, thanks for all the great context and information you've been supplying.

 

Your welcome, but it really was a pleasure to finally contribute with something more than just "How do I..?" "Why is this..?" "Where should I..?" "When will it be released???????"""  :Party:

Since I haven't said it yet and won't have internet for the coming week, thanks for all the great context and information you've been supplying.

 

Cheers John-Alan

 

What you have been saying gave me some thought. I recall my flight instructor used to always say, 'Fly the airplane first, worry about the radio second' 

'

Radio communication is a part of flying and I guess train guys use a phone, but operation of your vessel should always be the number 1 priority over a communication device.

Here is some details of the lack of Automatic Train Protection:

 

 

 

Spain to review rail safety after crash

 

Spain says it will review its railway network to improve security after a train derailed last month killing 79 people, the country's deadliest train disaster in decades.

 

"We are carrying out a general review of all protocols and all security systems, as well as speed limits. When I say all, it is of the entire railway network," Public Works Minister Ana Pastor on Friday told a parliamentary panel about the July 24 crash.

 

"We are analysing the network. And we will take decisions that improve security based on this analysis," she added.

 

The eight carriage train was hurtling around a bend at 179km/h, more than twice the speed limit, when it leapt off the tracks near the northwestern city of Santiago de Compostela, according to its data recording "black boxes".

 

It came to rest in a mangled heap after ploughing into a concrete siding.

 

The driver, 52-year-old Francisco Jose Garzon Amo, was on the telephone to the on-board conductor and stopped speaking just 11 seconds before the train flew off the tracks.

 

Garzon has been provisionally charged with 79 counts of reckless homicide. He has been released under court supervision while an investigation into the crash continues.

 

In his first testimony to the regional court in Santiago that is investigating the accident last month, Garzon said he "didn't understand" how he failed to brake in time.

 

"I can't explain. I still don't understand," he told the judge when asked why he hadn't slowed down in time to take the sharp bend four kilometres (three miles) away from Santiago de Compostela station.

 

"I tell you sincerely that I don't know. Otherwise I would not have been so crazy as not to brake" earlier, he added according to a court recording of the hearing.

 

Railway officials say the track where the train crashed was not equipped with the automatic braking systems in place on some high-speed lines and that it was therefore left up to the driver to brake.

 

The president of state train company Renfe, Julio Gomez-Pomar, told the parliamentary panel on Thursday that the crew had not reported any problems with the train before the crash.

 

"All security procedures were followed correctly," he said.

 

"We are committed to finding out what caused the accident and we will continue to improve the safety of the Spanish rail system."

 

Nine foreigners, including two Americans, were among the 79 people who died in the accident.

 

Many aboard the train were Catholic pilgrims heading for Santiago de Compostela's internationally celebrated annual festival honouring St James, a disciple of ******* whose bones are said to rest in a crypt beneath the altar of the city's cathedral.

 

It was Spain's deadliest rail accident since 1944 when hundreds were killed in a train collision, also between Madrid and Galicia. In 1972, 77 people died when a train derailed between Cadiz and Seville

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1798584/Spain-to-review-rail-safety-after-crash

IIUC this is sort of like the Asiana crash situation in that the train is following one set of protocols with automation on the high speed portion of the route, but then has to transition to different protocol with less automation on the non-high speed (or perhaps "normal" speed) portion of the route.  From a human-factors standpoint, I would think this has a good chance of operator error in reliably making the transition.

 

scott s.

.