5 comments

  • notenchange 22 minutes ago
    Reading the text it seems to me this is due to a very widespread issue in Spain and other southern European countries: people don’t care about the warnings because there are too many false positives.

    That’s why people here, when they hear the fire alarm they just wait for it to go off: the probability that it is actually a fire is minuscule… but the alarm triggers a lot.

    Not sure how to actually solve this… but I’m also not making excuses for what happened. High speed trains is not the same as a fire alarm in some office building, the people in charge should be held responsible somehow.

    • coopykins 11 minutes ago
      Something similar is happening in my region after the flood that happened two years ago: The alarm was raised late; Now, even mild rain is triggering an alert.

      Guess whats the consequence of that? Less and less people pay attention to the alerts.

    • 1718627440 19 minutes ago
      It just means that a false positive rate is a as dangerous as a false negative rate. Just issuing a warning doesn't come for free when you are designing a security system.
      • karmakurtisaani 16 minutes ago
        This is very well illustrated in the fable Boy who cried false positive.
    • pelagicAustral 8 minutes ago
      > That’s why people here, when they hear the fire alarm they just wait for it to go off

      This literally happened to me last night, I was having dinner at my apartment, and suddenly I start hearing a smoke alarm, but not quite inside the apartment, I just kept having dinner thinking "bah, someone probably burned a toast".

      Then it wont stop, I walk to door and hear people talking, still don't bother enough, wait a few minutes, then go out and my neighbor said "there are three fire trucks down there, I think it's a real one" hahhaha

      The hallway was kind of hazy and smelled like burnt food, for sure... so I just grabbed my laptop and went out hahaa.

  • swiftcoder 30 minutes ago
    The level of human negligence here is astounding. The system did exactly what it was supposed to (lock the train down if the track can't be confirmed clear), and then a human controller ordered the crew to override the system, and ordered them to proceed at an unsafe speed towards a similarly disabled train?
    • wjnc 16 minutes ago
      I would argue that we should look at systems-level explanations. The human factor is so glaring we can get caught up in it. There are what, 50?, high speed trains in movement in Spain at the same time. Even GPS + Starlink + 1 monitor (is that 50k€?) could have prevented this. But it happened, and the question is what is going on with train security in Spain in general for people to (be able to) make such decisions.
    • 1718627440 21 minutes ago
      Sorry, but ordering trains to drive manually after the system locks itself down, is the proper procedure. Of course you are still supposed to only send trains to free sections, but the error is in that step, not that they ordered a train to drive on it's own.

      Also the fallback procedure is also aided by automatic systems and a sizable number of accidents in the past were caused by that information being faulty.

      • julik 1 minute ago
        It is the proper procedure, and it does come (in a lot of countries, AFAIK) with a lot of guardrails:

        There will be a so-called "train order" allowing passage of a specific section ignoring the safety system warnings, which has strict validity limits both in time and in the area where it applies, usually denoted by specific hectometric mileposts

        When cab signaling is involved (LZB is one of these) and it malfunctions, the entire system normally changes to "driving on sight only" - which indeed limits the train to 40, 30, 20, sometimes - 15 km/h (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_%C3%A0_vue) or the line gets switched to lineside signaling - if it is available.

        I don't know how you could violate all of those rules - both from the driver's side and from the traffic control side - but it sounds absolutely horrible. Like an override of at least 2 (if not 3) very explicit safety margins.

      • AdrianCX 1 minute ago
        Why is that?

        I remember a long time ago I was stuck a long time in the field with a train because of a similar failure and conductor just wouldn't move unless green

        I was expecting the same here, conductor is the first to die so just refuse until the idiots fix their system

      • _trampeltier 19 minutes ago
        Yes, but just with max. 40km/h
        • wafflemaker 14 minutes ago
          So that's why my train slowed to 40kmph when the Norwegian Telecom died for a few hours 3 weeks ago.
          • _trampeltier 1 minute ago
            Yes, 40km/h is for driving on sight in most Europa. I think in France it's even 30km/h.
  • Yokolos 35 minutes ago
    So based on this, the safest place to sit is presumably the middle carriage?
  • ktallett 1 hour ago
    I can't imagine what every passenger who survived and the families of those who passed are going through. Such a catastrophic incident with multiple human failures is so tragic and so needless. From the controller to the driver, every single one of them should have said hey we shouldn't just ignore a signal and should investigate why it's on first. For this to be such a quick decision suggests it's not a one off. I would be extremely interested to see how many near misses or ignored signals there has been across Spain. The crash earlier this year was due to inexperienced workers and it seems as if significant training improvements and protocols are needed.
    • jplrssn 47 minutes ago
      If as a driver you get told by the control centre to get the train moving again at maximum line speed, surely you should be able to trust that it is safe to do so?

      I don't see how this would fall on the drivers at all.

      • gpvos 39 minutes ago
        My thoughts as well. It appears that such signal failures happen so often that the controllers regularly let trains run through red under verbal authorization. I don't know the exact protocols, but I would expect a driver to ask for confirmation, as happened here, and then trust the control centre. However, there is clearly a huge systemic problem, with added complexity for the controllers, and there should at least be double checks in the control centre.
    • 1718627440 17 minutes ago
      > From the controller to the driver, every single one of them should have said hey we shouldn't just ignore a signal

      A train driver has zero insight in what is going on and where other trains are. They do need to trust the orders they get, if you want to question every order you will never start to drive.

    • bigDinosaur 40 minutes ago
      To have had this many incidents compared to other HSR networks around the world gives all the signs of a classic case of normalisation of deviance.

      Sadly we'll probably watch a lot of individuals being blamed/scapegoated for systemic issues, but hopefully even Spanish politics can organise a proper investigation after this many deaths in a single year.

    • dutchbart 43 minutes ago
      The even more insane thing to me is that the controller knew that there was another train in that block, knowing it was no signal failure. The driving train should’ve never been commanded to continue on full speed by the controller.
      • cedws 27 minutes ago
        Trains shouldn’t even be manually driven in 2026. We have self driving cars now which is a way harder problem to solve. Relying on a system of signals and driver attentiveness is archaic.
        • 1718627440 4 minutes ago
          We do not have self-driving cars in all environments that clear the necessary security regulation! Also the socially accepted number of deaths due to trains is way below that for cars. The current accident is just a Tuesday for car traffic. (Spain recorded 1785 road deaths in 2024[1], that's 4.9 per day) Detecting objects (and future objects!) on a train track is still a hard problem.

          The current system is basically that the train is driven both automatically and by a professional attentive driver at the same time. Changing it to just the automatic system is going to reduce safety. Also the real world is way to messy to reach acceptable availability rates with only automatic systems.

          [1] https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/spain-road-safe...

        • delta_p_delta_x 21 minutes ago
          > Trains shouldn’t even be manually driven in 2026

          Potentially, but the point is that signallers should physically be unable to allow trains to proceed, and drivers should physically not be able to override them. British signalling from the 1800s has physical interlocks; this isn't a matter of manual versus automatic train operation. It is clearly systemic.

  • schnitzelstoat 41 minutes ago
    It's incredible the minister didn't resign after the January crash and I doubt he will now either. I understand that perhaps the problem started in the control centre but surely at the end of the day the minister is responsible - they don't get paid a fortune just to pass the blame on to the workers.
    • agarsev 25 minutes ago
      I fail to see how the two accidents, which seem to have very "down to earth" explanations (maintenance failure by workers, protocol override by operators) are being assumed to be a political responsibility so quickly by some and asking for the minister resignation. Now, two in a row seem to point to systemic issues. Is this responsibility of Adif or Renfe? maybe those state companies have to be thoroughly revised. is it due to lack of funding? maybe taxes should be raised, or money diverted from somewhere else (though seeing the spanish budget, it's hard to tell where from, both teachers and doctors are currently protesting for lack of funding). Maybe it is, in the end, a political directive that should have responsibilities declared in the executive. But seeing so many interested parties jumping to that conclusion literally hours after the crash means it's not done out of any reasoning but political animosity
      • Xenoamorphous 19 minutes ago
        > are being assumed to be a political responsibility so quickly by some and asking for the minister resignation

        It sucks but that's how it is over here. It's "my" party the one in power when a catastrophe like this happens? It's not the politicians, it's someone else. Is it the other party? Surely the politicians are ultimately responsible.

        This reflects on the news media as well.

        • wafflemaker 11 minutes ago
          Confirming same for Poland. Added to it is the growing polarization and nearing a two-party-like system. Started around Covid.
    • Xenoamorphous 23 minutes ago
      > they don't get paid a fortune

      Salary for ministers is around 80k euros per year. Yes significantly more than the minimum salary but hardly a fortune.