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.
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.
Plenty if reports of lack of maintenance, overwork in all levels, blame culture, etc.
Also systems in place not trusted by the workers, which means they're used to bypass them.
It's a systemic failure.
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.
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.
The person who controls whether the light shows red or green and gives verbal authorization is the same. It's both a tool, to transmit the same information.
Same information, no.
A person saying you have a green light when you have a red light is not the same information at all. The probability that something has gone wrong and will lead to disaster is many many times higher.
That's also true, but you should also be able to trust written movement authorities, otherwise why have them in the first place?
The right move here would've been to accept the suggestion to drive the train, but not accept the suggestion to drive it at normal speed. The driver should have driven at 40km/h.
+1 high speed should only be enabled by multiple redundant safety system being operational. Otherwise, it needs to operate at line of sight speeds.
Trust but verify. You wouldn't drive your car into a lake just because your satnav tells you to, would you?
As we also know from the aviation industry, controllers are human and therefore will make mistakes. A controller shouldn't issue a wrong order, but a driver also shouldn't accept an order they aren't certain about, and there should be technical systems backing both sides of that up.
It doesn't "fall" on the driver, but it doesn't "fall" solely on the controller either. It's a systemic issue, and many pieces have to fail for a disaster to happen.
A train is not a car. They accelerate and brake very slowly, you need kilometers to brake at high speed, it is impossible to check manually.
You can't verify, the rail has curves and other stuff that block sight.
Also stopping distance for trains is huge. This video for high speed trains says 5km (3mi) https://www.facebook.com/Renfe/videos/%EF%B8%8Fcu%C3%A1l-es-... That is probably at full speed, but IIUC the accident was at half speed so the distance should be like 1.2km (0.8mi).
The driver tried to verify by asking a confirmatory question from the controller. So clearly there are in fact ways to verify, even if we can not achieve 100% certainty.
The driver also could have refused the order to drive at normal speed, and instead follow the protocol which caps speed to 40km/h in situations like these.
> As we also know from the aviation industry
The aviation industry operates like the railway industry ~1920 (somewhat by necessity).
> You wouldn't drive your car into a lake just because your satnav tells you to, would you?
You are assuming a train driver is equivalent to a car driver. He's not, the analog would be more a repairmen that you always take with you on journeys.
> 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.
The train driver's job is to say: "it's red, I'm no moving, not my problem, you make it green if you want me to go"
That's why it's a union job
Also he's the first person to die on accident so it's that and the safety of everyone else
They do not 'need' to follow others, they just need to refuse unless all safe and green.
If they never start to drive it's the companies problem to deal with angry non-dead customers
That is not how the procedures work, so the driver would be fired as soon as they did that.
Every train network has situations where drivers are authorised to proceed against a red signal. Not usually at full speed though.
They wouldn't get fired. They are protected both in the US and Spain.
At most face unlikely discipline.
Here they would even have valid reason to refuse - order was given for full speed, regulation says low speed ready to stop.
So a "No, i'm not doing that, you're moron" would be justified.
No, he would get fired, because that's not his job. It would be like the machine engineer on a race track refusing to fix the ignition, because somewhere on the track he doesn't see, the asphalt might be broken.
Do train conductors not have the final authority in safe operation the way airline pilots do? If so that is absolutely insane.
The equivalent is a tower telling a pilot they should land and the runway is clear, except it isn't. And there also being fog, so you can't see it before it is too late. And you can magically not veer of. Planes can go around in three dimensions and try to rise again, a train basically moves in one direction, if they see the problem, it is way to late.
There is no point in the train driver making a decision about where the train goes, because he has no information for that decision. Hence it is also not his job. Like, yeah if he has reasonable reasons to think there is something wrong, nobody is going to fire him, but what is the policy that allows him to do so, while not just randomly deciding to not drive today? There is no difference for him, until he is about to die.
Pilots have the final say to refuse or stop a flight for any safety reason of their judgement... even if others tell them it is safe. And they are protected not by policy, but by law in doing so in the US and most countries.
But they also have the means to do so. If a train driver has a reasonable doubt about safety, nobody is going to punish them. But there is simply no way the doubts are reasonable, so it becomes just randomly doing otherwise, at which point the question is asked whether you are fit for the job.
I fail to see how following normal safety protocol of proceeding at 40km/h would have been indefensible or unreasonable? They are the rules of operation for this scenario and exist for the exact reason we are reading this story. I can’t think of anything more defensible than “I am not going to break safety rules”
Never would a pilot be reprimanded for refusing an ATC order to move their plane in a way that violates established protocols
I don't know, because there is no actual proper safety report yet. That certainly sounds reasonable, but obviously the dispatchers though otherwise. Likely because they did not actually understood that there was a problem, but that it's just that annoying bug again.
>No, he would get fired, because that's not his job.
Then what the fuck is this country even doing with trains.
No, no no, no no no.
Interlock safety systems exist for a reason. In any safety system where the interlock is down you do not resume standard operations. Ever. Why, because there is a book with blood that is 10,000 pages deep that describe the horrific accidents that happens when you do. Might as well be an axiom at this point.
>because somewhere on the track he doesn't see, the asphalt might be broken.
Again, stay away from analogies and safety critical systems.
The person behind the break and speed control of the train is no different from the captain of the airplane or the captain of a ship. They have full authority control to stop the train and refuse to move it until they are sure of the safety conditions. Any attempt to fire them should result in an immediate stop work from every employee in the system until they are put back on the job and the safety concerns are resolved.
> Then what the fuck is this country even doing with trains.
That has nothing to do with a single country. Above 40km/h you are not allowed to drive on sight in a lot of countries. I don't know how it is in Spain, but in Germany, you are also not allowed to drive via track-side signals above 160km/h. You can simply not decide about where it is safe to go from inside the train.
> Interlock safety systems exist for a reason
Yes, and that's a job of the dispatcher, not of the driver.
> In any safety system where the interlock is down you do not resume standard operations.
That might be nice in theory, but that has not much to do with reality. There is simply always something broken. It doesn't even need to be a signal, way more often a crossing doesn't properly report that it is closed.
> The person behind the break and speed control of the train is no different from the captain of the airplane or the captain of a ship.
Nah, it's very different. For one a captain or pilot can control the direction of the ship/plane. They can also determine whether their operation range is clear. A train driver can do none of these things. What's the point of making them responsible for safety if they neither have the knowledge, nor the lever to change things? Trains are more secure, because the driver is not responsible for the infrastructural safety, not less. That includes whether the track is clear or not.
So it’s clearly an industry wide problem then. The more I read the more thankful I am California can’t build high speed rail.
Except that car vs. rail deaths per 100 million person km is 0.7 vs. 0.035 and per 100 million person hours 25 vs. 2 (https://etsc.eu/transport-safety-performance-in-the-eu-a-sta... or https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...). It's more of an human wide problem, rather than industry wide problem. If you want to be safe, you need stay at home, but that's also not going to be actually safe.
The point of this discussion is that people blame the train driver or say "use self-driving", when that is not going to solve the problem, because that's not where the error is. The error is not there, *because* for rail making errors operating the train is not going to cause an accident (most of the time), which is not the case for cars.
The driver always has the final say on whether the train is safe to move. They are not just a button and lever pusher. They have to analyse whether the decision is correct. Hence why I stated there were multiple points of failure. The controller and the driver both went with full speed despite it being completely against regulation on a red signal.
> They are not just a button and lever pusher.
I agree. But the decision whether all switches are locked in the correct position and that the track is clear, is not one that he is supposed to make and he also doesn't have the information for it.
> The controller and the driver both went with full speed despite it being completely against regulation on a red signal.
Going full-speed in the case of a red signal is not necessarily against regulation. Also the information of "red signal" or "you can go" is both a signal from the same source. There is no information for the driver to make a different decision over the dispatcher.
I can't comment about whether the current accident was caused by going against regulation, and more important by whom and against which. We need to wait for the proper safety report, not for a BBC article. If you take the latter at face value, it would mean there are clowns operating, which I am sure, is not actually the case. The real error is always way more subtle, otherwise it would not have happened.
> The train driver's job is to say: "it's red, I'm no moving, not my problem, you make it green if you want me to go"
A written movement authority is a signal as well in railway terms. It's more like "I don't trust your second traffic light, that you placed next to the normal one, because the normal one is broken".
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.
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.
> 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.
How do you pass a defective signal then? How do you couple a second locomotive? How do you add cars?
LZB does cab-signalling and continuously supervises speed and braking curves. Combined with AFB it can accelerate and brake automatically to LZB targets. So regular operations are already partly automated (and have been for a long time). The system already doesn't rely on perfect driver attentiveness for safety. The driver should still watch the track ahead, but trains usually can't stop within line of sight anyway, so for separation we have to rely on the signalling system.
Drivers are absolutely still needed for other parts of the operation though, like working stations, shunting, and perhaps most importantly handling irregularities. Faults can happen and you don't want the train to be stuck out on the track for hours. Instead, it makes so much more sense to either fall back to lineside signals (often accompanied with a point-based train protection system) or driving within line of sight.
Driving a train and driving a car are two completely different challenges.
If signaling worked properly then it wouldn't matter whether the train was driven autonomously or not, the "problem" becomes trivial. Establishing and continuously verifying that signaling is working properly is the hard part.
Without signaling you're limited to crawling speed just like humans are when they don't have any signalling .
Yeah, if you completely ignore availability as a problem. The state of the art self-driving technologies we have today only work in some conditions, some of the time.
The reason vehicles are still driven manually is because humans rely on transportation every day, all of the time.
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...
> Detecting objects (and future objects!) on a train track is still a hard problem.
In this case the “object” was another train. That’s not the “hard” part of the problem. This sounds like an apologist comment.
What difference does that make, genuinely?
Are there systems that can warn drivers and prevent collisions without external signaling, like ACAS?
Yeah, that's a solved problem. Did you even read my whole comment? I answered why "just use the system from self-driving cars" wouldn't work and in fact would be less safe than the current system.
What's the stopping distance of a high-speed train at full speed? I don't know, but I bet it's kilometers, not meters.
Detecting an object on the tracks 2 km away (say), as opposed to beside the track at the same distance, is in fact a hard problem. The tech used in self-driving cars is not going to solve it.