In France, TGV Test Train Catches Fire, Derails, Killing 10 (mirror.co.uk)

McGruber writes with the Mirror's report that: Earlier today in Eckwersheim, France, TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) 2369 Test Train caught fire, derailed and overturned. Two carriages were partially submerged into a river and at least five people were killed. As of now, there are no direct links with the terrorist attacks on Paris and the train crash does not appear to have been caused deliberately. A TGV test train holds the record for the fastest wheeled train, having reached 574.8 km/h (357.2 mph) on 3 April 2007. Today's derailment appears to have been the first fatal crash of a TGV while running at high speed.
NBC News reports that 10 people were killed, all employees of the French national railway system.

Comments

Not an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if we will find out later this is part of the terrorist attacks. Just as with the Russian airplane that blew up over the Sinai -- at first people widely reported it as a mechanical failure -- after investigations that turned out to not be the case.

It wouldn't be hard for a malicious person to place something on the tracks or otherwise sabotage the train. Train derailment due to sabotage has happened before and it shouldn't be ruled out here so quickly by so many news outlets.

Re:Not an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as with the Russian airplane that blew up over the Sinai -- at first people widely reported it as a mechanical failure -- after investigations that turned out to not be the case.

That was due to the media using untrackable sources and different sources. Two articles in the same paper just two hours apart could have different ideas on what happened. Also reports of official statements were made, but those statements were never made and the source of the fakes has not been uncovered. It might have been something as simple as a journalists being told to write about it and then he had nothing because everything was unknown and he just made up stuff to make his boss happy. Wouldn't be the first time. Several people, including newspaper editors flame the modern media from time to time for just copying each other without verifying sources.

It wouldn't be hard for a malicious person to place something on the tracks or otherwise sabotage the train. Train derailment due to sabotage has happened before and it shouldn't be ruled out here so quickly by so many news outlets.

It would be the wrong line to target if that is the case. After all it's a new line, which is being tested prior to open it for passengers. Lines with trains full of passengers would make much more likely targets. I fear it has given them ideas for the next time they do something though. After all they do read the media for their results and sudden this gets mixed into the news and journalists writes about possible connections.

The official investigation haven't ruled anything out at this point. Journalists might have, but not the investigators. Journalists often write garbage. Wait for them to point to official statements and see if there is an outburst of quoting fake official statements afterwards.

Re: Not an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just know that the Republicans decided to down that plane. Decided to down that plane.

Re:Not an accident?

[gweihir]

No. This was a track-test. No passengers aboard. Not a worthwhile target, just incompetent engineers. And, ironically, attacking a train track is far more difficult than the amateur-level attacks in Paris. The problem is just that a city like Paris cannot be defended against attacks by a very small group, even if that small group is terminally incompetent. Pointing a gun at people and shooting is easy and doing in in several places is so too.

The other, far more serious problem, is that those in power are incompetent at handling the situation. The only way to decrease terrorism is to give them minimal attention, thus denying them what they crave. Instead they get bombastic media attention and a lot of security theater like the "closing" of borders, increased "security" measures and generally telling them that they did well and everybody is impressed by them (in a negative way, but still). As there is no possible way to defend a city like Paris, that is about th worst and least sophisticated reaction possible.

Re:Not an accident?

[ChrisMaple]

It seems that you are advocating no government reaction at all, except muzzling the press. That would allow the terrorists to repeat ad infinitum, with a citizen:terrorist death ratio of about 15:1. How is that good for France, how is that good for civilization?

Re:Not an accident?

[ceoyoyo]

Terrorist organizations are generally very small. Attacks have two goals: terrorize the victims and get publicity to recruit more terrorists. If you shut down the publicity then you deny both those objectives.

Covering up terrorist attacks probably isn't a good idea. But publicizing them as a small number of criminals who committed a horrible crime is a lot better than millions of people wringing their hands and screaming about how the terrorists are winning.

Re:Not an accident?

[gweihir]

When the other alternative is far worse, then that is what you do. Seriously. You cannot "fight" terrorism by throwing more violence at them. That has been amply demonstrated. That way you just make them stronger.

Re:Not an accident?

[gweihir]

Indeed. And you should ridicule them at every possible opportunity as _stupid_ criminals. Because they typically are.

Re:Not an accident?

[Hognoxious]

And, ironically, attacking a train track is far more difficult than the amateur-level attacks in Paris.

Climbing over a fence and placing a block is pretty easy.

Re:Not an accident?

[Plumpaquatsch]

And, ironically, attacking a train track is far more difficult than the amateur-level attacks in Paris.

Climbing over a fence and placing a block is pretty easy.

And a drive-by shooting is hard?

Re:Not an accident?

[gweihir]

And will usually fail.

Speed to blame says Guardian

[Bruce66423]

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Oh dear - but better than a terrorist attack. Actually high speed trains are an easy target - I'm surprised they haven't been attacked before now

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised they haven't been attacked before now.

What did you think the French Resistance did throughout WW2?

The reason civilians aren't being killed en masse every day isn't because nobody's thought of a way to do it, nor because we have near-perfect security services, but because nearly everybody alive has no desire whatsoever to commit mass murder. But humans have no conception of statistics, so we get hysterical over 0.0002% of Muslims in France attacking under 0.01% of Parisiens, even while routine transport accidents kill hundreds every day throughout Europe. (And don't get me start on genuine suicide through mental illness, which receives less and less attention of health services.)

N.B. I still think those responsible in France are murderous bastards. My mother studied in Paris and I've enjoyed a lot of time there. But I am capable of putting things in proportion.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[gweihir]

Right on the mark. The first thing is that such attacks _cannot_ be prevented. No, really not. You can only do a lot of damage trying to, like creating a police state or worse. The US has demonstrated how to be utterly stupid that way since 9/11. The second thing is that such attacks rarely ever happen and, compared to other causes, are not a relevant risk of death or injury, because almost all people that con do this (and those are very, very many, just think what a competent chemical engineer or physicists could do..) do not care to do them.

The smart way to react is to clean up and then return to business as usual. The utterly stupid way is to promise to "fight back", to increase "security measures" and generally give the terrorists a lot of kudos for a successful attack. This just makes sure they can congratulate themselves and that they can stay funded and motivated to continue. After all, terrorists are in it for the attention. The more you give to them, the worse.

And, of course, all the budding fascists in politics and in the "security" bureaucracy jump right on this, do their best to assist the terrorists by creating even more fear and then try to reduce the individual freedoms they so hate (sharing that with the terrorists). It will be no different this time.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Dutch Gun]

Most people understand and accept the risks of accidental deaths for the sake of modern conveniences, like driving in cars, flying commercial airliners, and of course, taking trains like this. The reason we react the way we do to terrorism is because it's a deliberate, cold-hearted act of barbarity that takes the lives of innocent people for the sake of politics, ideology, religion, or some combination thereof. The tragedy of the Paris attacks is not that so many people died. As you point out, probably more people died in traffic accidents that day in Europe. The tragedy is that those people died so needlessly.

While this presumed accident is sad, particularly for the family and friends of the victim, they can take comfort in knowing that perhaps this will lead to safer operations for others in the future. We tend to learn our hardest lessons from accidents like these. Hopefully future trains will be safer as a result of the investigation into whatever went wrong here.

Re: Speed to blame says Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more, the reason why we react to this like that is that it shows is very painfully, that we are completely powerless against such things. No level of security, from sensible to post 9-11 paranoid could ever be a hundred percent measure.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Proportions, equations, statistics do not work well against emotions... you need to supercharge emotions until they really doesn't matter any more and then they become statistics, like the famous Stalin quote: "one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just statistics.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[AK Marc]

Most people understand and accept the risks of accidental deaths for the sake of modern conveniences, like driving in cars, flying commercial airliners, and of course, taking trains like this. The reason we react the way we do to terrorism is because it's a deliberate, cold-hearted act of barbarity that takes the lives of innocent people

You've not driven much, have you? Crashes are about 95% human error. Deliberate errors are most of those. The act of running the red was quite deliberate. The act of speeding while doing it. The act of hitting the other car may not have been deliberate, but then, if you point a gun and fire at someone, nobody assumes it was unintentional until proven otherwise, but with cars, it's the opposite. But the large number of insanely poor drivers allowed on the road, killing a 9/11 worth of people every month for 30 years proves people don't care about death.

The tragedy of the Paris attacks is not that so many people died. As you point out, probably more people died in traffic accidents that day in Europe. The tragedy is that those people died so needlessly.

No, it's that so many white people died. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... People don't care if Africans die in the same numbers in terrorist attacks. Black lives matters is that people don't care when the Africans die, but white people die, and it's 90% of the news for weeks.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[ChrisMaple]

Islam is disproportionately the religion of terrorist murderers in the world. It is not a coincidence, it is not the result of poverty. The Koran teaches psychopathy, and as long as Islam is allowed to survive, terrorism and the other hideous aspects of this abominable religion will continue.

Civilization or Islam. Choose one.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people understand and accept the risks of accidental deaths for the sake of modern conveniences, like driving in cars, flying commercial airliners, and of course, taking trains like this. The reason we react the way we do to terrorism is because it's a deliberate, cold-hearted act of barbarity that takes the lives of innocent people

You've not driven much, have you? Crashes are about 95% human error. Deliberate errors are most of those. The act of running the red was quite deliberate. The act of speeding while doing it. The act of hitting the other car may not have been deliberate, but then, if you point a gun and fire at someone, nobody assumes it was unintentional until proven otherwise, but with cars, it's the opposite. But the large number of insanely poor drivers allowed on the road, killing a 9/11 worth of people every month for 30 years proves people don't care about death.

Nobody's arguing that people don't purposefully run red lights, the horror has to so with the intent, i.e. late for work collision, versus a gunman putting you on your knees so you can watch others get shot in the head, while awaiting your turn. As far as people not caring about death because of high vehicular death rates? We accept a certain amount of risk within any mileu (19th cent.grizzly/cougar/Indian attack on your horse while riding, or 21st century drunk drivers on the interstate), and then we work towards something better. Most drivers, most of the time, drive well, or there would be accidents continuously, literally everywhere. I drive on a US Interstate everyday, 40 miles daily and can go for months without seeing an accident, YMMV (no pun intended). Yes there are dicks on the road, but by and large we apparently do care about life. We just need to convince others to care a bit more.

Re: Speed to blame says Guardian

[Dynedain]

{Christianity} is disproportionately the religion of {slaveholding} murderers in the world. It is not a coincidence, it is not the result of poverty. The {Bible} teaches psychopathy, and as long as {Christianity} is allowed to survive, {slavery} and the other hideous aspects of this abominable religion will continue.

This statement used to be true. Things can change and the religion won't be blamed. Having a huge pool of underprivileged sex-starved young men at your disposal leads to easily radicalization.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[ceoyoyo]

Middle eastern muslims thought pretty much the same thing about the murderous christian barbarians who invaded their heartland a thousand years ago. Both the bible and koran, and most other holy books, have some incredibly nasty bits. The vast majority of adherents to any major religion ignore those parts.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[gweihir]

Bullshit. There have been enough Christian psychos in history and even atheist ones. The problem is not the religion. The problem is the psychos.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Hognoxious]

No one is claiming that only the religious are psychos.

But if being a psycho was a game of football, they're starting the game with 12 players.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[AK Marc]

They are both as senseless and not accidental. "accident" implies "upreventable". 99% of crashes are preventable.

Most drivers, most of the time, drive well, or there would be accidents continuously, literally everywhere.

Nope. You can drive quite poorly and still not have a crash. It takes 2 or more drivers driving poorly to have a crash, or one driver driving quite negligently or maliciously. There are literally accidents continuously and everywhere. Over 100 deaths a day in the US, or 3200 per day world-wide. Over 6500 injured per day. Roughly 1% of Americans are injured in a crash each year. Continuously and everywhere.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[phantomfive]

It's also worth pointing out that terrorist groups will make themselves more and more annoying until they are dealt with. Better to deal with them when the numbers are smaller, rather than waiting until the casualties are significant.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[phantomfive]

It takes 2 or more drivers driving poorly to have a crash

Yes, that has been my observation as well. It is amazing how robust the traffic system is, considering how faulty the people are who make it up.

Continuously and everywhere.

You probably wanted the word "continually" here.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[AK Marc]

You probably wanted the word "continually" here.

Just using the A/C's words as they used them.

If people were better drivers, we'd not only have fewer crashes, but no traffic.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Eunuchswear]

High speed trains have been attacked -- a French TGV was bombed in 1983. Two people were killed by the bomb.

At the same time a bomb, placed by the same group, went of in a toilet in a railway station -- it killed 3 people.

So toilets are better targets than high speed trains.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably wanted the word "continually" here.

Just using the A/C's words as they used them.

If people were better drivers, we'd not only have fewer crashes, but no traffic.

Yes, we agree on that - better drivers, fewer crashes! BTW, I literally meant continuously. I should have written: Most drivers, most of the time, drive well enough to avoid an accident every time they get behind the wheel - duh that's obvious, given the number of cars on the road, and most don't have an accident for years at a time. Imagine if every one drove like a drunk driver - every time they got behind the wheel! Then it would only take one to tango (with a tree, another person, a houses foundation...) : ) It does amaze me though, that with all of the distractions on our roads, and in our cars we don't have a much higher vehicular accident rate!

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[DarkOx]

murderous christian barbarians who invaded their heartland a thousand years ago

Wow history much. The crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism and the fact that Islam was cutting off the path from Europe to the holy land. The Crusaders were hardly barbarians and the crusades were NOT unprovoked.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[rasmusbr]

I think you are being a little bit too categorical. There are simple things that can be done to prevent terrorist attacks and it makes sense to do those things.

For example, it makes sense that if someone checks in a bag at the airport but does not board the plane, the plane does not get to fly until that particular luggage has removed. I'm sure that 9999 times out of 10000 it's just that the passenger has fallen asleep while waiting for the plane, but being a little late is still a cheap price to pay to avoid a 1/10000 chance of being killed.

It would also be easy for border stations to take pictures of refugees/migrants and run them through a face recognition algorithm against a picture database of all the photos that the Islamists themselves have posted on the Internet. I bet you could catch and detain at least 10% of all IS infiltrators at the border of Europe by doing that.

It would also be fairly easy to force immigrants from the Middle east and Africa to submit their fingerprints, DNA profiles and other biometric data and store that for a limited period in order to help police track down suspects. (And before you ask, yes I would gladly submit my biometric data if I immigrated to a foreign country. I would take it as a sign that the country takes its social contract seriously.)

One simple thing that could be done to dampen the blow of terror is to create a fund for survivors and for those financially dependent on the dead.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Plumpaquatsch]

murderous christian barbarians who invaded their heartland a thousand years ago

Wow history much. The crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism and the fact that Islam was cutting off the path from Europe to the holy land. The Crusaders were hardly barbarians and the crusades were NOT unprovoked.

Considering the Crusaders actually did most of their killing in Europe - yeah, Barbarians would never do that.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[dunkelfalke]

Yeah right, hardly barbarians. How do you explain the crusades against the Czech, Balts and Russians then?

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Plumpaquatsch]

It's also worth pointing out that terrorist groups will make themselves more and more annoying until they are dealt with. Better to deal with them when the numbers are smaller, rather than waiting until the casualties are significant.

Well, the British should have acted sooner, before the terrorists got their own state out of their actions.

And remember to kill as many innocent civilians as possible while fighting terrorists, that way they can''t become infected with terrorism.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[gweihir]

You logic is fundamentally flawed:

You seem to think that if you make it harder to place a bomb in airport luggage, then the terrorist will go home defeated and cry. That is complete nonsense. The bomb will just be placed somewhere else more vulnerable. And there will always be a lot of targets to chose from in a free society.

And then, what does recognizing people help, if you DO NOT KNOW who is preparing such an attack? Incidentally, "catching 10% of the Infiltrators" does not help one bit. Apparently you missed that their first weapon shipment was caught in Germany 10 days or so ago and the French police did not care? So another completely worthless "security measure". You also have no clue how bad facial recognition software is these days, but that is already a detail.

And what is "helping the police to track them down" going to accomplish? These people are willing to die. There is no after-the-fact threat that would matter to them. At all.

So, no, I am not being too categorical. Unlike you I do understand how things work and have open eyes.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[rasmusbr]

Every obstacle that you put between people and their goals have a filtering effect. If you catch X% of terrorists, then the number of attacks will drop by X%, to a first approximation at least. Keep in mind that most terrorists aren't geniuses and that terrorist have limited amounts of motivation and imagination.

It is true that the government and other security workers are incompetent, but that incompetence is not complete and utter, it is only partial, which means that it can be measured as a percentage. If you have a system that ought to catch X% of terrorists, but the operators only manage to use it correctly half of the time, the system will catch X/2 % of attempts.

Most people are not imaginative enough to think of novel ways of doing things, so it makes a lot of sense to come up with ways of preventing "the last attack" if there is a cheap and reasonably effective way of doing so. Most of the time there isn't a cheap and efficient way, like with Friday's attack in Paris. It is probably fundamentally impossible to detect rifles in urban areas using any kind of small and cheap technology.

Would-be terrorist might easily over-estimate the effectiveness of these measures and be unnecessarily and unproportionally deterred, since they like most people probably don't realise how ineffective these systems usually are. If Islamic terrorists had kept trying to check in bombs as luggage at airports and then not boarding the planes they would easily have slipped quite a few bombs past the system by now, but when measures where installed, the Islamists basically stopped trying and began to resort to highjacking planes at gunpoint instead. It was not until 2001 that they realised that you could kill more victims by doing suicide attacks. That took a good while for them to figure out.

The new measures that were installed after 9/11 are incredibly expensive in terms of manpower and equipment and not very hard to bypass, so I doubt that they make sense (you could probably lower the risk of terror more by using the money elsewhere), but I don't doubt that they do deter would-be terrorists to some extent.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[gweihir]

As I said, you model is wrong. The "filtering effect" is a pure fantasy for this case. You cannot "deter" a "would-be" terrorist, as these do not exist. People that become terrorists are exceptionally strongly motivated to carry out their attacks. It is not some minor shift in attitude. There is a threshold-effect at work and everything beneath the very high threshold has no effect at all. Reaching this high threshold generally is not possible in a free society.

You model is that of a typical theorist that has no clue how actual reality works and is oversimplified to a degree as to be meaningless.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[rasmusbr]

So how do you explain that the luggage compartment bombings largely stopped after measures were put in place?

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[Askmum]

I'm surprised they haven't been attacked before now

What do yo mean? Have you forgotten already the august 21 attack on the Thalys train? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In Germany there have been a number of attacks on railroads, most in connection with leftist terror groups.

But even though. It is probably hard to effect the same result. Even a major crash like the ICE at Eschede had less casualties than this Paris attack.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[gweihir]

1. Bombings in other places
2. Less bombings overall for unrelated reasons

Seriously, you can shift where terrorists attack, but you cannot prevent the attacks by guarding a few possible targets better. Terrorists do not strike because they see an opportunity for fun, they strike because they are hardened fanatics.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[dave420]

You are ignoring every other factor in the equation and focussing on some very visible characteristics, then ravaging what sanity was left by heaping on confirmation bias. This is how xenophobes and racists come to the conclusions they do.

If what you said is true, then the millions of Muslims living around the world would be running around killing everyone. As there are over 1.6 billion Muslims, we'd all be dead. As you are reading this, that's proof enough that you are wrong, and woefully ignorant to the point of xenophobia.

Re:Speed to blame says Guardian

[dave420]

If by "deal with them" you mean discuss their grievances, I totally agree. If their grievances are valid, deal with them. If they are not, you've just shown their cause to be completely without merit. The British took a long time to realise that they had to talk with the terrorists (thanks, Maggie, for delaying that as long as possible!). Once that happened, the Brits realised the republicans' grievances were legitimate, and afterwards both sides worked towards peace, both losing political clout in the process, but gaining peace.

ISIS's grievances are absolutely bogus, but it's a terrible idea to lump all terrorism together - the methods all suck horrifically, but some causes are better than others.

Je suis Charlie

[Anonymous Coward]

Je suis.

Re:Je suis Charlie

[Eunuchswear]

ITYM "Je suis Eagles Of Death Metal".

Overspeed kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving faster than the tracks allow is dangerous regardless of the absolute speed. Die Mariazellerbahn in Austria showed this quite clearly in 1981. A train was driving too fast, derailed on a bridge and the locomotive fell off and killed the driver. I can't find the actual speed or speed restriction, but with a locomotive top speed of 50 km/h, it would be a high speed accident in slow motion. It was the first AC electric locomotive class btw, operating from 1911 to 2013 and the other 15 engines survived all those years of daily operation. Modern engineers could learn something about durability from studying those.

Re:Overspeed kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we’re sacrificing too much safety as we continue to brush against the limits of engineering feasibility? I would feel a lot better about our own HSR project if they:

1. Relaxed the ambitious construction schedule
2. Would initially start operating at lower speeds until there’s a proven track record (no pun intended)

Fire before the accident?

[phayes]

Says who? From pictures I've seen any fire was _after_ the accident and pretty limited. Who exactly is spreading this (dis)information?

Re:Fire before the accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says who? From pictures I've seen any fire was _after_ the accident and pretty limited. Who exactly is spreading this (dis)information?

Look at the link. It is "The Mirror", a British tabloid which is not famed with its exact adherence to the facts.

Re:Fire before the accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says who? From pictures I've seen any fire was _after_ the accident and pretty limited. Who exactly is spreading this (dis)information?

How about you stop spreading FUD?

All reports and eye witness accounts do in fact state that the fire was the result of the bridge strike. And guess what happens to a burning train hurtling out of control down the tracks? Maybe it would derail and overturn?

But you're seen photos. So I guess we are all wrong.

Re:Fire before the accident?

[Type44Q]

Who exactly is spreading this (dis)information?

(Di)ce? :p

Re:Fire before the accident?

[thegarbz]

Says who? From pictures I've seen any fire was _after_ the accident and pretty limited.

I'm amazed at your ability to determine if there was a fire burning before an accident based on seeing a picture of a fire burning after an accident.

Who exactly is spreading this (dis)information?

By all accounts a Slashdot users called phayes

Re:Fire before the accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Di)ce? :p

Fuck off you smilie-face-making retard.

The internet does not need a laugh track.

Re:Fire before the accident?

[KGIII]

>:-(

Re:Fire before the accident?

[phayes]

The train ended up partially in a canal and the burned parts I saw were limited to an emerged section with the adjacent submerged section showing no signs of fire. So, really really hard for someone like you to see if the fire was before the accident and easy for everyone else.

Test train, no regular passengers

[GuB-42]

Just as a reminder, this is a test train crash, not in service, only 49 people inside, all employees.
Excessive speed may be the cause but it is yet unconfirmed.

I don't believe in a link with terrorists attacks. What terrorist would attack a test train? Especially one that is has nothing special. For a successful train attack, it is probably the one that will get you the least attention.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

You are aware that the attacks yesterday were by - mostly - Belgians? CLOSE THE BORDERS TO BELGIUM. You know it makes sense.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as a reminder, this is a test train crash, not in service, only 49 people inside, all employees.

Yet they are still people. The theory goes that people working with trains should know the risks involved (at least according to one internal document I once saw, not in France, but still regarding railroads). However it doesn't make much sense to me because what would have happened if 3 people claimed the test train to be too dangerous? Would they be fired for refusing work? Also who knew the train would be speeding? (if that's the cause). Even with expert knowledge, they could still be victims of one driver's unautorized rule violations. The driver can also have been told to drive as fast as he did, in which case the test train was supposed to measure vibrations to tell if it would be safe for passengers to drive that fast. Doesn't look like it could be a safe speed though.

One thing I wondered about instantly when I read about this accident was how could the train be speeding? Due to the high speed, the driver can't see the signals, which mean it has one of the most advanced electronic signal systems. Such systems are usually designed to pull the brake if a train is speeding, usually in such an advance that speeding becomes impossible. In other words the conclusion "high speed" can't be a final conclusion because it brings up the question "how did that happen?". I'm not sure we will get an answer to that question in the public, possibly not even internally. What I do know is that the accident investigators will turn every single stone in that accident to learn as much as possible. TGV is the pride of France and having an unexplained fatal accident is bad for potiential exports. The best they can do is to find a problem, fix it and prove that it will never happen again, at least due to that accident. Their competitor is the japanese Shinkansen. Since their start in 1964 they only had one accident and that was due to an earthquake moving the tracks apart from each other, which would derail all trains, regardless of safety features. France certainly don't want a safety issue when competeting against something as spotless as that.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[liquid_schwartz]

I think that the common factor was their religion, not their nationality. I also think you know this but choose to ignore it.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the common factor was their religion, not their nationality. I also think you know this but choose to ignore it.

The common factor was a terrorist ideology and strong ties to IS. The fact that their religion was the same is just as circumstantial as the fact that their nationality was the same. Relative to the total population of the group, it is in fact more correct to say this was a Belgian attack than to say it was an Islamist attack. Obviously it was neither.

I think you don't know this because you did not stop and think it through. The alternative explanation is less pleasant.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Hognoxious]

I don't believe in a link with terrorists attacks. What terrorist would attack a test train?

A mistaken one?

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Ol Olsoc]

You are aware that the attacks yesterday were by - mostly - Belgians? CLOSE THE BORDERS TO BELGIUM. You know it makes sense.

Nah - just make waffles out of them.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. Like all nazis morons, you are on the same side as the terrorists but too dumb to realize it.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's also true of US domestic terrorists, but for some reason I never see you assholes blaming Christianity.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a load of crepe.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. Like all nazis morons, you are on the same side as the terrorists but too dumb to realize it.

Exactly, Islamist are the new Nazi. Can we all agree on eliminating that threat now?

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[dave420]

You are picking a common factor and ignoring the others. If we want to play the "try and guess their motives using our limited understanding of their psyches" sure you're right. If we actually want to understand the issue, then you are massively wrong. If your point had any merit every single Muslim the world over would be murdering people. As they are not, you are clearly wrong. And a douche. Well played.

Re:Test train, no regular passengers

[liquid_schwartz]

Ah yes, we greatly fear the Christian terrorist. As close as you can come to a Christian terrorist who attacks for religious reasons are attacks on abortion clinics. That seems like a far cry from shooting into a crowd with an AK47. If you have something more compelling I'd love to hear it.

Re:Muslims

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Applehu Akbar]

Free clue: the Maginot Line was not a train.

Re:Muslims

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, shut your mouth or a muslim will shut it for you.

PERMANENTLY.

Glad It Wasn't Related To Yesterday

[Thunderf00t]

It's of course tragic that the French National Railway employees were killed, but it probably would have been worse for the nation as a whole if this came out as another round of Islamist terrorism. It's a sad thing when ten people die, and you think something like, "well, at least they weren't murdered."

Hopefully, they'll be able to figure out what went wrong with the train and prevent any further tragedies (especially when the trains are loaded with passengers).

Re:Glad It Wasn't Related To Yesterday

[idontgno]

It's a sad thing when ten people die, and you think something like, "well, at least they weren't murdered."

Sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from homicide.

Re:Muslims

[Anonymous Coward]

It was teh train wreck of peace.

Test Train

[Anonymous Coward]

This test train was testing the new line.

The TGV that set the world record wasn't a test train. It was a set specially marshaled and modded for the record attempt.

Stop with the sensationalist bullshit already.

Re:Test Train

[gweihir]

Well, they got a clear test result. And in addition, they found out that their test protocols are fundamentally broken.

Re:Test Train

[Anonymous Coward]

... their test protocols are fundamentally broken.

So is their train!

Of course the Republican-ruled...

[Anonymous Coward]

media lies. Thu lie constantly

Re: Of course the Republican-ruled...

[Anonymous Coward]

And speaking out against their murdering of us turns you into a threat that must be measured.

Re: Of course the Republican-ruled...

[Anonymous Coward]

After bush raped that girl love in TV and no one spoke-out against it. Failing to respond in kind means we have no hope.

Re: Of course the Republican-ruled...

[Anonymous Coward]

The papers from the Alllwhite affair confirm that.

Re: Of course the Republican-ruled...

[Anonymous Coward]

They refuse to publish stories about the Republican rape parties. Rape parties.

Re: Of course the Republican-ruled...

[ChrisMaple]

Who murdered Mary Jo Kopechne, and what party was he?

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[hackertourist]

Don't be an idiot. Since 1981, the TGV lines have carried one billion passengers without loss of life.

The accident was on a newly-constructed line not open to passengers yet. They have thoroughly simulated both the trains and the line, but at some point you have to switch from simulations and actually run a train on your new track.

And let's wait for the accident report before mouthing off about imagined incompetence, huh?

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it was a clothes line. Or was that Siegfried?

Re:My moneys still on the rag heads

[Nehmo]

Let's hope it wasn't but I'd still not be surprised if it was fucking sand niggers.

You used two terms, RH and SN. RH could be Hindus, and they're not suspected. You must be accurate with your slurs or else people may think you're general hatter. (You also made the syntaxial error of being non-parallel when, apparently, you planed to be. Please be more careful.)

on the plus side

[Cederic]

Still, if your burning train leaves the track there is one small benefit in it finishing in a canal.

Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[gweihir]

I.e. stupid "engineers" not really understanding the technology they are using.

In this case: "Can it go even faster?" Result: No, it cannot.
In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[Opportunist]

Hey, from both things we learned something. Next on the agenda: Is touching a hot stove plate good or bad for your epidermis?

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[gweihir]

Or rather: Is giving terrorists that just attacked you a lot of attention and a lot of threats and generally telling them that they had great success a good idea or not?

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case: "Can it go even faster?" Result: No, it cannot.

You got all that already from a single quote that says someone is investigating if a crash was caused by excessive speed?

In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.

In Chernobyl that was never the question. The question was will enough residual power be generated to keep the pumps going while the diesel generators fire up. That question remains unanswered due to the completely out of normal and highly unstable operating conditions the guys managed to put the reactor in before starting the test.

Less armchair engineering and speculation please.

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[gweihir]

Obviously you are unable to abstract. The question here was about realistic assumptions on the limits of a given technology _and_ what happens if these assumptions are wrong. You do not test an assumption about a nuclear power plant in a way that has it blowing up if you are wrong. You do not test an assumption about the speed a train can safely go in a way that has the train derail if you are wrong.

But "A literal mind is a stupid mind", so I do not expect you to be able to even understand what I am saying.

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[chmod a x mojo]

In Chernobyl: "Can it cool itself?" Result: No, it cannot.

Actually reactor 3 more than likely could have cooled itself. The problem was that the operator took power levels down way below what the tests had been designed for, and then tried to overcompensate for the xenon core poisoning by retracting way too many control rods manually to raise power levels instead of doing the sane thing and aborting the test and finishing with a full shutdown.
      That said, the reactor did have some rather large design flaws that after the initial operator error that lead it to an extremely out of spec state allowed it to cascade out of control, but it should not have ever encountered those states in normal operating conditions.

Operator error does not indicate an underlying test failure of the base principle being tested. It merely indicates a point of failure other than what was meant to be tested.

For all we know right now, the train could have been going exactly the speed that was calculated as safe for the tracks being tested, but some unforeseen variable contraindicated that speed being safe in real life conditions.
 

Re:Looks like the Chernobyl kind of "accident"

[gweihir]

Sane test design takes this into account. Insane test design (as in Chernobyl) expects everything to go according to plan and does not look as the risks of running the test in the first place.

Re:My moneys still on the rag heads

[gweihir]

You are utterly stupid. Or a terrorist yourself for trying to create even more fear.

This was a non-opened track under test. No terrorists attacks that as there is nothing to gain.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that the French can build and run a high speed line - whilst you Americans cant and rely on the stuff you grand parents built when they had a could do. attitude.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Applehu Akbar]

That's because the US has Greens while France doesn't. We can only dream of being 85 percent nuclear.

Re:News for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

The only solution is for everyone to make this website as bad as possible and hope a viable replacement comes along after its demise. Mooo

Re: Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the Greens to blame. Unless by green you mean money. Powr companies won't touch nuclear without spiraling the costs out of control in order to keep their current lucrative operations running.

Boardrooms are where nuclear gets killed.

Re:My moneys still on the rag heads

[Anonymous Coward]

"(You also made the syntaxial error of being non-parallel when, apparently, you planed to be. Please be more careful.)"

Look at the verbiage on Mr "general hatter"! You can't even put two words together coherently!!

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[ChrisMaple]

High speed trains are not economically viable in the US, even with the trackbed being untaxed or taxed far below adjacent properties. No rational company would try to build a high speed rail line; they only get built if a wacky political elite pushes it against public opposition.

Evil White Republicans Did it

[Anonymous Coward]

They are responsible for everything that goes wrong everywhere all throughout history. WWII: Republicans. Fall of Rome: Republicans. Armenian Genocide: Republicans. Hurrincane Katria: Republicans. All Huricanes: Republicans. Too much snow: Republicans. Too hot: Republicans.

When will America finally wise up and embrace the forward thinking Hillary Clinton and her fight against the existential Rupblican Menace. Yes. Through the power of inclusiveness Hillary Clinton can prevent future disasters in the future and in the past. Vote Hillary 2016. A vote for Republicans will lead to more train wrecks and the a wide spread raping of black babies by evil white people.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[KGIII]

If you're referring to the song, it was the Siegfried Line, indeed. For the uninitiated or those who are not into history, I've been less lazy and found you a link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's kind of catchy.

Re:My moneys still on the rag heads

[KGIII]

I think you mean:

Mr. "general hatter!"

If we're going to be pedantic then punctuation is important.

This was a test train

[bluegutang]

Test trains often run with the safety systems disabled and the train run manually at 10% above the normal maximum speed. If it's safe at this speed, you can be confident that it will be safe at operational speeds too. However, since it's run manually there is more potential for catastrophic human error, as seems to have been the case here.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

TGV tests usually runs on newly finished lines before they opens for regular traffic. That is as much a test of the line itself (which you can't test without a train on it) and the train... oh, and running a test train @ max. line speed is a quite standard procedure on all railroads around the world.
So yes, they destroyed hardware for a couple of million â and killed 10 people... instead of killing 500+ people and destroying hardware for a couple of millions â.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Eunuchswear]

That's because the US has Greens while France doesn't. We can only dream of being 85 percent nuclear.

So, how many seats did the US Green party get in the last elections? Here in France they have 17 MP's, 12 senators and 6 MEP's.

Not an accident

[flytnc]

We have to wait for final investigation result before speculate on terrorist attack etc..RIP to all involved in this tragic accident

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, quite interesting isn't it: Trains are in fact far more economical than planes and cars, high speed trains on distances below 1000 km may even be faster than planes due to all that security mambo jambo introduced be clueless US politicians and because you often depart and arrive in city when you travel by train but 30 km outside the city when flying.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

and broadband isnt econmical because of the lower population density etc , blah blah blah other nations can and do . You lot just whine and then shout USA#1 loudly.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Plumpaquatsch]

That's because the US has Greens while France doesn't.

Call me when a Green presidential candidate gets more than 5% of the popular votes in the US.

basically

[Anonymous Coward]

it has not been a good week for the French.

Our condolences and the world needs to support the French people--it's humanity's responsibility in these situations.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Applehu Akbar]

Fortunately, French Greens don't seem to be able to stop investment in infrastructure. Meanwhile, Greens in the US don't need a party of their own, because by taking advantage of the US legal system they can make any project they want too expensive to finish. Look at the spiraling budget for California's high-speed rail project, which is an off-the-shelf copy of your TGV.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[GuB-42]

It is a common misconception that the Maginot line in itself was a failure. It did its job. However, the German were simply better, and won. With better command on the French and Belgian side, it could have been effective.
As for the train crash, the cause is yet unknown.

Dr. Yellow

[Kagetsuki]

For a service car this is a pretty spectacular accident. By comparison the Shinkansen [Bullet Train] equivalent Dr. Yellow has never had such an accident.

I was thinking of targetting the track

[Bruce66423]

This seems a very soft target which perpetrators could hit at minimal risk. Of course that's not the style of this generation of terrorists - for which I guess we should be grateful.

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Eunuchswear]

Fortunately, French Greens don't seem to be able to stop investment in infrastructure.

Because the airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, the dam at Sievens and the nuclear power plant at Plogoff were all constructed with no resistance,

Maybe you should stop commenting about things you know nothing about?

Re:Maginot Line Repeat?

[Applehu Akbar]

I have spent a lot of time in France over the years, and what always impresses me is the easy coexistence between an epicurean culture and a technological culture. A look at history shows that it has always been that way. Look at the number of scientists who are memorialized in the Panthéon in Paris. Note that our own first ambassador to France was Ben Franklin. This basically healthy attitude toward science and technology gives the society the ability to fearlessly build large things. Cherry-picking a few small examples of NIMBYism does not change the fact that you can cruise the Rhône and see a peaceful alternation of vineyards and nuclear reactors that you would never see in our Napa Valley. I don't know whether you have spent any time in the US, but just try getting a project like the Écluse de Bollène built here today.

Re:My moneys still on the rag heads

[dave420]

That is not used everywhere, as some people find that putting things inside quotes which are not being quoted is, well, sick :) By "some people" I mean programmers and British English speakers.