Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TGV Accident Caused By Excessive Speed (railwaygazette.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the vigilance-is-important dept.

Cochonou writes: Analysis of the black boxes of the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) which derailed on Saturday revealed that the accident resulted from excessive speed and late braking. The test train entered a 945m-radius curve at a speed of 265 km/h, far over the maximum speed of 176 km/h. The French national railway company ruled out any other cause, such as mechanical failure or track mishap.

During test runs, a number of security features are disabled, in particular parts of the TVM system, which would have prevented any overspeed during normal service. This leaves the train speed under the sole responsibility of the driver.

The accident, which killed 11 people, occurred on the last run of the scheduled trials on the new high-speed line between Paris and Strasbourg. As more details on the accident surface, it becomes evident that this last run was performed in a festive spirit, with relatives (including children) of the employees on board, and seven people present in the train cab instead of train. This casts a shadow on the security procedures of the French national railway company: it appears that the high-speed train technology is considered so safe that the risks inherent to trials runs were somehow neglected. The two drivers and the traction inspector have been suspended pending possible criminal charges. Other changes in the management structure will probably follow.

96 comments

  1. In light of bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it wasn't another terrorist attack.

    1. Re:In light of bad news by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      But it had the same basic cause, stupid humans.

    2. Re:In light of bad news by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't another terrorist attack.

      We still aren't sure the engineer that drove to fast wasn't a secret muslim. Or a soviet sleeper agent, and ISIS cracked the codes of the KGB to activate them. We are all in grave danger.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Excessive Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, yea, when you're all hyped up on shit like that, of course you make bad judgments and accidents happen.

    Must be the drug of choice over in the EU given their current attitudes and events. It's certainly not weed.

    1. Re:Excessive Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Oh please, more people die in a couple of days in the US of A from bullets than died in the Paris terrorist attack and this train incident put together.

      It's all about perception and propaganda, and you're a useful idiot.

    2. Re:Excessive Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless my math is wrong, 10.5 gun related deaths a year per 100,000 population comes about to about 93 gun related deaths a day in the US. ((322,200,000/100,000)*10.5)/365.2425 = 92.6. So you are not wrong there.

      And yes, when you're all hyped up on shit like guns, of course you make bad judgments and accidents happen.

    3. Re:Excessive Speed? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      10.5 gun related deaths a year per 100,000 population .... in the US

      But only 3.01 in France.

    4. Re:Excessive Speed? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      more people die in a couple of days in the US of A from bullets than died in the Paris terrorist attack

      Way to go! Bring the issue of USA gun ownership into the discussion!

      We need the equivalent of Godwin's rule to describe doing this. I'd call it Nukenerd's rule.

    5. Re: Excessive Speed? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      That's what Poland said

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    6. Re:Excessive Speed? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Gun violence is gun violence. Doesn't matter if it's a terrorist or a robbery or a crazy person. The comparison is valid. The question should be, Why is it considered acceptable that so many people die from bullets in the US? If it were a disease, there would be a charity funding research into it.

    7. Re:Excessive Speed? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Gun violence is gun violence. Doesn't matter if it's a terrorist or a robbery or a crazy person.

      Think you missed my point. TFA is about a railway accident.

    8. Re:Excessive Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the GP post was a joke about speed the motion thing and speed the drug. Get it? Whoosh to all but nukenerd.

    9. Re:Excessive Speed? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Should we be arming the engineers? (Desperately trying to make it on-topic.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Excessive Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot more people are killed with cars maybe we should treat driving like a disease and get charity research into it.

      Actually it is crazy people are able to kill more people because the public is generally unarmed and unable to defend themselves from the crazy person.

  3. It didn't have to happen by grimmjeeper · · Score: -1

    Yet one more accident that could have been prevented by Positive Train Control

    1. Re:It didn't have to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet one more accident that could have been prevented by Positive Train Control

      During test runs, a number of security features are disabled

      If they'd already disabled some safety features because it was a test run, then they probably would have disabled that too if it had been installed.

    2. Re:It didn't have to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you mean the TVM system. the system that was disabled for testing....

    3. Re:It didn't have to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In case you missed it in the summary:

      During test runs, a number of security features are disabled, in particular parts of the TVM system, which would have prevented any overspeed during normal service. This leaves the train speed under the sole responsibility of the driver.

      Positive Train Control is effectively the US equivalent of TVM, and so would have been disabled even if it was used on TGV.

    4. Re:It didn't have to happen by msauve · · Score: 2

      Drivin' that train, high on Champaigne...

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:It didn't have to happen by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Yet one more accident that could have been prevented by Positive Train Control

      Wouldn't a hosts file have prevented it?

    6. Re:It didn't have to happen by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      High on not being able to spell, apparently.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:It didn't have to happen by KGIII · · Score: 1

      There's a good chance that you're unfamiliar with it but they should have let the monkey drive.

      "Open up the switch, I'm gonna let him through the hole, 'cause the monkey's got the locomotive under control."

      -The Monkey and the Engineer (a different Grateful Dead song that doesn't get radio play)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Black box by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    Black box audio from the train revealed seven spectators in the cab chanting "Plus vite! Plus vite! Plus vite!"

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Black box by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      Train a Trop Grande Vitesse

    2. Re:Black box by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Or Jeremy Clarkson

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Black box by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not singing this?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. hold my beer and check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So it's not just rednecks and their pickup trucks.

  6. The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by goodmanj · · Score: 2

    I was gonna say, "well, seeing what happens when you go too fast is part of a test pilot / driver's job", until the article mentioned bringing kids along. Ugh, that's reprehensible.

    1. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would have been wrong, anyway. There's no mystery whatsoever what happens for a particular turn radius, center of gravity, turn bank, and speed. Someone with the necessary information can calculate the derail speed within a few mph. There's nothing to be learned by trying to test the limits.

    2. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please think a bit. This wasn't supposed to be a dangerous or destructive test in which there was likelihood of derailment and multiple deaths.

      A few weeks ago down the road here several people died at an airshow which had hundreds of kids in attendance. Everyone there knew there was a greater chance of an accident than when watching routine flying, but the chance is still very small, because nothing is done which is likely to cause a crash.

      Someone made the decision to drive at ridiculously unsafe speed. It was not part of this person's job to do something which was likely to result in his death.

    3. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calculating that information can establish a strict upper bound. The actual derail speed may be quite a bit lower...

    4. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I was gonna say, "well, seeing what happens when you go too fast is part of a test pilot / driver's job", until the article mentioned bringing kids along. Ugh, that's reprehensible.

      Well it depends, because part of the TGV tests in the final phase is public demonstration. It happened in Japan - their newest bullet train was running on test tracks, yet many people lined up to buy tickets to be the first to ride it (it can go over 500kph) because while it will take many years to build or upgrade the tracks to support the new trains, this is an opportunity see the future now.

      So just because it's a test train on a test track doesn't mean it was being tested. Likely it was a public demonstration showing the future capabilities of the TGV that will take 20+ years to fully bear out. And the public loves this sort of thing - to be the first to see the future of the trains and to ride them. And likely the test demonstration is something well within the envelope of safe - you're not testing anything, but showing it off.

      Of course, what it really shows is that humans are human and stupid mistakes still happen. And the new trains still lack proper warning equipment when autobrakes and speed limits are disabled or exceeded.

    5. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet there will be an app that will soon be out that can monitor your speed on a specific track and let you know you are screwed just before the train derails.....

    6. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do test pilots take kids along on their test flights, with half the failsafes disabled? I DON'T THINK SO. To do so on a train is just as crazy.

    7. Re:The life of a test pilot ... oh wait. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Bet there will be an app that will soon be out that can monitor your speed on a specific track and let you know you are screwed just before the train derails.....

      Yeah, but then somebody will type in a wrong number, and people will blame Apple...

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  7. Automate trains by mi · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    During test runs, a number of security features are disabled, in particular parts of the TVM system, which would have prevented any overspeed during normal service. This leaves the train speed under the sole responsibility of the driver.

    Why are we still using humans to drive the trains? We already have computer-driven cars on the roads — and driving a car is a lot harder for a computer both because of the complex terrain and human-only signalling.

    Trains operate in a one-dimensional universe (most of the time) — they don't need cameras and radars on the sides. The signalling they use is entirely under control of the rail-road too and in most cases is already interconnected and centralized. Moreover, driving a train is usually a very tedious process, which puts the human drivers to sleep — quite often — a problem severe enough to warrant special systems to try to prevent it.

    I wonder, what is it? Is it a fear of protests by union-thugs? Engineers' own inertia?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Automate trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You failed to understand the situation, then derped about "union thugs" because you're a stupid reactionary. You should see someone about that, and cut yourself off from RWNJ media.

    2. Re:Automate trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, train engineers routinely admit that their lives are worth about 50 cents. That's the cost of a single-point-of-failure resistor in each signal node. If that resistor fails, the signals will show all-way-green.

    3. Re:Automate trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that it is a deliberate decision for safety.
        In the late '70, the SNCF knew they could run a TGV completly automatic (at least on the high speed lines, not on the normal speed lines)
      They decided that that is dangerous, so the train driver has to set te speed manually, on the speed limit displayd to him
      by the cab signal system (TVM) and if he (or she) sets the speed too high, the train performs an emergency braking.
      So the train driver had someting to do, and was not out of the loop, he was realy needed (malfunction ).

    4. Re:Automate trains by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      There are two computer-driven subway lines in Paris, with plans to develop this technology to other lines.
      I think the problem is mostly one of certification. Full authority autopilot code is held to much stricter standards than driving aids, even though they are essentially the same thing on trains.

      Also, the human driver is usually the only technical person on the train and may need to deal with various problems like various types of obstacle or malfunctions. An autopilot may guarantee the train safety by breaking before the obstacle but may be clueless about what to do afterward : people (healthy or not), animals, rocks other trains or track damage are not dealt with the same way. Should the police be called ? Is there a medical emergency ? For how long will the traffic be interrupted ? Is there a danger for other trains on the same line ? Automated subway lines mitigate the problem with an array of sensors and passive measures (walls) that would be impractical for long distances.

    5. Re:Automate trains by mi · · Score: 1

      You failed to understand the situation, then derped about "union thugs" because you're a stupid reactionary.

      I don't need your modsplaining, asshole. Please, don't hate.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Automate trains by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What resistor is that? Please elaborate.
       
      I know a bit about signals and I know of no such resistor. The equipment and control logic for US signal systems are fail-safe designs, based on the standard AREMA guidelines and any failures will cause the signals to go all red.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    7. Re:Automate trains by mi · · Score: 1

      Full authority autopilot code is held to much stricter standards than driving aids, even though they are essentially the same thing on trains.

      And yet, the job of a car's "driving aid" is much harder than that of a train's autopilot. So it is reasonable to expect self-driving trains before self-driving cars.

      Should the police be called ? Is there a medical emergency ? For how long will the traffic be interrupted ?

      None of these require the driver to be physically present on a train — camera feeds can tell a remote dispatcher ("driving" 20 trains at the same time) all he needs to know about obstacles and interruptions. As for medical, fire, or police emergencies — those are reported by passengers pushing a button (or by talking to a conductor). The push may as well (and probably already does) connect them to the emergency dispatchers wherever they are — and with the speed the train is going, it will get to the next village or town before the caller finishes explaining, what's going on.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Automate trains by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Union rules required railroads to keep firemen around long after the last steam engines had been retired and replaced with diesel-electrics, even though they had no real job to do. Keeping engineers around when trains can pretty much run themselves sounds like more of the same.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    9. Re:Automate trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of these require the driver to be physically present on a train — camera feeds

      Which have less coverage than a physically present human plus cameras, who has full view from the cabin and can get out and walk+talk if needed.

      Anyway, communication could be broken, if it can be established anyway in a remote area in poor weather. It's like you've never left an urban environment. TGV aren't local trains. There simply isn't some magic 100% reliable high-bandwidth realtime, secure radio system between two arbitrary points on land.

      can tell a remote dispatcher ("driving" 20 trains at the same time)

      Oh good, less than 1/20 of the attention, that'll be problem-free.

      all he needs to know about obstacles and interruptions.

      Really, all? Do you know exactly what a driver needs to know?

      As for medical, fire, or police emergencies — those are reported by passengers pushing a button (or by talking to a conductor)

      Medical and police, sure. Fire? a smoke/fire alarm might react first, or - in the driver's cabin - a driver noting a combination of sensors, or seeing or smelling something. "Reports of smoke in the cabin" are still what first tips off some airline pilots to problems, and I've even been in a coach which had to be evacuated because it started filling quickly with smoke from the rear while winding through the Highlands of Scotland... I can't bear to think what would have happened if this had been driverless, with passengers frantically hitting a button to communicate with some base station just to get another signal sent back to stop the vehicle. Again, this isn't an urban bloody tram.

      The push may as well (and probably already does) connect them to the emergency dispatchers wherever they are — and with the speed the train is going,

      It's like you've never done basic first aid training. Any sufficiently large or remote organisation needs its OWN procedures, because anyone in life-threatening danger is otherwise dead long before an ambulance arrives. (That's why, for example, and contrary to popular belief, Amazon isn't Evil for asking people to call its in-house EMT team rather than dialing 911.)

      it will get to the next village or town before the caller finishes explaining, what's going on.

      Just how small is the country you live in?! A cross-country train is still spending most of its time going through nowhere. /. is sometimes interesting for little more than its ability to reveal the ignorance of the layperson. A simple "I haven't thought this through" is sufficient, now.

    10. Re:Automate trains by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Why are we still using humans to drive the trains? We already have computer-driven cars on the roads — and driving a car is a lot harder for a computer both because of the complex terrain and human-only signalling.

      I wonder, what is it? Is it a fear of protests by union-thugs? Engineers' own inertia?

      As one such engineer (formerly), I can tell you that one reason is passenger unease with having no driver, and another is to have staff on hand to deal with emergency situations (like evacuation). We have yet to see public unease with driverless cars abate - perhaps then we could have driverless trains. That might seem the wrong way round (as you say, trains are one-dimensional), but the public (and the press) illogically demand a far higher safety standard (real or as they perceive) for trains than cars - a source of exasperation for us railway engineers.

      Having said that, there are some driverless railways - the [low speed] London Dockland Light Railway for example [low speed and driverless, but not staff-less]

    11. Re:Automate trains by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      We're very close to that. Problems are:

      1. The technology is mostly there but rarely all there. The US, for example, is rolling out PTC, which is 90% of the self-driving-train solution (though it's intended to be merely a safety upgrade), but PTC will not be universal. While Europe is way ahead of the Americas on this, largely because they're not stupid, boneheaded, and corrupt when it comes to transportation policy (and thus they take trains seriously rather than deliberately running them down, making them all but unobtainable, and then claiming nobody wants them when nobody rides once-a-day museum relics whose stations are 50 miles away from anywhere you want to go and whose speed rarely breaks 50mph) PTC is still not universal.

      2. You do, still, need equivalents of the technologies going into, for example, Google's self driving car. Did a tree fall on the track? Has heat bent the rails out of shape? Is there an idiot driving parallel to the train who's likely to jump the tracks at the next crossing (well, in fairness, human engineers can't generally deal with that either, and usually have to suffer the trauma associated with slamming on the brakes, getting out, and finding bits of someone's head on the track.) What about a washout?

      3. Yeah... unions. I hate blaming unions for anything, largely because 90% of the time when someone claims unions are the thing that killed a particular industry or stops needed reform from happening, they're making it up or at the very least massively exaggerating. In this case, however, the unions have this issue on their radar and have been fighting smaller crews, and expressed concerns that PTC = 1 engineer or eventually no engineers.

      There are automated systems out there, but they generally run in completely enclosed subway tunnels and have a high degree of human monitoring. Until PTC can be augmented with techologies that can visually and non-visually verify the tracks ahead are safe, we can't really automate any major conventional intercity railways.

      But I bet it wouldn't take a year for, say, a team made up of Google's self driving car engineers to create those technologies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Automate trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Train autopilot on new high-speed track is simple, just as plane autopilot is simple in cruise mode (yet planes do fail in autopilot mode every once in a while, the Paris Rio flight comes to mind). The problem is the final city approach part because city real estate is expensive so its a can of worm where tracks cross in all kinds of creative ways and high-tech modern trains use the same track as old decades old not always perfectly maintained suburban trains. (building a new station way outside the city is *not* convenient and *not* what you want to do if you want lots of paying passengers)

      Besides, sometimes trains stop in the middle of nowhere (engine failure, electricity failure, safety stop because a cow or a human managed to bypass fences and decided the track is a nice place to spend the evening). That does not happen often but passengers kind of like knowing some operator is sharing the misery with them and is not cosy in a remote control room.

    13. Re:Automate trains by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Regarding problems with the track... it seems like an engineer driving a TGV train at 200 mph isn't going to be able to do much by the time he sees a tree or washed out track, on account of F=ma and all.

    14. Re:Automate trains by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      "...on account of F=ma and all."

      I think you mean 1/2mv**2

  8. What if this happened in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are so few snarky comments. Wonder what this thread would be if the derailment happened in China...

    1. Re: What if this happened in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What derailment?

  9. Typical Liberal Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to ban trains. And some people who ride trains buy tickets in cash, better ban that too. We need more women and transgenders in trains, too.

    This message is brought to you by liberal demoncraps.

  10. My question is... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    Why isn't this automated? I know... they say it's a test run, so certain safety features are disabled, but ffs, can't you at least find an operator who knows wtf he's doing? This is just sad.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:My question is... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      No need for a train for me...I'll just happily keep my car....

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:My question is... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I used to think the same way... then I had to go from Portland to Seattle on business... a lot.

      Turns out that the train takes the same amount of travel time (esp. when you factor in traffic), and when you add up gas and the cost of parking in Downtown Seattle (where even hotels will charge something like $40/day), it is actually somewhat *cheaper* than driving. Seattle is small enough size-wise to make most of it walkable without too much trouble.

      I'd much rather sit in a fairly cozy seat on the train, plug in the laptop, maybe grab something to eat, and have a drink or two (even coach does this). Much superior to shouting at traffic IMHO.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess it doesn't work.. why would the "last' test run not be using their safety systems.... they don't work.

    4. Re:My question is... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this automated? I know... they say it's a test run, so certain safety features are disabled, but ffs, can't you at least find an operator who knows wtf he's doing? This is just sad.

      On a test he'd most certainly know what to do. But the mind has bugs, it slips our mind, we think we already did it, we get lost in thought or conversation and so on. The better question is why this system needs to be disabled at all. Surely compared to building the rail track and putting a train on it, getting the markers in place to signal speed limits and install a track profile should be trivial. Even if they want to do speed trials in excess of the production speed, they should be able to use a test profile with higher permitted but still not derailment speeds. If they need to travel the track for whatever reason like pairing or profiling or whatever that's nice, you get to do that on a leisure run in 30 km/h. As in, you don't get to run at high speeds until the safety systems are in order. To make an IT analogy this is like deciding that setting up firewall openings on the test server is too hard and inconvenient, let's just turn it off and do it later in production. Then you start loading it up with realistic data from production and get pwned. I'd put that squarely at the feet of the person who turned the safeties off, even though some other mistake or poor configuration might also be to blame. But that was accidental, the other reckless.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have a lot of time to waste. TGV in france makes you travel from Paris from Marseille in 3 hours instead of 8. When you need to travel to Paris from any other major cities (Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Grenoble, Tours, ...), you just always use the TGV. It's so much faster, and you can do whatever you want in the train.

    6. Re:My question is... by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Turns out that the train takes the same amount of travel time

      Just goes to show how slow trains are in the USA if you need to highlight that they are as "fast" as a car.

    7. Re:My question is... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      And that's at slow US train speeds. TGVs in the most frequently used corridors would give us much better door-to-door times for regional travel, and would cut the puddlejumper clutter at our major airports. Flying would be a much better experience if it were reserved for long distances.

    8. Re:My question is... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Given the terrain around here, I'm not really sure if you'd want something that flew at 200kph

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    9. Re:My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not automated first because they're operating outside commercial speed envelope (they're authorized to overspeed as munch as 10% over commercial speed limit to check engineered margins actually exist) and second because those new tracks are often used with new hardware, and new hardware can have bugs that require emergency human action to avoid crashes. Therefore the test protocol gives maximum freedom to the engine operator.

      (likewise new planes are tested by test pilots outside normal envelope, except trains need a track to run, track is too expensive to be dedicated to tests in any meaningful length, so tests are conducted on new track before it's commercially used. If you look at train speed record on wikipedia you'll see they were all achieved on new track just before it was opened to commercial service, for similar reasons)

      The problem is that this was the final test run (meaning all the previous tests were successful, or more tests would have been scheduled), on hardware marginally improved from previous models with excellent safety record, during a week-end, and the test team treated it like a private risk-less celebration and forgot they were operating with safeties off.

    10. Re:My question is... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      No need for a car for me...I'll just happily keep my enormous dick...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:My question is... by tibit · · Score: 1

      The terrain is never a problem if you have the will and money for a fast train infrastructure. They'll build elevated tracks, tunnels and ditches to keep the going smooth.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    12. Re:My question is... by unencode200x · · Score: 1

      Yes. For example, the Eurostar service uses the "Chunnel." A tunnel built under the English channel. I rode on it, it's amazingly smooth, albeit it a little eerie in the dark knowing you're under water. http://www.raileurope.com/blog...

      --

      Chance favors the prepared mind.
      Perfect is the enemy of good.
    13. Re:My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. For example, the Eurostar service uses the "Chunnel." A tunnel built under the English channel. I rode on it, it's amazingly smooth, albeit it a little eerie in the dark knowing you're under water. http://www.raileurope.com/blog...

      That sounds like fun. I was thinking to take England -> Italy trip one of these years.

    14. Re: My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unstable mountain ranges and somewhat active volcanoes are not something you can easily elevate a train over.

      Its sad how little Europeans understand recent geological history, yet are enamored with their own trivia like knowlegde of geopolitical borders.

    15. Re:My question is... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      No need for a train for me...I'll just happily keep my car....

      :)

      At normal full cruising speed the TGV goes 300 km/h (186MPH) vs. 130km/h (81MPH) on France Motorways. Assuming time between trains / busses is no more than 5-10 minutes, and the journey time took no more than 50- 100% extra time over driving, I'd be glad to take public transit everywhere (acceptable time between busses/ trains could be longer up to 1hr-2hr for intercity travel). With the exception of a road trip on a wide open sunny motorway, driving is a chore. And a car is a depreciating asset to maintain.

      Unfortunately where I live now there is no public transit whatsoever.

    16. Re:My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Europeans laugh when Americans think 100 years is a long time.

      Americans laugh when Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance.

      In the western US, 100 miles might not get you to the next *county*, forget the next state. With few exceptions (NY area eastern seaboard, LA-SD, Portland-Seattle), the travel distances between major targets in the USA are large enough that nothing short of a 500mph maglev can even try to compete with a jumbojet on time, even granting 1-2hr overhead on the plane.

    17. Re:My question is... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      At normal full cruising speed the TGV goes 300 km/h (186MPH) vs. 130km/h (81MPH) on France Motorways. Assuming time between trains / busses is no more than 5-10 minutes, and the journey time took no more than 50- 100% extra time over driving, I'd be glad to take public transit everywhere (acceptable time between busses/ trains could be longer up to 1hr-2hr for intercity travel). With the exception of a road trip on a wide open sunny motorway, driving is a chore. And a car is a depreciating asset to maintain.

      Unfortunately where I live now there is no public transit whatsoever.

      And it doesn't get you from door-to-door exactly where you want to be...

      A car isn't that expensive...not for me I find.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re: My question is... by tibit · · Score: 1

      So, you say that flying cars are the only solution, then? /s

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:My question is... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your car doesn't, either. You have to find parking when you get there. Not to mention you can't have a drink when you are there. Who the fuck wants to drive to Paris and not have a drink?

      Yes, we know you love your cars. Other people love living their lives more, hence them travelling by train.

  11. how many? by slashkitty · · Score: 1

    "seven people present in the train cab instead of train" What is that suppose to even mean?

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:how many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that Slashdot editors don't.

    2. Re:how many? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      "seven people present in the train cab instead of train" What is that suppose to even mean?

      I'm not one of those grammar knowing people, but i think that's technically correct english that's made needlessly vague by a couple omissions.

      "seven people present in the train cab instead of (in the) train (cars)."

      The cab being the driving compartment. The more colloquial term (at least in my neck of the woods) is usually the engine, but perhaps this train didn't have a separate engine car?

      You could argue that saying they were in the engine/cab instead of the train is inaccurate, since the cab is in fact a part of the train, but the implication was clearly intended to be "in the off limits to passengers part of the train rather than the part they were supposed to be in."

      I'm pretty sure that saying "In the X instead of Y" is an accepted abbreviation of "In the X instead of in the Y", but i don't think it's a very common construction, at least in the US.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:how many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that there were 5 people (or maybe 4, if test overseer was present) in the train cab who should not have been there (the train is normally driven by only 2 drivers). My guess is that the extra people there were friends or relatives of the drivers, enjoying the high-speed test ride, drinking some wine, and generally distracting the drivers, and at the same time breaking all imaginable safety regulations. Compare this to a case where airplane pilots would let their friends have a party in the cockpit while the plane was flying ... probably not a good idea.

    4. Re:how many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

    5. Re:how many? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      I think the correct grammar is "lulz failtrain".

    6. Re:how many? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      It was supposed to be "7 people present in the train cab instead of 3" in the original submission.
      I will not complain too much however, as the editors fixed a broken link.

  12. Train à Grande Vitesse by Jahta · · Score: 1

    ....crash caused by excessive speed. Who knew?

    1. Re:Train à Grande Vitesse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Train À Trop Vitesse

  13. TGV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tres Grande Vitesse?
    More like "Tros Grande Vitesse" am I right?

    what? too soon?

    1. Re:TGV? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Trop Grande Vitesse

  14. Err, we do by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    At least in europe on numerous metro systems. Welcome to the 21st century USA!

    However you can't expect automated systems to test themselves. You'll still need humans in the test loop somewhere. Plus for the sort of speeds the TGV gets up to I imagine most people would still prefer someone to be up front if even all he does is to feed the dog that bites him if he touches the controls.

    1. Re:Err, we do by mi · · Score: 1

      However you can't expect automated systems to test themselves.

      Huh? Of course, I can... I used to write unit-tests for a living... But I was not referring to this particular incident — this was a test run (although having so many people aboard during a test seems strange). My point is, the replacing of human operators with computers should've happened all over the railroads long before the much more complicated automatic car-driving hit the streets.

      And my guess as to the reasons remains valid despite all of the hatred by Anonymous Cowards with too many mod-points: cars are owned and driven by individuals, whereas trains are run by institutions — often government-owned — and with unionised work-forces to boot.

      for the sort of speeds the TGV gets up to I imagine most people would still prefer someone to be up front

      That speed is exactly why the job is for a computer, not human — there is nothing a human, with our pathetic reaction times, can do even if some unexpected situation arises. Those, who don't understand this, are silly — but I have more faith in humanity and don't think, "most people" are like that.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Err, we do by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Huh? Of course, I can... I used to write unit-tests for a living"

      Testing some bit of software in a PC is not the same as testing 400 tons of hardware that can do 200+mph you idiot.

    3. Re:Err, we do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to write unit-tests for a living

      Your lack of relevant experience is noted.

      My point is, the replacing of human operators with computers should've happened all over the railroads

      Why? I can see a benefit in adding automatic systems to support or verify human decision-making, as has already been done (this accident required such systems to be disabled/unavailable), but I can't see a technical reason for removing the human brain from the operation of TGVs.

      long before the much more complicated automatic car-driving hit the streets.

      Car driving hasn't "hit the streets" except in limited areas and with careful supervision, and no independent third party verification of results.

      And my guess as to the reasons remains valid

      It remains valid to say that you guessed, yes. I say it is due to unicorns.

      here is nothing a human, with our pathetic reaction times, can do even if some unexpected situation arises

      Except that sometimes it's not reaction time that you need - automated systems are already in place for when that's paramount - but wisdom, i.e. the combination of training, experience and human intelligence.

    4. Re:Err, we do by mi · · Score: -1, Troll

      Testing some bit of software in a PC is not the same as testing 400 tons of hardware that can do 200+mph you idiot.

      You have no idea, what my tests were testing, and what the tested software was driving, asshole.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Err, we do by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Well I'm damn sure it wasn't a high speed train where they're not only testing the entire train systems including emergency systems, but signalling, catenary and track too. Good like automating the testing for all that genius.

  15. Simple : Chicken and egg problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To get Egg you need chicken.

    Before setup of the security system you need to finish the track test itself. From my understanding this was some early test where the TVM & other system were not yet opperating (in progress of setup).

    Latest test track are run using a special trail that is Iris 320 and will check everything including that the TVM is fully fonctionnal.
    Until that point, trains must be run in manual mode with additional security rules to avoid issues.

    Clearly the security measures were not followed. We anticipate the guys will be sacked because of that (they might be chatting one with another).
    The problem was that for test run there are lots of "civilian" people on bord that want to be there to see such unique moment.

    It always end-up with people going into the cockpit. This can result into disturbing the pilote. This becomes a serious problem if you are on a test run without automatic safety on.

    I also anticipate new rules will be set to prevent such issues.

    1. Re:Simple : Chicken and egg problem. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

      Mais oui!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  16. Criminal charges? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    If there are criminal charges, I expect that they will be with token 'punishments'. To an average, sane, person, what punishment can compare to the knowledge that almost a dozen people were senselessly murdered because of your poor judgement? There are no reparations they could make to the victims or their families for the loss.

    This knowledge will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

    1. Re:Criminal charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt if it was "murder" since that normally requires premeditation. Homicide, reckless endangerment or man slaughter all come to mind. I agree that any of the people responsible will be haunted by what they did.

      Sounds too much like they were celebrating the successful end of testing. Sort of like the end of term at most universities, and like most universities, things got lax. Unfortunately getting lax with that train is only one or two orders of magnitude sillier than getting lax with the LHC. I just hope it wasn't some marketing VP or management weanie overriding the concerns of the engineers ( a.k.a. the guys/gals who actually know how to drive this horizontal rocket).

    2. Re:Criminal charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're not a native speaker, so maybe you should be made aware that "murder" does not merely mean "kill"; it means quite specifically that there was intent to kill.

      You should not use it in the context of an accident unless you're accusing someone of deliberately causing those deaths--in other words, unless you're claiming that it was not an accident.

    3. Re:Criminal charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But "murder" is so much more emotionally charged and satisfying to say than "negligent homicide" is, n'est-ce pas?

      That said, OP is correct that living their lives knowing that their negligence killed a dozen people is (or ought damn well be) a worse punishment than any imprisonment.