• Buenos Aires wreck, Feb. 22, 2012

  • Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of Canada and the United States.
Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of Canada and the United States.

Moderators: Komachi, David Benton

  by Arborwayfan
 
I checked this out in the Argentine newspaper Clarin (the Bugle).

Pictures here: http://www.clarin.com/ciudades/atrapada ... 84897.html .

An electric multiple unit train on the Ferrocarril General Sarmiento, which runs west from a stub-end terminal in the Once neighborhood of Buenos Aires, crashed into the hydraulic bumpers at at least 20km/hr (16 mph); the RR unions say maybe more. At least 49 people died and 300 or more were injured. The train was overcrowded and the doors were open; the news sites I saw didn't say if they were the side doors or the doors between cars, but employees commented that open doors and overcrowding are dangerous and they've been warning about both for years.

The ends of the first and second cars appear to have buckled a lot; I'd guess from the pictures and descriptions that most of the dead were in or near the front vestibule of the second car and the rear vestibule of the first. The driver's cab was bent in quite a bit and some of the dead may have been up there, too (possibly including the driver, although the paper doesn't say.) Lots of people were trapped for hours and came out through windows because the way to the doors was blocked. There's a good reason you're not allowed to ride in vestibules. There's also apparently a good reason that US laws require such sturdy cars that a lot of European equipment can't be used here without great modification.

Employees also complained about years of low investment and poor maintenance.
  by george matthews
 
The Al Jazeera report suggested that poor brake maintenance might have played a part. Only two nights ago a feature about the London Underground emphasised how thorough brake maintenance is in London. I also noticed that the Buenos Aires trains looked dirty and very old.
  by Matthew
 
Arborwayfan wrote: There's also apparently a good reason that US laws require such sturdy cars that a lot of European equipment can't be used here without great modification.
On the contrary, the US has crash safety standards dating to the 1930s and they are much less safe than European standards. The FRA believes in "sturdiness" that does not dissipate crash energy and instead transfers it directly to the passengers. Even automobile manufacturers figured out that this is a bad idea decades ago.

P.S. Apparently the driver survived so perhaps we will get some more information about this horrific accident soon.
  by Arborwayfan
 
Now 50 dead, 676 injured.

Matthew, you may well be right; I am no expert. Trains should have crumple zones like cars, you are saying? Maybe FRA standards are also influenced by relatively slow US trains sharing tracks with very heavy freight trains? In any case, apparently neither set of safety standards were used on this train in Bs As.

The maintenance workers say the train left the shops in good condition just a day ago, but also claim long-term lack of railroad maintenance.
  by Matthew
 
Some good links about how the FRA is screwing over passenger rail in this country:

http://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/20 ... ail-again/
http://www.ebbc.org/?q=rail/fra.html
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... ement.html

Yet, despite the "safety" of insanely heavy weight requirements, the United States comes in last in rail safety when compared against China, Japan, Korea, India, and the EU.

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress ... il-safety/

I don't know about Argentina's record.
  by railfilm
 
Arborwayfan wrote:Now 50 dead, 676 injured.

Matthew, you may well be right; I am no expert. Trains should have crumple zones like cars, you are saying? Maybe FRA standards are also influenced by relatively slow US trains sharing tracks with very heavy freight trains? In any case, apparently neither set of safety standards were used on this train in Bs As.

The maintenance workers say the train left the shops in good condition just a day ago, but also claim long-term lack of railroad maintenance.

In our TV news they mentioned (and there was also a surveillance video), that the train run very slow (less than 30 km/h). I cannot simple believe that a crash with such low speed ends in such tragedy.
  by CarterB
 
Designed and built-in "crumple zones" ??
  by johnthefireman
 
A lot of modern trains have built-in crumple zones.

"Safety requirements for new train cars in Great Britain call for a crash or crumple zone to absorb the impact of a collision." (http://machinedesign.com/article/will-t ... tells-1106)

"Our Desiro trains, which represent over half of our train fleet, all have in-built crumple zones designed to absorb impact in the event of a collision, much the same as modern cars. " (http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/csr-sa ... aspx#75563)

"The design of modern railway carriages... incorporates a series of crush or crumple zones so that, in the event of a collision, much of the train’s kinetic energy is transferred through deformation. Such zones reduce the decelerations and forces on both the train and its passengers and also make it less likely that derailment will occur" (http://www.inds.co.uk/education/wdss/Crumple_zones.pdf)

There's a video of testing crumple zones in the USA at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXBXUpqYsE
  by DutchRailnut
 
george matthews wrote:BBC report. Driver of train says there was a brake problem; company denied it. Which would we believe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17174635
The engineer(operator) of this train failed to properly stop at several stations according to passengers and it is believed that there was a brake problem.
Company can deny all they want, but to many comments do lead to brake failure.
  by george matthews
 
DutchRailnut wrote:
george matthews wrote:BBC report. Driver of train says there was a brake problem; company denied it. Which would we believe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17174635
The engineer(operator) of this train failed to properly stop at several stations according to passengers and it is believed that there was a brake problem.
Company can deny all they want, but to many comments do lead to brake failure.
In a country of law I think the Company would have to answer in court. I suspect they have neglected maintenance for years.
  by David Benton
 
A driver that fails to stop at every station because of faulty brakes , but keeps going is in no way to blame of course .
  by george matthews
 
David Benton wrote:A driver that fails to stop at every station because of faulty brakes , but keeps going is in no way to blame of course .
Perhaps he knew that if he refused to drive he would simply be sacked. Jobs are hard to come by in Argentina.
  by Arborwayfan
 
I think I read something (many days ago now, so I may be wrong) about the driver reporting a problem earlier, the train being inspected, and pronounced good to do. Anyone's welcome to check that out, but it certainly sounds believeable.