Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

What really bugs me about all this: not only were they designed to break down, they messed that up to the point that the trains could have broken down while in service. The fact that a manufacturer would risk the lives of the passengers of the trains should result in personal liability for all of the execs of that company.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38641289

I'd love to see that angle researched more because I think it changes the game from something commercial to a far more important level.

View on HN

When bad things happen, the execs don't know it happened because they tell other people to go off and do stuff. When good things happen, execs take all the credit because the told people to go off and do stuff.

When my wife was in business school, the teacher of her management class used this idea as an unironic definition of management. They had to memorize the definition, which was essentially "taking credit for the work of other people." Not as a joke.

That's painful. But I totally believe it.

The issue started back when highways were being built across the US. Subsequently the US deregulated the Rail industry so that it could compete with long-haul trucking. Its been a steady spiral since then. John Oliver did an amazing and informative piece on trains.

Since then, workers get no days off, they reduced the amount of workers on a train to 2 and are trying to get it down to 1 as we speak. They increased the length of trans by literal miles, and these trains have killed multiple people by blocking roadways / ambulances and have run over children who have had to crawl underneath the trains to get to school. This happens multiple times a week where the road is blocked for almost a day.

These conductors have to walk the length of 4 miles to "inspect" the train, and deregulation has pushed the inspection time down to mere minutes instead of an entire checklist. They have taken all the power from the single regulation body and allow trains to run with brakes built in the early 1900s. We have many multiple "accidents" a year with chemical spills, all for profit seeking behavior. These workers are consistently over-worked and cannot take any sick days unless they are scheduled 2-3 months in advance.

Train accidents are inevitable at this point, the next one may be more disastrous than Palestine Ohio. This is the direct result to profit seeking by corporations (who pull in billions a year) and deregulation. It sucks because trains are f*cking awesome and could help society in a million ways.

A train breaking down or otherwise stopping causes no risk of injury or death.

Wrong. Trains generally stopping at intersections already pose a real risk by blocking emergency vehicles, resulting in cases of loss of property and life that could otherwise have been avoided. Having an unplanned shutdown that cannot be easily remedied only further exacerbates that potential.

Ok, I hadn't thought of that. In most of Europe level crossings are rare enough that this would be very unlikely.

It's also something the driver would easily avoid if they still have any control over the train, e.g. braking force.

In Poland level crossings are pretty normal.

> It's also something the driver would easily avoid if they still have any control over the train, e.g. braking force.

Yes, but: it would be much harder to test whether bricking this thing selectively does what it should do and for all we know right now you'd have a runaway on your hands. So this isn't just for shits and giggles.

And even a stopped train on a live track can under the right circumstances be extremely risky.

You wrote that the passengers' lives were at risk.

This is simply not the case. It is a fundamental feature of every signaling system, and has been for over a century. Any collision would be caused by a seriously defective signalling system, not the stopped train.

You don't stop a train on a live track without a reason and yes, it would take multiple faults but since we have seen several such accidents in the last couple of years alone it would seem to me that it is indeed a risk. Poland has a ton of aging infrastructure, I wouldn't make any assumptions about what works and what doesn't, systems fail, and trains fail, when both fail at the same time your chances of an accident go up quite a bit so you try hard to make sure that both don't fail. Making one of them fail on purpose is a really bad idea.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll find a new reason to say why it's perfectly ok to stop trains with passengers in them willy nilly and how that isn't a safety issue but I'm just going to let it go here. I certainly hope you're not in charge of anything that involves public transport.

So I’m an engineer in the passenger rail industry who often reviews and has input into the HTL (hazard tracking log). Stopping the train is assumed 100% safe for passengers and crew.

(Edit: you might be able to find some of these online, as regulators sometimes publish them for comment if there is a waiver request… not going to dox myself though)

Your point about external grade crossing hazards is valid… but also completely avoidable unless the train is super long (IE: not a passenger train) or the train was already going slow (like just leaving a station or signal).

There are separate system safety plans to ensure that timely/safe evacuation is possible regardless of where the train stops.

In the absolutely worst case, this means coupling another train and waiting the ~30 mins for people to walk through the train to the new cars, then uncoupling.

What makes a stopped train on a track 100% safe in terms of other trains or locomotives that might be oncoming? Are signals and means of communication redundant in a way that there‘s no chance of a collision?

The signalling system is designed so there's no possibility of an oncoming (or path-crossing) train. On a modern system this is done with formal proof of the software, on an old system with mechanical interlocks.

Yes, and if you maintain it very well you will never have accidents. That's why Poland never has railway accidents, perfect maintenance and everything 'just works' /s.

That’s a bit of a tangent though. All of rail (even in Poland) is based on the assumption that stopped=safe.

You're an engineer in the passenger rail industry in Poland? If not then you probably will want to familiarize yourself with the state of Polish rail infra before commenting further. It's a small miracle they don't have more accidents than they already do.

The most recent major incident is two months ago:

https://apnews.com/article/poland-train-accident-1db1a088c31...

And there are plenty of others to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Railway_accidents_and...

There are only two countries in the EU that have worse rail infra than Poland (Romania, Bulgaria). Rolling stock is off mixed quality and vintage, maintenance spotty at best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com