At least eleven dead as French TGV test train derails near Strasbourg - 14 November 2015

[whole diary]

[stuving]

An update on the casualties, supposed to be final apart from four people on the danger list in hospital:
There were 53 people on board, of whom four were minors.
Eleven were killed, but none of the children.
All of the rest were classed as "injured", either slightly or now in a stable condition.

As to the risk of tests, in practice that's a matter of rules. This line was not yet signed off as ready for use, so the rules assume there is a risk that should be assessed technically and revised as tests progress. Only staff needed should be present, just as a standard precaution. SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) house rules would allow invited guests on trains (not necessarily test trains) once the tests are all done but before all the paperwork is finished. That is reasonable enough, but is likely to be challenged once the lawyers get involved.

Normal track measurements can be done on a line open to passenger trains, so the rules for NMT would presumably be those that apply to it as a workplace. This train was a standard TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) with half the carriages refitted with test equipment, so arguably it was not all workplace in that sense. A new train was used as nothing older is built to run at full line speed, and it will presumably be converted back again. I imagine routine track geometry tests will be done with a "normal" test train, as it does not need full speed to do that out of hours.

[Tim]

It is known These test trains have been running 10% over speed limits with safety equipment off so as it is possible to run at limit plus 10%. The speed at derailment is not confirmed, but the speed limit at location is 160 kph, so plus 10% 176kph. This was around about the 200th test, and all the previous tests ran successfully at the plus 10%.

The train involved was the French version of our NMT train, what kind of staffing does the NMT run with?

The 5 still missing in the above report the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) are now saying are accounted for and weren't actually on the train, but others may have been due to the "extra guests".

Thanks for the extra info.   Presumably, TGVs^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) in normal use have an automatic system to prevent the train going faster than the permitted line speed.  Presumably also, when you do the 10% overspeed test you disable or override that automatic system (or you do it on track before the lineside part of that system is working) .  Presumably, that then allows for human error to result in you exceeding the linespeed by more than 10%.

[stuving]

Thanks for the extra info.   Presumably, TGVs^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) in normal use have an automatic system to prevent the train going faster than the permitted line speed.  Presumably also, when you do the 10% overspeed test you disable or override that automatic system (or you do it on track before the lineside part of that system is working) .  Presumably, that then allows for human error to result in you exceeding the linespeed by more than 10%.

There's several things there we don't know - obviously you can allow a defined overspeed in several ways, only one of which is to not engage either of the safety control systems fitted. The driver survived and has been interviewed, and says he was sticking to the 176 km/hr testing speed limit. But remember, "only" 176 km/hr is still 110 mi/hr, easily enough to smash a train to pieces.

[LiskeardRich]

Grayrigg was about 100 mph for a comparison as to a modern train derailment in Britain under similar speeds.

The TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) was running wrong line, Looking on maps and images of the location, the wrong line looks to have a sharper curve than the normal line. The classic and high speed lines run opposite sides, and the location of crash was where two single lines fly over each other from the high speed line to swap onto the classic line to normally get to the opposite side.

The driver has been interviewed and claimed he was sticking to the limits set of 176kph.

[stuving]

One report I saw said this was the first run on this line in this direction at speed, though I can't see why that would be so important.

SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) have been saying they can't confirm the actual speed as the gendarmes have the data recorders under lock and key as evidence. I still don't understand why one of the signalling systems wasn't tracking the train, even if it was not enforcing speed limits. The test phase is supposed to test the signalling too.

[stuving]

We were half-promised a first statement of facts from SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) today, but examining the recorders only started this afternoon, so this first statement is now due tomorrow. I'm sure they will also have examined the track.

If you want a wider view of the site and the track, SNCF have made several videos of overflights of the "LGV^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) Est European" while it was being built; there are links in this page. The earlier ones give a good impression of how much activity, machinery etc. it takes to build the whole line and its structures pretty well at once. The 2013 one even shows the TBM just emerged from the second bore of the Saverne tunnel.

The latest, which was done last month and so is this the most relevant, is here. It flies West-East, so the Vendenheim junction is at the end (and the helicopter was overtaken by the test train, wrong road again, 2 minutes in). Saturday's run was on the right-hand track and derailed just before the canal bridge.

[stuving]

We now have that statement from SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) - and it's quite clear what the cause was: excessive speed. At the point of derailment, the recorded speed was 243 km/hr as against a normal limit of 160 km/hr. For this run, that is described as late braking; 1 km too late. (More later, when I get home.)

[JayMac]

Is this line left hand running throughout? Reason for asking is that I've read elsewhere that the norm is right hand running in the d^partements that border Germany (Moselle, Alsace?).

Are LGVs^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) left hand running within France regardless?

[stuving]

Is this line left hand running throughout? Reason for asking is that I've read elsewhere that the norm is right hand running in the d^partements that border Germany (Moselle, Alsace?).

Are LGVs^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) left hand running within France regardless?

Yes, the LGV follows the normal French rule of the road up to the connector at Vendenheim. However, all lines are built and signalled for bidirectional use, hence the need to test them in both directions.

The Germans swapped most of the lines in Alsace-Lorraine over to right-hand running very soon after 1870, though the line from Strasbourg down to Basel had always been that way round. When the French came to reintegrate the A-L network with the French in 1918, swapping back would have been expensive, and in operational terms it was never a big issue, so they didn't. A bit later some of the main lines were equipped with grade-separated "leapfrog" crossovers close to the old border, such as the one at Xouaxange near Sarrebourg (and yes - that's a genuine French spelling, barbaric though it looks). At least one line built since then, like the LGV, runs on the left and has a flyover crossing (or two, I think) just before Metz at Frescaty.

[stuving]

The press conference today adds only a little to description of the accident. The initial technical report does describe how the train derailed; essentially it toppled over centrifugally on the curve (of only 945 m radius). Calculations give a speed of 220-240 km/hr for this to happen, and that the outer ends of the carriage rake and inner ends of the power cars should lift first. That is what happened, and the coupling at this point broke early on leaving the carriages to run off the track and straight over the canal, on their sides. The rear power car never made it over the canal, and most of the (shared) bogies were eventually ripped off.

The leading power car hit the bridge parapet and ended up in three main parts - the body crossed the bridge, scraping along the parapet/girder, and slid down the bank. The rear bogie destroyed the end of the parapet and was embedded in the end of the girder. The transformer went over the side of the bridge, and its oil burning was the source of the fires visible in the pictures.

Given that, it is remarkable that so many people survived, and in particular those in the leading power car.

The press conference, and the full statement, list four sets of actions:

• Suspend all testing at increasing speed on LGVs^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle), and tighten both the rules on not letting outsiders onto test trains and their enforcement.
  
• Conduct a review of the testing methods for new lines, and the implications of this accident for the management of human factors, to report within six months.
  
• Certain individuals will be subject to immediate suspension and disciplinary procedures.
  
• A wider review of operational (not just testing) safety management and human factors is already underway, will take the review of this accident into account.

Obviously much more investigation is needed - this "immediate" report took only four days - and one area where this is true is this question: who was in the driving cab? The report says there were seven - four drivers and test managers and three others. Both of those numbers are surprising; does it need that many drivers? and doesn't driving a train at over normal line speed on the fastest line in Europe call for undivided attention?

The four staff were a driver, a second driver (who was watching), a test manager (also meant to be supervising), and a "pilot" working for Systra (the SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways)/RATP in-house engineering consultancy). Guillaume Pepy's prepared words included a rather oddly-worded section; something about ill-judged behaviour of individuals both in the driving cab and between it and the train.

All in all, it's obvious they did know speed was the cause from the start. Probably they wanted to check against the recordings before going public on that. So Pepy's insistence that this could never happen in service because of the train control systems was based on that knowledge, rather than being reassuring hyperbole. His saying the cause was unknown, which looked incompatible with that assurance, was a legal fiction (i.e. we know but need to know what the prosecutors know).

[stuving]

I've found a report that gives some more detail about the distribution of the casualties. I think we can assume that none of those on-board had any kind of seat belt, in which case the protection given by the body shells was pretty good.

Of the eleven people who died, none was in the front power car (and the report said that most of them were standing). That vehicle slid to a halt over 150 m, an average deceleration of 1.5 g, which helps to explain the survival rate. However, it hit the parapet very hard, and turned on its side, so I still think that survival was surprising.

Five of those killed were Systra engineering staff, and four worked for SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways); the other two were outsiders. The highest fatality rate was in the last but one carriage, and from those figures it looks like that was a laboratory vehicle.

Sixteen people are still in hospital; two of them are still in a critical state.

[Chris from Nailsea]

The five "missing" persons are now believed not to have been on board, so the casualty number is as in that last report: 11 killed and 5 still critically ill in hospital. One of those killed was a child, and their presence has still not been explained. Other reports suggest this kind of "treat" was common practice, though unofficial.

An update on the casualties, supposed to be final apart from four people on the danger list in hospital:
There were 53 people on board, of whom four were minors.
Eleven were killed, but none of the children.
All of the rest were classed as "injured", either slightly or now in a stable condition.

So, are we now sure that no children were among the dead? 

[stuving]

So, are we now sure that no children were among the dead? 

Yes, the figures are now given as definitive. However, the identity of the two still on the danger list has not been made public. You will understand that in this kind of accident, with carriages sliding along on their sides, it was always going to be difficult to count the number of those killed and no longer inside.

[SandTEngineer]

I would like to thank Stuving for finding and posting all of the relevant information concerning this very tragic incident.

And just to add a little bit to it, this article has a graph showing the train speeds involved:
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/late-braking-blamed-for-tgv-est-derailment.html?channel=537

[stuving]

The identity of some of the victims is now known. Of the five Systra staff, four held senior positions either for the trials or for the LGV^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) Est as a whole. The wife of one of those was also killed, as was another female guest of a Systra employee who survived.

One of the four SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) staff killed was Alain Cuccaroni, director of the LGV Est project for RFF and SNCF R^seau since its construction was approved in 1998.

Yesterday's report does contain pictures of the site and the wreckage, much of which can be followed without reading the text. The reason for the high death toll in the last but one carriage is visible in one of the pictures; it went across the canal sideways and hit the far bank upside down.

Thanks for the mention, SandTEngineer, obviously I hope it is of interest. In this case it's not just to draw comparisons, which applies in any serious accident - the "could it happen here" question - but also because what would ordinarily be the lead news item, and for several days in France, has been pushed down or out of the running order. "Interesting times" indeed, in the worst possible way.