This Handle Killed 56 Passengers 

Thats shuts down others automatic safety systems, to allow signalers and controllers to do their job without "programmed decisions" ; but they failed to identify the train in time.

@@perracheposte1752and that is the problem, but manual actions from the controllers should override the automatic system and shut it down temporary. This way they can still direct everything when they know wich train is the runaway and still have a automatic safety systen in place

French engineering.

@@jennylee9278 French engineering is good. Stop hating

​@svis6888 there are plenty of great engineers in France.

😳ikr 😱

@@MartintheTinman what's missed in the story is the schedule change was temporary and very poorly communicated to riders.

It's brakes, not break. Can you break open the eggs?

​@joycedudzinski9415 Oh shut up. You know what he meant. English may not be his first language.

@@joycedudzinski9415 a lot of people who confuse spelling of things have dyslexia (like myself) or speak another language. likewise, there's also typos (easy to switch a few letters)

Work under pressure and panic are powerful mistresses.

And despite all of that, I can't really blame him for most of it. Mistakes are human and all that jazz. The thing I judge him for most is not contacting technicians, but at the same time, I get that a very busy time schedule and likely having been in contact over similar issues many times in the past makes one want to shortcut the solution. Releasing the air of the brakes may well be a part of an official troubleshooting procedure that relies on them being refilled with new air. Him failing to test the brakes is somewhat true and somewhat false, given that the 'train behaved as it should' and his breaking minor breaking test was probably at low speed and sufficient for his singular working brake to manage. Failing to identify himself when alerting? He panicked, and I'm not entirely sure he truly forgot, or that the people at the central communication place may not have heard in the few seconds before he ran away to warn his passengers to brace. It is a messed up situation and he is definitely not without blame, but so many of these mistakes are just outright unfortunate and barely worthy of a 'hey, make sure you do this properly next time' if it had been observed alone during a calmer time. But instead, there was time pressure aplenty, and all the mistakes came together perfectly for maximum carnage on ALL levels. Had just one safety system worked as it should, probably nobody would have been hurt at all...

Brakes from large vehicles should haveair released to apply brakes. No air to release them.

One contributing factor was also that the pressure indicator for the brakes in the Z5300 was only monitoring the pressure in the current cariage, not the whole train. The engineer did a brake test, but since it was only monitoring the carriage with working break system, everything looked good for him.

​@@forevercomputing This is indeed how they work yes. But it gets a bit more complicated. In order to apply enough pressure to the break pads, you have two air tanks per brakes: There is a Main air tank and an Auxilliary air tank, the break pads pistons are in between both tanks and the Main air tank pressure controls the breaking. When there is no pressure in the Main air tank, breaks are applied by the pressure contained in the auxilliary tank. What the engineer and conductor did, is that they bled the pressure in both the main and the auxilliary air tank (wich is a procedure only allowed for maintenance, to move the carriage around the workshop). Since both tanks were are the same pressure, atmospheric pressure, so they were uncontrolled neither released neither applied, just free floating.

Some trains (mostly older types) have a way of operating the brakes by electric signal instead of air pessure, this is not the same as engine braking. But I agree with you that they put to much blame on the driver. (I'm a train driver myself).

​@@Joris-Vanbillemontthose were rheostatic brakes only applied on the bogies of the locomotive, used to slow down the train but basically useless below 30km/h.

It's surprisingly capable. It always used to brake 20-30 tons rollercoaster train travel at 80 km/h. The problem is, it's not super powerful and overheat easily

Not to mention, every car has a mechanical parking brake that could have been cranked on. Applying the brake as time consuming, but they could have applied two of them.

@davidbennetts 616 'electric brakes'? We don't have those on our trains at the SNCF. We use the air-compression Westinghouse system. (I work on those trains since 26 years now so I really know !)

Me too!

Me included

Same

Same

Me too

Not all trains were designed with that failsafe. I think it's industry standard now.

@@grmpEqweer This train was, but it was manually overridden...

No. This is all wrong. Train brakes are not like truck brakes. Train brakes need air pressure to apply. In the case of loss of pressure they do apply automatically, but it is pressure held in an accumulator tank in each car that applies the brakes, when main line pressure is lost. Once you understand this this the video will make more sense. He let all the air out of the tanks in each car, so there were no brakes since the main line pressure was also cut. Modern trains still work this way. They use air pressure to apply the brakes. Not springs.

@@GigsVT An elaboration: Given the age of the trains involved in the accident they probably didn't have electro pneumatic brakes but rather automatic/westinghouse air brakes? On a westinghouse brake system, there is a brake pipe which runs the length of the train and charged by compressors and the main reservoir when the brake is released. On each coach there are auxiliary reservoirs which store air to actuate the brakes via a one-way valve. So if the auxiliary reservoirs have low pressure, the air being pumped into the brake pipe will recharge the auxiliary reservoirs, so in no case will the auxiliary reservoirs ever have a lower pressure than the brake pipe. A triple valve controls the flow of air to and from the brake cylinder. When the pressure in the brake pipe drops, air will be allowed from the main reservoir into the brake cylinder, applying the brakes. The pressure in the brake cylinder will only be released once the reservoir and brake pipe pressure increase back to a threshold value. Closing the brake pipe valve while the brakes have been applied means that the brake pipe and therefore the auxiliary reservoir will not recharge, but also that the brake will not be able to release (since the low brake pipe pressure is sealed in). So that's probably what happened when the driver tried to reset the emergency brake and closed the main brake pipe valve. But who would use another valve handle for leverage? The driver then lets the air out of the brake system but which part is not specified. Apparently the triple valves do not allow air to backflow from the brake cylinder to the auxiliary reservoir so the driver may have somehow directly released the air in the brake cylinder? Not sure. Either way once all the air was released from the system the brakes became completely inoperative as the reservoir couldn't be recharged. The video talks briefly about "electric brakes" which probably means rheostatic brake? Rheostatic brakes which use the motor to slow the train down work best at high speed. At low speed, they're not as effective and provide little to no brake force at very low speeds. So air brakes are still needed to completely stop the train. Many trains also have spring-loaded parking brakes which require pressure to release installed (because if pressure was lost while the train was switched off the train would roll away!) but I don't think they're supposed to be used when the train is in motion.

@@GigsVTyou are Wrong period

burh u sayin the ceo closed da air valver himself ?

Okay but managers did everything they could in this situation, they are in no way blameable

@@cmdr_krabovwas the driver in charge of the crappy safety system? No. So why was he the only one punished? We don’t live in a vacuum and to blame one or two people for this is messed up.

@@cmdr_krabov No, but he was ultimately the one responsible for ensuring that ALL employees of his company receive adequate training for their jobs, & obviously this train-driver had not!

@@bicivelo burh it aint da crappy safety system. da problem was da fact that da driver broke regulations. he shouldve waited for da maintenance staff. It was due to his actions dat da valver was closed. Also - u makin changeas to da brakin system but DONT DO BRAKIN POWER TEST? it basic thing to do !!

But by doing so, he doomed the people in the train he knew he would hit. He could have told someone in the first cabin to get everyone out and worked to get his train identified and thus diverted, saving everyone from his mistakes. The conductor of the train he hit, who stayed in the cabin to tell his passengers to evacuate should be remembered, since he did what his coworker did not.

The conductor of the train must never leave the cabin. If the passengers need to be alerted about anything, he needs to use the communication system and stay in the cabin. Or was there not such a system in that train model? By leaving the cabin to alert the passengers, he condemned many others. That was only one of his many mistakes. I hope that he cannot ever work in any train company. One thing is having a slight mistake that can be forgiven (we all are humans) and another such a long list, as already stated by another user in the comments.

@@haganeelric98 the video did mention that after this they added a PA for passengers.. so i'm going to go with no the train didn't have one before so the only way to warn them was to go tell them himself

also the Armagh tragedy of 1889.

Was this before air brakes defaulted to the on state when losing pressure

​​@@tormodhag6824 The type of air brake that you are visualizing is for road-going commercial trucks, where the air brake chamber is a SPRING BRAKE. The spring brake system is "failsafe" in that, a loss of air pressure causes the brake to be applied. In normal operation the in-cab foot valve sends signals to the brake control valve which then sends signals to the exhaust valves which in turn exhaust the air from the spring brake chambers and allow the powerful coil springs to actuate pressure on the slack adjuster levers which then rotate the camshafts thus forcing the brake shoes outwards against the brake drums. Seems like the train brakes are not spring brakes, rather they are actuated by positive air pressure.

@@naijagoatfarmeri think modern trains do have air tanks that makes the carriages failsafe to applying brake power if air pressure is lost from the locomotive. But this system doesnt work if someone drains the air explaining how the accident in this video could happen

they French, ignorance is their thing

Typical French. Or really typical for any large corporation. As long as all the checkmarks are filled out in a spreadsheet, no one cares what really goes on.

@Dmwntkp99 There is not such à thing as 'secondary brakes' There is a stationary brake in each coach but it won't stop à rolling train. I worked with this material since 1998.

Ohhhhh!

That's insane as they have happened countless times. All forms of transportation had had countless terrible events and many safety systems fail at the same time including airplanes.

damn, same name as the Black Swan oof

Where I live, city buses don't stop at bus stops unless there is somebody waiting to be picked up. If you want to be dropped off, you have to pull a lever which alerts the bus driver to stop at the next stop, and then they stop. If somebody pulled the lever, which the bus driver then stopped the bus at the next bus stop, but when they were stopped a truck that isn't used to a bus stopping there didn't notice the stopped bus and drove into the back of it, would you blame the person who made the bus come to a stop to be let off? No, of course not. Same here. The train coming to a stop did not cause the brakes to fail, in fact that was the last time they were working. It was the conductor who didn't know better and decided to wing it rather than radio in (as they were supposed to) that caused the brakes to fail.

​@MrBattlecharge what are you talking about??? It is not the same at all. Bus passangers use a lever meant to notify the driver, the emergency brake lever is not used to tell the conductor you want to stop.

@richardwehmas no, it is used for emergencies (for which you can argue for or against what Odile did). What I am saying is the same is blaming that person for the accident that occurs, not the instances surrounding the particular situations. Neither caused the accident, each just stopped the vehicle and it would be equally wrong to blame that person for the accident.

@@MrBattlecharge I didn't say her actions caused the accident, I said equating what she did by illegally using an emergency lever because she failed to pay attention to the route stops with a bus passenger who uses a lever as intended is ridiculous. You can debate her culpability in the overall tragedy, i think it falls on the conductor, but there is no debate regarding her actions being a justified emergency or not. Her not paying attention to the route schedule did not count as an emergency that allowed using the lever.

A "running brake check" is standard procedure on US railroads after every start from a stop. An air application is made and as soon as the brakes start taking hold, they are let off; brake check made.

@@royreynolds108 nice to meet a fellow Train Driver! I dindt wanted to go into the detail as much before, but specificly we do this roling Brake check after every change of train composition, after every departure from the starting or turning station or after every change of locomotive driver. Also after problems with the brakes have occurred. Have a nice Day! Or evening! Choo choo!

Ribbit

Because… PEOPLE… so many of us are beyond useless creations

Because humans make mistakes. some reasonable, some terrible

Arrogance. Pride. So many people think 'I can fix this on my own.' and dont follow proper regulations.

@@mikaross4671 that to

Ignorance and practice.

He wasn't convicted for being late, he was convicted because due to his delay, something bad happened.

​@@haganeelric98by that logic the lady that pulled the emergency handle should've had the same punishment, yet she just got a fine.

ya that was dumb hearing that but then i heard "state owned train" that why the state blamed the drivers so they didn't have to take any of the blame themselves.

They freeze brakes if air pressure is lost. Except it wasn't lost, the air that was let out was the brake tanks' not the main line aire

@@unepintade but then why did the train move again after letting the air out of the tanks? I can't really wrap my brain around the logic of this.

The brakes have a fail safe, which these guys overcame. The indirect air brake has auxiliary reservoirs on every wagon (sometimes on every bogie). The normal condition is that the air pipe and the reservoirs are connected and have the same pressure. When the main pipe drops pressure, automatic valves immediately shuts the connection between the air pipe and the reservoirs and connect the reservoirs with the brake cylinders, thus applying the brakes. When the air pressure rises in the air pipe, the valves restore the connection between the air pipe and the reservoirs and make a connection between the brake cylinders and the atmosphere, so the brakes are released. If you want to unbrake a fully braked train, all you need to do is go at each valve and manually remove air from the brake cylinders, it takes a few second for each brake.

Seriously, she made one error as a non expert. The conductor FORGOT HE HAD ELECTRIC BRAKES. He literally broke his normal brakes, messed up the emergency alert, and ran to the back of the train instead of sticking around to save the lives he claimed.

Thats what im saying

@@misseselise3864 See my comment above about real engineers saving lives.

@@aureliagold1222 it's not an error. It's done with selfish intent. She wanted to get off at that station no matter what. You usually receive a massive fine for pulling the brake in a non emergency situation, but it seems they just let her run away.

​@@aureliagold1222The electric brakes wouldn't have made much of a difference, below 30 km/h they're useless. And staying in the cabin wouldn't have made any difference since the radio was overridden by the alarm. The mistake was made when he messed up the brakes and restarted the train without following any (shitty) procedures at the time. Those were changed because of this accident by the way and nowadays any procedure involving messing with the brakes includes a test of said brakes before any movement.

We don't have 'electric brakes ' ; we use the air-compression Westinghouse system. The guy in the vidéo makes à lot of mistake!

@@bastiennietveld7128 So there were no backup electric brakes? Okay, that's clarifies everything. Thanks for your explanation.

@@bastiennietveld7128 As I might've mentioned before, if the train has electric PROPULSION, it'll have electric BRAKING; the motors can serve as brakes when they generate electricity that's subsequently returned to the power source. For an electric railroad to NOT have electric braking is virtually unheard of worldwide....

theres more than one conductor

Might as well shut up instead of posting discriminatory comments like that

It happens in other countries as well....

I personally don’t know but trains have a weird air system it charges from the locomotive. And releasing pressure apples brakes because each car has a small reservoir that is charged through a system I don’t understand. If a car is allowed to sit that reservoir will leak and release the air brake. Needing a handbrake to stay stationary.

I drive big diesel trucks. They have two air systems- One is a spring brake which must be released by applying air to the system before the rig can move. This is what you hear when a truck comes to a stop and there’s a big release of air with a hiss. That is the releasing of the air which causes the emergency/parking brakes to be applied- this is done through two big knobs on the dash, one for the truck and one for the trailer. It will also automatically engage if the system air pressure drops below a certain point. The more powerful air brake system that is used during driving operates through the foot pedal. They actually use the same brake that stops the wheel but in two different ways- one is spring operated through the absence of air. The other system moves the same brake mechanism but through a separate air pressure system. They both have the same end reaction but achieve it in two different ways. The spring mechanism is in a canister right at the spot down on the axle next to the wheels on each side- you can see them under the truck or trailer from behind when you’re driving if you look closely. The other system is hooked up in conjunction with that one and looks similar- they both move the same rod that engages the same brake. I’m sure that trains could use a similar set-up but apparently the railroad people prefer to do things differently.

He emptied the air in all of the carriages since the breaks still were applied when he came back to the cabin. The reason the breaks were locked was because of the lever that he accidentally pulled when he wanted extra leverage, but he thought it was because the pressure was too high and decided to release all the air from all the breaks which then would release the breaks and the system couldn't refill with air because of the lever that he pulled by accident.

Railroads don't use spring brakes because they would require charging the brake system anytime the car was moved making switching operations in yards very inefficient. Railway air brake systems based on the Westinghouse air brake are very reliable when operated correctly. This accident was caused by the disabling of the airbrakes by the poorly trained train crew. The driver closed the valve on the brake pipe while resetting the emergency valve making the proper release of the brakes impossible. When the brakes wouldn't release because the driver and guard/conductor didn't understand how the brakes work they had the bright ideal to bleed all the air out of the system rendering them non functional. Without recharging the airbrake pressure both normal function and the emergency failsafe were disabled. If they had confirmed the brakes were functional before moving as they probably should have after experiencing a brake malfunction the accident would have been averted.

That is how freight trains work, at least. I thought it was the same for commuters

Not this one, but a much more detailed doccie was on the National Geographic TV series"Seconds from Disaster S02E11 (2005/2006)"

I was wondering about that too

@@nukelukas I mean......it's 1988.

@@vincent412l7 I don't think the narrator made it up to be dramatic- they were just stating that the driver believed that was the case. (even if the driver was wrong about it, or perhaps made it up as an excuse for forgetting to do so.)

​@vincent412l7 Simply stating what the driver claimed what his reasoning was to not use it is not misinformation.

Some trains (mostly older types) have a way of operating the brakes by electric signal instead of air pessure, this is not the same as engine braking. (Belgian train driver)

This is called "isolated brakes" and can be easily done manually from each car. That's why the speed of a train is dependent of its braking capacity, usually expressed as "braked mass percentage".

No, poor location of the controlling valves. The driver had to squeeze between the 1st and 2nd car to access the air control valve and needed to use his other hand for bracing to move the valve. In doing this he inadvertently closed the main air line valve. This is a case of very bad design and construction of the rail cars. This also shows how poorly the training is for the train crew to not know exactly how the air brakes work on the train.

Does electric/regenerative brakes does not put power back to grid?

@@leonpano From what I heard there were experiments with that, but it was deemed to expensive cause they'd had to put batteries on the side of the tracks to get the electricity in case there was no demand for power. And the experiments was in the early 2000, so way after this happened.

@@aaronaaronsen3360 but that isn’t same for power plants Generated power if there is no demand then is wasted

@@leonpano Exactly, if there is no demand you will waste whatever is powering the power plant. That's why you ideally have a diversity of powerplants that you can start/turn off quicker or slower, to adapt to the demand.

@@aaronaaronsen3360 I made typo(possible auto correct same to smart) But for nuclear power plants is not easy to rapidly shutdown or startup(you can’t shutdown for night and run for day everyday) If there is some hydropower plant, they could pump water up(like charge battery)

Yes, I believe it was at Moorgate.

@@soly-dp-colo6388no! Moorgate was when a tube train crashed into a buffer because the driver was somehow incapacitated and unable to slow it down to stop at the station.

The only similar one i can think of is the ladbroke grove incident but that one was way more complicated than the description in this comment

@@Dog1818YT Regardless of the reason for the train not stopping, if the other details lines up... It's not like a runaway train collides with a stopped train at a station every single day in England. That only leaves so many rear-end collisions to choose from.

@@Dog1818YT Really the only other substantive details that I can remember are that the staff were absolved of any wrongdoing and that the survivors filed a lawsuit which did not prevail, the decision having rested on the finding that the collision resulted from design limitations rather than negligence or inadequate training.

Where do u see breaks

Makes sense considering it's from the same person who let out the air of the brakes

If the train was like the ones showed, it had no electromagnetic brakes.

She did get fined the emergency brake penalty, but at the end of the day the responsibility the train is down to the drivers, and they failed to follow the proper procedures that would've saved lives.

@@nathanw9770 True, but I can't help but feel that that woman is far more responsible this time Also, what kind of person stops an entire train with an emergency brake just to get off whenever you want?

​@@unocualqu1era A parent responsible for their kids.

She really had nothing to do with the accident. Pulling the e-brake stopped the train as it was supposed to. Blaming her for the remarkable human stupidity to follow is ridiculous.

@@unocualqu1era Yes she's irresponsible for pulling the e brake and did start the chain of events that led to the accident but she is not the cause of it. Had the conductor and driver not been so arrogant and followed the correct procedures for resetting the brakes then the accident would've never occurred.

No she didn't, she got a fine for pulling the emergency brake inappropriately