Driver of Spanish Train that Derailed was on Phone ..

[Deleted]

to the TRAIN COMPANY

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19776780-investigators-driver-of-spanish-train-that-crashed-was-talking-on-phone

I can't believe there's no company policy against being on the phone while actively driving!

[Deleted]

I'm thinking so.

I don't know what was so important with the route change but have a feeling that there was probably construction work being done.

Important but what a bad way to handle the situation.

[Abby Normal]

I think it has more to do with the speed he was traveling than being on the phone. It's not like a train speeds up that quickly.  Unless it was a really long call, he had been going (or working up to) that speed for a while. 

[wvugurl26]

The driver was going way too fast. Poor policy for the company to call the driver on his cell phone.

My brother works for DC Metro. Train and bus operators must have their phones off and not on their person. It must be in their bag. First offense is automatic termination. They communicate with operators by radio. It could still be distracting in the event of a route change.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 13:41:50 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

The driver was going way too fast. Poor policy for the company to call the driver on his cell phone.

My brother works for DC Metro. Train and bus operators must have their phones off and not on their person. It must be in their bag. First offense is automatic termination. They communicate with operators by radio. It could still be distracting in the event of a route change.

Is there a difference between talking on a radio and talking on a phone?

[wvugurl26]

Jul 30, 2013 13:42:29 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 30, 2013 13:41:50 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

The driver was going way too fast. Poor policy for the company to call the driver on his cell phone.

My brother works for DC Metro. Train and bus operators must have their phones off and not on their person. It must be in their bag. First offense is automatic termination. They communicate with operators by radio. It could still be distracting in the event of a route change.

Is there a difference between talking on a radio and talking on a phone?

In theory on the radio you are only talking to the company about necessary things. If you have your phone anyone could be calling or texting you. I did say either way the driver would have probably been distracted.

[HoneyBBQ]

BBC reported that he was on the phone with the rail headquarters explaining he was going too fast. I'll try to find the link.

"Francisco Jose Garzon Amo was speaking to members of staff at the state-owned railway company, Renfe, they added." although this link says he was lost - 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23507348

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 13:47:16 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

Jul 30, 2013 13:42:29 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Is there a difference between talking on a radio and talking on a phone?

In theory on the radio you are only talking to the company about necessary things. If you have your phone anyone could be calling or texting you. I did say either way the driver would have probably been distracted.

I agree with that, but if the company needs to verbally communicate with the driver, what is the difference between talking over a radio and talking over a phone?  

[wvugurl26]

Jul 30, 2013 13:49:39 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 30, 2013 13:47:16 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

In theory on the radio you are only talking to the company about necessary things. If you have your phone anyone could be calling or texting you. I did say either way the driver would have probably been distracted.

I agree with that, but if the company needs to verbally communicate with the driver, what is the difference between talking over a radio and talking over a phone?  

I stated the difference in my earlier post and I believe that is the rationale behind DC Metro's no cell phone policy. The company needing to communicate with you is distracting. I don't dispute that. However, if their chosen method is your cell phone, you are going to have to check every call coming in to see if it is work related. That adds up to a whole lot of unnecessary distractions in a day.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 13:54:24 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

Jul 30, 2013 13:49:39 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I agree with that, but if the company needs to verbally communicate with the driver, what is the difference between talking over a radio and talking over a phone?  

I stated the difference in my earlier post and I believe that is the rationale behind DC Metro's no cell phone policy. The company needing to communicate with you is distracting. I don't dispute that. However, if their chosen method is your cell phone, you are going to have to check every call coming in to see if it is work related. That adds up to a whole lot of unnecessary distractions in a day.

Maybe they have company issued cells that  no one else is allowed to call.

[973beachbum]

In the moments before the derailment, Garzon received a call on his work phone from Spain's national train company Renfe, court documents show. The call was to inform Francisco Garzon, 52, of the route that he needed to take. The court said Garzon was talking to train company personnel and based on black-box data recorders, appeared to be consulting a paper document at the time of the derailment.

The above is from the link in the OP.  So it was a company phone.  It wouldn't matter if they had a cell phone policy or not, as he wasn't on his personal phone.  They also called him not the other way around.  Maybe it was a necessary thing but I would hope they do something  about the driver not having anyone to assist him in times like this. 

Am I the only one who would have thought they had a second person there for things like having to take directions over the phone while the other is driving the train at 70 mph?

[Abby Normal]

Except the train wasn't doing 70-

Black-box data recorders also showed Garzon had been driving the train as fast as 192 kph — 119 mph — seconds before the brakes were activated and the derailment happened.
Garzon is suspected of driving the train at more than twice the posted speed limit through the outskirts of the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. The estimated speed of the train when it derailed was 153 kph, or 95 mph, black box data recorder showed — double the speed it should have been going.

[Deleted]

Am I the only one who would have thought they had a second person there for things like having to take directions over the phone while the other is driving the train at 70 mph?

I think the train was going 119mi/hr at the time of the derailment!

ETA: I see Abby Normal  beat me to it.

I definitely think he was distracted. The earlier reports indicated that he had driven this route many times before.

[wvugurl26]

The train was going far above the speed limit. That can be deduced from video of the crash.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"Maybe they have company issued cells that no one else is allowed to call.":::...

Like those kid cell phones that just have a button or two on them?  I've yet to meet the person who doesn't give the work number out to at LEAST one or two personal contacts.

[973beachbum]

Jul 30, 2013 15:02:57 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Except the train wasn't doing 70-

Black-box data recorders also showed Garzon had been driving the train as fast as 192 kph — 119 mph — seconds before the brakes were activated and the derailment happened.
Garzon is suspected of driving the train at more than twice the posted speed limit through the outskirts of the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. The estimated speed of the train when it derailed was 153 kph, or 95 mph, black box data recorder showed — double the speed it should have been going.

My point was that maybe he would have been doing the speed limit if he hadn't gotten a phone call that required him to pull out a bunch of papers to read.  

what happens if he has to pee?  Do trains really only have one person in the cockpit all the time?  that sounds like something that should make me surprised that we don't have more accidents not surprised when we do.

[Abby Normal]

Jul 30, 2013 15:29:15 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Jul 30, 2013 15:02:57 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Except the train wasn't doing 70-

Black-box data recorders also showed Garzon had been driving the train as fast as 192 kph — 119 mph — seconds before the brakes were activated and the derailment happened.
Garzon is suspected of driving the train at more than twice the posted speed limit through the outskirts of the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. The estimated speed of the train when it derailed was 153 kph, or 95 mph, black box data recorder showed — double the speed it should have been going.

My point was that maybe he would have been doing the speed limit if he hadn't gotten a phone call that required him to pull out a bunch of papers to read.  

what happens if he has to pee?  Do trains really only have one person in the cockpit all the time?  that sounds like something that should make me surprised that we don't have more accidents not surprised when we do.

To some extent I agree, except that he needed to be doing about 45, and was doing 119 before he started to apply the brakes.  Which means, that unless that was a very long phone call, he was doing excessive speed well before it.

Had he not had the phone call, he might have started to slow down sooner. But I doubt the phone call was the reason for his speed.

[973beachbum]

Gonzalo Ferre, Adif's president, said the driverI posted this A should have started slowing the train 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) before the dangerous bend, which comes immediately after the trains exit a tunnel.

He said signs clearly marked this point when the driver must begin to slow "because as soon as he exits the tunnel he needs to be traveling at 80 kilometers per hour."...

A senior Spanish train driver, Manuel Mato, said all drivers who operate on that route know they "have to reduce the speed manually, and at this spot the drop is very sharp." He said the track south of the tunnel is straight and permits speeds of up to 200 kph (125 mph).

An American passenger, Stephen Ward, said he was watching the train's speed on a carriage display screen — and reported that the train accelerated, not slowed, as it headed for disaster.

He said moments before the crash, the display indicated 194 kph (121 mph), more than double the speed limit, whereas earlier in the journey, he saw speeds averaging nearer 100 kph (60 mph).http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Probe-of-deadly-derailment-focuses-on-train-speed-4685782.php

Abby Normal this shows what I'm talking about.  The track has spots where 200 kph is the appropiate speed and then right after tha the is supposed to slow down.  It "seems" that that spot was right as he was on the phone call and needed to slow down quite sharply.  clearly he has some responsiblilty in this.  He should have said now is a bad time hold on a minute.  I just wonder why the train company, which should know where all trains are at all times, picked that time to call and distract him.

[Abby Normal]

Jul 30, 2013 16:03:44 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Gonzalo Ferre, Adif's president, said the driverI posted this A should have started slowing the train 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) before the dangerous bend, which comes immediately after the trains exit a tunnel.

He said signs clearly marked this point when the driver must begin to slow "because as soon as he exits the tunnel he needs to be traveling at 80 kilometers per hour."...

A senior Spanish train driver, Manuel Mato, said all drivers who operate on that route know they "have to reduce the speed manually, and at this spot the drop is very sharp." He said the track south of the tunnel is straight and permits speeds of up to 200 kph (125 mph).

An American passenger, Stephen Ward, said he was watching the train's speed on a carriage display screen — and reported that the train accelerated, not slowed, as it headed for disaster.

He said moments before the crash, the display indicated 194 kph (121 mph), more than double the speed limit, whereas earlier in the journey, he saw speeds averaging nearer 100 kph (60 mph).http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Probe-of-deadly-derailment-focuses-on-train-speed-4685782.php

Abby Normal this shows what I'm talking about.  The track has spots where 200 kph is the appropiate speed and then right after tha the is supposed to slow down.  It "seems" that that spot was right as he was on the phone call and needed to slow down quite sharply.  clearly he has some responsiblilty in this.  He should have said now is a bad time hold on a minute.  I just wonder why the train company, which should know where all trains are at all times, picked that time to call and distract him.

I get that- but I'm talking about this-

Garzon admitted carelessness and speeding at the closed hearing on Sunday and is said to have claimed he thought he was on another section of track when he crashed.

His confusion wouldn't have been caused by the phone call, but would have distracted him from seeing the signs.  

It seems you're saying he didn't slow down because of the phone call.  I'm saying he should have known where he was- despite the phone call.  

[wvugurl26]

Jul 30, 2013 15:29:15 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Jul 30, 2013 15:02:57 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Except the train wasn't doing 70-

Black-box data recorders also showed Garzon had been driving the train as fast as 192 kph — 119 mph — seconds before the brakes were activated and the derailment happened.
Garzon is suspected of driving the train at more than twice the posted speed limit through the outskirts of the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. The estimated speed of the train when it derailed was 153 kph, or 95 mph, black box data recorder showed — double the speed it should have been going.

My point was that maybe he would have been doing the speed limit if he hadn't gotten a phone call that required him to pull out a bunch of papers to read.  

what happens if he has to pee?  Do trains really only have one person in the cockpit all the time?  that sounds like something that should make me surprised that we don't have more accidents not surprised when we do.

At Metro they radio central and a supervisor will jump on at the next stop and drive the train. Most of the time they do only have one operator on board at a time. They have backups all over town though to relieve them for breaks, emergencies, meal breaks, etc.

[973beachbum]

Jul 30, 2013 16:26:17 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Jul 30, 2013 16:03:44 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Abby Normal this shows what I'm talking about.  The track has spots where 200 kph is the appropiate speed and then right after tha the is supposed to slow down.  It "seems" that that spot was right as he was on the phone call and needed to slow down quite sharply.  clearly he has some responsiblilty in this.  He should have said now is a bad time hold on a minute.  I just wonder why the train company, which should know where all trains are at all times, picked that time to call and distract him.

I get that- but I'm talking about this-

Garzon admitted carelessness and speeding at the closed hearing on Sunday and is said to have claimed he thought he was on another section of track when he crashed.

His confusion wouldn't have been caused by the phone call, but would have distracted him from seeing the signs.  

It seems you're saying he didn't slow down because of the phone call.  I'm saying he should have known where he was- despite the phone call.  

The man had a head injury.  What are the odds he even remembers it right?  I don't trust anyone in cases like this.  I seriously doubt that he wasn't questioned using leading questions. It is very easy to make someone think something happened, even if it didn't, when they have a head injury.

maybe he is totally at fault but I find it highly suspect that the Spanish gov is is pushing so hard to convince everyone that the driver is 100% at fault.  It is just too convenient for me.  

[Deleted]

I find it highly suspect that the Spanish gov is is pushing so hard to convince everyone that the driver is 100% at fault. It is just too convenient for me.

Especially since the train service is government owned?

It's just the beginning of the investigation. We'll be finding out more soon.

[formerroomate99]

The man had a head injury. What are the odds he even remembers it right? I don't trust anyone in cases like this. I seriously doubt that he wasn't questioned using leading questions. It is very easy to make someone think something happened, even if it didn't, when they have a head injury.

maybe he is totally at fault but I find it highly suspect that the Spanish gov is is pushing so hard to convince everyone that the driver is 100% at fault. It is just too convenient for me.

You make a good point.  If they figured out he was going too fast and were calling to tell him to slow down, that's one thing.  If they were distracting him at a crucial time, that is something else entirely. 

And I have to wonder, do train conductors need to memorize their routes, or are there speed limit signs on the tracks like there are on roads, and are they frequent enough and visible enough?  In some areas, when there is a sudden stop or sudden lowering of the speed limit, they have more elaborate, flashing signs, signs saying 'Stop Ahead' or 'Reduced speed ahead'.  If this piece of track goes from 100MPH to 40mph in a short distance, I would hope they had enough common sense to make it blatantly obvious. 

[Deleted]

From the updated CNN article:

The Renfe spokeswoman told CNN that command and control posts have real-time systems to show each train's precise location at a given time. If this were the case, a controller who would have phoned the train driver might have known the train was approaching a curve.

This begs the question, were they warning him or distracting him?