Re: Implications of ICE crash

[dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage)]

David McLoughlin (davemcl@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:
>David Bromage wrote:
>
>> The line was not a dedicated high speed line. It was a normal running line
>> which had been upgraded to 200km/h some years ago. At this stage it
>> appears the train somehow divided and the rear portion derailed and struck
>> the bridge, which the collapsed on the train. (Sound familiar, anyone?)
>
>According to the news reports we are getting here, it seems the train 
>derailed because a wheel came off the track (tyre problem) some kms 
>before the crash, which was at a set of points. Surviving passengers 
>report the vibration/noise associated with such an incident. The train 
>derailed when the slipped wheel hit the points.

According to German TV, a wheel fragment was found 6km before the crash,
and the 5km of track before the bridge shows signs of damage.

>The news reports here say the loco kept going because the driver didn't 
>know he had lost his train, which derailed behind him.
>I must say this does sound odd; I would have thought there would have 
>been a major and notcicable difference in the traction load/speed of the 
>loco on suddenly losing all those heavy carriages at such a speed. 

Remember that the train is pushed as well as pulled. I can fully
understand how the driver didn't know he'd lost part of his train as
dividing could feel much like a deliberate application of the emergency
brake on an otherwise perfectly normal train. Remember the ICE is computer
controlled so the emergency brake system probably automatically cuts off
power. Can any drivers reading tell me if a train dividing would feel much
different to the guard pulling the tap?

It has been estimaged the rear portion had slowed to about 100km/h before
it struck the bridge, then stopped in less than 50m. The front portion
took 2300m to stop under emergency braking. 

Cheers
David