In message <t7v9em$t93$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:20:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-06-10 10:23:25 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <t7v3qb$8si$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:44:43 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7thi2$l5j$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:26:58 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the potential elephant in the room: does propelling a train
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this make it more likely to concertina, once some of the carriages have
>>>>>> left the rails?
>>>>> Up to the point where power is shut off, possibly yes. After
>>>>>that, the loco
>>>>> is just equivalent to two more coaches.
>>>> Being twice as heavy, does it tend to "hug the rails", rather than
>>>>be
>>>> tugged by the carriages it's attached to, off the track?
>>> The carriage in front of the locomotive is also still in line with
>>>the
>>> track, so that effect, even if it existed, wouldn't apply in this case.
>> The force on the rear of that 5th passenger coach from the loco via
>>its coupling could still have held it straighter than otherwise. Both
>>of the two rear carriages were potentially going to end up down the
>>embankment (if the rear of the 5th had been allowed to flap around freely).
>
>The front coach also remain upright and on the track (or at least track
>bed alignment), without anything attached to its end.

Which would be consistent with its passage over a bit of dodgy track
triggering whatever caused the subsequent carriages to derail.
--
Roland Perry

On 9 Jun 2022 at 15:18:59 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>
>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>
>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>
>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>
>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>> train.
>>
>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>> similar.
>
> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?

German language sources give the empty weight of Dostos used in regional
traffic as varying between 46 and 50 tonnes depending on type.
--
Robert

On 10 Jun 2022 at 11:33:59 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <t7v3ig$78s$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:32 on Fri, 10 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7td4d$jv9$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:25 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7t1mg$s4g$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:16 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t7sp0v$q31$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:28:15 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fog disperses slowly, but reports have been of 44 injured and five
>>>>>>>>> dead. That an improvement of the v2, which was that the "60 people on
>>>>>>>>> the train" were actually the number injured.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you stop pushing that line please? Near enough the correct
>>>>>>>> numbers were
>>>>>>>> reported less than 24 hours after the accident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've consistently quoted the latest-reported figures at all times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> iirc v1 was 60 injured, v2 was 60 passengers on the train, v3 is *still*
>>>>>>> 140 pax on the train (and 44+5 for the casualties; the "12 missing" have
>>>>>>> been forgotten about).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still puzzled by the "fullness" of the train *still* being reported when
>>>>>>> the number of pax appears to be 140. What's the seating capacity of that
>>>>>>> five-car double deck DB train?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V3 was reported less than 24 hours after the crash. But you persist in
>>>>>> stating that the fog disperses slowly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> German media are not reporting the train as full https://p.dw.com/p/4CFOE
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all media are reporting how many helicopters were involved, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there's still some echoes (in that article you cite):
>>>>>
>>>>> "The incident happened as Germany heads into the Pentecost long weekend
>>>>> and at the start of Bavaria's school holidays. It also came two days
>>>>> after the introduction of a E9 ($10) transport ticket allowing
>>>>> countrywide travel for one month, which has led to increased passenger
>>>>> numbers on regional trains. "
>>>>
>>>> But not that train.
>>>
>>> Despite the local police, who were on the scene at the time, saying the
>>> train was "very crowded and many people were using it, hence the high
>>> number of injured".
>>>
>>
>> It's possible that both statements are, essentially, true. The entrance is
>> apparently near the middle of the platform, so the middle coaches will be
>> busier. The journey time is 1h20, and I find it entirely believable that
>> people won't move to quieter parts of the train for a journey of that
>> duration.
>>
>> For example on a 9-car IET, I've seen people standing in the vestibules of
>> the middle three cars for over 1h30, while the outer three cars at either
>> end contain less than 10 seated people each. And no, they won't move even
>> if you tell them there a seats available.
>>
>> So I find it entirely believable that the two most-damaged coaches were
>> indeed full, and the less-damaged coaches virtually empty. Unfortunate, but
>> not unlikely.
>
> Yes, that would probably explain much of the confusion, because 140
> people spread mainly across two carriages (not five) would indeed give
> the impression of crowding. But we still have the lack of any
> corrections (that I've found, anyway) regarding the train being full -
> and by extension mention of the full-ness being possibly caused by the
> E9 tickets).
>
>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>
>>> "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>> three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>> derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>
>>> "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>> suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>> the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>
>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>> health.
>>
>> Interesting, do you have a link to that article?
>>
>> (I think you may have already posted it but I'd be pleased if you could
>> post it again)
>
> I only found it this morning: <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2>
> 022/06/08/german-prosecutor-opens-investigation-into-railway-workers-
> following-fatal-derailment/?gdpr=accept>
>
>>> And the first report from that particular outlet said (not sure I've
>>> seen anyone else mention the type of train or operator):
>>>
>>> "The Ventus train that derailed on the ÖBB network belonged to
>>> Raaberbahn, an Austrian-Hungarian railway company.
>>>
>>> "Images from the crash site on the Pottendorf line show a
>>> six-car train set.
>>
>> You do realise that that's a totally different derailment in a different
>> country, yes?
>>
>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/05/10/one-dead-12-injured-following-trail-derailment-in-austria/>
>
> Pah! Wonky subediting by the publication... links four "further reading"
> articles, but two are of different incidents.

Without knowing the exact make-up of the train in question Dostos can have
between 30 and 40 first class seats in the upper deck with 36 or 11 second
class seats on the lower deck respectively, to 118 second class seats (60
upper deck, 50 lower deck and 8 on the 'mezzanine' half-way house. The seating
capacity varies depending on whether the coach has a 'mehrzweckraum' for
bicycles, buggies, skis, luggage etc. or not.

So a generic five coach set could have around 30 first class seats and 300
second class seats.

So as a first approximation the train was probably less than half full.
--
Robert

Robert <coppercapped@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2022 at 15:18:59 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>
>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>
>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>> train.
>>>
>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>> similar.
>>
>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>
> German language sources give the empty weight of Dostos used in regional
> traffic as varying between 46 and 50 tonnes depending on type.

Thank you. I didn’t manage to find such sources, but recognising stuff in
German is not my strong point!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Robert <coppercapped@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2022 at 15:18:59 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>>> train.
>>>>
>>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>>> similar.
>>>
>>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>>
>> German language sources give the empty weight of Dostos used in regional
>> traffic as varying between 46 and 50 tonnes depending on type.
>
> Thank you. I didn’t manage to find such sources, but recognising stuff in
> German is not my strong point!
>

I find a good rule for railway Wikipedia is that if the English language
page isn't offering the detail you're seeking, try either German or the
local language, translated back through Google Translate.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Robert <coppercapped@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 Jun 2022 at 15:18:59 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>>>> train.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>>>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>>>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>>>
>>> German language sources give the empty weight of Dostos used in regional
>>> traffic as varying between 46 and 50 tonnes depending on type.
>>
>> Thank you. I didn’t manage to find such sources, but recognising stuff in
>> German is not my strong point!
>>
>
> I find a good rule for railway Wikipedia is that if the English language
> page isn't offering the detail you're seeking, try either German or the
> local language, translated back through Google Translate.

Yes - I failed to find any such this time round, but I’ve since found this
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFL_Dosto>, linked from the corresponding
Bombardier Double-deck page (and which I may have missed in initial
searches because of thinking of compact fluorescent lighting!) which says
50-52 tonnes.

Thank you, as always,

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Am 03.06.2022 um 19:08 schrieb GB:
> On 03/06/2022 15:13, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> 3 killed amd 60 wounded:
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61684048>
>
>
> Once again, what we are seeing is that a carriage turned on its side,
> and this resulted in several deaths and many injuries, whilst the
> carriage was not seriously crushed.
>
> I'm pretty sure that what we are going to find is that the carriage
> failed to contain the occupants, and the deaths and injuries resulted
> from the passengers falling through the windows.

By now more or less confirmed: the main cause of injury was people
falling out of the windos being crushed by the carriage.

Am 09.06.2022 um 17:06 schrieb Sam Wilson:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>
>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>
>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>> train.
>>>
>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>> similar.
>>
>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>
> I’ve tried wikipedia to find the weights of the Bombardier Dosto cars and
> can’t find anything. The Bombardier BiLevel (“octagon”) cars are
> speccified as 50 tonnes. That would make for a 12.5 tonne axle weight,
> since they have 4 axles like the Azumas. Over the Azumas you have add the
> extra weight of a floor, more seats and and extra row of windows, glass
> being quite heavy. 50te+ seems appropriate.

<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier-Doppelstockwagen>

More specifically, probably
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Twindexx_Vario>

Rolf

Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>> Very latest appears to be:
>>
>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>
>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>
>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>> health.
>
> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.

In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against you"
is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as a
witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the right
to remain silent).

In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously had
some influence on the accidential death).

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 03.06.2022 um 19:08 schrieb GB:
>> On 03/06/2022 15:13, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> 3 killed amd 60 wounded:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61684048>
>>
>>
>> Once again, what we are seeing is that a carriage turned on its side,
>> and this resulted in several deaths and many injuries, whilst the
>> carriage was not seriously crushed.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that what we are going to find is that the carriage
>> failed to contain the occupants, and the deaths and injuries resulted
>> from the passengers falling through the windows.
>
> By now more or less confirmed: the main cause of injury was people
> falling out of the windos being crushed by the carriage.
>

Interesting, thanks. Are they laminated windows like on UK trains?

In other words, are there break-glass hammers? If there are, then the
windows aren't to the same standard as UK trains.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 09.06.2022 um 17:06 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>>> train.
>>>>
>>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>>> similar.
>>>
>>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>>
>> I’ve tried wikipedia to find the weights of the Bombardier Dosto cars and
>> can’t find anything. The Bombardier BiLevel (“octagon”) cars are
>> speccified as 50 tonnes. That would make for a 12.5 tonne axle weight,
>> since they have 4 axles like the Azumas. Over the Azumas you have add the
>> extra weight of a floor, more seats and and extra row of windows, glass
>> being quite heavy. 50te+ seems appropriate.
>
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier-Doppelstockwagen>
>
> More specifically, probably
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Twindexx_Vario>
>

The ones involved in the derailment at Garmisch-Partenkirchen were LHCS not
EMU.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 21.06.2022 um 15:09 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 09.06.2022 um 17:06 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>>>> train.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>>>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>>>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>>>
>>> I’ve tried wikipedia to find the weights of the Bombardier Dosto cars and
>>> can’t find anything. The Bombardier BiLevel (“octagon”) cars are
>>> speccified as 50 tonnes. That would make for a 12.5 tonne axle weight,
>>> since they have 4 axles like the Azumas. Over the Azumas you have add the
>>> extra weight of a floor, more seats and and extra row of windows, glass
>>> being quite heavy. 50te+ seems appropriate.
>>
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier-Doppelstockwagen>
>>
>> More specifically, probably
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Twindexx_Vario>
>>
>
> The ones involved in the derailment at Garmisch-Partenkirchen were LHCS not
> EMU.

Twindexx Vario is on offer in the variants "Push-Pull" since 2011 and
"EMU" since 2014.

IIRC (that's the meaining of "Vario") the middle units and the
non-engine driving trailers are idential, the EMU package only adding
costs and weight.

Rolf

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 09.06.2022 um 17:06 schrieb Sam Wilson:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7squv$8hd$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:01:20 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7skaq$ojp$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:10 on Thu, 9 Jun 2022,
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's put some numbers to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The locomotive in question weighs 83 tonnes, has a rated maximum
>>>>>> tractive effort of 274 kN and a rated power of 3720 kW. If it was
>>>>>> travelling at 100 km/h, producing full rated power, it would only be
>>>>>> able to deliver 134 kN of tractive effort. That locomotive would have
>>>>>> 2.3*10^6 kg.m/s of momentum. It has been pointed out elsewhere that
>>>>>> one bogie of the locomotive derailed, so the maximum TE available would
>>>>>> be half that number, 67 kN.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if the derailing of that bogie only happened as it came to rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The momentum of the locomotive would represent that maximum possible
>>>>>> tractive effort acting over 35 seconds. There is no way it would be
>>>>>> possible for the locomotive to continue powering for that long, as the
>>>>>> derailed cars took out the OHLE. 2 seconds is even a generous number
>>>>>> for how long it would take for the power to cut as the OHLE came down,
>>>>>> so the difference between the locomotive being at full power and it
>>>>>> being simply a trailing load of 83 tonnes (less than two carriage
>>>>>> weights) would be in the order 5%. While not zero, it is nevertheless
>>>>>> a pretty negligible figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so the tractive effort isn't significant, but the momentum is twice
>>>>> that of a passenger carriage that would otherwise be a the rear of the
>>>>> train.
>>>>
>>>> Is a 26m double deck coach really only 40-ish tonnes? Given the axle load
>>>> of Azuma trailer car is given[*] as 13 tonnes, and a motor car as 15
>>>> tonnes, total weights 52 and 60 tonnes respectively, it wouldn’t surprise
>>>> me if the loco was considerably less than twice the weight of a Dosto or
>>>> similar.
>>>
>>> If we knew the train type we could look it up, but I doubt the extra
>>> deck at the top adds much gross weight. But even it did, why wouldn't it
>>> be 26t, given your Azuma trailer car figure?
>>
>> I’ve tried wikipedia to find the weights of the Bombardier Dosto cars and
>> can’t find anything. The Bombardier BiLevel (“octagon”) cars are
>> speccified as 50 tonnes. That would make for a 12.5 tonne axle weight,
>> since they have 4 axles like the Azumas. Over the Azumas you have add the
>> extra weight of a floor, more seats and and extra row of windows, glass
>> being quite heavy. 50te+ seems appropriate.
>
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier-Doppelstockwagen>
>
> More specifically, probably
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Twindexx_Vario>

Thank you. There is an English language analogue of the first of those at

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Double-deck_Coach>

but there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent of the second. The second link
does suggest that the empty weight of the Twindexx is 66 te and loaded 72
te. That’s getting very close to the 83 te of the loco involved.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:

> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>
>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>
>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>
>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>> health.
>>
>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>
> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
> right to remain silent).
>
> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
> had some influence on the accidential death).

In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
negligence, do the police get involved.

This means if, after a train crash, the news reported, "the driver was
investigation by the police for [criminal negligence type matter]" that
would imply there was specific evidence that had been found to indicate
this. My understanding is that in Germany, this first level of
non-judicial non-police neutral investigation is not part of the
process, and in essence the report means that the police are looking
into things as this is the most serious potential outcome, rather than
it being something for which evidence has specifically been uncovered.

Robin

Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>
>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>
>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>
>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>
>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of
>>>> the
>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or
>>>> the
>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>> health.
>>>
>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the
>>> legal systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly
>>> different. In particular I think the implications of "suspicion of"
>>> in the UK system is not meant to be implied by the process currently
>>> taking place.
>>
>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you
>> have the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used
>> against you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first
>> interviewed as a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness
>> you have the right to remain silent).
>>
>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even
>> in the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver
>> ovbiously had some influence on the accidential death).
>
> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
> negligence, do the police get involved.

In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
(probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
of tracks).

The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").

Rolf 'IANAL'

On 2022-06-23 12:40:15 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:

> Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
>> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>
>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>>
>>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>>
>>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>>> health.
>>>>
>>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>>>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>>>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>>>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>>>
>>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
>>> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
>>> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
>>> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
>>> right to remain silent).
>>>
>>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
>>> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
>>> had some influence on the accidential death).
>>
>> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
>> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
>> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
>> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
>> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
>> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
>> negligence, do the police get involved.
>
> In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
> accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
> legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
> (probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
> of tracks).
>
> The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
> therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
> For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
> after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
> track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").
>
> Rolf 'IANAL'

Indeed, hence my point about the legal systems operating differently.
In the UK an accidental or unusual death will involve a coronor's
inquest which, while similar to a legal proceeding, is directly a
criminal matter, and unless evidence of criminal activity is found,
either by the coronor or otherwise, the police won't get involved. My
point is if you just read the headline in the news reporting, and
interpret it based on the way things are done in the UK, you are likely
to draw very different conclusions about what is going on.

Robin

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:44:08 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-23 12:40:15 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>
>> Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
>>> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>
>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>>>> health.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>>>>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>>>>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>>>>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>>>>
>>>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
>>>> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
>>>> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
>>>> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
>>>> right to remain silent).
>>>>
>>>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
>>>> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
>>>> had some influence on the accidential death).
>>>
>>> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
>>> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
>>> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
>>> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
>>> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
>>> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
>>> negligence, do the police get involved.
>>
>> In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
>> accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
>> legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
>> (probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
>> of tracks).
>>
>> The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
>> therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
>> For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
>> after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
>> track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").
>>
>> Rolf 'IANAL'
>
>Indeed, hence my point about the legal systems operating differently.
>In the UK an accidental or unusual death will involve a coronor's
>inquest
>
Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Scotland has Fatal Accident
Inquiries.

>which, while similar to a legal proceeding, is directly a
>criminal matter,
>
It isn't; it is a judicial process. Coroners have not been allowed to
attribute criminality to parties for many years; like e.g. the Railway
Inspectorate they can infer criminality by presenting the appropriate
determinations.

>and unless evidence of criminal activity is found,
>either by the coronor or otherwise, the police won't get involved.
>
The possibility of criminality is determined in Northern Ireland by
the Public Prosecution Service, in England and Wales by the Crown
Prosecution Service and in Scotland by the Crown Office and Procurator
Fiscal service.

>My
>point is if you just read the headline in the news reporting, and
>interpret it based on the way things are done in the UK, you are likely
>to draw very different conclusions about what is going on.
>
>Robin

On 2022-06-23 18:36:20 +0000, Charles Ellson said:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:44:08 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-23 12:40:15 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>
>>> Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
>>>> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>>>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>>>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>>>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>>>>>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>>>>>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>>>>>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
>>>>> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
>>>>> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
>>>>> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
>>>>> right to remain silent).
>>>>>
>>>>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
>>>>> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
>>>>> had some influence on the accidential death).
>>>>
>>>> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
>>>> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
>>>> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
>>>> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
>>>> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
>>>> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
>>>> negligence, do the police get involved.
>>>
>>> In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
>>> accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
>>> legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
>>> (probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
>>> of tracks).
>>>
>>> The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
>>> therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
>>> For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
>>> after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
>>> track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").
>>>
>>> Rolf 'IANAL'
>>
>> Indeed, hence my point about the legal systems operating differently.
>> In the UK an accidental or unusual death will involve a coronor's
>> inquest
>>
> Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Scotland has Fatal Accident
> Inquiries.

Scotland, being awkwardly different since 1707.

>> which, while similar to a legal proceeding, is directly a
>> criminal matter,
>>
> It isn't; it is a judicial process. Coroners have not been allowed to
> attribute criminality to parties for many years; like e.g. the Railway
> Inspectorate they can infer criminality by presenting the appropriate
> determinations.

I appear to have missed a "not" in my prior statement, and generally
phrased it poorly. The purpose of a coronor's inquest is to establish
what happened rather than to establish who did it or why. While the
coronor can determine that what happened was unlawful, in the event
they do so, the job of building a criminal case and taking it to trial
is outside fo their remit. The evidence presented to the coronor, and
the coronor's findings can, however, pay an important role in any
subsequent criminal prosecution.

>> and unless evidence of criminal activity is found,
>> either by the coronor or otherwise, the police won't get involved.
>>
> The possibility of criminality is determined in Northern Ireland by
> the Public Prosecution Service, in England and Wales by the Crown
> Prosecution Service and in Scotland by the Crown Office and Procurator
> Fiscal service.

The CPS (or equivalent in not-England-and-Wales) decides on whether or
not to pursue a case not so much on whether they beleive criminality is
involved, but on whether there is a reasonable likelihood to secure a
conviction.

An example would be the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher. The coronor
determined that she was "killed by a bullet coming from one of two
windows on the west side of the front on the first floor of the Libyan
People's Bureau" which is a strong indication that something criminal
took place. Because much of the evidence that would be needed to bring
a case to trial was deemed inadmissable due to national security
concerns, the CPS did not pursue it, because the remaining evidence was
not sufficient to be likely to secure a conviction.

Robin

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:01:33 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-23 18:36:20 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:44:08 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-06-23 12:40:15 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>
>>>> Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
>>>>> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>>>>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>>>>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>>>>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>>>>>>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>>>>>>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>>>>>>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
>>>>>> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
>>>>>> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
>>>>>> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
>>>>>> right to remain silent).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
>>>>>> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
>>>>>> had some influence on the accidential death).
>>>>>
>>>>> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
>>>>> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
>>>>> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
>>>>> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
>>>>> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
>>>>> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
>>>>> negligence, do the police get involved.
>>>>
>>>> In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
>>>> accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
>>>> legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
>>>> (probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
>>>> of tracks).
>>>>
>>>> The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
>>>> therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
>>>> For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
>>>> after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
>>>> track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").
>>>>
>>>> Rolf 'IANAL'
>>>
>>> Indeed, hence my point about the legal systems operating differently.
>>> In the UK an accidental or unusual death will involve a coronor's
>>> inquest
>>>
>> Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Scotland has Fatal Accident
>> Inquiries.
>
>Scotland, being awkwardly different since 1707.
>
Just like every other country which isn't England.

>
>>> which, while similar to a legal proceeding, is directly a
>>> criminal matter,
>>>
>> It isn't; it is a judicial process. Coroners have not been allowed to
>> attribute criminality to parties for many years; like e.g. the Railway
>> Inspectorate they can infer criminality by presenting the appropriate
>> determinations.
>
>I appear to have missed a "not" in my prior statement, and generally
>phrased it poorly. The purpose of a coronor's inquest is to establish
>what happened rather than to establish who did it or why. While the
>coronor can determine that what happened was unlawful, in the event
>they do so, the job of building a criminal case and taking it to trial
>is outside fo their remit. The evidence presented to the coronor, and
>the coronor's findings can, however, pay an important role in any
>subsequent criminal prosecution.
>
>>> and unless evidence of criminal activity is found,
>>> either by the coronor or otherwise, the police won't get involved.
>>>
>> The possibility of criminality is determined in Northern Ireland by
>> the Public Prosecution Service, in England and Wales by the Crown
>> Prosecution Service and in Scotland by the Crown Office and Procurator
>> Fiscal service.
>
>The CPS (or equivalent in not-England-and-Wales) decides on whether or
>not to pursue a case not so much on whether they beleive criminality is
>involved, but on whether there is a reasonable likelihood to secure a
>conviction.
>
Maybe not that simple. It sometimes has to be established that the
actions are or now are criminal (e.g. rape within marriage as an
important recent Scottish example) rather than proving that X
committed the act. Similar can apply in England and Wales where the
law has managed to kill off what would previously been an exception or
defence to an offence which continues to apply. The CPS "public
interest" consideration can over ride the matter of a conviction being
likely in some cases where it is effectively the offence (or a
particular recipe of it) being tried rather than the offender. If
there is no prosecution, they will be damned for not prosecuting but
if there is a prosecution they will be damned for running a bad case
which proved that there should not be a need for future prosecution of
the same set of circumstances.

>An example would be the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher. The coronor
>determined that she was "killed by a bullet coming from one of two
>windows on the west side of the front on the first floor of the Libyan
>People's Bureau" which is a strong indication that something criminal
>took place. Because much of the evidence that would be needed to bring
>a case to trial was deemed inadmissable due to national security
>concerns, the CPS did not pursue it, because the remaining evidence was
>not sufficient to be likely to secure a conviction.
>
Not many years before that, the Coroner would have been allowed to be
more specific about the parties and actions (e.g. "X killed Y") but I
can't remember the specific reason for change although it might have
been because it tended to pre-judge any following criminal trial.

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-23 18:36:20 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:44:08 +0200, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-06-23 12:40:15 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>
>>>> Am 23.06.2022 um 11:59 schrieb Bob:
>>>>> On 2022-06-21 10:20:59 +0000, Rolf Mantel said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 13:17 schrieb Bob:
>>>>>>> On 2022-06-10 07:44:57 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very latest appears to be:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "The public prosecutor's office in Munich will be investigating
>>>>>>>>         three employees of Deutsche Bahn following last Friday's
>>>>>>>>         derailment that left five people dead and several more injured.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "The prosecutor’s office initiated the investigation on
>>>>>>>>         suspicion of negligent homicide. Those under investigation are
>>>>>>>>         the train driver, the train signaller and a section engineer."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is interesting because earlier reports played down the role of the
>>>>>>>> train driver and/or signaller and pointed the finger at the track or the
>>>>>>>> rolling stock. For now that latter still seems to have a clean bill of
>>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think something may have been lost in translation. The way the legal
>>>>>>> systems in Germany and the UK operate are significantly different. In
>>>>>>> particular I think the implications of "suspicion of" in the UK system
>>>>>>> is not meant to be implied by the process currently taking place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the German legal system, "suspicion" with the meaning that "you have
>>>>>> the right to stay silent but everything you say can be used against
>>>>>> you" is widely used whereas in the UK IIRC you are first interviewed as
>>>>>> a witness (and I have no idea about whterh as a witness you have the
>>>>>> right to remain silent).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the German legal system, the train driver is under suspicion even in
>>>>>> the situation of fatal track crossing (as the train driver ovbiously
>>>>>> had some influence on the accidential death).
>>>>>
>>>>> In the UK railway accidents are investigated by the RAIB (Railway
>>>>> Accident Investigation Branch), which is not part fo the criminal or
>>>>> police system, but an independent body, whose primary objective is to
>>>>> find out what actually happened, so that steps can be taken at a
>>>>> systemic level to correct any failings. Only if the RAIB investigation
>>>>> uncovers actual evidence suggesting a specific criminal level of
>>>>> negligence, do the police get involved.
>>>>
>>>> In Germany, the 'criminal investigation' is a necessary part of any
>>>> accidential death. As the RAIB (in German: EBA) investigation has no
>>>> legal standing, teh police must investigate completely independently
>>>> (probably there is data sharing on some technical aspects like quality
>>>> of tracks).
>>>>
>>>> The EBA investigation explicitly ignores all aspects of "blame" and
>>>> therefore does not give a "right to stay silent".
>>>> For all practical reasons, an EBA investigation usually can only start
>>>> after the criminal case has been closed (which in the case of a fatal
>>>> track crossing might only take 5 minutes to reach "not guilty").
>>>>
>>>> Rolf 'IANAL'
>>>
>>> Indeed, hence my point about the legal systems operating differently.
>>> In the UK an accidental or unusual death will involve a coronor's
>>> inquest
>>>
>> Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Scotland has Fatal Accident
>> Inquiries.
>
> Scotland, being awkwardly different since 1707.

ITYF it’s been different since long before that, sometimes awkwardly -
Wallace and Bruce refer.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Am 21.06.2022 um 12:00 schrieb Rolf Mantel:
> Am 03.06.2022 um 19:08 schrieb GB:
>> On 03/06/2022 15:13, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> 3 killed amd 60 wounded:
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61684048>

> By now more or less confirmed: the main cause of injury was people
> falling out of the windos being crushed by the carriage.

an internal document has been leaked to the media suggesting damaged
sleepers might hve been significantly contributing to the derailment.

<https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/nach-zugunglueck-dokument-legt-verdacht-zur-unfallursache-nahe,T8HcR15>

As was known very soon, track repair works have already been scheduled
before the derailment.
Now, there are plenty of places in Bavaria where DB has imposed
temporary speed restrictions recently (there are about 20 such speed
restrictions in Bavaria, all but 3 were imposed within 2 weeks after the
derailment).

Rolf

From Ross Hamilton (formerly of this parish), via Facebook:

"Warnpass: Germany
(For my travelling friends)

After the Bavarian derailment was discovered to have been caused by
crumbling concrete sleepers, DB Netz is now carrying out nationwide
inspections and closing lines without notice for urgent repairs, leading to
an almost Hatfield-style meltdown on what is already a not-exactly-reliable
network."

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:38:31 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>From Ross Hamilton (formerly of this parish), via Facebook:
>
>"Warnpass: Germany
>(For my travelling friends)
>
>After the Bavarian derailment was discovered to have been caused by
>crumbling concrete sleepers, DB Netz is now carrying out nationwide
>inspections and closing lines without notice for urgent repairs, leading to
>an almost Hatfield-style meltdown on what is already a not-exactly-reliable
>network."

Seems like the wheels are finally coming off the myth of german efficiency
and competance what with the gas situation too.

On 29/07/2022 14:38, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> From Ross Hamilton (formerly of this parish), via Facebook:
>
> "Warnpass: Germany
> (For my travelling friends)
>
> After the Bavarian derailment was discovered to have been caused by
> crumbling concrete sleepers, DB Netz is now carrying out nationwide
> inspections and closing lines without notice for urgent repairs, leading to
> an almost Hatfield-style meltdown on what is already a not-exactly-reliable
> network."
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

Maybe a repeat of the DB incident quite a few years ago where sleepers
made in Eastern Germany had to be urgently replaced? IIRC, quite an
embarrassment for the Treuhandanstalt.

PA