Talk:Eschede train disaster

"rumour" and "investigations"

Someone needs to check the "rumour" and "investigations" mentioned, also the bit about a wheel leaping thru the carriage floor. Rich Farmbrough 22:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cooler and the firing squad

The article does not address how many officials, engineers and capitalists have been demoted and imprisoned for their criminal role in this railway disaster! In Japan's Shinkansen the entire railway crew would commit seppuku after such an event!

It was not an accident, an accident is an "act of God" which is unpreventable. This tragedy was caused by careless people at all levels and their names should be put to display to publicly humiliate them for killing so many innocent people! In Europe the railway guilty are never punished as seen with this ICE and the austrian ski funicular train inferno! 195.70.32.136 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone who talks about "acts of God" wants to tell other people about how to deal with such a disaster? Good joke! Now calm yourself down and find some other place to express your personal opinion. -- Imladros 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to stop the train?

There is a mention in the first of the causative factors that DB policies refused to stop the train. This isn't mentioned before this point: at what point did "DB policies" refuse to stop the train? Willkm 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The only paragraph of similar content I found in the German article was this:

Ein Fahrgast aus dem Abteil, in dem der abgesprungene Radreifen durch den Boden geschossen war, meldete den Vorfall zwar einem Zugbegleiter, gab aber nur eine sehr ungenaue Schilderung ab. Dieser Zugbegleiter hätte das Unglück einfach durch Betätigung der Notbremse verhindern können, tat es aber nicht. Aus diesem Grund erstatteten Hinterbliebene gegen ihn Anzeige. Sein Handeln war aber vorschriftsgemäß, da er sich erst selbst vom Schaden überzeugen musste, deswegen liegt an dieser Stelle kein menschliches Versagen vor. Noch bevor beide Wagen 1 erreichten, war der Zug entgleist und die Katastrophe geschehen.

This roughly translates to

The passenger sitting in the compartment where the broken wheel tire had shot through the floor reported this to a conductor, but his report was very vague. The conductor may have prevented the disaster by pulling the emergency brake, but did not. Because of this, relatives of the victims sued him. His actions were according to regulations however, as he had to see the damage himself first. Therefore there is no human error on the conductor's part. The train derailed before both reached car number 1.

One could argue that damage that is reported to a conductor by a passenger is not likely to be severe, as there are emergency brakes within the field of view of every passenger. If someone is really worried, he or she can apply the emergency brake him/herself at any time.

I question this. To my knowledge, the ICE is/was unique in that the emergency brake handles are not accessible to the public. The passenger would have to have relied upon the conductor to stop the train. --Rhombus 18:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And how would the conductor trigger the brake if there were no accessible brake handles? Maybe you want to take a look at the Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung (EBO), the law governing rail traffic in Germany. Paragraph 23, section 3 states

Fahrzeuge, in denen Personen befördert werden, müssen leicht sichtbare und erreichbare Notbremsgriffe haben, durch die eine Notbremsung eingeleitet werden kann. Die Notbremseinrichtung darf so beschaffen sein, daß eine eingeleitete Notbremsung aufgehoben werden kann.

Translation:

Rail vehicles used in passenger traffic must be equipped with emergency brake handles that must be both easily visible and accessible and these handles must initiate an emergency brake. The emergency brake may be designed in a way that allows overriding an initiated emergency brake.

The last sentence mere states what I already described below. In case you still don't believe me, I found a picture of an emergency brake handle inside an ICE train. While this is an ICE3-train (interior pictures are much harder to find on the net), I can assure you that they are present in ICE trains of all generations and have always been. --Qualle (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that had the passenger activated the emergency brake, the train may have as well have derailed because of the braking forces on the damaged wheelset. That would have almost certainly put some part of the train just in the path of the other ICE train on the opposite track, running in the other direction ... Total destruction of both trains, with a much higher number of casualties seems likely. As it happened, the other train was clear of the road bridge seconds before the impact of train 884. --62.143.117.88 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One other policy regarding the emergency brake (which was not a factor in the Eschede disaster) is the Notbremsüberbrückung (NBÜ): On lines with long tunnels (more than one kilometer) trains are equipped with an override system for the emergency brakes. The engineer has to use this override to prevent the train from stopping inside a tunnel, because of the problems with evacuating a train as well as additional problems in case of a fire. He is however required to stop the train immediately after the tunnel. The terrain north of Hanover is mostly flat, so there are no tunnels where this policy applies. --Qualle (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to get round to clarifying the article. Willkm 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Numerical Precision

The coordinates go out to the 100-trillionth (American) of a degree. If my rough calculation is correct, for the latitude calculation (for which a change in latitude is constant for any latitude (which is not the case for longitude)), this last decimal place would correspond to something on the order of a hundredth of an Angstrom. This would be only about 1000 times larger than the size of a proton, or about one-fiftieth the size of the Bohr radius. The area of the accident is obviously much larger than this. So, I'm going to see if I can change this to the ten-thousandth of a degree instead. Ufwuct 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one had any objection for almost two months, I've deleted 9 out of the 15 significant figures for the location. For the latitude, this corresponds to something on the order of 20 meters, which is a more appropriate scale for such large wreckage site. Ufwuct 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bridge design?

I don't know about the bridge design being a factor on the accident. The train was already derailed when it hit the bridge. While the bridge may have been a factor on the inpact of the fifth car (I think), the bridge's design wouldn't have stopped the accident from happening.

The wheel's ring made an inpact with a rail changer section which caused the car to take another set of rails while the first few cars were on the normal track. This caused the derailment of the rest of the cars. --Cirilobeto 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The deck of the bridge collapsed upon several carriages, crushing them and their inhabitants and providing a solid block of concrete for the rear carriages to collide into, after the bridge support had been knocked away by the initial derailment. People standing on or under the bridge (DB workers; it's not known exactly where they were) were also killed by the bridge collapse. So yes, the bridge design did contribute to the severity of the accident.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 21:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that it did contribute to the severity of the accident. There is no question about it. But its design was not a factor in the accident itself happening, because the bridge collapsed AFTER the train hit. --Cirilobeto 20:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Geolocation

I've changed the coordinates in the article to show the actual bridge that was destroyed in the accident. Previously, they pointed to the site where the wheel came loose - while this may technically _be_ the site of the accident, the bridge is the site where the disastrous outcome is most obvious, and also where the monument is located. (As to be seen in the satellite picture) --doco (☏) 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal

"In Germany, companies may not be tried in criminal courts; only people may be tried.[1]"

This is not a correct info. They can be tried, but only real legal persons can be sentenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.48.42 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean the inverse: a legal person is a company, and it's kind of hard to lock buildings up. Physical entities, on the other hand, can be. There is often, however, provision for the suspension of legal entity (I'm thinking here of Belgian Law on ASBL charities, which is not of course relevant here), but the general opposition to such a policy is that many innocent employees suffer as a result, so it has never, to the best of my knowledge, been applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and translation

Hi! I would like to thank the author(s) for his(their) work. I've translated this article into French for wikipedia. Best regards 82.251.242.150 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Weight of bridge

In de:ICE-Unglück von Eschede, the bridge weighs 200 tons. --217.235.226.59

Passed Eschede train station, or not?

I am translating the article (rather from en, than de, because my de is poor) and I am confused. English text says: The tearing of the wagon hitches caused automatic brakes to engage and the mostly undamaged cars 1 to 3 (as well as the front locomotive) came to a halt at the Eschede train station, some three kilometers (two miles) down the track. German version at the same point says: Durch das Zerreißen der Waggonkupplungen wurden die automatischen Bremsen ausgelöst und die weitgehend unbeschädigten Wagen 1 bis 3 blieben vor dem Bahnhof Eschede stehen.

English version uses an expression came to halt at the Eschede train station. German version uses blieben vor dem Bahnhof Eschede stehen. With my really poor German skills, I translated it as: remained to stand in front of the Bahnhof Eschede stehen.

And now! English version says: the station manager informed him of the situation ("You passed through alone! You're derailed!"). German version says the same here: Vom Unglück wurde er erst durch den Fahrdienstleiter des Bahnhofs Eschede informiert: „Du bist hier allein vorbeigefahren! Du bist entgleist!“

How should I interpret the description? Did the locomotive with three cars passed the Eschede train station, or not? Where it stopped? Thanks. Miraceti 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The power head (in german "Triebkopf") drove *alone* through the station and stoped somewhere in the field. He was informed by train radio „Du bist hier allein vorbeigefahren! Du bist entgleist!“ and stayed by the book a while (some hours?) in the power head. He didn't want help from inhabitant of Eschede. --212.8.198.143 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Eschede train station is not 3 km from the place of the disaster but much less, about 1 km. Check the map. Miraceti 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have visited Eschede, its train station and the memorial twice. Furthermore, I am a bit into the ICE system. Maybe I can help: The bridge is indeed about one kilometer south of the actual train station platforms. The station building, located on the east platform, also houses the station inspector (responsible for the movements on the tracks). Not far north of the platforms, there is quite a curve that can only be taken at 160 km/h, while the track south of it is pretty much straight, so trains can go at up to 200 km/h. While the passenger part of the station only has two tracks, there are two additional tracks that separate from the main tracks, just south of the platforms (these tracks are ofted used by freight trains, so that long-distance trains can pass through). I'm not quite sure where the entry signals for the Eschede train station, that formally separate it from the rest of the line, are. Perhaps both the platforms, the four-track site and a bit of the further track north of the platforms, are part of the train station. Assuming that a full brake (from a little more than 160 km/h) had been initiated a few hundered meteres south of the platforms, the remains of the train might have gone for another two or three hundred meters beyond the platforms, but still within the train station. Hope this helps. I'll add a comment to the talk page on the issue on Wikipedia de, so that we can see what really happened. Best wishes from Dresden --Bigbug21 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

After quite some talk on the de talk page, we have come to a conclusion: The first three cars of the train were indeed separated from the locomotive, derailed and came to a stop a few hundred meters north of the bridge. While the first two cars were indeed pretty much undamaged, the rear part of car three was separated from the rest of the car (apparently due to the lateral acceleration caused by the point that was shifted to the branch off). Car four passed through the bridge that was about to collapse and what happened to the rest of the cars can be inferred from the picture on the top...

The front power head of the ICE has apparently came to a stop north of the station planforms (source), as presumed earlier. According to the entry signal that can be seen on that picture, the head was apparently still within what makes up the formal borders of the Eschede train station. Same for the cars one to three that came to a stop south of the platforms, but (formally) already within the Eschede train station.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get back to us on the de talk page. --Bigbug21 07:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It really helped. Miraceti 13:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another unclear thing:

The rear axles of car number 3 were switched onto a parallel track, and the entire car was thereby thrown into the piers supporting a 300-tonne roadway overpass, destroying them.

The tearing of the wagon hitches caused automatic brakes to engage and the mostly undamaged cars 1 to 3 (as well as the front locomotive) came to a halt at the Eschede train station...

How was it possible that car 3 destroyed the piers but came to the Eschede train station mostly undamaged? Miraceti 23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was exactly why I checked here, to see if someone already mentioned it. The article is still very unclear about the seperation of the locomotive and the cars, and how the first three cars can be undamaged if car 3 derailed and crashed. Jalwikip (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Two different fates given for Car 3

One paragraph says, "The rear axles of car number 3 were switched onto a parallel track, and the entire car was thereby thrown into the piers supporting a 300-tonne roadway overpass, destroying them."

The very next paragraph says, "The breaking of the car couplings caused the automatic brakes to engage and the mostly undamaged cars 1 to 3 (as well as the front power head) came to a halt at the Eschede train station, some three kilometers (two miles) down the track."

So was Car 3 thrown into the overpass, or did Car 3 make it safely to the station? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.143.179.133 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at this picture, Car 3 ist the third from the left side. His last part was dissected like with a knife. --Jklö2 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What was Car 9?

Car 7 was the restaurant car and according to the article was crushed. Car 8 was the power car. Cars 10 through 12 were first-class cars.So what was Car 9? (It presumably was also wrecked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Abrahams (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The restaurant car.Tvx1 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

locations of casualties

The article only states While the driver and many passengers in the front part of the train survived with minor to moderate injuries, there was little chance of survival for those in the rear carriages. Details please!

What caused casualties in the "front part" of the train? Did everybody in the "rear carriages" die? Or what chance is "little"?

CapnZapp (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Volkswagen Golf

Hi @David notMD, you removed the Volkswagen Golf theory from this article. I think it should be included because it was part of the analysis process what happened during the crash. Do you disagree? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

PhotographyEdits I disagree, but if you restore it, I will defer to your decision. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Fair enough, I'll think about it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Fraunhofer / DB report

I wanted to read the original investigation report and sent an email to the archive department of Deutsche Bahn. I got the following reply:

"Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, we cannot help you any further, as this report is not public and interests of third parties are also affected."

It means that the best possible source is not publicly available, which is sad. I'm leaving it here so nobody is going to do duplicate efforts in this case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)