While these events are statistically very rare, it is worth remembering that there have been two separate events in the past twenty years in Spain where high-speed trains have derailed leading to multiple fatalities [1][2]. In contrast, the Japanese Shinkansen has a spotless record since its introduction in the 1960s [3]. Not a single fatality due to a crash or derailment. And that's in a country with a much larger population and much higher passenger count per year.
I am not sure what conclusion can we draw from, as you said, two very rare incidents over a long period of time.
Reminds me of when Malaysian airlines crashed two planes in a short period of time. It was a good time to get cheap flights from Europe to south east Asia as long as you can withstand relatives thinking you are literally going to die in their third crash.
Bit of an odd comparison, given that one of those flights (MH17) was shot down by a Russian Buk squad. That was not an issue attributable to the carrier in any way, and after the incident the likelihood of it happening again to Malaysia Airlines specifically was negligible.
It could be prevented by simply not flying over an active war zone, something airlines do all the times to prevent the exact same thing from happening.
Or Girkin not ordering the civilian plane full of people to be shot down. It was a civilian plane at 10km altitude with a transponder on.
Really doesn't look like a jet on a radar.
And up to that point Russia wasn't known to supply the separatists with an anti air system and the crew to run it.
It would seem the air defense systems used could not reliably determine what you imply they should [1][2]. I’m not sure where you’re coming from, or why it would matter what one country was known or not known to do.
After reading Shogun, Cryptonomicon and watching plenty anime and documents about Japan (including Japanese rail system - still using the "pointing and naming" method I've learned from them) I would risk saying that Japanese do literally everything differently.
> [The] stretch of track that was renovated last May and inspected on January 7.
The track had been inspected very recently. Maybe the inspection standards are inadequate?
The linked article also shows figures that are quite meaningless without context.
> [The] vast majority [of Spain's high-speed rail budget] went to new infrastructure with only some 16% earmarked for maintenance, renewal and upgrades. That compares with between 34% to 39% spent by France, Germany and Italy,
They simply can't compare those numbers as-is. Of course Spain will be spending less in maintenance as a percentage of the total budget if it's still mainly building new tracks. It's not a useful figure.
> The track had been inspected very recently. Maybe the inspection standards are inadequate?
Spanish officials are very good at deflecting blame and playing politics. Nobody wants to be held accountable for a catastrophe. Also see the 2024 floods in Valencia; a partially preventable tragedy, followed by a whole lot of mud slinging, but zero accountability.
So while inspection standards might be inadequate, I would take anything a senior official says with a pound of salt.
They are two very different accidents: The second was insufficient/poor maintenance: Supposedly the train that checks for this had passed 2 months before, and someone will have to wonder whether it's just not passing often enough, or if the inspections are just poor in general.
The first was purely a matter of not upgrading the signaling in a very low speed section: The crash could have happened with regional trains too. Every engineer knew that it was unsafe and one distraction was enough to get someone killed, but Spain is still well in the middle of track expansion, so it's all the horrors of politicking. Unless you have a crash, not upgrading those signals costs nothing, but, say, the very expensive connection to Asturias was worth a lot, so iffy tradeoffs were made.
Hopefully better engineering-driven tradeoffs are made regarding track maintenance, but hey, this is Spain, not a place where we are good at efficient, reliable safety processes: See the failures in Valencia for the DANA, where the chain between the meteorologists seeing a risk that led to recommending evacuation, and the actual order of evacuation was so slow, so we ended up with 229 deaths.
A component here is the highly unfortunate timing of two trains crossing one another as one of the trains derailed. Both trains look like rigid HSRs, and usually when these derails they stay very stable and rarely have fatalities.
The geographic aspect of russian agents being in vincinity of the traintracks. Week before supply trains in Germany also derailed, as they do once per month.
Short answer: Japan treats high-speed rail as a tightly controlled system, not just fast trains on tracks.
One major difference is infrastructure. Shinkansen lines are completely separate from conventional rail: no level crossings, no shared tracks, no freight, and no interaction with slower services. There are no cars, pedestrians, or animals anywhere near the line. In much of Europe, including Spain, high-speed lines are very good, but they still tend to interact more with legacy rail networks and inherit more constraints.
Another key factor is how strictly operations are controlled. Speed limits are enforced automatically rather than relying on driver compliance alone. If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately. The design assumption is that human error will happen, so the system is built to prevent a mistake from turning into an accident.
Maintenance is also handled with extreme conservatism. Track geometry, overhead lines, and rolling stock are continuously monitored, with very tight tolerances. Components are replaced earlier than strictly necessary because preventing failures is considered far cheaper than dealing with the consequences of one.
Japan has also invested heavily in detecting external hazards. Earthquake early-warning systems automatically cut power and apply brakes before shaking reaches the tracks, and the same mindset applies to weather, landslides, and other environmental risks.
Finally, there’s a strong institutional safety culture behind all of this. Procedures, training, and reporting of near-misses are taken very seriously, and lessons are applied incrementally over decades. The objective isn’t just to meet safety standards but to systematically remove edge cases.
It’s not a single piece of technology that explains the record. It’s the combination of dedicated infrastructure, automation, conservative engineering, obsessive maintenance, and a culture with very little tolerance for shortcuts.
Edit: someone down this thread pointed out the answer is likely written by AI. If you copy the whole post from GP into ChatGPT it will give you an answer very similar to the post I am replying to.
> Shinkansen lines are completely separate from conventional rail: no level crossings, no shared tracks, no freight, and no interaction with slower services.
> but they still tend to interact more with legacy rail networks and inherit more constraints.
Spanish high speed trains mostly run on their own tracks because of gauge differences. France and Germany are the ones who actually runs high speed trains on old tracks, a lot.
It is surprising how many upvotes you can get on the internet just by glazing the Japanese.
I tried asking ChatGPT if Japanese high speed rail has level crossings and it correctly identified the line I used as my counterexample (Yamagata Shinkansen). I think GP is just plainly misinformed in a more boring way.
If you paste the comment it replies to into ChatGPT, it generates almost exact same answer as that comment. Also, "Finally, ..." and "it's not A, it's B" is a good tell.
Damn, I tried doing what you did and got a similar response too, down to exact wordings like "short answer, long answer" and "conservative maintenance". I will admit i was too quick to dismiss the accusation in my previous reply.
There are some lines that were originally built as regular narrow gauge railways and later converted to standard gauge supporting Shinkansen trainsets.
That's nitpicking, IMO. It's still 99% true. There are just two "Mini-Shinkansen" lines, they only run once or twice per hour, are shorter than non-Mini-Shinkansen, and only a relatively short part (distance-wise) of their journey is spent on the slow tracks. There are non-Shinkansen trains on the Mini-Shinkansen portion of their journey, but not very many. (Also the word "shinkansen" implies new tracks.)
Spanish high speed lines are mostly separate from the legacy network as they have different gauges, there are a few parts of the railway with dual gauge tracks but it is that.
The Santiago accident was on the conventional rail.
Just a small clarification, Spain has two distinct track stems for normal trains (Iberian gauge) and high speed rail (international gauge). High speed rail is completely separate from the iberian gauge network which is primarly used for city and regional trains. Only a few cargo trains use the high speed network.
Regarding the second point, 2013 accident was caused by higher than allowed speed and drivers had been complaining about the line not having the security system that automatically enforces speed limits. In this year's accident, the line has a much stricter securty system.
The main issue with spanish rails, high speed and specially traditional rail is the lack of maintenance.
I have lived in Spain for the last two years and observed the luck of maintenance in a lot of things.
For example, people typically pay for house/apartment insurance. But insurance companies never send a person to check for things like leaking pipes or whatever. Rather they simply wait until an accident happens and dispatch an emergency crew and cover a lot of damage that could be easily prevented. Then people tolerate non-trivial damage to homes/apartments like leaky roof not reporting it to insurance companies for weeks.
Then with cars people often do not follow the maintenance schedule and insurance companies do not ask for that. Typically people drive until damage happens due to a minor accident or maintenance are forced by state required technical inspection once in few years. The car companies even offer free maintenance checks as a part of guarantee but people skip even that.
Yet when someone spends efforts to complain, thinks do gets done. For example there a city service to remove graffiti on public areas. If one files a complain, they react and remove the graffiti. However sometimes one needs to send a complain twice.
Minor correction: there are two Shinkansen lines in Japan that run trains partly on shared legacy track, namely the Akita and Yamagata "mini-Shinkansens". However, these sections operate at normal speed, not high speed.
> Of the roughly 700 passengers, 106 passengers and the driver were killed, and 562 others were injured
The Santiago de Compostela derailment (first link on the parent comment) happened in 2013 for the same reason.
All that said, I would not be surprised if the culprit for this particular case is lack of maintenance. However I would wait until the official investigation is over before drawing conclusions.
For context: the aforementioned crash in Japan was not on a high-speed / Shinkansen line but a normal commuter train. Both the 2013 accident in Spain and the recent one were high speed trains.
I’m not sure these are
comparable, high-speed rail needs much tighter tolerances as the risk is orders of magnitude higher. As the parent comment stated there have been zero major crashes on the japanese shinkansen lines.
The second train crashed on a non-high speed part of the network.
There is also no reason to treat speed limits on high speed and normal trains differently. There are plenty of speed related crashes on low speed lines. If anything the stakes are even higher on commuter trains because they tend to carry more people, many of which will be standing, and are more likely to crash into another structure as was the case in the Japanese incident mentioned.
Your comment is down thread of a comment containing a link to a Wikipedia page of a Japanese train crashed caused by speeding. I do not understand how can you think this is impossible in Japan.
> If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately.
Does the system automatically slow down the train, or does it notify the engineer? I would imagine that there are some scenarios where going over the speed limit is the correct choice.
In the movies terrorists place a bomb on board and the train crew has to maintain a minimum speed or the bomb explodes (this is where that american movie with a bus got the idea). And they have to manipulate the ATC or else it will stop the train when they enter sections of the track with lower minimum speed, or else ATC stops the train and the bomb explodes.
I'm curious what scenarios your imagining. Because I can't think of a single situation where a track limit should not be applied automatically, at least to trains with passengers on them.
I wonder how common it is for train tracks to fracture? And what systems are in place to actually detect this. There was recently a post on a German subreddit where the OP found a fracture in the German rail[0], albeit much smaller.
> I wonder how common it is for train tracks to fracture?
That entirely depends on which class of tracks we're talking about. And on top of that, remember that Europe is at war with Russia, railway sabotage has been attributed to Russia already in Poland [1] - and if you ask me, I don't believe for a single goddamn second that "cable thieves" were the cause behind the infamous 2022 attack on Germany's railways [2] either.
> And what systems are in place to actually detect this.
In Germany, dedicated railway cars called "RAILab" [3] that can measure track performance at up to 200 km/h perform the bulk of the work. In addition, each piece of infrastructure has something called an "Anlagenverantwortlicher", a person responsible for it - and that person has to walk each piece of infrastructure every two years at the very least, sections that have shown to be problematic get walked sometimes weekly.
“…not only did Iryo train's front carriages which stayed on the track have "notches" in their wheels, but three earlier trains that went over the track earlier did too.”
This sounds like something a camera mounted on a sample of trains watching a wheel could catch.
AFAIK continuously welded tracks (like those used in high speed rail) are also slightly tensioned, so a break in a single point could make it look like a whole section of track is missing, as tension is released.
CWT is laid in such a way that it has net zero stress in a "neutral" temperature, which naturally depends on the climate. Both extreme heat and extreme cold can cause damage, buckling and fracturing/embrittlement respectively, and choosing the neutral temperature is balancing act. But even if completely cut, track cannot shrink longitudinally much at all, it's the job of the sleepers and the ballast to keep it anchored in place. And if the track is laid on a concrete slab rather than ballast, it isn't moving anywhere.
Fun fact: the reason modern concrete or composite sleepers (e.g. [1]) have a slightly concave profile is to better resist lateral forces (i.e. buckling) than traditional straight-profile wooden sleepers.
What are the some of the ways that tracks are monitored for fractures like this? It must have been pretty substantial in order to be described as "complete lack of continuity". Makes me think of literally electronic continuity tests -- are those ever used in this context? Or how about cameras mounted on trains using image processing? Or drones?
It seems a shame that a few other trains passed beforehand with this anomaly in place and yet it went undetected.
There are special trains with measurement equipment on board, but yes, it sounds to me like every train should be equipped with some basic sensors for anomaly detection.
AFAIK, one technique for monitoring cracks uses ultrasonic sensors. They send sound waves through the rails and detect cracks by analyzing reflected waves.
I suppose that counts/was caused by a fracture but almost a half meter of gap in the track is nuts. Like describing a limb that’s totally removed as a bone fracture.
Though conceivably the break was very small and a train impacting the slightly lifted rail just caused a good chunk of it to explode.
> Though conceivably the break was very small and a train impacting the slightly lifted rail just caused a good chunk of it to explode.
The crown (top) of the rail seems to be missing after the gap. The crown-less section then continues ~3 meters before it disappears behind the investigator on the left. IDK what that might indicate.
Yes, the “fracture” (the problem was actually at a joint) was there for a while. The missing segment of rail was still there when the train arrived - the derailment affected only the last cars.
No, that gap was created after the rail broke and the train derailed as a result.
The crack was in the weld, causing one side to sink and the wheel to hit the start of the next section of rail which was no longer welded to it, causing stress fractures to form in the rail which later caused that 40cm piece to break off.
Apparently the weld that broke joined an old segment with a new one installed last year as the tracks are renovated piecemeal.
Still the media in question, "El Mundo", is a mouthpiece for the opposition parties, seeking to create indignation against the government and scoring the head of the Transport Minister in particular.
They also want to make a parallel with the situation of the former President of the Valencian Community, from their party, who had to finally resign one year after being unreachable for hours on a date while hundreds of valencians drowned as his administration waffled aimlessly.
Of course the government is ultimately responsible for the state of the infrastructure, so the Minister well might have to resign after all is said and done, but the innuendo in that piece is pure politicking, not serious journalism.
My gut feeling says a lot of fatalities could have been prevented with a physical barrier between both tracks. Shouldn't this be mandatory with high speed trains?
I think the physics of the situation don't make a barrier feasible: a derailed train going >100 mph is going to transfer a lot of energy to any kind of barrier it impacts, which in turn might exacerbate the situation (by spreading debris).
I think these kinds of accidents are largely mitigated by rail defect monitoring. I know rails in the US are equipped with defect detectors for passing trains; I'm surprised that a similar system doesn't exist for the rails themselves. Or more likely, one does exist and the outcome of this tragedy will be a lesson about operational failures.
In principle only, if a barrier could keep a train on its side of the barrier, scraping along the barrier for a long distance instead of smashing headfirst into it, the energy could be dissipated over a long period of time, preventing fatalities. But what kind of barrier can withstand a train?
This collision happened precisely because of unfortunate circumstance that break in the rail and derailment happened just before the switch leading to the opposite track. Without the "help" of the switch, carriages of the first train likely wouldn't have invaded the second track.
Spain needs to rethink the way it operates trains. I think Switzerland
handles this better, overall, though they probably also don't have
as many fast trains because there are so many mountains. But I refer
more to the intrinsic quality control and assumption made. If I recall
correctly in Spain, there was the other train also coming in. I am
sure they could have built the tracks differently. Granted, the issue
here is cost, and an attempt to keep the cost down, but if you then
accept disasters like that, it seems really awkward to me to want to
save money here. And now that we know the track was already damaged,
that just adds more validity to questioning whether the quality control
systems were overall proper.
I mean maybe something of merit in that, but Spain has nearly 4000km of hitherto excellent and safe high speed rail and Switzerland around 200 km. Who should be giving lessons to whom? ;) Totally different scale of operations
While these events are statistically very rare, it is worth remembering that there have been two separate events in the past twenty years in Spain where high-speed trains have derailed leading to multiple fatalities [1][2]. In contrast, the Japanese Shinkansen has a spotless record since its introduction in the 1960s [3]. Not a single fatality due to a crash or derailment. And that's in a country with a much larger population and much higher passenger count per year.
What do they do differently?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Adamuz_train_derailments
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record
I am not sure what conclusion can we draw from, as you said, two very rare incidents over a long period of time.
Reminds me of when Malaysian airlines crashed two planes in a short period of time. It was a good time to get cheap flights from Europe to south east Asia as long as you can withstand relatives thinking you are literally going to die in their third crash.
Bit of an odd comparison, given that one of those flights (MH17) was shot down by a Russian Buk squad. That was not an issue attributable to the carrier in any way, and after the incident the likelihood of it happening again to Malaysia Airlines specifically was negligible.
It could be prevented by simply not flying over an active war zone, something airlines do all the times to prevent the exact same thing from happening.
Or Girkin not ordering the civilian plane full of people to be shot down. It was a civilian plane at 10km altitude with a transponder on. Really doesn't look like a jet on a radar.
And up to that point Russia wasn't known to supply the separatists with an anti air system and the crew to run it.
It would seem the air defense systems used could not reliably determine what you imply they should [1][2]. I’m not sure where you’re coming from, or why it would matter what one country was known or not known to do.
[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/07/18/12951/how-can-a-...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/07/18...
Airlines started being more sensitive to this after the 2014 crash
After reading Shogun, Cryptonomicon and watching plenty anime and documents about Japan (including Japanese rail system - still using the "pointing and naming" method I've learned from them) I would risk saying that Japanese do literally everything differently.
Spain basically does not do the required maintenance:
https://www.reuters.com/world/spains-deadly-rail-accidents-p...
From the linked article:
> [The] stretch of track that was renovated last May and inspected on January 7.
The track had been inspected very recently. Maybe the inspection standards are inadequate?
The linked article also shows figures that are quite meaningless without context.
> [The] vast majority [of Spain's high-speed rail budget] went to new infrastructure with only some 16% earmarked for maintenance, renewal and upgrades. That compares with between 34% to 39% spent by France, Germany and Italy,
They simply can't compare those numbers as-is. Of course Spain will be spending less in maintenance as a percentage of the total budget if it's still mainly building new tracks. It's not a useful figure.
> The track had been inspected very recently. Maybe the inspection standards are inadequate?
Spanish officials are very good at deflecting blame and playing politics. Nobody wants to be held accountable for a catastrophe. Also see the 2024 floods in Valencia; a partially preventable tragedy, followed by a whole lot of mud slinging, but zero accountability.
So while inspection standards might be inadequate, I would take anything a senior official says with a pound of salt.
Yep, plus their network is pretty new anyways. Which generally needs less maintenance than older infrastructure.
Specifically the fractured track was a soldered joint that joined a track from 1989 with a new one from a few weeks ago.
They are two very different accidents: The second was insufficient/poor maintenance: Supposedly the train that checks for this had passed 2 months before, and someone will have to wonder whether it's just not passing often enough, or if the inspections are just poor in general.
The first was purely a matter of not upgrading the signaling in a very low speed section: The crash could have happened with regional trains too. Every engineer knew that it was unsafe and one distraction was enough to get someone killed, but Spain is still well in the middle of track expansion, so it's all the horrors of politicking. Unless you have a crash, not upgrading those signals costs nothing, but, say, the very expensive connection to Asturias was worth a lot, so iffy tradeoffs were made.
Hopefully better engineering-driven tradeoffs are made regarding track maintenance, but hey, this is Spain, not a place where we are good at efficient, reliable safety processes: See the failures in Valencia for the DANA, where the chain between the meteorologists seeing a risk that led to recommending evacuation, and the actual order of evacuation was so slow, so we ended up with 229 deaths.
A component here is the highly unfortunate timing of two trains crossing one another as one of the trains derailed. Both trains look like rigid HSRs, and usually when these derails they stay very stable and rarely have fatalities.
Perhaps there are less FSB agents blowing up sections of track with shaped charges in Japan.
Source?
Yeah funny how instantly top comments are about moving the discussion away from the elephant in the room: russian sabotage against a European nation.
Then you mention fsb and get downvoted.
HN is full of russian shills.
Track maintenance?
Higher passenger count could imply ability to pass higher maintenance budgets?
Yeah. Japan really has better quality standards here overall.
Now - Japanese mentality is strange to me, but the quality standards and thought process, are convincing.
I think even more important is the seismic activity in Japan asa risk factor here
Could weather or some other geographic/similar aspect be a factor?
The geographic aspect of russian agents being in vincinity of the traintracks. Week before supply trains in Germany also derailed, as they do once per month.
Japan has a culture of perfection.
> Santiago de Compostela derailment
Hey that infrastructure looks perfectly fine and new, ahhh ok... they were going 180kmh where the speed limit was 80kmh..
Which is also exactly how the most deadly rail incident in the past half century in japan happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment
We oftentimes take ridiculous risks to save only 1-5 minutes of our time. Although reading about the Spanish disaster, the driver was rather reckless.
Short answer: Japan treats high-speed rail as a tightly controlled system, not just fast trains on tracks.
One major difference is infrastructure. Shinkansen lines are completely separate from conventional rail: no level crossings, no shared tracks, no freight, and no interaction with slower services. There are no cars, pedestrians, or animals anywhere near the line. In much of Europe, including Spain, high-speed lines are very good, but they still tend to interact more with legacy rail networks and inherit more constraints.
Another key factor is how strictly operations are controlled. Speed limits are enforced automatically rather than relying on driver compliance alone. If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately. The design assumption is that human error will happen, so the system is built to prevent a mistake from turning into an accident.
Maintenance is also handled with extreme conservatism. Track geometry, overhead lines, and rolling stock are continuously monitored, with very tight tolerances. Components are replaced earlier than strictly necessary because preventing failures is considered far cheaper than dealing with the consequences of one.
Japan has also invested heavily in detecting external hazards. Earthquake early-warning systems automatically cut power and apply brakes before shaking reaches the tracks, and the same mindset applies to weather, landslides, and other environmental risks.
Finally, there’s a strong institutional safety culture behind all of this. Procedures, training, and reporting of near-misses are taken very seriously, and lessons are applied incrementally over decades. The objective isn’t just to meet safety standards but to systematically remove edge cases.
It’s not a single piece of technology that explains the record. It’s the combination of dedicated infrastructure, automation, conservative engineering, obsessive maintenance, and a culture with very little tolerance for shortcuts.
Edit: someone down this thread pointed out the answer is likely written by AI. If you copy the whole post from GP into ChatGPT it will give you an answer very similar to the post I am replying to.
> Shinkansen lines are completely separate from conventional rail: no level crossings, no shared tracks, no freight, and no interaction with slower services.
Not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYol11bVoNw
https://ameblo.jp/nakamurapon943056/entry-12488005292.html
> but they still tend to interact more with legacy rail networks and inherit more constraints.
Spanish high speed trains mostly run on their own tracks because of gauge differences. France and Germany are the ones who actually runs high speed trains on old tracks, a lot.
It is surprising how many upvotes you can get on the internet just by glazing the Japanese.
"thing; thing, Japan" is a meme for a reason. I was wondering how long it would take to appear in this thread.
The answer was almost certainly generated by an LLM.
I tried asking ChatGPT if Japanese high speed rail has level crossings and it correctly identified the line I used as my counterexample (Yamagata Shinkansen). I think GP is just plainly misinformed in a more boring way.
If you paste the comment it replies to into ChatGPT, it generates almost exact same answer as that comment. Also, "Finally, ..." and "it's not A, it's B" is a good tell.
Damn, I tried doing what you did and got a similar response too, down to exact wordings like "short answer, long answer" and "conservative maintenance". I will admit i was too quick to dismiss the accusation in my previous reply.
There are some lines that were originally built as regular narrow gauge railways and later converted to standard gauge supporting Shinkansen trainsets.
This is called Mini-Shinkansen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Shinkansen
This comes with limitations, as the maximum track speed on these converted lines is apparently around 130 km/h.
None of the actual Shinkansen stadard lines have level crossings.
That's nitpicking, IMO. It's still 99% true. There are just two "Mini-Shinkansen" lines, they only run once or twice per hour, are shorter than non-Mini-Shinkansen, and only a relatively short part (distance-wise) of their journey is spent on the slow tracks. There are non-Shinkansen trains on the Mini-Shinkansen portion of their journey, but not very many. (Also the word "shinkansen" implies new tracks.)
Japanese high speed tracks get checked (and repaired/replaced, if required) every night. During the midnight-to-6am window.
That's why something like a fractured high speed rail track would never go undetected in Japan.
https://www.plassertheurer.com/en/today/stories/japanese-pre...
https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/data-book/_pdf/20...
https://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/jrtr61/16_21.html
https://international-railway-safety-council.com/wp-content/...
Spanish high speed lines are mostly separate from the legacy network as they have different gauges, there are a few parts of the railway with dual gauge tracks but it is that. The Santiago accident was on the conventional rail.
Just a small clarification, Spain has two distinct track stems for normal trains (Iberian gauge) and high speed rail (international gauge). High speed rail is completely separate from the iberian gauge network which is primarly used for city and regional trains. Only a few cargo trains use the high speed network.
Regarding the second point, 2013 accident was caused by higher than allowed speed and drivers had been complaining about the line not having the security system that automatically enforces speed limits. In this year's accident, the line has a much stricter securty system.
The main issue with spanish rails, high speed and specially traditional rail is the lack of maintenance.
I have lived in Spain for the last two years and observed the luck of maintenance in a lot of things.
For example, people typically pay for house/apartment insurance. But insurance companies never send a person to check for things like leaking pipes or whatever. Rather they simply wait until an accident happens and dispatch an emergency crew and cover a lot of damage that could be easily prevented. Then people tolerate non-trivial damage to homes/apartments like leaky roof not reporting it to insurance companies for weeks.
Then with cars people often do not follow the maintenance schedule and insurance companies do not ask for that. Typically people drive until damage happens due to a minor accident or maintenance are forced by state required technical inspection once in few years. The car companies even offer free maintenance checks as a part of guarantee but people skip even that.
Yet when someone spends efforts to complain, thinks do gets done. For example there a city service to remove graffiti on public areas. If one files a complain, they react and remove the graffiti. However sometimes one needs to send a complain twice.
Minor correction: there are two Shinkansen lines in Japan that run trains partly on shared legacy track, namely the Akita and Yamagata "mini-Shinkansens". However, these sections operate at normal speed, not high speed.
>If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately
That might be because Japan did have a huge railway accident in 2005 due to excessive speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment
> Of the roughly 700 passengers, 106 passengers and the driver were killed, and 562 others were injured
The Santiago de Compostela derailment (first link on the parent comment) happened in 2013 for the same reason.
All that said, I would not be surprised if the culprit for this particular case is lack of maintenance. However I would wait until the official investigation is over before drawing conclusions.
For context: the aforementioned crash in Japan was not on a high-speed / Shinkansen line but a normal commuter train. Both the 2013 accident in Spain and the recent one were high speed trains.
I’m not sure these are comparable, high-speed rail needs much tighter tolerances as the risk is orders of magnitude higher. As the parent comment stated there have been zero major crashes on the japanese shinkansen lines.
The second train crashed on a non-high speed part of the network.
There is also no reason to treat speed limits on high speed and normal trains differently. There are plenty of speed related crashes on low speed lines. If anything the stakes are even higher on commuter trains because they tend to carry more people, many of which will be standing, and are more likely to crash into another structure as was the case in the Japanese incident mentioned.
That's still an issue of design though. I am pretty certain that this would not have been possible in quite that way in Japan.
Your comment is down thread of a comment containing a link to a Wikipedia page of a Japanese train crashed caused by speeding. I do not understand how can you think this is impossible in Japan.
> That might be because Japan did have a huge railway accident in 2005 due to excessive speed.
No, Japan more or less invented ATC in the 1960s for the purpose of running the Shinkansen safely.
> If a train exceeds its permitted speed for any reason, the system intervenes immediately.
Does the system automatically slow down the train, or does it notify the engineer? I would imagine that there are some scenarios where going over the speed limit is the correct choice.
ATC stops the train - this is actually an important plot point in both "shinaksen explosion" movies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bullet_Train
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Train_Explosion
In the movies terrorists place a bomb on board and the train crew has to maintain a minimum speed or the bomb explodes (this is where that american movie with a bus got the idea). And they have to manipulate the ATC or else it will stop the train when they enter sections of the track with lower minimum speed, or else ATC stops the train and the bomb explodes.
I'm curious what scenarios your imagining. Because I can't think of a single situation where a track limit should not be applied automatically, at least to trains with passengers on them.
Please don’t post slop when people ask thoughtful questions.
I wonder how common it is for train tracks to fracture? And what systems are in place to actually detect this. There was recently a post on a German subreddit where the OP found a fracture in the German rail[0], albeit much smaller.
0. https://old.reddit.com/r/drehscheibe/comments/1qe9ko2/ich_gl...
In November, a bigger missing part of a train track was due to sabotage: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp85g86x0zgo
Fractures could happen with ground shifting - perhaps recent flooding could have contributed
Nice find. The gap in the Spanish track is massive. I don’t know enough to speculate on technical reasons but it seems quite odd.
> I wonder how common it is for train tracks to fracture?
That entirely depends on which class of tracks we're talking about. And on top of that, remember that Europe is at war with Russia, railway sabotage has been attributed to Russia already in Poland [1] - and if you ask me, I don't believe for a single goddamn second that "cable thieves" were the cause behind the infamous 2022 attack on Germany's railways [2] either.
> And what systems are in place to actually detect this.
In Germany, dedicated railway cars called "RAILab" [3] that can measure track performance at up to 200 km/h perform the bulk of the work. In addition, each piece of infrastructure has something called an "Anlagenverantwortlicher", a person responsible for it - and that person has to walk each piece of infrastructure every two years at the very least, sections that have shown to be problematic get walked sometimes weekly.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gknv8nxlzo
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2022_German_railway_at...
[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAILab
> I wonder how common it is for train tracks to fracture?
very
> And what systems are in place to actually detect this.
track circuit detection would pick up most cases I would have thought
“…not only did Iryo train's front carriages which stayed on the track have "notches" in their wheels, but three earlier trains that went over the track earlier did too.”
This sounds like something a camera mounted on a sample of trains watching a wheel could catch.
AFAIK continuously welded tracks (like those used in high speed rail) are also slightly tensioned, so a break in a single point could make it look like a whole section of track is missing, as tension is released.
CWT is laid in such a way that it has net zero stress in a "neutral" temperature, which naturally depends on the climate. Both extreme heat and extreme cold can cause damage, buckling and fracturing/embrittlement respectively, and choosing the neutral temperature is balancing act. But even if completely cut, track cannot shrink longitudinally much at all, it's the job of the sleepers and the ballast to keep it anchored in place. And if the track is laid on a concrete slab rather than ballast, it isn't moving anywhere.
Fun fact: the reason modern concrete or composite sleepers (e.g. [1]) have a slightly concave profile is to better resist lateral forces (i.e. buckling) than traditional straight-profile wooden sleepers.
[1] https://www.romicgroup.com/permanent-way/concrete-railway-sl...
What are the some of the ways that tracks are monitored for fractures like this? It must have been pretty substantial in order to be described as "complete lack of continuity". Makes me think of literally electronic continuity tests -- are those ever used in this context? Or how about cameras mounted on trains using image processing? Or drones?
It seems a shame that a few other trains passed beforehand with this anomaly in place and yet it went undetected.
Measurement trains filled with cameras and LIDAR
For example, in the U.K.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Measurement_Train
LIDAR is good, but as another commenter pointed out, Ultrasonic Flaw Detection (USFD) is the gold standard for crack/flaw detection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Yellow
There are special trains with measurement equipment on board, but yes, it sounds to me like every train should be equipped with some basic sensors for anomaly detection.
The measurement trains drive slowly in the night.
Not necessarily, the measurement train my company develops can go up to 100 km/h and measure certain rail features every 5mm at that speed.
AFAIK, one technique for monitoring cracks uses ultrasonic sensors. They send sound waves through the rails and detect cracks by analyzing reflected waves.
Wheel Impact Load Detector.
It measures vertical forces in kips - (kilo-pounds-force, 1 KIP = 1,000 lbs)
They have these in the USA.
TFA indicates a 40cm gap — huge!
I suppose that counts/was caused by a fracture but almost a half meter of gap in the track is nuts. Like describing a limb that’s totally removed as a bone fracture.
Though conceivably the break was very small and a train impacting the slightly lifted rail just caused a good chunk of it to explode.
> Though conceivably the break was very small and a train impacting the slightly lifted rail just caused a good chunk of it to explode.
The crown (top) of the rail seems to be missing after the gap. The crown-less section then continues ~3 meters before it disappears behind the investigator on the left. IDK what that might indicate.
ref pic: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/ecb4/live/53924...
The rail is laying on its side in that picture, so what is visible is the foot not the web.
edit: other angles of the same location here: https://youtu.be/DIQ4SrGSua0?t=1174
Yes, the “fracture” (the problem was actually at a joint) was there for a while. The missing segment of rail was still there when the train arrived - the derailment affected only the last cars.
No, that gap was created after the rail broke and the train derailed as a result.
The crack was in the weld, causing one side to sink and the wheel to hit the start of the next section of rail which was no longer welded to it, causing stress fractures to form in the rail which later caused that 40cm piece to break off.
We actually have had 4 train accidents and incidents in a week.
https://people.com/train-collides-with-crane-arm-in-4th-rail...
It's clear some of them are probably caused by neglect in maintenance, others are freak accidents.
It's pretty crazy the statistical probabilities involved for something like this.
5!
An Asturias Circanías train collided with debris from a collapsed tunnel wall on Thursday afternoon in Olloniego. No injured though
Some more info from Spanish media. The track that broke was from 1989 and had not been maintained properly.
No, the claim is that the broken rail was the new one but it happened at the transition from old to new.
Jupp you are right I had not read up on the news today.
Got a link?
And how does it accord with the many statements made early on about the track being renewed recently?
Apparently the weld that broke joined an old segment with a new one installed last year as the tracks are renovated piecemeal.
Still the media in question, "El Mundo", is a mouthpiece for the opposition parties, seeking to create indignation against the government and scoring the head of the Transport Minister in particular.
They also want to make a parallel with the situation of the former President of the Valencian Community, from their party, who had to finally resign one year after being unreachable for hours on a date while hundreds of valencians drowned as his administration waffled aimlessly.
Of course the government is ultimately responsible for the state of the infrastructure, so the Minister well might have to resign after all is said and done, but the innuendo in that piece is pure politicking, not serious journalism.
I have one in Spanish. Seems the latest info is that it broke where the new rails meet the old rail.
https://www.elmundo.es/economia/2026/01/25/697635e8fc6c83c42...
Wow, that's a really big gap. No wonder it derailed
My gut feeling says a lot of fatalities could have been prevented with a physical barrier between both tracks. Shouldn't this be mandatory with high speed trains?
I think the physics of the situation don't make a barrier feasible: a derailed train going >100 mph is going to transfer a lot of energy to any kind of barrier it impacts, which in turn might exacerbate the situation (by spreading debris).
I think these kinds of accidents are largely mitigated by rail defect monitoring. I know rails in the US are equipped with defect detectors for passing trains; I'm surprised that a similar system doesn't exist for the rails themselves. Or more likely, one does exist and the outcome of this tragedy will be a lesson about operational failures.
In principle only, if a barrier could keep a train on its side of the barrier, scraping along the barrier for a long distance instead of smashing headfirst into it, the energy could be dissipated over a long period of time, preventing fatalities. But what kind of barrier can withstand a train?
This collision happened precisely because of unfortunate circumstance that break in the rail and derailment happened just before the switch leading to the opposite track. Without the "help" of the switch, carriages of the first train likely wouldn't have invaded the second track.
The tracks are less than 3m from each other, a derailed car doesn’t need to get very far to be a risk to incoming traffic.
I’d rather they spent the money ensuring no trains ever left their tracks rather than halving the destruction if they do.
There was a switchover which made the derailed cars of the first train move into the track of the second one, you can't have a wall there anyway.
More practical but still probably unnecessary is having the planned “passes” be where the tracks are separated by some distance.
But that requires the trains mostly always being on schedule.
The 20-ton bogie was flung 300m. What do you expect the weight of a whole car to do to such a wall?
Quite a tragedy.
Spain needs to rethink the way it operates trains. I think Switzerland handles this better, overall, though they probably also don't have as many fast trains because there are so many mountains. But I refer more to the intrinsic quality control and assumption made. If I recall correctly in Spain, there was the other train also coming in. I am sure they could have built the tracks differently. Granted, the issue here is cost, and an attempt to keep the cost down, but if you then accept disasters like that, it seems really awkward to me to want to save money here. And now that we know the track was already damaged, that just adds more validity to questioning whether the quality control systems were overall proper.
I mean maybe something of merit in that, but Spain has nearly 4000km of hitherto excellent and safe high speed rail and Switzerland around 200 km. Who should be giving lessons to whom? ;) Totally different scale of operations
Your comparison is nonsense and using nonsense metric.