It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

deadly train derailment in Spain

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


The system on that section of track is, apparently, not the more advanced European one, but rather one that while it does have auto braking, relies mainly on audible warnings, track side beacons and only intervenes in the case of a nil response from the driver after a period of time, so would not be quite as reactive I imagine, especially if the train was pegging along at twice the recommended speed.




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
This article by the Telegraph is quite interesting - the way the driver made the call makes me think that there may well have been a technical failure rather than Driver error. He knew he was going to fast, yet was unable to do anything about it?

It does totally put a nail in the coffin of the more outlandish theories of bombs etc though.


From the same article you linked, there is a great comment made by StevenRobert and I would like you to read it:

StevenRobert
13 minutes ago

"The accident was horrific. Almost too severe to just be an ordinary accident.
Was the train going its usual speed and failed to slow down for the curve, or did it actually speed up.
Was there something wrong with the train?
Was the train tampered with?
Is there a monitoring system in the tracks that could be tampered with by an outsider, so that it wouldn't work.
Although
they are blaming the engineer or driver, it seems to be a coincidence
that the train was loaded with Christians on their way to a special
festival.
Hopefully the "black box" will indicate what is going on,
however it seems there were safety devices or codes, and that either
they were over-ridden or sabotaged.
Also were the brakes working?
Possibly
the train was going it's normal speed, and did not slow down. To stop a
train, or even to slow it down requires tremendous force, and usually
air brakes are required.
It may take a mile to stop a train, and if it is going fast, perhaps even more.
There are train stopping distance formulas, and to stop a train going 35 miles per hour requires 4900 feet.
At 120 miles per hour, probably three or four times that far.
Could the air-brakes have been disabled some way?
Usually
there are exposed hoses on the trains I am aware of, nothing like the
high-speed Spanish train, but slower freights and passenger trains in
the US.

I
suspect they tried to slow down going into the curve and the brakes
didn't work for some reason, either mechanical problem, or possibly even
sabotage.
Certainly the train was loaded with Christians going to a special festival, so it was no question who would be on the train."

Link:
www.telegraph.co.uk...


edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 


It could be there was some sort of sabotage involved. The driver must have braked before during the trip, but the failure only happened at that time.
What if the failure happened when it was entering the station or it didn't derail at that spot.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by tony9802
 


It could be there was some sort of sabotage involved. The driver must have braked before during the trip, but the failure only happened at that time.
What if the failure happened when it was entering the station or it didn't derail at that spot.


Do we know how far he actually was from the Santiago station when the accident actually happened?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 


goo.gl...
That's the place of the accident. follow the rails to the left and you'll end up at the station.
It was at 3.5km from the station.
The track prior to the curve isn't on google map, but you can see on the right where they are working, that's where the tracks are now.
edit on 25-7-2013 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
That sirs, wins you an edit!

Please see the comment below though; I'm personally a phenomenally slow driver..

edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 


It wasn't the final station, it's destiny was Ferrol, more north.
I'm sure he would have braked if he could. Why else would he say, i'm going at 190km/h we are going to derail!
just before the curve. He knew the curve and knew that at 190km/h the train would derail.
He didn't do this on purpose, like some suggest.

politica.elpais.com...
Sorry i don't have the english version
edit on 25-7-2013 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I live in Quebec, where the one in Lag Mégantic happened, the train was without a driver and taking speed due to a big downhill slope over long distance, 50 dead. I remember when the CEO of the company went to the town, he mentioned he had proof that the train had been sabotaged. The next day he retracted and rephrased it as a defect in the brake systems. What's going on with these trains?

Also, the whole "crime" scene (all downtown) has been surrounded by a tall black fences, so the public isn't able to see what's going on in the "red" zone.
edit on 25-7-2013 by MrMaybeNot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by smurfy
 


The system on that section of track is, apparently, not the more advanced European one, but rather one that while it does have auto braking, relies mainly on audible warnings, track side beacons and only intervenes in the case of a nil response from the driver after a period of time, so would not be quite as reactive I imagine, especially if the train was pegging along at twice the recommended speed.


That's what I said back a bit, no matter. The Guardian link also says so if you looked at the link. In any case the audio warning also worked or it didn't. This is a picture which I now think is the train set,


As you can see the carriages look appropriate as does the motor, as you can also see the motor also has a small passenger or personnel part. In the video it is the carriage behind that, was seemingly the first carriage to fail. However the train in this picture is designated a 130 train set, but it is difficult to see how the bogies are laid out, which is another area I'm interested in.
This is the motor in the crash, same vehicle, but has lost the back end, in the wall collision, which is likely the 'carriage' described as being totally destroyed


edit on 25-7-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by tony9802
 


It wasn't the final station, it's destiny was Ferrol, more north.
I'm sure he would have braked if he could. Why else would he say, i'm going at 190km/h we are going to derail!
just before the curve. He knew the curve and knew that at 190km/h the train would derail.
He didn't do this on purpose, like some suggest.

politica.elpais.com...
Sorry i don't have the english version
edit on 25-7-2013 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)


According to what a segment of the article says in habla-Iberica:

El conductor había dicho previamente, antes del siniestro, que iba muy rápido, a 190 kilómetros por hora; después habló de 200. Finalmente, al entrar en la curva, volvió a decir: "¡Voy a 190!", según explicaron ayer a EL PAÍS fuentes de la investigación."

From what I'm gathering from that segment of the article, it seems as though the train is gaining velocity, and that it was accelerating.. which would not be something he himself would maneouvre. Going from 190 and then increasing afterwards to 200, seems to imply that he is "unable" to control the increasing velocity of the train. That in and of itself is strange.

There might also be control options by the NSA, DOD, HAARP, and DARPA; they can also do all kinds of remote things this way.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tony9802
3.5 kilometers is equal to 2.17 miles, so the driver and his train were about 2 miles away from the train station.
2 Miles is approximately the size of a football stadium x2 so he was actually totally close to the terminal.

Why wouldn't he have already been totally slowed down if he was that close to the final terminal?
2 miles is a very short distance.. about 2 football fields..


2 Miles is the size of a Football Stadium? Just how big are football stadiums where you live?

2 Miles is 10560 Feet. At a quick glance, a good sized NFL stadium, like Fed Ex Field is just shy of 1000ft from one end to the other. Wembley stadium, the largest Football stadium in the UK, is around the same size...

Me thinks you might want to think again......



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
sometimes an accident is just an accident
and yes its a tragedy for all related families overthere

however
why does the name of the area, "Compostella " appereantly translate as "Field of the Stars"
and 'stars' to be understood in this sense as "the 7 main fallen angels" in the book Henoch
who literally describes them as "stars"

no i dont want to push a vieuw
but today was the heka doodle as well [ see luna real moon IV]
...and i cant help making the connection with "a sacrifice... for the Heka.. on the territory of the Stars"

just thinking out loud



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Sorry about that.. I think I was trying to reference running laps around a race track of a football field.. 4 laps around is about 1 mile on a general standard size football field race track.

8 laps then would be equal to 2 miles!!

Here's a link for the measurement of the race track of a football field.
wiki.answers.com...


edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Nice research.. great pictures; I'm anticipating more interesting analysis there..



edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tony9802


3.5 kilometers is equal to 2.17 miles, so the driver and his train were about 2 miles away from the train station. 2 miles is approximately the length of 8 laps around a race track of a standard size football field. Link: wiki.answers.com...


So, why wouldn't the train conductor have already been totally slowed down if he was that close to the destination terminal?



edit on 25-7-2013 by tony9802 because: (no reason given)


Well without the edit, yes the train should have been slowing much before it entered the last tunnel before it crashed.
edit on 25-7-2013 by smurfy because: T ext.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I think I was trying to elucidate the fact that he was 2 miles from the train station stop, and that he actually should have been slowed down far much sooner than simply at that last tunnel turn. If he was only 2 miles away, as shown both in the map and in the mile measurement tag, then he should have been slowed down at least 4 miles prior to his stop. But instead, the train conductor made exclamations about acceleration occurring..



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by tony9802
 


What you are saying is, if there was a timed bomb on the train and if the train was on time, it was meant to go off at the station, causing a lot more casualties.


You are aware that this is nothing but far-fetched speculation? This, and the other guy with his NSA/HAARP nonsense.

It is my understanding (from what I read) that the driver shortly after the crash phones for help and made a comment on the phone it's his fault. As if he knew that he was too fast and showed guilt immediately after the crash.

However, take this with a grain of salt since not everything in the media is true.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by tony9802
 


Yes, but it's right was smurfy says. If it was a timed bomb to be go off at the station


And why put a bomb on a train and then rely on timing where a train is always +/- some minutes late (like that one)..instead of "simply" planting a bomb at the station? Planting a bomb ON THE TRAIN and time the bomb and hope it would go-off right on-time at the right location would be incredibly nonsensical.
edit on 25-7-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tony9802
 


The train, according to the timetable was never meant to stop at Santiago de Compostela station, so it wouldn't have need to slow as much as you might think - it should have been able to pass through the station at a fair speed.

However, the train should have been slowing for that bend and the entry onto the non-express railway, which seems to have been the problem.

Here is the timetable for the service that was involved. It doesn't stop at Santiago but rather goes straight through At 0841, the time some think a bomb was times to coincide with it being in Santiago, it was actually due to be leaving Bentazos.

3rd time is the charm, damned Java...... Go to this link - www.renfe.com... - and look for the service labelled 00751 TRENHOTEL, that is the same one, I believe, as the one which crashed.
edit on 25/7/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join