Stoned train in multi-million-dollar wreck Melbourne police are investigating who made off with a train at around 2am this morning, resulting in around AU$2 million worth of damage. Trains aren't supposed to move unless the driver has a key, but according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the vandals defeated the lock with a literally stone-age …
I can't imagine what would posses a person to steal a train?
The train was derailed in this instance by a safety mechanism designed for just this purpose.
Had it not derailed, one wonders what the perpetrators thought they might do with it. A train has to stay on tracks (stating the obvious I know), it's not as if you can just drive it wherever you please.
I thought trains had several mechanisms in place to prevent them being driven over and above just a key. Further, starting a train isn't like starting a car, just turn the key and go. You have to lap the brakes and pressurise the lines, back up to de-stress the couplings, and a number of other procedures before the train will go.
As I understood it, each driver also has his own brake handle which he attaches to the brake post when he starts up, and without which the train won't move. Then there's the deadman device, which is usually a pedal or button that has to be pressed every minute or so, otherwise the train assumes the driver is incapacitated and automatically applies the brakes.
So these guys not only broke the lock, they must have got a brake handle or something that could function as one from somewhere, and also known about the deadman device, in addition to knowing the rest of the starting procedures. They knew enough about trains to figure all that out, but didn't know about the signalling system or ATPS (which is what would have derailed the train.)
I'd suspect someone who either knows a train driver or someone who wanted to be one but failed the qualifications.
> starting a train isn't like starting a car, just turn the key and go
I suspect some of the modern ones may well be. Manual procedures would have been used in the past simply because of the limitations of technology, but these days it's preferred to automate where practical as manual procedures are error prone.
Same applies to aircraft. "Older"* aircraft need various procedures following in a set order to get started, and with turbines especially, getting a step wrong can mean expensive damage - like a "hot start" meaning a £30k overhaul for a turbine. Many newer models (both turbine and piston) now have fully digital control where starting is just a case of "turn the key and let the system do it".
* Where "old" is a relative term, but may mean ancient !
As to why steal it ? Well someone who's been out on the pop until the early hours might not actually think that far ahead ! Perhaps they were heeding the old advice ...
Don't drink and drive, take the bustrain - I did last night, it was surprisingly easy to drive !
As someone who works on monitoring systems for refurbished and new trains in North America, I have seen first hand that many of the driver lockout controls are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Often times these things start out as very rigid requirements and as the trains are developed, the requirement is re-interpreted until it's little more than a speedbump to keep someone from accidentally moving the train. This does not surprise me in the least.
The train industry isn't unique. Real security is hard. Most locks are for keeping honest people out. Actual criminals (and apparently bored youths) pretty much can do what they want.
Driver themselves can forget to apply the necessary brakes.
A runaway train which slammed into a stationary train at Melbourne's Spencer Street Station last night had rolled downhill without power 15km through 12 stations and seven level crossings.
February 4 2003 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044122360433.html
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
