Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Chris Jones-Bridger, Deeside Flintshire

  The freight train derailment at Maidstone East was in 1993. The Transport and Works Act was enacted in 1992 and set in place the measures that are now practice for alcohol and drugs policy in the industry.
  
  The Morpeth derailment of 1969 led to the introduction of advanced warning indicators for permanent speed restrictions on BR. The conditions for their provision was tightened up following the second Morpeth derailment in 1984. Similarly the 1975 derailment at Nuneaton led to the introduction of AWS magnets at advanced warning boards for temporary speed restrictions. In more recent years TPWS provision has also played it's part in mitigating overspeed incidents.
  
  These measures may lack the sophistication of more advanced signalling systems but by their simplicity have significantly reduced the risk overpseed accidents in Britain.
  
  Location has it's part to play in the crash resistance of the equipment involved. It appears that the Spanish train was involved in a violent collision with the surrounding concrete walls. When the Pendolino was derailed at the crossover at Lambrigg it was deflected down the embankment into relatively open countryside. By contrast at the mark 4 vehicles of the ecml service derailed on the curve at Hatfield were seriously damaged colliding with the OLE supports before coming to rest. In the UK we would have to look at the collisions at Ladbroke Grove or Great Heck to see similar destruction of rolling stock with multiple casualties.

• Garth Ponsonby, Chippenham

  There is no inherent difference for a driver between approaching a stop signal too fast and approaching a speed restriction too fast - the train is not properly under control.
  
  The Southall collision was due to driver error when the ATP system was inoperative, and I suspect this Spanish accident will also ultimately hinge on the type and extent of driver aids available. I have heard it suggested that there is a change in the signalling system nearby, from the positive ATP (train protection) to one with merely a warning given. If so, expect a recommendation for positive train control (e.g.ERTMS) to be forthcoming.
  
  The Harrow crash in 1952 was another such influential crash, which of course led to the BR ATC system being widely implemented.

• Roger Capel, Sheffield

  Eltham Well Hall was the last FATAL UK accident of its type. As we who've been on the railway since the '90s can attest, we owe our current Drugs & Alchohol tests to the joker who drove the freight train up the platform ramp at Maidstone in, if memory serves me correctly, 1994.

• Stephen, Luton

  The train model involved in the crash was a Talgo 250 (Renfe class S730). It's true it has just 1 pair of wheels shared between each coach. However Eurostar and all TGV types (Alstom) have 2 wheelsets (a Jacobs bogie) shared per coach. This means they are more resiliant should a derailment happen. A Eurostar derailed back in 2000 at approx 275km/h. Train remained upright, no fatalities, and a dozen light injuries. It was said the articulated trainset architecture was credited with maintaining stability and integrity of the train.
  
  When a train is exceeding the line speed by 100km/h, it is likely there will be a high amount of destruction, no matter how well the train is designed and constructed.

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  The last accident in the UK which was caused by a Driver (under the influence of alcohol) going too fast round a bend was at Eltham Well Hall in 1972 in the South East of England. A special train to Ramsgate was driven too fast on its return and 6 people including the Driver died. It is an exceptionally rare occurence. By all acounts the Spanish train was less than 2 years old running on new track. The carriages are I believe supported by just one set of wheels at the joint between carriages, - like Eurostar sets. Could this have been a factor ? But as always its always best to await the official report before lauching into the 'blame game'.

• phil, Watford

  The track camber would be designed with the operating speed on that section of track. This could be affected by other things such as points, stations, slow moving trains using the line etc, there could not be a steeply cambered track if some trains, for example, would be running at 50kph. as this would cause excess wear both to wheels and to the inner rail.

• Tim, Devon

  Grayrigg derailed into a field. The spanish train crashed into a concrete bridge. I suspect that is why the fatalities were so high.

• Andrew, Guildford

  This is a terrible tragedy. Our thoughts certainly go out to those affected.
  
  The news reports suggest the line was built only a couple of years ago. Shouldn't that mean it was fitted with the latest signalling and train control systems, such as ERTMS? I would have thought it should be possible for a train to be exceeding the correct linespeed by such a margin on a line that's been constructed so recently. Perhaps consideration for HS2 if we're envisaging 250mph.

• Bob Grundy, Lancing

  Two points strike me about this accident.
  
  1. At Grayrigg on the WCML a few years ago a British express derailed with only one fatality. Is there an NCAP rating for rail vehicles?
  2. Despite the curve, there seems to be very little, if any, camber on the tracks. Is there a reason for that?
  
  I shall read the inquiry findings with interest.