[SpaghettiJimmy]

Wrong. Trains generally stopping at intersections already pose a real risk by blocking emergency vehicles, resulting in cases of loss of property and life that could otherwise have been avoided. Having an unplanned shutdown that cannot be easily remedied only further exacerbates that potential.

[Symbiote]

Ok, I hadn't thought of that. In most of Europe level crossings are rare enough that this would be very unlikely.

It's also something the driver would easily avoid if they still have any control over the train, e.g. braking force.

[jacquesm]

In Poland level crossings are pretty normal.

> It's also something the driver would easily avoid if they still have any control over the train, e.g. braking force.

Yes, but: it would be much harder to test whether bricking this thing selectively does what it should do and for all we know right now you'd have a runaway on your hands. So this isn't just for shits and giggles.

And even a stopped train on a live track can under the right circumstances be extremely risky.

[Symbiote]

You wrote that the passengers' lives were at risk.

This is simply not the case. It is a fundamental feature of every signaling system, and has been for over a century. Any collision would be caused by a seriously defective signalling system, not the stopped train.

[jacquesm]

You don't stop a train on a live track without a reason and yes, it would take multiple faults but since we have seen several such accidents in the last couple of years alone it would seem to me that it is indeed a risk. Poland has a ton of aging infrastructure, I wouldn't make any assumptions about what works and what doesn't, systems fail, and trains fail, when both fail at the same time your chances of an accident go up quite a bit so you try hard to make sure that both don't fail. Making one of them fail on purpose is a really bad idea.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll find a new reason to say why it's perfectly ok to stop trains with passengers in them willy nilly and how that isn't a safety issue but I'm just going to let it go here. I certainly hope you're not in charge of anything that involves public transport.

[persolb]

So I’m an engineer in the passenger rail industry who often reviews and has input into the HTL (hazard tracking log). Stopping the train is assumed 100% safe for passengers and crew.

(Edit: you might be able to find some of these online, as regulators sometimes publish them for comment if there is a waiver request… not going to dox myself though)

Your point about external grade crossing hazards is valid… but also completely avoidable unless the train is super long (IE: not a passenger train) or the train was already going slow (like just leaving a station or signal).

There are separate system safety plans to ensure that timely/safe evacuation is possible regardless of where the train stops.

In the absolutely worst case, this means coupling another train and waiting the ~30 mins for people to walk through the train to the new cars, then uncoupling.

[jacquesm]

You're an engineer in the passenger rail industry in Poland? If not then you probably will want to familiarize yourself with the state of Polish rail infra before commenting further. It's a small miracle they don't have more accidents than they already do.

The most recent major incident is two months ago:

https://apnews.com/article/poland-train-accident-1db1a088c31...

And there are plenty of others to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Railway_accidents_and...

There are only two countries in the EU that have worse rail infra than Poland (Romania, Bulgaria). Rolling stock is off mixed quality and vintage, maintenance spotty at best.

[nier]

What makes a stopped train on a track 100% safe in terms of other trains or locomotives that might be oncoming? Are signals and means of communication redundant in a way that there‘s no chance of a collision?