6 ms·

It's a GSM-R issue. See Tagesschau (German): https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/deutsche-bahn-stoerung-zugfunk-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inl

by d2kx 3mo ago

It's a GSM-R issue. See Tagesschau (German): https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/deutsche-bahn-stoerung-zugfunk-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/deutsche-bahn-...

wrs 3mo ago
>This special mobile communication standard is designed to make communication fail-safe Mmm, nope.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
  If nothing works, eveything is safe, no?
  - fhars 3mo ago
    That is the point of failing safe. It would me much worse if some of the trains kept running...
  - throw7 3mo ago
    It's not if nothing works, it's what works when nothing works, i.e. the safe thing must always work. period. (i'm not trying to be pedantic or an ass)
    - Ekaros 3mo ago
      Safe in this kind of context means no property damage or no casualties or no injuries. Not no financial damage. Sometimes repairable property damage is accepted if that is active or passive safety component.
- NamTaf 3mo ago
  It did fail safe though? Interference led to the network stopping, not trains just racing towards each other due to bogus line authorities. That is, by definition, fail-safe
  - wrs 3mo ago
    That seems like a fail-safe interpretation of communication: if there is no communication, stop the train. But that's a special case. GSM-R is much more than line authorities. >GSM-R is a secure platform for voice and data communication between railway operational staff, including drivers, dispatchers, shunting team members, train engineers, and station controllers. Designing the communication network itself in such a way that the entire thing can apparently fail, doesn't sound "fail-safe" to me. (Though its failure may trigger fail-safes in higher-level systems.) In particular, some functions may require communications to be "safe"; e.g., emergency personnel not being able to communicate is not "safe". But perhaps this is being overstated in the vague reporting, and it's only a regional failure.
    - cyberax 3mo ago
      "Fail-safe" by definition means that the system fails into a safe state. Stopping the trains on comms failure _is_ safe.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - wrs 3mo ago
        Agreed. What happened to everything else on comms failure?
RetroTechie 3mo ago
I wish someone would do a deep-dive post mortem once everything is sorted out.

by d2kx 3mo ago

It's a GSM-R issue. See Tagesschau (German): https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/deutsche-bahn-stoerung-zugfunk-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/deutsche-bahn-...

wrs 3mo ago

>This special mobile communication standard is designed to make communication fail-safe Mmm, nope.

ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
If nothing works, eveything is safe, no?
- fhars 3mo ago
  That is the point of failing safe. It would me much worse if some of the trains kept running...
- throw7 3mo ago
  It's not if nothing works, it's what works when nothing works, i.e. the safe thing must always work. period. (i'm not trying to be pedantic or an ass)
  - Ekaros 3mo ago
    Safe in this kind of context means no property damage or no casualties or no injuries. Not no financial damage. Sometimes repairable property damage is accepted if that is active or passive safety component.
NamTaf 3mo ago
It did fail safe though? Interference led to the network stopping, not trains just racing towards each other due to bogus line authorities. That is, by definition, fail-safe
- wrs 3mo ago
  That seems like a fail-safe interpretation of communication: if there is no communication, stop the train. But that's a special case. GSM-R is much more than line authorities. >GSM-R is a secure platform for voice and data communication between railway operational staff, including drivers, dispatchers, shunting team members, train engineers, and station controllers. Designing the communication network itself in such a way that the entire thing can apparently fail, doesn't sound "fail-safe" to me. (Though its failure may trigger fail-safes in higher-level systems.) In particular, some functions may require communications to be "safe"; e.g., emergency personnel not being able to communicate is not "safe". But perhaps this is being overstated in the vague reporting, and it's only a regional failure.
  - cyberax 3mo ago
    "Fail-safe" by definition means that the system fails into a safe state. Stopping the trains on comms failure _is_ safe.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - wrs 3mo ago
      Agreed. What happened to everything else on comms failure?

RetroTechie 3mo ago

I wish someone would do a deep-dive post mortem once everything is sorted out.