The criminal action of the process for the Angrois accident faces its penultimate week
The criminal action of the trial for the Alvia train accident faces his penultimate week of appearances with the expected statements of two experts proposed by the State Attorney, which represents Adif, and another by the driver’s defense Francisco Garzon.
The expert witness Antonio Puyol, who carried out a study for the State Attorney (which represents Adif) on the Alvia train accident that occurred in Angrois (Santiago) in July 2013, has affirmed that the driver is a “well paid” professional and the system requires him to be “present and aware” and not “reading the press”.
In his appearance at the trial to determine the causes of the tragedy, which resulted in 80 deaths and 140 injuries, Puyol has ratified his report and has attributed the accident to a “prolonged neglect” of the driver, Francisco Garzón, prosecuted in the case together with the former security director of Adif, Andrés Cortabitarte.
“You couldn’t think that a driver could spend so much time neglecting his work,” he asserted, when asked by the State’s attorney, which led to a final conclusion: it was “incredible” that the derailment, in his opinion, could be produce, but if it materialized it was due to a “prolonged inattention” of the driver, to whom “common sense” is assumed.
Puyol directs Airtren and charged from the State Attorney both to prepare the report and now, to update it and prepare his appearance. Among the clients of your company is precisely Adif and one of its workers participated in the work of the temporary union of companies (UTE) for the line on which the accident occurred.
“We all need the train driver” and “the railway system is not prepared for prolonged neglect”, but only for a “lapse or a short oversight”, according to this expert.
Thus, he has asserted that “You absolutely do not want to have a train driver present and aware but reading the press“. “We love him but taking into account his responsibility”, he has had an impact.
Along these lines, he stressed that the driver is “a very well-trained, responsible person, who is also well paid; he knows how to do his job and has tremendous common sense.”
“Before nothing could be done”
In his speechthis expert has assured that “before” the accident “nothing could be done” to protect the risk of entering the curve with an excess of speed, but he has admitted that “later he said, well, something must be done so that this does not happen again”.
Thus, Adif “determined that when there was a significant speed jump, it had to be signaled differently and warn the driver of this, and, also, if possible, put a beacon on it.” “But after the accident; unfortunately not before, because it did not surface”, he has resolved.
Previously, this specialist has exposed the thesis that the driver had “margin” of “time” to “correct” his own error.
In fact, he has pointed to the duration of the call he received from the auditor to the corporate telephone and has said that “not 100 seconds, but of the order of 80-90 seconds”. “He has not used them to correct that error and see that he had visual impacts, about 20, to have recognized and relocated and applied,” she has wielded.
Later, during the interrogation of the lawyer for the victims’ platform, Puyol insisted that Renfe “contemplated” and “did his study” on the risk.
And it is that the design allowed, as he has argued, for the train to circulate at twice the 80 kilometers per hour that were marked for that point. In fact, he has claimed that, “The faster the train goes, the “more it clings” to the track, due to a matter related to centrifugal force and sleepers, among other elements.
“The more speed, the more it clings to the rail. At the beginning. If it exceeds the speed, that’s when it derails. The tolerance is tremendous. The driver will have time to correct his mistake,” he explained.
civil action
the start of the practice of civil action it is scheduled for February 14, 2023. From that day on, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays are reserved for documentary evidence, conclusions, and reports.
The court has admitted the statements of 522 witnesses -they will testify an average of 15 per day-, 21 witnesses/experts and 126 experts, without prejudice to the fact that the parties desist from any testimony before or during the trial.