Complex diagrams are broadcast on the screen and everyone speaks in acronyms, there is talk of FVPT and TVM, AEF and EAST, we study the daily test notices and the operating sheets, we differentiate line bottom speed and marketing speed, rheostatic braking and pneumatic braking.
The debates sometimes seem very technical in front of the 31e chamber of the Paris criminal court, where the trial of the TGV Est accident in Eckwersheim has been held since the beginning of March. But the reality of the derailment which caused the death of eleven people on November 14, 2015, during a test session for the high-speed line, is terribly simple: the TGV braked too late. Arriving at 265 km/h in a curve that he had to approach at 176 km/h, disaster was inevitable.
Whose fault is it ? The court has the delicate mission of establishing responsibilities, and seeks to understand precisely what happened in the TGV driving cabin that afternoon. “It seems there was a misunderstanding about the braking strategy”, indicated in their report the experts from the Land Transport Accident Investigation Bureau. This misunderstanding was at the bar, Tuesday April 2 and Thursday April 4, where two first defendants took turns: Francis L. and Denis T.
“You contradict yourself”
Denis T., 57, was the driver of the train that derailed. Francis L., 64 years old, held the position of “traction manager” (CTT) and had the role of giving him braking instructions. Both are on trial for “homicide and involuntary injuries” and face three years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros. To put it simply: one is accused of having given poor braking instructions, the other of having obeyed them without asking any questions. On the stand, neither clearly recognized their responsibility.
“If the braking had been done as I requested, we would not be here today”, said Francis L on Tuesday. Was it he who ordered the – fatal – retreat of one kilometer from the braking point before the curve? Did he simply validate this idea at the driver’s suggestion? Was he clear in his briefing before the test? Did he properly supervise the moment of braking? Francis L. louvoie, the court gets annoyed: ” It’s not clear “, “it’s not consistent”, “you’re contradicting yourself”.
As CTT, he was the ultimate authority in the cabin. “I was the intermediary” between the head of tests – who died in the accident – and the driver, corrects the defendant, who spent his hearing questioning his hierarchy at SNCF, Systra, the subsidiary responsible for the tests, or the driver who did not would not have followed his braking instructions. Comment from Gérard Chemla, lawyer for the majority of the 89 civil parties: “In the end, everyone is responsible except you. »
You have 42.32% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.