Criminal responsibilities and other persons involved in Tempe disaster Justice will seek and it is now a matter of time before at least three more prosecutions are brought.

The investigator of the case is already examining as witnesses the station masters who serve in Larissa and other employees of the OSE, while the expert reports that have already been ordered by the prosecution and are already being carried out on the causes of the fatal accident are awaited with great interest.

At the same time, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Isidoros Dogiakos, requested in a letter from the Prosecutor’s Office of Thessaloniki to send him the file that had been filed for the derailment of a train in Adendros, Thessaloniki in 2017. According to information, the highest prosecutor officer will study the file in order to, if a new investigation into the tragic event of 2017 needs to be opened in the light of new data after the tragedy in Tempe.

Then the train had derailed, there were four dead among them and one train driver, while the other one who survived was brought to trial as responsible for the accident but was acquitted.

According to information, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court has now requested the case file for the 2017 accident, as reports indicate that both then and today there were similar complaints about responsibilities regarding the state of modernization of the railway network, which then – in 2017 – were not investigated, and it may be appropriate to do so now.

At the same time, financial prosecutor Christos Bardakis, following yesterday’s order from Supreme Court Prosecutor Isidoros Dogiakos for an absolute priority investigation of all contracts that were delayed or not implemented, as it should have been for the modernization of the railway network, assigned the investigations for the projects to three prosecutors .

The prosecutor of appeals Michalis Michalopoulos – who will also be the head of the prosecutorial level – and the prosecutors Dimitris Apostolas and Athanasiou Vlachos, who in the past had handled the investigations for contract 717 of 2014, a contract for the modernization of the railway network, which it was not implemented and after forty waves passed, finally there was a contract that supplemented it (supplementary), while the entire project has not been fully completed to date.

Prosecutor Athanasia Vlacho’s investigation into the 717 contract led to the filing of the complaints that caused the prosecutor’s intervention and related to public damage of 3 million euros from project delays. However, from the investigations carried out by the Transparency Authority, the conclusion of which was forwarded to the Financial Prosecutor’s Office, according to information, it did not emerge that the public suffered damage and thus the case was filed in 2021.

However, it was subsequently withdrawn in 2022, as new evidence emerged which was brought to the attention of the Financial Prosecutor by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which to this day has undertaken an investigation into a part of this case regarding the management of community funds.

However, in addition to the investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, according to information the Economic Prosecutor’s Office, investigating for crimes of disloyalty against the public (i.e. causing financial damage to the public) from the non-implementation of the contracts for the trains, is already investigating:

– 2005 contract for the modernization of the railway network in the section Athens, Acharnes, Liosia, Corinth.

– Contract of 2013 for the section Acharnes – Tithorea.

– Contract of 2013 also for the section Tithorea- Domokos.

– 2015 contract for the Piraeus-Athens section.

The investigations of the Economic Prosecutor’s Office, according to information, are only concerned with establishing whether there was a crime of disloyalty against the public and not other crimes.

What did the Larissa station master claim in his apology

The station master of Larissa tried to shake off his responsibilities during his long-hour apology to the investigator. He referred to memory lapses, claimed that the key used to change the lines had been damaged and, most importantly, tried to make the driver of the fatal train responsible for not informing him that it was moving on the descent line.

“If the stationmasters had stayed… If the train driver had asked me…”

Claiming memory gaps, damage to the board and omissions of the train driver and his other colleagues, the accused Larissa station master tried to put others in the frame of responsibility for the fatal train accident during his apology that lasted 7.5 hours.

“I don’t know if the other station masters were also sitting until 11:00 p.m. maybe what happened wouldn’t have happened, if my own negligence is proven. If the driver told me that he entered the line from the rise to the descent, nothing would happen again, and my supervisor, Mr. N, confirms this. If he asked me for model 1001, the train would stop and I would send the locksmith to see what he has done from the moment I had indications that the keys were straight. The train driver must have realized that he was moving on the descent line. He had to call me and ask me why he is moving there and if it will continue or not. Since I didn’t tell him it’s going diagonally on the descent, he had to stop and yell because the key is upside down. I didn’t have time to inform my supervisor Mr. N. or the inspection that Messrs. P. and X. had left at 22:15 the first and 22:05 to 22:10 the second respectively due to the workload.”

“The key was not working properly”

The 59-year-old station master of Larissa puts the blame on the control panel.

“I cannot realize how the incident happened. I don’t remember what happened. I had seen on the panel that when I turned the keys, after entering 2597 (suburban from Thessaloniki), the lights were white constantly. What I can guess is that the key engaged momentarily and then disengaged and I went back to the siding without the lights on the panel changing.’

Something that his colleagues categorically reject.

“Incorrect table entries”

In addition to possible damage to the key, however, the 59-year-old Larissa station master claimed that the indications on the board were also incorrect, showing that the keys were in a straight line, when in fact they were upside down, which he says he found out at the start of his shift after observing of the train driver of the suburban train.

“When train 2597 entered switch 118 on the up line and headed towards switch 117 to go to line 3, the train driver informed me that switches 115 and 116 were in reverse, i.e. on a siding. The indication I had on the board for these was that the keys were straight. I then told him to step back so I could sort out the keys. I turned them twice on the board and the keys returned to a straight line and the train entered the commuter line normally.”

“The train driver didn’t tell me he entered a descent line”

As the 59-year-old claimed, the Intercity 62 had not entered the descent line without his knowledge.

What the station master claimed:

Question: Which course did you indicate to the driver of train 62 and by which signals?

Answer: I told him that he goes through a red exit light and continues until the entrance light of New Resources. He had to tell me why the keys are diagonal and not straight.

Question: Are you supposed to let him know which lane he should be moving on?

Answer: Yes, as I said, I had to tell him that he is moving on a double uptrend. But I didn’t tell him to move in a single descent line.

“I forgot to forward it to him”

The stationmaster, however, admits a series of rules that were not followed. He never told the train driver what line the train would be on, and neither did the train driver give him a telegram number.

“Due to the workload at the time I didn’t have time to cut 1001 and forgot to radio him as well. The train left at 23:04 for Neos Poros. The driver said ok and must have repeated telegram 47. I’m pretty sure I heard it. But he didn’t give me his own telegram number as he should have.”

“The driver had to stop”

In his apology, the station master also blames the Intercity train driver who is among the victims, claiming that he should have stopped the train immediately as it was moving in the wrong direction.

“Article 1204 of the OSE general traffic regulation states that when the train driver finds in the areas of stations or junctions that the train ultimately follows due to the way the changes are arranged by the infrastructure staff, a different course than the one indicated, by means of signals or bulletins or a different from the one corresponding to the train route, then he must immediately park the train and then consult with the station master or the central operator”.

“From 22.25 I was alone at the station”

In his statement, the 59-year-old said that from 22.00 to 23.00 at night there should be three (3) station masters on shift, but as he claimed, the chief left about 40 minutes before the end of his shift.

Question: When three stationmasters are on duty at the same time, who regulates the traffic?

Answer: The senior station master regulates the traffic and the juniors draft the telegrams, models and the night station master is informed about the traffic. (…) From about 22:25 I am the only stationmaster at the Larissa station.

The key was changed when he was alone and left open until he gave the green light for the Intercity to leave.

What does the morning station master of Larissa, who spoke exclusively to SKAI, support

The critical almost one hour that passed from the moment the key was turned on the tracks to the moment of the collision have been put under the microscope of the investigations by the authorities. The fatal station master claims that his other two commissioned colleagues left him alone.

THE morning station master where spoke exclusively to SKAI admitted the 59-year-old was clearly inexperienced as he was essentially doing an apprenticeship. And one reasonably wonders: Since everyone at the station knew that he was not ready, how did they trust him?

– You know your colleagues and from what you have heard, what do you think, what is your opinion.

The colleague in question was inexperienced and that’s it.

– Did you know him for a long time, had he been there for a long time?

Yes, he worked for a while, did an apprenticeship.

-It’s been a while.

He was young, what we say was a while. He worked for half a month in Kalambaka and after 2-3 days he moved to Larissa.

-He was in a position that is difficult right?

Of course it was difficult for him, it was difficult…