If TV showed the carnage of death and injury that occurs on a daily basis, maybe people would start carign about real dangers instead of focusing on noisier but ultimately irrelevant things like train accidents or terrorist attacks. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
This is just a list of accidents with no perspective and a sensationalistic title.
And I'm sorry to snap at you, but this is a hot button for me. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I was relying on the Wikipedia lists, which show a pretty big increase in accidents over the years, but was really hoping that people who knew more about these things could pitch in with better information instead of changing the subject and calling my story irrelevant.
It might be a hot button issue for you, but frankly, and more importantly, it is an issue for everyone. I would love for everyone stop driving and start taking public transportation. Cars are undoubtedly unsafe, in a myriad of ways. But shouldn't we ensure that the trains we want people to ride are also safe? The Chicago CTA hasn't had a fatal accident since the 1970's while infrastructurally, it is a mess. But I'm always reading about train accidents elsewhere. It makes no sense to me. I want to understand what's going on. Are the Europe accidents just statistically "irrelevant" given the amount of usage? Or are there other factors?
And frankly, if you want to sell the world on not driving, you need to find a better way to respond to these questions.
The title was snark, the story was sincere. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
But how does that compare to increases in traffic (which you can count in number of trips, number of trains, number of kilometers, number of tons, number of passenger-kilometers, numbers of ton-kilometers)?
And how does that compare to accident rates for other transportation modes (again, using the various criteria above)? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Yes, well, that's what I want to know!
And how does that compare to accident rates for other transportation modes (again, using the various criteria above)?
You want to compare one thing, trains v. cars, which we all know the answer to -cars are more dangerous- and why this is the case; I want to compare another trains now v. trains then, which I don't know the answer to -are they really becomeing less safe?- and if so, why? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question. Or are we not allowed to ask these questions? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
These should be compared with the wooden bodied or metal constructions common as little as 20 years ago. They had little structural integrity and would come apart at even moderate speeds, throwing the passengers all over the track.
Take the Hatfield train crash a few years back. A train left the track on a high speed bend at 100 mph (okay not high speed by French standards but...). 4 people died and only one carriage was significantly damaged. 25 years previously the death toll could have been in the hundreds. keep to the Fen Causeway
You still had 'em in Britain 20 years ago!?!?
At least for the Continent, I must paint a different picture.
The horrific casualties from crashes involving carriages with a wooden or cast-iron frame prompted a programme (starting out from Germany, where the worst of these accidents occured) to phase out the latter completely already before WWII, and continued after the post-war shortages subsided. From the fifties, there have been international standards for express car construction, and passenger cars were not far behind in structural strength.
What railway cars lacked and most still do is crash zones to swallow energy. But I shall give a hint that that doesn't matter that much. Crash zones are useful only at low speeds, say 30 km/h. Above that, you must hope that if the train gets in trouble, it has somewhere to go. If it has room, passengers may be shaken or thrown around, but it should stay in one piece (as happened at Potters Bar). But if not, passengers will be crushed, whether by an entire carriage turning into "crash zone" or by inertial forces banging them against seats or walls in a rigid carbody: the energies involved are just too big. (Talking of which, I once met a taxi driver who used to be a rail accident investigator during 'communism'. He talked of an accident then held secret, when during a military exercise, Soviet Red Army officers slept in a sleeper wagon, whose brakes weren't pulled -- and rolled down the hill, crashing at the back of a freight train with 160 km/h. The car stayed in one piece. The military wouldn't let them in until they removed the corpses, but he told of the horror of all walls having been splattered with blood.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Yea, it was only when the MkII fleet were phased out after Clapham in the mid 90s that we finally got rid of them.
The UK railway infrastructure has, like so much else in the UK, always been resistant to learning from best practice abroad (unless it's American).
eg The BR standard steam engines designed after WWII were laughable in comparison to pre-war French designs. keep to the Fen Causeway
The Clapham disaster involved MkIs, which were weak, but metallic, and at least one source (see last entry here) claims they were unfairly demonised (e.g. weak but not THAT weak), while Wiki quotes a source at length about MkI's role in the post-war reduction of traffic deaths. Still, MkIs were below UIC norm (in fact, they were used for the research done as basis for the UIC norms!), as they had a stong steel underframe but a separate carbody. Regarding wood, you must have meant the wooden panels inside (the latter was true of the first MkII too). I also found that post-Clapham, your railways adopted crashworthiness norms stricter than UIC stiffness norms (twice as strong forces on some points), meant to protect up to 40 mph, a speed under which most British rail accidents are said to happen. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Because I can stop. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I suspect the increased numbers of train accidents (if this is statistically correct) have a lot of causes, especially since the cases you cite occurred in different countries and even different continents. We do have a lot of accidents here in the US, even if not in Chicago. I'm always hearing about Amtrak derailings or Metro accidents. The causes are varied. Everything from overly tired or alcohol impaired drivers who miss signals, or don't reduce speeds as required for track conditions, to faulty signaling devices, to poor track/road bed conditions. Each of these conditions demands a separate solution. Nevertheless, the answer to the basic, albeit a snark, question is undoubtedly Yes. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
I suspect the increased numbers of train accidents (if this is statistically correct) have a lot of causes, especially since the cases you cite occurred in different countries and even different continents.
Yes, the multiple cause thing is my answer. In the UK a change in the ownership/control structure through a process of privatisation led to a catastrophic fall in safety concerns. Numerous small accidents were bracketed by a series of high profile crashes, almost all due to collapsing infrastructure, finally forced the companies to act.
The public still want a return to public control due to widespread disillusion with the ineffectiveness of the privatised railway. Sadly the govt is too frightened of the Daily Mail and the Murdoch papers to do anything that might be mistaken for effective management of the railways.
I cannot comment on problems in other countries. keep to the Fen Causeway
and they say the days of public human sacrifice are dead :-)
besides, train crash headlines sell papers. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
