Amtrak to FRA: Lightweight HSR trains, please

Tadman wrote:I've spent thousands of hours in industrial installations, and believe me, there is a huge difference between putting up safety posters and leaflets and actually creating a culture of safety. It's "talking the talk" versus "walking the walk". GE, BP, and NS all have a significant culture of safety, and it's not because of leaflets and posters.

Improved procedures is a critical component of the culture of safety. For example, BP truck drivers have a procedure called "first move forward". It means they back into a spot so their first move while driving is in forward gear, due to a lack of alertness typical of the first few minutes in a vehicle. Technology, on the other hand, can be either a crutch or a tool. If technology is too heavily relied upon, we forget to be proactive. Imagine a truck with a backup beeper. After a while, it becomes second nature to throw it in reverse and assume people clear from the beeper sound. What happens when the beeper quits working? You flatten someone. If that sounds hard to believe, it's quite similar to the fact set present in the Niles Amtrak derailment last fall.

What's clear in the Ricky Gates case is not that culture of safety wasn't working, it's that culture of safety wasn't being emphasized. Culture of safety means live it-love it-learn it.

Thanks Tadman. I meant to comment on this above. Yes, simply having lectures, talks, etc. don't work. You actually have to live it. My understanding for example is on-board an aircraft carrier, ANYONE can shutdown flight operations without penalty if they spot FOD (foreign object debris) on the deck. The idea being that an engine ingesting FOD is a hugely serious incident and they WANT the crew to react properly.

Another example (and this is more from talking to a few folks who have served in the silent service) is the Navy's approach to nuclear safety among submariners. Since the Thresher, SUBSAFE was implemented which greatly improved the safety AND culture of safety aboard submarines.

Laws and regulations can help encourage a culture of safety by putting teeth in the law. That said, there's still plenty of places where despite laws, companies remain unsafe.

ThirdRail7 wrote: However, I see the need for the crash standards. Just because the NEC doesn't have grade crossings on the west end, doesn't mean you can't hit cars.

I'll agree nothing is absolute, that's why many say, "Never say never."
You must admit the probabilities of hitting car or truck on a 100% grade separated rail corridor is very, very, very, very, very slim.

A few years, a vehicle fell off an overpass on a German rail line and was hit by a train. So, anything is possible.

CHTT1 wrote:A few years, a vehicle fell off an overpass on a German rail line and was hit by a train. So, anything is possible.

Who remembers this one in New Haven from just last year? http://www.newhavenindependent.org/inde ... _in_chest/

A truck that tore through a fence, ripped down power lines and crashed between two railroad tracks near Middletown Avenue put an end to all train service between New York and Boston Friday afternoon and evening.

The crash took place at 3:42 p.m. at Middletown Avenue and Ferry Street, according to police.

Yeah, the New Haven one was another freak accident. Happened right about here:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=4 ... 4&t=h&z=18

Unless they cause a derailment, though, passenger vehicles are hardly a threat to the folks sitting in the train. They're so lightweight (SUVs top out at 8,000 pounds, while your average Acela or NEC consist is a million plus) that they basically get blown out of the way by a train hitting them at speed.

The real vehicle danger is trucks. Bourbannais involved a tractor-trailer loaded full of steel - that's why the CONO derailed and killed 11.

Meanwhile thousands die on the road .

One of the things about the Swiss Cheese theory is that a railroad almost never gets so incredibly unlucky that out of the blue all the holes on the cheese slices line up. You have times when 3 slices line up and the 4th saves you, times when slices 1, 2 and 4 line up ...

Accidents ARE predictable: they're preceded by close calls that allow you insight into what may happen. Amtrak has a lot more information than any of us about how many times they've had 3 or even 2 slices of cheese line up. It's still legitimate to argue these points, but I think Amtrak's decision to make the request is due at least the respect that one must have for people who have studied the question with a lot more data than we have. It can't be dismissed out of hand as dangerous simply because "accidents happen."

The other thing is what Mr. Benton said just above. We live in a country where 10s of thousands die yearly in cars. You could have a rail accident with 100 killed, and it would still be far safer than the choice that 99 in 100 Amtrak customers make every single day - getting into a car. The question is not whether it's conceivable an accident could occur on the NEC. The question is whether the standards are justified based on the existing safety regimen, the realistic chances per passenger mile that anything might happen. I think it's worth considering a softening of the weight standards for the corridor.

David Benton wrote:Meanwhile thousands die on the road .

yep, if a train gets people out of their cars and into a train, those people are going to be safer regardless of how much steel the train has.

ryanch wrote:One of the things about the Swiss Cheese theory is that a railroad almost never gets so incredibly unlucky that out of the blue all the holes on the cheese slices line up. You have times when 3 slices line up and the 4th saves you, times when slices 1, 2 and 4 line up ...

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, other than that's the point of the "Swiss Cheese" Theory. That accidents involve that bit of ill-luck.

ryanch wrote: Accidents ARE predictable: they're preceded by close calls that allow you insight into what may happen. Amtrak has a lot more information than any of us about how many times they've had 3 or even 2 slices of cheese line up. It's still legitimate to argue these points, but I think Amtrak's decision to make the request is due at least the respect that one must have for people who have studied the question with a lot more data than we have. It can't be dismissed out of hand as dangerous simply because "accidents happen."

I would fully agree. I don't really have enough information one way or the other to know if this is a reasonable request or not. I'm simply pointing out to folks who tend to place what seems to me too much faith in PTC, or any other "safety solution" that accidents will still happen and in complex systems (and PTC introduces complexity into the system) accidents will happen in new and unexpected ways.

On the other hand, to quote Mary Shafer (google her

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."

ryanch wrote:
The other thing is what Mr. Benton said just above. We live in a country where 10s of thousands die yearly in cars. You could have a rail accident with 100 killed, and it would still be far safer than the choice that 99 in 100 Amtrak customers make every single day - getting into a car. The question is not whether it's conceivable an accident could occur on the NEC. The question is whether the standards are justified based on the existing safety regimen, the realistic chances per passenger mile that anything might happen. I think it's worth considering a softening of the weight standards for the corridor.

Agreed. BTW, years ago, the FAA was trying to determine rules for passengers flying with babies (basically whether to require them to place babies in a baby seat during take-off and landing). The review of the data based on the extra cost of the seat showed that it would be a deal-breaker and convince a fair number of people to drive to Florida instead of fly. And that the deaths due to traffic accidents involving babies would be higher than the number saved by requiring baby seats on aircraft. They nixed the rule. (That said, if you're flying and can afford it, buy the extra seat. Clear air turbulence can literally be a killer.)

electricron wrote:

ThirdRail7 wrote: However, I see the need for the crash standards. Just because the NEC doesn't have grade crossings on the west end, doesn't mean you can't hit cars.

I'll agree nothing is absolute, that's why many say, "Never say never."
You must admit the probabilities of hitting car or truck on a 100% grade separated rail corridor is very, very, very, very, very slim.

CHTT1 wrote:A few years, a vehicle fell off an overpass on a German rail line and was hit by a train. So, anything is possible.

Happened in Mt. Vernon, NY in the cut between the station and Woodlawn Junction. Can't remember how long ago, but it did happen. Places like Mt. Vernon are why PTC was invented (besides the car, there was a rear-end incident in the early 70's, and another in the early 80's).

The other aspect to this is automobile and tractor trailer/truck design. There are proposals on the table to raise the maximum weight of semi-trailers. I think all of our transport vehicles are overbuilt to a wasteful/ridiculous degree. We have dangerous roads, crappy drivers, and we end up with our trains needing to be built like a bank vault in the off chance one of these massive road killing trucks ends up in the wrong place.

Lighter weight = longer road/track life, higher crash survivability, more energy efficient, less materials used, and possibly better train schedules.