H.R. 6003, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

[DaveKCMO]

seems like an obvious upgrade to all trains would be hand dryers, like on some corridor trains. that alone could save much of the cleanup effort.

 

[jis]

I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world.

Where did you get that from? Could you provide a citation with actual mortality and injury statistics?

We certainly don't have that by a long shot when compared to Japan, who run for decades without any accidents, specially on their high speed network.

My concern is if we do not even recognize the problems we have we would never get around to fixing them. Hence always good to know the actual facts backed by statistical data.

Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.

Man! You have really drunk the FRA Koolaid haven't you? In the industry actually there is quite a lively debate going on on this very subject and it is by far not certain that FRA's approach actually saves lives. There is some evidence that in higher speed crashes carriages that do better energy management thus ensuring that passengers do not face accelerations beyond a threshold that is damaging to them, and do so by crumpling at designated places safely away from the passenger compartment actually come out better than the tanks the FRA requires by its regulations. So the case is not as open and shut as you make it sound.

By saying that "we have very strict standards for passenger car safety" if you are insinuating that the Europeans or the Japanese don't I woud take that with a rather large pinch of salt

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I wasn't referring to British rail.

That's in 'Europe' as well.....

And the vehicle to which I refer is one of the "light as heck" ones that crumples like a "tin can" but actually doesn't.....

When England gets off their obstinateness and joins the rest of EU with the Euro, and a million other things it doesn't follow, I'll consider it part of Europe. Until then, it is part of the British Isles, which are an off-continent island.

In general, I find that British rail standards are much heavier than the trains in Europe proper.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in Europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.

I don't entirely agree with this statement. TGV's have derailed at 220 with no reported injuries. European trains are designed to crumple, the equipment absorbs the impact rather than the people inside. Being light also helps greatly with braking in an emergency. Ours are built to completely destroy whatever they hit, this works good in grade crossing accidents and light crashes but in a major crash European equipment would be safer because of the way crash forces are managed.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Does the European equipment manage the energy in a way that doesn't crush passengers even if it collides with a freight train that consists of 150 cars that weigh 300,000 pounds each?

(Maybe that's not quite a realistic question. I know that there are freight cars in the US that weigh over 300,000 pounds, and I know that there are trains with 150 cars, but I don't know if trains full of 300,000 pound cars are ever 150 cars long. Then again, the freight railroad industry seems to like to gradually move to bigger trains, and with 30+ year lifespans on passenger equipment, assuming the current largest freight train is the largest freight train we might have 20 years from now may be poor planning.)

 

[Neil_M]

I wasn't referring to British rail.

That's in 'Europe' as well.....

And the vehicle to which I refer is one of the "light as heck" ones that crumples like a "tin can" but actually doesn't.....

When England gets off their obstinateness and joins the rest of EU with the Euro, and a million other things it doesn't follow, I'll consider it part of Europe. Until then, it is part of the British Isles, which are an off-continent island.

In general, I find that British rail standards are much heavier than the trains in Europe proper.

Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....

Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.

 

[Neil_M]

Does the European equipment manage the energy in a way that doesn't crush passengers even if it collides with a freight train that consists of 150 cars that weigh 300,000 pounds each?
(Maybe that's not quite a realistic question. I know that there are freight cars in the US that weigh over 300,000 pounds, and I know that there are trains with 150 cars, but I don't know if trains full of 300,000 pound cars are ever 150 cars long. Then again, the freight railroad industry seems to like to gradually move to bigger trains, and with 30+ year lifespans on passenger equipment, assuming the current largest freight train is the largest freight train we might have 20 years from now may be poor planning.)

When you say 'collides' do you mean head on? If so then there generally aint a lot you can do.

The fact that most passenger trains have at least a loco or two and maybe a baggage car might take the sting out of the crash for the passenger cars, but something like an Acela or cab car would not fair so well.

There was a debate in the UK a while back about allowing passengers into the leading cars of trains travelling at 125mph and the design of the crumple zone at the front of these vehicles, but when you look at the forces involved in a head on, then it is massively higher than the crumple zone could ever protect. The best way to protect the train is not to crash into another train in the first place!

 

[George Harris]

Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in Europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.

I don't entirely agree with this statement. TGV's have derailed at 220 with no reported injuries. European trains are designed to crumple, the equipment absorbs the impact rather than the people inside. Being light also helps greatly with braking in an emergency. Ours are built to completely destroy whatever they hit, this works good in grade crossing accidents and light crashes but in a major crash European equipment would be safer because of the way crash forces are managed.

I do not think you know what you are talking about. The whole "crumple zone" concept only works up to a point. Beyond that, goodbye. I have two words to say about the safety of European rail equipment: Eschede, Germany. Read about the details of that accident. If all the things wrong and done wrong there had existed in the US every tort lawyer in the US would have been able to become a rich person. These cars did not "crumple" they came apart.

Japanese trains are extremely safe, but that is because of fanatic attention to detiail in everything operational. They also managed a high speed derailment in an earthquake with no injuries of significance. But, that was on a track wit a smooth concrete slab base.

By the way, a couple of years ago a study on railroad accidents on a world wide basis put Western Europe about equal to India when the statistics were put on a passenger-kilometer basis.

 

[jamesontheroad]

And unfortunately the lack of movement between US standards and non-US standards means that many thinner US routes will never see passenger service. Here in the UK and Europe only relatively lightweight DMU and EMU units can make passenger rail commercially viable

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.

My knowledge of politics and geography aren't relevant to my statement. This is the great blessing and curse of human language. I can perceive things one way, you can perceive them another. I do not consider consider England part of Europe, I don't consider Bermuda or the Caribbean part of North America, the Falklands part of South America, Madagascar part of Africa, or Sri Lanka part of the Indian sub-continent. Whether the world in general considers it so is a moot point.

My knowledge of rail vehicle construction is not as relevant as my basic knowledge of physics, which tell me, quite frankly, that in most accidents that a train can get into, solidity is more important than crush zones. Crush zones are only important if the item impacted is an inanimate object that can't be moved easily. Crush zones would be quite helpful if the train crashed head on into, say, a concrete wall. A really really really thick one. Since train wrecks generally do not involve crashing head on into concrete walls, however, this is irelelvant.

What is relevant is that most train wrecks that involve derailments are the ones where serious injury seem to occur. In a derailment, crush zones are almost irrelevant because the train accordions if it is at any speed. The crush zone, by and large, would be bypassed. However, the heavy construction stops the car from being crushed like a tin can and means survival rate is surprisingly high.

Further, look online for the November '07 crash of the Pere Marquette. 100 people minorly injured, 5 people seriously, and AFAIK, none dead. Look at the force with which it stopped, then come back an argue with me about. But please, lose the chip on your shoulder.

 

[Neil_M]

Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.

My knowledge of politics and geography aren't relevant to my statement. This is the great blessing and curse of human language. I can perceive things one way, you can perceive them another. I do not consider consider England part of Europe, I don't consider Bermuda or the Caribbean part of North America, the Falklands part of South America, Madagascar part of Africa, or Sri Lanka part of the Indian sub-continent. Whether the world in general considers it so is a moot point.

My knowledge of rail vehicle construction is not as relevant as my basic knowledge of physics, which tell me, quite frankly, that in most accidents that a train can get into, solidity is more important than crush zones. Crush zones are only important if the item impacted is an inanimate object that can't be moved easily. Crush zones would be quite helpful if the train crashed head on into, say, a concrete wall. A really really really thick one. Since train wrecks generally do not involve crashing head on into concrete walls, however, this is irelelvant.

What is relevant is that most train wrecks that involve derailments are the ones where serious injury seem to occur. In a derailment, crush zones are almost irrelevant because the train accordions if it is at any speed. The crush zone, by and large, would be bypassed. However, the heavy construction stops the car from being crushed like a tin can and means survival rate is surprisingly high.

Further, look online for the November '07 crash of the Pere Marquette. 100 people minorly injured, 5 people seriously, and AFAIK, none dead. Look at the force with which it stopped, then come back an argue with me about. But please, lose the chip on your shoulder.

At about 35mph? Hardly conclusive.... And why did it run into the back of the stationary freight train? Best way to survive a train crash is not to have one.

Heavy construction doesn't mean the vehicle is 'strong', as I mentioned before, the BR designed Mk 3 coach is fairly lightweight but the passenger compartment has survived some serious accidents due to the bodyshell being designed to keep it rigidity.

If you want to survive a derailment then better keep those road vehicles away from the railway, about 1000 incidents at grade crossings a year? Someones luck is going to run out one day.

Keep up the geography lessons. You might get there one day.....

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Do you really need to insult me to get your point across or is it an affectation?

As for your opinions on rail car construction practice, we must agree to disagree.

 

[Guest RailFan]

I would like to see a network along the lines of what Green Maned Lion proposes, with services so that the routes would have service at least twice per day each direction. I would also like to see money with which to upgrade the tracks in several areas of the country, so as to remove or ameliorate the bottlenecks that prevent higher speeds. I would also like to see more money with which to compensate those landlords that require it in order to passenger services to FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limit) or Class 6 (110 ? mph speed limit). I would also like to see execution and installation of the MWRRI.
As long as I am on a tear, I would also like to see service restored to Madison, WI -- perhaps by re-routing the Empire Builder -- as well as restart of the Duluth, MN - Chicago North Star / Arrowhead. A guy can dream, can't he ?

I believe Amtrak, Illinois, and Wisconsin have already completed their studies on restoring service to Madison by extending the Hiawatha service.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

For those interested in the "light vs. heavy passenger cars" discussion, here's a few interesting statistics:

1. Collisions at crossings account for 96% of train-caused injuries (cited here).

2. Trespassers account for the largest number of rail-related fatalities in the U.S. – approximately 500 per year (here).

3. A motorist is almost 20 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a collision involving another motor vehicle (here).

4. There are approximately 3000 train/car collisions each year, resulting in about 300-400 fatalities and 1000 injuries per year (here).

5. The rate of deaths for Amtrak passengers is only slightly higher than air travel, and approximately 25 times safer than traveling by car here).

I read another source, which I can't find right now, which stated that most injuries to train passengers were not related to the structure of the car at all - instead, passengers were injured by items inside the car itself (i.e. hitting tables, chairs, other passengers, etc. upon impact). So, it appears that the weight of the train car itself is almost irrelevant to the number of train-related injuries & deaths each year. We'd be a lot better off addressing grade crossing safety, making passenger car interiors safer (seat belts anyone?), and decreasing the chance of injury in train/human collisions (if you're going to put a crumple zone anywhere, perhaps it should be on the front of the locomotives instead of in the passenger cars).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Grade separations are often paid for by general highway/road funds and not by rail funds, I believe.

If that's true, one of the things you need to consider when evaluating whether to get rid of a grade crossing with a railroad is whether there's some other road project that has nothing to do with trains that would be more cost effective at improving safety.

Somewhere there's a list of the hundred most dangerous intersections in Massachusetts. I bet a lot of them are more dangerous than any railroad-highway grade crossing in Massachusetts

 

[Green Maned Lion]

God forbid they require seatbelts. That would make the train very unpleasant to ride in! They are already practically the safest form of transport in the US. Why make them much more unpleasant with limited improvement in safety?

 

[RailFanLNK]

I contacted my Representitive Jeff Fortenberry...have all of you? The more people who rattle the cage on this the better it is. DO NOT point fingers or e-mail in an accusatory tone. Writing letters can be troublesome due to security precautions. A quick phone call or go to the Representitives website, click on "Transportation" and ask for support for this aforementioned bill. Have your ducks in a row if you call. Keep things short and to the point. Know the House Bill's number. So glad all of you have read this and now are finding your Representatives website or phone number. Remember this is a "house" bill and not the Senate. Contact your Rep not your Senator on THIS bill. Can folks post who actually took the time to do this! Lets see 900 replies to my question! Git er done! Do not take time to contact "other" Representatives that DO NOT represent your home address. Complete waste of time. If you do not know your rep (shame on you) you can easily find out on the internet. Ready...set....GO CALL/E-MAIL YOUR REP!!!!

Al

PS. Don't care if you are Democrat and your loathe your Republican rep or if you are Republican and you loathe your Democratic rep, set aside politics on this. Remember on just one Amtrak train there are probably people from Red States, Blue States, Christians, non-Christians, aethiests, anarchists, Hindu's, Amish, Drunk, Sober, Muslim, Buhdists, educated, illiterate, gay or straight, adults and children, conservative or liberal. Tryin' to make a point here: EVERYONE can use a better rail infrastructure.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

God forbid they require seatbelts. That would make the train very unpleasant to ride in! They are already practically the safest form of transport in the US. Why make them much more unpleasant with limited improvement in safety?

I wasn't suggesting that Amtrak should actually do this. I agree that seat belts would be a pain. However, when they get around to designing another generation of passenger cars, it WOULD make a difference if Amtrak made the INSIDE of its rail cars safer. For example, if passengers are most likely to get injured by slamming into tables, walls, etc. during a crash, perhaps they should design "breakaway" tables, walls, etc. to reduce passenger injuries.

The point was that it doesn't make sense to nix high-speed rail because it would require lighter, "unsafe" cars, when other safety factors (i.e. crossing safety) are much more important (in terms of reducing the number of deaths and injuries). Furthermore, as Joel N. Weber II pointed out,

If that's true, one of the things you need to consider when evaluating whether to get rid of a grade crossing with a railroad is whether there's some other road project that has nothing to do with trains that would be more cost effective at improving safety.
Somewhere there's a list of the hundred most dangerous intersections in Massachusetts. I bet a lot of them are more dangerous than any railroad-highway grade crossing in Massachusetts

So, if the real goal should be reducing the number of accidents, injuries, and deaths for ALL travelers, making auto transportation safer in general should be a higher priority than making rail travel safer. You may remember that I mentioned that train travel is about 25 times safer than traveling by car. When you look at those risks, the difference between the level of safety in a light passenger rail car vs. a heavy passenger rail car is almost negligible.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I have a problem with government intervention in safety. I'll mention one example we all know, Airbags. Airbags are not a safety device. They cause a lot more injury and death than they prevent. An eye-opening study by NCAP demonstrated that Airbags only cause injury. The life saving feature is actually a un-sung hero invented in conjunction with MBs airbags, a part of the whole SRS system, called a pyrotechnic pretensioner. It basically operates by setting off a small rocket that tightens then latches the slack out of the seatbelt, thereby keeping you in your seat and preventing the airbag from doing much to you. The study came out conclusively in 2001, yet airbags are not only still required but are becoming required in other places!

This is neglecting the fact that the best safety device a car can have is, has been for fifty years, a four-point safety harness integral with a solidly mounted seat. I have seen half a dozen production cars featuring them, almost exclusively from Audi.

It doesn't matter that the airbag is heavy, inefficient, wastes massive amounts of fuel, (the system typically weighs several hundred pounds) and only causes injury. Its still in cars because the regulatory commission isn't going to embarrass themselves by banning something once required. I don't want newfangled "safety" on Amtrak trains that will be basically the same thing.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Does your Mercedes have a sufficiently solidly mounted seat? And can you get an aftermarket four point harness?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Its sufficiently solidly mounted, but I haven't put 4 pointed harnesses on it. To be honest, I have yet to find a comfortable seat like that- generally because the seats that have them are designed for racing. Also, I find standard Mercedes seats uber-comfortable- my computer chairs is one mounted on a swivel base.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I have a problem with government intervention in safety. I'll mention one example we all know, Airbags. Airbags are not a safety device. They cause a lot more injury and death than they prevent. An eye-opening study by NCAP demonstrated that Airbags only cause injury.
It doesn't matter that the airbag is heavy, inefficient, wastes massive amounts of fuel, (the system typically weighs several hundred pounds) and only causes injury. Its still in cars because the regulatory commission isn't going to embarrass themselves by banning something once required. I don't want newfangled "safety" on Amtrak trains that will be basically the same thing.

Again, netiher I nor anyone here said that Amtrak should add airbags. However, in terms of cars, every major automotive organization (for example, check the IIHS here) says that airbags save lives. As for the NCAP, I have not seen the report you mention. However, the NCAP lists airbags as a positive safety feature on all their car tests on their web site.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.

The point of an airbag is to reduce injuries and deaths during car accidents. If airbags were harmful during a collision, more people would be injured or killed, and insurance companies would have to shell out more money in claims. Do you really think that insurance companies would continue to shell out millions (or hundreds of millions, or even billions) on insurance claims just because they don't want to be "embarrassed"?

Anyway, the whole point of this thread has been lost. At last count, your beloved 1995 Mercedes 300D is the current topic of conversation in three different threads, all of which originally dealt with trains. So, end of tangent, at least for me.

 

[kw]

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.

The point of an airbag is to reduce injuries and deaths during car accidents. If airbags were harmful during a collision, more people would be injured or killed, and insurance companies would have to shell out more money in claims. Do you really think that insurance companies would continue to shell out millions (or hundreds of millions, or even billions) on insurance claims just because they don't want to be "embarrassed"?

Anyway, the whole point of this thread has been lost. At last count, your beloved 1995 Mercedes 300D is the current topic of conversation in three different threads, all of which originally dealt with trains. So, end of tangent, at least for me.

Seat belts save lives in collisions... if they are worn. They also cause injury and even death, be it at a dramatically lower rate then what they prevent. Overall SRS airbag systems also save lives, even if in some accidents they cause increased injury or death. I have seen the results, I am a volunteer firefighter. Crossing gates save lives... If people dont drive around them, lol. The law of the lugnuts is at work here (the more lug nuts you have in a collision you win!). Passenger rail cars impailing themselves into 300000 lb freight cars need to be heavy to try to transfer some momentum and not stop to quickly, smooshing passengers and causing flying objects in the passenger cars. European freight rail is much lighter and less frequent so lighter cars can survive in that enviroment. Bottom line is prevention of accidents in the public transport enviroment is going to be the most cost/injury effective. 767's are NOT expected to be survivable when they fall out of the sky, the FAA and airlines stratigy (and successful the last several years) has been to not crash them.