Mixing
Which part of a self-propelled passenger train is safest in an accident?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches on a freight line; sometimes solo, sometimes with an unpowered control car coupled to the car with the power pack. The car with the power pack is forward half the time, aft half the time.
Is it safer to be in the powered coach in the event of derailment or collision? In which part of that coach?
This is different from other question about safety, because they addressed exclusively unpowered coaches; in this situation, we have one car with extra mass (which might help) vs diesel fuel and an attendant fire risk.
trains safety
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches on a freight line; sometimes solo, sometimes with an unpowered control car coupled to the car with the power pack. The car with the power pack is forward half the time, aft half the time.
Is it safer to be in the powered coach in the event of derailment or collision? In which part of that coach?
This is different from other question about safety, because they addressed exclusively unpowered coaches; in this situation, we have one car with extra mass (which might help) vs diesel fuel and an attendant fire risk.
trains safety
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
1
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches on a freight line; sometimes solo, sometimes with an unpowered control car coupled to the car with the power pack. The car with the power pack is forward half the time, aft half the time.
Is it safer to be in the powered coach in the event of derailment or collision? In which part of that coach?
This is different from other question about safety, because they addressed exclusively unpowered coaches; in this situation, we have one car with extra mass (which might help) vs diesel fuel and an attendant fire risk.
trains safety
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches on a freight line; sometimes solo, sometimes with an unpowered control car coupled to the car with the power pack. The car with the power pack is forward half the time, aft half the time.
Is it safer to be in the powered coach in the event of derailment or collision? In which part of that coach?
This is different from other question about safety, because they addressed exclusively unpowered coaches; in this situation, we have one car with extra mass (which might help) vs diesel fuel and an attendant fire risk.
trains safety
trains safety
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
edited 4 hours ago
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
asked 4 hours ago
K7AAY
16617
16617
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
1
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
1
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
1
1
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
It's pretty small marginals we're talking about (trains hardly ever crash in the first place), but I don't think the type of car matters as much as where in the train.
Most collisions involve the front end of at least one train -- and most derailments involve something going wrong with the first bogie, since that will meet hazards on the track first. So for a two-car train the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident.
(Diesel fuel is pretty hard to ignite; I've never heard of a train accident where a fuel fire was a determining factor).
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I'll second sitting towards the rear as mentioned in the excellent answer by Henning Makholm (train crashes in the US, as far as I know, are most usually collisions between trains and things that aren't trains that have no business being in the track (eg at level ("grade") crossings); or derailments, both of which are going to affect the front of the train more than the rear).
But I also wanted to add that if your system has seats facing in both directions (I know many American systems have seats all facing the same direction and complicated methods of turning the train or flipping the seats around), it's also much more survivable to sit with your back facing the direction of travel. If you hit something you will be thrown into your seat, rather than across the train and into various, much less soft, obstacles or (worse) out of a broken window or door.
In most countries though I wouldn't bother with such things. Rail accidents are rare and if it means ruining your enjoyment of the journey by sitting in a more crowded part of the train or in a seat you don't like (even if it's safer), I'd much prefer to just take the minuscule risk.
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
It's pretty small marginals we're talking about (trains hardly ever crash in the first place), but I don't think the type of car matters as much as where in the train.
Most collisions involve the front end of at least one train -- and most derailments involve something going wrong with the first bogie, since that will meet hazards on the track first. So for a two-car train the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident.
(Diesel fuel is pretty hard to ignite; I've never heard of a train accident where a fuel fire was a determining factor).
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
It's pretty small marginals we're talking about (trains hardly ever crash in the first place), but I don't think the type of car matters as much as where in the train.
Most collisions involve the front end of at least one train -- and most derailments involve something going wrong with the first bogie, since that will meet hazards on the track first. So for a two-car train the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident.
(Diesel fuel is pretty hard to ignite; I've never heard of a train accident where a fuel fire was a determining factor).
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
It's pretty small marginals we're talking about (trains hardly ever crash in the first place), but I don't think the type of car matters as much as where in the train.
Most collisions involve the front end of at least one train -- and most derailments involve something going wrong with the first bogie, since that will meet hazards on the track first. So for a two-car train the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident.
(Diesel fuel is pretty hard to ignite; I've never heard of a train accident where a fuel fire was a determining factor).
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
It's pretty small marginals we're talking about (trains hardly ever crash in the first place), but I don't think the type of car matters as much as where in the train.
Most collisions involve the front end of at least one train -- and most derailments involve something going wrong with the first bogie, since that will meet hazards on the track first. So for a two-car train the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident.
(Diesel fuel is pretty hard to ignite; I've never heard of a train accident where a fuel fire was a determining factor).
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
edited 2 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
answered 4 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.3k696154
39.3k696154
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
Agreed - getting Diesel to burn takes quite a lot of effort, either heating it beforehand or compressing it - neither of which are likely to happen in a typical train accident. It's also worth pointing out that train crashes are incredibly rare - for example here in the UK it has been over 10 years since a train passenger was killed in a crash.
– Nick C
3 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
True, though I don't think anyone has ever been killed while doing so - evacuating a train between stations is very rare, and usually the power is off when they do so...
– Nick C
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
"the rear car will be relatively less likely to be directly involved in an accident" unless most accidents are between two trains on the same track, in which case the front of one train will collide with the rear of another.
– phoog
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
@phoog: Such accidents involve at least as many train fronts as they involve train backs, so they cannot cancel out an imbalance from other kinds of accident, no matter how many there are of each kind.
– Henning Makholm
2 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I'll second sitting towards the rear as mentioned in the excellent answer by Henning Makholm (train crashes in the US, as far as I know, are most usually collisions between trains and things that aren't trains that have no business being in the track (eg at level ("grade") crossings); or derailments, both of which are going to affect the front of the train more than the rear).
But I also wanted to add that if your system has seats facing in both directions (I know many American systems have seats all facing the same direction and complicated methods of turning the train or flipping the seats around), it's also much more survivable to sit with your back facing the direction of travel. If you hit something you will be thrown into your seat, rather than across the train and into various, much less soft, obstacles or (worse) out of a broken window or door.
In most countries though I wouldn't bother with such things. Rail accidents are rare and if it means ruining your enjoyment of the journey by sitting in a more crowded part of the train or in a seat you don't like (even if it's safer), I'd much prefer to just take the minuscule risk.
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I'll second sitting towards the rear as mentioned in the excellent answer by Henning Makholm (train crashes in the US, as far as I know, are most usually collisions between trains and things that aren't trains that have no business being in the track (eg at level ("grade") crossings); or derailments, both of which are going to affect the front of the train more than the rear).
But I also wanted to add that if your system has seats facing in both directions (I know many American systems have seats all facing the same direction and complicated methods of turning the train or flipping the seats around), it's also much more survivable to sit with your back facing the direction of travel. If you hit something you will be thrown into your seat, rather than across the train and into various, much less soft, obstacles or (worse) out of a broken window or door.
In most countries though I wouldn't bother with such things. Rail accidents are rare and if it means ruining your enjoyment of the journey by sitting in a more crowded part of the train or in a seat you don't like (even if it's safer), I'd much prefer to just take the minuscule risk.
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I'll second sitting towards the rear as mentioned in the excellent answer by Henning Makholm (train crashes in the US, as far as I know, are most usually collisions between trains and things that aren't trains that have no business being in the track (eg at level ("grade") crossings); or derailments, both of which are going to affect the front of the train more than the rear).
But I also wanted to add that if your system has seats facing in both directions (I know many American systems have seats all facing the same direction and complicated methods of turning the train or flipping the seats around), it's also much more survivable to sit with your back facing the direction of travel. If you hit something you will be thrown into your seat, rather than across the train and into various, much less soft, obstacles or (worse) out of a broken window or door.
In most countries though I wouldn't bother with such things. Rail accidents are rare and if it means ruining your enjoyment of the journey by sitting in a more crowded part of the train or in a seat you don't like (even if it's safer), I'd much prefer to just take the minuscule risk.
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
I'll second sitting towards the rear as mentioned in the excellent answer by Henning Makholm (train crashes in the US, as far as I know, are most usually collisions between trains and things that aren't trains that have no business being in the track (eg at level ("grade") crossings); or derailments, both of which are going to affect the front of the train more than the rear).
But I also wanted to add that if your system has seats facing in both directions (I know many American systems have seats all facing the same direction and complicated methods of turning the train or flipping the seats around), it's also much more survivable to sit with your back facing the direction of travel. If you hit something you will be thrown into your seat, rather than across the train and into various, much less soft, obstacles or (worse) out of a broken window or door.
In most countries though I wouldn't bother with such things. Rail accidents are rare and if it means ruining your enjoyment of the journey by sitting in a more crowded part of the train or in a seat you don't like (even if it's safer), I'd much prefer to just take the minuscule risk.
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
answered 1 hour ago
Muzer
3,5761725
3,5761725
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftravel.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125183%2fwhich-part-of-a-self-propelled-passenger-train-is-safest-in-an-accident%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
It would depend on the nature of the collision. So the answer would also depend on the frequency of collisions of various types. This in turn would depend on what other kinds of trains operate on the system, and on other factors specific to the system. Are you looking for a general answer or one that applies to the Tri-Met system?
– phoog
4 hours ago
If one of these trains is in a collision, you're going to know it regardless of which car you're in. The "safest" spot is going to be farthest from the collision, of course. But that won't necessarily keep you out of the hospital.
– Michael Hampton
3 hours ago
1
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
34 mins ago