Mixing
Which part of a self-propelled passenger train (DMU) is safest in an accident?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches (diesel multiple units, DMU) 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
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches (diesel multiple units, DMU) 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
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
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
18 hours ago
3
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
18 hours ago
2
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches (diesel multiple units, DMU) 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
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
My transit system (Tri-Met, metro Portland, Oregon) has the Portland & Western R. R. run self propelled commuter coaches (diesel multiple units, DMU) 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
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
edited 9 mins ago
user71659
1,1041716
1,1041716
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
asked 18 hours ago
K7AAY
20428
20428
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
18 hours ago
3
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
18 hours ago
2
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 hours 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
18 hours ago
3
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
18 hours ago
2
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 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
18 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
18 hours ago
3
3
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
18 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
18 hours ago
2
2
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
20
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 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
5
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
17 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
17 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
16 hours ago
9
@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
16 hours ago
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
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 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
My first instinct was to go with "sit in the back" as the two (current) answers advise. However, since they're already here, I'll add a counter point that sometimes there is a collision between two trains that are on the same block of track when they shouldn't be.
Being in the back of train would be the best-bet if you're in the train doing the rear-ending, however, being in the front of the train if you in the one being rear-ended is going to be your best bet.
i.e. There's not much you can do to protect yourself in a train accident. Much like commercial aircraft operations, the odds of being in an accident in the first place are pretty darn small. The best you can do is not stress over something that has an incredibly small chance of happening.
NOTE: Advice does not apply in the case that Tri-Met has an unacceptably high accident rate. In that case, take the bus.
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
20
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 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
5
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
17 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
17 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
16 hours ago
9
@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
16 hours ago
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
20
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 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
5
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
17 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
17 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
16 hours ago
9
@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
16 hours ago
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
20
down vote
up vote
20
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 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
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 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
edited 17 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
answered 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
answered 18 hours ago
Henning Makholm
39.5k696155
39.5k696155
5
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
17 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
17 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
16 hours ago
9
@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
16 hours ago
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
5
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
17 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
17 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
16 hours ago
9
@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
16 hours ago
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
5
5
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
17 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
17 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
17 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
17 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
16 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
16 hours ago
9
9
@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
16 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
16 hours ago
2
2
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
Fuel fires have caused fatalities in multiple accidents. Example: Ladbroke Grove, Glendale, Shields Junction
– user71659
14 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
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 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
11
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 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
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 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
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 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
answered 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
answered 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
answered 16 hours ago
Muzer
3,6861726
3,6861726
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
If another train crashes from behind isn't the problem with facing forward just the opposite? Does that happen far less frequently?
– Mehrdad
11 hours ago
3
3
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
@Mehrdad, far less frequently. A quick look at British railway accident reports from the past four years shows 22 cases of trains derailing or striking non-train objects, versus two cases of a train striking another train.
– Mark
11 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
I'd take issue with the definition of "survivable". Trains are not fitted with seat belts, hence if an accident occurs the passenger sitting opposite you will be flung at you, there being nothing to retard his motion as the train stops. It perhaps is safer to sit with your back to the direction of motion, but in an aircraft no one does. Why do airlines allow this, if it is unsafe? Seems to imply that there is actually no safety benefit from sitting facing the rear.
– Ed999
8 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@Ed999 It would make planes safer but not enough to make it worth while. aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11476/…
– Ross Ridge
7 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
@ed999 opposite passenger flung at you? Do you investigate a lot of rail accidents? A crash with that much gee-force developing is a rarity indeed. Train cars have huge mass and are very resistant to changing speed rapidly, this tends to limit jerk and acceleration. Also do you ride much? Two rows of train seats facing each other are not that common, usually you are looking at the back of the next seat. Perhaps on your system.
– Harper
6 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
My first instinct was to go with "sit in the back" as the two (current) answers advise. However, since they're already here, I'll add a counter point that sometimes there is a collision between two trains that are on the same block of track when they shouldn't be.
Being in the back of train would be the best-bet if you're in the train doing the rear-ending, however, being in the front of the train if you in the one being rear-ended is going to be your best bet.
i.e. There's not much you can do to protect yourself in a train accident. Much like commercial aircraft operations, the odds of being in an accident in the first place are pretty darn small. The best you can do is not stress over something that has an incredibly small chance of happening.
NOTE: Advice does not apply in the case that Tri-Met has an unacceptably high accident rate. In that case, take the bus.
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
My first instinct was to go with "sit in the back" as the two (current) answers advise. However, since they're already here, I'll add a counter point that sometimes there is a collision between two trains that are on the same block of track when they shouldn't be.
Being in the back of train would be the best-bet if you're in the train doing the rear-ending, however, being in the front of the train if you in the one being rear-ended is going to be your best bet.
i.e. There's not much you can do to protect yourself in a train accident. Much like commercial aircraft operations, the odds of being in an accident in the first place are pretty darn small. The best you can do is not stress over something that has an incredibly small chance of happening.
NOTE: Advice does not apply in the case that Tri-Met has an unacceptably high accident rate. In that case, take the bus.
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
My first instinct was to go with "sit in the back" as the two (current) answers advise. However, since they're already here, I'll add a counter point that sometimes there is a collision between two trains that are on the same block of track when they shouldn't be.
Being in the back of train would be the best-bet if you're in the train doing the rear-ending, however, being in the front of the train if you in the one being rear-ended is going to be your best bet.
i.e. There's not much you can do to protect yourself in a train accident. Much like commercial aircraft operations, the odds of being in an accident in the first place are pretty darn small. The best you can do is not stress over something that has an incredibly small chance of happening.
NOTE: Advice does not apply in the case that Tri-Met has an unacceptably high accident rate. In that case, take the bus.
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
My first instinct was to go with "sit in the back" as the two (current) answers advise. However, since they're already here, I'll add a counter point that sometimes there is a collision between two trains that are on the same block of track when they shouldn't be.
Being in the back of train would be the best-bet if you're in the train doing the rear-ending, however, being in the front of the train if you in the one being rear-ended is going to be your best bet.
i.e. There's not much you can do to protect yourself in a train accident. Much like commercial aircraft operations, the odds of being in an accident in the first place are pretty darn small. The best you can do is not stress over something that has an incredibly small chance of happening.
NOTE: Advice does not apply in the case that Tri-Met has an unacceptably high accident rate. In that case, take the bus.
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
answered 13 hours ago
FreeMan
326210
326210
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
1
1
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
+1 for the note. I suspect that the bus may have a higher accident rate than the train, but kudos anyway for breaking outside of the box. It's easy to forget that.
– AaronD
9 hours ago
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-dmu-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
18 hours ago
3
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
18 hours ago
2
For future reference, the correct term to describe the type of train is "diesel multiple unit" or DMU.
– user71659
14 hours ago
@MichaelHampton, not necessarily. In the Eschede train disaster, the driver didn't even realise until the front locomotive had travelled 1/2 km farther. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/106269.stm
– Gnubie
9 hours ago
@Gnubie True, but this is a quite different sort of train than the light rail train operated in Portland, Oregon, which has only two cars.
– Michael Hampton
7 hours ago