daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 30th, 2008, 04:49 PM   #221
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,077
Likes (Received): 8831

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains. Look at what happened to this maglev after hitting a service vehicle, it's split in half. If fact it's structure is so weak the train crumpled killing everyone inside and the vehicle's drivers survived.


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...r/magwreck.jpg
Cheaply engineered? Transrapid? LOL!!!!!

Now I have heard everything. That crash was caused by driver error by the way.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 30th, 2008, 06:09 PM   #222
disturbman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 7

This conversation is not going anywhere. jay have his opinion and nobody will get somewhere trying to make him see how wrong he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay
it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered trains.
Of course it's stupid, but who told you they were cheaply engineered? Until proven the opposite I will not believe that the trains that so many ride are cheaply engineered.

You know the goal of politics and engineers is not to build death traps. Everybody is aiming for a comprise between safety, reliability and good economics (cheap enough). If people are building the train the way they are it's because of a reason. It's not because you think that we should travel in armored tanks that it's really like that.

Don't base your opinions and some photo, just look at numbers, statistics. You will see that for the moment the trains are quite safe the way they are built and operated. I don't understand why you stick so hard on your point.

And in any case if you really don't want to get hurt, stay at home, don't go out. It's far more dangerous to walk or drive down the street than to take a train.

In any case it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered bodies.
disturbman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 05:58 AM   #223
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

If you take the Shinkansen record of ZERO accident related fatality record(45 years and still going) into consideration then you really do not think about enforcing the structrual strength in case of an accident BECUASE there are so many failsafe built-in to PREVENTING accidents.
In fact the only close call was derailment by an earthquake hitting the Tohoku region but the train stopped because the earthquake sensors built-in to the system stopped the train hitting hard on the brakes.

Prevention is always safer then protection in a closed circuit environment.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 06:13 AM   #224
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by disturbman View Post
This conversation is not going anywhere. jay have his opinion and nobody will get somewhere trying to make him see how wrong he is.



Of course it's stupid, but who told you they were cheaply engineered? Until proven the opposite I will not believe that the trains that so many ride are cheaply engineered.

You know the goal of politics and engineers is not to build death traps. Everybody is aiming for a comprise between safety, reliability and good economics (cheap enough). If people are building the train the way they are it's because of a reason. It's not because you think that we should travel in armored tanks that it's really like that.

Don't base your opinions and some photo, just look at numbers, statistics. You will see that for the moment the trains are quite safe the way they are built and operated. I don't understand why you stick so hard on your point.

And in any case if you really don't want to get hurt, stay at home, don't go out. It's far more dangerous to walk or drive down the street than to take a train.

In any case it's stupid that people have to lose their lives just because of cheaply engineered bodies.

I agree that trains are generally safe, but it's because they are on tracks and hardly ever hit anything, but when they do, the way they are engineered they are not prepared for it. The fact that the maglev crumpled to pieces from hitting a vehicle, something that no other train really does at least not to that extent, is dangerous, All it takes is a light steel beam skeleton within the carriages to make them strong enough to not rip apart keeping the people inside alive.

It doesn't have to be a literal tank but putting lightweight alloy metal frames in the cars instead of only paper thin sheet metal and fiberglass would maintain the lightweight yet make the train safer for travelers.

If something is properly engineered it shouldn't be able to break this easily.

http://www.realcrashes.com/photo.php...=d&u=all&of=16

http://www.realcrashes.com/photo.php...=d&u=all&of=16
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 06:20 AM   #225
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,688
Likes (Received): 17044

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
Cheaply engineered? Transrapid? LOL!!!!!

Now I have heard everything. That crash was caused by driver error by the way.
I thought it was a drive less train?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 06:31 AM   #226
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

@Jay

Your suggestions are as meaningless as adding protection built-in to a jet passenger airplane in case it falls out of the sky.
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009, 10:40 AM   #227
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

American Passenger cars: stay together, people inside don't get crushed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/193500...iages300ap.jpg
http://www.survivinggrady.com/upload...eck-722192.jpg

European passenger cars: Crush passengers inside, I don't know what these things are made of but looking at the pictures is unbelievable

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__430x268.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000...fpcrash300.jpg

This one hit a truck.. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010623/wld4.gif

I don't understand how you couldn't see the difference. People are safer in a stronger car.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009, 01:57 PM   #228
wonwiin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 184
Likes (Received): 28

Without the history of the accidents (like speed, parties involved, etc.) these picture comparisons are more or less worthless.
wonwiin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2009, 09:52 PM   #229
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 35,261
Likes (Received): 63113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
European passenger cars: Crush passengers inside, I don't know what these things are made of but looking at the pictures is unbelievable
* http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__430x268.jpg
Crevalcore, Italy -> deaths: 13

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000...fpcrash300.jpg
Bruhl, Germany 2000 -> deaths: 9

* http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010623/wld4.gif
Levelcrossing collision in Vilseck, Germany 2001 -> deaths: 3 (including the driver of the truck)

better pic
http://www.feuerwehr-vilseck.de/eins...g_brennt_1.jpg

it hit this type of American army truck:

[IMG]http://i41.************/sbhgeo.jpg[/IMG]

* http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...6a.hmedium.jpg
2008 Studénka train disaster, Czech Republic -> deaths: 7

And America

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/193500...iages300ap.jpg
2002 Crescent City derailment -> deaths: 4, injured

It didn't even hit something.

* 1993 Big Bayou Canot train wreck -> deaths: 47

* 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois train accident -> deaths: 11

* 2005 Glendale train crash -> deaths: 11

* 2008 Chatsworth train collision -> deaths: 25

All in all, there's isn't really difference in the deathtoll between the two continents, of course there's also the Eschede ICE disaster with 101 deaths, but that train was traveling 200 km/h (124 mph) when it crashed. There might also be more passenger train disasters in Europe then in the US, but that's because there are simply more trains running on this side of the ocean.

The whole point is that in Europe the focus is more on preventing the trains from crashing in the first place.
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction

Last edited by Momo1435; January 4th, 2009 at 10:17 PM.
Momo1435 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2009, 04:53 PM   #230
xlchris
Not much
 
xlchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Haarlem
Posts: 11,087
Likes (Received): 202

Train accident wich happened in Amsterdam a few months ago;


This one is in the Czech Republic, don't know what happened here;


Another one in the middle of Brühl;


And a train accident in Arnhem;
__________________
"
xlchris no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 03:50 AM   #231
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

^that just proves my point, railroad cars, although hollow and not as heavy, could still be engineered better to withstand impact with things like locomotives, like using simple crash zones, or better structural frames. Yes, the cars crunching absorbs a lot of impact but it also crushes people on the inside, which from many of these pictures seems to be the cause of more death than the actual collision.


The Czech crash was when the train hit a collapsed bridge, you can see the four lane structure of it under the train, it's nearly ripped in half.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 08:49 AM   #232
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

In israel about a week ago a passenger train hit a 40 ton coal truck, at about 130kph the entire train was destroyed... Now obviously that is a huge thing to hit at 130 kph but still..

Look at the picture
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/isra...sh8890622.html

Even though this train was only going about 80 kph when it hit this 40 ton truck... there is still no damage at all. No crew were hurt.

image hosted on flickr
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 09:26 AM   #233
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,077
Likes (Received): 8831

You only keep posting pictures to try to illustrate your point. You associate cosmetic damage with poor design, a flawed assumption.

When you were countered by Momo about the number of deaths in each of your examples where your more "rigid and protected" trains actually had more deaths on them, you refused to acknowledge the point at all, instead you changed the subject and showed yet more pictures.

There are also a number of other issues with all of your posts:

#1. How many people are actually on each of these trains which you are posting? You're not giving PAX loading at each train crash and then working out casualties as a percentage of people on board a train. This would be more accurate a measure of the crash protection afforded by each train.

#2. You're not properly factoring speed into the equation and are refusing to standardise each crash by speed.

#3. You're often comparing freight crashes with passenger train crashes.

#4. You're comparing EMU/DMU crashes with locomotive hauled crashes. Each mode of power for trains has its advantages and disadvantages with the push-pull nature of locomotive trains usually being the more criticised.

#5. The objects being struck are of significantly different construction and composition and thus drawing any inference from some stock photos of crashes is pointless.

Until you can account for this plethora of variables I would suggest you stop harping on about this issue and simply accept that due to passenger demand, Asia and Europe probably design better trains to cope with passengers than North America and that North American safety standards are simply not applicable when extrapolated to Asian or European conditions.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 01:41 PM   #234
ARailSystemsEngineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Most American trains have to suffer their huge number of unprotected at-grade crossings. The number of people killed on these dwarfs the number of passengers hurt on-board the train.

Rse
ARailSystemsEngineer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2009, 06:24 PM   #235
Jonesy55
Mooderator
 
Jonesy55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Floreat Salopia
Posts: 14,205
Likes (Received): 20325

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
American Passenger cars: stay together, people inside don't get crushed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/193500...iages300ap.jpg
http://www.survivinggrady.com/upload...eck-722192.jpg

European passenger cars: Crush passengers inside, I don't know what these things are made of but looking at the pictures is unbelievable

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20...b__430x268.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/630000...fpcrash300.jpg

This one hit a truck.. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010623/wld4.gif

I don't understand how you couldn't see the difference. People are safer in a stronger car.
So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?
Jonesy55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 03:28 AM   #236
ARailSystemsEngineer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?
THere's more to life than safety. Maybe he works for a steel company... IN the meantime, let everyone elsewhere enjoy pleasant, fast, comfortable, safe, efficient trains that don't look, sound and smell like bulldozers

Rse
ARailSystemsEngineer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 09:44 AM   #237
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
So you mandate more heavy and expensive carriages which pushes the cost of rail travel up and more people choose to drive instead which is far more dangerous. Doesn't make sense, rail travel is safe enough already, it could be made safer still but at what cost?

They don't necessarily need to be that much heavier... I don't know how much a typical full size European passenger car (26 meters 85 feet) weighs but they are probably are only slightly lighter than American ones. American passenger cars weigh about 54 tonnes or 60 short tons (120000 lb). Bilevels weigh closer to 140000 lbs

For example, These amfleet coaches are made out of relatively thin but strong stainless steel, and can withstand at least 400 tons of impact on each side. And it shows, they never break or crush in collisions. And they are not super heavy, they weigh 58 tons (52 tonnes) tare weight. When the kerang incident happened in australia, the side of the train was ripped off because there is just a small sheet of aluminum, not much thicker than a soda can, that you could probably break a hammer through separating the inside of the car from the outside. If it had been one of these the damage would have been far less and at least more people would have lived. Also in collisions, when the train jacknifes, the walls wouldn't crush killing people inside.

Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 02:44 PM   #238
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,094
Likes (Received): 292

aawww i feel shorry for those sheep, although i guess its their own fault for being on the train tracks...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 07:13 PM   #239
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,077
Likes (Received): 8831

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Blahblahblahblah... *snip*
Yet you still don't address any points that myself or Momo made. You simply try to equate a stronger train with less casualties. Not necessarily the case.
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2009, 07:45 PM   #240
Skyline_FFM
Atheism rulez!
 
Skyline_FFM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Here in the middle of nowhere
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 110

The easy answer to the fancy fence question: Fences hinder animals from moving freely in the nature, especially the deers from crossing! This is sadly a risk you have to accept if you do not want to fence your intire landscape! But I agree that in areas like tunnels it would be a good thing to think about, because until the animals can be seen by the conducter it is too late. On a plain landscape however I see no need for fencing!
__________________
Ziss Iss Mei Sicknetscha
Skyline_FFM no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
sncf, spain in the world, tgv

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium