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 April 24th, 2012, 10:17 PM   #421
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

Air travel is safe than road or train travel, that doesn't preclude ICAO from rolling in costly safety measures to reduce airline crashes even further.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 24th, 2012, 10:27 PM   #422
Rebasepoiss
Registered User
 
Rebasepoiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 5,821
Likes (Received): 1823

I guess you love elevators, allegedly the safest form of transport in the world. Too bad they only work vertically.
Rebasepoiss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 11:40 PM   #423
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Air travel is safe than road or train travel, that doesn't preclude ICAO from rolling in costly safety measures to reduce airline crashes even further.
On a per-kilometer basis, air travel might seem safer. However, since air travel trips are on average significantly longer, on a per-trip basis air travel is less safe than train travel.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2012, 11:56 PM   #424
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
On a per-kilometer basis, air travel might seem safer. However, since air travel trips are on average significantly longer, on a per-trip basis air travel is less safe than train travel.
But that is not a valid statistical argument. Planes and trains are not normally used for same trips (just a small range of all flights face real competition from high-speed trains).

A counter-argument to that reasoning could be: people take far less frequently trips on airplanes than on any surface-based vehicle. Or still: rappelling down a fjord is extremely safe, since the fatality rates per 1000000 inhabitants of Norway is so low.

By normalizing comparison on distance-passenger units, it is possible to make proper comparisons on the basis of the ultimate objective of any mode of transportation: carry certain people throughout a certain distance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 03:02 AM   #425
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,980
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Or still: rappelling down a fjord is extremely safe, since the fatality rates per 1000000 inhabitants of Norway is so low.
No, according to per-trip statistics, rappelling down a fjord is EXTREMELY unsafe.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 12:20 PM   #426
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaud View Post
I do have to agree with Suburbanist on this one. As much expensive adapting the whole network to ECTS might be, the life of a single person is worth it, and when trains get in the equation we're not talking about one but of many life's at risk.
A human life is worth a lot, but saving lives does not justify indiscriminate spending. We don't have unlimited amounts of money available, and money spend on one project can't be spend on another. Train travel in the Netherlands is already several orders of magnitude safer than car travel. If you really want to save lives it is better to invest in more trains so you have more people switch from driving a car to taking a train. That will save a lot of lives.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 01:07 PM   #427
Ale Sasso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Genoa
Posts: 199
Likes (Received): 0

Sure. Transport by road with trucks and car is extremely more dangerous... why not to spend money in a "Truck&Cars Contrl System"? Every action have to be taken by an accurate Risk Analysis...
Ale Sasso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 02:41 PM   #428
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale Sasso View Post
Sure. Transport by road with trucks and car is extremely more dangerous... why not to spend money in a "Truck&Cars Contrl System"? Every action have to be taken by an accurate Risk Analysis...
Why not just go with the real proven system and use rail?
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 03:36 PM   #429
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
By normalizing comparison on distance-passenger units, it is possible to make proper comparisons on the basis of the ultimate objective of any mode of transportation: carry certain people throughout a certain distance.
Normalizing per distance-passenger units is indeed correct. However you should realize that the vast majority of railway related casualties aren't passengers. Collisions between trains only account for 2% or railroad related fatalities. So concentrating on improving train control will not save a lot of lives. Reducing the number of grade crossings however does...

If you only count passenger fatalities in accidents involving train crashes you will find out that train travel is a bit safer then air travel, but not in a way that really matters, as the number of fatalities per billion pkm hovers around the 0.3 mark for both.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 03:55 PM   #430
Ale Sasso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Genoa
Posts: 199
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
Why not just go with the real proven system and use rail?
I agree.
But it's not easy, as u know.
Just an exemple: in my region there's a factory who wish use train instead of lorries for some "spot" travels (coke). Railway Undertaker consulted offer that service at a costs 10€/tonn. Lorries only 3...

Last edited by Ale Sasso; April 25th, 2012 at 08:59 PM.
Ale Sasso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 04:11 PM   #431
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale Sasso View Post
I agree.
But it's not easy, as u know.
Just an exemple: in my region there's a factory who wish use train instead of lorries for sume "spot" travels (coke). Railway Undertaker consulted offer that service at a costs 10€/tonn. Lorries only 3...
From your profile I suppose you are talking about Spain, correct? Did that factory contact a public owned or private freight company? I am not very knowledged about the spanish freight market, but in general in the EU Freight has to be strongly liberalized and privatized. With a more fully liberalized freight market many new freight companies would appear and start offering competitive services and gaining marketshare. They would just pay a fee for using the tracks and each decide on its own where to go. The EU is already going in this direction. If there is too much usage of the tracks for passenger services to fit the freight demand then a 2nd or 3rd line should be built to increase the capacity.

Note that I disagree with a total liberalization of the passenger services, but I think it is a must do for freight. It is a win-win scenario for freight, just like it was when public owned telephone companies where privatized in many countries in the early 90s and saw a huge gain for the public.
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 07:42 PM   #432
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

In The Netherlands, even if freight rail companies wanted to, there is barely any path left for hauling cargo on the Randstad. Some key routes, such as the Brabantlijn, are the domain of long-haul port-related traffic (something rail transportation is very competitive at).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 08:59 PM   #433
Ale Sasso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Genoa
Posts: 199
Likes (Received): 0

Oh no, I write from Liguria (Italy).
Ale Sasso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 10:10 PM   #434
Federicoft
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 12,651
Likes (Received): 4380

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
A human life is worth a lot, but saving lives does not justify indiscriminate spending. We don't have unlimited amounts of money available, and money spend on one project can't be spend on another.
While true in principle, in this particular case the ETCS is an entirely worthwhile investment.
Federicoft no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2012, 11:24 PM   #435
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,070
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federicoft View Post
While true in principle, in this particular case the ETCS is an entirely worthwhile investment.
No, I disagree with this statement. Money spent on ETCS would probably
have saved more lives if spent on projects that would encourage modal
shift from car to train.

And, by the way, saving lives was not the prime motivator for installing ETCS.
The prime motivator was to have an unified signalling system across Europe,
in order to prevent having to install so many different signalling systems in
locomotives used in international traffic. The fact that it will be most secure
is only a by-product. So once again it appears obvious that the European
Union is more motivated by money-making than by saving lives...
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 12:10 AM   #436
Stainless
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pyeongnae
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
No, I disagree with this statement. Money spent on ETCS would probably
have saved more lives if spent on projects that would encourage modal
shift from car to train.
Wouldn't improving safety improve the modal shift? Even though statistically train travel is quite a lot safer than road, people are irrational and see an isolated train wreck and decide that the train network is a deathtrap. Money spent on ETCS would give people more confidence in the train network.

A few years ago the UK network had a series of large accidents in a short space of time, since then there was a massive investment in safety and trains are now busier than ever. The last fatality (touch wood) of a train passenger was 5 years ago. The motivation for this was obviously to save lives, but it does make them more money, nobody wants to use a dangerous service.
Stainless no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 02:45 AM   #437
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

This is clearly the case for air transport.

Airplanes in the 1960s were already much safer than any other form of transportation.

That doesn't mean flight safety was left to chance, even when the amount of money spend per additional saved life is, on most recent FAA mandates, on the order of more than $ 10 million per potential life saved per year.

Each mode of transportation face its own challenges. For instance, I'm vocally supportive of anti-terrorism security measures for trains, even if the hassles of check-in/x-ray/luggage restrictions would likely diver people to buses or cars where many more would die because of accidents than potential terrorist acts averted.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 08:26 AM   #438
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
And, by the way, saving lives was not the prime motivator for installing ETCS.
The prime motivator was to have an unified signalling system across Europe,
in order to prevent having to install so many different signalling systems in
locomotives used in international traffic. The fact that it will be most secure
is only a by-product. So once again it appears obvious that the European
Union is more motivated by money-making than by saving lives...
Actually that ETCS is "the most secure" is not a given. In Switzerland there has already been a minor accident caused by bugs in the ETCS software...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 08:30 AM   #439
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
This is clearly the case for air transport.

Airplanes in the 1960s were already much safer than any other form of transportation.
Again, check your statistics. Airline travel is not "much safer" than rail travel. It is about as safe as rail travel...

Quote:
That doesn't mean flight safety was left to chance, even when the amount of money spend per additional saved life is, on most recent FAA mandates, on the order of more than $ 10 million per potential life saved per year.
The thing is that in airline travel most casualties are still passengers. In railway operation most casualties are suicides. There is not much the railways can do here.

Quote:
Each mode of transportation face its own challenges. For instance, I'm vocally supportive of anti-terrorism security measures for trains, even if the hassles of check-in/x-ray/luggage restrictions would likely diver people to buses or cars where many more would die because of accidents than potential terrorist acts averted.
Ah, so you admit to being illogical and paranoid?

Terrorism is largely a non issue. Even the measures currently imposed on airline travel only cost money and cause inconvenience. What they do not do is save lives. They can't. They aren't designed to do that.
The reason that more people aren't killed in terrorist accidents is that terrorism in the West is extremely rare. You are more likely to die in a domestic accident involving your dish washer than in a terrorist attack.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2012, 08:38 AM   #440
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,070
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stainless View Post
Wouldn't improving safety improve the modal shift? Even though statistically train travel is quite a lot safer than road, people are irrational and see an isolated train wreck and decide that the train network is a deathtrap. Money spent on ETCS would give people more confidence in the train network.
I do not think it has that much an influence. Accidents with fatalities on
railways do not happen that frequently, so if they had an influence, it
would be very noticeable. And as far as I know, no European network ever
observed a dip in their ticket revenues after a large accident. I think that
other factors, the main important ones being time and perceived cost,
prevail when people have to make the choice for a mode of transportation.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 06:20 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