Railroad Forums 

  • NTSB Safety: Seat Belts, Windows, etc.

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1505739  by Tadman
 
WashingtonPark wrote:
JoeG wrote:The best way to prevent railroad accidents is for trains not to move. I know that Amtrak and its host railroads are working diligently to achieve this goal but they are still failing. i have seen some trains moving faster than i can walk. Perhaps i should notify the NTSB.
Reminds me of when I was working and management was always coming up with new safety rules to prove they were doing something. When one particularly ridiculous one came up the Supervising Dispatcher told me no sacrifice was too great for safety. I said if that was the case all trains should be operating restricted-not exceeding 15MPH-speed because that would prove to be much safer than 65. That was the end of that conversation.
THIS!!!!!

A bunch of people trying to prove their value by coming up with new rules. If they really wanted to stop tragedies, they'd just outlaw anything with the potential to hurt someone. We'd all stay in our houses all day long, but hey, nobody gets hurt.
 #1506051  by ryanov
 
I'm guessing this must be what it was like when seatbelts were suggested in cars.

Recently, coach buses have added seatbelts. I wear them. When I need to get up for some reason, I *gasp* take it off, and then put it back on when I'm back in my seat. I also put on my big boy pants in the morning by myself.

You want to be killed in a preventable accident, enjoy.
 #1506072  by Tadman
 
ryanov wrote:I'm guessing this must be what it was like when seatbelts were suggested in cars.
Not even close. Seat belts were a great solution to a clear and present problem. At that time, over 50,000 people per year were killed in auto accidents. At today's numbers, more like 30,000 per year, a train is still 17x safer according to Northwestern University. Today's trains see annual deaths on-train from accidents of ten or less per year, some years with none. To suggest that train passengers are in any way near the peril of auto passengers is statistically impossible. The auto was and is an inherently dangerous mode of transportation. The train is not. The numbers show that the seatbelt is not necessary and there is no clear and present problem.
ryanov wrote:You want to be killed in a preventable accident, enjoy.
Of the on-train deaths every year, probably half aren't preventable by wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt is designed to prevent a passenger from being ejected from their seat. It's useful on board an aircraft due to the very frequent occurence of turbulence. It's useful in a car because after a head-on, the passengers won't eject through the glass and onto the road. On a train, however, there is no windshield or road ahead, there is no turbulence. Of the perhaps 10 deaths per year on-train in the US, many aren't ejected by mowed down. See link to Chatsworth picture below.

https://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/up ... .jpg?w=620" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So long story short, we're basically at the PTC argument. Are we really going to spend millions and millions to prevent five deaths a year or less when grade crossings and trespassers present a far bigger problem? Are we really going to act like hundreds of deaths at grade crossings and trespassers are "cost of doing business" but freak out over something that might not even happen this year?
 #1506092  by ryanov
 
The NTSB studies accidents, looks into what killed people, and then makes recommendations. It's incredible to me that this is controversial. They get as detailed as "the person in seat 35C was killed by a head injury caused by the armrest of the offset seat in front of them." I would definitely make a bet that an accident mentions someone who was ejected from a train (a good candidate would be the Spuyten Duyvil wreck).

The only reason I don't say I'm certain is that the last time I read an NTSB report on a rail accident wasn't all that recent). No one mentioned statistics but you. Again, I suspect this is the same sort of stuff people said about seatbelts in cars. "You can't tell me what to do!" even if that thing is save yourself in an otherwise non-fatal accident.
 #1506216  by Tadman
 
ryanov wrote: No one mentioned statistics but you.
Exactly. Statistics are how we make intelligent decisions. Emotions aren't. I'm trying to cut to the core of an issue and explain why the proposed solution is a bad idea.

If we are worried about deaths caused by trains, let's look at the numbers. Where are the problems?
 #1506578  by BandA
 
Three-point seat belts should be available on trains. And luggage restraint should be studied. If you are travelling 59 or 89 or 120MPH and the train derails and flips over the kinetic forces are strong.

Trains are safer because lane changes are infrequent, and you are paying for a professional driver.

Problems with seat belts are whiplash/broken neck, strangulation of short people, possibly getting trapped.

Seatbelts will be an enormous maintenance headache and hazard to people sitting down and sliding across the seat & getting jabbed in the back with the buckle.
 #1506579  by BandA
 
"this is your conductor. The track ahead is rather rough, and there are a couple of bridges that are over 100 years old, so the Engineer has turned on the fasten seat belts sign"
 #1506585  by Tadman
 
BandA wrote:Three-point seat belts should be available on trains. And luggage restraint should be studied. If you are travelling 59 or 89 or 120MPH and the train derails and flips over the kinetic forces are strong.
That statement is absolutely true, but the frequency of that occurring is just so small and the cost so large. Whatever money you can imagine spending on train seatbelts should be spent on grade crossing intrusion measures, trespasser prevention, etc... where people are frequently killed and maimed and put others lives at risk. Recall how many people died at Metro North's Valhalla incident. Seatbelts wouldn't have saved them, and perhaps more would've been killed due to entrapment and fire.
 #1585619  by lpetrich
 
I don't know what the NTSB decided, but anything more than present safety features is probably overkill.

There is, however, a simple safety feature: make the seats face backwards. That is done in many military transport airplanes, and also some corporate jets, but many passengers don't like them. Facing backward makes one accelerate towards one's seat in a crash, and one's seat spreads out the resulting force, making less injury. Returning to trains, I note that many of them have backward-facing seats. Many trains are designed to reverse direction in their service, like most urban and suburban ones, and they have half-forward half-backward seats, with the halves reversing with each change of direction.

The only thing I'd be worried about is the upper levels of bunk beds. It seems easy to fall out of them.
 #1585631  by ctclark1
 
lpetrich wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm There is, however, a simple safety feature: make the seats face backwards.
<snip>
but many passengers don't like them.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a case of "not liking them" without expanding on it ---
Many people have balance and/or motion issues with traveling backwards for long periods of time. This would be especially true with lots of acceleration/deceleration and turns - times when inertia takes an effect on the body. Sure, it's maybe something people might be able to get used to over a long term of "training" the body, but the fact of the matter is we're built for moving forward and many people's brains don't like signals from the inner ear that they're traveling backwards.
 #1585678  by R&DB
 
#1585619 by lpetrich
Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm
The only thing I'd be worried about is the upper levels of bunk beds. It seems easy to fall out of them.
Upper bunks have safety nets made of seatbelt type material. Quite safe.
 #1585692  by STrRedWolf
 
I can't tell you how many times, on my way home on MARC 445 and boarding at Baltimore Penn Station, a tourist would be talking "I want a front facing seat. I get sick if I go backwards," and I casually mention "Train goes dattaway to go south." with me pointing to the north-east where the engine was. They stop and ask "But isn't south that way?" pointing to the other end, and I say "Nah, track curves to the south dattaway. The other way curves north. Station's weird like that." They'd thank me and find an appropriate seat.

Needless to say, it was often.
 #1585857  by Ridgefielder
 
ctclark1 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:05 pm
lpetrich wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:51 pm There is, however, a simple safety feature: make the seats face backwards.
<snip>
but many passengers don't like them.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a case of "not liking them" without expanding on it ---
Many people have balance and/or motion issues with traveling backwards for long periods of time. This would be especially true with lots of acceleration/deceleration and turns - times when inertia takes an effect on the body. Sure, it's maybe something people might be able to get used to over a long term of "training" the body, but the fact of the matter is we're built for moving forward and many people's brains don't like signals from the inner ear that they're traveling backwards.
Every MN and LIRR train has 1/2 the seats facing backwards at all times. I can't say I recall ever actually hearing anyone complain about it. Maybe on a half-empty train the forward-facing seats will have more riders but so far as I can tell people are more concerned about not getting stuck next to the toilets.
 #1585865  by STrRedWolf
 
Ridgefielder wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:41 pm Every MN and LIRR train has 1/2 the seats facing backwards at all times. I can't say I recall ever actually hearing anyone complain about it. Maybe on a half-empty train the forward-facing seats will have more riders but so far as I can tell people are more concerned about not getting stuck next to the toilets.
I can't say it's a rare occurrence, but it happens enough times in Baltimore on MARC. MN/LIRR? Different environment, different situation.