My ideas to prevent major derailments and accidents

[SuperSpeedMaglev]

I hate to see such magnificent machines derail, so here are my ideas to prevent more major derailments and accidents:

• Slow down at crossings, even if that means drop down low below the speed limit.(speed limit..50? Carefully slow down to 30 or 20 maybe?
• At major stations and tons of Junctions, slow down(Possibly same as above), but if needs be, stop and check, or, if signal boxes are nearby, check the points are switched correctly with signaller.
• Before setting off, Night or Day, check lights and horn work as expected, maybe test a few minutes before its time to set off?

So far, that's all I can think of.

 

[Engineerkenny]

GREAT IDEAS! I have always had an idea something like that where if a train is coming head on with another train well before all of this first off every locomotive would be equipped with a senor that wireless connects with a detector that when tripped both trains are automatically put into emergency braking or the one closeted to the siding is also besides put in emergency but is automatically forced into the siding this would save millions of dollars right? I love your idea more though awsome job never would have thought of that

 

[cascaderailroad]

There are thousands of minor derailments in the US, every day, most of them minor.

Most are at unsignaled, non CTC hand thrown switchs, and industrial tracks.

Slowing down for rail crossings would only make more automobile gridlock, as if 10 crossings are involved, RR crossings would be blocked for long periods.

snip~ every locomotive would be equipped with a senor that wireless connects with a detector that when tripped both trains are automatically put into emergency braking or the one closeted to the siding is also besides put in emergency but is automatically forced into the siding this would save millions of dollars right?

It would also cost millions of dollars.

Most RR's now use CTC where collisions are almost prevented.

You have to remember ... RR's ara a private company, only interested in moving freight from point A to point B, at the cheepest cost, and outlays of money on safety devices are not manditory by the FRA, so why would a RR spend the money ... when they can run longer trains, faster, and less frequently, keeping passing blocks open ?

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody

I hate to see such magnificent machines derail, so here are my ideas to prevent more major derailments and accidents:

• Slow down at crossings, even if that means drop down low below the speed limit.(speed limit..50? Carefully slow down to 30 or 20 maybe?
• At major stations and tons of Junctions, slow down(Possibly same as above), but if needs be, stop and check, or, if signal boxes are nearby, check the points are switched correctly with signaller.
• Before setting off, Night or Day, check lights and horn work as expected, maybe test a few minutes before its time to set off?

So far, that's all I can think Of.

SuperSpeedMaglev, I see you are posting from Britain so I am assuming that you are referring to the British rail network which is passenger orientated with high-speed operations. With that in mind, if every consist had to slow to the speeds you suggest at each level crossing and junction it passed over then I would dare to suggest that journey times right across the network would double if not treble under your suggestion. To Just to look at one section of your posting "crossings". Every crossing point on the national network has been risk assessed to ensure the appropriate safety equipment is in place such as full barriers, half barriers, pedestrian gates or farm personal operated gates etc. The risk assessments are reviewed each year to seek information as to whether there has been any changes to the operation of the crossing that would need an upgrading of the safety equipment.

Accidents at level crossings and junctions are few and far between on the British network and are well within acceptable levels when you assess the number of accidents there are as against the number of train movements. Whether you look at road, air or rail transport there are always going to be accidents just because it is a transport operation and these on the rail network will always make the headlines due to the numbers of passengers using the network . Going back to your original posting and suggestion. As an example, I regularly travel on the great Western main line. In North Somerset close to where I live, between Yatton and worle stations a distance of approximately three and three-quarter miles there are three level crossings just on that section alone. I do not think that high-speed trains which use the line would be doing very much high-speed at all if your suggestion was taken up. If you are interested in industrial transport safety, then can I respectfully suggest you start by learning risk assessment which is the basis of all industrial safety and when completed by a competently trained person will in any situation brings forward the safety measures required for that particular set of hazards and circumstances.

Bill
Posted from the 17:24 Plymouth to Bristol Temple Meads HST rail service and very glad it does not have to slow down for every junction and level crossing it approaches as I wish to get home this evening at somtime (LOL)

 

[pfx]

Rather than slow down trains, it would be far easier, albeit more costly, to upgrade track and ensure wheelsets have a good tyre profile. These are the main mechanical reasons for derailments then I'd say human error which you can only take steps to guard against as much as is possible.

Still working away Bill. Do you ever stop?

 

[wholbr]

Hi pfx, And Everybody.

Rather than slow down trains, it would be far easier, albeit more costly, to upgrade track and ensure wheelsets have a good tyre profile. These are the main mechanical reasons for derailments then I'd say human error which you can only take steps to guard against as much as is possible.

Still working away Bill. Do you ever stop?

Pfx, I could not agree with you more with regard to upgrading the existing track and stations along with that to create a better service within the British rail network. To pay for that I would cancel HS2 (London to Birmingham section) and other single planned modernisations and use that huge amount of money to pay for a general upgrade of the whole existing network.

As an example of the foregoing, they are electrifying the Bristol to London section of the GWML at huge cost (the exact figure I cannot remember at this moment). On my regular journeys to London that will save me exactly 15 minutes on the overall travel time when the work is completed. However, for me and the many thousands that regularly travel on the line, it makes little difference whether you arrive in London at 9 AM or 9:15 AM on any morning. What I and my fellow travellers really want is a guaranteed seat in clean comfortable carriages along with trains that arrive on time without being delayed by point and signal failures.

Don’t get me wrong, since the actual track was taken back into national ownership I and many other regular travellers are through experience only to aware that huge strides have been made in train reliability and punctuality. But to combat the overcrowding which that success is only adding to, we need longer trains with perhaps at least 12 cars as standard on HST services which would not include the power units. The foregoing would need large-scale investment in station infrastructure, carriages and power cars (which I believe should be the tried and tested diesel powering)

Britain is a geographically small but highly populated country and in that I cannot see the need for trains to be travelling at 200 mph and above. The existing 130 mph is quite adequate for the geographical size of the network but within that there is a desperate need for increased passenger capacity within the existing timetables on HST, regional and district services.

With regard to derailments and incidents, then rail is in the same ballgame as the other forms of transport road and air. That said, even mechanical or structural failures always have a human element involved. There is a saying in the industrial safety industry that states “there is no such thing as an accident, somebody, somewhere is always responsible”. It is that statement that keeps me, my business and the great bunch of employees we have in work.

As for retirement pfx, It was planned that I should retire over two months ago and the business was valued and was going to be sold to the employees who would repay the cost to my wife and myself from the profits over a number of years. The business is still expanding and problem we never thought about was recruiting employees with the necessary qualifications and experience to cover the expansion and replace myself. However, they do not seem to be out their So, me and the wife are still working, still planning what we are going to do when we eventually do retire but in the meantime keep plodding along.

They all reckon in the office that I would not know what to do with myself if I retired and that I will keep coming in and sticking my nose into everything that was going on and being a nuisance..... Just as if i would (LOL)

Bill

 

[pfx]

Letting go is always the problem. My father in law (who is 80 next month) is still taking calls for the H&S and forklift training company he founded, despite having supposedly passed it all on to my brother in law! I'm actually glad he hasn't let go fully. He's the sort of man who needs something to keep him busy as that's the way he was brought up.