Why aren't railroad trains generally locked to the track to prevent derailments?

[JonMyrlennBailey]

I have some methods in mind as roller coasters might use as follows:

Roller coaster train - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roller coaster trains have wheels that run on the sides (side friction or guide wheels) and underneath the track (upstop, underfriction, or underlocking wheels) as well as on top of it (road or running wheels); these lock the train to the tracks and prevent it from jumping the track. The side wheels can be mounted on the outside or inside of the train, depending on the manufacturer (although outside-mounted wheels are more common). The wheels are sometimes located between the cars, as well as at the front and rear of the entire train.

 

[fourteen]

bet cost is the main reson

 

[whitepass]

And how would you make a track switch?

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

bet cost is the main reson

Where I would apply this first is where tracks run along the edge of a cliff.

And how would you make a track switch?

You have a point there. A better idea might just to have girder bridge side plates running along the side of the track, especially in places where a train's jumping the track would most likely mean death or serious injury to persons on board. Places such as along the edges of cliffs or high trestle bridges. The upper edge of these side plates as a safety barrier should be just below window level of passenger cars so as not to obstruct window views.

 

[krpkk]

You have a point there. A better idea might just to have girder bridge side plates running along the side of the track, especially in places where a train's jumping the track would most likely mean death or serious injury to persons on board. Places such as along the edges of cliffs or high trestle bridges. The upper edge of these side plates as a safety barrier should be just below window level of passenger cars so as not to obstruct window views.

These girders would have to be obscenely strong and heavy (and expensive) to prevent a train derailment from destroying them. If they were actually strong enough to stop a derailment from spilling over, then you now have a major issue with actually cleaning up damaged equipment, re-railing traincars, and repairing the track, as you have some presumably massive girders blocking your entire ROW. The whole concept of preventing derailments with roller coaster wheels or massive girders would introduce a massive change (and expense) to railroad infrastructure and operating procedure for something that is almost always very minor, as the majority of derailments are very small. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here; the best way to prevent derailments is with proper track maintenance.

 

[johnnytrain]

Don't forget that the track & sleepers aren't fastened to anything (paved concrete track being a different case). They sit in the ballast and resistance to movement is down to their mass and a certain resistance to movement from the stiffness of the steel. A train subject to a derailing force would quite happily pull the track and locking system with it to a greater or lesser degree depending on the momentum of the derailment.

 

[JCitron]

There are already guide rails located in the middle of bridges and in other places where there's a possibility of derailments on curves or on the edges of cliffs. These keep the train from falling off by catching the wheels if the train were to jump the track. What they don't stop is a train launching into the air due to running too fast for the curves or conditions and these incidents are pretty rare.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

The short answer is because attaching them to the rail has potential to be far more destructive and dangerous, not to mention the cost for such a useless feature would be prohibitive. Consider even a low speed derailment would likely completely destroy the costly track, with the train not prevented from tipping at all. Railroads have been around for a long time, and many ideas have been tried and failed. It has most certainly already been considered and rejected.

Roller coasters have switch tracks, this isn't the issue in the slightest. Roller coaster trains don't have the mass of +/- 15k tons.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

You have a point there. A better idea might just to have girder bridge side plates running along the side of the track, especially in places where a train's jumping the track would most likely mean death or serious injury to persons on board. Places such as along the edges of cliffs or high trestle bridges. The upper edge of these side plates as a safety barrier should be just below window level of passenger cars so as not to obstruct window views.

The short answer is because attaching them to the rail has potential to be far more destructive and dangerous, not to mention the cost for such a useless feature would be prohibitive. Consider even a low speed derailment would likely completely destroy the costly track, with the train not prevented from tipping at all. Railroads have been around for a long time, and many ideas have been tried and failed. It has most certainly already been considered and rejected.

Roller coasters have switch tracks, this isn't the issue in the slightest. Roller coaster trains don't have the mass of +/- 15k tons.

So, it's best to SLOW WAY DOWN along cliff edges and over high trestle bridges and such. And keep the track infrastructure in ship-shape.

I rode the Amtrak California Zephyr from Oakland to Denver round trip in 1986. There was a damn good reason the train was creeping along like a slug in the high mountains. I could look out my window along the cliff edges and see absolutely nothing looking down. I thought to myself, if the train jumps the track here, I'm dead.

 

[oknotsen]

Have you been in a car before? Did you make a turn with it? Did you notice that it slowed down before you took the turn?

Anyway,
Making something fool proof is a) very expensive and b) someone will proof to be a bigger fool.
There is a reason those people driving a train need to learn how first with exams and stuff. And accidents happen.

On a daily basis hundreds of people die in car incidents and loads of trucks lose their cargo. You rarely see anything about it outside some vague local news site.
One train derails on the other side of the planet, 1 person is injured and a few dozen cars jumped the track and people learn about it on the other side of the globe. Not because it is the bigger problem, but because its rare and a bit more drama in one go, yet still nothing compared to the cars and trucks that got into an accident.
Same thing applies to crashing planes. If one tiny one lands on an interstate somewhere in Crapholenowhere in the USA, we see it on the news (6000+ miles East on the other side of the ocean), yet the 3 people who died in various local car incidents don't even make it to the website of the same news.

Move on.
There are bigger problems that need fixing first before considering trying to fix something that has waaaay to many different elements in play (for which there are already procedures yet still they go wrong).