Another passenger crash

[buzz456]

Euro rail is looking a little glitchy right now.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/police-s ... -collision

[philmoberg]

I'm not sure this is a high speed line, in this case; but I think your point is valid in any case. There are a number of Swiss secondary and branch lines that offer passenger service not unlike what the better interurbans in the U.S. Midwest used to offer. I rode a few of them back in '89, and I must say, this really surprises me. Swiss service standards were quite outstanding throughout that whole trip, from the best of the international express trains to the least-known branch line services.

[Cardinal51]

As far as I know Switzerlaand has no high speed tracks. High speed trains do not go high speed overthere.

[arizonachris]

Ugh, gonna have to give my brother a call. He and my sister-in-law live in Zurich and use the trains more than their car! 44 injured, four serious, one missing. Pic didn't look like really high speed.

[5292nate]

IMHO, the reason we see a lot of European passenger trains derailing, is because of how light and fragile they are. I mean come on! Put a class 66 next to a P32 and just sit back and look. Go back to the crash in Spain last week. Not only was he dramatically over-speed, but did you see how those cars literally flew?! Not only is diesel (in my opinion) better, but the diesel engine keeps the train from going far in a derailment. What's wrong with the way Amtrak does it in the Empire Corridor? 1 P32AC-DM pulling between 5 and 7 coaches. After all! Those trains go about 10 mph faster than the Amtrak ones do so whats the big deal? Oh well. Feel free to ball me out, cause I'm sure there are some here who think I'm very wrong.

[philmoberg]

... Feel free to ball me out, cause I'm sure there are some here who think I'm very wrong.

At least from where I sit, it's not a question of whether you're wrong as much it is a matter of there being several schools of thought about this. At least a couple of these schools of thought go back to the middle of the last century, when the U.S. had a coast-to-coast system of fast trains, most of them operating in the 90-100mph range, with most of those still hauled by steam. Railroad rolling stock design and operation were very different exercises then as compared to from the way it's done now; and in the back of everybody's mind - indeed it was within living memory for many of them - was a history of horrific train wrecks in which wooden passenger cars were frequently telescoping into each other, at least partially, with a toll of dead and maimed that many people would find hard to believe these days.

I've read enough accident reports, over the years, to conclude - safely, I think - that there are strengths and weaknesses in each of these schools of thought, and that each of them has had to deal with some especially bad incidents. On the other hand, they all tend to have excellent safety records when those involved in the operation and maintenance of the equipment do their jobs well. I doubt that it is economically possible to develop a set of design standards that can compensate merely negligent operating practices, much less for operating practices that are irresponsible or reckless. Ultimately, it appears that the human factor is consistently either the strongest - or weakest - link in the chain.

I'd also make the observation that bawling each other out hasn't tended to make for constructive conversation - at least not in my lifetime - so you won't get that from me.

[GSkid]

I think part of the reason we see more passenger train crashes in Europe than in the USA is because they have a much higher volume of them running daily, thus increasing the odds of an accident.

I'm sure they are safer per mile run than us. It's just the shear volume makes this more likely.