Safest Place on a Train

[24Grange]

I was on a pacer once, and we hit a cow - hell of a bang as we stopped instantly, no one was hurt but it shook us all up - the physical intensity of the sudden stop. That was just hitting a cow, I hate to think what crew and passengers ( customers?) go through with one of the more serious crashes. The cannon street buffer accident, the Mk1 type commuter stock overrode one another, the rear carriage smashing through the one in front. Modern coaches ( Monocox? or something) tend not to override like this,so safer?

I know what you mean with walk through trains - the thameslink ones are like this and the carriages just merge into one another - with only the rubber gangway surround ( and the twisting floor) to know there is even a distinction between one and the next. If there was a crash, I'm sure people could shoot from one end to the other- bouncing off the vertical hand holds on the way.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think the few seconds where you aren't sure how things are going to end up are the most awful thing.

The only time I've had the "how is this going to end" at work sounded and felt worse than it was when my pair of 153s struck a large tree while I was undertaking a ticket check in the rear coach. Minding my own business then there is a bloody big bang and ballast bouncing off the windows, the passengers screaming, the front coach briefly lifting (the tree went under the wheels and wrapped itself around the bogie) and then the smell of diesel as we ground to a halt. Turned out it had knocked the sight glass off the fuel tank which was weeing everywhere. It was a single line on a former double formation so no real risk of coming to grief at 50 odd mph but still, just for a moment it was awful!

Amazing how , under real stress situations - the adrenaline kicks in , once you have realised the real harm is over and there is a job to do ! .

 

[181]

A point which arises, concerning the issue of "is the front or back of the train, safer?" -- quite often on passenger runs of a significant distance, the configuration of lines / routes means that at some point(s) the train will reverse direction: so that if one was previously in the front part of it, one will then be in the back part, and vice versa. (Responding by moving to the "opposite-end" part of the train when a reversal took place, would I think generally be seen as safety-questing taken to the point of lunacy.)

"This thing's being thus" was brought to my notice in a thread in "Railway History and Nostalgia" here a few years back, originally on the subject of steam heating; which topic-drifted into "front or back safety-wise", by my posting on something I had heard, concerning South Africa's railways in the era of apartheid. There and then, the general practice was -- subject to circumstances -- to marshal the coaches for Black passengers in the leading part of the train, and those for White ones in the rear. The source where I came across this: continued, to the effect that the South African railways had set up this convention because it was hypothesised that in railway accidents it was more often the train's front vehicles which suffered, than the rear ones; plus, the noise of the steam loco disturbing people's sleep, etc., would affect those in the front coaches, more than those further back -- so, with all this in mind: travellers in the category deemed less valuable, were put in the front.

A poster on that thread responded with a reminder about the "reversing" factor -- whereby on some routes for some of the time and distance, the front of the train would become the rear, and the other way about: obvious when one considers it, but which had never previously occurred to me, for one. So with this "South Africa in the bad old days" thing: the practice may have obtained -- but the cynical rationale given for it, as above, would appear to belong in the "urban legends" department.

My recollection from such experience as I have of long-distance trains in North America is that both Amtrak and Via Rail tend to marshal trains with the sleeping cars at the back and the seated coaches at the front; I wouldn't be surprised if this was inherited from their predecessors and the practice originated for reasons of noise, smoke and safety, although I don't know for certain that that's the case. Come to think of it, the Durango and Silverton also puts the more expensive coaches at the back; obviously there are no sleeping cars there, but it might be part of the same tradition (even though where the steam locomotive is part of the attraction you'd think people might pay more to be closer to it).

I'm not aware that there are any current long-distance trains over there that reverse direction en route, apart perhaps from backing into termini, but I think in North America it was common to turn the whole train on a triangle when necessary (although in the days when there were many more such trains and more swapping of portions maybe they couldn't always keep the vehicles in the 'right' order).

In one documentary about the 1997 Southhall crash, reference was made to the fact that had it been older Mark 1 stock (shell on bogies), rather then the resilient tube construction of later marks, fatalities would have been much worse.

Although (as I think someone else may have mentioned recently on another thread) the report on the Harrow accident of 1952 comments on the superior crashworthiness of Mk 1s compared to older stock.

 

[66787]

They're also safest on trains which is why the end coaches of 125mph units tend to have a lot of them.

But they’re only facing backwards 50% of the time?

 

[snowball]

I was on a pacer once, and we hit a cow - hell of a bang as we stopped instantly, no one was hurt but it shook us all up - the physical intensity of the sudden stop. That was just hitting a cow, I hate to think what crew and passengers ( customers?) go through with one of the more serious crashes.

13 people were killed when an Edinburgh-Glasgow train hit a cow at Polmont in 1984.

 

[Cowley]

But they’re only facing backwards 50% of the time?

I guess it’s related to being at the front of a train if it hit something.
Equally though if you were rear ended and facing forward you’d be pushed into the seat rather than ejected into the seat in front...

 

[Taunton]

It's notable how many of the most serious accidents over time have happened in the London suburbs. Harrow, Lewisham - and it continues; Southall, Clapham, Ladbroke Grove.

Regarding "safest place", you never know how things will happen. The Cannon Street buffer stop accident telescoping, in a 10-car train, was between cars 5 and 6. Also remarkable there was that it was such a low speed collision that a number of passengers had done what gave H&S apoplexy, opened the doors when approaching the stop, and had actually stepped out onto the platform, avoiding the collision completely!

My recollection from such experience as I have of long-distance trains in North America is that both Amtrak and Via Rail tend to marshal trains with the sleeping cars at the back and the seated coaches at the front; I wouldn't be surprised if this was inherited from their predecessors and the practice originated for reasons of noise, smoke and safety, although I don't know for certain that that's the case. Come to think of it, the Durango and Silverton also puts the more expensive coaches at the back; obviously there are no sleeping cars there, but it might be part of the same tradition (even though where the steam locomotive is part of the attraction you'd think people might pay more to be closer to it).

Makes a good story but it's done wholly from the operating point of view. Such major US trains tend to be formed locos-baggage cars-coaches -sleepers, and it's done like this so at intermediate stations the baggage/mail cars, and the coaches, are at the station building and platform, as these are the ones that tend to do the intermediate work, the sleepers typically having long distance passengers.

Regarding the Silverton, you get much better photos from the back of the train on the curves, with it all in front of you and the mountain background, than you do up front behind the loco!

 

[HarryL]

I'm not sure that an overall safest place can really be determined, it's all dependant on the type of train, it's build quality/structure and how any crash takes place.

Trains with proper crumple zones might do well and protect passengers in a head on collision. However if something derailed the train and put carriages onto the other track, the collision would happen on the side of the carriage and thus the energy wouldn't be absorbed by the crumple as has happened in a few past crashes.

 

[Gloster]

Interesting because I've worked on a project before that most driver incidents (stop short, wrong-side door release etc.) were more likely to happen around 1100-1400 either after or just before PNBs on early shifts where fatigue has accumulated and / or there is a false sense of security after resting.

When I was a signalman, I used to think that the time I was most likely to make a mistake was around 18.00 on a Monday late turn. I would have worked a week of nights, gone home at 06.00 after an up to 12-hour long Sunday into Monday night shift, got a few hours sleep, come back and started again at 14.00. I would be OK for a while, but after three hours or so I would become close to nodding off, before perking up again and going through to 22.00 without a problem. The only thing I could do was stay standing up until the bout of weariness eased off. I don’t think I ever did fall asleep, although sometimes my reactions were probably a bit slow.

 

[Annetts key]

On planes, isn't it safer at the rear on the grounds that planes don't reverse into mountains!

But you are assuming that the aircraft’s forward momentum was/is generating lift and that the aircraft is intact.

If either by pilot error, or technical reasons (fault, defect, explosion) the forward speed drops below the amount needed to generate lift, the aircraft will stall. By stall, I mean it will cease normal flight and will become a non-aerodynamic brick. Now potentially it could fall tail first down to the ground... Or belly flop in which case anywhere is just as bad...

Also there have been structural failures where the rear bulkhead has failed, and the people and seats at the rear have been lost out the back. Or the whole rear section has broken away from the main fuselage.

 

[Mat17]

My post was somewhat in jest, however given that they're usually in the middle of formations, I suspect that one would probably be marginally safer buffet car than elsewhere. Hatfield was presumably the bad luck of where the stanchion happenned to be.

I believe the buffet car took some of the brunt of the crash at Clapham Junction.

 

[dk1]

13 people were killed when an Edinburgh-Glasgow train hit a cow at Polmont in 1984.

9706. DBSOs had a concrete weight fitted after that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also there have been structural failures where the rear bulkhead has failed, and the people and seats at the rear have been lost out the back. Or the whole rear section has broken away from the main fuselage.

Sometimes, though, that results in those people surviving and others not, as other than the residue in the line to the APU there is no fuel in that bit so usually no fire in it if it does break off.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe the buffet car took some of the brunt of the crash at Clapham Junction.

I must admit, I wasn't aware of that.

 

[43096]

9706. DBSOs had a concrete weight fitted after that.

And obstacle deflectors in front of the leading bogie, as well, I think.

 

[dk1]

And obstacle deflectors in front of the leading bogie, as well, I think.

Yes they where another safety modification although they where always dreadful things to drive really.

 

[181]

On planes, isn't it safer at the rear on the grounds that planes don't reverse into mountains!

But you are assuming that the aircraft’s forward momentum was/is generating lift and that the aircraft is intact.

But I would have thought that that would be the kind of air crash with the greatest chance of having any survivors -- in other kinds you're probably going to die wherever you're sitting.

My post was somewhat in jest, however given that they're usually in the middle of formations, I suspect that one would probably be marginally safer buffet car than elsewhere.

I believe the buffet car took some of the brunt of the crash at Clapham Junction.

But that was a REP + TC + TC formation, so the buffet car was the second coach of 12 rather than being in the middle.

 

[6Gman]

A point which arises, concerning the issue of "is the front or back of the train, safer?" -- quite often on passenger runs of a significant distance, the configuration of lines / routes means that at some point(s) the train will reverse direction: so that if one was previously in the front part of it, one will then be in the back part, and vice versa. (Responding by moving to the "opposite-end" part of the train when a reversal took place, would I think generally be seen as safety-questing taken to the point of lunacy.)

"This thing's being thus" was brought to my notice in a thread in "Railway History and Nostalgia" here a few years back, originally on the subject of steam heating; which topic-drifted into "front or back safety-wise", by my posting on something I had heard, concerning South Africa's railways in the era of apartheid. There and then, the general practice was -- subject to circumstances -- to marshal the coaches for Black passengers in the leading part of the train, and those for White ones in the rear. The source where I came across this: continued, to the effect that the South African railways had set up this convention because it was hypothesised that in railway accidents it was more often the train's front vehicles which suffered, than the rear ones; plus, the noise of the steam loco disturbing people's sleep, etc., would affect those in the front coaches, more than those further back -- so, with all this in mind: travellers in the category deemed less valuable, were put in the front.

A poster on that thread responded with a reminder about the "reversing" factor -- whereby on some routes for some of the time and distance, the front of the train would become the rear, and the other way about: obvious when one considers it, but which had never previously occurred to me, for one. So with this "South Africa in the bad old days" thing: the practice may have obtained -- but the cynical rationale given for it, as above, would appear to belong in the "urban legends" department.

I wonder what proportion of trains do actually reverse en-route? Fairly low I would suspect.

(And, yes I can name plenty of examples but far, far more that don't! )

 

[Annetts key]

I wonder what proportion of trains do actually reverse en-route? Fairly low I would suspect.

(And, yes I can name plenty of examples but far, far more that don't! )

Yes, most don’t change direction while in passenger service.

But then there are others that are not scheduled to change direction, but do due to being diverted.

I was amused by one ‘diversion’ some years ago. A London Paddington bound HST from South Wales left Bristol Parkway towards Swindon. Before it got very far, the line via Chipping Sodbury tunnel was closed. I can’t remember why now. Anyway, it was routed towards Yate at Westerleigh Junction so that it could stop and change direction, the driver having to change ends. The idea being that it would divert via Bath. But shortly after it actually left Westerleigh Junction on the down line, the up line via Chipping Sodbury tunnel was reopened. So it reversed again at Bristol Parkway!

 

[Taunton]

I was amused by one ‘diversion’ some years ago. A London Paddington bound HST from South Wales left Bristol Parkway towards Swindon. Before it got very far, the line via Chipping Sodbury tunnel was closed. I can’t remember why now.

Most likely intermittent flooding in Sodbury Tunnel, a longstanding problem.

 

[24Grange]

As it was only a pacer, ( 143? the bus one with the folding doors, 2 axles per carriage?) we were going quite slow - probably under 40mph. Still heck of a jolt. It wrecked the brakes and we had to wait for another pacer to buffer up and push us all the way back. I can well believe what happened to the express at a faster speed.

 

[yorksrob]

But I would have thought that that would be the kind of air crash with the greatest chance of having any survivors -- in other kinds you're probably going to die wherever you're sitting.





But that was a REP + TC + TC formation, so the buffet car was the second coach of 12 rather than being in the middle.

Good point. Due to the TC's being carted off to Weymouth.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I wonder what proportion of trains do actually reverse en-route?

Might be interesting to list a few such train services on a separate (carved out) trivia thread. It certainly often confuses quite a few passengers not expecting a change of direction mid-journey.

 

[30907]

But they’re only facing backwards 50% of the time?

Yes, but that 50% is when they are the leading vehicle.

 

[al78]

I know someone who has had the misfortune to be in two train accidents - one a high speed derailment, the other a high speed collision. In the former, he was in the rear coaches, and it was those that derailed. In the latter he was in the front, and it was those that came off worse.

I imagine that the safest place on a train is the seat next to him, because he would have to be extraordinarily unlucky to be in the worst part of the train involved in yet another incident!

No more unlucky than anyone else who sat in the worst affected part of the train.

Assuming rail accidents are independant events, the probability of being involved in one has no relation to how many you have experienced in the past.

The Gambler’s Fallacy: What It Is and How to Avoid It – Effectiviology

effectiviology.com

 

[Bald Rick]

No more unlucky than anyone else who sat in the worst affected part of the train.

Assuming rail accidents are independant events, the probability of being involved in one has no relation to how many you have experienced in the past.

Oh I know, but still...

 

[The Lad]

The buffet is dangerous when people are not constrained by the seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The buffet is dangerous when people are not constrained by the seats.

True, and I suppose there's also risk of burns/scalds from the hot water.

 

[Mat17]

I suppose the risk is the same if the at seat service trolley happens to be in the vicinity during a rapid deceleration. Hot water and they look like they have a bit of weight to them.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

As it was only a pacer, ( 143? the bus one with the folding doors, 2 axles per carriage?) we were going quite slow - probably under 40mph. Still heck of a jolt. It wrecked the brakes and we had to wait for another pacer to buffer up and push us all the way back. I can well believe what happened to the express at a faster speed.

There was a significant element of bad luck at Polmont - the cow was actually a large Ayrshire bull and although the main carcass disintegrated(as one would expect when being hit by a 300ton hammer at 85mph) one of the larger bones - think it might have been a femur? - got between the wheel and the off-side rail and effectively catapulted the coach up and over the embankment.

(Post edited to correct the derailment mechanism, after re-reading the Accident Report.)