Transport Tycoon Forums

I had a sneaking suspicion that it was a class 40, but it was a long time ago that I saw it, so wasn't very sure at all.

andel wrote:a 380 is a lot more safer for a driver than a 360 because of the crumple zone built in.

Is the crumple zone on the 380 a result of regulation, or "designers conscience"?

Dave Worley wrote:The Pendolino here was very fortunate in that it didn't really hit an obstacle that caused a sudden stop, it just went into a muddy (and very soft grounded) field.

With trains not having seat belts, any sudden deceleration is going to cause chaos in the cabin with serious injuries.

Do drivers have any seat restraint devices?

Dave Worley wrote:There's no need for it really though, as crashes are rare.

But not that rare. Okay, we don't crash test Aircraft and we build far more per type then with train - but the design going into them is fairly regulated. Is the design of trains (particularly crash worthiness) heavily regulated with minimum standards, or is it all based around 'best practise'?

Dave Worley wrote:The Pendolino here was very fortunate in that it didn't really hit an obstacle that caused a sudden stop, it just went into a muddy (and very soft grounded) field.

With trains not having seat belts, any sudden deceleration is going to cause chaos in the cabin with serious injuries.

Precisely - the Pendolino's deceleration was relatively more gradual than the sudden stop we see in head-on collisions, and no doubt injuries and fatalities were reduced.

Do drivers have any seat restraint devices?

Not as far as I know. In my opinion that's better as the chance of a sudden stop is almost zero in a train - thus I think a seat restraint is actually detrimental as a driver usually has at least a few seconds to make himself scarce from the cab or at least move back from the front of the cab.

Dave Worley wrote:There's no need for it really though, as crashes are rare.

But not that rare. Okay, we don't crash test Aircraft and we build far more per type then with train - but the design going into them is fairly regulated. Is the design of trains (particularly crash worthiness) heavily regulated with minimum standards, or is it all based around 'best practise'?

Crashworthiness is managed by EN 15227, amongst others.

http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDeta ... 0030133941

Synopsis has got a bit of info.

Also this:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 02801.html

Dave Worley wrote:

Do drivers have any seat restraint devices?

Not as far as I know. In my opinion that's better as the chance of a sudden stop is almost zero in a train - thus I think a seat restraint is actually detrimental as a driver usually has at least a few seconds to make himself scarce from the cab or at least move back from the front of the cab.

Ahh, suddenly I'm reminded of Richard Branson's embarrassing insistence that the driver in the Greyrigg derailment had not got back from the cab because he was steering the train to safety. If there hadn't been a death, it would be funny.

Kevo00 wrote:

Dave Worley wrote:

Do drivers have any seat restraint devices?

Not as far as I know. In my opinion that's better as the chance of a sudden stop is almost zero in a train - thus I think a seat restraint is actually detrimental as a driver usually has at least a few seconds to make himself scarce from the cab or at least move back from the front of the cab.

Ahh, suddenly I'm reminded of Richard Branson's embarrassing insistence that the driver in the Greyrigg derailment had not got back from the cab because he was steering the train to safety. If there hadn't been a death, it would be funny.

In fairness the Pendolino's front end is far more substantial than that of a 158, for example. Having seen the inside of a cab (thanks to a very kind driver) I wouldn't mind being cacooned in there myself, as long as I knew I could hold on to something.

Driver was incredibly brave though, if we are to believe him - as he claimed "any driver would see the train through". Not me mate, I'd be the other end of the carriage.

Surely once you've slammed the brake on there's not a whole lot left to do? I'm with Dave, once I'd done what I can I'd be in full flight.

I agree, I wouldn't have thought a driver would be able to have any control over a train once its left the track. In all probability the accident happened so quickly that there wasn't time to run.

I have heard of cases where drivers were able to get back and warn passengers of a crash - the driver of the 318 in the 1995 Largs runaway helped to prevent deaths when he realised some distance before Largs that the train brakes had failed and ran back through the train to warn passengers to move back - it must have been travelling at some speed, as the train crashed through the buffers then through the station building and finally rested in a shop opposite.

I read a news report that the driver of the tube infront of the runaway tube told the passengers to move to the front of the coach. Whether or not this is true or wishful thinking, it would have made sense.

Reported by passengers as truth.

I suppose it's one of the few times that those intra-coach doors would have been properly used. I used to see lots of people using them - but not recently. Full credit to the staff involved for doing that

JamieLei wrote:I suppose it's one of the few times that those intra-coach doors would have been properly used. I used to see lots of people using them - but not recently. Full credit to the staff involved for doing that

The danger of death stickers on the door don't really help .

Yeah, that tends to make people think twice before grabbing the handle.