3 ms·

> A flight would take longer, because of security check, getting to-from airport, waiting for luggage, etc. Which is a plain idiocity. A train derailment, even

> A flight would take longer, because of security check, getting to-from airport, waiting for luggage, etc. Which is a plain idiocity. A train derailment, even of a non-high speed train, will make for a many times bigger bodycount than an even A380 crash.

FireBeyond 5y ago
No it won't. A few years ago, we had an Amtrak passenger train come off a bridge over I-5 between Olympia and Seattle at 78mph, ending up on the freeway. Three fatalities. Seventy-two people transported to hospital. Fun fact: I was on the first fire engine that arrived on that accident. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailme...
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Wow. I've heard firefighters are typically excited to get a call as opposed to being bored at the station, but how did you feel going into that? At the time, you can't imagine what you're about to see or what you're going to have to do...
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    It really was a challenge. While oftentimes the dispatch information we get can be vague or inconsistent with reality (the number of times we go on structure fire calls that are really burn barrels, or a roof steaming in the sun, or a sunset reflecting in a window...), but with something like this, 911 is getting hundreds of calls and you know it's "real". There's a lot of adrenaline. I think even the most seasoned, salty veteran would be lying if they said they responded to that call all cool, calm and collected. But you go back to training. Which is instilled into you as "don't train until you get it right, train until you can't get it wrong". Scene safety. For yourself, crew, bystanders, the involved. Resource needs. More ambulances? Cranes? Then setting up for a mass casualty incident - usually broken down into triage, treatment, and transport - assigning resources to those. You're right though, it's hard - you want to not be bored, to have something to do, but you don't want someone to have a horrible day. There's a mental balancing act going on. I remember one of my EMT students, on her first ride along, was for a bad trauma (felled tree bounced and hit someone in the back, causing significant spinal damage and chest injuries). We rendezvoused with a helicopter, intubated, did needle decompressions of the chest, and off they went. My student was a little 'off' afterwards. I asked if she was okay. "I feel so guilty!". I completely misread her, told her nothing was her fault, and said it was okay that she didn't participate as much as possible in patient care versus assisting. "No, I feel so guilty because that guy is so sick, but that was f-ing awesome to see!" So yeah...
    - dmos62 5y ago
      Those are really cool stories.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ginja 5y ago
That's not true. Most derailments are minor and kill less than some 10% of passengers. Even one of the worst accidents in recent years in a western country[0] had 79 deaths out of 222 people on board (plus it was preventable like many rail accidents and would be impossible today as automated speed controls were put in place). On the other hand, an aircraft crashing into a populated area will definitely kill everyone on board plus all the unlucky folks on the ground who happen to get hit by it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm...
- baybal2 5y ago
  Well, none of that was a deliberate sabotage. A subversionist can easily sabotage the railway over a bridge, on a slope, or time it to have a collision with another train.
jcranmer 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment This is pretty much the worst-case kind of derailment: the train derailed mid-switch, causing half the train to go down one track and the other half to go the other track. The sideways car then crashed into the immediately adjacent road pillar, destroying the car and the road on top of it. The rest of the train then plowed into the carnage and folded up like an accordion. Total death count: 101, of 286 passengers. An A380 will carry more passengers (500-600, I think), and a typical plane crash will have a much higher death train.
cossray 5y ago
You may want to look at the Japanese train 'bodycount'. They've arguably the most elaborate rail system and I believe it's still safer than air.
bluGill 5y ago
There is no excuse for a train to derail. Do your maintenance and operations right.
- baybal2 5y ago
  I think people misunderstood my point. I was telling that a deliberate sabotage on a railway can be many times more deadly, not an accident from "natural" causes. Otherwise, yes, trains are almost as safe as air travel, if not even safer.

FireBeyond 5y ago

No it won't. A few years ago, we had an Amtrak passenger train come off a bridge over I-5 between Olympia and Seattle at 78mph, ending up on the freeway. Three fatalities. Seventy-two people transported to hospital. Fun fact: I was on the first fire engine that arrived on that accident. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailme...

reducesuffering 5y ago
Wow. I've heard firefighters are typically excited to get a call as opposed to being bored at the station, but how did you feel going into that? At the time, you can't imagine what you're about to see or what you're going to have to do...
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  It really was a challenge. While oftentimes the dispatch information we get can be vague or inconsistent with reality (the number of times we go on structure fire calls that are really burn barrels, or a roof steaming in the sun, or a sunset reflecting in a window...), but with something like this, 911 is getting hundreds of calls and you know it's "real". There's a lot of adrenaline. I think even the most seasoned, salty veteran would be lying if they said they responded to that call all cool, calm and collected. But you go back to training. Which is instilled into you as "don't train until you get it right, train until you can't get it wrong". Scene safety. For yourself, crew, bystanders, the involved. Resource needs. More ambulances? Cranes? Then setting up for a mass casualty incident - usually broken down into triage, treatment, and transport - assigning resources to those. You're right though, it's hard - you want to not be bored, to have something to do, but you don't want someone to have a horrible day. There's a mental balancing act going on. I remember one of my EMT students, on her first ride along, was for a bad trauma (felled tree bounced and hit someone in the back, causing significant spinal damage and chest injuries). We rendezvoused with a helicopter, intubated, did needle decompressions of the chest, and off they went. My student was a little 'off' afterwards. I asked if she was okay. "I feel so guilty!". I completely misread her, told her nothing was her fault, and said it was okay that she didn't participate as much as possible in patient care versus assisting. "No, I feel so guilty because that guy is so sick, but that was f-ing awesome to see!" So yeah...
  - dmos62 5y ago
    Those are really cool stories.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ginja 5y ago

That's not true. Most derailments are minor and kill less than some 10% of passengers. Even one of the worst accidents in recent years in a western country[0] had 79 deaths out of 222 people on board (plus it was preventable like many rail accidents and would be impossible today as automated speed controls were put in place). On the other hand, an aircraft crashing into a populated area will definitely kill everyone on board plus all the unlucky folks on the ground who happen to get hit by it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailm...

baybal2 5y ago
Well, none of that was a deliberate sabotage. A subversionist can easily sabotage the railway over a bridge, on a slope, or time it to have a collision with another train.

jcranmer 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment This is pretty much the worst-case kind of derailment: the train derailed mid-switch, causing half the train to go down one track and the other half to go the other track. The sideways car then crashed into the immediately adjacent road pillar, destroying the car and the road on top of it. The rest of the train then plowed into the carnage and folded up like an accordion. Total death count: 101, of 286 passengers. An A380 will carry more passengers (500-600, I think), and a typical plane crash will have a much higher death train.

cossray 5y ago

You may want to look at the Japanese train 'bodycount'. They've arguably the most elaborate rail system and I believe it's still safer than air.

bluGill 5y ago

There is no excuse for a train to derail. Do your maintenance and operations right.

baybal2 5y ago
I think people misunderstood my point. I was telling that a deliberate sabotage on a railway can be many times more deadly, not an accident from "natural" causes. Otherwise, yes, trains are almost as safe as air travel, if not even safer.