4 ms·

Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster RIP to all 47 victims.

mecsred 4y ago
That was an interesting read, thanks for posting that. However, in the write-up the TSB cites several sources of human error and a _lack_ of automation such as rail circuits as key factors.
rektide 4y ago
The article notably specifically cites oil as an hazardous & risky thing to carry. Let us not find fault with the whole idea for but one aspect which we ought not implement (carrying oil).
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Let us not find fault with the whole idea for but one aspect which we ought not implement (carrying oil). We can't find fault with that; oil's got to move somehow. It can move by truck, by rail, by ship, by air, or by pipeline.[1] How much worse is rail? [1] Technically, I guess we could also pour it into the ocean somewhere and hope it naturally floats to somewhere more useful.
cperciva 4y ago
Add mecsred notes, this disaster illustrates the risks of rail, especially with hazardous cargo (which could have been carried far more safely by pipeline!) but it also illustrates an over reliance on humans. A zero-human-drivers railway would have (a) had automatically locking trains rather than relying on humans to hit the breaks, and (b) more remote monitoring to detect if anything went wrong.
- lmm 4y ago
  A zero-human-drivers railway sounds extremely vulnerable to "the train is on fire, the fire brigade shut off the generator, which it turns out the brakes depended on" which is the essence of what happened there.
  - cperciva 4y ago
    That's absolutely a problem if a train designed to have a driver doesn't have one (which is what happened here). If trains were designed to not need drivers, this wouldn't have happened, because (a) enough mechanical brakes would have been applied automatically, (b) the engine fire would have been detected and reported automatically, and (c) if the brakes failed there would have been an immediate alarm when the train started moving.

mecsred 4y ago

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting that. However, in the write-up the TSB cites several sources of human error and a _lack_ of automation such as rail circuits as key factors.

rektide 4y ago

The article notably specifically cites oil as an hazardous & risky thing to carry. Let us not find fault with the whole idea for but one aspect which we ought not implement (carrying oil).

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Let us not find fault with the whole idea for but one aspect which we ought not implement (carrying oil). We can't find fault with that; oil's got to move somehow. It can move by truck, by rail, by ship, by air, or by pipeline.[1] How much worse is rail? [1] Technically, I guess we could also pour it into the ocean somewhere and hope it naturally floats to somewhere more useful.

cperciva 4y ago

Add mecsred notes, this disaster illustrates the risks of rail, especially with hazardous cargo (which could have been carried far more safely by pipeline!) but it also illustrates an over reliance on humans. A zero-human-drivers railway would have (a) had automatically locking trains rather than relying on humans to hit the breaks, and (b) more remote monitoring to detect if anything went wrong.

lmm 4y ago
A zero-human-drivers railway sounds extremely vulnerable to "the train is on fire, the fire brigade shut off the generator, which it turns out the brakes depended on" which is the essence of what happened there.
- cperciva 4y ago
  That's absolutely a problem if a train designed to have a driver doesn't have one (which is what happened here). If trains were designed to not need drivers, this wouldn't have happened, because (a) enough mechanical brakes would have been applied automatically, (b) the engine fire would have been detected and reported automatically, and (c) if the brakes failed there would have been an immediate alarm when the train started moving.