4 ms·
That seems to assume the probability of derailment is independent of the length of the train. If, at a certain size, doubling the length of a train more than do
by kevinventullo 4y ago
That seems to assume the probability of derailment is independent of the length of the train. If, at a certain size, doubling the length of a train more than doubles the probability of derailment, you are better off with shorter trains.
- legitster 4y agoSure, but just at a base rate - doubling the amount of trains would double the amount of derailments. When you add in the amount of coordination each train takes to keep it on its own lines safely, more shorter trains would be worse.
- ryathal 4y agoShorter trains would also mean less severe derailments. Shorter trains also mean that trains are in risky areas for less time, less time decelerating and accelerating, so derailment could be far less than double. Shorter trains would also make coordination easier, because the current trains are too long for bypass tracks so currently none of these trains can pass each other and it tacks a very long time for a multi-mile train to clear the tracks. Allowing trains to actually overtake each other again would help with congestion, but that mostly helps Amtrack so companies don't care.
- NamTaf 4y agoNo it doesn’t. Doubling the number of trains doesn’t double the number of vehicles if each train is half as long. You don’t know what you’re talking about here. Longer trains are harder to handle and end up with dynamic forces down their length that are less visible to the drivers. Long enough trains can lead to severe in-train dynamics that the drivers aren’t even aware of which in turn can also produce dangerous vertical wheel-rail contact force scenarios that cause derailment risk to skyrocket.