6 ms·

Maybe we should build more railways. The ground is more stable than the air.

crazygringo 2y ago
Just because the ground is more stable than the air doesn't mean there aren't train collisions. Air travel actually has a lower fatality rate per mile than trains do. Rail crossings can be dangerous places.
- _moof 2y ago
  The Shinkansen has had one fatality in its entire existence. Domestic air travel is insanity, and I say this as a pilot and a flight instructor.
  - seszett 2y ago
    And the TGV has only had deaths once during a test run.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    That's cherry-picking to the extreme. Not only are most trains not Shinkansen, not even most trains in Japan are Shinkansen.
    - seszett 2y ago
      Only the Shinkansen (and TGV on my sibling post) can be compared to planes though. Local or IC trains might be compared to cars in the US.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Doesn’t the Shinkansen and other HSR systems get rid of at grade road crossings? Yes, without people actually crossing in the tracks, you’ll get less deaths that way.
        xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
        Sounds like getting rid of at-grade road crossings is a good thing, who've thought? Sounds like a good investment to me regardless of rail speed.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Ya, the only cost is money and space, but you can make your own space if you don’t mind viaducts everywhere.
        tonfa 2y ago
        Don't know how it is in the US, but it's similar for cars, highways don't cross small routes either there's typically a (small) bridge involve (no need for viaduct).
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Limited access, freeways in crowded areas take space, hence my point about viaducting (or tunneling) to create more space. But ya, if you pay for the spaces of the bridges over the freeway through your downtown urban area, you can also do that with a train if you have more space for it (or tunnel the train under). China just doesn’t have that kind of space, which is why you see viaducts everywhere in cities like Shanghai or Beijing.
        brailsafe 2y ago
        This seems like an awfully fanciful idea for anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km, at least if we're talking a full-scale refactor of existing infrastructure, in terms of financial, physical, logistics. Is it not somewhat true that rail/freight companies have more authority over the land that their lines run through than the regions do? I may be talking out of my ass here, but I feel cities and provinces in Canada pretty much have to yield to CN or BNSF in some form or another; they operate their own police afaik. Railyards seem to be regarded as defacto permanent fixtures in terms of urban infrastructure.
      - crazygringo 2y ago
        > Only the Shinkansen (and TGV on my sibling post) can be compared to planes though. Says who? Right now, in reality, the only thing that makes sense is comparing existing flights with existing train routes.
  - magicstefanos 2y ago
    I'm interested to hear more on why domestic air travel is insanity.
- Gare 2y ago
  Railway crossings are not especially deadly if you're a train passenger. Most deaths are from train-on-train collisions or overspeed derailments.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  I feel more comfortable with the thought of applying the emergency brakes on a train versus applying the emergency brakes on an aeroplane.
  - left-struck 2y ago
    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if aircraft can generally slow down faster than trains, assuming level flight and grade (or the same climb rate) It’s not really fair though, because the aircraft has so much force acting against it from how fast it’s moving. If somehow a jet was moving at train speeds and could only use its aerodynamic surfaces to slow down, it would probably take a while.
- culi 2y ago
  If we invested as much into rail safety as we do into air safety, it'd be fair to compare them. Regardless, in the long term rail transportation is simply much more sustainable and increased investment is very much warranted
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    It's also much more pleasant. And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher. That's a completely irrelevant metric. The only thing that matters is my risk of injury/death per passenger mile. Trains are much worse. End of story. What you're saying is that trains get into far more accidents, but that don't injure/kill you. On top of still being much more likely to injure/kill you. And you think that's a good thing...?
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        You should compare to a country which invests significant effort into a safe railway, such as the UK. There have been 7 passenger deaths in the UK in the last 20 years, with around 60 billion passenger km each year. That seems to be of the same magnitude as aircraft passenger deaths per km, though I can't find those statistics in precisely the same form.
    - account42 2y ago
      > It's also much more pleasant. And much slower. Most people prefer shorter discomfort over a longer one. Also sometimes more expensive because train service is much more monopolized due to the need for infrastructure betweem stations.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  What percentage of train fatalities are non-passenger suicides? The statistical comparison isn't very fair.
signatoremo 2y ago
HN is full of clickbait messages like this. US and Canada can use a lot more trains, but air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. They are complementary. The accident occurred on the ground, any aircraft is susceptible, “more trains” doesn’t make it less so.
- lmm 2y ago
  > air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. > The accident occurred on the ground Plane crashes generally do. Given that all plane journeys involve at least one takeoff and landing, it's fair to consider collisions and incidents during those as part of a safety comparison.
  - dmix 2y ago
    > Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. Connecting two growing mega cities by rail in a country that can still build things vs two mid-tier cities in two different countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled), is not a good analogy to use against flight IMO.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled) That ends up being circular though. The main reason the US and Canada can't build anything is that they don't build anything.
      - sfn42 2y ago
        It's also bullshit. Clearly both the US and Canada do build lots of things.
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
There's about a million times more ground accidents than air accidents

Just because the ground is more stable than the air doesn't mean there aren't train collisions. Air travel actually has a lower fatality rate per mile than trains do. Rail crossings can be dangerous places.

_moof 2y ago
The Shinkansen has had one fatality in its entire existence. Domestic air travel is insanity, and I say this as a pilot and a flight instructor.
- seszett 2y ago
  And the TGV has only had deaths once during a test run.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's cherry-picking to the extreme. Not only are most trains not Shinkansen, not even most trains in Japan are Shinkansen.
  - seszett 2y ago
    Only the Shinkansen (and TGV on my sibling post) can be compared to planes though. Local or IC trains might be compared to cars in the US.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Doesn’t the Shinkansen and other HSR systems get rid of at grade road crossings? Yes, without people actually crossing in the tracks, you’ll get less deaths that way.
      - xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
        Sounds like getting rid of at-grade road crossings is a good thing, who've thought? Sounds like a good investment to me regardless of rail speed.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Ya, the only cost is money and space, but you can make your own space if you don’t mind viaducts everywhere.
        tonfa 2y ago
        Don't know how it is in the US, but it's similar for cars, highways don't cross small routes either there's typically a (small) bridge involve (no need for viaduct).
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Limited access, freeways in crowded areas take space, hence my point about viaducting (or tunneling) to create more space. But ya, if you pay for the spaces of the bridges over the freeway through your downtown urban area, you can also do that with a train if you have more space for it (or tunnel the train under). China just doesn’t have that kind of space, which is why you see viaducts everywhere in cities like Shanghai or Beijing.
        brailsafe 2y ago
        This seems like an awfully fanciful idea for anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km, at least if we're talking a full-scale refactor of existing infrastructure, in terms of financial, physical, logistics. Is it not somewhat true that rail/freight companies have more authority over the land that their lines run through than the regions do? I may be talking out of my ass here, but I feel cities and provinces in Canada pretty much have to yield to CN or BNSF in some form or another; they operate their own police afaik. Railyards seem to be regarded as defacto permanent fixtures in terms of urban infrastructure.
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Only the Shinkansen (and TGV on my sibling post) can be compared to planes though. Says who? Right now, in reality, the only thing that makes sense is comparing existing flights with existing train routes.
- magicstefanos 2y ago
  I'm interested to hear more on why domestic air travel is insanity.
Gare 2y ago
Railway crossings are not especially deadly if you're a train passenger. Most deaths are from train-on-train collisions or overspeed derailments.
yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
I feel more comfortable with the thought of applying the emergency brakes on a train versus applying the emergency brakes on an aeroplane.
- left-struck 2y ago
  It wouldn’t surprise me at all if aircraft can generally slow down faster than trains, assuming level flight and grade (or the same climb rate) It’s not really fair though, because the aircraft has so much force acting against it from how fast it’s moving. If somehow a jet was moving at train speeds and could only use its aerodynamic surfaces to slow down, it would probably take a while.
culi 2y ago
If we invested as much into rail safety as we do into air safety, it'd be fair to compare them. Regardless, in the long term rail transportation is simply much more sustainable and increased investment is very much warranted
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  It's also much more pleasant. And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher. That's a completely irrelevant metric. The only thing that matters is my risk of injury/death per passenger mile. Trains are much worse. End of story. What you're saying is that trains get into far more accidents, but that don't injure/kill you. On top of still being much more likely to injure/kill you. And you think that's a good thing...?
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      You should compare to a country which invests significant effort into a safe railway, such as the UK. There have been 7 passenger deaths in the UK in the last 20 years, with around 60 billion passenger km each year. That seems to be of the same magnitude as aircraft passenger deaths per km, though I can't find those statistics in precisely the same form.
  - account42 2y ago
    > It's also much more pleasant. And much slower. Most people prefer shorter discomfort over a longer one. Also sometimes more expensive because train service is much more monopolized due to the need for infrastructure betweem stations.
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
sudosysgen 2y ago
What percentage of train fatalities are non-passenger suicides? The statistical comparison isn't very fair.

signatoremo 2y ago

HN is full of clickbait messages like this. US and Canada can use a lot more trains, but air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. They are complementary. The accident occurred on the ground, any aircraft is susceptible, “more trains” doesn’t make it less so.

lmm 2y ago
> air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. > The accident occurred on the ground Plane crashes generally do. Given that all plane journeys involve at least one takeoff and landing, it's fair to consider collisions and incidents during those as part of a safety comparison.
- dmix 2y ago
  > Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. Connecting two growing mega cities by rail in a country that can still build things vs two mid-tier cities in two different countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled), is not a good analogy to use against flight IMO.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled) That ends up being circular though. The main reason the US and Canada can't build anything is that they don't build anything.
    - sfn42 2y ago
      It's also bullshit. Clearly both the US and Canada do build lots of things.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

There's about a million times more ground accidents than air accidents