[aldo_14]

Obviously part of the revolutionary 'meat shield' plan.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/23/packed_trains_safer/

Those among you who are accustomed to the daily cattle-class commute on Britain's world-class rail network are advised to do some deep-breathing exercises and pour yourselves a stiff brandy before reading on.

And here's why: according to the Evening Standard, bosses of said network have declared that - contrary to what the uninformed man on the street might think - packed trains are actually safer in the event of a crash.

The claim comes from the rail safety watchdog the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), in response to a letter from Newbury Tory MP Richard Benyon asking for action against First Great Western for the "appalling" service from West Berkshire to London.

An ORR spokesman replied: "Research in the late Nineties...found that where there was a crowded or overcrowded train carriage there was no detrimental effect to people involved in crashes. In a lot of cases people were better off in train carriages where there was overcrowding."

He continued: "Service levels are set by the Department for Transport. We are the safety regulator for the industry. However, there is no legal limit on the number of passengers that can travel in any given train. There is no safety law regarding the maximum number of people in a train carriage."

Cue general outrage. Conservative MP for Didcot Ed Vaizey thundered: "That's got to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It's like arguing you should pack a family saloon with 12 people as a road safety measure. People have got to stop passing the buck."

Shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling weighed in with: "Given the scale of the problem of overcrowding, it's insensitive and crass, to say the least, to say people are better off in packed trains."

A Department for Transport spokesman, meanwhile, sought to assure MPs and commuters alike that "action was being taken to deal with overcrowding and claimed £88m was being spent every week for five years to improve the network".

He added: "We are already increasing capacity on Britain's busiest rail routes, and this will continue. Investment is at record levels and we're also working to make best use of existing capacity.

"Major projects which will deliver more services include the high speed line between London and the South-East which will provide 10,000 extra seats in the peak, and the West Coast Main Line modernisation which has already delivered longer trains into Euston.

"We're seeing more peak services, for example on Chiltern Railways, and South West Trains will deliver longer trains on key commuter lines. This month, First Great Western started introducing refurbished high speed trains, which increase capacity by 35,000 seats a day."

It remains to be seen whether commuters will warm to the idea of actually sitting down on a train, or will opt for the comparative safety of being packed like sardines in a can. ®

[Flipside]

My God, that's the flimsiest excuse for ****e management I've ever seen in my life....

[aldo_14]

My God, that's the flimsiest excuse for ****e management I've ever seen in my life....

And, indeed, they are literally managing ****e......

[Centrixo]

My God, that's the flimsiest excuse for ****e management I've ever seen in my life....

QTF.

the trains are just as crap as they were before, just new plastic seats!, wow thats a great overhaul. hatfield, if anyone remembers the train derailed just a reminder that trains wont be safe until there either maglev (japanese trains at 210mph, magnetic Levitation) or saftey interlocks placed in dangerous spots.

packed trains are not good unless they travel at a reasonable speed like in india, albiet old trains.

[aldo_14]

I still support the cat-toast maglev system.

[spartan_0214]

It actually IS safer. More people, more padding, less open area for people to fly across the train when it crashes. Plus, it's easier for the train to stop with all the mass on board...

[vyper]

So much squishyness to land on...

[NGTM-1R]

In a narrow sense he's correct.

Then the train goes off a bridge or into a marsh or there's a fire and he's incredibly full of crap.

[Flipside]

It actually IS safer. More people, more padding, less open area for people to fly across the train when it crashes. Plus, it's easier for the train to stop with all the mass on board...

Mobile mass inside a moving object doesn't make it easier to stop, in fact, the force of people being thrown forward when the brakes are hit will actually increase the momentum of the train slightly.

And yes, they are basically saying that everyone would bounce off of everyone else. Of course, they completely dodge the fact that as well as providing a reasonable service, they should be preventing crashes, not providing a crap service so that we are all like mobile airbags.

[Rictor]

While, yes, the retarded logic is indeed...retarded, and deserves the criticism it will no doubt incur, I would venture a guess that Britain doesn't know the meaning of the word "overcrowding". You ever seen an Indian, African or Russian train? Hell, any train or bus outside the West. I can't imagine UK trains being among even the bottom 75% in global overcrowding standards.

[Flipside]

This much is true, in India, you don't consider a train overcrowded unless you have to sit on the roof.

[Turey]

I still support the cat-toast maglev system.

 
Does anyone other than me get this?

(hint: see here)

[achtung]

Maybe they're going for that whole, sardine can idea.  The people are packed in so tight that in the event of a crash, they just act like part of the train instead of flopping around the inside the car.

[aldo_14]

Maybe they're going for that whole, sardine can idea.  The people are packed in so tight that in the event of a crash, they just act like part of the train instead of flopping around the inside the car.

Presumably it also helps in the cleanup if the bodies are too tightly packed to fly far.

[Flipside]

Of course, this totally overlooks the fact that most of the recent crashes on the Rail system have been due to poor maintenance and ignorance of warnings by the very people who are saying that packed trains are safer in crashes. There's a dichotomy there, I'm certain of it, and no, that's not the sex change operation.

[DarkShadow-]

Does anyone other than me get this?

Sure, although I never saw such a detailed description. 

[Herra Tohtori]

 

I've got an idea.

Why don't they just fill the train cars with water and change the system so that people jump in from above so they don't have to fill the train car at every station? They just need to give every passenger a personal pressurized air tank and scuba-diving valve. That would also serve as a ticket. And it would prevent freeriding - no air tank, you're screwed.

Water is almost equal in density with human body. Thus in water, the force exerted to body in crash would be almost completely countered by lift provided by the water. In fact, if a human has lungs full of air, he or she usually floats, so in a crash people woould be moving backwards as the water would move past them, keeping its original vector.

AS double bonus, the water would most likely prevent any serious fires as well as work as shrapnel protection in these dangerous, dangerous times of errant bombers running about.


Seriously though. Saying that packed train is safer in a crash is quite ludicrous. It is physically accurate statement in itself, but doesn't take into account the fact that it only applies to the fast deceleration effect in crashes. Subsequent fires would have all the more impact when evacuation sites were clogged with unconscious and/or injured people. Same applies to every other problem situation other than just the impact phase of a crash. Fire, someone having a cardiac arrest, someone dropping a baby in the floor, etc. etc. ad infinitum. And obviously, a packed car is all the better target for all those errant suicide bombers.

[Dysko]

AS double bonus, the water would most likely prevent any serious fires as well as work as shrapnel protection in these dangerous, dangerous times of errant bombers running about.

Water would remove the damage caused by shrapnels, but would add damage caused by "depth charge" effect.