 High speed train companies join forces
Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> "=?iso-8859-1?q?You_have_therefore_been_approved_to_claim_a_to tal_sum_of_=A3619,063GBP?=" <michaelnewportm> writes:
>
>
>>Tue 03/07/07 - Belgium's publicly owned railway company, the NMBS, has
>>joined six other European rail companies in order to improve the way
>>they compete with air carriers.
>
>
>>The seven companies also point out that rail travel produces far less
>>greenhouse gas emissions than air travel, another distinct advantage.
>
>
> One would think that the fact that trains don't leave the ground is advantage
> enough...
>
On the contrary, from an engineering point of view trains are much more
at risk to have catastrophic accidents than aircraft, because aircraft
systems are designed to be intrinsically failsafe. Consider the following:
- a train with 16 coaches has 128 wheels. If any one wheel breaks, the
trail is likely to derail with disastrous results at high speed. An
aircraft typically has two engines. If one engine fails - it keeps flying.
- trains are continuously at risk of hitting obstacles like stalled
cars on crossings, fallen trees, mudslides, even suicidal maniacs.
Aircraft operate at high altitudes under continuous radar control to
ensure separation from other aircraft.
- train accidents can be caused by factors totally out of control of
the driver, such as signal or point failures. In an aircraft, the pilots
have final control.
- commercial aircraft have a minimum of two pilots. Trains operate
with a single driver.
- in addition, trains operate with virtually no security. They are
much simpler to target by terrorists, as recent years have shown.
T.
| 
