Longer and Longer Freight Trains Drive Up the Odds of Derailment

[cteno4]

Replacing two 50-car trains with a single 100-car train increases the odds of derailment by 11 percent, according to a new risk analysis
 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/longer-freight-trains-are-more-likely-to-derail/

 

makes sense.

 

jeff

[chadbag]

of course, percentages are relative.

What is the rate of derailment and does a 10% or 24% or whatever increase make a meaningful increase?

 

These are made up numbers but if there are 1000 "trips" per day (ie 1000 individual freight trains underway for 1 day routes) in the USA that is 365000 trips a year.  Per the article there are about 300 derailments per year that is 0.8219% of trips derail.  If that is increased by 24% you  get 1.019% of trips.  Is that a meaningful number of extra derailments?  And what is the cost against the better efficiency and less energy used (ie cost of derailments vs cost of less efficiency and higher energy usage)?

 

I don't know the answers to these questions but just wanted to bring up that relative increase in things may not be that relevant to the total numbers...

 

[cteno4]

Yes true, but for toxic stuff the damage to communities (like last years derailment) could be huge. But capitalism puts price on everything.

 

this study really can’t get at all the variables and they had to use some statistical tricks to come up with the risk analysis. But at least have something that can get at some decent risk analysis.

 

jeff

[chadbag]

1 hour ago, cteno4 said:

Yes true, but for toxic stuff the damage to communities (like last years derailment) could be huge. But capitalism puts price on everything.

 

this study really can’t get at all the variables and they had to use some statistical tricks to come up with the risk analysis. But at least have something that can get at some decent risk analysis.

 

 

How many catastrophic derailments are there per trip?

 

It's not capitalism that puts a price on everything.  Its life.  Non-capitalist societies put prices on everything too.  They just use a different measuring stick to set the "price".

 

Of the roughly 300 derailments a year, how many are toxic catastrophic?    And how much more damage does the extra pollution and other "costs: of running more shorter trains do?  Is that worse than the very rare toxic event?  I don't know and I am not putting down my piece on any specific position.  I just don't know.  I just know it is a lot more complicated than the article makes it out to be.

 

[cteno4]

Im just saying it’s good to have some idea of risk assessment as it appears there has not been much as trains just keep getting longer and good to know what that will mean. The rush has been for longer for better economy but at what point does that go off the rails? Need data and analysis to know which is what they are attempting to do.

 

jeff

[chadbag]

14 hours ago, cteno4 said:

Im just saying it’s good to have some idea of risk assessment as it appears there has not been much as trains just keep getting longer and good to know what that will mean. The rush has been for longer for better economy but at what point does that go off the rails? Need data and analysis to know which is what they are attempting to do.

 

jeff

 

yes no doubt.  My comments were not on the study or need or lack of need or anything.  More on the presentation and spin and stuff like that.  I think it a reasonable thing to study and understand.