The Hidden Glasgow Forums

Alycidon wrote:
I totally agree with the comments made by McShad, the media hysteria has been unbelievable. 3,201 people were killed on Britain's roads in 2005, (the last statistics currently available), not a single fatality on the railways in 2005 (or 2006 for that matter).

I am not a rail-buff, but I have used the British railways extensively, always merely for transportation purposes, and while I feel the British system isn't quite up to the continental European standard, I still think it's just about the safest and the best way to travel in the U.K. I've read all these postings on this thread and agree wholeheartedly with the sensible concessus that the rails are safer than the roads.

I've always enjoyed travelling on British trains, and I've always felt safe while doing so. Oh, there was a period when I was at odds with them when they discontinued the great convenience of the guard's van for storing one's bicycle, but I never stopped using the trains. I wish we had a passenger-train service in North America like the British system.

I too agree with McShad's observation that the media tend to go "totally overboard" when reporting train crashes.

Dugald wrote:I have used the British railways extensively, always merely for transportation purposes

Nae flies on you Dougald

Dugald wrote:I've read all these postings on this thread and agree wholeheartedly with the sensible concessus that the rails are safer than the roads.

The 'sensible consensuss' no doubt being arrived at via the overwhenming factual evidence?

Dugald wrote:Oh, there was a period when I was at odds with them when they discontinued the great convenience of the guard's van for storing one's bicycle

Too true, Dugald, this one is still a tad peeved about that one.

HollowHorn wrote:

Dugald wrote:I have used the British railways extensively, always merely for transportation purposes

Nae flies on you Dougald

Dugald wrote:I've read all these postings on this thread and agree wholeheartedly with the sensible concessus that the rails are safer than the roads.

The 'sensible consensuss' no doubt being arrived at via the overwhelming factual evidence?
/quote]

Hollowhorn, a couple of your comments regarding my post about train accidents, left me pondering a wee bit. Firstly, your "Nae flies on you Dougald", leaves me wondering if it stems from my mention of "merely for transportation purposes". My use of this was simply to underline the fact that I wasn't a train buff, and didn't ever ride a train the way rail buffs do. By the way, I understand what drives rail buffs, I did a wee bit of what they do, when I was a boy, at the top of Craigton Road in Govan... never got beyond writing down numbers though.

Secondly, this "overwhelming factual evidence", I accept on its face value... seems clear cut to me. I'm not convinced it would stand up to a thorough statistical analysis. Based on a mileage-by-decades analysis for example, it might not uphold Alycidon's claim just so convincingly. Hey Hollyhorn, I'm not disagreeing with Alycidon, I'm on his side, and simply justifying my use of "sensible concessus".

Cheers, dugald.

Dugald wrote:I wasn't a train buff, and didn't ever ride a train the way rail buffs do.

How do rail buffs ride a train, Dougald, obviously never merely for transportation purposes?

Dugald wrote:overwhelming factual evidence, I accept on its face value... seems clear cut to me. I'm not convinced it would stand up to a thorough statistical analysis. Based on a mileage-by-decades analysis for example, it might not uphold Alycidon's claim just so convincingly.

Does that mean that you do or do not accept that travel by rail is a safer than travel by road

Cheers, Hollyhorn

Alycidon wrote:The one that got me was the mobile phone photograph showing the "panic" immediately after the derailment, oh yeh, if I was in a panoc and thought my life was in danger the last thing I would be doing is grabbing my mobile to take a few snaps, obviously thinking "here is a way to make a quick buck"

People do weird things. Remember the jumbo jet a few years back that ran into a cloud of volcanic ash, and stalled it's engines ? It was going down, everybody knew it, but at least one of the passengers still took photos

glasgowken wrote:

Alycidon wrote:The one that got me was the mobile phone photograph showing the "panic" immediately after the derailment, oh yeh, if I was in a panoc and thought my life was in danger the last thing I would be doing is grabbing my mobile to take a few snaps, obviously thinking "here is a way to make a quick buck"

People do weird things. Remember the jumbo jet a few years back that ran into a cloud of volcanic ash, and stalled it's engines ? It was going down, everybody knew it, but at least one of the passengers still took photos

I always thought the gameplan on a plane going down was that you try to get your hole ASAP.

Schiehallion wrote:

glasgowken wrote:

Alycidon wrote:The one that got me was the mobile phone photograph showing the "panic" immediately after the derailment, oh yeh, if I was in a panoc and thought my life was in danger the last thing I would be doing is grabbing my mobile to take a few snaps, obviously thinking "here is a way to make a quick buck"

People do weird things. Remember the jumbo jet a few years back that ran into a cloud of volcanic ash, and stalled it's engines ? It was going down, everybody knew it, but at least one of the passengers still took photos

I always thought the gameplan on a plane going down was that you try to get your hole ASAP.

naw that’s when a nuclear warhead coming your way, either that or boil and egg

Fossil

HollowHorn, in answer to your two questions let me say:

Question #1:

"How do rail buffs ride a train, Dougald, obviously never merely for transportation purposes? "

I believe some of these rail buffs go for train rides for say aesthetic reasons, or perhaps nostalgic reasons, or perhaps historic reasons. If you read some of the postings by Macotheisles on the "Anybody recognize this railway scene" thread for example, you'll see that the passenger rail services aren't used simply for transportation. (Why do I have the feeling you already knew that...hmmmmm!).

Question #2:

"Does that mean that you do or do not accept that travel by rail is a safer than travel by road ".

No. I accept that rail travel is safer than travel by road.
Cheers, dugald.

Dugald wrote:Why do I have the feeling you already knew that...hmmmmm!)

Because your sense of humour is finaly begining to kick in?

Yup HollowHorn, I'm laughing my head off...

One can but pray.

OK, so there is evidence that it was possibly the points at fault.... christ, how many tonnes are in a train?
Top marks to the sun this morning... claimed the train was doing 125mph!Thats pretty amazing since those trains are fitted with control devices that make it impossible to exceed the speed limit for the stretch of track it is on.
And how exactly did the brave driver

fight to keep control of the train

????? Steering into the spin was he?

Yeah - the track limit at that point was 90-95mph. As for being a brave driver, he did well to realise and hit the brakes before the rollercoaster ride from hell began.

It would be interesting to know what effect applying braking to the wheels ahs when they are bouncing along sleepers and ballast though.

It appear from news reports that the train had slowed substantially before it rolled down the embankment, thus decreasing the amount of damage, however the chassis' nay be damaged, reducing teh chance of repair.

Which plays into Richard Branson's hands. He wants an extra 2 carriages per train (no 10 & 11) to meet a projected increase un demand over the next 5-10 years. The business case for this was looking shaky as RBS subsidiary Angel Trains weren't keen to invest when the Government were threatening to report them (and other rolling stock companies) to the Office of Fair Trading, which could lead to a decrease in the leasing costs of these new carriages, and them not making back their investment. However if Virgin now need to buy not 106 carriages, but 115 plus a new driving carriage, then the business case is strengthened, since without it Virgin will have to run Voyagers on some services.

Getting back on topic (and away from personal slanging matches), wasn't there an accident at Clarkson (or is that the Newton one?)

ChrisWoods wrote:Getting back on topic (and away from personal slanging matches), wasn't there an accident at Clarkson (or is that the Newton one?)

Not a railway accident, but a very nasty gas explosion in 1971 that smashed the shops beside the line to rubble, killing 22 & injuring many others in the process