Narrowgauge725
Member
Simple travel by train is much safer than by road, so use a train as first choice and sit as much as possible on the train avoid and standing too early when approaching a station.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What is the safest position to sit on a train ?
- Thread starter hi2u_uk
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RichSwitch
Member
The thing to remember is that in any high speed collision there are huge forces that need to be absorbed somewhere. Seats and mountings will break. They’re probably designed with this in mind. A cursory look at Formula 1 accidents, for example, will illustrate those forces.
Spamcan81
Established Member
Depends on which aircraft. In a C-130 you would have been sat along the side of the fuselage facing the middle. I suspect the A400 and C-17 are the same.
Snow1964
Established Member
Ok, so talking about cushions and padding becoming detached from the solid seat frame. Not the frame breaking free for its mounting in the body.
Do seat pads (which are detachable for cleaning) not fixed sufficiently well to withstand a crash is one to be determined for the crash investigators, so not going to speculate.
I suppose tables being designed for easy cleaning rather to protect against impacts should also be for crash investigators, not me, to comment on.
357
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 2,282
From a personal point of view the type of seats on a 360 should definitely not be able to come away in a collision as it leaves a giant hole the size of the seat back in it's place. Potentially meaning people are thrown further or further injured.
themiller
Established Member
The Japanese manage to have all seats facing in the same direction on some trains such as Shinkansens and express trains to and from Narita airport. The one I took from Narita into Tokyo discharged all passengers when it arrived at the airport then all doors shut, I watched through the window as each row of seats in turn automatically reversed. after the whole train had completed this evolution, the doors on my side opened and I found no rearward facing seats.
I believe the tables that caused injuries were in first class accomodation, the biggest danger in trains that have suburban 3+2 or even 2+2 seating comes from the seating with others sitting opposite you and nothing to stop them being catapulted forward in the event of violent deceleration, resulting in both broken limbs and crush injuries for both sides. Airline seating at least restricts how far you can be thrown.
357
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 2,282
Yes. A friend of mine was on the 360 and had her lip cut open by the person opposites glasses shattering during the collision
norbitonflyer
Established Member
No doubt thetecwill be some analysis of the injuries sustained by passengers in yesterday's incident.
It is still extremely rare for a passenger to die in a railway accident, and none did yesterday. The most vulnerable position is, inevitably, the driver's cab, especially for flat fronted units like a 360. The outcome might have been different if the 810 had run into the 360, rather than vice versa.
It is still extremely rare for a passenger to die in a railway accident, and none did yesterday. The most vulnerable position is, inevitably, the driver's cab, especially for flat fronted units like a 360. The outcome might have been different if the 810 had run into the 360, rather than vice versa.
John Luxton
Established Member
Some suggest facing backwards but frankly I find backwards facing seating a pain in the neck. As I always want to see where I am going rather than where I have been my instinct is to turn to look which on a long journey is uncomfortable for me and have ended up with a stiff neck. Despite yesterday's mishap everyone except the driver survived albeit some are seriously injured but trains remained upright, mainly intact and mainly on the track.
Putting things into context I think we should more worried about our car journeys how many have been killed or seriously injured in their cars? Many, many more
Yesterday was unfortunate but really the railways are safe.
Putting things into context I think we should more worried about our car journeys how many have been killed or seriously injured in their cars? Many, many more
Yesterday was unfortunate but really the railways are safe.
What is notable from the images I've seen is that all the side windows on both units remained intact. This will have certainly prevented many more potential injuries from flying glass. Therefore I don't think window or aisle has much in it these days for the safest place to sit.
I understand that you may be interested about how to reduce risk, but as others have said it may not be the best thing to put too much thought into it. Every incident is different, with different dynamics, circumstances and results. Yes in yesterday's sad accident the passengers in the front of the second unit seem to have suffered the worst injuries, that doesn't mean that the back or middle is any more or less safe. It is literally impossible to know what sequence of events may occur ahead of time, so it is impossible to select a "safer" part of the train.
The best philosophy is to remember that accidents like this are incredibly rare, and the chances of it happening to any one of us are incredibly low. The people working our railways are all professionals, very safety focused and do everything in their abilities to keep us all safe. It can never be a 100% guarantee because life simply isn't like that, but just try to enjoy your travels safe in the knowledge that you are enjoying one of the safest modes of travel out there,
CalderRail
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 281
Flat-front units being better for multiple running/connecting corridors ofc... but the cone noses with greater crumple zones are always going to be safer in and end-to-end contact accident.
Deepgreen
Established Member
Given the exceptionally low chance of anything untoward happening, I never consider any safety aspects of my seating choice. It's about view, comfort, etc.
I was a commuter on the GN at the time of the Hatfield and Potters Bar derailments. I travelled over the bits of track that failed many times, including the evenings before both incidents, and had to continue commuting afterwards. I did review my seat selection strategy in response. This mainly applies to long commuter trains, it can be difficult to transfer it to short trains:
- always sit down, never stand on fast moving trains
- avoid the front and rear cars
- sit in the middle of the car, not over a bogie
- airline seat not bay seat
- on an a/c electric train, don't sit under the pantograph
I do face forwards, for this reason.
I try to choose a window seat with a view forward but a pillar at my shoulder. In a window seat I'm less likely to be hit by anything falling off the overheard luggage rack, or to fall into the aisle.
Instinct04
On Moderation
Absolutely this, 100%.
You do not understand how quickly it is to fall into obsessive behaviour. I understand people want to be safe, but we cannot be safe in every situation possible.
Sometimes it is best not to worry, and just live.
renegademaster
Established Member
I wonder if this incident and the Cambrian incident will lead to a renewed experiments with seatbelts, even if they are just airplane style lap belts?
It was briefly commented upon in the RAIB report for the latter. When the idea was originally propsoed and shot down, train fires and needing a quick evacuation where a much bigger problem that's now less salient with EMUs and modern materials.
Obviously fitting metro services is a non starter but something like HS2 might be a tiny bit more likely, especially if they attempt a TGV style mandatory reservations regime.
It was briefly commented upon in the RAIB report for the latter. When the idea was originally propsoed and shot down, train fires and needing a quick evacuation where a much bigger problem that's now less salient with EMUs and modern materials.
Obviously fitting metro services is a non starter but something like HS2 might be a tiny bit more likely, especially if they attempt a TGV style mandatory reservations regime.
Brightonboy
Member
The VC10 was the last RAF aircraft to have rearward facing 'passenger' seats of the type associated with normal passenger aircraft. The Tri-Stars and now the Voyagers had/have conventional, forward facing, passenger seats whilst the C130 and A400 had/have 'para' seats which are essentially just tubular frames with nylon backs and seats hanging from them (rather like fold-up camping seats) and arranged longitudinally so that the side passengers face the centre line of the aircraft whilst 2 rows sit back to back on the centre line facing outwards. The actual number of seats and mix of side/centre fitted can be varied at very short notice. I believe the C17 follows the same format as the C130/A400.
The rearward facing seats previously fitted were indeed done as a safety measure to protect against sudden deceleration (or worse...) on the ground. The Tris-Stars were, iirc, all ex commercial aircraft and hence came with forward facing seats and fittings which would have been costly to change.
Serious injuries are exactly that, it can take years to recover, if you even do, especially with the crap state of the NHS. Such things will no doubt inform debate on whether we are doing enough to keep passengers safe in the event of high energy collisions.
Ralph Ayres
Member
Is the real answer "With hindsight, any part of a train involved in an incident that after that incident is found to be undamaged"? But yes, as noted above such events are so unlikely and each such a one-off that it really isn't worth even thinking about.
CalderRail
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 281
Short of fitting airbags to each and every train, what are they expecting us to do, exactly?
Transilien
Member
That would be impossible to do, the uk rail network is overcrowded. Even on the longest distance trains people have to stand. Seatbelts won’t be of much use for standing passengers in a crash. Also people have to walk in a train in order to get a seat and access things like toilets. Mandatory reservations would ruin capacity on for example- cross country.
Not sure why this would be the case. Being in the aisle could certainly increase the risk of that but there is surely a similar risk of being hit by shattering windows on the window side. Either way, nowhere in a train is going to be completely safe in the event of an accident.
I don't think the ease of cleaning was a factor in the table design. The RAIB Talerddig report discusses the risk of injury from tables, since impact with a table was the cause of the 1 passenger fatality in that crash; paragraphs 316-328 refer (pages 82-85). The report is a little vague on what kind of design would be better (perhaps the investigators don't know) but I'm struggling to see how you could do much without seatbelts.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Given the rarity of rail accidents, and the cost of fitting seatbelts to thousands of seats, I would very much doubt it. Not to mention the impossibility of actually getting passengers to use them; I was on a local service on a brand new Oxford Bus Company vehicle the other day, fitted (to my surprise) with seatbelts, and although there was even an announcement instructing us to use the seat belts, no-one, including me, did.
Airline seatbelts would do next to nothing as trains do not usually suffer from air turbulence. AIUI, they’re not really designed to protect against impacts (hence the brace position) but this is fairly irrelevant in aircraft safety as impact incidents are a)extremely rare and b) likely to be of a nature that won’t be ameliorated by a seatbelt.
Johnnie2Sheds
Member
All train travel is horrendously unsafe and I will not go near one again until they are restricted to 5 mph and are fitted with seatbelts, airbags and cotton wool wadding. I have my indestructible SUV and feel absolutely safe charging along the "smart M6" at 90 mph. As a railwayman I would like to add my condolences to the driver and his family and friends.
stevieinselby
Established Member
Lap belts are no longer fitted to cars, with full 3-point seat belts now used in all 3 rear seats, because lap belts could lead to severe injuries in a crash.
They are only used in aircraft to hold people in their seats in the event of air turbulence.
The kind of incidents we get on railways are much more like a car crash than air turbulence, so fitting lap belts could be counterproductive.
Far better to focus on prevention than cure, and for the RAIB to work on reducing the risk of an incident occurring in the first place.
Isn't this the attitude in usa