Crumple zones and seat belts for train drivers

[Vespa]

Reading about train crashes and how driver can get injured with life chsnging injuries or death.

It came to me why train don't have seat belts, airbags and crumple zones to absorb energy in a crash, even seat belts for train passengers, many trains travel at 50mph - 125 mph with Javelin at 145mph, accidents at that speed is potentially dangerous, yet cars have these as standard but not trains.

Why are they not fitted ?

 

[12C]

In the case of the driver, if facing a collision and once the emergency brake has been applied the safest thing if possible is to exit the cab ASAP. A seatbelt would only impede this.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Probably because the seat is within the trains crumple zone so a seat belt would be a hindrance to driver escaping from cab is he sees a collision coming

 

[Monty]

Trains have been designed with crumple zones for sometime now, older stock obviously tend to have less focus on this aspect of design than newer trains. Seat belts would just be more of a hinderence especially if the driver feels the need to vacate the cab quickly in an emergency.

 

[Domh245]

Reading about train crashes and how driver can get injured with life chsnging injuries or death.

It came to me why train don't have seat belts, airbags and crumple zones to absorb energy in a crash, even seat belts for train passengers, many trains travel at 50mph - 125 mph with Javelin at 145mph, accidents at that speed is potentially dangerous, yet cars have these as standard but not trains.

Why are they not fitted ?

Trains do have crumple zones.

Modern vehicles are specified so that when crushed they still leave a survival cell around the driver

More generally, the first line of safety on the railway are the signalling and safety systems, the probability of a train being in a significant crash is much lower than a car, which reduces the need for features like seat belts and airbags. It doesn't help in freak incidents such as high speed derailments, but those are even rarer (and to a certain extent, irretrievable - the energy involved in a crash even at 50mph is beyond what could reasonably be contained by crash structures)

 

[irish_rail]

Just referring to the Lavington tree collision with 43041 in 2011, had the driver been belted up, he would have been killed, as it was only because he lept out of the seat at the last second when the tree came into view that he only suffered a broken wrist.

 

[fgwrich]

Crumple Zones have been in existence for a long time - if you look at the cab of a Class 47, there is a rather large angular beam rising up from the floor by the cab window / door. On more modern stock, a lot of the cabs may be fibreglass for weight saving (the electro star family in particular) but there will be a very hefty metal cage underneath it all. It still amazes me how some fleets are built up - as I found out trying to remove a EP valve set from one fleet this summer.

 

[northernbelle]

Reading about train crashes and how driver can get injured with life chsnging injuries or death.

It came to me why train don't have seat belts, airbags and crumple zones to absorb energy in a crash, even seat belts for train passengers, many trains travel at 50mph - 125 mph with Javelin at 145mph, accidents at that speed is potentially dangerous, yet cars have these as standard but not trains.

Why are they not fitted ?

Crumple zones are fitted - specifically in the case of the 158/159s, the crumple zones are the areas forward and behind the door areas at the vehicle 'overhang'. The key objective for most designs is to avoid deformation of the body structure into the main passenger compartment but this does not necessarily extend to the driving cab (although many recent designs do factor in a 'survival space' for the driving cab as well). It may also mean that spaces such as toilets are within a crumple zone, but this does minimise the risk overall.

Seat belts were much-debated after the Ufton Nervet collision in 2004. The conclusion was that more risk is imported by retaining passengers in a fixed position than if they weren't - even if they went through the trauma of being thrown around the saloon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seat belts were much-debated after the Ufton Nervet collision in 2004. The conclusion was that more risk is imported by retaining passengers in a fixed position than if they weren't - even if they went through the trauma of being thrown around the saloon.

It's worthy of note that the main reason for seat belts on aircraft is to stop you belting your head on the overhead compartment in the event of turbulence, and their role in preventing injury in the very rare case of hitting something is rather lesser than that.

In the case of road vehicles they are in a very significant part to stop you being thrown out (because inside the vehicle is safer than outside, even if you're bouncing around it somewhat); trains do that differently by reinforcing windows.