Most dangerous railway in the developed world?

[biggus]

When I lived in Washington DC, there were constant accidents on their metro rail system involving collisions between trains or derailments (every few weeks, and certainly several times a year) . Some of these accidents were fatal, many were spectacular. All this on a rail system that is miniscule compared to the metro system in New York or LUL where such accidents are essentially unheard of.

I haven't yet attempted to work out fatalities per billion passenger miles for Washington's WMATA metro rail, but I find it hard to believe that there is another railway as dangerous anywhere in the developed world.

Here is a history of recent WMATA rail accidents from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#Accidents

Does anyone have anything to beat this?

 

[Monty]

It's interesting to note that before an accident in 2009 the Washington Metro used ATO on it's trains, after the accident they reverted back to driver operation with no current plans to reinstate ATO/ATC.

 

[williamn]

I'm living temporarily in DC and the Metro is hands down the worst mass transit I have ever used. To just focus on the safety side of things:

2 escalators have stopped while I have been on them in the last six months (never happened in 10 years in London)

I have heard that another escalator recently went into 'freefall'.

The trains are incredibly ineptly driven, with sharp stops frequently throwing people around, and often stopping at very random places. I have no idea of the reason for this but trains will often stop sharply after just pulling out of a station or stop at a station but way short of the end of the platform (like just one coach into it) before carrying on.

Apparently the red line will revert to automatic operation sometime soon but there are no plans for the other lines to do so.

In the autumn all train operators were told to wait 5 seconds before opening train doors to check they were actually at a platform - after many incidents of doors being opened in the wrong place. As you can imagine this has a rather negative effect on schedules and is immensely annoying!

 

[biggus]

I'm living temporarily in DC and the Metro is hands down the worst mass transit I have ever used.

Don't even get me started on the impossibility of navigating either the stations or the lines thanks the the worst use of signage imaginable.

 

[185]

The trains are incredibly ineptly driven, with sharp stops frequently throwing people around, and often stopping at very random places. I have no idea of the reason for this but trains will often stop sharply after just pulling out of a station or stop at a station but way short of the end of the platform (like just one coach into it) before carrying on.

Sounds similar to our TPWS Overspeed sensor, caused by a driver coming into a station too fast - it puts a brake intervention in.

I hear something was introduced on the DC metro some years ago after a string of crashes and incidents.

 

[notadriver]

Sounds similar to our TPWS Overspeed sensor, caused by a driver coming into a station too fast - it puts a brake intervention in.

I hear something was introduced on the DC metro some years ago after a string of crashes and incidents.

Maybe the drivers aren't following the ATP speed profile?

 

[Harlesden]

Referring to the thread title, I wonder what the definition of "the developed world" is supposed to be. I have visited Lagos,Nigeria which is a city with department stores, skyscraper buildings, regular bus and train services and reliable albeit tatty taxicabs. Yet Nigeria is commonly defined as a "Third World country". The city of Kingston, Jamaica is the same with the exception of an absence of an active rail network.
People refer disdainfully to African villages, but there are also small villages here in the UK and there are rural communities in the USA with limited facilities due to the immense cost of creating the infrastructure to provide services to a very small community.
So, back to my original point, what is the definition of the "the developed world".

 

[WatcherZero]

It used to be either looking at the individual in average income or GDP per capita, or by looking at the structure of the economy such as is the economy predominently agrarian, manufacturing or service based?

Nowadays you use the UN Human Development Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

 

[Flying Snail]

Referring to the thread title, I wonder what the definition of "the developed world" is supposed to be. I have visited Lagos,Nigeria which is a city with department stores, skyscraper buildings, regular bus and train services and reliable albeit tatty taxicabs. Yet Nigeria is commonly defined as a "Third World country". The city of Kingston, Jamaica is the same with the exception of an absence of an active rail network.
People refer disdainfully to African villages, but there are also small villages here in the UK and there are rural communities in the USA with limited facilities due to the immense cost of creating the infrastructure to provide services to a very small community.
So, back to my original point, what is the definition of the "the developed world".

There are lots of different ways to classify countries but if you really thought Nigeria was economically, politically or socially comparable to the UK then I am not sure where you were but it wasn't Nigeria.

Try this wiki page and have a look through the various studies on the ranking of world economies if you are really interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country