Rather than to go to heavier cars, a more sensible approach
might be to require automatic train stop signals on lines
with passenger operations. Automatic train stop is basically
the norm on signaled lines all over Europe.

No, not even automatic train stop signals will prevent all
head-on or rear-end collisions. But they can make a major
difference.



Despite being somewhat lighter in construction, I don't think
European rail equipment is any less safe. I saw some stats
once that compared accidents/injuries per passenger-mile (or
some such benchmark) and Europe compared quite favorably to
the U.S. Unfortunately, I don't recall where those stats
appeared at the moment. (I have traveled on passenger
equipment in both the U.S. and Europe -- and never felt
any less safe in Europe.)


The ICE accident at Eschede is often cited in the U.S. in
various comparisons with European equipment standards. And,
most of the time, those comparisons are inappropriate.

I still read and speak German quite fluently -- it was my first
language -- and a German-language rail magazine to which
I subscribed had very detailed coverage of this accident. In
fact, over a number of issues, it ran transcripsts of the legal
proceedings arising from this accident. No, I didn't read
every word, as this coverage ran many, many pages of small
print over consecutive issues.

However, one of the points that I got from what I read was
that many (though, of course not all) of the deaths and
injuries resulted from the following cars striking the
bridge that was collapsed by initial derailsed car. At
that point, the bridge was essentially an immovable solid
obstacle.

It would not have mattered how solidly the cars had been
built. When a moving vehicle suddently strikes an immovable
obstruction, the contents of that vehicle continue to move
due to inertia. The occupants were thrown against parts of
the cars and their contents.

The same thing would have happened had the cars been built
to U.S. standards. I belive one expert witness even stated
that seatbelts would not have helped mitigage injuries as
the passengers being thrown agains the seatbelts with great
force would also have suffered injuries from that equipment.

An important factor in the construction of modern automobiles
has been the inclusion of so-called "crumple zones" that can
help absorb impacts -- and which lessen the possibility of
the passenger cabin coming to an instantaneous stop in a
collision. Most European passenger rail equipment is equipped
with less reinforced crumple zones on the ends.

But, again, even the most solidly built U.S. rail vehicle is
no match against a solid obstacle. The vehicle may survive,
but the passengers likely will not.

Similarly, even solidly built U.S. passenger rail vehicles
have been sheared open in tangential side impacts.

Aside from the one memorable ICE accident, both the German
ICE and French TGV (and related equipment used in other
countries -- the U.S. Acela does not count) have a
remarkable good safety record, despite their high speeds
of operation.


No, I'm not an engineer. But, I have discussed these issues
with people who know about railroads in both the U.S. and
Europe -- and some of those people were mechanical engineers.

-- Ernest