> That doesn't mean the idea hasn't been proposed, though, and
> I'm sure some paranoid safety-obsessive type already has...


Count me as one of those "paranoid safety-obsessive types". That is core to my profession, to discover every sort of thing that could cause an accident, and then to implement some means to prevent it. Of course, all the easy stuff has already been done over the last 100 years (and in some quarters - forgotten already); leaving only the subtle sneaky stuff to still cause accidents (eg. WMATA). Sadly, we often discover these hard to see causes, only after an accident teaches us more. And sadder still, is that safety recommendations are often ignored by stubborn managements - until something happens (not putting in ATS,ACS,PTS for example).


I haven't heard of anything that suggested the derailment mentioned was caused by mixing auto-cars with high level passenger cars - not that I necessarily would have heard some official at least question it.

But if any practice is in fact, the proximate cause of any life threatening accident, then what business does anyone have in continuing the practice; especially when there are practical and reasonable alternatives.

On the other hand, a good case could also be made that long unwieldy trains (don't fit in sidings / platforms / excessive slack action / difficult to start or stop, etc) are a big pain in the neck - and not economically worth it in the long run.

Need I mention that riding in the passenger car just ahead of several Amtrak express cars, is indeed quite a gallop - as the slack action keeps bouncing in and out, you get kicked in the but each time. Not exactly a pleasant ride!

There are all kinds of reasons to split the train in two - not just safety!