Trains.com

Seatbelts on trains: Why not?

1735 views
5 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Mile 7.5 Laggan Sub., Great White North
  • 4,201 posts
Seatbelts on trains: Why not?
Posted by trainboyH16-44 on Friday, July 17, 2015 11:20 AM

I've made it a few pages into the August Trains, and one thing in Don Phillips' article started me thinking. In the wake of the recent Amtrak derailment, he was asked by one interviewer whether passenger trains should have seat belts, and Don dismissed it out of hand as a ridiculous idea. Why is that? Besides under-utilization, cost, and lack of enforcement, why is this such a ridiculous idea? In those exceedingly rare moments when a passenger car is involved in a wreck at speed and goes on its side, it sounds like being held in your seat would be greatly helpful, if you chose to put your belt on. So why not?

Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296

Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, July 17, 2015 12:49 PM

Here is an article that describes the tradeoffs of seat belts on trains:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/us/amtrak-crash-raises-question-of-seatbelts-on-trains.html?_r=0

It is also commonly asked why seat belts should not be included on school buses.

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Mile 7.5 Laggan Sub., Great White North
  • 4,201 posts
Posted by trainboyH16-44 on Friday, July 17, 2015 1:05 PM

Well, that's discussion over. Thanks for the link to a perfect article

Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296

Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:38 AM

You might make a case that the luggage should be restrained.

The one thing th NYT article fails to mention is that seat belts work by stretching - reducing the deceleration rate below that of the vehicle itself.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:47 AM

To the same effect as the NYT article - but a lot more directly stated - see this column, about 1/4 of the way down (6th para. &ff.):

http://ten90solutions.com/things_that_make_me_go_hmmmh 

And this one, about halfway down:

http://ten90solutions.com/ask_many________questions_get_many________answers 

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Potomac Yard
  • 2,767 posts
Posted by NittanyLion on Saturday, July 18, 2015 1:43 PM

If anything, you'd want all your seats facing backwards to the direction of travel.  Air Force (I think it was USAF) research determined that's the best way to be facing in a collision because your mass is pressing against the seat, not folding you in half over a lap belt or smashing you into the back of someone else's seat.  The passenger seats in C-5 Galaxies face backwards for crash survivability.

The NYT piece didn't really mention something airlines have discovered: seatbelts eat into evacuation time.  There's no shortage of people that have died in survivable accidents on planes because they couldn't get out of the seat fast enough.  Granted, trains don't usually face the same "get out RIGHT NOW" that an airliner has, its something to consider.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy