Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Talltim said:

Some Gallic crossing stupidity. Low loader with boat on grounds on a crossing near Rumigny in the Ardennes. Hit by tank train, some cars carrying phosphoric acid leaked. Train driver has minor injuries.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Glad that the injuries are only minor. 

 

50 minutes ago, melmerby said:

What a mess. Looks like the driver was fortunate not to incur serious injury.

 

Grounding on crossing isn't an exclusively N American pastime then.

Looks as if the boat took the brunt of the impact as there's not a lot left of it (fibreglass?). If it was something more substantial the outcome might be very different.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

 

 

Looks as if the boat took the brunt of the impact as there's not a lot left of it (fibreglass?). If it was something more substantial the outcome might be very different.

Yes, the frontal impact at cab height will have been a lot less damaging than lower down 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Talltim said:

Some Gallic crossing stupidity. Low loader with boat on grounds on a crossing near Rumigny in the Ardennes. Hit by tank train, some cars carrying phosphoric acid leaked. Train driver has minor injuries.

 

Can't see much left that's boat shaped. Did it burn, leaving that debris mass on the right (as viewed) of the track at the crossing?

 

10/10 for the classic Jouef station/crossing keeper's house though.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PatB said:

Can't see much left that's boat shaped. Did it burn, leaving that debris mass on the right (as viewed) of the track at the crossing?

 

10/10 for the classic Jouef station/crossing keeper's house though.

According to the report from the Prefecture, the vessel was burnt out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 hours ago, melmerby said:

What a mess. Looks like the driver was fortunate not to incur serious injury.

 

Grounding on crossing isn't an exclusively N American pastime then.

Thankfully hit a fibreglass boat, just disintegrated and low loader below cab/driver height I guess……poor driver must be still shaking. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

……poor driver must be still shaking. 

That's not a Gallic shrug then?

 

Drivers have long faced the problem of what to do when a collision is imminent and unavoidable, to jump or not to jump that is the question.  Jumping has saved many a driver and fireman - and deciding not to jump has proved right for many too.  

 

Has any railway ever tried designing ejector seats for such eventualities?  I realise it wouldn't be a panacea  - not a good idea in a tunnel and of course OHLE would be something of a complication.  Having said that, even helicopters have been successfully fitted with ejector seats - the trick is to detonate explosive bolts in the rotor assembly  so that centrifugal force will clear the blades out of the way.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ejector seats, whilst they have saved lives, are not kind to the human body. In their usual application, most users tend to be young and with a high level of physical fitness, and can still suffer significant injuries due to the g-forces of the vertical acceleration when the seat fires. I'm not sure what the effects would be on a driver who might, say, be a bit overweight, lack muscle tone and be in their 50s or even 60s. Practicalities aside, I can see there being significant issues with weighing the risks involved in an accidental or unnecessary firing vs the rewards of such a device in a potentially fatal collision.

  • Agree 5
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, caradoc said:

How high would an ejector seat at ground level (which is of course where a train cab is) need to fire the occupant to allow them to parachute safely back down ?!!

Years ago, I remember reading it was 800ft, though parachute technology might have moved on since then.

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PatB said:

Ejector seats, whilst they have saved lives, are not kind to the human body. In their usual application, most users tend to be young and with a high level of physical fitness, and can still suffer significant injuries due to the g-forces of the vertical acceleration when the seat fires. I'm not sure what the effects would be on a driver who might, say, be a bit overweight, lack muscle tone and be in their 50s or even 60s. Practicalities aside, I can see there being significant issues with weighing the risks involved in an accidental or unnecessary firing vs the rewards of such a device in a potentially fatal collision.

All ejector seats rely on the person being firmly strapped to the seat otherwise arms and legs tend to get cut off. Also a high percentage of these young fit pilots suffer from spinal compression injuries. Some ejector seats have explosive seatbelt tighteners. So train drivers would need to sit in a purpose designed seat for long hours firmly strapped in with the remote possibility of having to use a seat, that has the more than likely possibility of causing serious injury and may lead to them being in a wheel chair for the rest of their life if they use it - if they survive.

 

Remember also that most ejection seats do not work on the ground i.e. they don't eject far enough for the parachute to work. So train drivers would be subject to far higher stresses than fighter pilots who are younger, and considerably fitter and far more highly trained.

 

The risk analysis simply does not stack up.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the previously discussed tunnels and OHLE, and the odd bridge or two...

 

I like the way everyone's so concerned about the driver but not the poor guard, catering staff and passengers... Having said that I could easily find the odd fare dodger to try out an ejector seat if anyone wants to try...

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I've seen footage of a successful ejection from an aircraft  on the ground, though I can well believe that the mechanism in question was not your bog standard ejection seat.

 

I met an RAF type way back in my university years who had had to eject from his aircraft (in flight).  He did speak about the risk of spinal injury, and my recollection is that he said the standard rule was that you were basically grounded for health reasons if you had to eject a second time (subject to medical evaluation etc etc).  I think he also said that every ejection/loss of an aircraft incident was investigated through a process equivalent to a court martial - not to establish blame per se (though that might have resulted) but to learn lessons about how to avoid the circumstances occurring again (obviously with due consideration to the context e.g. if it was the result of enemy action).

 

EDIT: Couple of examples of ground/flight deck level ejections in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqVGEobAaww (if you can stand the godawful commentary, which sounds like the guy was on some kind of sedative).  I don't think the Harrier pilot reach anything like 800ft (and AFAIK the suggestion that the Harrier was known as "the widowmaker"  is pure sensationalist garbage).

 

Edited by ejstubbs
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

Pretty sure I've seen footage of a successful ejection from an aircraft  on the ground, though I can well believe that the mechanism in question was not your bog standard ejection seat.

 

You will have, that's how they are tested in the early stages.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
47 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I like the way everyone's so concerned about the driver but not the poor guard, catering staff and passengers... Having said that I could easily find the odd fare dodger to try out an ejector seat if anyone wants to try...

The discussion on ejector seats came out of the

'what should a driver do in an impending accident' scenario.

In a railway accident, its nearly always the driver

who is closest to the point of impact, so more likely

to suffer serious injury than others on the train

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Not to mention the previously discussed tunnels and OHLE, and the odd bridge or two...

 

I like the way everyone's so concerned about the driver but not the poor guard, catering staff and passengers... Having said that I could easily find the odd fare dodger to try out an ejector seat if anyone wants to try...

A strong safety cage, as fitted to modern rolling stock gives the train driver some protection but in the case of another Hixton even if the driver was in the equivalent of the driving compartment of an armoured vehicle it would probably be fatal. As you say anyone not strapped to their seats is likely to be thrown about in the event of a serious accident. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Not to mention the previously discussed tunnels and OHLE, and the odd bridge or two...

That could be very messy…..I think on the whole the driver might prefer to find his own way out! :D

 

We had a Hawk go down on approach to Culdrose a month or so ago, it was at very low altitude (obviously) at the time, both pilots walked away unhurt, they were waiting in the field when the rescue services arrived, actually I think a local dog got to them first :lol:.

 

Modern ejector seats are so much more advanced now, with a  gradual (relatively) accel curve on deployment, and far less injuries are sustained (I was chatting with a Navy pilot not long after the incident at Derriford hospital while we were both waiting for an appointment)…….apparently the Hawk had a flame out on throttling back, although not sure if he should have told me that :read: just checking the “act”.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, meil said:

All ejector seats rely on the person being firmly strapped to the seat otherwise arms and legs tend to get cut off. 

Which is why both hands are used to pull/operate the process (they being safely tucked over the head, sometimes pulling a protective cover down over the face of the pilot) and the feet get pulled back into the seat by straps which pyrocharged milliseconds before the main charge.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

We had a Hawk go down on approach to Culdrose a month or so ago, it was at very low altitude (obviously) at the time, both pilots walked away unhurt, they were waiting in the field when the rescue services arrived, actually I think a local dog got to them first :lol:.

 

They always say if you can walk away from it, it's good landing.  

I do hope the dog didn't mistake the uniform for a postie and bite !

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

I see nobody's mentioned air bags ................. !

Probably a good idea like crumple zones etc but it will take a very large airbag to protect you if you're between a few hundred tons of train at speed and a stationary low loader carrying transformer on it. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...