Of Things That Matter

Ken Piper

Commuter trains are not as safe as most of us believe. We tend to believe that because trains are big and heavy, they are safe. But this is not necessarily true. Train accidents don’t usually get as much attention as they deserve outside of the local commuting area or after the hubbub over a recent accident subsides.

What makes commuter trains unsafe?

Many commuter rail lines use push-pull train configurations. This is so the engineers can just walk to the opposite end of a train and run it the other direction from a control room built into a passenger car. It gives them a faster turnaround, but is a dangerous practice.

Rail fatalities usually occur in derailments after a collision with a vehicle on a grade crossing, a collision with another train, or from excessive speed around a curve. A technology called Positive Train Control (PTC) can help with the excessive speed problem and maybe even reduce collisions with other trains.

PTC is not going to help with problems at grade crossings. However, there is an easy way to make the inevitable collisions safer for the rail passengers.

In “Why are the trains still running backwards“ I showed why to be safe requires keeping the trains on the track, or at least avoiding a catastrophic derailment.

Why are commuter trains still running backwards? Click To Tweet

What we need – NOW – to reduce the severity of derailments and save lives.

Keep the trains on the track or, at least keep them from derailing catastrophically. To do this the locomotive must be in the front of the train.

Safety advantages of leading locomotives:

1. The heavy leading locomotive will be much less likely to derail in a collision. A one-inch flange on the wheels is ultimately what keeps the trains on the tracks. This is not much for a train going 70 miles per hour. Locomotives weigh about twice as much as a passenger car and are not easily dislodged from the rails when hitting an object on the tracks.

2. A leading locomotive will be a buffer between the passengers and whatever they may run into. Locomotives are not only heavier, but also sturdier than passenger cars, so even the engineers are safer in a lead locomotive than they would be in the control room at the front end of a modified passenger car.

3. If a leading locomotive does derail, the cars will tend to follow it, rather than be pushed off the tracks by it. Sometimes they don’t even tip over. If there is an embankment, they may fall over on their sides, but will usually not end in a pileup. Few fatalities occur in these cases.

4. If the locomotive is pushing the passenger cars at a high speed, it will push them into a pileup as soon as the lead car leaves the tracks. There are two reasons for this:

First, because a locomotive is about twice the weight of a passenger car, its momentum will cause it to continue to push the other cars after they have hit an obstacle.

Second, pushing is not a stable situation in the first place. Have you ever seen a big-rig back up more than a few feet with more than one trailer? They don’t do it! Instead, they drop off the back trailer and do one at a time. If a locomotive is leading, the cars will follow in line; if it is following, they will not stay in line once off the tracks.

5. Don’t put a second locomotive at the rear! Occasionally this has been done to placate concerned citizens for a while after a deadly collision. However, this is not a good idea. In a collision that does cause a derailment of the lead locomotive, the heavy locomotive at the rear will crush the cars against the derailed lead locomotive and also cause a catastrophic pileup.

To reduce the severity of commuter train collisions, the solution is clear and simple; put the locomotive in front – and only there.

To reduce the severity of commuter train collisions, the solution is clear and simple; put the locomotive in front – and only there. Click To Tweet

6. And one more neglected, but obvious thing – install seat belts on commuter trains!

What else can be done?

Derailment of trains traveling at excessive speed around a curve is another big problem, because trains have a high center-of-gravity and a narrow wheelbase (only 4 feet 8 1/2 inches), so they can tip over more easily than automobiles, and even than big-rig trucks.

For trains that are traveling at excessive speed on curves, PTC can help, and it has already been installed on many rail lines.

Eliminate double-deck cars and increase the rail spacing (wider wheelbase).

Why have commuter rail lines refused to do this?

They may tell you that in order to reverse the train they will need long wyes (a “Y” shaped turnaround), long enough to accommodate the entire train, and land is not easily or cheaply available. This is not true!

How else can they turn commuter trains around?

All that is needed is to use a double-ended locomotive and run it around to the other end of the train at a rail siding that is near the turnaround location.

Double-ended electric locomotives are used in the eastern U.S. Double-ended diesel-electric locomotives are common in Europe, and some of those are even manufactured in the U.S. In the interim, paired locomotives (or a locomotive and cab car – without passengers) can be used.

Sidings are already common in areas served by commuter trains. If necessary, sidings can be added within the existing railroad right-of-way – no land purchase necessary.

There is still some extra cost, because a trained person must do the uncoupling and recoupling that is needed. So, you need at least 2 people per train that are technically proficient – the engineer and a person to do the uncoupling. But isn’t it worth the cost for passenger safety?

What can you do now?

Authorities do not want to admit this is a problem. When deadly accidents occur, the authorities quickly turn the attention to the cause of the accident, rather than the severity.

When deadly accidents occur on commuter and other passenger trains, authorities quickly turn the attention to the cause of the accident, rather than the severity. Click To Tweet

Why have they refused to admit the safety problems with commuter trains? The answer is money.

Commuter rail agencies don’t put commuter safety first. They put money first. This seems odd because they are generally public non-profits, and subsidized by public money.

Newspapers and television news don’t care much either. They care about selling newspapers and advertisements. I know because I wrote to many newspapers in areas where trains are run push-pull. They will not publish my letters; they only care if somebody died recently, so that it makes news.

But you, as a commuter, should care a lot!

And you need to make it known what they need to do to make your commute safer.

I want you to care enough to share this article with others you know who ride commuter trains or care about rail safety. Contact the National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Railroad Administration and demand action. Write to, or share this article with your elected representatives. I can’t do this; I have tried. They will only take calls from, or read letters from, their own constituents.

Finally, let me know in the comments section, or by emailing me, any further ideas you have that I have not covered here. Thanks for caring.

Featured image from Daily News article: Photos: A look back at the 2005 Metrolink train crash in Glendale.

The more we ask “What are we made of?” the more we are faced with the inescapable conclusion that we are made of mostly nothing.

Ken Piper

The space within us

A while back my son commented that we are 98 percent water. I replied that really we are almost 100 percent nothing – that is, if you consider the space between molecules, and then at the atomic level, between the nucleus and electrons. Most of the space is, well, space – and that which is not?

From dust were ye made and dust ye shall be…¹

Those Old Testament writers were onto something – in their day, dust was the smallest thing they could see, so everything must be made of dust. When I was a child, the prevailing thought was that protons, neutrons and electrons were the fundamental particles that made up everything else.

Now, particle physicists have determined that at least protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles (quarks, neutrinos, leptons, photons and so forth). These and electrons are now considered the elemental or fundamental particles. Hmm…but what are they made of?

In our experience, everything is made up of something else, something smaller – and, of course, a lot of space in between.

The old Disneyland ride “Adventure Thru Inner Space” explored the idea that going to the very small revealed something similar to going to the very large – to outer space, stars, and constellations. When you got to atomic size, it was like you were in outer space, surrounded by star-like points of light.

The details may be wrong, but still, there remains the question: Are there really elemental particles? There must be, but there can’t be.

If we understand that everything is made of something, we are stuck with the unavoidable conclusion that there is no smallest thing.

This is a paradox of infinity. And really, this is a manifestation of our limited ability to comprehend the infinite or, in this case, the infinitesimal.

The outer limits – Outside outer space

Consider the other extreme: The size of the universe. If you ask an astrophysicist “How big is the universe?” you might get something like: “Well the big bang was 13.8 billion years ago, and we can see light from that time, but because of inflation, what we can see is really at least 92 billion light years in diameter, yada yada yada…” (and that’s just the part we can observe). OK, so it is really big!

But if you can put a number on it, you can conceptually surround it with a box. Then you can ask, “What is outside of that box?” There at least has to be “empty” space. There is certainly enough of that for lots of other “universes.”

If you include empty space (and “dark matter”) as well as stars, galaxies, dust clouds and all the things we can observe, then it must be infinite. But, where does all that end?

On the one hand, we can’t conceive of it being without limit; on the other hand, we can’t define or even imagine an end to it. We cannot adequately comprehend this. It must be infinite. It can’t be, but it must be. This too is a paradox of infinity.

The problem of time (besides not having enough of it)

Now consider time. In our experience everything must have a beginning and an end. We know that things happened before we were born, of course, and we assume that things will happen after we are gone. As a geologist, I look at the bigger picture, at the billions of years the Earth has been around.

The Earth had to come from somewhere, from something that existed before it. But, there is always the nagging question of what was before. It’s kind of like the game we played as children, asking “Why?” of our parents or others, then following their answer with another “Why?” again and again until they became frustrated and said “Just because!”

Time, time, time, see what’s become of me…²

Some will tell you that the “Big Bang” was the beginning of time. OK, what was before, and what and where did everything come from? If it was an energy equivalent of mass, the question is still the same.

If everything ends in a colossal big hole, then what is after? There must be a beginning and an end, because everything we know of begins and ends, but there can’t be.

Inconceivable! ³

We simply cannot comprehend things infinite. Perhaps we are captives of our experiences; perhaps it is just the limits of our mortal brains. Perhaps it is because time and space are both divine creations and we, as creations, are constrained within them.

I am the alpha and the omega ⁴

What are your thoughts on all of this? Comment below or write to me at ken@kennethpiper.com.

Lyrics from Sparrow, by Simon and Garfunkel, from Genesis 3:19.
Lyrics from A Hazy Shade of Winter, by Simon and Garfunkel.
“I do not think he knows what that means” – Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride.
Book of Revelation (verses 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13).

Featured image: Cover for Infinitesimal, an online mix of music “for when you feel indescribably small in an immense universe” by gabimarie