Passenger Trains > Safest place to sit on the train???

Friday's horrific crash in Chatsworth brings this thought to mind:
Nothing would have saved those located in the front portion of the first Metrolink coach when the locomotive telescoped back into the car, but...
On a commuter rail car where seats face forward AND backwards, is one seat configuration safer than the other? Would a seat directly behind a bulkhead offer more protection? Do T.O. members avoid sitting in the first couple of rows on a cab control unit? Do you sit where there is a rigid-fixed table (which were blamed for some internal injuries to passengers in the Glendale Metrolink crash), or opt for seats that have pull-down trays?

Metrolink doesn't allow passengers in the front of the cab car as they call it the "Quiet Zone". One a three car train set I would sit in the middle car near the rear facing forward on the upper level.


Chris

I always deadhead in a seat with my back to the direction of movement somewhere near the rear of the train. In the event of a very quick stop, I will not be thrown forward.

I like to study the track and signal arrangement and rail traffic along the way, so I try to find an open seat with the best view forward. I sat in the front of the cab car when it was allowed. I realize it's not the safest place, but I accept that very small chance of an accident happening. I also accept the very small chance of a train derailing while I'm lineside taking photographs or watching a train pass. It is a risk.

mapboy

What about particular lines? Obviously, those with freights, such as the Riverside Line, seems most to be in my mind whenever I ride that line.

I don't worry much about the San Bernardino Line, because primarily there are no freights on that line.

Here is a link the NTSB report on the Placentia crash that may provide some answer concerning where not to sit:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/RAR0304.pdf

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Thanks for posting the NTSB report, Todd.
Bottom line: Stay away from table seats, especially if occupying forward-facing seats.

The report states that crash testing of the worktable equipped seating stations would be done in December 2003. Does anyone have any information regarding the results of this testing? I know that the ACE Bombardier cars currently have these tables installed, as I use them occasionally when I ride ACE. I'm not sure if Caltrain has the tables, as I'm not on the train long enough to use one, and I can't remember if they are present. Also, we don't get the Bombardier cars very often on the Gilroy trainset that I usually ride.

I saw an interview on TV with a passenger who walked away unhurt from the Chatsworth crash. He was sitting in the last car, facing to the rear, and up against the forward bulkhead. He said that many passengers that were seated facing forward were thrown through the air. Seat belts are considered necessary on planes and automobiles. Why aren't they used on trains ?

I frequently deadhead on Amtrak, my personal preference is also towards the rear of the train in a rearward facing seat.

Probably for the same reason they're not required on buses, which is because it would be nearly impossible to implement for standees, which are not a factor with planes and automobiles.

I usually avoid the front and rear car of the train, unless there's a baggage car between the locomotive and the first coach, such as on most Amtrak LD trains.

On planes however, I usually feel safer closest to the front, since I don't like the idea of being next to wings filled with hundreds of gallons of jet fuel.


RussM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw an interview on TV with a passenger who
> walked away unhurt from the Chatsworth crash. He
> was sitting in the last car, facing to the rear,
> and up against the forward bulkhead. He said that
> many passengers that were seated facing forward
> were thrown through the air. Seat belts are
> considered necessary on planes and automobiles.
> Why aren't they used on trains ?