If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How to survive a plane crash
On Jan 20, 8:36*am, Roland Perry wrote:
As best I understand it, on a deaths per passenger mile basis, or most any other reasonable measure, the Concorde ranks far worse than any other passenger airliner ever put into routine commercial service. But only as a result of one accident. On that basis perhaps the IC225 is the UK's most unsafe train (Hatfield and Great Heck). Unlikely, they do a hell of a lot of passenger miles. My guess (out of units on BR and successors) would be Class 201 - there were only seven of them, they worked suburban-ish routes, and they killed 49 people at Hither Green in 1967. (Would take some further ruminating to decide whether the Shuttle or the Concorde should count as the more totally useless waste of taxpayer funding.) What's interesting to think about is that Concorde was designed and built to service a boom in air travel and a need that never materialised (because of an earlier economic downturn). I wonder what projects we are gung-ho about today will be the white elephants of the 2030's? Crossrail and HS2 are prime candidates. Crossrail I very much doubt, simply because public transport projects in central London - even if they fail to meet hoped-for ridership - are always going to find themselves well-used at rush hour. The Jubilee line opened around the time of the worst prior postwar recession, with only half the route complete, but still attracted plenty of rides (many from the existing suburban line that was folded into it, as with Crossrail). HS2 is more likely, although it would require both an environment- driven change in mindsets that made high-speed travel in general unacceptable *and* a massive decline in medium-to-long distance rail usage that took away the need for new capacity. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How to survive a plane crash
In message
, at 02:56:09 on Tue, 20 Jan 2009, John B remarked: As best I understand it, on a deaths per passenger mile basis, or most any other reasonable measure, the Concorde ranks far worse than any other passenger airliner ever put into routine commercial service. But only as a result of one accident. On that basis perhaps the IC225 is the UK's most unsafe train (Hatfield and Great Heck). Unlikely, they do a hell of a lot of passenger miles. But there aren't very many, and it's basically just one route. My guess (out of units on BR and successors) would be Class 201 - there were only seven of them, they worked suburban-ish routes, and they killed 49 people at Hither Green in 1967. The small number of those units would be very telling too (I was only really considering current stock). I wonder what projects we are gung-ho about today will be the white elephants of the 2030's? Crossrail and HS2 are prime candidates. Crossrail I very much doubt, simply because public transport projects in central London - even if they fail to meet hoped-for ridership - are always going to find themselves well-used at rush hour. That assumes there's the employment to create a rush hour. HS2 is more likely, although it would require both an environment- driven change in mindsets that made high-speed travel in general unacceptable *and* a massive decline in medium-to-long distance rail usage that took away the need for new capacity. A lot will depend on the fares. If, as some suggest, we'll all be living on about a third of our current incomes, there won't be much call for it. -- Roland Perry |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How to survive a plane crash
On Jan 20, 11:05*am, Roland Perry wrote:
I wonder what projects we are *gung-ho about today will be the white elephants of the 2030's? Crossrail *and HS2 are prime candidates. Crossrail I very much doubt, simply because public transport projects in central London - even if they fail to meet hoped-for ridership - are always going to find themselves well-used at rush hour. That assumes there's the employment to create a rush hour. We still had a rush hour in 1934-38, so you'd need to postulate something *really* insane to handwave that away. HS2 is more likely, although it would require both an environment- driven change in mindsets that made high-speed travel in general unacceptable *and* a massive decline in medium-to-long distance rail usage that took away the need for new capacity. A lot will depend on the fares. If, as some suggest, we'll all be living on about a third of our current incomes, there won't be much call for it. Yes, that's the kind of *really* insane thing you'd need to postulate. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How to survive a plane crash
In message
, at 07:05:22 on Tue, 20 Jan 2009, John B remarked: I wonder what projects we are *gung-ho about today will be the white elephants of the 2030's? Crossrail *and HS2 are prime candidates. Crossrail I very much doubt, simply because public transport projects in central London - even if they fail to meet hoped-for ridership - are always going to find themselves well-used at rush hour. That assumes there's the employment to create a rush hour. We still had a rush hour in 1934-38, so you'd need to postulate something *really* insane to handwave that away. Capacity was much smaller then. HS2 is more likely, although it would require both an environment- driven change in mindsets that made high-speed travel in general unacceptable *and* a massive decline in medium-to-long distance rail usage that took away the need for new capacity. A lot will depend on the fares. If, as some suggest, we'll all be living on about a third of our current incomes, there won't be much call for it. Yes, that's the kind of *really* insane thing you'd need to postulate. Haven't you noticed all those shops going broke, car factories closing for *four* months, banks being nationalised to stop them going broke... and it's only just begun. -- Roland Perry |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How to survive a plane crash
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
... I can't think when the last fatal accident occurred on a British airliner in Britain (eg, the British Midland Kegworth crash). That was 1989. There's been nothing on that scale since then, and only one crash of a big jet and that was with no passengers aboard. After that it depends on what you count as an airliner. Here are all the accidents I could find on www.planecrashinfo.com since Kegworth in Britain with 5 or more deaths. Wording of details is mine. Curiously, one of them had the same cause as the Kegworth crash, which you would think would be rather unusual. I present this table just for information and not to promote any particular conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, air and rail travel both have superb safety records and comparing them is pointless. Agreed -- in both cases, getting to/from the station/airport by road is much more dangerous. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to survive a plane crash | Runge enjoys crossdressing | Air travel | 24 | January 20th, 2009 05:23 PM |
How to survive a plane crash | Miss L. Toe | Air travel | 70 | October 18th, 2006 01:28 AM |
How to survive a plane crash | Miss L. Toe | Europe | 71 | October 18th, 2006 01:28 AM |
How does the flight recorder survive crash? | Radium | Air travel | 16 | August 20th, 2006 10:26 AM |
PIA plane crash | Hooverphonic | Europe | 0 | July 10th, 2006 09:59 AM |