Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corrado33 t1_jbgv3ro wrote

Reply to comment by nymaps in [OC] Let’s look at some train data 🚂, data from US Federal Railroad Administration by nymaps

> If there are less derailments but more severe damage

I mean those are two completely different things.

It's not like they're specifically derailing dangerous trains. The derailments are random. If trains are carrying more dangerous cargo, then sure, I'd assume there would be some sort of correlation. But you can't really say "hey these random events are getting more hazardous."

The derailments are getting LESS frequent, and that's a good thing.

What you SHOULD do, is see how much is being shipped by train every year. If it's going down, then the fewer derailments make sense and don't mean that things are more safe. If they're going up (which I suspect) they these data show that it's getting significantly safer.

1

nymaps OP t1_jbgyj5w wrote

100% agree, the initial purpose to start with derailments as a raw number (never recommended) is to get ahead of the assumption that derailments are not common accidents, when in fact they occur the most often type of accident with a varying degree of outcome. The News headlines of a new derailments shouldn’t be shocking news, sad and terrible news yes, but not with out context, which I would like to have others question. I’m curious if this is consistent across all companies, or related to cars on line (available inventory) vs railcar loadings (active) ( which breaks down “originated” (schedule began) and number “received” (schedule terminated) by commodity type.

edits: autocorrect typos

1