nymaps

nymaps OP t1_jbgyj5w wrote

Reply to comment by corrado33 in [OC] Let’s look at some train data 🚂, data from US Federal Railroad Administration by nymaps

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

nymaps OP t1_jbgs5fj wrote

Reply to comment by corrado33 in [OC] Let’s look at some train data 🚂, data from US Federal Railroad Administration by nymaps

Not necessarily, just less derailments. We would need to compare other variables, which i’m in the process of trying to see what variables are available. Frequency, severity, and offender might be more interesting. If there are less derailments but more severe damage or more hazardous but less derailments then it could be misleading. I wanted to see what kind of questions people would ask to help guide the next stages of investigation. It’s never a simple answer, trying to let the data tell the story without introducing bias.

2