Comparative Rail Safety

[onebyone]

2011/06/02
Comparative Rail Safety


Using Wikipedia’s list of rail crashes and its UIC-sourced list of rail passenger-km by country, one can compare different countries’ mainline passenger rail accident fatality rates. The US turns out to be the least safe among the regions I’ve checked, even worse than India; much-maligned China comes out first.

I constructed the list below by averaging accident rates going back to 1991, to smooth out fluctuations coming from low-frequency, high-impact disasters. Crashes involving only freight trains are ignored, and pedestrians and car and bus passengers struck by passenger trains are included. Bombings are excluded, but sabotage incidents leading to accidents are included.

China: 876.22 billion passenger-km/year, 317 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 55.3 billion passenger-km.

Japan: the UIC claims 253.55 billion passenger-km/year, which only includes JR companies. Figures including private railroads and excluding subways range from 360 to 395.9 billion passenger-km; I believe the higher number since it is slightly less dated. Over 20 years there have been 154 deaths, so this is one death per 51.4 billion passenger-km. Including subways would put Japan on a par with China.

EU-27: 386.24 billion passenger-km/year (presumably mainline only), 603 mainline deaths over 20 years. This does not include 155 deaths from a fire on a funicular. This is one death per 12.8 billion passenger-km, or 1 per 10.2 billion if the funicular fire is included. This varies a lot by country: the safest European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, are on a par with China and Japan, but the EU average is pulled down by Germany (due to Eschede) and the periphery.

South Korea: 31.3 billion passenger-km/year, 93 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.7 billion passenger-km. Here the mainline-only rule is a problem because a) the Seoul subway is even more integrated with commuter rail than the Tokyo subway, and b) a subway fire in Daegu killed 198 people.

India: 838.03 billion passenger-km/year, 2,556 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.6 billion passenger-km.

US: 27.26 billion passenger-km/year (both Amtrak and commuter rail), 159 deaths over 20 years. Note the rate is more than twice that of China per capita, let alone per rail passenger. This is one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.

For comparison, the US road network has 33,000 accident deaths and 7.35 trillion passenger-km per year, which is one death per 220 million passenger-km.

On a closing note, China not only has the safest passenger trains, but also by far the busiest tracks. Freight density beats that of the US and Russia and passenger density beats that of any European country.

 

[onebyone]

Comparative Rail Safety | Pedestrian Observations

 

[Jlaw]

2011/06/02
Comparative Rail Safety


Using Wikipedia’s list of rail crashes and its UIC-sourced list of rail passenger-km by country, one can compare different countries’ mainline passenger rail accident fatality rates. The US turns out to be the least safe among the regions I’ve checked, even worse than India; much-maligned China comes out first.

I constructed the list below by averaging accident rates going back to 1991, to smooth out fluctuations coming from low-frequency, high-impact disasters. Crashes involving only freight trains are ignored, and pedestrians and car and bus passengers struck by passenger trains are included. Bombings are excluded, but sabotage incidents leading to accidents are included.

China: 876.22 billion passenger-km/year, 317 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 55.3 billion passenger-km.

Japan: the UIC claims 253.55 billion passenger-km/year, which only includes JR companies. Figures including private railroads and excluding subways range from 360 to 395.9 billion passenger-km; I believe the higher number since it is slightly less dated. Over 20 years there have been 154 deaths, so this is one death per 51.4 billion passenger-km. Including subways would put Japan on a par with China.

EU-27: 386.24 billion passenger-km/year (presumably mainline only), 603 mainline deaths over 20 years. This does not include 155 deaths from a fire on a funicular. This is one death per 12.8 billion passenger-km, or 1 per 10.2 billion if the funicular fire is included. This varies a lot by country: the safest European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, are on a par with China and Japan, but the EU average is pulled down by Germany (due to Eschede) and the periphery.

South Korea: 31.3 billion passenger-km/year, 93 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.7 billion passenger-km. Here the mainline-only rule is a problem because a) the Seoul subway is even more integrated with commuter rail than the Tokyo subway, and b) a subway fire in Daegu killed 198 people.

India: 838.03 billion passenger-km/year, 2,556 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.6 billion passenger-km.

US: 27.26 billion passenger-km/year (both Amtrak and commuter rail), 159 deaths over 20 years. Note the rate is more than twice that of China per capita, let alone per rail passenger. This is one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.

For comparison, the US road network has 33,000 accident deaths and 7.35 trillion passenger-km per year, which is one death per 220 million passenger-km.

On a closing note, China not only has the safest passenger trains, but also by far the busiest tracks. Freight density beats that of the US and Russia and passenger density beats that of any European country.

Nice one. You have to understand, most people are not logical. Look at some Vietnamese here who claim their airline are safest in the world, more safe than US, which is bullshit. People just look at one accident and use that as a talking point to justify their claim.

 

[TaiShang]

2011/06/02
Comparative Rail Safety


Using Wikipedia’s list of rail crashes and its UIC-sourced list of rail passenger-km by country, one can compare different countries’ mainline passenger rail accident fatality rates. The US turns out to be the least safe among the regions I’ve checked, even worse than India; much-maligned China comes out first.

I constructed the list below by averaging accident rates going back to 1991, to smooth out fluctuations coming from low-frequency, high-impact disasters. Crashes involving only freight trains are ignored, and pedestrians and car and bus passengers struck by passenger trains are included. Bombings are excluded, but sabotage incidents leading to accidents are included.

China: 876.22 billion passenger-km/year, 317 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 55.3 billion passenger-km.

Japan: the UIC claims 253.55 billion passenger-km/year, which only includes JR companies. Figures including private railroads and excluding subways range from 360 to 395.9 billion passenger-km; I believe the higher number since it is slightly less dated. Over 20 years there have been 154 deaths, so this is one death per 51.4 billion passenger-km. Including subways would put Japan on a par with China.

EU-27: 386.24 billion passenger-km/year (presumably mainline only), 603 mainline deaths over 20 years. This does not include 155 deaths from a fire on a funicular. This is one death per 12.8 billion passenger-km, or 1 per 10.2 billion if the funicular fire is included. This varies a lot by country: the safest European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, are on a par with China and Japan, but the EU average is pulled down by Germany (due to Eschede) and the periphery.

South Korea: 31.3 billion passenger-km/year, 93 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.7 billion passenger-km. Here the mainline-only rule is a problem because a) the Seoul subway is even more integrated with commuter rail than the Tokyo subway, and b) a subway fire in Daegu killed 198 people.

India: 838.03 billion passenger-km/year, 2,556 deaths over 20 years. This is one death per 6.6 billion passenger-km.

US: 27.26 billion passenger-km/year (both Amtrak and commuter rail), 159 deaths over 20 years. Note the rate is more than twice that of China per capita, let alone per rail passenger. This is one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.

For comparison, the US road network has 33,000 accident deaths and 7.35 trillion passenger-km per year, which is one death per 220 million passenger-km.

On a closing note, China not only has the safest passenger trains, but also by far the busiest tracks. Freight density beats that of the US and Russia and passenger density beats that of any European country.

Impressive analysis, my friend.

This post deserves to be copied and saved to be used whenever some anti-China prick raises the "Oh, but China has lots of rail accidents" argument.

@AndrewJin

 

[oprih]

As expected, with the best infrastructure, China is the safest one. Great to have this thread to debunk the lie that the japanese rail safety is the best.

 

[AndrewJin]

OMG! Uncle Sam nails another number one!
@anant_s

 

[anant_s]

i was expecting China to do well. The point is the Bath tub curve comes into picture

China's rail infrastructure has undergone tremendous investment in safety and new technologies. therefore after initial spate of problems, the rail industry (especially the High Speed Rail) is now matured and at the valley portion pf curve. This means there will be lesse failures leading to unfortunate accidents and better safety records. However a lot would depend on how the system is being maintained.
I can tell u based on similar examples elsewhere in world, that growing popularity of Chinese HST, while being delightful to corporate managers (higher revenues and profits), can be a pain for section controllers and maintenance managers. the point is as dependency of people on these systems grow, more trains will be introduced allowing lower time to take care of system. Initially inbuilt redundancy and capacity buffer allows you to work easily, but as it starts to get consumed, one really needs new technologies or use resources smartly to operate safely and reliably.
a good pointer here would be average occupancy and utilization of system vis a vis safety record.

OMG! Uncle Sam nails another number one!

I guess the situation is bad as most revenue for US railway industry comes from freight hauling and therefore i'm sure if they are actually paying much attention to upgrade of safety and tracks for passenger traffic.

 

[windywine]

i was expecting China to do well. The point is the Bath tub curve comes into picture
View attachment 293038
China's rail infrastructure has undergone tremendous investment in safety and new technologies. therefore after initial spate of problems, the rail industry (especially the High Speed Rail) is now matured and at the valley portion pf curve. This means there will be lesse failures leading to unfortunate accidents and better safety records. However a lot would depend on how the system is being maintained.
I can tell u based on similar examples elsewhere in world, that growing popularity of Chinese HST, while being delightful to corporate managers (higher revenues and profits), can be a pain for section controllers and maintenance managers. the point is as dependency of people on these systems grow, more trains will be introduced allowing lower time to take care of system. Initially inbuilt redundancy and capacity buffer allows you to work easily, but as it starts to get consumed, one really needs new technologies or use resources smartly to operate safely and reliably.
a good pointer here would be average occupancy and utilization of system vis a vis safety record.


I guess the situation is bad as most revenue for US railway industry comes from freight hauling and therefore i'm sure if they are actually paying much attention to upgrade of safety and tracks for passenger traffic.

I have to point it out that the data shown herein covers 20 years period and the high-speed rail service in China was first introduced on 2007. Even though now not all the customer rail service in china is high speed.

i was expecting China to do well. The point is the Bath tub curve comes into picture
View attachment 293038
China's rail infrastructure has undergone tremendous investment in safety and new technologies. therefore after initial spate of problems, the rail industry (especially the High Speed Rail) is now matured and at the valley portion pf curve. This means there will be lesse failures leading to unfortunate accidents and better safety records. However a lot would depend on how the system is being maintained.
I can tell u based on similar examples elsewhere in world, that growing popularity of Chinese HST, while being delightful to corporate managers (higher revenues and profits), can be a pain for section controllers and maintenance managers. the point is as dependency of people on these systems grow, more trains will be introduced allowing lower time to take care of system. Initially inbuilt redundancy and capacity buffer allows you to work easily, but as it starts to get consumed, one really needs new technologies or use resources smartly to operate safely and reliably.
a good pointer here would be average occupancy and utilization of system vis a vis safety record.


I guess the situation is bad as most revenue for US railway industry comes from freight hauling and therefore i'm sure if they are actually paying much attention to upgrade of safety and tracks for passenger traffic.

Though the old customer rail system in China is slow, it is well maintained and safe.

 

[zeronet]

Nice one. You have to understand, most people are not logical. Look at some Vietnamese here who claim their airline are safest in the world, more safe than US, which is bullshit. People just look at one accident and use that as a talking point to justify their claim.

You are wrong and viet guys are right. Their airline absolutely ranks No. 1 in safety, which has been verified by JACDEC's latest airline safety ranking:

Airline Safety Ranking 2016 » JACDEC

The point is, they are No. 1 on the other extreme side of spectrum.

 

[AndrewJin]

i was expecting China to do well. The point is the Bath tub curve comes into picture
View attachment 293038
China's rail infrastructure has undergone tremendous investment in safety and new technologies. therefore after initial spate of problems, the rail industry (especially the High Speed Rail) is now matured and at the valley portion pf curve. This means there will be lesse failures leading to unfortunate accidents and better safety records. However a lot would depend on how the system is being maintained.
I can tell u based on similar examples elsewhere in world, that growing popularity of Chinese HST, while being delightful to corporate managers (higher revenues and profits), can be a pain for section controllers and maintenance managers. the point is as dependency of people on these systems grow, more trains will be introduced allowing lower time to take care of system. Initially inbuilt redundancy and capacity buffer allows you to work easily, but as it starts to get consumed, one really needs new technologies or use resources smartly to operate safely and reliably.
a good pointer here would be average occupancy and utilization of system vis a vis safety record.


I guess the situation is bad as most revenue for US railway industry comes from freight hauling and therefore i'm sure if they are actually paying much attention to upgrade of safety and tracks for passenger traffic.

U can see how international corporate media describe China and India's railways as "cancerous" when their own railway systems are abysmal. See, first French TGV derail and now it's German, do they speak any bad about them or just call it as "a mere and normal accident" which was all drivers' faults, nothing wrong with their "system".

 

[beijingwalker]

Low U.S. Rail Spending Leads to Poor Safety, Experts Say

the fatal derailment of an Amtrak train last week in Philadelphia that was traveling at half that speed surprised many outside North America, where railway accident rates have declined steadily to levels that now rival those of the world’s safest airlines.
As a consequence, industry experts say, the United States has among the worst safety records despite having some of the least-extensive passenger rail networks in the developed world. Fatality rates are almost twice as high as in the European Union and countries like South Korea, and roughly triple the rate in Australia.
Analysts say the impressive safety record in Europe and Asia is a result of steady government spending of billions of dollars on development and maintenance of railroad infrastructure, including sophisticated electronic monitoring and automated braking systems developed over the past 20 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/w...-the-globe-find-no-cheap-route-to-safety.html

Experts: The US will see more fatal train crashes unless the government spends more on rail lines
Experts predict more train crashes unless the US spends more on its rail lines - Business Insider

 

[TaiShang]

U can see how international corporate media describe China and India's railways as "cancerous" when their own railway systems are abysmal. See, first French TGV derail and now it's German, do they speak any bad about them or just call it as "a mere and normal accident" which was all drivers' faults, nothing wrong with their "system".

Exactly. If a similar accident happened in China (Heavens forbid), the Western media would go berserk, and I am not even talking about the little neo-fascists and "opinionated" pricks under the guise of bloggers and non-resident analysts here and there.

When it happens in their own beloved West, they suddenly turn perfectly empirical, often "waiting for the result of full investigation" made by the very state that led to the accident due to, most likely, some faults in the system or mismanagement.

 

[Brahmaputra Mail]

Exactly. If a similar accident happened in China (Heavens forbid), the Western media would go berserk, and I am not even talking about the little neo-fascists and "opinionated" pricks under the guise of bloggers and non-resident analysts here and there.

When it happens in their own beloved West, they suddenly turn perfectly empirical, often "waiting for the result of full investigation" made by the very state that led to the accident due to, most likely, some faults in the system or mismanagement.

Most of the damage is done by domestic writers who are on the payroll of foreign media. This way foreign media tries to portray it as an insider report.

 

[TaiShang]

Most of the damage is done by domestic writers who are on the payroll of foreign media. This way foreign media tries to portray it as an insider report.

A very good point, indeed. Oftentimes, a reporter with the surname "Chan" or "Lee" will sound more convincing and "authentic" than a "Smith" or "Robert".

I guess one can only disqualify them by empirically proving them wrong and repeating, repeating, and repeating. Perhaps India suffers from a similar treatment although I have no idea about the situation.

 

[Brahmaputra Mail]

A very good point, indeed. Oftentimes, a reporter with the surname "Chan" or "Lee" will sound more convincing and "authentic" than a "Smith" or "Robert".

I guess one can only disqualify them by empirically proving them wrong and repeating, repeating, and repeating. Perhaps India suffers from a similar treatment although I have no idea about the situation.

We are a victim of our own media. No western media does more damage than our domestic counterparts. And our US based Indian columnists just do the icing over the cake.