Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiefalchemist | Hacker News Reader

> Neither was it equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, a safety measure that the railway industry lobbied against vigorously when Congress proposed a law to have them installed on trains because of the costs involved.

Safety has a cost. Lack of safety has a cost. The former the cost is financial. The latter it's lives, peace of mind, health, etc.

One is replaceable. One is not. Sadly Congress protected the replaceable one.

View on HN

I am not convinced electronically controlled pneumatic brakes would have made a big difference here[1] during an emergency stop. Some difference, sure. But keep in mind that 50 cars out of 141(IIRC) derailed. This is not a defense of any specific policy. I just think people are treating the EPC brakes as if they would have completely prevented the accident.

[1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2017_casselton_BM...

they would likely reduce the number of derailed cars

In my limited knowledge weren't ecp brakes part of the ability is to prevent large trains from derailing, and being able to stop independently?

The older braking system, that was currently installed on those trains, has more points of failure.

ECP brakes are generally per train and freight car or car block. Any single car or block installed with them likely wouldn't haven't made a difference, but more probably, in an environment with lax adherence to (or even avoidance of) safety technology guidelines, there is no guarantee that an ECP braking system would have been operably configured and maintained.

In the condition this train was at, whether they were equipped or not is irrelevant, because they'd more than likely just have been expensive decorations.

Even assuming they performed optimally, the reduction in stopping distance would not have been anywhere near 100%. It depends on train length, weight, and speed, and some other train car standards but a mean estimate would be a 13 to 39% reduction in the stopping distance. How many less cars does this translate to as far as a derailment? This study [1] suggest 20% less. Contrast that with an official saying that ECP brakes would have "avoided that monster pile up"[2]. If 50 cars derailed then maybe we could see ten fewer cars derailing in a similar accident. Is that worth it? I don't know. But I don't believe it would have completely prevented it.

[1]: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680555.pdf

[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/02/14/norfolk-south...

> One is replaceable.

cost is cost. You can put a financial figure on lives, health, peace of mind etc. Insurance companies do this every time they insure something.

So the question really is whether the cost of safety will outweigh the economic loss of implementing that safety.

In theory. But would you (and fam) trade places with anyone living in that area? For 2x the price the insurance company would pay?

The real problem with this math is that the cost of the braking system would be borne by the company, but the costs of the derailment are borne by the public. So even if the derailment cost >>> the brake system cost, it's an easy decision for the industry to make. That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up.

> That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up.

The Banksters demonstrated that back in 2008.

Insurance companies doing this to help people manage risk and are often attempting to help people in moments of grief and tragedy, and those people opted into the contract.

Train companies doing this to unsuspecting towns are stochastic monsters killing people because the victims are a financial externality and therefore cheaper dead than alive. They knew that a disaster could happen but chose good balance sheets over externalized risk.

Boiling this down to pure economics is monstrous; Flip this around. What if I get to decide if you live or die based on my spreadsheets?

Clearly the dollar value of thing isn't the only thing that matters. We should make these as safe as we can afford to, to the point that mass death or even mass destruction doesn't happen while billionaires are made from it. We can't afford infinite safety but while we can afford more safety we should. It is even correct from a macroeconomic standpoint, people who don't die or suffer from disasters go on to be more productive in the economy than dead people.

I think it's understood that sometimes we need to reflect the value of a human life in monetary terms, but to act as if human lives provide no value beyond actuarial valuations is pretty horrific

See any major class action lawsuit, the true cost of these disasters is never paid. The company will restructure, file for bankruptcy, any pay out pennies to the victims.

Norfolk southern gave the town $25k to the town, however the true cost of one resident getting cancer is potentially millions of dollars. The true cost of a single evacuation is probably in the millions also. Nobody will ever pay for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com