October 12,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the issue of NJT train seating has come up. Commuters speculated that those seated in NJT Hoboken train crash likely went flying forward hitting the fixed reversed seat ahead of them or into the Aisles. The question is why are there no locking devices on these seats? Another element that is lacking is that there are also no seat belts; this might be helpful especially for children and the elderly.
Wow. Darn good point. There is no locking mechanisms on those reversible seats.
this is a train for adults… not a school bus.
11:14 come on…
Adults have huge mass and can even crush those ahead of them in the same collapsing dominos of seats in such an incident.
What the hell do you hold onto as you start flying forward…a simple seat bac locking mechanism would at least contain the passengers in that seating area.they are cushioned for a reason ,but the collapsing forward aspect of the seat backs is a dangerous design defect.Law suits will commence..what do we do now for safety day to day on there same older design train cars..in use and rolling right now..
https://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=82818&start=0#p937371
JimBoylan wrote:
Matt Johnson wrote:
Reversible seatbacks are even prohibited in new cars now, so that’s one reason you’ve got fixed seats in new commuter cars like the NJT multilevels.
I haven’t been able to find any Federal or New Jersey legal prohibition. A while ago, New Jersey Transit bragged that their recent at that time order of single level cars would have inertial locks like on automobile seat belts to prevent the seat backs from moving during a crash. In my opinion as a railroader, the “prohibition” probably comes from the same person who bans railfan photography from public places.
I did not find anything either. The feds primary interest with respect to seats appears to be that they (1) don’t break loose from their fastenings, (2) the backs don’t unduly obstruct the emergency egress windows, and (3) they remain in a fixed position in a crash to better cushion the momemtum of a passenger. Inertial locks should be able to satisfy No. 3. The multilevel car seats have padding on the top rear and are high backed to better satisfy No. 3. My suspicion is that NJT desired cost savings from less maintenance, no need for crews to reverse seats and elimination of the issue with passengers flipping seats making collecting fares/keeping track of paid passengers more difficult and limiting capacity on peak trains since 4 longer-legged passengers cannot comfortably sit in pairs of seats facing each other.
HERE COME THE LAWSUITS
What a joke.
You people are unreal.
You want all of this stuff, but when the time comes to pay for it you will bitch and moan and demand that others subsidize your fare (via tax increases).
All of these safety features cost money.
Life is not without risks or compromises.
So if you want these features, do you want to pay more for your fare… or do you want to reduce other services?
Oh I get it – you want everything and you want to pay nothing.
Well this is not fantasy world
Stop being babies.
11:14 seems to be the only one with any common sense .. albeit without much grace…
10.43. If not now then when do we intend to deal with basic train safety issues.Trains drive growth and prosperity..maintain real estate desireability and companies not relocating to the South..ie Mercedes Benz and so many other companies..Technology is not always the northeast regions friend..we can’t even build a new rail tunnel into the city..our jobs lifeline..
Yes let’s deal with this now..HOBOKEN crash is another wake up call..deferred positive train control safety implementation has to be dealt with to avoid the next disaster…Penn Station is a whole other major issue