When they could just use an adjustable spanner or two to remove the stretcher bars and let them crash at a set of points., like Cumbria.
2007-04-17 13:42:43 · 12 answers · asked by Timothy B 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Rail
Even if stretcher bars are removed (which you would need specialist equipment for, not an "adjustable spanner"), there is no guarantee that a train would derail before the points were next inspected.
In the case of the Cumbria incident (for which there is no evidence of terrorism), it is reasonable to assume that several trains passed over the points, before they became out of gauge (maybe due to vibration from trains).
Also, trains are now extremely safe in the event of an accident; only one person died in Cumbria (one is too many of course), and even then her advanced years may have been a contributary factor.
Now that you have asked a detailed question about terrorism, maybe the police will get your IP address from Yahoo!, and you'll get a knock on the door.
2007-04-18 06:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Creating a break in the rail would "knock the signals down" here in the US, meaning it would turn the signals governing that stretch of track "red" or stop.
Trains proceeding past a signal displaying a "stop" indication proceed at "restricted speed," which basically means a speed that will allow the engineer to stop the train within 1/2 the range of vision, short of anything.
If you are trying to pile up a train as a terrorist act, cutting the rail is a poor choice. Unfortunately, they already know that. The best attention getter where passenger (or freight) trains is concerned is a good ol' bomb.
Pay attention to your fellow travelers, and speak up if you see something out of the ordinary. I would rather be thought a "nut" for being wrong about a report rather than live with the knowledge my inaction cost several lives, just as inaction did when it cost 32 lives at Virginia Tech yesterday.
God Bless.
2007-04-17 17:14:12 · answer #2 · answered by Samurai Hoghead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do they? I have not seen much evidence of this? They blow themselves up in any densely packed area rather than target a specific transport.
Also you could remove the stretcher bars on the rails, it still does not mean you are going to cause an accident. i have seen a few places where stretchers have come loose, joints have sprung, shoes have slipped and all it does is rattle the unit as it passes over.
2007-04-19 23:28:21 · answer #3 · answered by Kevan M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't be racist. Terrorists come of all races.
Coz if they claim responsibility for track and equipment related problems in England, nobody would believe 'em.
This article here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6399347.stm
would seem to suggest the British are a little resistant to innovation on the safety front. There haven't been any really new, big discoveries in rail safety in the last 30 years, so one wonders what the hold-up is.
2007-04-18 13:08:37 · answer #4 · answered by Wolf Harper 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Cumbria crash was caused by the train crashing into John Prescotts Y fronts, everybody knows that.
2007-04-18 01:02:23 · answer #5 · answered by des c 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it very plenty. it would take it sluggish and the possibility is that such somebody could have been see via a passing prepare driving force. particularly, at Potter's Bar the line is quite busy with trains passing each 5 minutes or so. danger is that some one working illegally on the railway as stated could have been splattered for, if working on my own, they might not have been in a position to maintain a ideal seem out. do no longer have confidence in conspiracy theories, particularly in completely poor maintenance and oversight of works being executed, this is plenty extra intense.
2016-10-22 11:24:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists use explosives on trains, because this meets their objective...Causing the most damage/death as possible, in the shortest amount of time and inflicting abject terror. Explosives instill much more fear than the prospect of a crash. Terrorists don't want survivors and a crash is more survivable than a bombing/mass bombing.
2007-04-17 14:27:47 · answer #7 · answered by railfan2006 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no suggestion that the accident in Cumbria was the result of terrorist action, it was apparently due to incompetent workmanship.
2007-04-17 20:25:53 · answer #8 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suspect it is all this misplaced Jihad business and gettin a supposed front-row seat in heaven.
I really would like to know too what ails these geezers.
When all else fails spose we might try askin em..that is..if we can get close enough before they self-destruct...
2007-04-17 14:54:08 · answer #9 · answered by bak2deefuture 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of similar reasons as to another question i have answered religion believe in what i believe in or i blow you up its a crock of horse **** and the terrorist bullies will never win they are the lowest of the low
2007-04-17 14:40:05 · answer #10 · answered by driver_man37 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋