van ordinaire wrote: ↑04 Apr 2018, 00:17
Logic dictates that all that must be true BUT people do get killed by overhead lines, although you would think that's actually quite difficut, even though you only need to get too close BUT - never understimate stupidity! Curiously, news stories of people killed by overhead lines seem to be more common than those who suffer the same fate from a 3rd rail.
I have no idea of relative numbers (although I have read particular investigations of each type of case) and yes of course people do get killed by overhead lines (domestic power as well as railway ole) but the fact that happens is more newsworthy, because it's so much more difficult to make happen. Plus when it does, it will trip out a larger section (as I said earlier, distribution sections are longer) hence more widespread disruption.
By an amazing coincidence there was a snippet in this morning's paper about an unsuccessful attempt, under the Freedom Of Information Act, to obtain info. on diesel locomotive emissions. Despite the fact there is no data to disclose it is still maintained that the problem in London is mainly attributable to motor vehicles, particularly diesels - sorry, where's the evidence?
There is research conducted into health impact of diesels fumes in stations, conducted by railway safety and research bodies and guidance from same and the regulator.
However as to the evidence of pollution caused by diesel trains versus motor vehicles.... It's a very, very simple case of volume...
How many diesel trains do you think there are per square mile particularly in a built up centre (which is the only place it really matters) versus how many motor vehicles?
The government has made assessments of proportion of pollution caused by all human activity, so within that, has considered that caused by diesel rail vehicles.