On the 30th of June of 2009, a tragic accident caused the death of 22 people (latest report according to Ansa.it) and near 50 injured, in a small town in the North of Italy called Viareggio.
According to a BBC report, a train with 14 wagons travelling from La Spezia to Pisa, was carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in each wagon. When one of the carriages derailed and jumped off the tracks near the Viareggio train station, the tank of the carriage that derailed didn’t survive the impact and created a fireball blast that spread 300 metres radius, incinerating everything in its path.
Houses were burned down and close to 1,000 people were evacuated by the local authorities with fear that more houses could collapse. Most of the victims were either burned or buried by the rubble.
Ansa reports that 80 people were left homeless by the explosion that occurred just before midnight.
The local residents are furious about the accident and are asking the authorities why the train has derailed and why didn’t the tank survive the derailment? But the most important question asked was, why the train carrying such a dangerous cargo was allowed to travel along a highly residential area?
According to AOL news, the Italy’s state-run railways company said that the first carriage (the one that exploded) was registered with the Polish company PKP, while the other 13 were registered to Deutsche Bahn, German railways.
The local authorities after interviewing the drivers of the train, believe that the train might have derailed due to a damage to the tracks or a problem with the train’s braking system.
They also believe that the reason why the first tank exploded while the rest remained intact is because of poor maintenance of the tank.
The local authorities didn’t have an immediate answer as to why the train with dangerous cargo was passing by Viareggio, but the rail officials did say that Viareggio Station was an important hub for trains running up and down along the West coast.
Perhaps one of the reasons as to why freight train was being used rather than freight truck is because of the advantages that trains offer over trucking.
According to Treehugger website, a freight train has an efficiency of 400 ton-miles per gallon compared to only 130 ton-miles per gallon that trucks do.
Also according to a study conducted by David Forkenbrock, freight trains have, on average, less external costs (around 0.24 cents US) than freight trucks (about 1.11 cents).
With this information at hand, one can assume that trains are used instead of other forms of transportation simply because of the efficiency trains offer in comparison.
Many governments are in fact encouraging businesses to use freight trains more often rather than trucks, because they offer a greener solution. Businesses will also appreciate the train solution because it’s a cheaper alternative for them.
If the LPG was to be carried in other forms of transportation or had to be rerouted via other train tracks far from residential areas but covered longer distances, then it would have driven the prices of LPG higher. Hard to believe that the general public would appreciate that.
Accidents of this nature are extremely rare. Last time Italy had a major train accident occurred in 2005 when a commercial train collided head on with a freight train on a very foggy day.
Accidents are unpredicted occurrences and in this case it seems that the accident was a man made error. Perhaps it could have been avoided if the proper maintenance work was done regularly.
Is rerouting a solution?
That is a question that only Italian authorities can answer.
1 comment:
A very sad story indeed.
And your story also brings into question the issue of safety when carrying such cargo. It was obvious that very little to no forethought was given to ensuring that such products are contained in a safe and specially designed cargo. The company simply assumed that things would go the way they do without derailment...and it was an obvious mistake to make such assumptions as the train metaphorically and literally derailed, causing such disaster to take place.
I don't think the problem is choosing between a sustainable vs. a not so sustainable mode of transportation and whether or not re-routing should be considered; if the truck derails the same issue would occur. I would like to argue that the issue has more to do with containing the cargo and ensuring that little to no spillage would occur upon derailment.
Nobody likes to think about accidents but that is precisely what we have to plan ahead for, things that we do not want to happen so that we may better respond to them.
Post a Comment