The most visible difference is that the front cab windows are slanted inward from top to bottom, not unlike the bridge of a ship, hence the name "Admiral" cab.

The number boards are taller and they appear to protrude on the outside corners.

I dont like how they installed the A/C, through the floor. The overhead units are much better.

Paul,

Interesting information indeed. anything to make cabs safer for train crews is always welcome. Perhaps NS had the right idea of running their power long hood forward. The prime mover did offer a lot of protection but did restrict visibility for the crew.

If I may rehash the BNSF accident for a moment, the locomotive's 'crash posts' did their job as best they could under the circumstances. I'm sure they weren't designed to withstand a collision with a flatcar that would climb over them and bend the locomotive frame in the process.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, nor have I slept at a Holiday Inn in quite some time, but I'm familiar with the theory of triangles being very resistant to bending or moving.  Would the outcome possibly be different had the crash posts been at an angle that would have deflected the flat car over the cab? Possibly slanted backward and reinforced by the third part of the triangle located farther aft on the locomotive frame.

Not sure how this would be accomplished given current locomotive design. Today's crash posts are designed to fend off cars and trucks, not other railroad equipment.

Have to agree with that. Heat rises, and roof mounted AC units work best.

Georgia Railroader

I dont like how they installed the A/C, through the floor. The overhead units are much better.

Plus when the drainpipe gets clogged, you get a shower as you go around an elevated curve!

Is this cab more crashworthy than a conventional cab?  If so, what is it that makes this cab crashworthy? 

My question exactly. It doesn't look much different. If indeed it is then it might be a modification that could be performed without a whole new cab.

I always liked the long hood forward. I got used to seeing my relatives operate them that way. I don't get the issue of visibility. It's not like you have to steer and swerve to miss something. It's on the track, you either can stop or hit it.

tdmidget

My question exactly. It doesn't look much different. If indeed it is then it might be a modification that could be performed without a whole new cab.

I always liked the long hood forward. I got used to seeing my relatives operate them that way. I don't get the issue of visibility. It's not like you have to steer and swerve to miss something. It's on the track, you either can stop or hit it.

Yea but for the folks that operate these things, long hood out stinks. Especially with a tonnage train, pulling through a yard in the middle of the night through dense fog looking out for banners, cars,derails, and everything else. You do that and you'll see why we hate running long hood out.

It's safer as far as hitting something big like a log truck or a really big tree, but  it's not like we hit one of these every other day. In a head on situation, you may live, or you may end up with the prime mover in your lap. But again, this is not something that happens all the time.

@Norm, I am a mechanical engineer but I am unfamiliar with both the BNSF flatcar intrusion accident and the positioning of the crash posts that you are talking about. A triangle is a very stiff structure because of the inherent cross bracing and the load path that it offers, but there are limits to any design and what it can accomplish. Was the locomotive in question also equipped with the anti-climber on the frame?

 The new Admiral cab looks very similar to the previous AAR spartan can so I am assuming that the new protective structure is all hidden under the short hood.

episette

@Norm, I am a mechanical engineer but I am unfamiliar with both the BNSF flatcar intrusion accident and the positioning of the crash posts that you are talking about. A triangle is a very stiff structure because of the inherent cross bracing and the load path that it offers, but there are limits to any design and what it can accomplish. Was the locomotive in question also equipped with the anti-climber on the frame?

 

 The new Admiral cab looks very similar to the previous AAR spartan can so I am assuming that the new protective structure is all hidden under the short hood.

episettte:

Follow tyhe following link to the Thread on the BNSF Rear-ender in Iowa,near Emerson,Ia.

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/190729/2082343.aspx#2082343

"Fatal Rear-end Collision Reported on BNSF"

There are lots of links and plenty of photos posted, along with explanations of the discussions of what might have happened.

Back to the issue of the NS's new "ADMIRAL CAB" that Paul North had posted.

http://www.modeltrainjournal.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12043

The 'nose on view of the NS 6119: 

Looking at the photo closely.    I am wondering if the metal used in the construction of the low nose feature might not be of an unusually heavier plate than would normally be used?

   With the way the cab appears to be constructed. I am curious if the glass used might not be of a variety that could be considered an extreme shatter proof [maybe, even a bullet proof?

     Have there been any 'crash-worthy' tests done on this style of cab?  Will they be done with the 6119?     A  Cab mock up on another chassis for tests?

     Does not look like a really fancy build up of the cab, the corners and planes seem to be pretty straight-forward in their build up, just a real solid workman-like looking construction.

"With the way the cab appears to be constructed. I am curious if the glass used might not be of a variety that could be considered an extreme shatter proof [maybe, even a bullet proof?"

Part 223 glazing been required for many years.

@Sam, Bucyrus's post on the 5th page in the post accident thread on 5-4 2011 said it better then I could.  There are ways to lessen the impact and protect the crew when a locomotive hits a car but when the cars stack up and a car literally goes through the occupant compartment at windshield level there is not much that can be done, if you're not willing to significantly add weight and sacrifice crew visibility for what is a freak accident. A locomotive vs a single car  or even 2 cars might be survivable but when its 3-4  cars hitting the single locomotive its a matter of luck if the crew would survive. Wonder materials like titanium, carbon fiber or Kevlar aren't going to help because this is a case of brute force. High strength steel like 4130 or 4340 might help but I assume that they are already being used in the posts, with the proper joints.

The FRA test of a shipping container on a doubler stack car impacting a cab is a good example of this situation. If that container is full and hits the cab head-on and doesn't slide off to either side then you will have the same situation because the glass greenhouse of the cab isn't very strong and if you try to reinforce it you will lose significant visibility.  You could add amour glass, but if the steel structure supporting it fails then that glass becomes a flying object that could easily injure or decapitate the crew that it was supposed to protect.  

 These are the times where instead of armoring the cab it might be better to improve the signals and communication  so that this kind of accident cannot happen.

It looks like the news of this cab is circulating and there are a few minor spotting features to distinguish the "crashworthy" cab from a conventional cab.  But I would like to see some drawings or diagrams coupled with an engineering explanation of the structural enhancements and how they work.  Two key specifications that would be interesting to learn are the amount of weight this adds and the amount of cost it adds. 

And then, of course, one must ask what this improvement is expected to accomplish in crash performance.  Making locomotives "crashworthy" is a controversial objective.  One one hand there can be no argument against safety.  So when it comes to something foisted onto the public, like wearing seatbelts for instance, there can be no argument against it, especially when advanced with the force of government.  That same busy force is always looking for things to do, and this locomotive cab safety is very fertile ground.  I can imagine how nervous this makes the railroad industry.

http://yardlimit.railfan.net/baldwin/dt66-2000/trona-51.jpg

 The above link is to a photo of a Baldwin Center Cab Diesel, a Dt6-6-6-2000.  Although ultimately unsuccessful.   You have to wonder if that configuration would be the ultimate for collision crew safety and "crash worthyness"?   And one example is in the collection of the Illinois Railway Museum.[#21 MN&S RR]

I'd nominate the PRR's classic electric locomotive, the GG1.  Its cab arrangement followed that of the similar predecessor P5a, which was implemented after an engine crew in a box-cab version P5 was killed in a grade crossing accident in NJ.

- Paul North. 

Bucyrus.  I assume by your previous reply that I referenced that you have studied engineering.

  Improving safety is always a very noble goal and it should be a priority but you can go too far when you try to predict every possible accident and build the machine in question to be safe in all situations. That obviously can be done with sufficient money and demand, but you also risk the situation of the old joke that a camel is a horse built by a committee. Strengthening the corner posts and such is the obvious start, but do GE/EMD and their customers want to go so far  that they build a bunker on the front of a locomotive and what are the consequences of doing so?

If a bridge collapses do you then try to build a cab that would protect against that scenario, or do you choose to build and maintain the bridges in your trackage?   I assume that AAR regs require a fire extinguisher on board in the crew compartment at all times but have they ever considered a plumbed in system like planes and other vehicles are required to have? 

 I hate to say it because it seems so callous but have  the AAR ever investigated how safe it is to jump from a moving locomotive in a situation of imminent impact and tried to develop ways to make that scenario safer when everything fails and the crew must get away or face certain death?

 There is an inherent risk to every action and you can only physically protect people from the most obvious risks before you decrease the efficiency of the device. These are the times when an engineering solution might not be the most effective so you must look at other parts of the operation for the proper solution. A railroads employees are its most important asset and they must feel safe and be protected while performing their task, but adding physical protection isn't always the best way to achieve that goal.  

I hope that I have not offended anyone with my reply and If I have I would like to apologize now for that action because it definitely wasn't my intent to do so.

episette - In one of the previous threads on this subject, I observed that a lot of steel could be added to the locomotive's collision posts and make them essentially 'bombproof" (or a bunker as you said) without impairing its function or utility, at least from a weight perspective.  "Dead weight" in the form of either steel plate or concrete is added to them now already for more weight on the driving wheels for more tractive effort - I don't see a huge difference in a fraction of that added weight being in the collision posts as opposed to being down in the frame. 

 One of the FRA crash-worthiness tests at TTC about 10 years ago that I also referenced a couple of times in that thread involved crashing a simulated off-center/ eccentric container into the front of a strengthened cab, complete with "crash-test dummies" which supposedly survived just fine.  I don't have time to retrieve that link right now, but it does demonstrate that significant improvement is practical.

And a new point:  The Army's M1 Abrams series Main Battle Tanks were designed with crew survivability as the primary goal, even against various types of sophisticated anti-armor weapons, as opposed to the mere blunt force impact that we are discussing here.  That has been achieved quite well - I believe no crew of an M1 has been lost to enemy direct fire, and maybe only a few to the IED's/ roadside bombs.  The entire vehicle weighs about 65 tons, so the turret is about 20 tons or so, and maybe another 20 tons for the armor on the chassis around the crew compartment.  Now there are of course a lot on non-comparables in this analogy, but I think it speaks to the point that crew survivability against even tremendous adverse forces is an attainable goal. 

Prevention is indeed also a worthwhile utilization of scarce resources - "Mister, you do your job right, and that'll never happen to you" (RFE to an engineer concerned about a "caboose in the lap" while running one of SP's cab-forwards).  But some crew-endangering events are not susceptible to those efforts - washouts, boulders on the track, shifted loads, trucks at grade crossings, etc. - so there is still a need.  I'm not persuaded the current locomotive cab construction practices represent anything close to an optimum in view of the current state of the art of either structural engineering and/or locomotive manufacturing and costs - which is why I'm especially curious about the details of these new NS "Admiral cabs". 

- Paul North.    

episette

Bucyrus.  I assume by your previous reply that I referenced that you have studied engineering.

  Improving safety is always a very noble goal and it should be a priority but you can go too far when you try to predict every possible accident and build the machine in question to be safe in all situations. That obviously can be done with sufficient money and demand, but you also risk the situation of the old joke that a camel is a horse built by a committee. Strengthening the corner posts and such is the obvious start, but do GE/EMD and their customers want to go so far  that they build a bunker on the front of a locomotive and what are the consequences of doing so?

If a bridge collapses do you then try to build a cab that would protect against that scenario, or do you choose to build and maintain the bridges in your trackage?   I assume that AAR regs require a fire extinguisher on board in the crew compartment at all times but have they ever considered a plumbed in system like planes and other vehicles are required to have? 

 I hate to say it because it seems so callous but have  the AAR ever investigated how safe it is to jump from a moving locomotive in a situation of imminent impact and tried to develop ways to make that scenario safer when everything fails and the crew must get away or face certain death?

 There is an inherent risk to every action and you can only physically protect people from the most obvious risks before you decrease the efficiency of the device. These are the times when an engineering solution might not be the most effective so you must look at other parts of the operation for the proper solution. A railroads employees are its most important asset and they must feel safe and be protected while performing their task, but adding physical protection isn't always the best way to achieve that goal.  

I hope that I have not offended anyone with my reply and If I have I would like to apologize now for that action because it definitely wasn't my intent to do so.

I might not have made it clear in what I posted in that older thread linked to a post on the previous page, but I completely agree with all your points in your above post.  When it sounded like I was making a case for crashworthy locomotive cabs, I was only describing how attractive that case would look to the people who lobby regulatory agencies of government to pass laws in their interest.  They will use the crash in Iowa to force more safety onto the railroads, but I am not saying that more crashworthiness is needed. 

I did describe how it could be accomplished, but the cost would be enormous.  I think it could add $250,000 to the cost of a locomotive depending on how far it went.  But that won’t discourage the people who have the power to force safety improvements whether they are worthwhile or not.  Those people are always looking for new things to regulate; more things for government to do.  It usually starts with activist think tanks that come out with a study.  Lobbyists take the study and lobby congress, and a new regulation is born. There are groups advocating airbags on the front of locomotives to protect pedestrians.

Having said that, I also agree with some of Paul North’s points about unavoidable collisions and impacts justifying some level of crash protection.  I am not familiar with the motivations behind the current state of locomotive cab crash protection.  I don’t know where the idea came from or who asked for it.  But I wonder if NS might be making the rest of the industry nervous by getting out front on their own accord, and ending up raising the bar on mandatory crash protection for the whole industry.

I think I will do a little research to learn more about this trend in locomotive crash protection.  I am surprised that NS has not explained the mechanical objective of their new cab.            

Paul_D_North_Jr

  [snipped]  One of the FRA crash-worthiness tests at TTC about 10 years ago that I also referenced a couple of times in that thread involved crashing a simulated off-center/ eccentric container into the front of a strengthened cab, complete with "crash-test dummies" which supposedly survived just fine.  I don't have time to retrieve that link right now, but it does demonstrate that significant improvement is practical.  

"Locomotive Collision Test #6 - Elevated, Offset Collision of a Freight Locomotive with a Loaded 40 ft Container" (6 pages/ slides, approx. 427 KB in size) at:  http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test6_Info.pdf 

"Locomotive Collision Test #9 - Freight Locomotive With a Strengthened Windshield Frame Impacting a High/Offset Intermodal Container" (8 pages/ slides, approx. 435 KB in size) at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test9_Info.pdf 

- Paul North. 

I did welding and fabrication for a long time on cars and locomotives and I don't see much difference at all in this new design except for the windows. My advice if you really wanted good protection would be to make the front and sides of the nose out of 1/2 inch steel. It wouldn't cost much more. Weld the nose all the way around and you could hit a log truck and it would probably just put a dent in it.

If you really wanted good protection you could make the framework around the front windows(excluding the conductors door) out of 1/2" or if you wanted overkill go with 1" thick steel. Locomotive would be practically indestructible.

@Paul North 8:52pm.

 I assumed that modern widecab locomotive already had the strengthened corner posts that performed so well in the FRA offset container collision and if that isn't the case then those posts should be retrofitted to existing locomotives during any rebuild.  They should obviously be standard on new locomotives because it appears to be a simple addition with little loss in visibility for the strength that is gained. There is some additional strength to be gained by adding a second posts at the side  that would drop straight down from the upper outside point of the windshield  and form a stiffening triangle

Airbags could be added  to locomotives very easily especially since the current seats are rigidly mounted and do not have air ride, which can make it difficult to have the bag deploy in the proper place instead if being too high or too low depending on the seat height at the time of deployment. Class 7-8 trucks have both airbags and air-ride seats, so that problem has already been solved if the railroads choose also to add air ride seats for crew comfort.

The biggest problem with putting airbags in locomotives is where to mount them because the dashboard is already very crowded and you don't have a steer wheel like a car or truck. You also cannot have any loose objects between the bag and the occupant or they will become a projectile when the bag deploys. I don't know where you would mount a bag on a older style control stand locomotive.

I am wondering if cabs with seats that have higher backs and/or adjustable head rests, that would rotate 180° in a collision to protect the crews head by putting the back of the seat toward the impact might also be a possibility. Crews would need to wear a 3 point belt to hold them securely in the seat, so that might be a hindrance.  

The railroads have always been interested in cab safety.  Many specified anticlimbers as part of the design even though there was no rule or regulation.  The industry also came up with the  AAR "clean cab" design of the early 70s.  This attempted to reduce the number of sharp corners in the cab and make the cab more impervious to intrusion by eliminating the inside access to the number board lamps, and several other changes that I've forgotten.  It also included quite a bit of cab appliance standardization unrelated to safety.

After this, the FRA mandated better cab glazing - the current standard requires the ability to take a cinder block at 50 mph, point first and not allow intrusion into the cab.

The next round of improvements came with the wide cab design.  Once again, this was an industry initiative. It had stronger collision posts, mandatory anticlimbers, thicker nose sheet steel and the nose door design.  Later, the industry and the FRA agreed to make these changes the standard by regulation.

I suspect, but don't know, that the "Admiral cab" is NS's attempt to bring locomotives up to the current new locomotive safety standard, among other things.

Seats and airbags....  The seats generally aren't fixed.  They are mounted on a side rail in the cab and can be repositioned forward and aft.  The seats also have height adjustment and can recline a bit.  Some seats may have other features like adjustable arm rests.  Air ride seats aren't generally useful because there is considerably less vertical motion in a locomotive's ride than in a truck or other highway vehicle and when there is, it's not really in the frequency range where that an air ride seat can help..  Air bags and seat belts in automobiles work by spreading out the deceleration force evenly over a fairly long distance.  Even fairly violent train collisions happen over fairly long distances (e.g. the driver in a car hitting a pole at 60 mph will be at dead stop in 3 feet of travel. Usually not so for a train...) and it's rare that deceleration forces from the collision that cause injury and death.  It usually crushing from lack of structural integrity or intrusion of material (lading, ballast, etc.) into the cab that cause the problem.