Money more important then safety!

[Ham549]

So cabcars have been proven to be less safe then locomotives when leading trains. In fact they are very much less safe (see video link). http://youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3E Building a turntable or a “Y” junction is expensive. So why don’t railroads like Amtrak put two locomotives on each end of EVERY train. Well even though they had a surplus of perfectly good F40PHs the railroads rather sell them for scrap to get money rather then keeping people safe. That derailment with the cabcar and the SUV that clamed the lives of some commuters could have been avoided if they could just have put a F40PH in front of the train. I wonder how the families of the victims would respond if they heard scraping locomotives and sending the engines to Poland was more important then there family members.

[rrandb]

The F40PH's operateded well past there designed service life due to Amtrak's severe budjects constraints. At a certain point in an engines life it can no longer be relied on to provide dependable and safe service. They were no longer cost effective and retired as soon as enough Genesis's engines came on property. All we need is for "OUR" Congress to pony up the money as Amtrak has no spare funds for anything at all. After you get them to buy the engines get them to buy the hundreds of new cars Amtrak need as well. It is you, me and everyone one else in American who is to blame for the discraceful codition of our national passenger system. Have you written your congressman lately?

[Anonymous]

There is an old wartime poster that showed a large black steam train highballing thru a road crossing. It showed severe colors to indicate that it is rolling death to those who dont STOP< LOOK< and LISTEN.

You can have the safest trains with the most up to date technology but the Darwins will stumble and trip themselves into a early grave if they dont take proper precautions around such large and powerful peices of equiptment. Luckily we are sufficently multiplying in numbers to absorb a few tragic losses along the way.

Amtrack has always been on the verge of oblivion. Spoon fed or otherwise gastric feed just enough to keep the heart beat going and in some cases run a Jewel of a Northeast Corridor while hiding the dirty laundry from elsewhere in the USA. Congress formed the railroad with a dream of return to it's glory of the 50's tying the entire USA together but the best they can do is pay of last years debt and cut down station stops until only a few nighttime stops are made. Leaving the current problem to the next batch of Congressmen and women to be elected every 4 years.

It's a wonder we got this far. It should be called Debttrack.

Freight Railroads rule the rails. Anything that slows them down or interrupts thier carefully crafted schedules will be frowned upon severely. Time is money. No need for a little passenger train earning 40 head gross fares while you can boom a Coal train thru at 130+ cars worth of revenue.

I dont care if an aging engine is sold off to scrap, but I would like to see that revenue go to a nicer new engine that does the job well. If they put multipules on one or both ends, that is even better!

[Limitedclear]

So cabcars have been proven to be less safe then locomotives when leading trains. In fact they are very much less safe (see video link). http://youtube.com/watch?v=HZWpeU55J3E Building a turntable or a “Y” junction is expensive. So why don’t railroads like Amtrak put two locomotives on each end of EVERY train. Well even though they had a surplus of perfectly good F40PHs the railroads rather sell them for scrap to get money rather then keeping people safe. That derailment with the cabcar and the SUV that clamed the lives of some commuters could have been avoided if they could just have put a F40PH in front of the train. I wonder how the families of the victims would respond if they heard scraping locomotives and sending the engines to Poland was more important then there family members.

So, not to dispute your conclusion, but who said that cab cars were less safe than locomotives? FRA said they were about the same as I recall after the big crash in Southern Claifornia. Cab cars are still in use pretty much everywhere. Granted, I have my own views as an engineer as to whether I would want to run one, but the issue of safety is far from settled...

Also, most of the F40PHs that were worth anything were sold whole and are either out there running for one commuter agency or another or are available for lease.

I'm not sure where you get your "facts", but they certainly don't match what a number of reliable sources have put forward.

LC

 

 

[Ham549]

That video is from the FRA and as the data showed the f40ph suffered 8 inches of cruch to the windesheld ariea while the cabcar was telescoped.

[PBenham]

Cab cars should never be used on routes that have grade crossings. Period.

[Anonymous]

So by your line of logic, the BNSF, UP, CSX, NS & KCS should all bring back steam engines because they're heavier and the cab isn't in the front.

[Ham549]

No todays locomotives do a good job. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that a cabcar is lighter then a locomotive and unlike a cabcar a locomotive dosen't carry passengers (power cars on some electric trains are different story though)

[Limitedclear]

That video is from the FRA and as the data showed the f40ph suffered 8 inches of cruch to the windesheld ariea while the cabcar was telescoped.

Yes, it is an FRA video. NO, the FRA hasn't said that cab cars are unsafe. As a matter of fact they did say that cab cars and locomotive hauled trains involved in collisions had minimal variance in terms of injuries. Also, the cab car used in the demo is an old car, not up to current collision post and other design standards. Merely because cab cars are lighter than locomotives does not make them unsafe. You are reaching for some big conclusions. Also, remember tnat vehicles involved in grade crossing collisions such as cars and trucks are significantly lighter than trains.

LC 

[Ham549]

That crash wouldn’t have happened the way it did if a locomotive was leading the train. They are just now makeing cabcars safer http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-23-rail-safety-test_x.htm when all they needed to do was to put a F40PH there.

[rrandb]

That crash wouldn’t have happened the way it did if a locomotive was leading the train. They are just now makeing cabcars safer http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-23-rail-safety-test_x.htm when all they needed to do was to put a F40PH there.

I am missing something here. As far as I know Amtrak trains are never operated push-pull with cab cars. They are however the contract operator for some commuter railroads that have specified for them to either operate the states equipment or provide equipment and operate it. These are state or in the case of say the Chicago/ New York area regional operations. Amtrak onlt operates intercity trains that have no cab cars. Virtually all electric MU cars could be considered cab cars and I have never heard of them being "UNSAFE". Your are confusing the hazards of grade crossings with equipment design. The FRA has mandated new design standards for trains equiped to operate in a push-pull mode. They are required by both their own mandate and law to embargo any equipment they find to be "UNSAFE". Period. That means it must be parked untill it can be made safe. If it can not be made safe it becomes MOW or it is scrapped. When the Acela's were found to have cracks in the metal they were all immediatly parked because they were found to be UNSAFE.

[mudchicken]

That crash wouldn’t have happened the way it did if a locomotive was leading the train. They are just now makeing cabcars safer http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-23-rail-safety-test_x.htm when all they needed to do was to put a F40PH there.

I am missing something here. As far as I know Amtrak trains are never operated push-pull with cab cars. They are however the contract operator for some commuter railroads that have specified for them to either operate the states equipment or provide equipment and operate it. These are state or in the case of say the Chicago/ New York area regional operations. Amtrak onlt operates intercity trains that have no cab cars. Virtually all electric MU cars could be considered cab cars and I have never heard of them being "UNSAFE". Your are confusing the hazards of grade crossings with equipment design. The FRA has mandated new design standards for trains equiped to operate in a push-pull mode. They are required by both their own mandate and law to embargo any equipment they find to be "UNSAFE". Period. That means it must be parked untill it can be made safe. If it can not be made safe it becomes MOW or it is scrapped. When the Acela's were found to have cracks in the metal they were all immediatly parked because they were found to be UNSAFE.

Silver worm San Diegans have had cab cars for years...The FRA test at Pueblo was with an old Budd T2000 type prototype that spent its last years converted as a coach. The wrecked remains sat for almost a year by the side of the F.A.S.T. track (and then they crashed it again, t-boned it to test coach seating, before cutting it up)... Surprising that it held up as well as it did....

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Until the F40's were retired, many of Amtrak's short turn trains out of Chicago indeed ran push-pull using cab coaches rebuilt from de-motored Metroliners.  A prime example was the Chicago-Springfield "Loop", which generally ran with an F40PH, coach, and cab coach.  The Chicago-Valparaiso commuter runs (Amtrak's only suburban runs under its own colors) ran with bi-level cab coaches.

[coborn35]

Well OF COURSE that is going to happen in two trains collide head on. A simple F40PH couldt prevent deaths there....jeeeez

(reffering to video)

[Anonymous]

Preventing death on the train or on the crossing?