Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="BaltACD"]And comparing the tests in the video to the actual NS collision is also a illusion.[/quote] First of all we were talking about the overridung problem and nothing more. Push-back couplers and deformable anticlimbers can avoid it. [quote user="BaltACD"]In the NS collision you are dealing with a probably 10K ton or more train that is stopped, most likely with air still applied and a 10K or more train moving at 30 or so MPH. Real world vs the tests are apples and oranges.[/quote] The other question, could CEM have minimized the damage and saved the live of the crew? I don't know. As I said before there are accidents the best crashworthiness design can handle. When Europe developed its EN 15277 the commitee checked about 900 accident reports. The EN crash scenarios would have covered about 80%. The FRA has similar scenarios in their Alternative crashwortiness design. If the NS collisions falls into the not to handle category I don't know. You can design a CEM system to run against an unmovable wall. Up to which energy (mass and speed) depends on the availabe space and material. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center of the US DoT and others have done a lot research on CEM crashworthiness design that led to the FRA Alternative Crashworthiness Design and passenger car CEM requirements. One of the results was that you are better of in CEM passenger cars than in conventional American equipment: <a href="https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2125">https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2125</a> Hopefully the number of these kinds of accidents will be reduced by PTC. Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag