Steam vs Diesel? Safer... or not?

[Anonymous]

The recent thread on Casey Jones got me to thinking about a modern diesel engineer in something of the same situation.

Here you are, having just run a red signal on one of the few railroads left in the world where you CAN run a red signal without God knows what noises sounding in your ears... and up ahead, there's the willow wisp flash of a FRED on the tail end of a local switching run.

You're doing 70 miles an hour... you know the train ain't a gonna stop... what do you do after your emergency brake application and a rediscovered faith in miracles from God?

Most collision accounts I've read seem to indicate that the engineers and conductors in locomotives nowadays will "hit the floor".

I can understand the reluctance of some to avoid the big jump and add substantitive amounts of your DNA to our mythical railroad's finely kept maintenance of way... which leads me to my question:

Are diesel locomotives more crashworthy than steam locomotives?

Thanks in advance!
Erik

[BaltACD]

For the most part....a Diesel will not have a boiler explosion from a collision. Diesel fuel can catch fire, however it has a much higher flash point than does gasoline so it possibility of fire is less than if the engines were fueled with gas.

The force of the collision at 70 MPH into a standing train would probably be all that is needed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

The recent thread on Casey Jones got me to thinking about a modern diesel engineer in something of the same situation.

Here you are, having just run a red signal on one of the few railroads left in the world where you CAN run a red signal without God knows what noises sounding in your ears... and up ahead, there's the willow wisp flash of a FRED on the tail end of a local switching run.

You're doing 70 miles an hour... you know the train ain't a gonna stop... what do you do after your emergency brake application and a rediscovered faith in miracles from God?

Most collision accounts I've read seem to indicate that the engineers and conductors in locomotives nowadays will "hit the floor".

I can understand the reluctance of some to avoid the big jump and add substantitive amounts of your DNA to our mythical railroad's finely kept maintenance of way... which leads me to my question:

Are diesel locomotives more crashworthy than steam locomotives?

Thanks in advance!
Erik

Whoa there. You can run a red board lots of places. Alarms to the DS are generally at interlockings and not even every interlocking or control point has them (don't ask me how I know that...lol).

Second, how many freights these days can travel 70mph? None that I know of...

Yes, hitting the floor is a time honored tradition, especially if you plan on staying instead of jumping. It also keeps you away from flying glass on impact. Being behind the control stand also offers some protection.

LC

[BentnoseWillie]

If you hit the floor, you have the the armoured nose of the locomotive fully between you and the impact point, and the rest of the locomotive between you and the train. You can brace for the impact against the front bulkhead, and you're at least partially out of the path of anything ingressing through the windshields. If you jump, the only thing you gain is the chance to get clear of the wreck - if the jump doesn't incapacitate you.

At anything over 30 mph, you're probably better off staying put.

[gabe]

I don't think I can add anything more than this: but I think the big advantage of diesel over steam is the same difference between getting in a wreck in a 50's Chevy and a modern automobile.

In the 50's Chevy (like a steamer), there are all kind of metal knobs, pointed steering wheels, etc. In a modern car, it is built for a body to go flying in it without impaling you. (God willing, none of us will experience this).

My albeit limited experience with the inside of a diesel and the inside of a steamer leads me to believe that the diesels have much less for a flying body to impale you with.

Gabe

[gabe]

Here is something I have always wondered (kind of like why don't helper engines uncouple on a runaway train when all hope is lost):

My understanding is the engineer will often see the collision coming from a long ways away--it is just that, as LC said earlier, trains don't stop on a dime.

It seems to me that the lead unit always gets the worst of the accident. If bailing out isn't an option because of excessive speed, why not go into the unit as far back from the crash as possible? Seems like that would be the safest place?

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Thanks, folks!
My suspicion, based on nothing but assumption (so this is a SWAG- scientific wild a__ guess) is that some Southern railroads ran diesels long hood first for added protection to the crews. Truth... or fiction?

I've also noticed that the "short" hood on many NS locomotives I've seen is a full platform to roof hood, and that this seems to be a peculiarity of southern locomotives. Was this done for the same reason? I pay attention to the museum signs that say "stay off the equipment" so I have no idea what's actually in the nose end of those things, not having seen them from the inside. I'm guessing- another SWAG- that this is where the sand for the sanders is kept, plus a "crew comfort station" (read: toilet).

Given some of the horrors I've read about those same ah, crew comfort stations here and elsewhere, I'm not sure I'd want to discover what effect a 70 MPH impact would have on them... might be an incentive to jump!

Erik
I

[gabe]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was only refering to going to trailing units in the case of collisions--when you wouldn't be going nearly as fast. Although I see that isn't necessarily the safest place either.

Gabe