FRA says push-pull passenger operations safe

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by K. P. Harrier

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

IF push-pull operations are inherently unsafe, could the same be said of diesel (RDC) or electric multiple-unit operations, both on railroads and rapid transit?

If any high-speed operations are involved, I answer YES!

I disagree! In Britain we've had push pull trains for 40 years and they have a good safety record. As a result it has become more widespread. The 140 mph trains on the London King's Cross - Edinburgh East Coast Main Line are push pull, as were the old loco hauled trains on the London Euston - Glasgow West Coast Main Line which have now been replaced by Pendolino EMU's. The nose cones of the Pendolinos are designed to be crashworthy at up to 150mph.

It sounds like the accident in California which started this thred was similar to one that happened in Britain recently. A motorist intent on suicide drove on to a level crossing and drove on to the track. His car was struck by the leading locomotive of an Inter City 125 diesel train (these have a loco at each end). The train then derailed on a facing point with the loss of 4 lives. I think the outcome would have been the same had it been a Multiple unit or push pull train. The problem with accidents like this is you can't legislate against people trying to kill themselves.

[GP40-2]

Paul3,

When visiting Boston, I have only rode in the older, single level cars out of North Station (not the newer, Bi-Level cars shown in your links). I could also be mistaken, but I don't recall any seats in what you refer to the "cab" in single level passenger cars. As far as the engineer standing, that's exactly what he did the whole trip inbound--I would know, I was in the so called "cab" with him the entire trip inbound from Acton to N. Station (being in the industry sometimes has its perks[:D])

I asked him if he felt safe and he said "Put it this way, I feel a hell of a lot safer riding outbound in the locomotive!"

I don't care what you say, I still would not like to be running push in that thing and hitting a semi with 40 tons of gravel at 70 mph.

[Dutchrailnut]

For Engineer in any cab car or locomotive the cab is just about as safe as it gets.
Your right next to collision posts, the strongest part of the car. yes there may be glass flying but remember FRA II glazing does shatter in small pieces, although most likely it will stay crumpled in the window frame.
Why run into the coach area were there is no more protection than any soda can.
Even in a locomotive the cab(floor) is safest, you run in to or past engineroom the scalding water or oil may get you.

[martin.knoepfel]

There are a lot of push-pull-trains in Europe, even in intercity-service with speed of up to 100 mph. Push-pulls and EMUs and DMUs are common in suburban service. I have never heard they are statistically less safe than other trains. One shouldn't judge from one single accident.

[zardoz]

The bi-level cab-cars might be structurally safe, but one thing not mentioned is that in a cab-car, there is nowhere for the engineer to go if he senses an impending collision. By the time an engineer can dump the air, turn around, unlock the door, and crawl over or through the commuters sitting directly behind him, it will be too late.

Most of the time I felt quite safe in a cab-car, but during those moments as you approaching a crossing at 70mph, and you see a tractor-trailer get stuck under the gates that are dropping for your train, one has a tendency to consider just how safe he will be should they actually collide.

[Anonymous]

They guy in the metrolink accident chickened out after hearing that piece of crap metrolink horn. How would you like to get killed by a strangled goose? Also, F40's weer perfectly fine until amtrak did away with them. Thety could all be used as NPCU's!

[Paul3]

Mitch,
Well, I don't know how many 90-day wonders the MBTA has hired lately, but I know of at least one guy in engine service with over 25 years in for PC, CR, AMT & MBTA. There's a few "oldheads" still kickin' around the MBTA...

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul3

GP40-2 wrote:

QUOTE: Have any of you seen/riden on Boston's MBTA push/pull operations?

They don't even have a cab car---talk about unsafe for the engineer! On the inbound push operation, the engineer stands (no seat available) for the whole trip in the vestibule of the front car and looks out either the window in the closed center door or the side window of the car. The only controls are the throttle, brake, and spedometer.

GP40-2, you obviously don't know what you are talking about (or your sarcasm is waaay to deep for me, one or the other...). I commuted for 5 years on the MBTA out of Mansfield, and I've lost count of the number of cab cars I've ridden in over the years (they are used in the middle of trains at times). If the MBTA doesn't have cab cars, then what are these:

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=2005061917211022246.jpg

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=2005031317044010016.jpg

The engineer does not stand all the way. Do you honestly think the union would allow that? There's a seat that folds out from the vestabule wall.

And please note that in the above photos, there is a cab window for the engineer and for the conductor if he's standing there. Notice the anti-rock grills and the windsheid wipers. This means that said engineer does not have to stick his head out of the side widow or look throught the center door to see where he's going.

You're also wrong about the controls. There is much more than just the throttle, brakes, and speedometer. There's the two air gauges showing cylinder pressure and brakepipe pressure, controls for the headlight, whistle, sander, (yes, the cab cars have sanders), bell, and others. It's a full cab, just a very small one.

artmark wrote:

QUOTE: That's not a cab-car, that's a streetcar. A sophisticated back-up move at best. How do the MBTA engineers put up with that? I wouldn't.

They don't put up with it because GP40-2 is dead wrong in just about everything he posted about the MBTA. [:)]

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
******************

Paul,
I'm glad you cleared that up. I had remembered seeing real cab cars in Boston years ago and couldn't imagine what happened. When I first read the post about just having the vestibule door and side windows to look out of I thought hat a mis-quided public agency had finally gone too far with goofing things up. One can never tell where the majesty of cost cutting can take men's minds.

As a former engineman myself I couldn't see union enginemen putting up with that kind of operating condition for a moment. But then I thought maybe MBTA has gotten to the point where only 90 day wonders are hired in engine service.

Thanks again for the post.

Mitch

[Paul3]

GP40-2 wrote:

QUOTE: Have any of you seen/riden on Boston's MBTA push/pull operations?

They don't even have a cab car---talk about unsafe for the engineer! On the inbound push operation, the engineer stands (no seat available) for the whole trip in the vestibule of the front car and looks out either the window in the closed center door or the side window of the car. The only controls are the throttle, brake, and spedometer.

GP40-2, you obviously don't know what you are talking about (or your sarcasm is waaay to deep for me, one or the other...). I commuted for 5 years on the MBTA out of Mansfield, and I've lost count of the number of cab cars I've ridden in over the years (they are used in the middle of trains at times). If the MBTA doesn't have cab cars, then what are these:

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=2005061917211022246.jpg

http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=2005031317044010016.jpg

The engineer does not stand all the way. Do you honestly think the union would allow that? There's a seat that folds out from the vestabule wall.

And please note that in the above photos, there is a cab window for the engineer and for the conductor if he's standing there. Notice the anti-rock grills and the windsheid wipers. This means that said engineer does not have to stick his head out of the side widow or look throught the center door to see where he's going.

You're also wrong about the controls. There is much more than just the throttle, brakes, and speedometer. There's the two air gauges showing cylinder pressure and brakepipe pressure, controls for the headlight, whistle, sander, (yes, the cab cars have sanders), bell, and others. It's a full cab, just a very small one.

artmark wrote:

QUOTE: That's not a cab-car, that's a streetcar. A sophisticated back-up move at best. How do the MBTA engineers put up with that? I wouldn't.

They don't put up with it because GP40-2 is dead wrong in just about everything he posted about the MBTA. [:)]

Paul A. Cutler III
******************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
******************

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFGP38

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

Have any of you seen/riden on Boston's MBTA push/pull operations?

They don't even have a cab car---talk about unsafe for the engineer! On the inbound push operation, the engineer stands (no seat available) for the whole trip in the vestibule of the front car and looks out either the window in the closed center door or the side window of the car. The only controls are the throttle, brake, and spedometer.

On passenger cars, the vestibule IS the crush zone (that is why Amtrak frowns upon passengers standing between cars). I wouldn't want to be an MBTA engineer in that car while hitting a 40 ton semi at a grade crossing.

The passenger seats start right at the front of the car too, so they have very little protection in the push mode either.

With the FRA mandating million pound impact wide noses on freight locomotives, I still can't believe the MBTA gets away with this!

Ummm.......that is the defeintion of a cab car..........brake, throttle,reverser, speedeo and radio.

That's not a cab-car, that's a streetcar. A sophisticated back-up move at best. How do the MBTA engineers put up with that? I wouldn't.

Years ago on the Pennsy they had a commuter operation in South Jersey that was along those lines. A standard P-70 coach was equiped with a headlight, whistle, and a back-up brake valve at the train door on the end. But it was the trainmen's duty to man that end on the reverse move. The throttle operation remained on the engine with the enginemen.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Push-pull operations have been going on in Chicago since 1960 (on the C&NW) and the safety issue has never been raised. Bi-level gallery coaches do not have end vestibules so I'm not sure where the crush zone would be located. On the other hand, the control cab on bi-levels is on the upper level which gives the engineer an incredibly great view from a relatively safer spot.

On the Metra Q-line over the years , they've hit cars, light trucks, a low-boy trailer stuck on a crossing, a lumber truck, and more yet there's never been a serious derailment. I can only recall one where the front wheel of a bilevel derailed. The bi-level cab cars do have either a mini pilot or snow plow which keeps things from getting underneath.

In the Amtrak semi-trailer wreck near here recently, the train was running loco first and when it hit and derailed it tore up the track, derailing everything behind it.

[BNSFGP38]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

Have any of you seen/riden on Boston's MBTA push/pull operations?

They don't even have a cab car---talk about unsafe for the engineer! On the inbound push operation, the engineer stands (no seat available) for the whole trip in the vestibule of the front car and looks out either the window in the closed center door or the side window of the car. The only controls are the throttle, brake, and spedometer.

On passenger cars, the vestibule IS the crush zone (that is why Amtrak frowns upon passengers standing between cars). I wouldn't want to be an MBTA engineer in that car while hitting a 40 ton semi at a grade crossing.

The passenger seats start right at the front of the car too, so they have very little protection in the push mode either.

With the FRA mandating million pound impact wide noses on freight locomotives, I still can't believe the MBTA gets away with this!

Ummm.......that is the defeintion of a cab car..........brake, throttle,reverser, speedeo and radio.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dave e

This is another example of percieved risk outweighing actual risk. There is no such thing as perfect safety. I am a lot safer riding even the first car of an MBTA train in push mode that I do driving the same route.

Quite right. We have one really serious accident which happened to involve a push mode operation and a rather unusual set of circumstances and everyone panics.[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

This is another example of percieved risk outweighing actual risk. There is no such thing as perfect safety. I am a lot safer riding even the first car of an MBTA train in push mode that I do driving the same route.

[K. P. Harrier]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

IF push-pull operations are inherently unsafe, could the same be said of diesel (RDC) or electric multiple-unit operations, both on railroads and rapid transit?

If any high-speed operations are involved, I answer YES!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

IF push-pull operations are inherently unsafe, could the same be said of diesel (RDC) or electric multiple-unit operations, both on railroads and rapid transit?

A locomotive at each end is an expensive proposition, especially for a suburban operation with high frequencies and locomotives costing about $2.5 million each since the size of the motive power pool would be virtually doubled. I seriously doubt that enough extra ridership could be generated to cover that kind of extra cost and there is no guarantee of the absolute safety that K P Harrier seems to insist upon.

[K. P. Harrier]

I believe push-pull operations are inherently unsafe. The reason people ride them is because of ignorance and the lack of choice. The only efficient and fully safe technique is to put a locomotive at each end. The expense is worth it, and may even enhance revenue, especially if such safety was heavily advertised. Costs are subjective, and interpretive. Cost savings are a politician’s fancy, irregardless of the consequences. I say life (and its safety) is paramount in the context under discussion.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Push-pull operations have been going on in Chicago since 1960 (on the C&NW) and the safety issue has never been raised. Bi-level gallery coaches do not have end vestibules so I'm not sure where the crush zone would be located. On the other hand, the control cab on bi-levels is on the upper level which gives the engineer an incredibly great view from a relatively safer spot.

[Junctionfan]

The only other way to avoid having MU coaches is to stick another engine on the back that some trains do. I think that the only reason why the FRA was investigating is that they may not understand that the MUs are not as solid as an engine or the SUV would have been such an obstacle as another F unit on the back/now front.

[GP40-2]

Have any of you seen/riden on Boston's MBTA push/pull operations?

They don't even have a cab car---talk about unsafe for the engineer! On the inbound push operation, the engineer stands (no seat available) for the whole trip in the vestibule of the front car and looks out either the window in the closed center door or the side window of the car. The only controls are the throttle, brake, and spedometer.

On passenger cars, the vestibule IS the crush zone (that is why Amtrak frowns upon passengers standing between cars). I wouldn't want to be an MBTA engineer in that car while hitting a 40 ton semi at a grade crossing.

The passenger seats start right at the front of the car too, so they have very little protection in the push mode either.

With the FRA mandating million pound impact wide noses on freight locomotives, I still can't believe the MBTA gets away with this!

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

So where would a "crush zone" be in a passenger train??? It would have to be an erea were people are off limits, including train crew. In an auto it's in the trunk and engine bay, where obviously nobody is ever supposed to be while moving.

HOW soon they forget: In EMD F-Units, the locomotive was designed to fail at the back of the cab, just behind the door entry, even with the electrical cabinet. With a solid beam frame, car or locomotive, you lose that luxury. All you can do is beef-up the ends and create a better battering ram.

[TH&B]

So where would a "crush zone" be in a passenger train??? It would have to be an erea were people are off limits, including train crew. In an auto it's in the trunk and engine bay, where obviously nobody is ever supposed to be while moving.

[Anonymous]

FRA says push-pull passenger operations safe

The Federal Railroad Administration has issued a report, “Interim Analysis: Push-Pull and MU Train Operations,” that says push-pull passenger train operations are basically safe. There is no greater risk of derailment in push mode (cab car first) than in pull mode (locomotive first), says FRA, though the agency did recommend that certain structural modifications could be made to cab cars to make them safer for passengers in the event of an accident. Such modifications could include crash energy management (crush) zones.

FRA’s July 1 interim report, part of an ongoing evaluation of push-pull operations, was issued as the result of an investigation following the Jan. 26 chain-reaction crash of two Metrolink commuter trains and a parked Union Pacific freight train in Glendale, Calif., that killed 11 and injured 200. Eight of those killed were in the cab car of an inbound train in push mode that hit an SUV that had gotten stuck on the tracks following an aborted suicide attempt. The train derailed, struck the UP train, then plowed into an outbound Metrolink train. The FRA said the circumstances of the accident were unusual. The driver of the SUV has been charged with 11 counts of murder.

“FRA is aware that when a collision does occur, whether at a crossing or with other rail rolling stock, passengers in a cab car or MU locomotive may be more vulnerable than passengers riding in a coach trailing a conventional locomotive,” the report said. “However, it is also likely that severity outcomes in high-energy events, such as the Glendale derailment, are more likely to be influenced by chance circumstances rather than by placement of a locomotive in the consist. . . . Very clearly, passenger rail as a whole has not experienced a notably unfavorable experience with push and MU service.” FRA cited such factors as cab signals, automatic train control, crossings equipped with lights and gates, grade separation in some densely populated areas, and closely scheduled operations that give priority to commuter train movements as “supporting a high degree of safety in contemporary commuter rail operations” and “appropriate for consideration as the merits of push-pull and MU operations are considered.” FRA characterized the risk of such operations as “small.”

Since the accident, Metrolink has prohibited passengers from riding in the front mezzanine of its bilevel cab cars by roping the area off, a practice the FRA calls “prudent.” The agency is one of many participating in a joint FRA RSAC (Rail Safety Advisory Committee)/APTA PRESS (Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards) task force to develop new safety specifications for cab cars, as well as an APTA-sponsored System Safety Planning Process.

Metrolink plans to issue an RFP for new bilevels this fall and is planning on requiring its new railcars to have crush zones.

From Railway Age Site