F Unit Wrecks

[Grinandbearit]

Try this for a story and pictures on a Ontario Northlander F unit wreck http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/RGodby/trains/Northlander_collision.htm.

[arkansasrailfan]

I guess Via now has a 2/3 of a F unit and a 1/3 of a F-unit.

[J. Edgar]

if youve ever been in the cab of an E or F unit the first thing you notice is the "thickness" of the steel in the nose....you would almost think theyre cast and the pillars on either side of the front windshields are soild.....i believe the cab is a seperate piece on the platform the main carbody behind is the structual support..but ive been wrong before

[Geared Steam]

They were not designed that way.  It's merely the point where the structure is the weakest.

I'm not sure what definition of "design flaw" you are using.  A design flaw is an unanticipated result, where the design did not perform according to intent.  What intent do you think EMD had, and what was unanticipated, and where was the failure to meet design?

RWM 

The only "flaw" concerning those pictures was human, not mechanical.

People who call that a design flaw do not understand the meaning. 

[rrboomer]

I too remember seeing references many years ago that they were designed to buckle behind the cab.  If it was a design error, it's a happy one that EMD would be glad to take credit for.

[trainfan1221]

Remember, F-units were designed with the carbody bearing the load rather than the frame.  This probably would be a factor.

[Anonymous]

I recall a reference in Trains stating that they were designed to buckle right behind the cab in order to protect the crew in the case of head-on collisions.  Apparently the buckling was intended to absorb energy that otherwise might crush the cab.  I can see how the buckling might appear to be a design flaw in the form of a weakness in the frame that allows the buckling.  But my understanding is that it was an intentional design feature, kind of like how a fuse is the weakest link for the purpose of protecting the rest of the circuit.

[Railway Man]

They were not designed that way.  It's merely the point where the structure is the weakest.

I'm not sure what definition of "design flaw" you are using.  A design flaw is an unanticipated result, where the design did not perform according to intent.  What intent do you think EMD had, and what was unanticipated, and where was the failure to meet design?

RWM 

[Boomer Red]

         I've been following a rescent disscusion on a Yahoo group I belong to and wonder if anyone on this forum can help? Basically it revolves around what happens to EMD F units that are involved in Head on Collisions or other bad wrecks. Most pictures show the units breaking in half or at least bending just behind the cab. The question became whether they were designed to do this as a way of absorbing impact and protecting the crew or if it is an unplanned design flaw. Maybe someone can shed some light on this subject. Here is a link to some photos that demonstrate what I'm talking about. 

http://www.geocities.com/cnrailpics2/via.htm