I just saw the newswire of the Metro link derailment. The train was running cabcar forward with the locomotive at the back. As seen in the picture and in the story,the majority of the passenger cars derailed. The locomotive is still on the rails. It appears that while the passenger cars stopped when the cabcar collided with the truck, the locomotive kept which pushed the passenger cars off the track causing the derailment. The locomotive weighs a lot more than the passenger car and therefore has more force (force = mass x acceleration). Considering all of this, wouldn't the derailment be avoided if the locomotive had been leading? In a grade crossing accident, wouldn't locomotive would push or go through what is on the tracks, and the passenger cars would follow? Not to mention the locomotive appeared to be an F59PH which has a safety cab with the anti collision post that would protect the crew and passengers.
So, why are cab cars mostly used instead of having the locomtives lead. I would imagine the wyes or turn tables would pay them selves off within a few accidents. What are your thoughts?
Kyle So, why are cab cars mostly used instead of having the locomtives lead. I would imagine the wyes or turn tables would pay them selves off within a few accidents. What are your thoughts?
In push/pull operation it's roughly 50% cab leading, 50% locomotive leading, so cab cars are not "mostly" leading. Push/pull operation was developed (even back in steam days) to eliminate the extra costs of using wyes and turntables.
It looks to me that the derailment was unavoidable, as the coupler shered off and landed infront of the lead axle, which would have derailed even the locomotive.
it is also interesting that the locomotive actually did derail, and everyone seems to think that it didn't. if you look in the overhead images, the right hand rail to the direction of travel is not under the locomotive, but off to its side.
In some commuter operations sets of equipment make multiple round trips from origin to destination and return to origin during their normal operating day. While the passenger load is emptying the train at the destination terminal, the engineer is securing the cab that he operated and walking to the cab on the other end to ready it for operation. The turn of equipment can take as little as 10 minutes. Were it necessary for the equipment to be turned, in most cases the turn time would take a hour or more and have the need for additional track facilities, in congested terminal areas. The other mean to speed the turn would require 2 locomotives - Locomotives for commuter use are now going for about $4M each.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Kyle I just saw the newswire of the Metro link derailment. The train was running cabcar forward with the locomotive at the back. As seen in the picture and in the story,the majority of the passenger cars derailed. The locomotive is still on the rails. It appears that while the passenger cars stopped when the cabcar collided with the truck, the locomotive kept which pushed the passenger cars off the track causing the derailment. The locomotive weighs a lot more than the passenger car and therefore has more force (force = mass x acceleration). Considering all of this, wouldn't the derailment be avoided if the locomotive had been leading? In a grade crossing accident, wouldn't locomotive would push or go through what is on the tracks, and the passenger cars would follow? Not to mention the locomotive appeared to be an F59PH which has a safety cab with the anti collision post that would protect the crew and passengers. So, why are cab cars mostly used instead of having the locomtives lead. I would imagine the wyes or turn tables would pay them selves off within a few accidents. What are your thoughts?
Sometimes Engine Forward does protect the rest of the train.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BaltACD In some commuter operations sets of equipment make multiple round trips from origin to destination and return to origin during their normal operating day. While the passenger load is emptying the train at the destination terminal, the engineer is securing the cab that he operated and walking to the cab on the other end to ready it for operation. The turn of equipment can take as little as 10 minutes. Were it necessary for the equipment to be turned, in most cases the turn time would take a hour or more and have the need for additional track facilities, in congested terminal areas. The other mean to speed the turn would require 2 locomotives - Locomotives for commuter use are now going for about $4M each.
Amen. You simply cannot let your operation be driven by the occasional idiot at grade crossings. We assume a certain amount of risk when we get out of bed in the morning ... and even when we board a 99.99-percent safe commuter train.
MU cars would meet the definition of cab car as implied by the original post. What would he suggest in such a situation where there is no locomotive since each car is self-propelled?
Phoebe Vet Kyle I just saw the newswire of the Metro link derailment. The train was running cabcar forward with the locomotive at the back. As seen in the picture and in the story,the majority of the passenger cars derailed. The locomotive is still on the rails. It appears that while the passenger cars stopped when the cabcar collided with the truck, the locomotive kept which pushed the passenger cars off the track causing the derailment. The locomotive weighs a lot more than the passenger car and therefore has more force (force = mass x acceleration). Considering all of this, wouldn't the derailment be avoided if the locomotive had been leading? In a grade crossing accident, wouldn't locomotive would push or go through what is on the tracks, and the passenger cars would follow? Not to mention the locomotive appeared to be an F59PH which has a safety cab with the anti collision post that would protect the crew and passengers. So, why are cab cars mostly used instead of having the locomtives lead. I would imagine the wyes or turn tables would pay them selves off within a few accidents. What are your thoughts? Sometimes Engine Forward does protect the rest of the train.
Actually, the locomotive leading protected the rest of the train. Yes, the locomotive did derail, but the rest of the train is still on the tracks. Not to mention that the locomotive took the impact, it ended up being scrapped. If that had happened with a cab car leading, I would hate to think of the results. Also in the Photobucket Album that is in is another accident involving the North Carolina Department of Transportation (reporting marks RNCX) new F59PHI, where a container chassis got twisted around the front, but that didn't derail. Sure locomotives wouldn't always stay on the tracks in an accident, but they still have better chances, and the rest of the train seems to fair better.
Also note the the Piedmont does turn on a wye so the locomotive is leading on the return trip.
Bringing up the accident involving RNCX 1792, what exactly happened, I heard it hit a truck, but that damage seems like a bit more than hiting a truck.
CSSHEGEWISCH MU cars would meet the definition of cab car as implied by the original post. What would he suggest in such a situation where there is no locomotive since each car is self-propelled?
In that case a cab car would lead, since there isn't a locomotive which would have anti climbers and anti collision posts. For more inner city transit MU cars are the best since it is electrified, and they usually don't have as many problems with grade crossings.
I forgot to mention this before, but with a locomotive in the lead, there is a huge metal block called a prime mover that will also help protect the passenger cars behind it.
The Piedmont in the posted picture hit a Lowboy with a very large trackhoe on it that had hung up on the crossing. The trailer was destroyed, the trackhoe spun off the trailer and damaged the sides of a couple of cars right behind the engine. The engine ran over the top of the trailer, derailing and ripping open the fuel tanks. It then burned, which caused more damage than the impact.
The twisted mess wrapped around the front of the 1755 was not a container. It was a trailer full of bricks that was torn off it's frame by the impact. The same engine months later hit a car carrier full of luxury cars. It did not derail either time.
Unless they are running late, the two trains from Raleigh to Charlotte have two hours to turn. Looking at a map of Charlotte, I see that the train has to go about two mile to the junction with the line to Winston-Salem, back about two and a half miles to Atando Junction, and then back about another two miles to the station. There may be another wye closer to the station, but I cannot see it on the map. Going to Raleigh, they both have overnight to turn.
Do you think that there should be an engine at each end for the trains that currently have cab cars? Do you have the wherewithal to provide a second engine for each train?
Johnny
They turn the entire train on the Y where it crosses N. Grahm St. Then they park it on a siding at the Amtrak station. I don't know what they will do if they ever finish the new Gateway Station in city center.
Of course; the train is turned on the wye at Atando Junction; I was making the move much, much involved than it needs to be. I was told, many years ago the origin of the name Atando Junction, and I do not remember it.
When the transportation center is opened, perhaps the train will be backed up to Atando Junction and back (a little under a mile and a half each way)? At least, it will not have to cross Trade on a grade--as I saw many trains and cuts of cars doing back in the early fifties. It was quite interesting to watch the trains--24, 29, and 36 in the morning; once, I saw 38 and 32 come in and go out. In the summer after I finished high school, I would hitchhike the fifty miles to Charlotte and hitchhike back in the morning every week--just to watch the morning trains.
I did see a news report that supported Metro Link's claim (including showing computer graphics) that the improved crash zones on their cab car fleet helped reduce casualties in this incident.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Deggesty Of course; the train is turned on the wye at Atando Junction; I was making the move much, much involved than it needs to be. I was told, many years ago the origin of the name Atando Junction, and I do not remember it. When the transportation center is opened, perhaps the train will be backed up to Atando Junction and back (a little under a mile and a half each way)? At least, it will not have to cross Trade on a grade--as I saw many trains and cuts of cars doing back in the early fifties. It was quite interesting to watch the trains--24, 29, and 36 in the morning; once, I saw 38 and 32 come in and go out. In the summer after I finished high school, I would hitchhike the fifty miles to Charlotte and hitchhike back in the morning every week--just to watch the morning trains.
AT&O. Atando, the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio railroad, hence the name of the junction point.
Kyle CSSHEGEWISCH MU cars would meet the definition of cab car as implied by the original post. What would he suggest in such a situation where there is no locomotive since each car is self-propelled? In that case a cab car would lead, since there isn't a locomotive which would have anti climbers and anti collision posts.
In that case a cab car would lead, since there isn't a locomotive which would have anti climbers and anti collision posts.
Cab cars have those as well....
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol4/pdf/CFR-2011-title49-vol4-sec238-213.pdf
An "expensive model collector"
carnej1 I did see a news report that supported Metro Link's claim (including showing computer graphics) that the improved crash zones on their cab car fleet helped reduce casualties in this incident.
I'm curious if a standard cab EMD would have fared any better.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
each and every cab car has same structural strenght as a locomotive with same corner post on later cars. only difference a cab car is half weight of locomotive. and unlike the engineer on engine he does not have to worry about burning to death in a pool of 200 gallons of fuel and scalding hot watter.
If you want to see a cab car front end that seems ready for anything, Google Nankai 50000. It looks like a cross between a battleship's bow and Darth Vader's helmet and is reputed to be built of armor steel with bulletproof windows.
Just seeing that thing coming would scare most people off the tracks!
Chuck
What if the push pull operations would use "cabbage" cars like the Amtrak Hiawatha service in Chicago? Would that solve the problem? There probably are enough surplus retired locomotives without engines to do the job. You have protection, control and you can opt to add some weight without compromising passenger comfort. After all most high speed trains abroad an even Amtraks Acela has a cab at both ends.
The Cabbages only add to problems , first you are moving a fairly heavy non revenue unit, yet it is no longer as heavy as a locomotive even ballasted down. and again the engineer has same protection in a engine a cab car or a cabbage car.
tomikawaTTIf you want to see a cab car front end that seems ready for anything, Google Nankai 50000. It looks like a cross between a battleship's bow and Darth Vader's helmet and is reputed to be built of armor steel with bulletproof windows. Just seeing that thing coming would scare most people off the tracks!
To stay on-topic Metra runs half of its diesel-run trains cab forward in push mode, as trains enter Chicago cab-forward and depart Chicago engine-forward for ventilation reasons. Metra has an ample share of grade crossing incidents, but as I recall few if any result in derailment and none in big pileups like Metrolink seems to be prone to.
matthewsaggie Deggesty Of course; the train is turned on the wye at Atando Junction; I was making the move much, much involved than it needs to be. I was told, many years ago the origin of the name Atando Junction, and I do not remember it. When the transportation center is opened, perhaps the train will be backed up to Atando Junction and back (a little under a mile and a half each way)? At least, it will not have to cross Trade on a grade--as I saw many trains and cuts of cars doing back in the early fifties. It was quite interesting to watch the trains--24, 29, and 36 in the morning; once, I saw 38 and 32 come in and go out. In the summer after I finished high school, I would hitchhike the fifty miles to Charlotte and hitchhike back in the morning every week--just to watch the morning trains. AT&O. Atando, the Atlantic, Tennessee and Ohio railroad, hence the name of the junction point.
John Bredin tomikawaTT If you want to see a cab car front end that seems ready for anything, Google Nankai 50000. It looks like a cross between a battleship's bow and Darth Vader's helmet and is reputed to be built of armor steel with bulletproof windows. Just seeing that thing coming would scare most people off the tracks! Yes, and impress a lot of people too. Between the Jules Verne/Flash Gordon nose and the round porthole-esque windows, that is a very retro-styled trainset! To stay on-topic Metra runs half of its diesel-run trains cab forward in push mode, as trains enter Chicago cab-forward and depart Chicago engine-forward for ventilation reasons. Metra has an ample share of grade crossing incidents, but as I recall few if any result in derailment and none in big pileups like Metrolink seems to be prone to.
tomikawaTT If you want to see a cab car front end that seems ready for anything, Google Nankai 50000. It looks like a cross between a battleship's bow and Darth Vader's helmet and is reputed to be built of armor steel with bulletproof windows. Just seeing that thing coming would scare most people off the tracks!
Yes, and impress a lot of people too. Between the Jules Verne/Flash Gordon nose and the round porthole-esque windows, that is a very retro-styled trainset!
The Nankai 5000 looks like this:
See video linked @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76fOkB9VEpU
samfp1943 See video linked @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76fOkB9VEpU
The short answer is, even though push-pull is intuitively and obviously unsafe to the casual observer, in US railroading, the statistics bear out that they are not any more or less safe than pulling with the locomotive.
Indeed, I really thought they were unsafe until the 2008 Chatsworth incident. In that collision, 25 people were killed in spite of the fact that the EMD F59PH locomotive was leading the consist.
In addition to that, Chicago commuter railroading, one of the earliest innovators in push-pull operations, has also proven beyond a doubt that push-pull is just as safe as pull-only, even though our intuition says it is not.
blue streak 1 samfp1943 See video linked @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76fOkB9VEpU Nice paint job but as US AIR found out the dark paint is a Air Conditioning and heating nightmare. Aircraft on the tarmac during summer would just not cool themselves and use of ground air conditioners needed to supplement or even 2 units. Heating in winter problems as well. Cannot see rail cars any different. .
these trains have been running for close to 15 years now. I've not heard of any HVAC issues with them so I think your fears are unfounded.
PS have a tie clip of one of these out on E bay if you're interested !
Yes, but that didn't become an issue until after the America West merger and they had to start sitting on the tarmac at Vegas, Phoenix, and such that the blue USAirways planes hadn't spent much time at before.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.