Amtrak engines collision safety question

[ndbprr]

So the current bulk of Amtrak engines appear to have moved the cab forward and shortened the nose.  with the slope on the nose i tend to think hitting a semi trailer could ride up the nose and say hello to the crew.  what internal changes or safety elements have been added for crew protection? My knowledge of locomotives stops with the demise of the PRR.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Good question. I remember a documentary about the introduction of the Acela and they had a survivable - ultra strong - compartment put behind the driver that they could get into when a collision was imminent. Could be they all have those now?

[Overmod]

ndbprr

what internal changes or safety elements have been added for crew protection?

You might start by reviewing AAR standard S-580 from 1989, but that's under copyright, and pricy if you don't have access to a library or other source with a copy.

A good entry point is FRA docket FRA-2004-17645, which contains all the detail material of the RSAC Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group from 1997 forward; the Rule that was issued from that is covered in the Federal Register here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-06-28/pdf/06-5667.pdf

 You can refer to the current 49 CFR 229 (79mph and under) and 238 too.

 

Note the absence of a dedicated 'crew refuge' space or module in favor of assuring 'survival space' in the strengthened cab structure.  The most appropriate location for this would have been under the cab-seat area, with entrance from the rear, and would have involved careful sealing under impact conditions, CEM and shock protection, and controlled air for a certain post-accident time.  A major concern was the time involved in getting into this 'refuge' and sealing it up when there might be three crew or more in the cab at the time; another was the perceived risk in crew abandoning the 'controls' early, and leaving the locomotive effectively unattended during the time they were in their bomb shelter.  It was surprisingly difficult to design a refuge with appropriate structural sealing integrity and deceleration CEM and padding, including the risk of multiple crew colliding with each other during deceleration.  And all the cost and weight of the refuge would be added to the required cab inprovements... which already would make the cab too heavy to easily allow B-trucked locomotives with reasonable secondary suspension

[NittanyLion]

I think it is largely an optical illusion. The cab isnt that much further forward and the blunt portion of Charger's nose is taller.