Air Bag System to Reduce Railway Pedestrian Fatalities

[jclass]

An image pops in my mind of the nose of an airbag-equipped locomotive growing like Pinocchio's, not saving one life.  Would rather see money put into grade crossing elimination.  I think that saves lives, carnage, and money.

[Mookie]

Mr Raney - I only watch railroads, not work for them.  But history has shown that the railroads want to work to keep people off the tracks, not help them out when they tresspass or in some way get on the tracks. 

I don't see them embracing any idea that is strictly an updated "cowcatcher" idea.  Maybe a better approach would be to provide some kind of people protection that doesn't include using the railroad equipment. 

Personally I don't see that working either, since you can't really stop someone that is determined to get on those tracks with a train.  But there are a lot of great minds out there that just might come up with a solution. 

Maybe just better education about the hazards of being around railroads.  We taught/teach our school-age children about the hazards of electrical lines, strange dogs and strangers in general. 

Just my musings....

[Norm48327]

Phoebe Vet

A very prominent fiscal conservative / small government fan / libertarian who wants the government to mandate a $10,000 Rube Goldberg airbag on the front of locomotives.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

 Jumbo shrimp? LOL.

[Phoebe Vet]

A very prominent fiscal conservative / small government fan / libertarian who wants the government to mandate a $10,000 Rube Goldberg airbag on the front of locomotives.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Steve Raney]

Folks,

Easy on the conspiracy theories, please. :)

My motivations are spelled out in the press coverage of the story (see the web page). Those motivations are virtuous. I do not stand to benefit financially from this effort.

Proposed is a $350,000 research study, submitted to the competitive TCRP federal program. The TCRP proposal, as given in the PDF found in the first message posted on this thread, require a cost-effectiveness analysis. One of my co-submitters is a very prominent fiscal conservative / small government fan / libertarian. But I believe he’s also guilty of caring about rail personnel who have to deal with PTSS.

TRW has not provided a letter of support for the submission, so it is hard to loop them into the conspiracy theory. TRW is so very big that it is hard for them to justify working on such a small side business. Also, US rail regulators are not known to embrace innovation, so it is expected that it will take years to obtain approvals for safety enhancements such as front-of-train airbags.

The web page given in the first message posting on this thread provides one possible implementation. The idea of the TCRP research proposal is to allow for rigorous analysis of the best design. Some of the designs suggested on this thread provide examples of implementations that would be dismissed as problematic.

A big airbag in front of every locomotive could ruin railfan pictures. To be cost-effective, the safety solution will be implemented in urban, not scenic, areas. For California railfans, I don’t envision the safety solution ruining photos at Donner, Feather River, Secret Town, or Tehachapi loop. I don’t foresee the safety system interacting with many deer.

FRA undertook a quick, low-cost test, probably equivalent to that of Smash Lab. They have not undertaken a big budget research program. To FRA's credit, their input has added emphasis to the cost-effectiveness requirement in the research proposal. It was FRA who suggested that $10,000 per locomotive was all the market would bear. I believe FRA has acted virtuously from the taxpayer perspective.

As far as newer transportation systems requiring zero fatalities, if folks follow the 44+ grade-separated automated people mover systems in the world, these fall under a zero fatality safety regime. These APM systems are expensive, but the safety regulations are perceived as reasonable and the safety regs are not the culprit for expensive cost per mile.

Note also that Caltrain commuter rail is asking for locomotives that follow the international standard for crash energy management. Caltrain complains that US oversight is such that it is difficult to get approval for such safety enhancements in the US.

[Norm48327]

Bucyrus,

 I would think those who have a product to sell are the ones pushing this.

Sorry, but I'm always a bit skeptical of Greeks bearing gifts that are guaranteed to protect me.

Oh, BTW, Air bags in airplanes have become a reality. Not for airliners, but for light singles and twins a seatbelt manufacturer has developed them and won FAA approval. Proof being in the pudding, I'm waiting for a report on their effectiveness. I've been in aviation for over thirty years and still waiting for something to protect people from impact with a mountain.

[ndbprr]

Somewhere in the world April fools day isn't in April.

[Anonymous]

Yes, in looking at this more, I think Mookie is right.  The material seems to try to create the illusion of there being a lot of public interest and government sponsorship underway.  But I cannot come to any conclusions as to who might be seriously involved with this.  I would not conclude that the FRA is testing such an airbag concept just because the linked documents make that claim.  The original poster seems to be at least a participant in the pitch-making of the proposal described in the linked documents. 

It would be nice if the original poster would come back and talk a little about the engineering and execution of this locomotive airbag. 

[Murphy Siding]

Mookie

Gentlemen:  (at least I think I am a minority of one) fleeting thought:  Do you suppose this is a very well-done hoax?  Can anyone really verify that this is even being pushed around on a drawing board by credible people?

   I think you may win a cigar.  I read some of the links provided in the first post.  It appears to be nothing more than an inventor with an idea,  trying to find support and financial backing.

From one of the links:

.

The inventor envisions a very low cost per vehicle, but experts are skeptical. A Federal Railway Administration staffer guessed at an “acceptable budget” of $10,000 per locomotive for an air bag safety system. 

     "Guessed at an acceptable budget"  doesn't relly equate to anything meaningful.
  

For a 60 mph locomotive colliding with a 200 lb pedestrian, a calculation of a 7.5 foot air bag is given below by David Maymudes. This is a "promising" mathematical conclusion - the abstract collision physics are feasible. The question now becomes, is there a feasible, practical, low-cost design? Design issues include: a) preventing the air bag from hinging upwards, b) selecting an air bag design/fabric that won’t pop when pressed to the train tracks, c) meeting the requirements of commuter rail operators, d) preventing pedestrians from getting their ankles caught, e) how to fund, develop, and test a prototype, etc.

     "Promising mathematical equations"?   That's pretty much nothing-isn't it?

Inventor: Peter D............

     Did I mention, that I invented the mini-van back in 1980?  I'd probably be a millionare now, if there had been an internet back then to promote my idea.

[Norm48327]

  "Nothing shakes the public money tree like a call for more safety. "

 

And, as long as the sheep are afraid to be accountable for their own actions  it will continue.

 Not every sheep dog is credible. Some are coyotes. Some sheep will be 'suckered in', and the coyotes will feast on their ignorance.

[Norm48327]

Mookie

Gentlemen:  (at least I think I am a minority of one) fleeting thought:  Do you suppose this is a very well-done hoax?  Can anyone really verify that this is even being pushed around on a drawing board by credible people?

 

 

Could be a hoax. OTOH, it may be being pushed by someone who stands to gain monetarily. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened, would it?

[Anonymous]

Steve Raney

A front-of-train air bag system shows promise in increasing rail safety. When inflated, the air bag system might be 15 feet long and 7 feet high. The system will be able to safely handle a collision between a pedestrian and a 60 mph locomotive, grabbing and holding the pedestrian until the locomotive comes to a stop.

 

This airbag application calls for a permanently inflated airbag.  With a vehicle, the just-in-time inflation is triggered by impact of the vehicle against some obstacle, and then the airbag inflates to protect the occupant from colliding with the vehicle interior.  It has to be just-in-time inflation because there is no room for a permanently inflated airbag in the vehicle driver compartment. 

 

With a train versus pedestrian contact, there is no easy way to trigger the just-in-time inflation, and there is no reason for that approach because there is plenty of room for a permanently inflated airbag ahead of the locomotive. 

 

The proposal calling for a permanently inflated airbag says it will be fifteen feet long.  As the airbag deflects upon collision with a pedestrian, it acts like a spring.  That is, the resistance of the airbag deflection increases the further it is deflected or compressed.  During that phase of compression, the pedestrian must be accelerated from zero to sixty mph. 

 

During this phase of airbag contact and compression, the airbag will compress some amount before the pedestrian begins to move with the contact force.  Let’s just say that is five feet.  And then the pedestrian must be fully accelerated before reaching the front of the locomotive at the end of the airbag compression.  Let’s say that the pedestrian is fully accelerated by the time he or she is five feet from the locomotive. 

 

So the pedestrian does not begin to move until he or she is five feet into the airbag, and then must be completely up to speed by the time he or she is ten feet into the airbag.  So the pedestrian must accelerate from zero-to-sixty mph within five feet.  Even if protected from hard object impact, can a human body survive accelerating from zero to sixty within five feet? 

 

I think it is going to require a longer airbag; probably something in the neighborhood of 75-100 feet long.  Think what that will do for railroad photography.

 

This concept fits right into the pedestrian rights advocacy that seeks to empower pedestrians over motor vehicles.  It is a very European concept.  It includes advice such as encouraging your kids to play in the street as a means of claiming space and traffic calming.  What really amazes me is the fact that the FRA is involved with this nonsense.  Although it is not really hard to understand when you realize the game that is being played in the big picture. 

[Anonymous]

Mookie

Gentlemen:  (at least I think I am a minority of one) fleeting thought:  Do you suppose this is a very well-done hoax?  Can anyone really verify that this is even being pushed around on a drawing board by credible people?

It sure sounds like it is being pushed by people who are serious about it.  Or at least they are serious about spending other people's money on it.  Nothing shakes the public money tree like a call for more safety. 

[Mookie]

Gentlemen:  (at least I think I am a minority of one) fleeting thought:  Do you suppose this is a very well-done hoax?  Can anyone really verify that this is even being pushed around on a drawing board by credible people?

[Anonymous]

.

[GP40-2]

RRKen

... I got a cheaper idea, stay he heck off the railroad.

That won't work since it only requires common sense. No way for a company like TRW to make a profit off of people's common sense. Besides, I'm sure TRW is trying to line up federal funds to "study" this "problem" as we speak. Of course, all at the taxpayers expense.

[Phoebe Vet]

If we continue this conversation the connection to trains will be lost.

We will obviously never agree.

[Modelcar]

Phoebe Vet

Air bags are a stupid idea that was forced on the automotive industry by the government.

They are not used in race cars,

Again....No problem with what you are saying about {some}, accidents.  But you certainly must be in the minority of opinions and those with the facts that know.....the bags do save lives.  I'm sure both you and I...know nothing is perfect.

Race Cars without air bags.....Ok, if all the cars had a roll cage structure....super belt structures....driver helmets.....protective seats costing thousands of dollars....Fire supressing equipment.....Thick styrofoam panels in side "door" panels.....Window net on side window.....and some other various items, for the driver's safety, maybe...we could get away without safety air bags as we know them now in our above equipped passenger cars.

[ValleyX]

I had to go and check my calendar because I was certain April Fool's Day had already passed.

[ButchKnouse]

You can't idiot proof the world.

[Norm48327]

 I've heard a lot of dumb ideas in my time, but this one is WAY over the top.

[CShaveRR]

Let's assume that a deployed bag (once we clear the issue of how, or by whom, it is deployed) will hold the non-victim-to-be securely. Has it also got a way of lifting the person away from the track structure? It wouldn't be good to hold him with his legs dragging along the ties!

I keep thinking about the video I saw of the lady in Downers Grove (Fairview Avenue) getting smacked by the BN E unit. Everybody was crossing the track in front of that train, and she was the unfortunate one who got clipped. Just a glancing blow (another inch or three and she would have been clear) that literally exploded her in her dress and threw her off to the side toward the cameraman (now a reformed foamer). Would somebody have had time to deploy an airbag for a scenario like that? An airbag that would grab the victim of such a glancing blow would, if deployed, have hit, if not grabbed, a lot of non-victims as well.

If the deployment is automatic, triggered by an impact, the impact itself (as Pat points out) already would have killed the victim, before the bag had a chance to fully deploy.

Positive Train Control will, theoretically, have the capability of taking care of vehicles on the tracks at crossings, stopping the trains short. I think money (in the form of fines) and law enforcement is probably a better way to spend the money.

An airbag system would have to be installed on the front of every locomotive, or on both ends of locomotives that are likely to be used singly, in order for the system to be effective. It would have to be based somewhere in the same area as the couplers and m.u. hoses (anywhere else would be a safety hazard for crews as well). What would keep the bag on the rear unit from deploying as soon as the unit made contact with the cars of its train? If it came out at all beyond the clearance diagram of the engine, it would be a great risk to the employee making the joint. And said employee would have to clear away (repack?) the bag before he could do anything practical, such as making the hoses or even checking to see if the coupling had made!

Please, for the sake of all railroaders and prospective rail passengers, forget about this idea!

[Phoebe Vet]

Air bags are a stupid idea that was forced on the automotive industry by the government.

They are not used in race cars, they are not used in airplanes, and they should not be used in or on trains.

When it became obvious to the government that air bags were killing people in the front seat, their bureaucratic solution was to tell people to put their children and other short people in the back seat away from the airbags.  If that is not possible, you can now apply for government permission to turn off the air bags.

Statistics claiming thousands of "saves" are meaningless.  Every time a car is substantially damaged and nobody dies some well meaning person claims that the airbag saved them.  It is usually not the case.

If airbags were saving thousands of lives a year as claimed, then the traffic fatality statistics would be continually dropping since airbags were mandated.  They are not.

I investigated this accident.  No one died and no one had any permanent injuries.  I guarantee that if the car had been equipped with airbags, people would be claiming that the air bag had saved him.

Let's put the expense and lunacy where it belongs and mandate that people who walk on the tracks must wear a full coverage air bag suit.  After all, a big inflated suit would be much more effective as you go bouncing down the tracks than trying to put a big explosive pillow on the front of the train.  Why should the railroad bear the expense instead of the track trespasser?

[RRKen]

Note that FRA suggests that $10,000 cost per airbag system per locomotive might be economically feasible.

 Not in this world is that going to happen.  I got a cheaper idea, stay he heck off the railroad.

[zugmann]

 Wouldn't it be easier to stop running trains? 

 

I mean, if we are going to bow down to a few suicidal nuts, then let's bow down the whole way. 

[Steve Raney]

Hopefully the Principal Engineer at TRW Automotive is even more skilled with airbag design than the Smash Lab TV show folks. I don't understand how Smash Lab is the final word. I believe that TRW was envisioning something with a more advanced design:

Collision physics calculations have been validated for a constant 20g deceleration. Such an air bag system will necessarily have a more complicated design than current in-vehicle automotive air bags. States a Principal Engineer at TRW Automotive: "I believe that this concept is possible. I believe that it would take quite a bit of development due to the volume of the 'bag' and the volatility of the propellants commonly used in air bag systems. We would need to perform a lot of experimentation but I overall I think it can be developed." In early 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration undertook a small study with somewhat promising results.

[tomikawaTT]

Just another REALLY DUMB idea.

As for Zero Fatalities in new design, that is an invention of the legal, media, political and insurance professions, people who have no more concept of technological reality than I have of Urdu.  As any engineer or wrench-bender will tell you, it does not and never will exist in the real world.  (I spent a lot of years as a flight line mechanic - and NEVER saw a single aircraft that didn't have some items of deferred maintenance logged on the forms.  If we had demanded perfection, the only things in the sky would have been birds.)

So a few hundred people do some really stupid things and get hit by trains, every year.  (I discounted the suicides, who will kill themselves regardless of counter-technology.)  If it wasn't for government-mandated paperwork, drug testing and fol-de-rol, the cost per squashed pedestrian would be a lot lower.  How much will it cost to do the same things if the air bag actually does save one of these Darwin Award candidates from his own folly?  At least as much, plus the cost of repacking the air bag.  Also, I rather doubt that an air bag smaller than a detached garage would help (if that's the appropriate term) one of these fools to survive to breed more fools.

Smash Lab already proved that a locomotive air bag won't save a vehicle from being totaled.  How much time, effort and money are we going to waste convincing ourselves that a 'people-size' locomotive air bag won't be any more effective?

Chuck

[Modelcar]

Phoebe Vet

They could save a lot of lives and serious injuries every year if they took the airbags OUT of cars

 

Don't doubt what you have seen in accidents, but I'd say the total facts and figures are on the other side of the debate.

And air bags on locomotives.....!!  Way over the top...Absolutely something not to do.....

[Semper Vaporo]

If a locomotive hitting a pedestrian can propel them 60-ft., I really wonder how far an airbag going poof on the front of a locomotive in addition to the speed of the locomotive might propel them?  They might survive the impact with the locomotive-airbag, but will they survive being tossed even farther?  Can we say, "Alley-Ooop!"

[blownout cylinder]

Phoebe Vet

I cannot imagine an giant airbag on the front of a train being all that effective.

I can, however, see it being effective as a human cannonball mover----sort of a giant cue stick----