coborn35 I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches.
I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches.
I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video?
About a two weeks after the Blairstown incident, I had a small stack train with an SD70m. It had a similar problem. The brake valve worked as it should in the service zone, but when going to the suppression position, it only reduced the equalizing reservoir by 6 to 8 lbs.
Normally in ATC territory, if I see a signal that will give me train control, I try to get under 40 mph if I'm running faster than that. I try to avoid having to make the heavy applications if I can. For about 3/4 of the way I'd been doing that. I never had to go to suppression. One time I finally didn't get under 40, but I had about 12 lbs already set and was slowing down. I got train control and went to suppresion. Watching the eq res gauge I noticed it only dropped to about 70 lbs instead of 62 lbs where it should be. The brake pipe also only dropped to corespond to the eq res, but I had enough set that I was slowing to a stop anyway.
Once stopped and at a place where the locomotive brakes would hold the train, I released the train brakes and then made a series of applications and releases. That's when I discovered what was going on. I found that I could go to the handle off position, bleed the brake pipe down to 62 lbs then move the valve back to suppression. I reported all this. They asked if I thought I could go on to the terminal safely (our other engines were facing the wrong way) and i said I could. (An emergency application would also work,and the procedure after Blairstown was all said and done is to use emergency in situations like this. I think that was where the FRA faulted the B-town crew, not dumping the air sooner.)
The B-town leader may have had more problems. It was said when the train came into Fremont, the engr overshot the crewchange spot by about 10 cars. At Boone, the next crewchange, they overshot by about 7 or 8 cars. One of our condrs afterwards talked to a Proviso engr who had that engine a few days before and had reported problems with the brakes. My engine worked most of the time, only under specific circumstances did it not work properly. (Since then, I have never heard of anyone having a similar problem with that type of brake valve. Once the problem had been identified (a worn spring in the valve) they have done a good job of not letting it reoccur.)
That's why I thought the FRA was kind to the railroad. In all the public media, I dont think there was ever any mention of defective equipment. All the blame was put on the crew. That's why I wonder sometimes in cases like B-town, Chatsworth CA, or now the BNSF in SW Iowa if the entire story will get out to the public, or just one side. Especially in the sad cases where dead men (and women) tell no tales.
Heck, from time to time there are still discussions of where blame lies with a certain rear end collision that happened in Vaughn, MS almost 111 years ago the end of this month.
Jeff
jeffhergert [snipped] (An emergency application would also work,and the procedure after Blairstown was all said and done is to use emergency in situations like this. I think that was where the FRA faulted the B-town crew, not dumping the air sooner.)
Interesting story - how being a locomotive engineer can be/ is more than just getting on, pulling the throttle, and blowing the whistle. That sounds like quite a bit of diagnostic analysis and thinking you had to do there. Obviously you had a vested interest in finding out what was wrong so you could get home safely - but I suppose you could have just as well shrugged and said "I dunno - come get it !" until Hours of Service caught up with you. You do have have some training and lots of time and opportunities to use the air brake controls and to figure out how that "big pile of iron and pipes" works, but still - it takes some innate curiosity and mechanical savvy to be able to do that.
jeffhergert . . . That's why I wonder sometimes in cases like B-town, Chatsworth CA, or now the BNSF in SW Iowa if the entire story will get out to the public, or just one side. Especially in the sad cases where dead men (and women) tell no tales. Heck, from time to time there are still discussions of where blame lies with a certain rear end collision that happened in Vaughn, MS almost 111 years ago the end of this month.
- Paul North.
blue streak 1 Maybe the answer would be to have a regular boxcar on the end of a flat car train??
Rail trains are required to have a 'buffer' car - box or hopper, etc. - for much the same reason: to prevent a loose rail from sliding forward and puncturing and penetrating a cab in the event of a fast stop or wreck, etc. That type of a heavy small projectile is a difficult situation to design against, and I notice the the FRA didn't even try with those crash impact tests that I linked to above - the closest they came was with the 'offset shifted container load' scenario. So the buffer car may be the most feasible alternative.
Either David P. Morgan or George W. Hilton once wrote - in the late 1960's or 1970's - to the effect that "a gasoline tank truck on a grade crossing is the ultimate incentive for an engineer to 'big-hole' the air brake to try to avoid a collision, even if it did result in a slack 'run-in' that derailed the train and scattered it all ove the landscape". I can only think of a couple situations where a beefed-up cab would not be reasonably more effective in protecting the crew, and that is one of them (along with the related scenario of a propane or natural gas tank truck), unless all of the glass is of ballistic and fireproof quality; the other is the 1987 Amtrak Colonial collision at 125 MPH with 3 stopped ConRail locomotives, when the AEM-7 essentially disintegrated on impact. But both of those scenarios are rare events, and the more typical other kinds collisions would prove out the benefits of a more crashworthy cab, in my opinion.
Georgia Railroader coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video?
coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches.
No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
The collision post did what they were designed to do, they lifted the rear car up and over the cab, but as was pointed out, it was not the rear car, but one several deep from the rear end which ended up shearing the cab...note the "deck of cards" position of the remaining flat cars, that much mass/weight pushing on the cab and the collision post simply caused one of the cars to penetrate the cab.
Had these been any other type of car, say a box car or covered hopper, even a tank car, the post would have shoved the car either to the side or over the cab.
Note in several photos the post stayed put, but the frame just ahead of the nose bent back.
23 17 46 11
coborn35 Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video? No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD.
Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video?
Yep, if it's the same video I think it is. Happened in Roebuck S.C. in the early 90's? Anyway you could post it up?
Good Lord.
My thoughts exactly.
No where to go, no way out.
"+1" Thanks for posting those photos, ed - a lot of information there to digest, and potential answers and insights.
Kind of incredible how all of those flatcars stacked on top of each other, instead of diverting to one side or the other, etc. That defies the odds, IMHO - has anything like that ever happened before ?
Perhaps it's because the point of impact of the collision likely occurred under the bridge in the background. In the 3rd photo up from the last, note how the nearest bridge beam has a good-sized buckle in it and is bent outwards, towards the camera. It's going to have to be replaced, and that won't be an easy or inexpensive repair, either.
But the real tragedy is the 2 lives lost. If the crew was asleep, that aspect won't get a fraction of the attention that the air traffic controller dozing reports are.
Thanks for posting those photos Ed. They certainly are a grim testament to what can go wrong. I have never seen such an incident where cars climb over the top of the locomotive. The closest thing I have seen to that is when those old 4-4-0s would climb up the snowplow and perch atop the locomotive pushing the plow.
Georgia Railroader coborn35: Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video? No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD. Yep, if it's the same video I think it is. Happened in Roebuck S.C. in the early 90's? Anyway you could post it up?
coborn35: Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video? No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD.
Yessir. It will be a little while, but once I get it converted I sure will!
coborn35 Georgia Railroader: coborn35: Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video? No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD. Yep, if it's the same video I think it is. Happened in Roebuck S.C. in the early 90's? Anyway you could post it up? Yessir. It will be a little while, but once I get it converted I sure will!
Georgia Railroader: coborn35: Georgia Railroader: coborn35: I jsut watched an interesting safety video yesterday, im sure some of you have heard of it. It is called "Mental Vacations" and I believe is from CSX. Now long story short the crew realized they couldn't stop and were going to go head on with another train, so the fireman started to run out of the back of the engine to jump off, but realized he was going to get crushed. He then ran back into the cab and crouched behind the engineer, rode it out, and they all (4 man crew) survived. It was interesting because they hit at probably 20 mph and they just had scratches. I used to work with those same guys involved. Where did you find the video? No kidding!? We got them from the Wisconsin Central around 2002 when we acquired their locomotive engineer training simulator. We had always assumed they were WC videos but of course they are a mix of Chessie, CSX and UP with a few WC thrown in. I am in the process of converting them to DVD. Yep, if it's the same video I think it is. Happened in Roebuck S.C. in the early 90's? Anyway you could post it up?
Cool. Thanks!!
I am curious about locomotive collision posts. As I understand it, they are intended to protect the crew in cases of collisions with highway vehicles as well as locomotives and rolling stock.
I have seen how the EMD F-units were designed to buckle between the cab and the rest of the locomotive body, in order to absorb impact while keeping the cab relatively intact. Of course, this tended to work only at very slow speeds. I have seen geeps with their cabs demolished when cars or a caboose rode up the unit in a collision. But as far as I know, this was all prior to the advent of “collision posts.”
So what is it that collision posts are expected to do? It certainly does not look like they had any benefit in this BNSF collision, and that was only a 22 mph impact.
The collision posts are located in the nose right where the bend from the "flat" door panel begins to bend.
They are about 8" wide at the base and taper to about 3" at the top, and are 3" thick.
Welded to the frame.
The front of the pilot and knuckle/coupler assembly is designed to lift and trap automobiles between the knuckle/drawbar and the front porch, preventing them from entering the cab.
The collision post are designed to make any rail car or automobile that rides over the pilot and over the porch to deflect upward, it should either flip the car or object, or deflect it to the side.
The post are strong enough to be used as lifting points for the locomotive if needed, I have seen one picked up by them.
Both GE and EMD have these posts, on GEs they are stand-alone structures, you can see them when you step into the nose door, on EMDs they are part of the nose structure.
I agree with Paul, based only on the photos, that the rear car was picked up by the pilot, then deflected up and over the cab by the post/nose structure, but then was trapped on the roof by the bridge, which started the accordion effect, which placed a tremendous amount of mass and weight on the post and front of the cab, and when adding the kinetic energy of the moving locomotive and the entire mass it simply overcame the structure of the frame and then the cab.
If you look at the photos, you can see two pieces of the nose panels still intact.
The two panels which were to either side of the nose door have the collision post behind them, and they are welded to the frame precisely where the frame bent back and up.
The post didn't fail; they did exactly what they were designed to do, by lifting the car up and over, preventing it from shearing the cab off at the walkway.
Had it not been for the type of car the locomotive hit, and the bridge above the locomotive, I think, (opinion only) the crew would have survived.
But again, this is my opinion.
You're not looking at a safety design failure per say, but at an odd set of circumstances no one would have anticipated in the bridge being a factor in overall effect.
edblysard said:
"...Had it not been for the type of car the locomotive hit, and the bridge above the locomotive, I think, (opinion only) the crew would have survived..."
"But again, this is my opinion."
"...You're not looking at a safety design failure per say, but at an odd set of circumstances no one would have anticipated in the bridge being a factor in overall effect..."
Shear circumstances that overcame the 'normal calculations. ie; The exception that proves the rule. More than likely fifty feet further down the line or the area prior to the overhead bridge, and survivability would have been effected, but the bridge was the 'x' factor. I guess this will be one for the engineers to study...'
edblysard The collision posts are located in the nose right where the bend from the "flat" door panel begins to bend. They are about 8" wide at the base and taper to about 3" at the top, and are 3" thick. Welded to the frame. The front of the pilot and knuckle/coupler assembly is designed to lift and trap automobiles between the knuckle/drawbar and the front porch, preventing them from entering the cab. The collision post are designed to make any rail car or automobile that rides over the pilot and over the porch to deflect upward, it should either flip the car or object, or deflect it to the side. The post are strong enough to be used as lifting points for the locomotive if needed, I have seen one picked up by them. Both GE and EMD have these posts, on GEs they are stand-alone structures, you can see them when you step into the nose door, on EMDs they are part of the nose structure. I agree with Paul, based only on the photos, that the rear car was picked up by the pilot, then deflected up and over the cab by the post/nose structure, but then was trapped on the roof by the bridge, which started the accordion effect, which placed a tremendous amount of mass and weight on the post and front of the cab, and when adding the kinetic energy of the moving locomotive and the entire mass it simply overcame the structure of the frame and then the cab. If you look at the photos, you can see two pieces of the nose panels still intact. The two panels which were to either side of the nose door have the collision post behind them, and they are welded to the frame precisely where the frame bent back and up. The post didn't fail; they did exactly what they were designed to do, by lifting the car up and over, preventing it from shearing the cab off at the walkway. Had it not been for the type of car the locomotive hit, and the bridge above the locomotive, I think, (opinion only) the crew would have survived. But again, this is my opinion. You're not looking at a safety design failure per say, but at an odd set of circumstances no one would have anticipated in the bridge being a factor in overall effect.
Ed,
Thanks for that information and perspective.
I would not necessarily conclude that the collision posts failed to do their job because I don’t know exactly what their job is intended to be. It looks to me that the collision posts did not bend over their length but they bent the connection to the frame. Whether that entailed the bending of the actual posts near their bottoms, or the bending of the frame, it seems to me that the posts failed to remain vertical and withstand the impact force. If they bent the frame, the posts acted like levers that multiplied the bending force to their connection to the frame.
I agree that it looks like the car rode up the pilot. But when it hit the collision posts, it bent them back about 45 degrees and created a perfect ramp for the cars to continue riding upward. When the cars reached the top of the ramp (at the top of the collision posts), they pushed straight back into the softer cab structure and peeled / rolled it back. From that point, the cars rode all the way over the engine as they rolled the upper cab structure back.
I would think that if one were to expect those posts to withstand the typical impact in a collision with railroad equipment, the posts would have to be gusseted to the frame way back maybe as far as 4-6 feet horizontally. And even with that, the whole frame would have to be reinforced to prevent it from bending at that gusset endpoint 4-6 feet back.
If the collision posts had been more resistant to being bent back, they might have conveyed enough impact force forward to buckle the couplings of the flat cars one or two joints ahead, and cause the cars to deflect sideways thus preventing the riding up the front of the locomotive
I will grant that flat cars are unique in that they have the same frame strength as other cars, but no other associated superstructure to blunt the impact. They are like javelins, and they concentrate all the force on a relatively small spot. If I were to speculate (which I always do), I would say that the collision posts failed to do what they were intended to do. I expect them to become the center of intense focus and controversy by everyone having an interest in their performance; particularly so because the speed was so low at the time of impact.
I think we need someone with a background in physics to take a look at this wreck before we say the crash posts weren't up to the job. I can't even begin to imagine how the forces at work played out...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann I think we need someone with a background in physics to take a look at this wreck before we say the crash posts weren't up to the job. I can't even begin to imagine how the forces at work played out...
I would certainly like to hear from somebody with a background in physics to say what happened, but I don't have all day. Seriously though, I'll bet there will be lots of people with physics and engineering backgrounds poring over the results of this wreck; and probably lots of people with backgrounds in law too.
It would not surprise me if this type of scenario of hitting long flat cars, loaded as these were, was overlooked in the development of the crashworthiness of these locomotives. I predict that the crash performance of the locomotive in this collision will be big news on several fronts.
I doubt many people will look at those photos and not conclude that the collision posts failed to do their job. Although it does depend on what their job was. There is no question in my mind that the locomotive frame is strong enough to transmit enough force into that work train to buckle its cars rather than buckle the locomotive frame. The collision posts are intended to extend that locomotive frame strength upwards to a point above the coupler line. They utterly failed to do that.
You also had that weight coming down on top of them, too.
There's always trade-offs. Be interesting to see what comes out of this.
Thanks for the pictures Ed.
As information the last car in the U Train was a Herzog Clip Car the 4th photo from the top you can see the drawbar on it. I was wondering where it ended up at, first photo that I have seen of it.
The flat car that is on top of the engine is the Scorpion Car (Ramp Car) it has a ramp that you lower down to load the machines or Trucks.
The six photo from the top the flat car that is to your right was the 6th car from the rear of the train counting the Clip Car, I wish I could make out more of the car numbers. Quite interesting how they stacked up like they did.
Note the anti climber lip or porch on the front of both the Dash 9 and the MK1500 D ahead of the foot board steps.
This is designed to trap anything, like an automobile or icebox or old desk that the locomotive may hit, between the knuckle/coupler and the deck, preventing it object from riding up and into the nose of the cab or short hood.
Attachment point of the collision post to the frame of the Dash 9 on the engineers side.
Firemans side collision post looking in thru nose door.
Collision post engineers side from inside the nose.
The bottom of this post is in photo 2 above.
Another view of the firemans side post from inside the nose on the steps leading up to the cab.
Looking forward from the center of the cab floor, the post are on either side of the door just out of view.
Thanks for those photos Ed. That certainly shows the collision posts well. I take it that the large round hole near the top would be for connecting a lifting cable. They would just torch away some sheet metal, and open access to that collision post. It is interesting how the posts have their leading edges rolled outward by the stacking and welding of strips. I am guessing that those strips are not cut on a taper, but rather are simply canted and the resulting gap filled with weld. It is a strange detail both in construction and purpose.
I wonder what the actual claim of performance for those collision posts is. I think they would do a lot of good in cases of grade crossing collisions with highway vehicles. Maybe that is all they are meant to do, but I read somewhere in one of the links that the crashworthiness of locomotives anticipates the need to protect in collisions with other locomotives and railcars. It does not seem like the posts are adequate for that degree of force. I can imagine that there is lots of bureaucratic wrangling within the industry and regulatory agencies about what kind of crash protection is needed.
To get cab protection for hitting railroad equipment, the locomotive frame would have to raise a bulwark at its front that would have the same collapse strength as the frame itself when the frame takes the compression force directly on its end. Those raised posts in the photos would have to be braced far back into the cab area. And the frame itself would have to be reinforced against the introduction of this new bending force that would result from the raised offset protection taking a hit. It seems like there would be room for this structure under the cab, but no further back due the position of the machinery. At the very front, the raised structure could even extend a bit higher into the top of the nose.
I have come into possession, through industry channels, of photos that would appear to show that the collision posts, did in fact do their job....at least to the height that they were constructed....the problem was that the collision posts did not extend high enough to protect the cab. The flat cars hit the collision posts and rose to their height and then the flat cars continued along the top of the collision posts shearing the cab. In this case the collision posts acted as a launching ramp to the lightly loaded flat cars. From those pictures it would also appear that the forces defeated the anti-climber also.
As can be seen from Mr. Blysard's photos, the collision posts only extend to roughly the height of the operating cab floor.
Bucyrus I doubt many people will look at those photos and not conclude that the collision posts failed to do their job. Although it does depend on what their job was. There is no question in my mind that the locomotive frame is strong enough to transmit enough force into that work train to buckle its cars rather than buckle the locomotive frame. The collision posts are intended to extend that locomotive frame strength upwards to a point above the coupler line. They utterly failed to do that.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here's a different example of how the collision posts on an SD70ACe do their job. We'll use the example of one locomotive, the UP 8485:
This is the unit as it appeared around mid-summer 2006 (still wearing that new locomotive smell), and:
following the collision at Chatsworth CA with the Metrolink train in September of 2008.
Considering the 70MPH+ speed differential of both trains at the point of impact, it would appear in this case that the SD70ACe collision posts (and anticlimber) did everything they were asked to do.
BaltACD I have come into possession, through industry channels, of photos that would appear to show that the collision posts, did in fact do their job....at least to the height that they were constructed....the problem was that the collision posts did not extend high enough to protect the cab. The flat cars hit the collision posts and rose to their height and then the flat cars continued along the top of the collision posts shearing the cab. In this case the collision posts acted as a launching ramp to the lightly loaded flat cars. From those pictures it would also appear that the forces defeated the anti-climber also. As can be seen from Mr. Blysard's photos, the collision posts only extend to roughly the height of the operating cab floor. Bucyrus: I doubt many people will look at those photos and not conclude that the collision posts failed to do their job. Although it does depend on what their job was. There is no question in my mind that the locomotive frame is strong enough to transmit enough force into that work train to buckle its cars rather than buckle the locomotive frame. The collision posts are intended to extend that locomotive frame strength upwards to a point above the coupler line. They utterly failed to do that.
Bucyrus: I doubt many people will look at those photos and not conclude that the collision posts failed to do their job. Although it does depend on what their job was. There is no question in my mind that the locomotive frame is strong enough to transmit enough force into that work train to buckle its cars rather than buckle the locomotive frame. The collision posts are intended to extend that locomotive frame strength upwards to a point above the coupler line. They utterly failed to do that.
Yes I can see that the collision posts only extend part way up the height of the cab. And if they extended higher, they might have ramped the flatcars right over the cab instead of crushing into it. However, the collision posts bent over about 45 degrees from the force of the impact. Either the base area of the posts bent, or the main frame bent where the posts attach to it. That did turn them into a ramp, and a ramp might have saved the crew if it had extended higher. However, I doubt that the design intent was to have the posts bend and form a ramp.
If that were the intent, the designers would have realized what would happen once the cars rode to the top of the ramp. So I conclude that the bending of the posts means that they failed to do what they were intended to do, if they were intended to protect from collisions with railroad equipment.
Had they been strong enough to resist bending, there would have been no issue of how high they should be to fully protect the cab. If they did not bend over, they would not have formed a ramp for the flatcars to ride up. And if they did not bend over, and the cars could not ride up, the locomotive would have transferred enough compression force into the flatcar to cause them to jackknife. The locomotive is heavier that the flatcars and their loads, and the locomotive frame is stronger that the flatcar frames. With the right collision protection device, the cars should take the damage instead of the locomotive.
Ed - thanks much for that series of very illustrative photos. I'll bet it was a bit of a challenge getting a good angle for some of them, esp. the bottom of the one on the engineer's side . . . You're becoming a bit of a 'double threat' now - photog as well as a published writer !
silicon212 - thanks to you, too, for those photos of the UP unit. I posted above about how well it survived that collision with the MetroLink F59PH - but I never expected to see it with that little damage on the front end, the initial point of contact/ impact.
I think the analysis by Bucyrus above as to the mechanics of what happened is pretty much right on, esp. for someone who wasn't there. Where I differ from his view is my understanding of what the collision posts were supposed to accomplish. Unlike him, I believe that the collision posts were intended only to meet the bare minimum requirements or standards of the FRA regulations that I cited above, as follows - from:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/octqtr/49cfr229.141.htm or
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/octqtr/pdf/49cfr229.141.pdf
[Code of Federal Regulations][Title 49, Volume 4][Revised as of October 1, 2010]From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access[CITE: 49CFR229.141][Page 472-474] TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPART 229_RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents Subpart D_Locomotive Crashworthiness Design RequirementsSec. 229.141 Body structure, MU locomotives. (a) MU locomotives built new after April 1, 1956 that are operated in trains having a total empty weight of 600,000 pounds or more shall have a body structure designed to meet or exceed the following minimum specifications:
(1) The body structure shall resist a minimum static end load of 800,000 pounds at the rear draft stops ahead of the bolster on the center line of draft, without developing any permanent deformation in any member of the body structure.
[(2) and (3) omitted] . . .
(4) The outside end of each locomotive shall be provided with two main vertical members, one at each side of the diaphragm opening; each main member shall have an ultimate shear value of not less than 300,000 pounds at a point even with the top of the underframe member to which it is attached. The attachment of these members at bottom shall be sufficient to develop their full shear value. If reinforcement is used to provide the shear value, the reinforcement shall have full value for a distance of 18 inches up from the underframe connection and then taper to a point approximately 30 inches above the underframe connection.
Note that the collision posts need only develop 300,000 lbs. of resistance each - or 600,000 lbs. in the aggregate - as compared to the 800,000 lbs. required of the frame, and 360,000 to 500,000 lbs. ("shock load") for Grade E couplers (per Al Krug, at - http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/drawbar.htm ).
Also, note that nowhere does it say how high the collision posts have to be - certainly there's nothing that says they have to extend up to the cab floor, or for the full height of the low nose, etc. - certainly Ed's photos show that they don't. Per the regulation, a height requirement comes into effect only if reinforcement of some kind is used - then that reinforcement has to be full strength up to 18" above the underframe; above that, the reinforcement may taper down - presumably to 0 strength ? - by 30" above the underframe.
Further, nothing there explicitly requires that the full shear strength of 300,000 lbs. per collision post be developed or provided - even with the reinforcement - at any height above the underframe, though presumbly that's the intent.
And there's nothing in that regulation which prohibits or even addresses the bending of the underframe and turning of the collision posts into ramps, as Bucyrus has capably analyzed and postulated.
So I conclude the collision posts performed well enough to meet the regulatory requirements that they were subject to, and probably designed for. Instead, what I believe is deficient is the FRA regulation/ specification quoted above - and perhaps any other industry standards and/ or railroad 'custom' specifications that could require more strength there, with regard to the aspects that Bucyrus and I have noted above.
I also wonder if the anti-climbers failed to do their job - how is it that those flatcars got that high above the locomotive's underframe to contact the collision posts, without having to first 'hang up' on the anti-climber and then buckling and crumpling up ?
In conclusion, it appears to me that the anti-collision features of the UP SD70ACe in the Chatsworth collision perhaps performed better than expected; but those aspects of the locomotive in this BNSF collision performed worse than anticipated. That failure is perhaps still a human failure - in addition to the apparently unique and extraordinary circumstances of this event, in that location - but not necessarily a failure of the design or manufacture of the collision posts, either. Instead, it appears to be a failure of inadequate specifications and regulations for the quite possible risks, loads, and needs of that structure to better protect the crews. To corroborate that, otherwise why would the FRA have felt the need in 2006 to also impose the crashworthiness standards of Section 229.205 - the 65,000 lb. objects at 30" above the underframe ? And obviously, those loads are nowhere near the magnitude of what was likely encountered in this collision.
One further point:
Perhaps the reason the FRA regulations are not more stringent is that there was/ is a 'mind-set' and/ or presumption that whatever a locomotive would be colliding with would have a substantial end-area cross-section - such as a boxcar, open or covered hopper, even a tank car, low-side gondola car, or a bulkhead flat, etc. Such cars have a large enough end area that most or all of the height of the collision posts would be in contact with that end - not just their upper portions. That distribution of the impact would tend to prevent the collision posts from bending backwards - as soon as that started to happen, the impact load would transfer to the stronger bottom portion - and so they would be more likely to stay vertical and successfully resist the impact.
But a thin-end light-weight flatcar doesn't conform to that 'model' of a collision or those assumptions - all the impact is concentrated in a horizontal 'band' that is narrow vertically, and pretty free to move up or down. And if that band rises up on the height of the collision posts, they will then be subjected to a substantial horizontal force backwards, which causes a "bending moment" or twisting action around their bottom connection to the underframe which will tend to tilt them backwards also - which appears to be what happened here.
It would be interesting to see a side-elevation diagram of the locomotive's framing, and the relative heights of the underframe, the collision posts, and the cab floor, etc.
EDIT: Here's a start - a broadside external (only) view:
http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20SD70ACe.HTML
Paul,
Took the shots at work on coffee break, the MK1500D in the back ground is my switch motor for the day.
From the photos sent to me and posted, it would appear the frame failed just behind the collision post attachment.
The fact that the two halves of the nose section remained indicate the post are still in place and still attached to both the cab portion and the frame.
And I agree with your statement that the post are designed to meet a miminum, not a maximum expected collision force.
I would also suspect that the coal train may have coupled into the rear flat car, then the forward motion and compression sheared the long drawbar away and down, lifting the rear of the flat just high enought to clear the anticlimber, then into the collision post and up over the cab...it appears that when that car struck the bridge and jammed up, the rest of the flats dominoed or stacked up...their weight and mass is what caused the cab failure.
I will try and get photos of a EMD collision protection tomorrow, no promise, we may not have one in the yard.
edblysard [snipped] I would also suspect that the coal train may have coupled into the rear flat car, then the forward motion and compression sheared the long drawbar away and down, lifting the rear of the flat just high enought to clear the anticlimber, then into the collision post and up over the cab...it appears that when that car struck the bridge and jammed up, the rest of the flats dominoed or stacked up...their weight and mass is what caused the cab failure.
A portion of 229.141(a) that I didn't yet quote above is this:
"(3) The coupler carrier and its connections to the body structure shall be designed to resist a vertical downward thrust from the coupler shank of 100,000 pounds for any horizontal position of the coupler, without exceeding the yield points of the materials used."
Now that's for locomotives, not cars - but I can't find a comparable FRA specification or regulation for cars, and I could believe that a car would have less strength than that - the coupler isn't supposed to carry much vertical weight anyway. So in such an event, the 'least strongest' one would give way first - and that would be the flatcar's drawbar, initiating the chain of events that you've set forth above.
An aside, if you haven't told us before: What do you think of the MK 1500D as a yard switcher ? I gather they all date from 1996, and have GM/ EMD electricals, but a single Caterpillar 1400 HP V-12 3512A engine, per: http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20MP%20MP1500D.HTML - is that right ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.