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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...'
23 17 46 11
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.
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?
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?
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?
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!
Cool. Thanks!!
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?
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
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.
"+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.
- Paul North.
My thoughts exactly.
No where to go, no way out.
Good Lord.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jeff
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.
tatans Am I wrong or do locomotive run as well backwards as forward, just tell the engineers to reverse their engines, it's their prerogative, their job is just to get the goods to where they are going. After all , steam locomotives ran with 60 feet of boiler in front of them for a thousand years.
Am I wrong or do locomotive run as well backwards as forward, just tell the engineers to reverse their engines, it's their prerogative, their job is just to get the goods to where they are going.
After all , steam locomotives ran with 60 feet of boiler in front of them for a thousand years.
LOL you ever ran a locomotive?.........................
Got it - thanks. Link to it (7 pages, approx. 144 KB in size):
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/Accident_Investigation/2005/hq200533.pdf
From the "Analysis" section of the report, on page 6 of 7: "It was quickly discovered a one-way check valve within the number 8 pipe of the locomotive's air brake system was defective. The defective valve allowed air to pass in the wrong direction when the main brake handle was placed in the suppression position. This allowed air pressure to drive the release control valve up in its cylinder and prevented air from reducing in the equalizing reservoir, thereby circumventing the full service brake application of the train's air brakes."
I agree, Jeff - with a trainee engineer/ Fireman In Training, that was like a simulator scenario happening in real-life. The defective valve - geez, those things seem complicated ! - is what disabled the brake system and created the crisis - not the crew's actions - though maybe they should have reacted to that sooner. And I'm not sure what they could have done then anyway to stop the train quickly, with the brakes malfunctioning that way.
The report really doesn't address the crashworthiness of the locomotive cabs, either.
Thanks for providing that info.
In general Locomotives are alot safer for crews than they ever were before. Just like modern passenger cars some level of crash worthiness is a major part of its design. Passenger cars are designed to be survivable for the occupants in a collision with a vehicle of similar weight at a reasonable speed.
While I am this loco/automobile analogy.....
I witnessed an accident on the highway a few years ago where a guy(coworker) was killed.A 2x4 fell off a work truck, bounced off the road, and came through the windshield of, and was impaled itself into the guys face. His relatively new Grand Marquee could have easily and without much damage collided with that same piece of lumber standing on end, but coming though the windshield at 70-80 mph was deadly.
Note: I had an image that showed the damage to two locos that had been in a low speed head on. One was an older standard cab loco, the other a newer widecab. You could tell that the crew of the standard cab could have been killed or seriously injured and widecab crew would likely have been able to "drive her home".
However the site I remember seeing this on(CSX-SUCKS.com) appears to be no longer with us.
Sometimes jumping is the best option, but sometimes not. I read an account in the book Call the Big Hook where a fireman on a steam passenger train stepped off at about 70-80 mph and survived. The road forman of engines was standing behind the engineer coaching him to make better time, and the fireman told him they had better slow down because they would not make the next curve at that speed. The RFE told the fireman to mind his own business, so the fireman went down the ladder and stepped off. Now that is conviction!
The engine hit the curve, and the train leapt across the Arkansas River, killing the engineer and the RFE.
I once rode an excursion on the Clinchfield RR, and they had just, a few days earlier, had a head-on collision of two freight trains inside of a tunnel. All of the wreckage had been pulled out of the tunnel and was piled up outside near each end. What an awful predicament that would be. There would be no way to jump and get away from the crush, and the tunnel would hold the trains in a straight line, so nothing could deflect. All the force of both trains would go right to the point of impact.
Thank you Paul for the kind words.
I've often thought the FRA was very kind to the railroad in placing primary blame on the crew and secondary blame on the defective brake equipment and not the other way around. The crew did everything right, except for not realizing the brake application wasn't taking effect like it should have.
The fireman quit after this incident. The engineer was hurt enough that he hasn't come back. The conductor came back and retired a couple of years ago. I see him at the Clinton Wal-mart from time to time. I worked with him a few times afterward. The location of the collision is now sometimes referred to as, "(engr's name) Curve."
Thanks, Jeff - and not only for that, but for all of your other very informative and insightful comments on this and other threads here. (And now I know you read my post above, which I also intended . . . )
Paul, it happened April 13, 2005 at Blairstown, Iowa.
FRA Accident Investigation Report HQ-2005-33.
I have a pdf copy if you can't find it on line for some reason.
jeffhergert [snipped] A few years later, the UP had a rearender at Blairstown, IA. A manifest with a wide nose GE ran into the back of a coal train with a DP on the end at about 25 to 30 MPH. It made a big mess, shredded a couple of aluminum hoppers, but the crew survived.
The 'unworthy' thought occurred to me that if a union representative proposed to a railroad management that the next order of locomotives have cabs with enhanced protection - such as the center post or 'cage' that I referenced above, the response might well be along the same lines as an SP trainmaster gave to an engineer who objected to the lack of protection with the first "cab-forward" type steam locomotives by saying he didn't want a caboose in his lap someday: "Mister, you do your job right, and that'll never happen to you".
Well, fair enough - but even if a crew runs perfectly (and just like me driving on the highway ), that's no guarantee that some other guy out there isn't going to screw up and do something that causes a collision. And aside from that, there are other impact incidents which can be caused by someone or something other than any train crew which would make such protection worthwhile, such as: shifted loads/ containers/ trailers; steel coil trucks at grade crossings; trees down; rockslides; runaways from industrial sidings; blind shoves or other bad moves in yards; construction equipment too close to the tracks; MOW equipment fouling the track; a derailment of another train on an adjoining track right in front of the locomotive, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.