Maybe the answer would be to have a regular boxcar on the end of a flat car train??t
Paul_D_North_Jr [snipped] BaltACD: [snipped] . . . While the nose section of locomotives is designed to withstand impacts, the cab section itself has little more than glass standing between the occupants and a on coming car body. . . . Accordingly, the crashworthiness standards may need to be revised to provide more protection in the windshield area, i.e., across the vertical zone that extends from the top of the nose section to the cab roof. I suggest adding another heavy post - such as in the center so as to work with 2-piece windshields - and with a moderate slant or 'rake' up and backwards so as to deflect such an object up and over the cab, instead of allowing it to crash directly into the windshield area.
BaltACD: [snipped] . . . While the nose section of locomotives is designed to withstand impacts, the cab section itself has little more than glass standing between the occupants and a on coming car body.
. . . Accordingly, the crashworthiness standards may need to be revised to provide more protection in the windshield area, i.e., across the vertical zone that extends from the top of the nose section to the cab roof. I suggest adding another heavy post - such as in the center so as to work with 2-piece windshields - and with a moderate slant or 'rake' up and backwards so as to deflect such an object up and over the cab, instead of allowing it to crash directly into the windshield area.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test9_Info.pdf
jeffhergert I think had the two trains been reversed, the the MOW equipment train running into the coal train, the crew would have survived. [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. Jeff
[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.
Jeff
"Locomotive Collision Test #1 - Inline Collision of a Freight Locomotive with a Stationary Hopper Consist" (SD-70, 30 MPH) (6 pages, approx. 632 KB in size) at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test1_Info.pdf "Locomotive Collision Test #7 - Freight Locomotive (DASH8-C39) Colliding with a Stationary Hopper Car" (30 MPH) (6 pages, approx. 531 KB in size) at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test7_Info.pdf
"Locomotive Collision Test #1 - Inline Collision of a Freight Locomotive with a Stationary Hopper Consist" (SD-70, 30 MPH) (6 pages, approx. 632 KB in size) at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test1_Info.pdf
"Locomotive Collision Test #7 - Freight Locomotive (DASH8-C39) Colliding with a Stationary Hopper Car" (30 MPH) (6 pages, approx. 531 KB in size) at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/Test7_Info.pdf
- Paul North.
I think had the two trains been reversed, the the MOW equipment train running into the coal train, the crew would have survived.
Some years back at Clinton, IA a UP haulage rights stack train on the IMRL (with an IMRL crew) rear-ended a BNSF local at 17 MPH within unsignalled yard limits. The rear car was an empty tank car and it, like the light weight flat cars, rode up over the nose into the cab of a wide nose GE, killing the crew.
schlimm If a heavy train (1000 tons) moving at only 15 mph rear ends another train, it is hard to imagine how the structural integrity of the cab could be maintained. Isn't the issue really more about the signaling designed to prevent the collision in the first place rather than survivability? Did the signals work? If, so, why did the engineer fail to stop in time?
If a heavy train (1000 tons) moving at only 15 mph rear ends another train, it is hard to imagine how the structural integrity of the cab could be maintained. Isn't the issue really more about the signaling designed to prevent the collision in the first place rather than survivability? Did the signals work? If, so, why did the engineer fail to stop in time?
I'm sure all will come out after the investigation...
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
samfp1943 [snipped] . . . Apparently, the last car [TTX style flat] did over-ride the OR protector and pierced the crew area of the cab(?). It would be a pretty hard situation to prevent, unless the corner-reinforcement post woud deflect the intrusion upward over the compartment. Again, Thanks for the Linked site.
Again, Thanks for the Linked site.
BaltACD [snipped] . . . While the nose section of locomotives is designed to withstand impacts, the cab section itself has little more than glass standing between the occupants and a on coming car body.
Bucyrus [snipped] . . . [A crushproof cab] would add weight to the locomotive, but locomotives of all vehicles are the most able to carry extra weight. . . .
Whatever man builds....the forces developed in nature under some set of specific circumstances can defeat man's creation.
Look no further than the Japanese Nuke plant....all it took was natures 48 foot Tsunami to defeat all the safe guards that man had built into the plant.
The Iowa incident, regrettable though it is, was nothing more than a man failure incident. The train the fatalities occurred on was moving faster than the allowed 'Restricted Speed' and paid the ultimate price for the rules failure.
Without more extensive pictures than I have seen, I would conjecture that the car that rode up and through the locomotive cab was not the car that was struck by the locomotive but was the 2nd or 3rd car and it was launched over the originally impacted car, that was held down by the anti-climbers on the locomotive, and used the impacted car as a ramp to take aim at the locomotive cab. While the nose section of locomotives is designed to withstand impacts, the cab section itself has little more than glass standing between the occupants and a on coming car body.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Why did the Edmund Fitzgerald sink?
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
schlimm If a heavy train (1000 tons) moving at only 15 mph rear ends another train, it is hard to imagine how the structural integrity of the cab could be maintained.
If a heavy train (1000 tons) moving at only 15 mph rear ends another train, it is hard to imagine how the structural integrity of the cab could be maintained.
It would indeed be possible to prevent structural damage to the cab regardless of how much momentum from the trailing train weight is involved. The cab just has to be strong enough so that everything squeezing it compresses and deflects outward from the line of impact.
Consider a cab made as a steel sphere with six-inch thick walls. All of the locomotive and railcar structure would crush and deflect every which way, but it could not concentrate enough force on the sphere to dent it. Now a massive steel sphere may not be the answer for a practical crushproof cab, but there is nothing to prevent the development of a crushproof cab.
It would add weight to the locomotive, but locomotives of all vehicles are the most able to carry extra weight. It would add cost, but it would save lives. So it is only a cost/benefit issue. There is no insurmountable practical problem that prevents the development of a true safety cab.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
Ok dude...
Paul_D_North_Jr I believe - but can't prove - that's where the tests took place that are shown in the slides/ video clips on the FRA webspages linked above. It sure looks more like prairie Colorado than Masschusetts, Washington D.C., La Grange IL, London ON, or Erie PA ! - Paul North.
I believe - but can't prove - that's where the tests took place that are shown in the slides/ video clips on the FRA webspages linked above. It sure looks more like prairie Colorado than Masschusetts, Washington D.C., La Grange IL, London ON, or Erie PA !
Yep, during our tour in January were shown those clips and etc about what they were doing.
Besides the manufacturers smashing locomotives to test and improve cav safety, do they send some to the DOT test center near Pueblo, Colorado for their testing?
Paul;
Thanks, for providing the links and that info. Thumbnail #5was probably the closest descriptor to the incident in the Iowa crash.
Yhe MOW Train, if it was anything like the ones seen around these parts are similart to the TTX style flats as to length, and usually carry several MOW machines, dependng on the size of the machines loaded. Apparently, the last car did over-ride the OR protector and pierced the crew area of the cab(?). It would be a pretty hard situation to prevent, unless the corner-reinforcement post woud deflect the intrusion upward over the compartment.
There have always been "collision posts' = heavy steel framing in the front of low-nose units for that purpose. A few years ago the FRA increased the requirements for that substantially. But it's hard to get a photo of them from a locomotive without the sheet metal over top, or really banged-up from a collision.
See the following sections from the Table of Contents to Title 49--Transportation of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PART 229--RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS, at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/49cfr229_10.html
229.141 Body Structure, MU Locomotives.
229.201 Purpose and Scope.
229.203 Applicability.
229.205 General Requirements.
229.206 Design Requirements.
229.207 New Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standards and Changes to Existing FRA-Approved Locomotive Crashworthiness Design Standards.
229.209 Alternative Locomotive Crashworthiness Designs.
Appendix E to Part 229 - Performance Criteria for Locomotive Crashworthiness.
In brief, since 1980 most locomotives have to comply with the following:
Notably, the UP crew in the SD70 at the infamous Chatsworth, Calif. head-on collision with the Metrolink commuter train all survived - apparently all these features worked as intended. Also, one of the computer 'models' used by the FRA and manufacturers for simulation testing to comply with these regulations is an SD70 - see the illustration of it on the following webpage:
See the FRA's webpage on Locomotive Occupant Safety and a short history of same at:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/policy/640.shtml
See also the 10 tests shown in the following at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/policy/2004.shtml
LOCOMOTIVE OCCUPANT PROTECTION CRASH TEST MEDIA Click on the blue thumbnail images for full test description slide shows prior to viewing their associated videos. A year or two ago a distant in-law type relative (x 2 - he married my wife's cousin) was designing and analyzing a rebuild of an older road-switcher type unit, and he said that retrofitting it to accomodate these FRA requirements was very difficult.
tatans After all , steam locomotives ran with 60 feet of boiler in front of them for a thousand years.
After all , steam locomotives ran with 60 feet of boiler in front of them for a thousand years.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It's pretty tough to protect the occupants of a locomotive with all that mass coming in behind them. It's like riding in a trash compactor.
A lot of time and money are being spent on the problem, but it is not an easy task. Physical laws are difficult to work around. Perhaps something that would direct the force to the side or cause the occupants to be thrown to the side.
The N & W use to buy their locomotives with a high short hood and run them long hood forward as well. Other than the crew standing on the ground and using remote control it would be harder to make it safer than that.
In another tTHREAD running concurrently at this time; KP Harrier asked an interesting question. Referencing the safety of the SD 7 ACe's cabs, in the event of a collision.
This is the second wreck I've heard about within a year where the cab of an SD70ACe was breeched. Is the SD70ACe inherently unsafe?"
In an effort to not change the course of the other THREAD. I'll rephrase the question.
"..How safe are the cabs of current locomotives, for the crews?"
The forces in a collision between trains and in derailments, are specific to each incident. So there are lots of variables to consider.
But, the single constant in each circumstance would seem to be the human crew occupying 'the container of the cab'. vs. hitting the other object.
some cars would crush and push aside, while a flat car would possibly impale the cab, that intrusion being a very serious circumstance for the occupants.
I know that the cabs are constructed to be strong and durable, but are their any provisions to additionally protect the crews(?) Much heavier steel plates in the nose of the cab, or steel beams ( as posts, to deflect an intrusion).
Traveling toll roads around here one sees the heavy concrete buttressing to deflect vehicles from over-riding toll collectors, and I am told they have an 'escape hatch' in the floor to further give them an option for escape in a crash.
Do the locomotive builders include extraordinary safety measures to further protect the crew in a catastrophic collision?
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.