Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Originally posted by kenneo "Amtrack runs its Cascade's push=pull, but has a gutted F40PH rebuilt as a baggage car on the push end. It still has the weight to push vehicles off the track." The Long Island Railroad used to used to use gutted Alco FA1s on the as HEP generators on the push end. However, the LIRR switched to cab-control cars on it's diesel only push-pull trains. Dual-mode trains have a locomotive on each end. I wonder what would have happened if MU cars had been invoved instead of a push-pull train. Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale. www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:14 PM Trains have been running push-pull for decades. Lets not get crazy here. Yes its was horrible but we can't stop and change the world because of it. Are you willing to pay extra $$$$ to for all the grade separations around the country???? Reply Edit Brydle Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: CA 7 posts Posted by Brydle on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Amtrack runs its Cascade's push=pull, but has a gutted F40PH rebuilt as a baggage car on the push end. It still has the weight to push vehicles off the track. It is my opinion that train 100 would not have derailed had a locomotive - either "real" or "gutted" been leading. That doesn't mean that there still would not have been an accident given that the collision between the Jeep and #100 took place just as they were meeting another moving train and the stopped ballast train. That Jeep had to go somewhere and there is precious little room between the trains. Kenneo Yes Amtrack uses gutted F40PH engines on their Talgo Cascades Trains. I have noted that the US Government has also expressed concern for structural integrity problems with these light weight articulated cars and have mandated that cables be attached between each car to keep them from jack knifing in the event of a derailment. Using a F40PH gutted control cab does increase the margin of safety. In the old days of steam on the CPR, a box car was always put right after the coal tender as a sacrificial crush zone. Of course steam engines were very heavy. I would have less of a problem with push pull operations if they had no level crossings or were on a dedicated line. This still does not protect the cab control car from derailing by way of slides. The West Coast Express’s only derailment was from just that, a slide that derailed the control cab car, however it remained upright and only sustained some undercarriage damage. Reply ericsp Member sinceMay 2015 5,134 posts Posted by ericsp on Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:14 PM It is premature to assume this. At least wait until you know the facts to make conclusions. "No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld) Reply locomutt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Louisville,Ky. 5,077 posts Posted by locomutt on Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp It is premature to assume this. At least wait until you know the facts to make conclusions. Would it have made any difference whether the train was in Push/Pull ? NO!!! People lost their lives no matter. Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!! Reply CShaveRR Member sinceJune 2001 From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois 13,681 posts Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, January 28, 2005 12:20 AM If fragments of the Jeep got caught underneath the train and were pushed or dragged into the switch, a derailment would have occurred regardless of whether it was a 60-ton cab car or a 160-ton locomotive. Having said that, I suspect that there's opportunity for some improvement in the crashworthiness of cab cars, or in some sort of pilot to deflect struck objects. I suspect that the Jeep would have been impacted differently with the locomotive hitting it, and possibly knocked clear, in which case the derailment may not have happened. But eliminate or restrict the cab car concept? Don't hold your breath--the efficiencies are far too great. Carl Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!) CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM) Reply jabrown1971 Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 195 posts Posted by jabrown1971 on Friday, January 28, 2005 1:04 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR If fragments of the Jeep got caught underneath the train and were pushed or dragged into the switch, a derailment would have occurred regardless of whether it was a 60-ton cab car or a 160-ton locomotive. Having said that, I suspect that there's opportunity for some improvement in the crashworthiness of cab cars, or in some sort of pilot to deflect struck objects. I suspect that the Jeep would have been impacted differently with the locomotive hitting it, and possibly knocked clear, in which case the derailment may not have happened. But eliminate or restrict the cab car concept? Don't hold your breath--the efficiencies are far too great. I would have qouted Mark, but this is good too. Look at all the points made here and in the other forums about this topic. Debris lodged under a locomotive could have caused a derailment. Trains operating in push mode are common, and operate safely everyday. The object that is struck has the potential to derail the train. Amtrak in Bourbannis in 1999 is an example....City of New Orleans, locomotive first, hits a tractor trailer and derails-11 dead-locomotive leading-I said it twice for effect. South Shore in Gary 1991?, commuter train operating with EMU cars, strikes tractor trailer carrying steel coil, coil bounces down the aisle of the car, kills 1 or 2. Now Amtraks Cabbage cars-not sure they are any safer than a normal cab car-ever ridden one-I have, they are VERY light, not too sure if that would have spared too much in a higher speed situations. I believe push pull operations are safe and effecient. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, January 28, 2005 1:59 AM Mark, Carl and jbbrown ------ My comments were not in relation to the physical forces involved. I have seen bicycles derail SD-45's. My main (and, really, only) point was stated in the FRA Emergency Order -- cab cars are much lighter than locomotives. The heavier the vehicle is, the less likely it is to derail in the kinds of collisions we are talking about. When a train hits something, the moving train "jumps up" because the forward motion has been partially blocked and the vehicle (engine or car) must transfer some component of that energy somewhere, so it goes up and/or sideways. Since it takes much more energy to lift a locomotive ......... . I did not know where the siding switch was located until Mark mentioned its location. I would venture to guess that the frog was a high-winged afair that would catch and halt anything that was being pushed down the track by the cab car. And as Mark stated, and Carl confirmed, once that Jeep caught on the switch, the rest was history. Eric Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Friday, January 28, 2005 3:48 AM Note that the situation with long trains of self-propelled cars, diesel mu's or electric mu's, is not much different than the push-pull situation. I restate my strong recommendation for closed-TV monitoring. Closed-circuit TV monitoring is standard in dangerous spots on highways in general and why should not grade crossings be any different. Again, about $20,000 per crossing should do it. Good protection at a bargain price. Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Friday, January 28, 2005 6:29 AM Help! Can I get a simple explanation of push-pull? Mookie She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, January 28, 2005 6:56 AM As a life-long Chicagoan, push-pull has been part of suburban operations for most of my life. In Chicago, bi-level gallery coaches are all equipped with HEP and MU cables and some of the coaches have a control cab on the upper level at one end. Suburban trains are arranged with a cab-equipped coach at one end, a varying number of coaches without cabs and an HEP-equipped locomotive at the other end. The consist is arranged to have the locomotive on the outer end. Inbound trains are controlled from the cab coach with the locomotive pushing on the rear end and outbound trains are operated from the locomotive. Switching expenses are reduced enormously since consists don't have to be re-arranged to change directions. There may be some variations on this theme, such as LIRR's use of HEP control cabs, but this is generally how push-pulls are operated. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,013 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, January 28, 2005 7:06 AM Used primarily in commuter service. Locomotive and x number of cars, last car having a space where the engineer sits with duplicate locomotive controls. In one direction, engineer is in locomotive, pulling per usual. At end of run, instead of turning locomotive or entire train, engineer simply walks to other end of train, gets into cab in cab car and locomotive now pushes the train in the other direction. If you look at these commuter cars, you'll notice that the end (cab) car has a headlight, horn, windows for engineer, etc. Since the lights are on, this train is in push mode. (Forgot to note where I pulled the image from. Oops!) Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, January 28, 2005 7:10 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Help! Can I get a simple explanation of push-pull? Mookie Mookie: Here's a simple explanation of push-pull. It was invented by a chief mechanical officer of the CNW Railway about 1958. He explained his inspiration to our class of locomotive engineers in 1972. He stated that he was at the CNW depot in Chicago one afternoon and watched as trains backed in from the California Avenue coach yard using a tail-hose (long air brake hose with a small control valve and whistle attached) operated by a brakeman. He also made note of how certain standard commuter coaches had been equiped with a windshield and wiper for the extended back-up moves from outlying points top rotect the brakeman in charge of the back-up move. A "cab-car" was developed with all the controls of a standard locomotive plus an addition air tank to actuate the control of the airbrake system. A cable was installed under each coach so as to transmit the control or throttle positions from the cab car to the locomotive. In essance a push-pull train is the same as a subway or multiple unit electric train , except only one car, the locomotive, is powered. It was developed so trains in rush hour service didn't have to be pulled away from their locomtive, be repositioned in the depot, and have another unit tacked onto the other end for departure. The enginemen merely "change ends," same as an MU train. Same goes for outlying terminals. This saved the railroads enormous amounts of money in terminal time. It was the custome of the CNW, and all railraoads that followed with this technique to have the power at the "outbound" end of the train to avoid filling the depots up with exhaust. The only exception to this rule was on the CNW's Lake Geneva train where, during the winter months, it ran power towards the Depot in order to break snow on the lightly used Lake Geneva branch. Mitch Reply Edit zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Friday, January 28, 2005 8:11 AM A few comments from an engineer that operated cabcar equipped suburban trains for twenty years (and bear in mind that the specs on any new equipment may be different from what I ran on the CNW): The pilot of a cabcar is designed completely different than that of a locomotive. The photo tree68 posted does not show enough detail, as the pilot is in shadow, but the configuration is such that a vehicle (or whatever) that is struck directly broadside can easily get jammed between the main deck and the pilot. When you hit a vehicle (as I have done many times) the first thing you look for is the struck object off to the side of the tracks. If you see it, you can breathe a little easier while the train is stopping, knowing that you will not derail. One time the vehicle my train struck DID get caught, and it was an anxious few seconds until the train finally stopped (from 70mph). The pilot itself is much smaller than the pilot (plow) on freight locomotives. It is held in place by support posts from the car body. It is suffiecient to deflect rocks and refrigerators and other objects places on the tracks, but when a vehicle is involved, I would much prefer to have a locomotive-type plow. The problem is that the cabcars must also be designed so they can couple onto other coaches, even from the cab end. So a large, locomotive-style pilot is not really possible. I never liked operating from a cabcar. You have absolutely no room to move. The cab itself is divided into two smaller 'cabs', maybe three feet wide on each side, and maybe five feet from front window to the back wall of the cab, and is seperated by the 'hump' of the center aisle below, which protrudes halfway up into the cab. On the CNW, the fireman (when they had them) or the conductor (when available) would sit on the other side. We could see each other, but could not cross to the other side, due to the amount of safety equipment bolted on the cab walls. The door behind the engineer that separates the cab from the passengers is about 18" wide and about 5' tall, and there are passenger seats directly behind the wall. So even if you saw an impending wreck, by the time you turned around, got the door unlocked and opened, turned your body sideways to exit, you would still have to climb over (or through) the commuters sitting right behind you. And when they see you bailing out, you can bet they will also be trying to exit at the same time. In other words, there is simply no where for the engineer to go to escape. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, January 28, 2005 9:50 AM Zardoz's above post is right on the mark. I've operated cab cars on the CNW, and on the South Shore when we had them years ago. The pilots are minimal at best. The MU cars on the South Shore Line are prety well designed, as they are huge flat sheets of steel, well braced. The last time I hit a car, broadside, the pilot was able to shove the car aside and spin it real good. Sometimes it would cause the auto to spin into the brake pipe under the steps of the lead car, but would not derail it. When we got stopped the flagman went back, looked at the dazed driver, and noticed a large spot in the middle of the driver's pants in the shape of the state of Wisconsin. She said to the driver,"Bet ya wet your pants didn't cha." Mitch Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Friday, January 28, 2005 10:14 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A few comments from an engineer that operated cabcar equipped suburban trains for twenty years (and bear in mind that the specs on any new equipment may be different from what I ran on the CNW): The pilot of a cabcar is designed completely different than that of a locomotive. The photo tree68 posted does not show enough detail, as the pilot is in shadow, but the configuration is such that a vehicle (or whatever) that is struck directly broadside can easily get jammed between the main deck and the pilot. When you hit a vehicle (as I have done many times) the first thing you look for is the struck object off to the side of the tracks. If you see it, you can breathe a little easier while the train is stopping, knowing that you will not derail. One time the vehicle my train struck DID get caught, and it was an anxious few seconds until the train finally stopped (from 70mph). The pilot itself is much smaller than the pilot (plow) on freight locomotives. It is held in place by support posts from the car body. It is suffiecient to deflect rocks and refrigerators and other objects places on the tracks, but when a vehicle is involved, I would much prefer to have a locomotive-type plow. The problem is that the cabcars must also be designed so they can couple onto other coaches, even from the cab end. So a large, locomotive-style pilot is not really possible. I never liked operating from a cabcar. You have absolutely no room to move. The cab itself is divided into two smaller 'cabs', maybe three feet wide on each side, and maybe five feet from front window to the back wall of the cab, and is seperated by the 'hump' of the center aisle below, which protrudes halfway up into the cab. On the CNW, the fireman (when they had them) or the conductor (when available) would sit on the other side. We could see each other, but could not cross to the other side, due to the amount of safety equipment bolted on the cab walls. The door behind the engineer that separates the cab from the passengers is about 18" wide and about 5' tall, and there are passenger seats directly behind the wall. So even if you saw an impending wreck, by the time you turned around, got the door unlocked and opened, turned your body sideways to exit, you would still have to climb over (or through) the commuters sitting right behind you. And when they see you bailing out, you can bet they will also be trying to exit at the same time. In other words, there is simply no where for the engineer to go to escape. Thanks Zardos, that is some very telling testimony. Rules change after accidents occur!!! This one raises serious questions about push-pull. I understand that from an operational perspective, to take any action would be costly. It seems that a lot of people, in addition to myself, are of the opinion, that having an engine in the lead would have reduced the severity of this accident. A novel and perhaps almost practical solution would be to design a special double ended commuter locomotive. A run around at the end of the line, and no more cab cars. I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Friday, January 28, 2005 10:37 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill I'm beginning to wonder why I bother posting anything. Maybe this diagram will help you Mark. [:)] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, January 28, 2005 11:12 AM I'm in agreement with brother Hemphill's writings on cab cars. There's nothing inherintly dangerous about them. More modifications perhaps, but not an elimination of their use. We've gone almost fifty years of use with them, and this happened to be a combination of all worst-case scenerios. I remember an accident on The Milwaukee Road where a group of track cars was struck by a Chicago bound (2 cars) train with a cab car in the lead. No serious injuries. The fireman, upon seeing the impending accident, thru open his door and leaped into the lap of a passenger sitting in the "theater seats," (transverse seats at the end of the second floor) causing a bloody nose and some embarrassment. I've hit autos while working cab cars. The difference between hitting something with an engine vs a cab car is that the engine has a nose which could reduce the injuries to enginemen. The Jersey Central at one time had double ended Baldwin built engines for suburban service. The problem with using them in a heavy suburban service is that they defeat the economies of push pull. The power would have to be uncoupled, a switch engine attached to the equipment, and a number of moves made to change directions. While it maybe easy to do at an outlying station with a run-around tack, it would still be time consuming. If a train arrived several minutes late, on a quick turn, the procedure would further delay the service. The F40s used as cab cars on Amtrak's Michigan service only add protection by providing a nose. The Amfleet cab cars used previously didn't have much of that going for them. There's no prime mover in these engines so there's not much additional weight. Mitch Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, January 28, 2005 12:08 PM Mark - thanks for the link. I'm retired so I have time to read it. I are an engineer, too so let me dig out my K&E sliderule. Reply Edit zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Friday, January 28, 2005 1:23 PM Mark, I was not necessarily condemming cabcars. In some respects they were preferable operating environments. Back in 'my day' before locomotive airconditioning, in summer I would look forward to the inbound trip for the cool comfort. Plus it is nice and quiet, with a smooth ride. And I mentioned the pilot only because another poster questioned it. And as far as "pertinent facts" goes, I'm just a dumb, old ex-engineer with only a highschool education and twenty years experience on the equipment. That being said, however, when you are travelling 70+mph on a passenger train with up to 2000 souls on board, and you see a tractor-trailer stretched across the tracks stopped at a crossing, at some point before the impact you are going to wish you were in a locomotive instead of a cabcar full of people (including yourself). Artmark, I do somewhat disagree in your statement that the cabcar is not inherintly dangerous about the cabcar. Luckily there are not many incidents involving catastophitic collisions involving cabcars. Yes, they've been in use for over 50 years without many problems. Until the other day. It is likely that even if the train that struck the car was led by a locomotive, after hitting the switch the train would still have derailed, and crashed into the standing freight. But what WOULD have been (possibly) different is the effect the derailed train hitting the freight train would have had on the passengers and Engineer of the first train. The Engineer would have had somewhere to run (whether it would have helped is, of course, unknown), and the locomotive would have taken the brunt of the collision, instead of the coach. The "cabbage" F40's you mentioned are also in use on the Hiawatha trains between Chicago and Milwaukee. And while it is true that there is not that much additional weight in a 'cabbage' as opposed to a "cabcoach", and even though you actually sit somewhat closer to the ground in a locomotive, the biggest advantage to the locomotive is the 'crumple zone' afforded by the loco's nose. In the cabcar your face is only 2-3 feet from the front window. And in a locomotive (or cabbage car) you have a place to run to (the engineroom) if the impact is going to be huge. Reply techguy57 Member sinceAugust 2003 From: NW Chicago 591 posts Posted by techguy57 on Friday, January 28, 2005 1:54 PM I have to agree with Mark and Carl on that push or pull this may have still happened, and arguing whether one is safer than another is rather difficult because of the vast number of variables that are in play with any derailment. What if it had happened with freght train like in Graniteville? The Glendale area has a much higher population density, it could've been much worse if a similar event had happened in Glendale. Not that it makes it any easier for those who lost loved ones in this situation. And on grade separation I reference a previous post of mine: QUOTE: I have to say that I agree that grade separations are the ideal solution as far as the railroads are concerned but understand that while cost would be a deterrent for commuter roads such as Metrolink and Metra there are a lot of other factors involved here. I'll use Metra to illustrate. One example is the fact tha Metra owns only an incredibly small percentage of the track on which they run. The vast majority of their system comes from trackage agreements with Class 1 railroads, primarily UP and BNSF. Metra couldn't just decide to overhaul the track and start in on a grade separation project on their own. They would have to approach the RR which owns the track and convince them that it needs to be done. In fact, while not exactly a grade seeparation Metra has recently worked closely with UP to install rows of thorn bushes native to the area as a method to deter trespassers. It should be low cost to both companies to maintain and should help reduce the problem. If it works it is expected that both Metra and the Class 1's will implement the idea throughout the Chicago network. Not that it would have helped in the Metrolink accident. Another issue that the railroads face in recofiguring for grade separations is the multitude of cities, towns and villages that these types of projects would impact. I can speak from firsthand knowledge that many of the businesses on the UP-NW line rely on the fact that they are visible to the rail commuters. My guess is that the business owners would be resistant to the concept. Driving is a privillege and not a right. In most cases the railroad tracks were there long before the all of the roads were. If we are talking about making grade separations mandatory you had better expect part of it to come out of your wallet. That's the reality of it. I'm all for safety but there are other ways to make it work. Just my 2 cents, Mike techguy "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you suck forever." - Anonymous Reply Brydle Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: CA 7 posts Posted by Brydle on Friday, January 28, 2005 2:31 PM Message Preview After looking at the news pictures of the Accident I note that the lead cabcar sustained massive damage well beyond the front trucks. It is obvious that the Engineman and any passengers sitting in this area would have sustained mortal injuries. The real issue here is weather an Engine or a cab control car with either an empty baggae zone or crush zone not filled with passengers would have lessened severe or mortal injury to the passengers. If an engine had been in the lead, it would have probably derailed for the reasons that Mark has so clearly written, however I wonder how severely the second car behind an Engine of this hypothetical senerio would have sustained damage, I realize that Push Pull operations have run successfully for many years as have RDC's. I note that RDC's have stood up better than the Bombardier Cab Cars in accidents. In RDC's the Enginemans Cab is separated from the passenger compartment by a bulkhead which appears to be a safer arrangement.. I feel that there is room for much better saftey design in cab control cars. I also concede that every accident is different and that this new accident involved a Jeep, a switch and two other trains. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Friday, January 28, 2005 4:56 PM ....What am I missing.....Didn't it used to be against operations {regulations}, to push a passenger train....and wasn't that the practice before that was a regulation....Simply pushing several passenger cars with the engineer in the pushing engine...?? And then when push / pull operation came along were regulations changed to permit that to happen.....I can remember wondering how that was being done legally.... I realize passenger trains were pushed upgrade with an engine{s}, on front too such as up around Horseshoe, etc....but I'm speaking of the condition I mention above. Quentin Reply retsignalmtr Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Westchester NY 1,747 posts Posted by retsignalmtr on Friday, January 28, 2005 5:08 PM i hope the lawyer of this jerk does not read this board. he might be able to use the comments here as a part of his clients defense. you all know how lawyers are. Reply kenneo Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Upper Left Coast 1,796 posts Posted by kenneo on Friday, January 28, 2005 7:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....What am I missing.....Didn't it used to be against operations {regulations}, to push a passenger train....and wasn't that the practice before that was a regulation....Simply pushing several passenger cars with the engineer in the pushing engine...?? And then when push / pull operation came along were regulations changed to permit that to happen.....I can remember wondering how that was being done legally.... I realize passenger trains were pushed upgrade with an engine{s}, on front too such as up around Horseshoe, etc....but I'm speaking of the condition I mention above. The engineer in PUSH mode is smack behind the front window in the lead car, just like he would be in a MU operation such as a subway. The reason for the regulation about not pushing occupied passenger cars (trains) is the ability of the engineer to be able to keep an adaquite lookout because the train would block his vision since he was in the rear piece of equipment. This is not the case in push/pull. An interesting - to me - side point here is the construction of the cab cars for the Paris suburban MU double-decker trains. Almost all of the electrical equipment is in an "engine compartment" located over the lead truck of the lead car as opposed to the single deck cars where it is located under the floor between the trucks and passengers sit right behind the engineer. Lots of crumple zone in those double deckers. I am very ambivilant about whether push/pull is a good thing. From the economic point, there is no comparison. It wins hands down. From the operations point of view also. When I lived in Germany some years ago, the DB solved the problem of engines trading ends of a train by either hostling a new motor right onto an arriving train and pulling away from the motor that had brought it in or by pulling a locomotive behind the train so that the train could operate pull/pull in a manner similar to push/pull. What I don't like about push/pull (and MU operations, too) is the vulnerability of the operator (engineer) and lead car passengers in collisions and because of an inner ear problem that causes me to get motion sick in push mode. None of the above, as has been stated by Mark and others (including me) changes the fact that a device (switch) capable of causing the Jeep to go underneath the lead truck caught the Jeep and did force it under the cab car, forcing the southbound commuter train "Head-on" into the ballast train on the siding and the resulting jack-knifing of the commuter train into the passing northbound train on the parallel main. That switch would have forced the Jeep under a locomotive and the result would have been the same. Had the switch not been located between the point of collision with the Jeep and where the southbound commuter train would have met the other two trains, probably no derailment would have happened unless the Jeep got jammed between the commuter and either of the other two trains. Eric Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo Amtrack runs its Cascade's push=pull, but has a gutted F40PH rebuilt as a baggage car on the push end. It still has the weight to push vehicles off the track. It is my opinion that train 100 would not have derailed had a locomotive - either "real" or "gutted" been leading. That doesn't mean that there still would not have been an accident given that the collision between the Jeep and #100 took place just as they were meeting another moving train and the stopped ballast train. That Jeep had to go somewhere and there is precious little room between the trains.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp It is premature to assume this. At least wait until you know the facts to make conclusions.
Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR If fragments of the Jeep got caught underneath the train and were pushed or dragged into the switch, a derailment would have occurred regardless of whether it was a 60-ton cab car or a 160-ton locomotive. Having said that, I suspect that there's opportunity for some improvement in the crashworthiness of cab cars, or in some sort of pilot to deflect struck objects. I suspect that the Jeep would have been impacted differently with the locomotive hitting it, and possibly knocked clear, in which case the derailment may not have happened. But eliminate or restrict the cab car concept? Don't hold your breath--the efficiencies are far too great.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Help! Can I get a simple explanation of push-pull? Mookie
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz A few comments from an engineer that operated cabcar equipped suburban trains for twenty years (and bear in mind that the specs on any new equipment may be different from what I ran on the CNW): The pilot of a cabcar is designed completely different than that of a locomotive. The photo tree68 posted does not show enough detail, as the pilot is in shadow, but the configuration is such that a vehicle (or whatever) that is struck directly broadside can easily get jammed between the main deck and the pilot. When you hit a vehicle (as I have done many times) the first thing you look for is the struck object off to the side of the tracks. If you see it, you can breathe a little easier while the train is stopping, knowing that you will not derail. One time the vehicle my train struck DID get caught, and it was an anxious few seconds until the train finally stopped (from 70mph). The pilot itself is much smaller than the pilot (plow) on freight locomotives. It is held in place by support posts from the car body. It is suffiecient to deflect rocks and refrigerators and other objects places on the tracks, but when a vehicle is involved, I would much prefer to have a locomotive-type plow. The problem is that the cabcars must also be designed so they can couple onto other coaches, even from the cab end. So a large, locomotive-style pilot is not really possible. I never liked operating from a cabcar. You have absolutely no room to move. The cab itself is divided into two smaller 'cabs', maybe three feet wide on each side, and maybe five feet from front window to the back wall of the cab, and is seperated by the 'hump' of the center aisle below, which protrudes halfway up into the cab. On the CNW, the fireman (when they had them) or the conductor (when available) would sit on the other side. We could see each other, but could not cross to the other side, due to the amount of safety equipment bolted on the cab walls. The door behind the engineer that separates the cab from the passengers is about 18" wide and about 5' tall, and there are passenger seats directly behind the wall. So even if you saw an impending wreck, by the time you turned around, got the door unlocked and opened, turned your body sideways to exit, you would still have to climb over (or through) the commuters sitting right behind you. And when they see you bailing out, you can bet they will also be trying to exit at the same time. In other words, there is simply no where for the engineer to go to escape.
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill I'm beginning to wonder why I bother posting anything.
QUOTE: I have to say that I agree that grade separations are the ideal solution as far as the railroads are concerned but understand that while cost would be a deterrent for commuter roads such as Metrolink and Metra there are a lot of other factors involved here. I'll use Metra to illustrate. One example is the fact tha Metra owns only an incredibly small percentage of the track on which they run. The vast majority of their system comes from trackage agreements with Class 1 railroads, primarily UP and BNSF. Metra couldn't just decide to overhaul the track and start in on a grade separation project on their own. They would have to approach the RR which owns the track and convince them that it needs to be done. In fact, while not exactly a grade seeparation Metra has recently worked closely with UP to install rows of thorn bushes native to the area as a method to deter trespassers. It should be low cost to both companies to maintain and should help reduce the problem. If it works it is expected that both Metra and the Class 1's will implement the idea throughout the Chicago network. Not that it would have helped in the Metrolink accident. Another issue that the railroads face in recofiguring for grade separations is the multitude of cities, towns and villages that these types of projects would impact. I can speak from firsthand knowledge that many of the businesses on the UP-NW line rely on the fact that they are visible to the rail commuters. My guess is that the business owners would be resistant to the concept.
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....What am I missing.....Didn't it used to be against operations {regulations}, to push a passenger train....and wasn't that the practice before that was a regulation....Simply pushing several passenger cars with the engineer in the pushing engine...?? And then when push / pull operation came along were regulations changed to permit that to happen.....I can remember wondering how that was being done legally.... I realize passenger trains were pushed upgrade with an engine{s}, on front too such as up around Horseshoe, etc....but I'm speaking of the condition I mention above.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.