Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I think both locomotives are ac4400CW. They are more than twenty years old. The crashworthiness requirements have gotten higher and alternate crashworthiness designs are possible. There are accident scenarios that are not controllable with the best crashworthiness measures. On the other hand FRA follows a path that the automobile sector left with the introduction of crumple zones in the early 1960s. On American freight locomotives pure strength is the still the first goal. Only for passenger locomotives with speeds higher than 125 mph FRA requires Crash Energy Management (CEM) elements. One example for CEM is the Siemens ASC64. In Europe CEM is standard for all modern locomotives. But the crash scenarios in European standard cover only 80% of the crashs. NTSB has found in a number of accident investigations that the anticlimbers often don't work as intended. That is the reason that locomotive that don't have CEM like the Siemens Charger are equipped with energy absorbing shear-back couplers. For those who are interested the European Standard 15227 crash scenarios on the Voith website: <a href="http://voith.com/corp-en/scharfenberg-energy-absorption/din-en-15227.html">http://voith.com/corp-en/scharfenberg-energy-absorption/din-en-15227.html</a> Reagards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag