Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
I said, there are accident scenarios that are not controllable with the best crashworthiness measures. The European standard is one example for a more modern crashworthiness design. The scenarios for the European crashworthiness standard were filtered from 900 accident investigations so that about 80% of these accidents would be covered. If this accident would fall into these 80% I don't know. At least the shear-back couplers and CEM anticlimber would have helped to avoid overriding I think. If you think the requirements are not high enough, you can change them. The Volpe Institute has reserched a lot regarding CEM and done a number of tests and FEM analysis. Their result in a special test series was that passengers are safer in cars designed to European standards compared to American standards. The Siemens ACS64 was designed for 800,000 lbs buff strength, head-up collisions with other locomotives at max. 25 mph, and a collision with a truck at 68 mph. There are no posts. <a>www.apta.com/previousmc/rail/previous/2012/papers/Papers/Ward-D-The-New-Siemens-High-Speed-ACS64-Electric-Locomotive.pdf</a> The FRA approved this concept. Regards, 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