Are all locomotives built to the same crashworthiness(?) standards? For example, is an SD-40 built to the same standards of crasch resistance as a an SW15? Is an SD70, for example, built to higher (newer) standards than an SD40?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Don't forget moving the icebox out of the center of the cab. We used to get an 8 hour claim for having a non clean cab locomotive.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
? What's an 8 hour claim?
Murphy Siding? What's an 8 hour claim?
Get an additional 8-hours of base pay for operating a locomotive with an unsafe cab environment.
Kind of like combat pay for the military?
Murphy Siding Kind of like combat pay for the military?
It's actually a penalty against the company for not complying with the Clean Cab provisions of the contract.
Nope.
It's the company's responsiblity to make sure that our work environment meets the details of the contract.
They wanna ding us for every little thing possible, why shouldn't they get it shoved right back?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
GraniteRailroader Nope. It's the company's responsiblity to make sure that our work environment meets the details of the contract. They wanna ding us for every little thing possible, why shouldn't they get it shoved right back?
Does this give you a passably usable locomotive toilet, or is the toilet "non-safety related" and there is no such luck that you could get compensated for an icky toilet?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
An unusable toilet is a shoppable condition. Meaning the locomotive can't be used until the condition is corrected.
creepycrankShouldn't the penalty be paid by the guy who left the mess.
To drift this conversation in a slightly different direction, PRR made center cabs important (think the Pf and GG1) for crash protection. That idea went away, but one still sees engineers and conductors getting killed in front-end collisions. Does anyone "in the know" foresee a return to center cabs as a safety response? And, related - at least in my brain - to that, why aren't US locomotives double cabs like so many in other countries? Wouldn't that make having to turn trainsets less of an issue, just run the loco around the cars, eliminate cab cars?
Doublecabs are an expensive proposition. Consider that it would require a second control and brake stand and all the additional wiring and brake line piping it would require, plus the various and sundry non-mechanical requirements of a second cab.
The centercabs in question (P5's, GG1's, R1, DD2) did not have a prime mover as they were all straight electrics. The Baldwin and LH centercabs had two prime movers, one in each hood. The Alco C415 had only one prime mover, but suffered from adhesion problems because of unequal loading on the trucks.
WhiteLeather To drift this conversation in a slightly different direction, PRR made center cabs important (think the Pf and GG1) for crash protection. That idea went away, but one still sees engineers and conductors getting killed in front-end collisions. Does anyone "in the know" foresee a return to center cabs as a safety response? And, related - at least in my brain - to that, why aren't US locomotives double cabs like so many in other countries? Wouldn't that make having to turn trainsets less of an issue, just run the loco around the cars, eliminate cab cars?
The cab design of the modified P5a and GG1 locomotives did provide superior protection compared to the boxcab design of the regular P5a locomotives, the tradeoff was a return to the poor visibility typical of steam locomotives. Modern locomotives offer better visibility and certainly equal collision protection. At some speed no amount of steel in front of the locomotive will protect the crew. The impact of their bodies on the front wall of the cab will cause serious enough injuries to kill them.
The reason why you don't see many doublecab locomotives in North America is the significantly higher costs of such an arrangement, combined with the more widespread use of multiple engine locomotive consists, which increase the likelyhood of one of the locomotives facing the right way.
In Europe where some electric locomotives are used in commuter service such that they work in push pull with a cab car at the other end, they will order singlecab locomotives also, such as these;
SBB Class 450
or these Italian locomotives
Trenitalia Class E464
The only doublecab diesel here in the US I can think of was a Baldwin cabbody with 2 "babyface" cabs on each end. I think it was built in the late 1940s or early 50s.
Lyon_Wonder The only diesel doublecab diesel here in the US I can think of was a Baldwin cabbody with 2 "babyface" cabs on each end. I think it was built in the late 1940s or early 50s.
The only diesel doublecab diesel here in the US I can think of was a Baldwin cabbody with 2 "babyface" cabs on each end. I think it was built in the late 1940s or early 50s.
You're quite right. CNJ 2000-2005 were Baldwin doublecabs, model DRX6-4-2000. They were built for suburban service back in those days before push-pulls.
Centercabs obviously aren't a practical proposition for diesels with a single prime mover, but if you really wanted to put more of the locomotive forward of the cab to improve crashworthiness, the obvious solution would be to revert to 'long hood forward' operation, as formerly favored by N&W, SOU etc. for precisely that reason.
I assume that the problem with 'long hood forward' was that what you gained in crashworthiness you lost in poor forward visibility, and thus a greater risk of accidents happening in the first place? Do NS and other roads which still run locomotives set up this way have different rules for operating long hood forward and short hood forward locomotives?
It's been a long time since I've seen a mainline loco running hood forward. I know that the anti-climbers and safety cabs and other technology has improved the chances of growing old, but the engineer and conductor are still right up there. Granted, high speed wrecks are gonna leave a mark, regardless of where the cab is - front, middle, or back.
No agenda here, just really curious. Part of this is brought on by seeing the newer gensets and other locos with lower long hoods. It got me wondering where safety steps and the physical characteristics of locomotives are going. Thanks all for the input.
kbathgate Do NS and other roads which still run locomotives set up this way have different rules for operating long hood forward and short hood forward locomotives?
Do NS and other roads which still run locomotives set up this way have different rules for operating long hood forward and short hood forward locomotives?
NS ceased "long hood forward" operations at least 15 years ago if not before.
Mike
kbathgate Centercabs obviously aren't a practical proposition for diesels with a single prime mover, but if you really wanted to put more of the locomotive forward of the cab to improve crashworthiness, the obvious solution would be to revert to 'long hood forward' operation, as formerly favored by N&W, SOU etc. for precisely that reason. I assume that the problem with 'long hood forward' was that what you gained in crashworthiness you lost in poor forward visibility, and thus a greater risk of accidents happening in the first place? Do NS and other roads which still run locomotives set up this way have different rules for operating long hood forward and short hood forward locomotives?
The biggest problem with Long-Hood forward operation was exhaust from the diesel engine entering the locomotive cab. The problem was especially bad on lines with tunnels. Norfolk Southern, the last railroad to run locomotives that way by design, has a lot of tunnels. I seem to recall an employee lawsuit over the matter, but my memory may be incorrect on that point. Of course local freight trains must run that way from time to time, but that is not the same situation.
beaulieuThe biggest problem with Long-Hood forward operation was exhaust from the diesel engine entering the locomotive cab.
Times two if it's an ALCO like our C424 or RS3.
The place you're most likely to see long-hood-forward running nowadays is on out-and-back locals with only one locomotive.
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.