Push Pull Long Distance Cars?

Same amount of crew protection as in a bilevel commuter car, perhaps more if the collision specifications are higher.

With the high level door, the collision posts underneath could be made more robust.

Rusty

I believe the new cab cars have as much reinforcement as a typical passenger or commuter engine these days.  I recollect the FRA making this a requirement after a Los Angeles area Metrolink accident, I think the one where the fellow deliberately parked his Jeep on the tracks with the intent of committing suicide.

Curt

One reason the LIRR used power cars, which doubled as cab cars, from F and FA units

The Chicago area has been using bi-level cab cars for over 50 years now.  The C&NW took delivery of the first ones in 1959. 

If there was a major collision safety concern, between the C&NW, CB&Q, Milwaukee and Rock Island and now Metra, I think it would have been discovered by now.

Rusty

There were two major Metrolink accidents involving cab cars. The fatalities in the accident involving the Jeep -- the Glendale accident -- were actually due to the first train being hit by a second train. The Jeep was hit by the cab car, which shoved it down the tracks. The cab car picked the points on a turnout and hit a parked freight. The cars jack-knifed and were hit by an outbound Metrolink train's locomotive. Quite frankly, a cab car hitting an automobile normally obliterates the automobile and puts a dent in the pilot. That overlapped two cities, so we had to monitor the situation at the LA County EOC.

Another incident in Orange County involved an eastbound Metrolink train and a westbound BNSF freight which ran a red signal. This was a head-on collision. Interestingly enough, a security camera on a nearby street captured the passing of the Metrolink train, then captured it being pushed backward by the freight. The car's frame was bent upward from the impact but actually displayed incredible structural integrity.  The three deaths were due to blunt-force trauma -- i.e., the people keep moving and hit something. This one was of more concern because the cab car hit a locomotive -- i.e., the immovable object.

The worst accident -- the Chatsworth (City of Los Angeles) accident -- involved an outbound Metrolink train running a signal and hitting an eastbound UP freight. In this case, the locomotive was leading on the Metrolink train and it was shoved backward into the first coach where most of the fatalities occurred.  25 people died in this one.

The entire coach fleet of Bombardier cars is being replaced by Hyundai-Rotex cars. The cab cars look similar to the GE P42 Genesis diesel and are better set up for collisions with less-than-movable objects.

Amtrak uses Bombardier (Budd Design) cab cars where the engineer is sitting pretty high up -- higher than the cars used by Metrolink. They've been in use on the California Surfliner that runs from San Diego up to San Luis Obispo. I haven't heard/read any reports of these cab cars hitting anything.

One reason the LIRR used power cars, which doubled as cab cars, from F and FA units

Not to mention the F40 "cabbages", such as used on the Amtrak Cascades trains.

New Talgo trainsets are currently being built for the Amtrak Cascades Line.

http://www.oregon.gov/odot/comm/Pages/talgohome.aspx

Both ends are supposed to look like the one shown.   "I didn't say they were pretty."

-Dean in Seattle

And I thought the CNW "Crandall Cabs" were funny looking.

Passenger cars here have for some time been subject to FRA standards that require the carbodies to resist 800,000 pounds of compression without any structural damage. I believe this was raised from 600,000 pounds, but cannot pinpoint when the change was made.

I don't know how this compares to a locomotive, but I do know it's a lot higher than European/Asian standards (FRA rules also prohibit passenger-occupied head-end cars in high-speed applications, if I recall correctly), and certainly way higher than rapid-transit cars (current NYCTA standards call for their cars to resist about 200,000 pounds of compression, again if I recall correctly)

---PCJ

All the Talgo needs is yellow paint and a levered stop sign to be as attractive as a  school bus. It is one thing to have push pulls on a commuter run where the stops are frequent and the speeds are comparatively sedentary. It's another to run at high speeds with a top heavy car that has significant wind resistance. It would seem that the front profile being as flat as a brick would not push an obstacle off to the side as in days of yore but rather transfer that energy to a higher center of gravity. meaning "double" the ouch tip factor.The good thing in push mode is the fuel tank is at the rear. As a side bar, whatever happened to good looking designs that were attractive to a potential customer? I imagine a commuter milk run with top seats that are far from comfortable for several hours. I am sure this will be factored, but to folks were first impressions count, they look like stackable sardine cans. The other option being a school bus?Yech.

Thanks for the clarification Matt!  I remembered that there were multiple accidents with cab cars in the lead in the LA area; just couldn't recollect which one drove the new standards for cab cars. Odds are the new regs were a response to all of them.

The only thing I was sure of was that it wasn't Chatsworth.  That one gave us PTC.

Curt

Seems like the shape of the schnozz has very little to do with things in a collision:

The conditions involved in every accident are different and therefore unpredictable.  But minds greater than mine figure out how to best design collision protection.

And, the Metra push-mode Aurora-Chicago express and limited-stop dinkey's barrel through town at a pretty good clip.  Quite a few level grade crossings, too.

Rusty

Man those new Talgo Ends are "One ugly Mother..."

Bring back the Cabbage!

There were two major Metrolink accidents involving cab cars. The fatalities in the accident involving the Jeep -- the Glendale accident -- were actually due to the first train being hit by a second train. The Jeep was hit by the cab car, which shoved it down the tracks. The cab car picked the points on a turnout and hit a parked freight. The cars jack-knifed and were hit by an outbound Metrolink train's locomotive.

Rusty

Pictures don't theorise. You have a valid point that is more than likely   more accurate than mine as far as the leading edge pushing objects to the side. Makes you wonder if a modern cow catcher is needed working like bumpers are designed to do, take the brunt of the energy and diffuse it somewhat..but I am no engineer, rail or otherwise. I still wonder about their higher center of gravity. I wouldn't want to be in one at the speeds envisioned in The Lincoln Service, its more of a gut feeling than logic. Everytime I hear something is perfectly safe, I think it's like wishing for an accident to happen. Taint natural. Neither is the front end of the Talgo. Looks like someone took a washtub and welded it on upside down to the roof of a school bus. Egads.. makes me wish Doyle had designed it with his PA in mind.

It's obviously designed for operating efficiencies in that you don't have to turn trains around, but it's still odd that with all the emphasis on fuel savings/emissions these days (i.e. Gensets, etc.) they'd produce a new passenger set with the aerodynamics of a brick. 

That thing looks like it was designed in 1955.

Nah...  Stuff in the 50's looked better.

Rusty

The efficiencies also come from being able to add on to the train without having to switch out the cab car. 

Rusty

Decades ago, a bi-level commuter train on the Milwaukee Road, operating in push mode, was involved in a crossinc collision with a cement mixer.  Two commuter trains were approaching the crossing from opposite directions on adjacent main tracks, and both were involved.  One passenger died, I believe.

I don't care what the leading locomotive or car is, when they hit a cement or rock truck, there's probably going to be a derailment.

And I thought the Selkirk NYC steamer front ends were caboose ugly