Safe at any speed?

True. I thought there was a lesson learned from the Burlington Zephyr.

I thought that was a major issue with the first generation diesels commonly know as the covered wagons and the PRR P5a? Crew protection in crossing mishaps?

This one looks like one piece of sheet metal is all that protects the crew!

Regarding the P5a, at least PRR got the memo!  After this incident, the P5a Modified was born.

A fatal grade crossing accident on the New York Division confirmed traincrews' concerns about safety when the crew were killed after colliding with a truckload of apples.

UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED.  Was that a book written by Ralph Nader about the air cooled Chevy Corvair?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Regarding the P5a, at least PRR got the memo!  After this incident, the P5a Modified was born.

Only the last 28 of the 90 P5a were "Modified" (one additional was rebuilt to Modified specs after an accident).  The other 61 were boxcabs.  While a Modified may have been at one end of a 2-3 P5 consist, going in the other direction a boxcab was up front since they were never turned.  So the boxcab was at front most of the time all the way until their retirement.

What I find interesting is the boxcab ran smoother than the Modified, resulting in crews preferring the boxcab even though it was less safe in an accident.

Unfortunately, my boxcab is disintegrating.  I wish MTH would provide replacement shells.

Remember when N&W and Southern were the last holdouts running long-hood forward?  The unions demanded that they cease the practice and they did.  Be careful what you wish for.

I'm gonna guess the cab is stronger than you think.  Plus box trailers aren't all that stout, comparatively.  All bets are off for a gasoline trailer, though.

Rusty

Try a loaded cement mixer.

@Rusty Traque posted:

All bets are off for a gasoline trailer, though.

Yeah, that would be disastrous, kinda like;

Or a windmill blade, likevat Luling TX a few fays ago!

@Rusty Traque posted:

I'm gonna guess the cab is stronger than you think.  Plus box trailers aren't all that stout, comparatively.  All bets are off for a gasoline trailer, though.

Rusty

It may be stronger than I think, but if it hits something solid with thousands of tons of "push" behind it, it's gonna' be a mess!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

This one looks like one piece of sheet metal is all that protects the crew!

Regarding the P5a, at least PRR got the memo!  After this incident, the P5a Modified was born.

A fatal grade crossing accident on the New York Division confirmed traincrews' concerns about safety when the crew were killed after colliding with a truckload of apples.

But there are buffers and front crumple zones in these locomotives built for the European market that is supposed to absorb a significant portion of the energy, should a collision occur at a grade crossing.

A few years ago I remember reading a news article about Caltrain requesting a waiver to procure new commuter trains built by Stadler that were similar to their KISS trains used in Europe. US appeared to be the only country requiring beefier and heavier trains making it more expensive for commuter railroads, limiting their choices.

Apparently US railroad standards emphasize crash posts that require minimal deformation during a quantified impact while European railway standards emphasize energy absorption similar to a passenger automobile.

These are just my opinion,

Naveen Rajan

@naveenrajan posted:

But there are buffers and front crumple zones in these locomotives built for the European market that is supposed to absorb a significant portion of the energy, should a collision occur at a grade crossing.

I don't see any room for "front crumple zones" in that particular design.

The crumple zone in a passenger automobile are also not visible readily but they still exist.
The crumple zones are usually behind the buffer and coupler. The energy absorption provisions are also usually present around / behind the cab to absorb energy without breaching the cab. These features are there even if they appear to be minimal or nonexistent to your eye.

Also realize that these crumple zones in European locomotives or the crash posts in US locomotives are passive safety features. They are supposed to compliment active safety features like signaling, horns, bells and also controlled access to railroad right-of-way.
The locomotive from the image at the top of this thread appears to be a Renfe, Class 333, of the Spanish Railways.

These are just my opinion,

Naveen Rajan

How about cab cars?

There are three trucks which -- if struck by a train while on a road crossing -- pose risks that can be greater than those for which the crashworthiness standards provide protection:

1. Fuel trucks.  If the fuel tank ruptures and the released fuel ignites, the flash ignition can instantly suck all oxygen from the cab of a locomotive.  Extreme heat quickly builds up due to the outside of the cab being covered with burning fuel.  If the cab glass fails and allows burning fuel to enter the cab, crew members in the cab can be fatally burned.
2. Log trailers loaded with poles small enough in diameter to penetrate the sheet metal of the cab between structural posts.
3. Lowboy trailers carrying extremely heavy machinery such as mining trucks, large bulldozers, etc., as these can derail the locomotive and make it ground-zero in a pileup.

In most other cases, there is considerable protection, although nothing is ever certain when a moving train strikes a large object on the track.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I don't see any room for "front crumple zones" in that particular design.

When I was in college I had a part time job driving a 196X Ford "tilt cab" truck. The steering was all over the place, and the air brakes leaked ... had to pump the pedal to get some braking. If I was about to crash into something ... my skull would have been the crumple zone. 

How effective is a glass picture window windshield in being a crumple zone?

@Tom Tee posted:

How effective is a glass picture window windshield in being a crumple zone?

The windshield on the automobile you might drive probably takes a larger portion of the front end than the picture window on this Spanish locomotive.

Your automobile, despite having excellent passive and active safety features including crumple zones, wouldn’t protect you or other occupants should some object come through the windshield like a miscreant throwing a rock from an overpass while you drive under. And you wouldn’t wait for technology to advance to a SAE Level 5, self-driving caliber before trusting the lives of your loved ones or yours, in these automobiles.

As No 90, Tom mentioned earlier, there are collision scenarios that will cause great damage despite these passive safety features on locomotives.

It might be concerning when one only looks at 1 feature like the front end of this 333.3 Class locomotive but the passive and active safety features are supposed to work in conjunction to reduce train operator injuries and  fatalities, while recognizing that there will still be scenarios that cause tragedies despite these safety features.

These are just my opinion,

Naveen Rajan

@naveenrajan posted:

These are just my opinion,

My question is, is your opinion based upon any solid foundation?  Do you know for a fact that all of the stuff you mentioned is actually done for these locomotives?

Just my opinion, I have difficulty seeing how the foot or two of structure in front of the engineer is protecting him against any substantial collision.

@CNJ Jim posted:

When I was in college I had a part time job driving a 196X Ford "tilt cab" truck. The steering was all over the place, and the air brakes leaked ... had to pump the pedal to get some braking. If I was about to crash into something ... my skull would have been the crumple zone. 

😅 I drove a Ford 700c. Exact same thing no steering, seat bolted to the cab, Biased tires that would flat spot. Winter was **** 😂. The only good safety feature was you might get it up to 55 if you had a nice tailwind.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

My question is, is your opinion based upon any solid foundation?  Do you know for a fact that all of the stuff you mentioned is actually done for these locomotives?

Just my opinion, I have difficulty seeing how the foot or two of structure in front of the engineer is protecting him against any substantial collision.

I was using my mobile device to post on this thread until now and couldn’t  figure out a way to embed links.

I am now on my laptop and here is the link to the pdf document that explains Caltrain’s waiver request to certify their upcoming trains to the European crashworthiness standard instead of the US standard. If one cares to read the document, it also has a section where a grade-crossing collision with a tank trailer is analyzed.

These soon-to-be introduced KISS electric commuter trains are made by Stadler at their Salt Lake City, Utah facility. This news article suggests that at least 1 set was made and tested over a year ago.

5 years ago, at my regular, full-time job, I was transitioning from my long standing role as a CAD monkey, Product Design Engineer, to using computer simulation to validate products. I came across these articles while searching for current industry practices on using Structural Analysis tools to augment and replace physical testing of heavy steel structures used in non-stationary applications.

As for my line “These are just my opinion”, I started using it when I was working at Caterpillar. We received a strongly worded memo after some employee spoke to the Press about an ongoing labot unrest and expressed a view that contradicted Caterpillar’s official stance. We were reminded to explicitly clarify any opinions when posting on public forums.

These are just my opinion,

Naveen Rajan

Naveen,  They call those tiny little "bufferettes" anticlimbers?  Any misalignment of equipment will negate any benefit they might offer.  A single anticlimber of a width equal to the combined "bufferettes", centrally located, would provide almost double the effective width of the combined devices.  Anticlimbers have been designed this way from the beginning and for good reason.

How about the air conditioner crumple zone collision protection?  Pretty cool, eh?  Better make sure it's loaded with environmentally friendly freon before the wreck!

Let me guess, government is involved.  "Just my opinion."