After Talgo Disaster in Spain, repercussions for Amtrak?

[sitzplatz17]

After the really horrific accident in spain with a high-speed talgo set, could there be repercussions for Amtrak?

First of all, as we know, Amtrak does run Talgo trains. Looking at how poorly the "Alivia" type Talgo coaches fared in the accident in regards to survivability, how would Cascade Talgo coaches fare? I'm sure that's a question that a couple of folks are asking today over at the NTSB and FRA.

Second, could this delay the new tier standards the FRA is implementing to allow Amtrak to buy "off-the shelf" high speed equipment from Europe/Asia for the NEC?

Note that this is me just wondering, I haven't heard anything from Amtrak or the FRA or anything else in this regard.

 

[fillyjonk]

The report I heard was that the train in Spain (um, yeah) was going twice the recommended speed limit. So it sounds more like "operator error" than "equipment failure" to me.

Though I suppose survivability of a crash is still a question. I am a nervous flyer at best and I remember kind of panicking when I realized I was getting on an Airbus 330 after hearing about a couple bad crashes of them....

 

[Paulus]

Nothing will survive a crash at >100mph into a concrete wall; this is not an example of poor survivability.

 

[zepherdude]

I did not think Amtrak owned the Talgo trains. Thought they were owed by the States of Oregon and Washington as a joint venue and operated by Amtrak.

 

[the_traveler]

The Talgos now operated in OR and WA are actually built by European standards, and operate under an exemption granted by the FRA. The new Talgos built in WI are built to US standards, thus no exemption is needed.

 

[Paulus]

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

There might be a move on the PTC (Postive Train Control) front. Train was travel twice the speed of the curve, not sure what was the control system at that location, but some of the PTC do have a overspeed controller.

Also if you watch the station camera video the train cars start the derailment, not the engine. Not sure what that means, but sure everyone in the train biz will be watching.

 

[Paulus]

There might be a move on the PTC (Postive Train Control) front. Train was travel twice the speed of the curve, not sure what was the control system at that location, but some of the PTC do have a overspeed controller.

It was using ASFS, which is a legacy system that is passive and apparently only prevents SPADs. On the new build high speed rail tracks, it uses ERTMS which does have positive speed control.

 

[afigg]

There is a big difference between hitting a concrete wall head-on and derailing & hitting the wall at a tangential angle. Although at the speeds the train was going at, the force of the impact and getting dragged along the wall was substantial. I posted a link to a Youtube video from a CCTV camera of the derailment in the discussion on the accident in the General rail forum.

As for repercussions of the accident in Spain on Amtrak and HSR plans in this country, I would expect none to very little beyond reinforcing the efforts to deploy PTC. Accidents still sometime happen. The FRA may reconsider its exemption on the Amtrak and WA state owned Talgo trainsets, but those Talgos never operate at the speed encountered in the Spanish accident.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I have ridden Talgo trains in Spain and would have no problems riding them again even after the accident. The tracks in Europe are in much better shape than some in the US .

 

[guest]

It is not true, however, that American-made passenger rail cars, which must conform to FRA standards, are generally considered to be more crash-survivable i.e. the passengers are able to walk away or get out with non-life-threatening injuries in most cases, than those made in Europe? I seem to remember this difference came up when the German high-speed train crashed several years with numerous fatalities.

As for flying, yes, a mid-air collision or full-scale dive into the ground is not survivable, but crash standard improvements mandated by the NTSB over the years are credited with the small loss of life in the 777 Asiana crash-landing at SFO and no doubt the safe evacuation of all passengers and crew on the Southwest 737 at La Guardia three days ago.

 

[PRR 60]

I womder if the FRA might have second thoughts about agreeing to Amtrak's request to reduce crash standards for the next generation of high speed trains?

 

[George Harris]

This is not at all comparable. When looking at this thing, remember that the train did not hit this wall square on. It hit a glancing blow as was sliding along it. That makes it extremely difficult to understand the extent of the damage.

One posibility is that the power unit plowed into the ballast making it slow much faster greatly increasing the impact of the following lightly built cars. Even with that the damage seems excessive and the death toll all but unbelievable. Another factor is ballasted track itself makes the plowing in of equipment possible which concrete slab does not. Look at the two Shinkansen design trains that derailed in earthquakes on concrete slab track. Both slid to a stop on the concrete, stayed more or less in line and everyone walked off with nothing more than bumps and bruises despite derailing at over 100 mph in both cases.

That is my main concern about the Northwest US Talgos. They are effectively a string of soda cans between a pair of bricks. If they ever hit something at any thing but low speed I suspect the results will look like this one or worse.

 

[Paulus]

It is not true, however, that American-made passenger rail cars, which must conform to FRA standards, are generally considered to be more crash-survivable i.e. the passengers are able to walk away or get out with non-life-threatening injuries in most cases, than those made in Europe? I seem to remember this difference came up when the German high-speed train crashed several years with numerous fatalities.

Very few things do well impacting concrete at over a hundred miles an hour and then having the bridge collapse on top of them, as happened at Eschede. Generally, for a given accident, the European train is safer to be in.

Look at the two Shinkansen design trains that derailed in earthquakes on concrete slab track. Both slid to a stop on the concrete, stayed more or less in line and everyone walked off with nothing more than bumps and bruises despite derailing at over 100 mph in both cases.

As long as you don't hit something like concrete straight away, derailments don't seem to be all that much of an issue. TGV derailed at 294 km/h with only one person injured for example. You see similar things with grade crossing accidents; most fatalities are because the train derailed after hitting the vehicle and hits another train either passing by or parked on adjacent line.

That is my main concern about the Northwest US Talgos. They are effectively a string of soda cans between a pair of bricks. If they ever hit something at any thing but low speed I suspect the results will look like this one or worse.

At which point the blame is properly laid with overly heavy locomotives without CEM features.

 

[sitzplatz17]

I womder if the FRA might have second thoughts about agreeing to Amtrak's request to reduce crash standards for the next generation of high speed trains?

Precisely my thought in starting this thread.

Even more concerning is that the new Talgo sets do operate in "push-pull" mode. With that new (ugly) cab car on one end. What happens if a similar accident (even at a lower speed) occurs while operating in push mode? 79mph is no joke either.

 

[- G.L.]

Chase, MD crash in 1987, one car essentially disintegrated on impact. The death toll would have been far higher if they hadn't have just cleared that car for boarding at the next station.

May 17, 2013 crash in Fairfield, Conn: fairly low speed collision yet a lot of damage to the cars.

I see no reason to think USA standard equipment would have performed better in this accident than the Talgo cars did.

 

[Nathanael]

It is not true, however, that American-made passenger rail cars, which must conform to FRA standards, are generally considered to be more crash-survivable i.e. the passengers are able to walk away or get out with non-life-threatening injuries in most cases, than those made in Europe?

It is not true. US trains have WORSE crash-survivability than European trains in similar crashes.

There was a long set of tests done by, IIRC, Caltrain, or maybe it was the folks promoting the NJ RiverLine. The problem is that the FRA "standards" are based on antiquated theories of crash safety from the 1940s and earlier. FRA trains do not have crumple zones or crash energy management or any of the feature we have come to expect from modern automobiles. In short, in an FRA train, the *train* is more likely to survive the crash than a European train, but the people *inside* are less likely to survive.

At least this is changing; the FRA has finally grudgingly admitted that crumple zones are better than "corner post strength" and "buff strength", though it still hasn't changed the rules.

 

[X]

It is not true, however, that American-made passenger rail cars, which must conform to FRA standards, are generally considered to be more crash-survivable i.e. the passengers are able to walk away or get out with non-life-threatening injuries in most cases, than those made in Europe?

It is not true. US trains have WORSE crash-survivability than European trains in similar crashes.

There was a long set of tests done by, IIRC, Caltrain, or maybe it was the folks promoting the NJ RiverLine. The problem is that the FRA "standards" are based on antiquated theories of crash safety from the 1940s and earlier. FRA trains do not have crumple zones or crash energy management or any of the feature we have come to expect from modern automobiles. In short, in an FRA train, the *train* is more likely to survive the crash than a European train, but the people *inside* are less likely to survive.

At least this is changing; the FRA has finally grudgingly admitted that crumple zones are better than "corner post strength" and "buff strength", though it still hasn't changed the rules.

Crash Energy Management is great when it's able to dissipate all or most of the crash energy, but once its done its job buff strength is what keeps the rest of the car in one piece. Modern automobiles are made with crumple zones that dissipate energy and keep momentum related injuries down, yet the frames of the passenger compartments are the strongest they've ever been.

Train car bodies must be built strong enough to not end up looking like shredded tin cans in accidents like these if such massive death tools are to be avoided.

 

[SP&S]

Crumple zones work well in cars (I know, I've been hit head-on at speed) as there is room in front of the passenger compartment. How do you do this in a train car where most of the car is devoted to seating?

 

[railiner]

The impact on Amtrak? Perhaps the investigators will determine that it would be best on very high speed trains that passenger seats all be equiped with seat belts....?

The discussion on crashworthiness of the cars must also take into account what happens to passengers within these cars, whether benefitting from super rigid carbodies, and/or crumple zones or whatever. Unrestrained people become 'missiles' within.

 

[X]

Crumple zones work well in cars (I know, I've been hit head-on at speed) as there is room in front of the passenger compartment. How do you do this in a train car where most of the car is devoted to seating?

The CEM is at the ends of the cars, basically you just consolidate everything that's not a seat (equipment, storage, trash receptacles, etc) at the ends of the car. Think of a Superliner coach and the closets and trash receptacles that are at each end of the upper level.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I believe Amtrak should not buy equipment imported directly from foreign manufacturers anyway. If a government-owned operator like Amtrak buys railcars that aren't made in USA or at least Canada, then they can just lose my business.

Note that I am assuming "off-the-shelf" means that they're not gonna build railcars in the US to American designs and specs.

 

[Paulus]

I believe Amtrak should not buy equipment imported directly from foreign manufacturers anyway. If a government-owned operator like Amtrak buys railcars that aren't made in USA or at least Canada, then they can just lose my business.
Note that I am assuming "off-the-shelf" means that they're not gonna build railcars in the US to American designs and specs.

It is significantly cheaper to do so, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per "job created." Why waste tax payer money for no good reason?

 

[MattW]

Off the shelf doesn't necessarily mean not produced here. A company could simple take the knowledge they already have, and produce the same product over here. There would still be a degree of Americanization anyways, things like grabirons, couplers, etc are different from the rest of the world. It's still cheaper to open a factory producing an existing design with slight modification, than to open a factory producing a whole new design.

 

[guest in the west]

Off the shelf doesn't necessarily mean not produced here. A company could simple take the knowledge they already have, and produce the same product over here. There would still be a degree of Americanization anyways, things like grabirons, couplers, etc are different from the rest of the world. It's still cheaper to open a factory producing an existing design with slight modification, than to open a factory producing a whole new design.

similar to the way the trolley cars for the San Diego Trolley are a Siemens design but assembled in Sacramento for San Diego and probably other cities now as well given the renaissance of light-rail systems around the country