After Talgo Disaster in Spain, repercussions for Amtrak?

[wendtsc]

Actually, the video showing how the coaches appeared to leave the track first got me thinking... Did the difference in weight between the heavy power cars on the front and back and the extremely light weight cars in the middle actually increase the likelyhood of the train derailing vs a train like a Shinkasen or ICE where weight is more evenly distributed beacuase the power is distributed throughout the train and all running gear is arranged symetrically to minimize unbalanced lateral forces? It really looks very much like the rear unit's weight might have pushing on the middle of the train might have caused the much lighter coaches to "pop-out." Its the same kind of thing Santa Fe use to have to deal with on Cajon and why every railroader knows light weight empties go on the back. Added to this could have been a delay in braking from the front to the back of the train. Depending on what type of brakes were applied that could be very significant.

Now as to this talk about CEM and crumple zones. Guidelines from the 1940's are just as valid when dealing with natural laws we have known about since Newton. Everyone in the crash test industry can tell you, no amount of high-tech advanced energy management design can completely eliminate the basic laws of physics regarding motion and mass. No matter what you do, in a contest between a Mack truck and a VW Bug, the Mack will always win. Given this basic fact, the only way to make the lightweight European coaches safer than the heavier passenger cars recommended by the FRA is if you can lower the weight ratio of the locomotives pulling them. This is simply not possible with Talgos design and certainly not when paired with heavy American Diesels. As far as adding the heavy Cab cars to the back of the Cascades, this is because if a Mack truck and an "unprotected" Talgo were in a contest, the Mack truck would still win. European standards work only because the vast majority of high speeds take place on dedicated grade-separated ROWs. Older lines with grade crossings operate much slower as do any trains that share routes with freight. Freight trains are banned from virutally all HSR corridors and only allowed to operate on small stretches in dedicated windows with large time buffers. Not to mention that a much higher percentage of freight in Europe travels by truck when compared to the US.

As the FRA rightly points out mixing lightweight European passenger trains with huge American freight trains (longer, heavier and in greater numbers than anything in Europe by a factor of 10) is like mixing Mack trucks and motorcycles. The only way to allow European Trains to operate here with an equal degree of safety as they do in Europe is if we build billions (probalby trillions) of dollars of new dedicated track or we start kicking the billions of tons of freight off American rail lines and onto our highways and who is honestly for that? All these folks that are so enamored with European train tech need to just face the facts that European Trains will not mix with current contemporary American railroads or their equipment. So, unless they want to shell out the tax money for new railroads, our trains need to be built to the proven American railroad standards.

 

[cirdan]

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.

The car that derailed first was the generator car. These were originally all electric trains that were subsequently converted to hybrids to run on non electrified lines, with the cars closest to the power cars being converted to generator cars. It could be that the greater weight of this car had an effect on its stability in the curve and its derailment.

 

[cirdan]

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?

Crumple zones on trains on trains are often in zones not normally occupied by passengers. This could be the nose cone of a high speed train. Also areas such as end vestibule / door areas are designed to crumple.

 

[cirdan]

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

They are a Siemens design but I've never seen any of these cars in any city in Europe so I assume that they were designed specifically for the North American market. It could of course be that many subcomponents are identical to those of European LRTs.

 

[Nathanael]

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

The report I heard was that the train in Spain (um, yeah) was going twice the recommended speed limit.

Repercussions which I predict: the PTC law is going to be enforced, and requests for delays are not going to be tolerated, since PTC would have prevented this crash.

Amtrak should be fine. The Class Is may get fined for their noncompliance.

 

[Nathanael]

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.

Yep. Modern cab designs actually have noses in front of the cabs, too.

Oh, there are other problems with the FRA standards. They don't actually do much to protect in sideswipes or side collisions. And they actually encourage jackknifing. We really have come a long way in safety design since the 1940s, but you wouldn't know it from FRA.

The biggest problem, of course, is that the Class Is have been reluctant to build signal systems with speed enforcement, which has been on the NTSB's "most wanted list" for decades, and which was on the top of the agenda for the Interstate Commerce Commission. It's completely, 100%, safe to mix heavy freight trains with lightweight passenger trains if your signal system is good enough -- ask the Russians -- but in the US, our signal systems generally are antique and substandard.

Hopefully the PTC mandate will fix that, if the Class Is can get their executives' heads out of their asses and realize that this isn't the 1970s and they don't have to cut corners on safety in order to make a profit.

 

[Karl1459]

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

Look at this nearly 200 mph into a concrete wall that NASCAR guys walked away from. Of course there cars are VERY crashworthy for this type of incident.

 

[X]

Oh, there are other problems with the FRA standards. They don't actually do much to protect in sideswipes or side collisions.

I don't know about that, I've seen enough Bi-Levels that got hit by vehicles of various types to know that I'd much prefer ridding out an accident in one than a Talgo.

 

[railiner]

.

good enough -- ask the Russians -- .

NASA spent millions designing a pen that would write in space.....the Russians?......they just use a pencil...... :lol:

 

[AmtrakBlue]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Karl1459" data-cid="457226" data-time="1374860103"><p>

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Paulus" data-cid="456972" data-time="1374763030"><p>Nothing will survive a crash at >100mph into a concrete wall; this is not an example of poor survivability.</p></blockquote>

Look at this nearly 200 mph into a concrete wall that NASCAR guys walked away from. Of course there cars are VERY crashworthy for this type of incident.<br />

<a href='

</a></p></blockquote>But would you want to sit on a train with the type of seats that are in the cars? I believe they made the seats even more restrictive after Dale Earnhart's crash.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Race Cars and Planes are probably the most Over Engineered products in the world but they cost Millions of dollars per Copy! I don't see Joe/Jane Sixpack ever paying $1,,000,000 for his/her Chevy or Ford in the name of Safety! (And of course Cars are much safer than they were back in the Old Days along with everything else thanks to the Evil Federal Government with their Safety First Mandates! Damn Government! <_< )

 

[SarahZ]

Crush zones aside, I wonder if a lot of injuries/deaths could be prevented if there were seatbelts? In a car, most people are buckled in, which means their body stays locked in position while the crush zones do their job to keep as much of the vehicle away from the body as possible. On a train, the crush zones do their job, but there's not a lot you can prevent if a body is flying through the air toward those areas, or even just a solid wall or seat (or bags flying through the air and whatnot). If the baggage were secured and the seats had belts, maybe more injuries could be prevented?

Just a thought. It's always strange to me that school buses, city buses, subways, trains, etc don't have seatbelts. For all the talking we do about buckling up and putting kids in child safety seats and booster seats, we take a lot of chances on public transit and school buses. It's bizarre.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Crush zones aside, I wonder if a lot of injuries/deaths could be prevented if there were seatbelts? In a car, most people are buckled in, which means their body stays locked in position while the crush zones do their job to keep as much of the vehicle away from the body as possible. On a train, the crush zones do their job, but there's not a lot you can prevent if a body is flying through the air toward those areas, or even just a solid wall or seat (or bags flying through the air and whatnot). If the baggage were secured and the seats had belts, maybe more injuries could be prevented?
Just a thought. It's always strange to me that school buses, city buses, subways, trains, etc don't have seatbelts. For all the talking we do about buckling up and putting kids in child safety seats and booster seats, we take a lot of chances on public transit and school buses. It's bizarre.

True this!

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I believe one "reason" for not having seat belts on public transportation (at least in the past) is the cost of vandalism. People, including kids, doing serious damage to the seat belts so they don't have to use them or just for the fun of it.

 

[NW cannonball]

Race Cars and Planes are probably the most Over Engineered products in the world but they cost Millions of dollars per Copy! I don't see Joe/Jane Sixpack ever paying $1,,000,000 for his/her Chevy or Ford in the name of Safety! (And of course Cars are much safer than they were back in the Old Days along with everything else thanks to the Evil Federal Government with their Safety First Mandates! Damn Government! <_< )

Roger that, you cynical old goat. :unsure:

Actually we've got to admit it's getting better, better all the time Auto deaths per passenger mile down down -down. rail and air fatalities down - down -down.

Wuzzat about the gub-mint? Dam rules and regs got nuttin to do wit it. Drive my dam train however I want never hurt nobody, less it runs away or dum peeps get in the way - not my fault. SO there! (Splat! Boom! Bah!)

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Pretty darn sure that I read that the USDot now requiring buses to have seat-belts. Been a lot of high profile wrecks. The Feds are coming down on some very bad habits in the transportation biz.

 

[Karl1459]

Crush zones aside, I wonder if a lot of injuries/deaths could be prevented if there were seatbelts? In a car, most people are buckled in, which means their body stays locked in position while the crush zones do their job to keep as much of the vehicle away from the body as possible. On a train, the crush zones do their job, but there's not a lot you can prevent if a body is flying through the air toward those areas, or even just a solid wall or seat (or bags flying through the air and whatnot). If the baggage were secured and the seats had belts, maybe more injuries could be prevented?
Just a thought. It's always strange to me that school buses, city buses, subways, trains, etc don't have seatbelts. For all the talking we do about buckling up and putting kids in child safety seats and booster seats, we take a lot of chances on public transit and school buses. It's bizarre.

The primary strategy for public transportation is to prevent accidents in the first place, by requiring a higher level of driver compentence with CDL's, drug tests, hours of service rules, etc. Secondarily there is a recognition that there is not as great of a benifet from a seat belt as usually the mass of the vehicle (bus, trains, etc) is greater than what will hit them (remember the politically correct line... "the car hit the train" "the car drove into the path of the unstoppable train"). The analogy of the VW and the Mack holds (what my wife calls "the law of lugnuts") and the usual deceleration of the larger vehicle is slower than that of a passenger vehicle, in addition usually a seat in front to absorb some deceleration force. The third issue is enforcement and usage, which would be sporadic at best. Crash injuries are usually not related to speed, only stopping too fast.

 

[Karl1459]

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.

Yep. Modern cab designs actually have noses in front of the cabs, too.

Oh, there are other problems with the FRA standards. They don't actually do much to protect in sideswipes or side collisions. And they actually encourage jackknifing. We really have come a long way in safety design since the 1940s, but you wouldn't know it from FRA.

The biggest problem, of course, is that the Class Is have been reluctant to build signal systems with speed enforcement, which has been on the NTSB's "most wanted list" for decades, and which was on the top of the agenda for the Interstate Commerce Commission. It's completely, 100%, safe to mix heavy freight trains with lightweight passenger trains if your signal system is good enough -- ask the Russians -- but in the US, our signal systems generally are antique and substandard.

Hopefully the PTC mandate will fix that, if the Class Is can get their executives' heads out of their asses and realize that this isn't the 1970s and they don't have to cut corners on safety in order to make a profit.

RE jacknifing. Recall that from up through the 1940's a significant problem was telescoping of railroad cars. Allowing a rail car to jacknife allows a significant amount of energy to be absorbed by the lateral action (think a quarter mile long crump zone). Keeping a train in line in a frontal impact without of jacknifing or the catastrophic structural failure of telescoping would cause a sudden deceleration of the whole train, likely with much greater injuries than with jacknifing.

 

[railiner]

Re: Seat belts (in buses)....Intercity buses, at least, manufactured since 2010 have so-called "containment seats". These are built much stronger than previous models, to withstand higher g-forces. And their backrests are higher and wider, so that even if passengers don't use the included three point seat belts, they are designed to better 'contain' the passenger in the seat, and prevent them from flying away in the event of a catastrophic crash. One drawback to these is that smaller persons can no longer get a forward view while touring.....but better safe, than sorry....

 

[RailRide]

The primary strategy for public transportation is to prevent accidents in the first place, by requiring a higher level of driver compentence with CDL's, drug tests, hours of service rules, etc. Secondarily there is a recognition that there is not as great of a benifet from a seat belt as usually the mass of the vehicle (bus, trains, etc) is greater than what will hit them (remember the politically correct line... "the car hit the train" "the car drove into the path of the unstoppable train"). The analogy of the VW and the Mack holds (what my wife calls "the law of lugnuts") and the usual deceleration of the larger vehicle is slower than that of a passenger vehicle, in addition usually a seat in front to absorb some deceleration force. The third issue is enforcement and usage, which would be sporadic at best. Crash injuries are usually not related to speed, only stopping too fast.

Case in point: this head-on crash between an SUV and a bus. The bus driver and one attendant survived (there were no other passengers onboard) witn non-life-threatening injuries. The SUV driver, not so much.

RE jacknifing. Recall that from up through the 1940's a significant problem was telescoping of railroad cars. Allowing a rail car to jacknife allows a significant amount of energy to be absorbed by the lateral action (think a quarter mile long crump zone). Keeping a train in line in a frontal impact without of jacknifing or the catastrophic structural failure of telescoping would cause a sudden deceleration of the whole train, likely with much greater injuries than with jacknifing.

...unless you happen to jacknife into the path of an oncoming train, or the cars trailing yours manage to hit the sides of your car. End-to-end carbody strength isn't so hot if the side of the carbody gets exposed to impact.


---PCJ

 

[trainman74]

NASA spent millions designing a pen that would write in space.....the Russians?......they just use a pencil...... :lol:

Just wanted to mention, since this hasn't been debunked yet in this thread, that it's incorrect.

 

[Ryan]

It could be that the greater weight of this car had an effect on its stability in the curve and its derailment.

I'd wager that the fact that the train was going over twice the speed limit had a bit more to do with it than the weight distribution.

Don't fix the symptoms, fix the causes. You don't need to build a bulletproof train if you build sufficient safety infrastructure that keeps them on the rails and upright.

 

[guest in the west]

It could be that the greater weight of this car had an effect on its stability in the curve and its derailment.

I'd wager that the fact that the train was going over twice the speed limit had a bit more to do with it than the weight distribution.

Don't fix the symptoms, fix the causes. You don't need to build a bulletproof train if you build sufficient safety infrastructure that keeps them on the rails and upright.

Amen. If an engineer is going twice the speed of the posted limit, that's pretty much going to determine a lot of the outcome. Granted you don't want a train made of cardboard, but human error can pretty much trump any safety system if it's egregious enough.

According to an AP dispatch, the positive train control system operated only to three miles south of where the accident happened, quoting a REFE official as saying that the engineer had the sole responsibility in the area of the accident, and was supposed to start slowing some two miles back, as the curve comes up fast after the tracks come out from a tunnel.

 

[SarahZ]

Okay, so if I'm on a bus and I go flying into the seat ahead of me at 40 mph, that's still going to cause some injuries. I still wish seat belts were an option. I get the vandalism thing, but there are times I think, "Wow. It would really hurt if my face hit the back of that seat."

 

[crescent2]

Crush zones aside, I wonder if a lot of injuries/deaths could be prevented if there were seatbelts? In a car, most people are buckled in, which means their body stays locked in position while the crush zones do their job to keep as much of the vehicle away from the body as possible. On a train, the crush zones do their job, but there's not a lot you can prevent if a body is flying through the air toward those areas, or even just a solid wall or seat (or bags flying through the air and whatnot). If the baggage were secured and the seats had belts, maybe more injuries could be prevented?
Just a thought. It's always strange to me that school buses, city buses, subways, trains, etc don't have seatbelts. For all the talking we do about buckling up and putting kids in child safety seats and booster seats, we take a lot of chances on public transit and school buses. It's bizarre.

Sorcha, many of us teachers also wondered why school buses don't have seat belts. We were told that the main reason is that it would slow down evacuating the bus in emergencies too much, and that the buses' high, padded seat backs offer some protection to the passengers behind them in a crash. They are big on being able to evacuate the buses rapidly; the students have to actually practice doing this within a time limit several times each year.

I'm still not totally convinced, but presumably those more knowledgeable than I know what they're doing. ??