Specially considering the fact that the message board on which it was posted is rather well known for creating drama. They thrive on it and even charge a fee for providing the entertainmentExactly. This sounds like some railfan created drama from message boards rather than something nearly as dramatic as being presented.
Perhaps more reason to question the single restroom decision.Exactly. The only thing that could be an issue is those automatic doors on the bathrooms. The grumpy conductor has n my train warned passengers that these doors would stop working if a customer pulled on it rather than used the buttons.
Maybe, maybe not. I have seen perfectly good design implemented poorly to cut corners, decisions made in the production line by geniuses who had little understanding of why the design was the way it was more times than I can count on the fingers of my two hands. There were even cases where the customer's genius project managers insisted on doing something over the objections of the manufacturers, because they were the customers and they knew better.
Apparently crews hate working with anything new. Anytime a new locomotive comes on line there are multiple reports about how terrible they are, worse than anything every seen before, etc. Eventually everybody calms down and the new equipment works just fine.
Reports of "everything is wrong with these cars and they all have been pulled from service" sounds like railfan rumours.
They also happen to be ADA specified. I am not sure how much seating space would be lost if a smaller non-ADA toilet was added. Perhaps two rows, so 9 Coach seats or 6 BC seats roughly. At the end of the day it is a tradeoff.These restrooms are almost identical to what’s on the Acela. How many bathrooms per car on the Acela.
They may not be able to "refuse" cars. But they can just not use the cars that are on the train
You can't make anything idiot proof because they keep making better idiots. And in the US when some idiot gets hurt, he gets a lawyer and collects $$$.That seems to be a design flaw. Mechanical devices designed to be used by the general public should be as "idiot-proof" as possible. Wonder if they had the same problem with these in their European applications.
These restrooms are almost identical to what’s on the Acela. How many bathrooms per car on the Acela.
They also happen to be ADA specified. I am not sure how much seating space would be lost if a smaller non-ADA toilet was added. Perhaps two rows, so 9 Coach seats or 6 BC seats roughly. At the end of the day it is a tradeoff.
Apples and Oranges. Viewliners do not have CEM, and therefore no designated crumple zone. Still the ends of the cars tend to be more dangerous in a high energy collision than the middle as long as the train stays together. If it splits and jackknifes all bets are off.So I guess you risk your life if you take a shower in a Viewliner too?
So accident happens and the car crumples where it is supposed to by design while someone was in that toilet. Now let us go to the inevitable legal action that would follow. The argument presented by the plaintiff's attorney "So you knew that by design that part was going to crumple and you placed my client there by placing a toilet there. How is that not your fault that my client died?"Hardly. Every time you drive you are more at risk of being expendable based on the behaviors of other drivers than you would be spending 5 minutes in the bathroom on a train.
They do of course have to go through the test. These cars passed the test as mentioned in the AASHTO Meeting Reports.So do you know if these cars have to go through the 800,000 lb. compression test or are they exempt from that because they have these crumble zones?
One restroom per car ? That's commuter train mentality. Metra or intercity bus veterans must have been on that Midwest design committee.
Since when does Chicago pull cars for written up defects ? It must be really bad if that was the reason, or something else is up.
They do of course have to go through the test. These cars passed the test as mentioned in the ASHTO Meeting Reports.
It is required that the passenger safety cage not be deformed when a buff force of 800,000 lb is applied in a static test.
Your surmise is correct to an extent. Let me try to explain....Okay but I guess I am a bit confused about the recent change that supposedly would allow the use of Talgo VI and the new Avelia.
From Railway Age (NTSB Amtrak 501 Report: “Errors and Unsupported Statements” - Railway Age):
“It took more than 100 years, but finally, last November, FRA issued a Final Rule for Tier III (220 mph) equipment providing alternate methods for demonstrating safety equivalent to the traditional 800,000 pound buff load.
“The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules. Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must continue to operate under the FRA ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly manufactured one would not need that waiver (or any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in compliance with the new high-speed rules.
So since the Talgo VI did not comply because it did not meet the 800,000 lb load requirement, a new version would comply now. I thought the new crush zones may have something to do with it (allowing reduced compression standards) but apparently not.