jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
No. Everything that currently is in operation is as usual grandfathered in.
U.S. to Require Stronger Passenger Railcars After Collisions
- Thread starter acelafan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
P
PHINEAS T GAGE
Guest
I was a project mgr w/ Illinois when those nets were installed on Chicago - St, Louis and I can tell you from personal experience that they were underfunded, poorly designed, and nobody but the FRA wanted them as a "demonstration project" They were set up to fail from the get-go, because they relied on off the shelf technology from non-cooperating manufacturers who did not, or could not understand the others' systems. Safetran, the manufacturer of the best "constant warning time" tecvhnology @ the time couldn't provide consistent advance warning times, and Entwistle, the net manufacture was a "low cost bidder" that used cheaply designed non-weather proof limit switches which constantly malfunctioned {which we would not admit caused system failures
Someone at FRA has a report on the project and could probably say a lot more. On a more positive front, Michigan has used poles that come up from out of the ground to provide "positive protection" for grade crossings.
It appears obvious to this writer that as HSR evolves and moves to implementation especially in the Midwest, we have to accomodate the crossing situation: one "solution" that was discussed in Illinois short of closure was the construction of frontage roads, to more centralized/ higher ADT roads, with some closures: farmers can always be enticed to sell off their land for a "fair" value, and wetlands can be banked somewhere. This has bothing to do with railcars or Tier II/III standards, but is just shows how wide ranging the HSR debate can be.
PTG/-30-
Someone at FRA has a report on the project and could probably say a lot more. On a more positive front, Michigan has used poles that come up from out of the ground to provide "positive protection" for grade crossings.
It appears obvious to this writer that as HSR evolves and moves to implementation especially in the Midwest, we have to accomodate the crossing situation: one "solution" that was discussed in Illinois short of closure was the construction of frontage roads, to more centralized/ higher ADT roads, with some closures: farmers can always be enticed to sell off their land for a "fair" value, and wetlands can be banked somewhere. This has bothing to do with railcars or Tier II/III standards, but is just shows how wide ranging the HSR debate can be.
PTG/-30-
Warning!!!!!!!!
This topic is more than 1 year old.
This topic is more than 1 year old.
Designs to increase the engineers view have caused less protection for the engineers. If you look at the designs of older locomotives used on passenger lines of years past, most of them had the engineer sitting high and well back from the front nose. Todays designs have the engineer sitting at the front of the locomotive and low. Look at the picture of the GG-1 loco in GG-1's post and you will see what I mean. If the engineer sits behind the crush area he will be safer.
This is indeed an old thread, but I think one of the more worthwhile ones to continue discussing--safety.
In the automotive world, much more emphasis has been put on making automobiles crashworthy and survivable, and making highway design safer than in improving driver performance. The results have proved to be remarkable when you compare historic statistics.
I believe one relatively low-cost way to improve grade-crossing safety would be to change the signals. I believe that instead of the flashing red lights on the 'crossbucks', there should be standard red-yellow-green traffic signals. Some drivers might equate the flashing red grade-crossing signals to the 'stop-sign' aspect of highway signals which many motorists treat as 'slow and go'. They might treat the steady red light with more respect. Worth a try, anyway.
In addition, there should be red light camera's with warning signs at each crossing, and violations should be serious--perhaps six-point 'reckless driving'?
As far as car design, I believe cab control cars should be beefed up. It wouldn't add much relative to the entire weight of the train. If I was an engineer,
I would rather be in a locomotive, with the long hood leading, as was done by (the N&W or Southern?) in years past.
In the automotive world, much more emphasis has been put on making automobiles crashworthy and survivable, and making highway design safer than in improving driver performance. The results have proved to be remarkable when you compare historic statistics.
I believe one relatively low-cost way to improve grade-crossing safety would be to change the signals. I believe that instead of the flashing red lights on the 'crossbucks', there should be standard red-yellow-green traffic signals. Some drivers might equate the flashing red grade-crossing signals to the 'stop-sign' aspect of highway signals which many motorists treat as 'slow and go'. They might treat the steady red light with more respect. Worth a try, anyway.
In addition, there should be red light camera's with warning signs at each crossing, and violations should be serious--perhaps six-point 'reckless driving'?
As far as car design, I believe cab control cars should be beefed up. It wouldn't add much relative to the entire weight of the train. If I was an engineer,
I would rather be in a locomotive, with the long hood leading, as was done by (the N&W or Southern?) in years past.
Dutchrailnut
Conductor
In your reasoning on cab cars, should we eliminate every MU car, every Light rail vehicle or bus.
Sitting in a locomotive may have height and a short nose in front, but your still exposed to 2000 gallons of fuel and a couple of hundred gallon of near boiling water.
Running a passenger train with a freight engine with limted sight is challanging enough, but you want to do it long nose forward ??
I for one would refuse unless another qualified person can ride other side of cab for crossing and platform observation, signals are another issue.
everyone says PTC is ultimate answer and trains do not require such heavy protection.
Cabsignal or PTC does not prevent crashes, it just prevents crashes on same track or intersecting tracks.
Hitting a derailed freight car at speed would not be detected by PTC, neither would be a truck or bus crossing the tracks.
Sitting in a locomotive may have height and a short nose in front, but your still exposed to 2000 gallons of fuel and a couple of hundred gallon of near boiling water.
Running a passenger train with a freight engine with limted sight is challanging enough, but you want to do it long nose forward ??
I for one would refuse unless another qualified person can ride other side of cab for crossing and platform observation, signals are another issue.
everyone says PTC is ultimate answer and trains do not require such heavy protection.
Cabsignal or PTC does not prevent crashes, it just prevents crashes on same track or intersecting tracks.
Hitting a derailed freight car at speed would not be detected by PTC, neither would be a truck or bus crossing the tracks.
Okay.
MU cars should only be used on railroads like the NEC where there are no grade crossings. For those roads that still have them, they should strive to eliminate grade crossings as much as possible.
Light rail cars can stop in shorter distances than heavy rail, and where they do operate on streets, they do so at relatively slow speeds.
Buses should revert to 'conventional' design like school buses, with engines out front for driver and passenger safety. In the last few years, cab-over-engine tractor-trailer rigs have disappeared for this reason.
And I realize that the old practice of engines with long hood forward had a fireman on board. Nothing wrong with that....
Based on what? MU equipment with cab coaches operate all over the country, on lines with plenty of grade crossings (virtually every single commuter railroad in the country, for example).
Uh, that's pretty much the idea. The only problem is, it costs a few bucks to do so.
Again, based on what? There are no full-size transit buses that I know of that have the engine out in front, nor do any highway coaches. It does not enhance safety. It reduces visibility (and therefore, safety), increases the amount of space needed for the bus (what could be a 40-foot bus will now be a 45-foot bus, or you lose five feet of interior space), and again, what data do you have to support that this would increase driver and passenger safety?
Is that it, or does it have to do with driver comfort, ease of engine maintenance, and the fact that the laws that made them popular in the first place no longer apply in many cases?
You still lose a ton of forward visibility. Not to mention that the second engineer ain't exactly cheap.
I'm guessing you drive on the highway with an armored tank. A regular car/SUV is way too dangerous in the event of an accident, and since the bus is too dangerous (no engine in front to dampen the impact of a crash, you know) and you might wind up in the cab car of an MU train, that rules out any other form of travel (and don't even get me started on the dangers of walking, I mean, you might as well just be asking to die as there are absolutely no safety features other than the soles of your shoes).
GlobalistPotato
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 344
Well, to solve it all, I think we should just design our High Speed trains like high-end racecars!
Fast, light, and safe! Hey, HSR is going to be expensive anyway!
When it comes to safety and all of the weird "what if" cases, where is the line drawn between covering typical rail accidents and freak-of-nature accidents?
Because, really, if you wanted to, you could say that DB in Germany has to make all of the ICE trains have ceilings and walls that can take the force of a road bridge falling on one of the coaches, like what happened in that one wreck.
But really, it isn't reasonable, because that's going such a length to treat the symptoms, not the cause, which can be done for way less. If you wanted to treat the cause, then you should say that ICE trains shouldn't have dual-cast wheels, and maintenance should perform better inspections of the train.
If there's a goal in safety, try to work towards goals of reducing the chances of a train crash, rather than trying to make the trains invincible, because that's an unrealistic goal. Think about airline industry safety. Plane crashes can easily be horrible, but they're extremely rare, thanks in part to decades of airplane safety, mostly in prevention of accidents.
Tanks are supposed be so armored because it's part of the job; trains do not go into battle.
When it comes to safety and all of the weird "what if" cases, where is the line drawn between covering typical rail accidents and freak-of-nature accidents?
Because, really, if you wanted to, you could say that DB in Germany has to make all of the ICE trains have ceilings and walls that can take the force of a road bridge falling on one of the coaches, like what happened in that one wreck.
But really, it isn't reasonable, because that's going such a length to treat the symptoms, not the cause, which can be done for way less. If you wanted to treat the cause, then you should say that ICE trains shouldn't have dual-cast wheels, and maintenance should perform better inspections of the train.
If there's a goal in safety, try to work towards goals of reducing the chances of a train crash, rather than trying to make the trains invincible, because that's an unrealistic goal. Think about airline industry safety. Plane crashes can easily be horrible, but they're extremely rare, thanks in part to decades of airplane safety, mostly in prevention of accidents.
Tanks are supposed be so armored because it's part of the job; trains do not go into battle.
