U.S. to Require Stronger Passenger Railcars After Collisions

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

acelafan

Conductor
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,043
Location
Atlanta, GA
An article on businessweek.com talks about stronger (and heavier?) new trains.

The rule, which starts taking effect in March, requires stronger front-end frames on new passenger railcars and some locomotives to help prevent them from collapsing or telescoping on impact.

 

A 1996 crash between two New Jersey Transit trains killed both trains’ engineers and one passenger. The same year, a Maryland commuter train collided with an Amtrak train, killing three crew members and eight passengers. In 1993, near Gary, Indiana, a moving Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District train crashed into a stationary one at 32 miles per hour, killing seven people.

Is this requirement going to be another obstacle to getting faster train service in the US, or is it a needed design change? The article notes accidents from 1993 and 1996...has the US been working on accident prevention like our friends overseas instead of crash survivability? I know PTC is very expensive. Just curious if we will always have the idea of building "tanks" instead of preventing mishaps.
 
Problem as I see it is if the improved safety happens to fail, I prefer to not have the cars tearing though each other.. I don't think making a car light only to increase speed makes any sense, there will always be failures either human or computer.
 
I know the "Tank" fans will whip themselves into a frenzy, but the best way to survive a crash is not to have one in the first place. It's easier to control what happens to 2 trains before a crash, than what happens if they collide.
 
I know the "Tank" fans will whip themselves into a frenzy, but the best way to survive a crash is not to have one in the first place. It's easier to control what happens to 2 trains before a crash, than what happens if they collide.
Ever been part of a HAZOP study? The short version is that you try ot consider all possible outcomes and how to mitigate the results.
 
I know the "Tank" fans will whip themselves into a frenzy, but the best way to survive a crash is not to have one in the first place. It's easier to control what happens to 2 trains before a crash, than what happens if they collide.
Ever been part of a HAZOP study? The short version is that you try ot consider all possible outcomes and how to mitigate the results.
If HAZOP is the same as Risk Assessment then I have it coming out of my ears. Point still stands. Keep trains apart, you can control that. Crashes are not controllable.
 
I don't think weight will be the issue, I think cost will. Formula One racing has shown us you can have incredibly safe equipment and light weights, but the cost gets astronomical. Case in point is Robert Kubica, who at Montreal in 2008 had a crash that looked like it should have killed him, yet he walked away with only an ankle injury. The carbon fiber combined with advanced engineering have made a very lightweight car that saves life. I think they can carry some of that knowledge over and design a fast, safe rail car.
 
Aloha

I had to think about the tittle of this thread a while befor commenting. Why do we want rail cars to be stronger "After Collisions"? :huh: But I did understand what was meant. :rolleyes:
 
The Businessweek article is charmingly free of any concrete information.

It seems to me that the strengthening that is being talked about here applies to cab cars. If cab cars are not used nothing is changing. Tier II is still 1,000,000lb buff strength, and Tier I is 800,000lb. The change is about additional collision posts in cab cars AFAICT. Of course I am sure someone who knows will be happy to correct me if I am wrong.
 
The Businessweek article is charmingly free of any concrete information.
It seems to me that the strengthening that is being talked about here applies to cab cars. If cab cars are not used nothing is changing. Tier II is still 1,000,000lb buff strength, and Tier I is 800,000lb. The change is about additional collision posts in cab cars AFAICT. Of course I am sure someone who knows will be happy to correct me if I am wrong.
Sounds about right. Didn't all three of the listed collisions involve cab cars? I'd think if it was speaking of all rail cars in general, the MetroLink wreck surely would've been mentioned first. Certainly makes sense... Tri-Rail trains down here in FLA are involved in quite a view vehicle collisions each month and I shudder to think what would happen with a Bombardier cab car up front hitting a decent sized truck.
 
The Businessweek article is charmingly free of any concrete information.
It seems to me that the strengthening that is being talked about here applies to cab cars. If cab cars are not used nothing is changing. Tier II is still 1,000,000lb buff strength, and Tier I is 800,000lb. The change is about additional collision posts in cab cars AFAICT. Of course I am sure someone who knows will be happy to correct me if I am wrong.
Sounds about right. Didn't all three of the listed collisions involve cab cars? I'd think if it was speaking of all rail cars in general, the MetroLink wreck surely would've been mentioned first. Certainly makes sense... Tri-Rail trains down here in FLA are involved in quite a view vehicle collisions each month and I shudder to think what would happen with a Bombardier cab car up front hitting a decent sized truck.
If that's the case, then maybe preventing collisions between motor vehicles and trains ought to be a higher priority. Of course, there's only so much that can be done in that area (e.g., closing grade crossings and replacing them with grade-separated crossings).
 
If that's the case, then maybe preventing collisions between motor vehicles and trains ought to be a higher priority. Of course, there's only so much that can be done in that area (e.g., closing grade crossings and replacing them with grade-separated crossings).
Aloha

I have an extreme thought for grade crossing protection, Have no idea if it would work, or cost. But then we have a lot of .... Drivers who seem to not understand how a crossing works.

Anyway, and go ahead and laugh. We could install nets like the ones used on aircraft carriers to catch planes. If they can stop a jet they would stop a driver not paying attention, or believe he is the Superior vehicle.

Now I return to the real world?

Mahalo

Eric
 
If that's the case, then maybe preventing collisions between motor vehicles and trains ought to be a higher priority. Of course, there's only so much that can be done in that area (e.g., closing grade crossings and replacing them with grade-separated crossings).
Aloha

I have an extreme thought for grade crossing protection, Have no idea if it would work, or cost. But then we have a lot of .... Drivers who seem to not understand how a crossing works.

Anyway, and go ahead and laugh. We could install nets like the ones used on aircraft carriers to catch planes. If they can stop a jet they would stop a driver not paying attention, or believe he is the Superior vehicle.

Now I return to the real world?

Mahalo

Eric
I'm going into the retro-fit auto tail-hook business! Thanks Eric!
 
Anyway, and go ahead and laugh. We could install nets like the ones used on aircraft carriers to catch planes. If they can stop a jet they would stop a driver not paying attention, or believe he is the Superior vehicle.
Even more effective would be barriers that rise from the road as are often used at road entrances to the secured area of airports or gates of Embassies these days. They are very effective at preventing entry by vehicles Of course they cause almost as much damage to the vehicle as they would suffer hitting a train from the side, but perhaps less than being hit by a train.
 
Anyway, and go ahead and laugh. We could install nets like the ones used on aircraft carriers to catch planes. If they can stop a jet they would stop a driver not paying attention, or believe he is the Superior vehicle.
Even more effective would be barriers that rise from the road as are often used at road entrances to the secured area of airports or gates of Embassies these days. They are very effective at preventing entry by vehicles Of course they cause almost as much damage to the vehicle as they would suffer hitting a train from the side, but perhaps less than being hit by a train.
I think the biggest reason we do not have many fully blocked road crossings is the fear someone would get caught inside the two.

Personally, I think the risks of that are less than the risk of someone going around the non-fully blocked crossing gates.
 
If that's the case, then maybe preventing collisions between motor vehicles and trains ought to be a higher priority. Of course, there's only so much that can be done in that area (e.g., closing grade crossings and replacing them with grade-separated crossings).
Aloha

I have an extreme thought for grade crossing protection, Have no idea if it would work, or cost. But then we have a lot of .... Drivers who seem to not understand how a crossing works.

Anyway, and go ahead and laugh. We could install nets like the ones used on aircraft carriers to catch planes. If they can stop a jet they would stop a driver not paying attention, or believe he is the Superior vehicle.

Now I return to the real world?

Mahalo

Eric

Eric,

If memory serves my right they tried at least two crossing equipped with something similar to your idea on the Chicago-St Louis route. I think they were on the area south of Dwight IL. There was a public outcry! Their freedom to travel was being restricted, even though there were in the mid 70's had many fatal grade crossing accidents. I personally was on the head end for one and was on the train for two others. There was even a derailment at 79 mph when a dump truck loaded with hot asphalt hit train 301 at the rear truck of the first coach and the gauge of the rail spread causing that truck and the following 3 cars to derail. Spent 36 hours at that site.

By the way I can't remember the specific crossings and there many of even been a couple more but as I age I found out that I suffer from CRS, Can't Remember Stuff. Sometimes I substitute another word for Stuff.

Al :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
 
By the way I can't remember the specific crossings and there many of even been a couple more but as I age I found out that I suffer from CRS, Can't Remember Stuff. Sometimes I substitute another word for Stuff.
Al :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
Aloha Al

My Doctor friend suggest that RMT is a treatment for CRS. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Ride More Trains.

Mahalo

Eric
 
If the problem's with being stuck on the tracks, then why not make the devices so hitting them from the rail-side causes them to knock-over, but hitting them from road-side does nothing. Maybe some sort of ramp even that goes flush with the concrete when the crossing isn't activated, but comes up if it is. When they meet an obstruction (of sufficient weight?) they don't force it and the obstruction can clear.
 
If the problem's with being stuck on the tracks, then why not make the devices so hitting them from the rail-side causes them to knock-over, but hitting them from road-side does nothing. Maybe some sort of ramp even that goes flush with the concrete when the crossing isn't activated, but comes up if it is. When they meet an obstruction (of sufficient weight?) they don't force it and the obstruction can clear.
That is exactly the sort of thing that is used at Embassy gates that I have seen.
 
If we can't build better mousetraps—er, gates—we can always go with the other option: slow trains down to 5 mph at each crossing so no pedestrian or impatient driver ever gets hurt. This is, in fact, a win-win for everyone: passengers also get much longer train trips, at least in terms of time! :D :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top