by BostonRailFan
What do you guys think about this? It did come to my mind also. Would the Metrolink accident in California have been as bad if the engine was in front? I got a feeling it might have not been so devastating after seeing the computer generated reenactment which showed a great deal of buckling. Is engine forward operation with a modern day "cowcatcher" the answer?
======================================
Train Wreck Highlights Vulnerabilities
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
.c The Associated Press
(truncated)
Wednesday's crash also highlighted the practice of using locomotives at the rear of the train, to push it instead of pull it. To save time, commuter railroads such as Metrolink do not switch engines around when a commuter train reverses direction.
Smith said putting a passenger cab at the front makes a train more likely to derail instead of sweeping obstacles aside. Also, the force of a powerful engine in the back can cause a train to buckle violently in an accident, he said.
Flatau, the Federal Railroad Administration spokesman, said there is no evidence that a locomotive in the rear is more dangerous.
======================================
Train Wreck Highlights Vulnerabilities
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
.c The Associated Press
(truncated)
Wednesday's crash also highlighted the practice of using locomotives at the rear of the train, to push it instead of pull it. To save time, commuter railroads such as Metrolink do not switch engines around when a commuter train reverses direction.
Smith said putting a passenger cab at the front makes a train more likely to derail instead of sweeping obstacles aside. Also, the force of a powerful engine in the back can cause a train to buckle violently in an accident, he said.
Flatau, the Federal Railroad Administration spokesman, said there is no evidence that a locomotive in the rear is more dangerous.