Emergency contact signs to go up near rails

Ken W2KB wrote:>>>That is an idea, but I doubt that the actual infrastructure is in place for that (like, I think they would have to run new wires all along the ROW).<<<

Highway emergency phones use radio or cellular, no need for wire. The problem is that phones are targets for vandals and false alarms. Not a real issue on a limiited access hignway where anyone stopping or on foot attracts police attention, but a grade crossing has lots of foot traffic so no one would notice, particularly at night.

Also, many cities have removed fire pullboxes because of the false alarm problem, since most bona fide alarms were called in from nearby buildings or cellular.

That is a good point about the wireless phones. However, ANY type of solution that either of us has mentioned will be subjected to false alarms.

Jondude11 wrote: driver incompitence will cause 99% of these accidents.

Absolutely. The key is better training of drivers and removal of obstacles.

I understand the Metrolink in Los Angeles is considering banning passenger seating in the first 10 rows of the first car when it's being used in push-pull service.

That gives the engineer a clearer escape route into the car, and reduces the chances of injury to the pax seated upfront.

Let's block people from MU's as well. Same weight and conditions, how about leaving first 10 rows on bus empty ?

The crush strenght of a locomotive or cab car is same.

The braking rate of a locomotive and cab car are same.

Railroads start to listen to experts that re-enact a crash with HO models ??

Well, what MetroLink is doing is caving to pressure. They are going to keep the first rows empty until the investigation is complete. These cars are the bi-level cars what have seats midlevel on either end (so to get to the top floor, you need to walk up to this platform, and then turn and walk up the rest of the way). It's pretty dumb if you ask me, especially since people died in every car of that horrible incident.

Dutch, now your telling me that if a 120Ton locomotive with 6 50ton cars behind it hits a wall going 35MPH is going to have the same crash impact as a cab car weighing 50tons with 5 50ton cars and a 120ton locomotive behind it? I have to say physics disagrees with you. Also the shape of the locomotive vs the cab car are quite different.

Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't use the cab cars, or not allow people to sit in those seats, just that there is a difference.

When a train hits a solid object like another train or viaduct, nothing matters what leads or what trails.

As far as braking is concerned, all rail vehicles have the same braking rate.

The Metro link incident was a combination of things with total sum resulting in casualties.

The fact that the train derailed was not an issue.

The fact that it derailed before a switch was an issue.

The fact that the train, after derailment went towards the siding was not an issue.

The fact that a UP work train was sitting there was an issue.

The fact that the rear of the train fouled another track is not much of an issue.

The fact that at that moment another train headed the other way was an issue.

As I said before, 300 cab cars in the USA alone make at least 3 trips in lead a day.

Each passes over 20 or so crossings on average. This happens daily, with no significant accidents.

Having a locomotive up front does not make it safer, since the Metro Link crash would have probably had a higher casualty rate from the fire from the fuel tank.

I have hit trucks and cars with cab cars with no damage or derailments.

Cab cars are here to stay and are used by thousands all over world.

But when public opinion is swayed by experts with HO trains in simulations the end is near, not for cab cars but passenger railroading in general.

I'd agree with roee that there's a lot of pressure on the LA board to do SOMETHING, and this is their first grasp. People were killed in cars one, two and four, I believe, so clearing part of one car wouldn't have made a difference there.

And, I agree with Dutch this is junk science. Cab cars are going to be with us for a long time. Making the design safer, making crossings safer, making motorists safer will all help protect lives. US rail crash impact requirements are already more stringent than those imposed on (often passenger only) European rail systems.

Making US standards even more crash resistant would prob save fewer lives than making grade crossings safer

Ok, first of all, I AM NOT arguing that cab cars should not be used.

To Dutch,

I agree that the braking is the same, no matter what the order of the consist is. However, do you know if the train in CA went into emergency either before or immediately after impact? If so, then I fully agree with your argument. However, if it was drawing power, both immediately before and in the few seconds after the impact, then I would imagine that the engine would cause a crunching effect, since it would still be pushing.

(Dutch Railnut's message was deleted for inappropriate content - personal attack)

Dutch, now your telling me that if a 120Ton locomotive with 6 50ton cars behind it hits a wall going 35MPH is going to have the same crash impact as a cab car weighing 50tons with 5 50ton cars and a 120ton locomotive behind it? I have to say physics disagrees with you. Also the shape of the locomotive vs the cab car are quite different.

yes, it will have the same impact. It's the mass of the train that counts, not the individual components. So whichever way, you've got an object with 370tons impacting a 2ton vehicle. And the apparent cause of the derailment is that the engine block got wedged under the cab car when the facing switch was encountered, and there is no doubt that the engine block would have derailed a locomotive had it been leading in the same case as well.

The only question in my mind regarding cab cars is the pilot and how it differs from locomotive pilots, and did this have any material impact on the behaviour of the jeep that was hit.

metrarider wrote: yes, it will have the same impact. It's the mass of the train that counts, not the individual components. So whichever way, you've got an object with 370tons impacting a 2ton vehicle.

Actually, your over simplfying it. The order does make a difference since you'll have a large mass in the rear of the train vs the front.

metrarider wrote: The only question in my mind regarding cab cars is the pilot and how it differs from locomotive pilots, and did this have any material impact on the behaviour of the jeep that was hit.

I just posted a few pictures on my webshots page of both MetroLink and SDNR equipment (LA and San Diego commuter rail). It'll take a bit for it to show up. The pilot is much bigger on a locomotive than the cab car.

http://community.webshots.com/album/93936949TbTObc/1

roee wrote: I just posted a few pictures on my webshots page of both MetroLink and SDNR equipment (LA and San Diego commuter rail). It'll take a bit for it to show up. The pilot is much bigger on a locomotive than the cab car.

A Metrolink F59PH
http://community.webshots.com/photo/939 ... 8649NtRXJb

A Metrolink Cab Car

http://community.webshots.com/photo/939 ... 8826RIVMTd

And there are a 4 shots of SDNR equipment which has better detail.

http://community.webshots.com/album/93936949TbTObc/1

Let me restate my argument. The order of the consist has no bearing on the overall force of the impact. THe entire train has a fixed mass, and F = Ma.

Where I do think that it matters, is the force allpied to each individual piece or rolling stock in the consist. My argument is that if the engine was drawing power after the impact, that would apply a force on the passenger cars from the rear, in addition to the force in front from the crash. It the engine was leading, no matter if it was drawing power of not, the cars are not going to apply any extra force from behind (except for the force of one car pressing against the one in front of it, but the force that just the cars apply to each other will be the same either way).

The engine was not drawing power cause engineer dumped the air some 1600 feet before the point of impact. once the air is dumped the PCS takes diesel to Idle and drops power contactors.

RedSoxSuck wrote:Let me restate my argument. The order of the consist has no bearing on the overall force of the impact. THe entire train has a fixed mass, and F = Ma.

Sorry to harp on this point, but if you consider the train as a single object, sure, then you can use F=MA. If you have 6 cars and a locomotive, you have a total of 7 different equations. The train does not all stop at the same rate, especially when the air is dumped. I agree with Dutch, the air was dumped. If they all stopped at the same rate, then there would be no slack action.

With this all said, so I think the fact that this was a pushed train instead of a pulled train made a huge difference, no. The real problem is this moron who put his car on the tracks, douced the car with gas, and wanted to see a big accident. So no amount of crossing saftey talks or what not is going to stop a crazy person from doing crazy things.

DutchRailnut wrote:The engine was not drawing power.....

In which case I agree, the overall forces were the same. The only difference I can think of is that possibly an engine could absorb more force than a car, and would have kept passengers further from the impact. However, this train would still have most likely derailed even if the engine was on the front, and not all of the casualties were in the first car. So, in this case, I fully agree that it didn't really matter.