Air Bag System to Reduce Railway Pedestrian Fatalities

Not in this world is that going to happen. I got a cheaper idea, stay he heck off the railroad.

Air bags are a stupid idea that was forced on the automotive industry by the government.

They are not used in race cars, they are not used in airplanes, and they should not be used in or on trains.

When it became obvious to the government that air bags were killing people in the front seat, their bureaucratic solution was to tell people to put their children and other short people in the back seat away from the airbags. If that is not possible, you can now apply for government permission to turn off the air bags.

Statistics claiming thousands of “saves” are meaningless. Every time a car is substantially damaged and nobody dies some well meaning person claims that the airbag saved them. It is usually not the case.

If airbags were saving thousands of lives a year as claimed, then the traffic fatality statistics would be continually dropping since airbags were mandated. They are not.

I investigated this accident. No one died and no one had any permanent injuries. I guarantee that if the car had been equipped with airbags, people would be claiming that the air bag had saved him.

Let’s put the expense and lunacy where it belongs and mandate that people who walk on the tracks must wear a full coverage air bag suit. After all, a big inflated suit would be much more effective as you go bouncing down the tracks than trying to put a big explosive pillow on the front of the train. Why should the railroad bear the expense instead of the track trespasser?

Let’s assume that a deployed bag (once we clear the issue of how, or by whom, it is deployed) will hold the non-victim-to-be securely. Has it also got a way of lifting the person away from the track structure? It wouldn’t be good to hold him with his legs dragging along the ties!

I keep thinking about the video I saw of the lady in Downers Grove (Fairview Avenue) getting smacked by the BN E unit. Everybody was crossing the track in front of that train, and she was the unfortunate one who got clipped. Just a glancing blow (another inch or three and she would have been clear) that literally exploded her in her dress and threw her off to the side toward the cameraman (now a reformed foamer). Would somebody have had time to deploy an airbag for a scenario like that? An airbag that would grab the victim of such a glancing blow would, if deployed, have hit, if not grabbed, a lot of non-victims as well.

If the deployment is automatic, triggered by an impact, the impact itself (as Pat points out) already would have killed the victim, before the bag had a chance to fully deploy.

Positive Train Control will, theoretically, have the capability of taking care of vehicles on the tracks at crossings, stopping the trains short. I think money (in the form of fines) and law enforcement is probably a better way to spend the money.

An airbag system would have to be installed on the front of every locomotive, or on both ends of locomotives that are likely to be used singly, in order for the system to be effective. It would have to be based somewhere in the same area as the couplers and m.u. hoses (anywhere else would be a safety hazard for crews as well). What would keep the bag on the rear unit from deploying as soon as the unit made contact with the cars of its train? If it came out at all beyond the clearance diagram of the engine, it would be a great risk to the employee making the joint. And said employee would have to clear away (repack?) the bag before he could do anything practical, su

I’ve heard a lot of dumb ideas in my time, but this one is WAY over the top.

You can’t idiot proof the world.

I had to go and check my calendar because I was certain April Fool’s Day had already passed.

Again…No problem with what you are saying about {some}, accidents. But you certainly must be in the minority of opinions and those with the facts that know…the bags do save lives. I’m sure both you and I…know nothing is perfect.

Race Cars without air bags…Ok, if all the cars had a roll cage structure…super belt structures…driver helmets…protective seats costing thousands of dollars…Fire supressing equipment…Thick styrofoam panels in side “door” panels…Window net on side window…and some other various items, for the driver’s safety, maybe…we could get away without safety air bags as we know them now in our above equipped passenger cars.

If we continue this conversation the connection to trains will be lost.

We will obviously never agree.

That won’t work since it only requires common sense. No way for a company like TRW to make a profit off of people’s common sense. Besides, I’m sure TRW is trying to line up federal funds to “study” this “problem” as we speak. Of course, all at the taxpayers expense.

.

Gentlemen: (at least I think I am a minority of one) fleeting thought: Do you suppose this is a very well-done hoax? Can anyone really verify that this is even being pushed around on a drawing board by credible people?

It sure sounds like it is being pushed by people who are serious about it. Or at least they are serious about spending other people’s money on it. Nothing shakes the public money tree like a call for more safety.

This airbag application calls for a permanently inflated airbag. With a vehicle, the just-in-time inflation is triggered by impact of the vehicle against some obstacle, and then the airbag inflates to protect the occupant from colliding with the vehicle interior. It has to be just-in-time inflation because there is no room for a permanently inflated airbag in the vehicle driver compartment.

With a train versus pedestrian contact, there is no easy way to trigger the just-in-time inflation, and there is no reason for that approach because there is plenty of room for a permanently inflated airbag ahead of the locomotive.

The proposal calling for a permanently inflated airbag says it will be fifteen feet long. As the airbag deflects upon collision with a pedestrian, it acts like a spring. That is, the resistance of the airbag deflection increases the further it is deflected or compressed. Duri

Could be a hoax. OTOH, it may be being pushed by someone who stands to gain monetarily. Wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened, would it?

"Nothing shakes the public money tree like a call for more safety. "

And, as long as the sheep are afraid to be accountable for their own actions it will continue.

Not every sheep dog is credible. Some are coyotes. Some sheep will be ‘suckered in’, and the coyotes will feast on their ignorance.

I think you may win a cigar. I read some of the links provided in the first post. It appears to be nothing more than an inventor with an idea, trying to find support and financial backing.

From one of the links:

.- The inventor envisions a very low cost per vehicle, but experts are skeptical. A Federal Railway Administration staffer guessed at an “acceptable budget” of $10,000 per locomotive for an air bag safety system.

“Guessed at an acceptable budget” doesn’t relly equate to anything meaningful.

  • For a 60 mph locomotive colliding with a 200 lb pedestrian, a calculation of a 7.5 foot air bag is given below by David Maymudes. This is a “promising” mathematical conclusion - the abstract collision physics are feasible. The question now becomes, is there a feasible, practical, low-cost design? Design issues include: a) preventing the air bag from hinging upwards, b) selecting an air bag design/fabric that won’t pop when pressed to the train tracks, c) meeting the requirements of commuter rail operators, d) preventing pedestrians from getting their ankles caught, e) how to fund, develop, and test a prototype, etc.

    “Promising mathematical equations”? That’s pretty much nothing-isn’t it?

  • Inventor: Peter D…

Yes, in looking at this more, I think Mookie is right. The material seems to try to create the illusion of there being a lot of public interest and government sponsorship underway. But I cannot come to any conclusions as to who might be seriously involved with this. I would not conclude that the FRA is testing such an airbag concept just because the linked documents make that claim. The original poster seems to be at least a participant in the pitch-making of the proposal described in the linked documents.

It would be nice if the original poster would come back and talk a little about the engineering and execution of this locomotive airbag.

Somewhere in the world April fools day isn’t in April.

Bucyrus,

I would think those who have a product to sell are the ones pushing this.

Sorry, but I’m always a bit skeptical of Greeks bearing gifts that are guaranteed to protect me.

Oh, BTW, Air bags in airplanes have become a reality. Not for airliners, but for light singles and twins a seatbelt manufacturer has developed them and won FAA approval. Proof being in the pudding, I’m waiting for a report on their effectiveness. I’ve been in aviation for over thirty years and still waiting for something to protect people from impact with a mountain.

Folks,

Easy on the conspiracy theories, please. :slight_smile:

My motivations are spelled out in the press coverage of the story (see the web page). Those motivations are virtuous. I do not stand to benefit financially from this effort.

Proposed is a $350,000 research study, submitted to the competitive TCRP federal program. The TCRP proposal, as given in the PDF found in the first message posted on this thread, require a cost-effectiveness analysis. One of my co-submitters is a very prominent fiscal conservative / small government fan / libertarian. But I believe he’s also guilty of caring about rail personnel who have to deal with PTSS.

TRW has not provided a letter of support for the submission, so it is hard to loop them into the conspiracy theory. TRW is so very big that it is hard for them to justify working on such a small side business. Also, US rail regulators are not known to embrace innovation, so it is expected that it will take years to obtain approvals for safety enhancements such as front-of-train airbags.

The web page given in the first message posting on this thread provides one possible implementation. The idea of the TCRP research proposal is to allow for rigorous analysis of the best design. Some of the designs suggested on this thread provide examples of implementations that would be dismissed as problematic.

A big airbag in front of every locomotive could ruin railfan pictures. To be cost-effective, the safety solution will be implemented in urban, not scenic, areas. For California railfans, I don’t envision the safety solution ruining photos at Donner, Feather River, Secret Town, or Tehachapi loop. I don’t foresee the safety system interacting with many deer.

FRA undertook a quick, low-cost test, probably equivalent to that of Smash Lab. They have not undertaken a big budget research program. To FRA’s credit, their input has added emphasis to the cost-effectiveness requirement in the research proposal. It was FRA who suggested that $10,000 per l