http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/fra-committee-oks-hsr-crashworthiness-standards.html
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04638
I’m not sure whether the new standards apply to only to hsr or to all forms of passenger rail. If such standards were implemented it would represent a form of partial deregulation.
It would apply to HSR trainsets and allow them to be operated in a mixed environment with existing passenger and freight equipment. It should allow much closer to off-the-shelf designs to be used, which should reduce costs. It seems it will only apply to the NEC and California, but any other >125 mph line that may be built would likely be eligible.
It should lower the cost of building HSR lines since the existing “first and last” miles in urban areas can be used avoiding expensive land acquisition and/or expensive new urban construction.
It’s not really deregulation. It actually adds a new regulation specific for HSR train sets.
I have to ask the rhetorical question of why do we spend so much money and attention to absorbing and withstanding wrecks and collisions and not to avoid such mishaps? PTC works to avoid accidents, as do other products and programs, yet we rail against such programs and insist on heavier and slower rail service and wonder and ask why other countries are ahead of us. Don’t get me wrong, being buffered and protected in an accident is important…but wouldn’t it be cheaper and less disruptive to have avoided the accident in the first place?
Yes, it would. Except for all those things that have nothing to do with trains on tracks not hitting other trains on tracks. Latest example - Metro North incident about a month ago.
On the contrary…if those who worked the track followed through with their conclusions the track would either have been out of service or a speed restriction would have been in place. The technology did its job but man didn’t do his. And that’s my point.
IF - If’s and but’s were honey and nuts, what a wonderful world it would be.
BUT - reality always intrudes. Things don’t always occur the way SOME think they should. As long as we are human, when it comes to making decisions on situations, there will be differences of opinion on which is the correct decision; that will only change when humans no longer are permitted to make decisions.
I wonder, with the Metro-North incident, how much worse would the carnage have been had the cars been constructed to a ‘lightweight more European’ construction standard.
Murphy owns transportation and railroads in particular. If it can happen - it will! If it can’t happen - it still will! If there is no possible or impossible way for it to happen - it still will!
In a similar vein, the gallery coaches owned and operated by CB&Q/BN/BNSF were always heavier than the gallery cars on other Chicago railroads. CB&Q had apparently suffered through some nasty rear-end collisions in the immediate post-war period and required heavier underframes and buff strength than the other roads.
The collision of the Exposition Flyer into the train ahead (a Zephyr) was the big problem. It was too close behind, riding signals.
Re BALTACD. To quote Murphy. Not only will it happen it will happen in the worst possible way. The worst possible way. Not only on a busy piece of railroad but one near a work site that reduced the available tracks on a passenger railroad just as another train was traveling in the opposite direction during rush hour. Rgds IGN
This is actually one of the best pieces of news to come out of the FRA in a long time. I recall about a decade ago when I was up for nomination to NARP’s Board of Directors and I got into a heated discussion with an FRA official about this subject (under a previous admin or two). The FRA’s position back then was that there was nothing they needed to do. Arghh. I decided to drop out because dealing with such nonsense was just a waste of time. Maybe I wasn’t patient enough as obviously other people did eventually persuade the FRA that maybe the other countries know what they are doing.
Fortunately the scientists helped. The new FRA admin bothered to actually video crash tests with instrumented dummies just like the auto companies do (they’re available on youtube by the way). The results showed that the stiff old FRA standards were more fatal than the softer crash absorbing structures of foreign trainsets.
Just as Volvo, Saab, and Honda showed us how to make crash worthy cars (and today GM, Ford and Chrysler adopted), Alstom, Siemens, and Hitachi are showing us how to make safer trains. It’s about time!
Some folks around here would probably prefer the old Pullman heavyweights since their freight trains seem to be collision-prone.
Too much deadweight per passenger is http://cars.lovetoknow.com/List_of_Car_Weights
the problem. The average weight of a compact auto is 2,900 lbs and SUVs Weigh in at 5,000 lbs.
The weight of a Superliner car is 150,000 lbs about the same as a loaded 60ft Boxcar
I just remember seeing the particalized remains of the German ICE that had it’s composite wheel disintegrate, derailing the train into a bridge and it’s abutment.
You love bringing up that example of the first German HSR with a faulty wheel design. You have several times. The Eschede derailment was terrible, killing 101 people.
But in the spirit of other forum members’ contentions about PTC and railroad collisions being such rare events, the following come to mind. Since Eschede in 1998 only a collision of two trains on track not equipped with PZB since then has had deaths (10). I’d also point out that DB runs 25,295 passenger and 5,034 freight trains a day, more than the US does on fewer miles of track, carrying 5.4 million passengers per day; freight 398.7 million tons per year. The French have had three derailments of TGVs with no deaths since initiating service in 1988 on TGV track, and one death on older, shared lines.
Automobile safety regulations require seat belts, air bags, and energy-absorbing “crumple” zones, none of which necessarily contribute a lot of mass. Is there a reason that similar measures wouldn’t be helpful in rail passenger coaches? While there are conceivable situations in which nothing but strong massive structures will protect passengers completely, might cost/benefit analysis favor alternatives to the massive approach?