Join the discussion on the following article:
Metrolink adding locomotives as cab cars scrutinized
I believe Tri-Rail uses similar rolling stock here in South Florida. Adding additional locomotives is going in the wrong direction, so I hope H-R can find a fix for the design itself that can be retroactively added to existing stock.
BS, they bought them because they were cheaper not safer.
The MBTA just took delivery of about 40 HR double deck cab cars, with lots of teething pains. I can only presume, or hope, that the snowplow-like attachment is stronger than the ones in LA and FLA, as it would be used as a real snowplow.
Mr. Reid, Metrolink didn’t need new cab cars. It bought these because the previous ones were perceived as unsafe after one of the wrecks in the 2000s. The cheap thing to do would have been nothing.
In my look at the photo, if there is a “snowplow” attachment on this cab car it appears to be totally inadequate to keeping wreckage from under the car.
What is not mentioned is how the patents from The Budd Company (Philadelphia) and Bombardier have been ruthlessly re-engineered by rail builders in Japan and Korea. Without Federal protection, Budd was forced out of business; will Canada do better for Bombardier? Currently, the construction of inter-city passenger cars at Nippon Sharyo’s plant in Illinois are very delayed, and now do not meet safety crash requirements, as it is their initial venture beyond commuter bi-levels, which were quite obviously re-engineered from Budd’s patents.
Their appears to be a trend here, as the wreck several years of high-speed trains in China was a direct result of China’s re-engineering the signal system by Siemens. Now, as a consequence of all their re-engineering, we are witnessing China stepping up into the world market of high-speed rail, competing head-on with Japan. Given that scenario, one can only imagine what will happen to the long proven, but more expensive high-speed rail systems produced by France, Germany, and Canada.
To what extent do we even remember that the bi-level commuter car was an American design, produced for decades by Pullman, Budd, and St. Louis Car Company? The concept of push-pull was successfully devised by the former Chicago & North Western Railway using those American-built cars. A review of history will evidence no wrecks attributable to the design or construction of those cab cars built by those American firms. However, the concern over possible design flaws now is the end result of our inability at the Federal level to protect those patents.
There was definitely something seriously amiss when hitting a Ford F-450 (certainly bigger and heavier than a pickup) and trailer caused a derailment and caused the death of the engineer. Had there been a locomotive on the head of that train, it would have knocked the truck and trailer out of the way, and stayed on the track. The loco might have suffered some damage, but probably not enough to take it out of service. This is a really simple matter: if we are going to have push-pull on all these commuter lines, and on many of the Amtrak trains, those cab cars have to do a better job. Either that, or they put an engine on both ends of consists, and pull all the time.
They are finally getting smart
Bilevels were in use in France and other European countries as early as 1880. Bilevel coaches are not an American invention.
I am surprised at the level of problems with push pull bilevel cab cars elsewhere in the US. As Singer from Illinois noted in his comment, the Metra bilevel cab cars hold up really well in grade crossing accidents. Whatever Budd and Pullman did when they originally designed these cars in the 1950s, should be looked at and mandated for the newer designs. We simply don’t have these problems here even though we have lots of grade crossings and collisions.