A few comments from an engineer that operated cabcar equipped suburban trains for twenty years (and bear in mind that the specs on any new equipment may be different from what I ran on the CNW):
The pilot of a cabcar is designed completely different than that of a locomotive. The photo tree68 posted does not show enough detail, as the pilot is in shadow, but the configuration is such that a vehicle (or whatever) that is struck directly broadside can easily get jammed between the main deck and the pilot. When you hit a vehicle (as I have done many times) the first thing you look for is the struck object off to the side of the tracks. If you see it, you can breathe a little easier while the train is stopping, knowing that you will not derail. One time the vehicle my train struck DID get caught, and it was an anxious few seconds until the train finally stopped (from 70mph).
The pilot itself is much smaller than the pilot (plow) on freight locomotives. It is held in place by support posts from the car body. It is suffiecient to deflect rocks and refrigerators and other objects places on the tracks, but when a vehicle is involved, I would much prefer to have a locomotive-type plow. The problem is that the cabcars must also be designed so they can couple onto other coaches, even from the cab end. So a large, locomotive-style pilot is not really possible.
I never liked operating from a cabcar. You have absolutely no room to move. The cab itself is divided into two smaller ‘cabs’, maybe three feet wide on each side, and maybe five feet from front window to the back wall of the cab, and is seperated by the ‘hump’ of the center aisle below, which protrudes halfway up into the cab. On the CNW, the fireman (when they had them) or the conductor (when available) would sit on the other side. We could see each other, but could not cross to the other side, due to the amount of safety equipment bolted on the cab walls.
I’m in agreement with brother Hemphill’s writings on cab cars. There’s nothing inherintly dangerous about them. More modifications perhaps, but not an elimination of their use.
We’ve gone almost fifty years of use with them, and this happened to be a combination of all worst-case scenerios.
I remember an accident on The Milwaukee Road where a group of track cars was struck by a Chicago bound (2 cars) train with a cab car in the lead. No serious injuries. The fireman, upon seeing the impending accident, thru open his door and leaped into the lap of a passenger sitting in the “theater seats,” (transverse seats at the end of the second floor) causing a bloody nose and some embarrassment. I’ve hit autos while working cab cars. The difference between hitting something with an engine vs a cab car is that the engine has a nose which could reduce the injuries to enginemen.
The Jersey Central at one time had double ended Baldwin built engines for suburban service. The problem with using them in a heavy suburban service is that they defeat the economies of push pull. The power would have to be uncoupled, a switch engine attached to the equipment, and a number of moves made to change directions. While it maybe easy to do at an outlying station with a run-around tack, it would still be time consuming. If a train arrived several minutes late, on a quick turn, the procedure would further delay the service.
The F40s used as cab cars on Amtrak’s Michigan service only add protection by providing a nose. The Amfleet cab cars used previously didn’t have much of that going for them. There’s no prime mover in these engines so there’s not much additional weight.
Mark,
I was not necessarily condemming cabcars. In some respects they were preferable operating environments. Back in ‘my day’ before locomotive airconditioning, in summer I would look forward to the inbound trip for the cool comfort. Plus it is nice and quiet, with a smooth ride. And I mentioned the pilot only because another poster questioned it. And as far as “pertinent facts” goes, I’m just a dumb, old ex-engineer with only a highschool education and twenty years experience on the equipment.
That being said, however, when you are travelling 70+mph on a passenger train with up to 2000 souls on board, and you see a tractor-trailer stretched across the tracks stopped at a crossing, at some point before the impact you are going to wish you were in a locomotive instead of a cabcar full of people (including yourself).
Artmark,
I do somewhat disagree in your statement that the cabcar is not inherintly dangerous about the cabcar. Luckily there are not many incidents involving catastophitic collisions involving cabcars. Yes, they’ve been in use for over 50 years without many problems. Until the other day. It is likely that even if the train that struck the car was led by a locomotive, after hitting the switch the train would still have derailed, and crashed into the standing freight. But what WOULD have been (possibly) different is the effect the derailed train hitting the freight train would have had on the passengers and Engineer of the first train. The Engineer would have had somewhere to run (whether it would have helped is, of course, unknown), and the locomotive would have taken the brunt of the collision, instead of the coach.
The “cabbage” F40’s you mentioned are also in use on the Hiawatha trains between Chicago and Milwaukee. And while it is true that there is not that much additional weight in a ‘cabbage’ as opposed to a “cabcoach”, and even though you actually sit somewhat closer to the ground in a locomotive, the biggest advantage to the loc
I have to agree with Mark and Carl on that push or pull this may have still happened, and arguing whether one is safer than another is rather difficult because of the vast number of variables that are in play with any derailment. What if it had happened with freght train like in Graniteville? The Glendale area has a much higher population density, it could’ve been much worse if a similar event had happened in Glendale. Not that it makes it any easier for those who lost loved ones in this situation.
And on grade separation I reference a previous post of mine:
[quote]
QUOTE: I have to say that I agree that grade separations are the ideal solution as far as the railroads are concerned but understand that while cost would be a deterrent for commuter roads such as Metrolink and Metra there are a lot of other factors involved here. I’ll use Metra to illustrate.
One example is the fact tha Metra owns only an incredibly small percentage of the track on which they run. The vast majority of their system comes from trackage agreements with Class 1 railroads, primarily UP and BNSF. Metra couldn’t just decide to overhaul the track and start in on a grade separation project on their own. They would have to approach the RR which owns the track and convince them that it needs to be done. In fact, while not exactly a grade seeparation Metra has recently worked closely with UP to install rows of thorn bushes native to the area as a method to deter trespassers. It should be low cost to both companies to maintain and should help reduce the problem. If it works it is expected that both Metra and the Class 1’s will implement the idea throughout the Chicago network. Not that it would have helped in the Metrolink accident.
Another issue that the railroads face in recofiguring for grade separations is the multitude of cities, towns and villages that these types of projects would impact. I can speak from firsthand knowledge that many of the businesses on the UP-NW line rely on the fact that they
Message Preview
After looking at the news pictures of the Accident I note that the lead cabcar sustained massive damage well beyond the front trucks.
It is obvious that the Engineman and any passengers sitting in this area would have sustained mortal injuries.
The real issue here is weather an Engine or a cab control car with either an empty baggae zone or crush zone not filled with passengers would have lessened severe or mortal injury to the passengers.
If an engine had been in the lead, it would have probably derailed for the reasons that Mark has so clearly written, however I wonder how severely the second car behind an Engine of this hypothetical senerio would have sustained damage,
I realize that Push Pull operations have run successfully for many years as have RDC’s.
I note that RDC’s have stood up better than the Bombardier Cab Cars in accidents.
In RDC’s the Enginemans Cab is separated from the passenger compartment by a bulkhead which appears to be a safer arrangement…
I feel that there is room for much better saftey design in cab control cars.
I also concede that every accident is different and that this new accident involved a Jeep, a switch and two other trains.
…What am I missing…Didn’t it used to be against operations {regulations}, to push a passenger train…and wasn’t that the practice before that was a regulation…Simply pushing several passenger cars with the engineer in the pushing engine…?? And then when push / pull operation came along were regulations changed to permit that to happen…I can remember wondering how that was being done legally…
I realize passenger trains were pushed upgrade with an engine{s}, on front too such as up around Horseshoe, etc…but I’m speaking of the condition I mention above.
i hope the lawyer of this jerk does not read this board. he might be able to use the comments here as a part of his clients defense. you all know how lawyers are.
The engineer in PUSH mode is smack behind the front window in the lead car, just like he would be in a MU operation such as a subway. The reason for the regulation about not pushing occupied passenger cars (trains) is the ability of the engineer to be able to keep an adaquite lookout because the train would block his vision since he was in the rear piece of equipment. This is not the case in push/pull.
An interesting - to me - side point here is the construction of the cab cars for the Paris suburban MU double-decker trains. Almost all of the electrical equipment is in an “engine compartment” located over the lead truck of the lead car as opposed to the single deck cars where it is located under the floor between the trucks and passengers sit right behind the engineer. Lots of crumple zone in those double deckers.
I am very ambivilant about whether push/pull is a good thing. From the economic point, there is no comparison. It wins hands down. From the operations point of view also. When I lived in Germany some years ago, the DB solved the problem of engines trading ends of a train by either hostling a new motor right onto an arriving train and pulling away from the motor that had brought it in or by pulling a locomotive behind the train so that the train could operate pull/pull in a manner similar to push/pull. <
Push Pull trains are as safe as normal locomotive hauled i think. German Railroad operates bi-level commuter trains with 6 or seven cars that run with 160 kph, we have also some Intercity push pull trains, there max speed is 200 kph and the have 10 and more cars…
The ICE2 train has also a cab car on one side and can run 250 kph…
And we had not more accidents than with normal trains…
I don’t recal any regulations that prohibite the pushing of passenger trains. In fact at St Louis Union Station, arriving passenger trains were all shoved into the depot. The proceedure required the brakeman to operate a “tail hose” or “monkey tail” to acctuate the air brake functions. The conductor would also be present on the hind end to oversee this. There was a brake test proceedure as well. The brakeman would signal 3 on the air signal. Then another 3, andthe back up would commence. This was also done on some branch lines.
…Appreciate the comments of whether it was legal or not to push a passenger train…but I’m sure remembering something from some years back about the subject. I haven’t tried to hunt down any reg. on it yet but maybe I will see what I can find.
Yes, I understand in push / pull the operator is right at the front window and very vulnerable when exposed to an impending head on crash…And in my opinion has a much better chance if in an engine with a “nose” protuding, etc…
An experiment
If you have a model railroad. First pull a string of cars from the head end and see how easy they follow.
Then pu***he same cars from the rear. end…
You may find that pushing is like trying to shove a piece of string forward. The forces are very different, In pushing, each car wants to go in the opposite direction.
The potential for derailing is much greater in push mode than in pull mode.
News fla***o model railroader observation: (1) The real world is not that flat, (2) the loading & distribution (and thus the physics) are different and (3) the real world is not in a controlled environment. All of these absolute answers on the push-pull question do not quite reflect reality. Let the experts (FRA/ NTSB rank & file…not the appointed political heads) look at it in real world perspective.[:(][:(][:(]
This thread reminded me about the suicide wreck in the UK several months ago where the car (a Land Rover I think- about the size of the Jeep) was pushed down the track a short distance jamming into a set of points (as they call turnouts over there) and derailed the lead locomotive, a 125 diesel unit if I recall. Same result as LA, but with a loco in the lead…
I was just talking to a friend about this half an hour ago. The cab cars are far too light, and they should be ballasted with a few tons of metal, which is a lot more efficient than having a loco on both ends, or turning it at terminals.
My condolances to the families and friends of the people who were killed in this terrible crash[:(]
What idiot decided to walk, instead of driving away.[banghead][banghead][banghead][V]
