Weight is not the point, squeeze strength is. The FRA built a rig to measure upper chord squeeze strength as well as under frame. Let’s see where that goes. Some intentions there?
The approach used these days is crash energy management.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/47000/47400/47424/rail_cw_2005_04.pdf
All well and good ( I was in the audience when they presented it, David is a friend) but FRA has not really adopted this thinking. Had a look at the upcoming NPRM (probably will be next year before it comes out, one of 2 coming soon). Defines Tier III equipment. Can have passengers in the end cars BUT they are limited to 125 on a mixed use railway, 220 if on exclusive ROW without grade crossings. The rule still retains the 800,000 lb. squeeze test with no deformation or 1,000,000 with 1" deformation so your new thinking not being incorporated. It does appear that FRA will accept computer models rather that actual tests to certify Tier 1 trains rather than physical tests. But as I read it the 800,000 lb. requirement remains.
No substantial changes to Tier II equipment (165 still the limit)
Amtrak needs New Superliners order too, not just NEC stuff.[2c]
Does it make any sense to apply this to the portion of the car that qualifies as the ‘strong occupant compartment’ – in other words decrement the amount of crash energy by that ‘attenuated’ by the CEM, starting with the squeeze-test 800K as the force at the beginning of the attenuation, until you get to the face of the SOC? That would give the equivalent ‘safety’ as a car with no CEM, as far as the seated passengers are concerned.
I have a methodological question. My understanding is that “kips” is used in engineering as a measure of pound-force, but the report schlimm quoted uses it in the context of pound-mass. I don’t think you ought to mistake one for the other as there are significant formulaic differences based on speed – and that might be overlooked if you ease the term into a discussion quietly enough. Since all the mass or force measurements in the rest of the paper appear to be expressed in scientific notation, I assume there is either a convention or practice involved in using “Kips” in this context; can someone who knows explain it?
(I hope Euclid has read this paper, and is applying some of the approaches, structural systems, and numbers described in it to the structure of his HHFT tank cars.)
The Cynicism in this thread is contagious…
I find myself wondering if the Senator would maintain his enthusiasm if Alstom were to lose the contract to a Manufacturer with no facilities in New York State…
There were Fed requirments back then. Squeeze’em with a simulated full load plus design requirements like collision posts in the ends. The Budd test facility in Hunting Park PA had all the right stuff to do this testing - plus more.