Railrunnin posted:

Just outside of Reno. 

Interesting in the pictures the damage down the right side of the lead unit. Truck must have been hit then spun back into the engine. (or perhaps flying debris?)

Thankfully the engineer is ok .

https://thisisreno.com/2020/02/photos-amtrak-train-collides-with-cement-truck/

Happened 4 days ago. The truck, technically a "concrete mixer truck", was empty. Since "Cement" is actually the heavy power, and is transported dry in covered hoppers or covered air-slide trucks, the "redi-mix" trucks are used to carry the mixture of Cement, sand, gravel, lime, and water. They were extremely lucky that the truck was empty. 

RJR posted:

Haven't seen that model loco on Amtrak long distance trains before. 

They were testing, gathering data for the new alc42s Siemens is gonna make to replace the p42s

This is exactly why the head end crews say they don’t like em. Smashed windshield, glass and debri inside the cab. Crews are vulnerable in the Charger Units.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtOvUx0VD30

Here is a YT video that tells the story.

At approximately 10am on the morning of February 20th, 2020 Amtrak’s California Zephyr #5 struck a cement truck 20 miles east of Reno, NV. The train was carrying just under 80 passengers and though no major injuries occurred, two Amtrak crew members were transported to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries.

At the time of the accident the California Zephyr was being pulled by three locomotives- two Siemens SC44 Chargers and one GE P42DC. The lead locomotive, Charger #4628 suffered serious windshield and front-end damage. To allow freight traffic to continue running, the Amtrak train was backed off the mainline onto a siding near the accident scene. Approximately three hours after the accident occurred two Union Pacific helper locomotives arrived from the Union Pacific yard located in Sparks, NV. While one locomotive returned to the yard, the other was coupled to the Amtrak train and pulled it the rest of the way to Reno.

After a crew change at Reno station the train continued over the Sierra Nevada mountains towards its final destination of Emeryville, CA.

Gary

Hawkshaw posted:

This is exactly why the head end crews say they don’t like em. Smashed windshield, glass and debri inside the cab. Crews are vulnerable in the Charger Units.

There's a lot of other reasons they don't like them as well.

Had an Amtrak engineer run on my layout last fall and he told me all kinds of things they didn't like about them.

If you can photos, just look at the control units they use on the other end of Talgo trains. Those cabs are freakishly close to the rails. Even hitting a car could bounce it right through the cab, something that never would have happened on the 59s or the 42as...

Here. you can clearly see the difference with one and a "cabbage" old 40...

Hawkshaw posted:

This is exactly why the head end crews say they don’t like em. Smashed windshield, glass and debri inside the cab. Crews are vulnerable in the Charger Units.

Makes sense.  It seems we had more sense when loco design placed the crew in the center of the locomotive.    That was done, in some cases precisely because of accidents such as this one.

Dan Padova posted:

Makes sense.  It seems we had more sense when loco design placed the crew in the center of the locomotive.    That was done, in some cases precisely because of accidents such as this one.

Case in point, the PRR P5a:

By Pennsylvania Railroad - Alvin F. Staufer: Pennsy Power. Steam and electric locomotives of the Pennsylvania Railroad, 1900–1957. Published 1962. Page 269. This book was not copyright renewed and thus fell into the public domain., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/...x.php?curid=65454818

Mitch 

It's crackers to give a rozzer the dropsy in snide!

 

Remember, SCROUNGE!

There's a flip side.  When the cab is in the middle, the engineer can't see much to the left of straight ahead.

RJR posted:

There's a flip side.  When the cab is in the middle, the engineer can't see much to the left of straight ahead.

Yes, but back in those days there was a Fireman on the left side.

HW, that was then. 

But even then, in a camelback who rode in the left cab?  Who watched when the fireman was shoveling coal?  For that matter, how good is the visibility for an engineer of the area near the left front of a loco?  (not cross-examining you, HW, just musings)

OK, a school bus driver can't see the front right corner either

Last edited by RJR

Yesterday in my little burb we were all over the Chicago news stations.

AR-200229507

Driver was cited for going around the crossing gates... Pure idiots...

Jeff T - LCCA

North Central O Gaugers

 

Attachments

Images (1)

The Genesis P40's and P42's were designed for a continuous one million pound buff load, and I believe that "traditional" passenger cars were designed for 800k as well.  THE major issue with all of this European equipment is that, in order to be lighter and more energy efficient, it is designed for buff loads around 650k or less (from my memory).  The concern that GE had with the Genesis cab and carbody strength was that these locomotives would be operating on freight railroads.  Freight engines, all of which have been tested extensively for crew protection in the event of a collision, WILL handle a 1M lb buff load without significant deformation.  In order to certify the Genesis monocoque design at 1M lb, one of the first ten carbodies which came from Krupp in Germany were actually lab tested to a one million lb buff load, and it passed.

There have been several unplanned "tests" of the Genesis.  I recall one where a Metro-North Genesis Dual-Mode with a train hit a flatbed truck carrying large hay bales, at 97 mph.  (A crew of two women were in the truck.)  The engine hit the truck so hard it split the trailer in two, and one of the large hay bales rolled and partially demolished a nearby house.  The Genesis and train stayed on the rails, and the crew was checked for injuries.  The engineer had a bruise on his arm.....

GE also has done extensive work to prevent entrance of flammable liquids into the cab in the event of a collision with a tanker truck at a grade crossing.  This has resulted in the use of double doors at the nose entrance on GE AC4400's, etc, more strength around the window areas so a windshield does not blow in, and no access to the number board lights from inside the cab, in addition to other things, such as smaller side windows to keep the crew safe inside, and other things "outside".  I believe that the FRA has now mandated a lot of this, but GE took the lead before it was required.  In another accident, a GE P32 "pepsi can" hit a tanker at a CA grade crossing, and the crew pulled the entire train through several thousand gallons of flaming gasoline to safety.

It pays to "do your homework".....

Jeff T's picture is interesting.  Figure that the engineer's face is about 2-3' back from the window.  His/her field of vision is very narrow, in both horizontal and vertical planes.

Hudson5432 posted:

GE also has done extensive work to prevent entrance of flammable liquids into the cab in the event of a collision with a tanker truck at a grade crossing.  This has resulted in the use of double doors at the nose entrance on GE AC4400's, etc, more strength around the window areas so a windshield does not blow in, and no access to the number board lights from inside the cab, in addition to other things, such as smaller side windows to keep the crew safe inside, and other things "outside".  I believe that the FRA has now mandated a lot of this, but GE took the lead before it was required.  In another accident, a GE P32 "pepsi can" hit a tanker at a CA grade crossing, and the crew pulled the entire train through several thousand gallons of flaming gasoline to safety.

It pays to "do your homework".....

It does, indeed, and I give high praise to GE, because they have consistently improved their locomotives in numerous ways, including cab safety.  I would give some of the credit to maintenance contracts.  When GE began marketing locomotives with a maintenance contract, and thus supervising the running and classified repairs of its own products, the fussy protective devices soon vanished, and the performance and ergonometric considerations for those who maintain them, as well as those who operate them, improved greatly.  GE supervisors in the repair shops apparently had credibility with the engineering group, and their input certainly had a lot to do with the improvements which have come in the last 35 years.

And the P32 making it through the flames after striking a gasoline tanker is the best testimony possible.  Hitting a fuel truck on aa crossing was previously the Engineer's worst nightmare.

Tom

 

Superintendent, High Plains Division (O Gauge) 

The Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Lone Star Hi-Railers

Last edited by Number 90

The cab on the new locomotive looks like an S70 cab on droids.  Only thing.  The S70 is a light rail car.

The TEXAS SPECIAL:  The REAL RED streak of the golden prairies!

RJR posted:

There's a flip side.  When the cab is in the middle, the engineer can't see much to the left of straight ahead.

I have often wondered about visibility in center cab locomotives.  So, depending on the design of the carboy, I would presume the engineer could have a field of view from let's say about twenty feet in front of the loco to infinity.  That would be in the case of locos like a GG1 or P5 modified.  A Bi-Polar seems like the closest the engineer would be able to see something on the track would be much further than twenty feet.  

But what about steam locomotives.  From the small front window in the cab the engineer must look at the side of the boiler, which unlike the GG1 does not taper.  

So how much did the engineer rely on sight and how much on signals ?

Dan Padova posted:
RJR posted:

There's a flip side.  When the cab is in the middle, the engineer can't see much to the left of straight ahead.

I have often wondered about visibility in center cab locomotives.  So, depending on the design of the carboy, I would presume the engineer could have a field of view from let's say about twenty feet in front of the loco to infinity.  That would be in the case of locos like a GG1 or P5 modified.  A Bi-Polar seems like the closest the engineer would be able to see something on the track would be much further than twenty feet.  

But what about steam locomotives.  From the small front window in the cab the engineer must look at the side of the boiler, which unlike the GG1 does not taper.  

So how much did the engineer rely on sight and how much on signals ?

Unless there were/are cab signals, the Engineer and Fireman both rely on "sight", plus their familiarity with their territory. What everyone seems to lose sight of is, the engine crew does have great visibility, but anything within about 20 feet of the front pilot, is going to get run over anyway. 

 

"Well said", Hot.  Actually, something can be at quite a greater distance and it will still get run over, depending on the speed, of course!

Number 90,

During my time there, ALL proposed design changes were reviewed for both safety and maintainability by the Service group, and we ALWAYS kept them in the loop so that there were NO surprises.  The service people routinely visited Erie and sat with us in all of those meetings, and they had excellent credibility.  At times, "over a few beers", things sometimes got interesting though....

 I do recall a few screw ups.  One set of demonstrators could not be sanded from the end platform on the #2 end of the loco, but could be sanded from an overhead sanding tower.  We had to scramble to get that fixed so the #2 end sand fills would permit sanding using either method. I also recall that Drafting had to relocate the engine hatch covers on the Dash 7 to permit a single cylinder replacement "without taking everything apart".  The main person who managed this was Dave I. Smith.  The Field Service Group all reported to him.  "DI" was an absolute genius, with both BSME AND an BSEE degrees, who cut his teeth on UP GTEL gas turbines at the beginning of his career.  Boy, did he have stories to tell...!

Then there is the story of a passenger car having members of the Al Capone gang, tipping over onto a fully loaded cement truck. So 12 hardened criminals were chiseled out...lol

C-57D  Pilot

Hudson5432 posted:

Number 90,

During my time there, ALL proposed design changes were reviewed for both safety and maintainability by the Service group, and we ALWAYS kept them in the loop so that there were NO surprises.  The service people routinely visited Erie and sat with us in all of those meetings, and they had excellent credibility.  At times, "over a few beers", things sometimes got interesting though....

 I do recall a few screw ups.  One set of demonstrators could not be sanded from the end platform on the #2 end of the loco, but could be sanded from an overhead sanding tower.  We had to scramble to get that fixed so the #2 end sand fills would permit sanding using either method. I also recall that Drafting had to relocate the engine hatch covers on the Dash 7 to permit a single cylinder replacement "without taking everything apart".  The main person who managed this was Dave I. Smith.  The Field Service Group all reported to him.  "DI" was an absolute genius, with both BSME AND an BSEE degrees, who cut his teeth on UP GTEL gas turbines at the beginning of his career.  Boy, did he have stories to tell...!

As one who had to work on and move around on GE locomotives, I have an entirely different opinion!

Add Reply

Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×