 |
Re: FRA may allow Euro trainsets in 2015
Author: SP5103
Date: 11-01-2013 - 08:32
There are some basic conflicting issues and laws of physics that are being overlooked.
There are two basic "trains of thought" when it comes to accidents - the first is that the equipment involved has to offer its occupants survivability. This typically means stronger and resulting heavier designs, which in turn means that a greater mass is now involved, and the energy of that additional mass must be dissipated in an accident. And as already noted, extra power be expended must be used to accelerate and decelerate that increased mass.
The second theory is that to concentrate on eliminating or reducing the cause of the accident itself - if the accident doesn't occur in the first place, then survivability becomes a moot point.
The typical European rail operation has a far greater percentage of passenger trains, higher standards of track construction and maintenance, equipment is lighter, and freights are much shorter and far less tonnage. Europe has concentrated on accident prevention instead of survivability because they do not have the energy reserves or loading gauge available to expend on heavier equipment that might offer a greater chance of survivability. How heavy would their high speed rail vehicles have to be to make a high speed derailment or collision "survivable".
What is needed is a balance between expenditures on survivability and prevention. This shows in the airline industry - there has been an effort to create survivability by use of emergency exits and procedures, flame resistant cabin materials and secured seats. But in reality, none of those efforts will do anything if there is a substantial mechanical or structural failure in flight, a mid-air collision or high speed impact with the ground (@$*%#$@* gravity!). In North America, there is a huge disparity in mass on our roads and railroads. We can't expect the vehicles to provide a survivable space in a high speed collision between a fuel efficient compact car and an SUV or between any car and a fully loaded semi truck, any more than a passenger train (or worse a LRV) in a collision with a 15,000 ton freight train. The laws of physics are simple - the lighter mass will lose.
Why is everyone now enamored with the idea that the addition of all these electronic widgets will end all accidents? Electronics fail all the time, and worse yet modern operating systems and software are so complicated that inevitable errors happen, and the true source of those errors can rarely be corrected so additional (and confusing) code is added in an attempt to compensate.
What is overlooked is that not that many years ago a train would have several crew members, not just an engineer and a conductor. The cab crew would have an engineer and a fireman, and the fireman would have several years experience before they were promoted to engineer. Same with a conductor who would have several years experience before being promoted to conductor. Under today's typical scenarios, there often is not a second person in the cab of a high speed passenger train. On most freight railroads, the union agreements require all conductors to be forced to engine service. The two resulting issues are that some excellent conductors are forced to become poor engineers; and as the pre-1985 conductors retire there will be fewer experienced and competent conductors. And who will be training the new hires? It could very well be the "qualified" engineer and conductor that each have less than a year in that position. Not to mention that the few supervisors are either of questionable competency themselves or busy hiding in the bushes to meet FRA and company mandates rather than mentoring their crews.
Ranting suspended - for now. A balanced and realistic approach is needed.
There are two basic "trains of thought" when it comes to accidents - the first is that the equipment involved has to offer its occupants survivability. This typically means stronger and resulting heavier designs, which in turn means that a greater mass is now involved, and the energy of that additional mass must be dissipated in an accident. And as already noted, extra power be expended must be used to accelerate and decelerate that increased mass.
The second theory is that to concentrate on eliminating or reducing the cause of the accident itself - if the accident doesn't occur in the first place, then survivability becomes a moot point.
The typical European rail operation has a far greater percentage of passenger trains, higher standards of track construction and maintenance, equipment is lighter, and freights are much shorter and far less tonnage. Europe has concentrated on accident prevention instead of survivability because they do not have the energy reserves or loading gauge available to expend on heavier equipment that might offer a greater chance of survivability. How heavy would their high speed rail vehicles have to be to make a high speed derailment or collision "survivable".
What is needed is a balance between expenditures on survivability and prevention. This shows in the airline industry - there has been an effort to create survivability by use of emergency exits and procedures, flame resistant cabin materials and secured seats. But in reality, none of those efforts will do anything if there is a substantial mechanical or structural failure in flight, a mid-air collision or high speed impact with the ground (@$*%#$@* gravity!). In North America, there is a huge disparity in mass on our roads and railroads. We can't expect the vehicles to provide a survivable space in a high speed collision between a fuel efficient compact car and an SUV or between any car and a fully loaded semi truck, any more than a passenger train (or worse a LRV) in a collision with a 15,000 ton freight train. The laws of physics are simple - the lighter mass will lose.
Why is everyone now enamored with the idea that the addition of all these electronic widgets will end all accidents? Electronics fail all the time, and worse yet modern operating systems and software are so complicated that inevitable errors happen, and the true source of those errors can rarely be corrected so additional (and confusing) code is added in an attempt to compensate.
What is overlooked is that not that many years ago a train would have several crew members, not just an engineer and a conductor. The cab crew would have an engineer and a fireman, and the fireman would have several years experience before they were promoted to engineer. Same with a conductor who would have several years experience before being promoted to conductor. Under today's typical scenarios, there often is not a second person in the cab of a high speed passenger train. On most freight railroads, the union agreements require all conductors to be forced to engine service. The two resulting issues are that some excellent conductors are forced to become poor engineers; and as the pre-1985 conductors retire there will be fewer experienced and competent conductors. And who will be training the new hires? It could very well be the "qualified" engineer and conductor that each have less than a year in that position. Not to mention that the few supervisors are either of questionable competency themselves or busy hiding in the bushes to meet FRA and company mandates rather than mentoring their crews.
Ranting suspended - for now. A balanced and realistic approach is needed.
