Safety of cabcars

A few nights ago Primetime on ABC, aired a segment on how cabcars are not safe, ( they refered to them as "coffin cars") since there is no locomotive leading the trainset and since a headon collision in a cabcar could prove fatal. The program only talked about cabcars on the MetroLink system in California. However, Since Metro-North also uses cabcars and MU's, I was just wondering what were some general thoughts on the subject of Cabcar safety.

Here are mine: I think that cabcars are safe enough when involved in a colision with a motor vehicle. However all the instances mentioned in the program were of headon collisions with other trains. There is no safe place to be when two trains collide. Plus, the problem in these types of collisions IS NOT the cabcar, IT IS: either driver error, signal systems, or train braking, so cabcars should not be labeled as death traps. There is no way to build a senseable passenger car that can withstand a headon collision with another train.

Happy to hear other thoughts

There have been two high-profile fatal incidents involving cab cars in crashes between two trains, both 9 days apart in February 1996.

In Secaucus, NJ a NJT Bergen County train (#1254) head-on in "push" mode with a Comet II cab (5146) in lead with a Main Line train being pulled by a GP40PH-2 (4148, now 4219). An engineer along with a passenger in the cab car were killed, as well as the the engineer in the GP40PH.

The second crash was in Silver Spring, MD and involved a MARC commuter train colliding head on with the Capitol Limited. The front cab car of the MARC train was entirely engulef in flames, killing 3 crew members and 8 passengers inside.

If cab cars are dangerous then so are MU's - DMU's - Buses - Cars etc.
With Metro liner crash to many things besides the cab car went wrong.
I don't hestate for one minute runnibg the cab cars, the frame and collision post are same strenght as a locomotive frame and collision post.

The thing about the MU's... when NYC originally electrified, third rail territory had no grade crossings. Only when the third rail was extended to Brewster did the MU's first have to deal with grade crossings and possible automobile collisions.

-otto-

It still had to comply with FRA rules including frame strenght of those days. The MU's do comply with the frame strenght(crush strenght) of the day they were manufactured.
Crossings had nothing to do with it.

Sure, I know what you mean Dutch... I was just thinking the risk of a grade crossing collision was not even a factor until the first electric train went north of Virginia Road!

-otto-

Maybe on Metro-North (former New York Central) the MU's did not contend
with grade crossings until the third rail went to Brewster but how about on
the New Haven with the Danbury and New Canaan Branches?, How about
on the Long Island with crossings all over the place in the electrified areas
as well as the former D. L. & W., PRR, and other places where MU's were
regularly operated over grade crossings?
Noel Weaver

DL&W / EL etc had a few MU crashes into cars and trucks over the past 75 years. Mostly on the single track, rural Gladstone branch. The MUs provided significant protection to the crews. A decade ago, one train hit a garbage truck which drove past the lights east of Murray Hill station. That's a low speed area, so the MU was prob doing 20 mph.

The Montclair electric line did not have public grade crossings until recently, and the Morristown line had 28 miles of no public grade crossings until the (attended) Kahn Road crossing opened.

Keep in mind that the MUs that both the NYC and New Haven RR used were considserably heavier than current Bombardier cab cars and certainly provided a bit more protection even before the FRA required it.

The current cab cars do have rather large crash posts on both sides of the front door and as has already been mentioned they meet all current FRA requirements. Also keep in mind that "Prime Time" listed only about 7 incidents where having a cab car in the that lead to death or injury versus the tens of thousands of trips made without incident. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightening than by even being injured in a cab car.

<i>Keep in mind that the MUs that both the NYC and New Haven RR used were considserably heavier than current Bombardier cab cars and certainly provided a bit more protection even before the FRA required it. </i>

Don't bet on it. At 30mph, a Washboard hitting another would basically get the front 1/2 of the car obliterated. They weren't much better than the MP-54s the PRR and LIRR had, and those cars were basically deathtraps - they'd get demolished in even low speed accidents. Prior to the 1950 wrecks (both were low speed by nature, the LIRR's '54s couldn't get much above 55-60 and couldn't get there fast in any case), one got obliterated by bumping a DD-1 at 15mph, another got demolished by hitting another '54 at low speed, and a few others were pretty wrecked in low speed colisions, too.

If anything, the current BBD cars are safer because of the superior strength of stainless plus the fact it doesn't degrade like carbon steel does. All those rust spots and holes cut your strength, not to mention fatigue, etc. That's why stainless was such a breakthrough - it was lighter yet a LOT stronger. Coupled with considerably less energy available in the first place, you got a safer car, period.

The FRA doesn't require weight, they require buff strength. And most cars built after 1930 or so were 800,000lbs either by design or as a side effect of the design.

MUs are treated as locomotives today and were for decades, and held to the same standards. Grade crossings weren't a factor at all.

Buff strenght has nothing to do with crash protection, its standard of all rail cars to were frame won't deform in buff forces within the train.

yes the old MU's were heavier but frame strenght and collision post were not even close to todays standards.

The Bombardier cars are made from carbon steel with alluminium from floor up, no stainless steel other than the M seriers MU cars.

I am sorry to say I am citing a report I cannot find on the FRA website, but in June they published an "Interim Analysis: Push-Pull and MU Train Operations" which analysed the safety of cab cars in push mode. I can't think why it's no longer available. I hope the information I provide might make the discussion less speculative and alarmist.

I don't know what Primetime did, but the FRA looked at grade crossing incidents and non-grade crossing incidents reported to the FRA , and analyzed them per billion -- that's right, BILLION -- passenger miles.

Given the fact that over eight years, 3.4 billion passenger trips, and 68.3 billion commuter rail passenger miles, the FRA has records of exactly 4 onboard fatalities at grade crossings and 14 onboard fatalities in other accidents, of which 8 were in the cab car at Glendale (the "freak who wanted to impress his estranged girlfriend" incident) and three of which weren't in the cab car at all. This is a ridiculously small sample from which to draw any conclusions, but apparently it's as good or better than what ABC had.

The bottom line is that, of these 18 fatalities, 12 were in push mode, 9 were in the cab car itself, and eight of these were in a deliberately staged incident (not an "accident"). This worked out to .552 fatalities per billion passenger miles in push mode, unless you exclude Glendale, which brings it down to .184 per BPM, in comparison with .153 for pull and EMU service, .417 for Amtrak, .155 for scheduled arlines (to be fair) and 8.283 for autos (not even including SUV's).

Sure, there are hair-raising computer simulations and Pueblo tapes of crush space out there that show you what happens when a car runs at speed into A SOLID WALL -- and make great teasers for network news -- but unless your commute takes you to the moon or otherwise violates one or more of Newton's laws on a regular basis, I don't think these rates even begin to approach significance in determining where you should ride the train. This is on the order of magnitude of "are you more likely to be killed by a meteor or your mother-in-law's deranged cousin once removed?" -- relax, and ride wherever you like. I like the head end, but I ride the New Haven Line, which has no grade crossings.

It should be noted that the FRA study looked at records from 1997 on, excluding the 1996 accidents, which triggered increased interest in Positive Train Stop and so on, but even if you include these fatailities, you're still safer in a push-pull commuter cab than on any Amtrak car.

There are a few remarks in here about grade crossing-infested routes such as the Danbury line. Last time I counted I recall there were 26 crossings on this 24 mile branch, so yes, it is indeed crossing-infested. Having commuted on that route for some time, as well as more trips than I could count dating back to when I was about 3 1/2, I have been on multiple trains that took out cars at crossings (none involving any fatalities, thank God), as well as a number of near misses.

However, the most recent one I can personally recall was about 1984 (MN Railroaders reading this may correct me). What has made the difference since? I have to say the answer is gate protection which was installed on all crossings sometime from the mid 80s forward. Flasher-only protection ceased being effective about the time large numbers of people began drving "with their heads inserted where the sun don't shine." I'm sure that today MN has no street crossings without gate protection.

On the MN Danbury branch, most of the crossings do have both flashers and gates on them with the following exceptions:

Science Rd and Jennings Pl in Norwalk

N. Main St. in Georgetown

Portland Ave and Depot St in Branchville

Topstone Rd In Redding

DRM crossing in Danbury

I haven't been on the branch in a couple of years so one or more of these crossings may have been upgraded.