Locking first cars on diesels?

It has been proven that the 120 ton engine on rear has same effect as mu's with same equipment distributed troughout the train.
the moment the engineer dumps the air the braking rate is the same on each rail vehicle.
since trains are straight linear objects and every thing is inline when initial crash happens the forces to a cab car are exactly same as if it were a mu car with x amount of cars behind it.
So stop being alarmist nobody is gone outlaw cab cars and the testing proven at Pueblo and in test centers in europe have been more than safe for the cab car issue, the alarmist go by one incident in california were two experts showed with HO train what would happen in a train crash.
two walters cars and a locomotive and a $38 transformer do not prove that cab cars are unsafe.

Not so Dutch. During the crash test in Pueblo, it was shown that 125ton engine gave the same crash performance as an MU but, that if the engine exceeded 132.5 tons, the impact characteristics changed dramatically. The DE/DM's hover in the 150ton range. Therefore the FRA is concerned and rightfully so.

H.N.I.C. wrote: There is a discussion ongoing about purchasing ex-Amtrak F-40's or something similar to protect the west end of diesel p/p trains. The concern at this time is asthetics. Will they find units that will fit the image of the new LIRR of the 21st Century?

I guess than if the LIRR gets F-40ph locos from Amtrak they'll be needing even more $$$$ to raise the canopy height on the now nearly completed Jamaica station. This rumor has been around since the DE/DM/C3 stuff has been on the property (especially when they were first deliveredd and filled with all types of problems.......I won't even go into the Santa Fe GP60M rumor either!!). Fact is, F-40's do not fit under the platform canopies in Jamaica. Remember even the GP38-2's had to be modified by EMD to get them to fit.

Sorry Bob this no rumor. Funding is allocated in the 2006 budget for the project. Boise Locomotive will modify the cowing to an angled type to fit the canopies. The rebuilding in the station allowed for a 6" higher canopy to accomidate any equipment.

Could you please explain where you get your info from, if not please read the sticky post on fact and rumor.

Unfortunatly, as of late, we have had alot of problems with trolls on the board posting all types of rediculous (mis)information.

I find it hard to believe that they can get money to modify at LEAST 20 locomotives (and it would involve alot more than modifying just the car body as most of the components located inside the body of the F40 are "made to fit" the profile of the roofline....ever been inside one??), but can't get money to provide more car cleaners, rebuild stations and money to even wash the trains they have on a somewhat regular basis. It just does not sound right to me, but then again, the MTA dose not necessarily have to make sense.

Well, I got my information from the Engineer that used to own the morning Protect job at Harold. He thought himself to be a very informed source for LIRR information and gave me maps, memos and photographs to review. I wish I still knew him, but we lost touch a while ago. And yes, I have been inside an F40.

Gah.

Who left the door open?

Cab cars aren't going anywhere. Not on the LI, not anywhere else. There's no 'FRA concern' about a third track on the main, its signalling, or use of cab cars. There's no plan to buy F-40s as cab cars, it wasn't a part of the Jamacia redesign. As far as EMU vs cab car crash dynamics go? AFAIK, there hasn't been any real study in the US of it, and I've never seen any published results.

It might be worth studying the bomb bilevel design (not to mention the tip-if-you-lean-against-it Superliner and derivatives), but that's a design issue, NOT an issue w.r.t. cab cars.

AMOREIRA:

To answer your question about MU's doing 30mph with a speed failure...............Clem is right. That is just the way the rule is written. However, if you have an operable cab signal indicator and warning device, the train may operate at 60 MPH. The original 30 MPH would be adhered to if the indicator and or warning device was inoperable.

Ahhhh, thanks. Sorry if I asked this before, but does the restriction also apply in unsignaled mainline territory (particularly, out on the East End)?

H.N.I.C. wrote:Sorry Bob this no rumor. Funding is allocated in the 2006 budget for the project. Boise Locomotive will modify the cowing to an angled type to fit the canopies. The rebuilding in the station allowed for a 6" higher canopy to accomidate any equipment.

Ah yes , the famous "Amtrak F40s comming to the LIRR" rumour. It was started by Rail Pace mag about 4-5 years ago. A blast from the past.

Ill believe it when I see it

This has to be railroad fiction.

AMoreira81 wrote:Ahhhh, thanks. Sorry if I asked this before, but does the restriction also apply in unsignaled mainline territory (particularly, out on the East End)?

There is no speed control in those areas so speed contol rules. including speed restrictions in the event of a speed failure, do not apply. MAS is the same regardless of whether the cab car or the engine is leading