From: finfer@optonline.net   
      
   On 2/12/2015 7:21 PM, Robert Heller wrote:   
   > At Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:17:45 +0000 (UTC) "Adam H. Kerman"    
   wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In the recent Metro North collision I was surprised to hear that, in   
   >>> addition to the driver of the car involved,there were five people killed   
   >>> ON THE TRAIN.  Some questions:   
   >>   
   >>> 1. In designing the iconic FT freight locomotive and E series passenger   
   >>> locomotives, Electromotive put a hood-like structure on the front   
   >>> specifically to give some protection to the engineer and fireman in the   
   >>> event of a collision at a grade crossing, and virtually all subsequent   
   >>> American locomotives have continued this practice. Is there any   
   >>> requirement for grade-crossing protection on self-propelled motor unit   
   >>> passenger cars?   
   >>   
   >> There are corner post requirements. In Chicago, Nippon Sharyo gallery cars   
   >> that replaced Highliners in IC suburban service (now Metra Electric) had   
   >> the cab relocated to the gallery level, else too many passenger seats   
   >> were lost. This also eliminated a platform door, as the full-across   
   >> engineer's cab became a vestibule when not in use.   
   >>   
   >> Keep in mind that corner post requirements and very high American buff   
   >> strength requirements are designed to keep the passenger car from deforming   
   >> as much as possible in the event of a collision. Doesn't necessarily   
   >> keep railroad crew nor passengers alive, as the law of conservation of   
   >> momentum hasn't been repealed and one is likely to be seriously injured   
   >> or killed from striking one's head against a bulkhead.   
   >   
   > Also in this case the SUV's fuel tank burst into flames and somehow the rails   
   > got ripped up and pierced the rail car.  This probably speaks more to the   
   > structural design issues of the *SUV* on the one hand and I am not sure what   
   > it says about the roadbed construction (eg how well secured the rails   
   > were/weren't).   
   >   
   >>   
   >   
      
   My understanding was that the third rail pierced the vehicle's gas tank,   
   then continued into the rail car, carrying gasoline with it.  That's why   
   the fire was so bad.   
      
   Also the third rail continued through the first car into the second car.   
     If you look carefully at the pictures, you can see it between the two   
   cars near the roof line.   
      
   Some politicians are making statements about the use of under running   
   third rail and trying to imply that it had something to do with the   
   severity of the accident.  I would rather wait for the NTSB, which   
   actually knows something about this stuff, before making a judgement.   
      
   There was also a statement made that Metro-North is the only application   
   of under running third rail in North America.  That is not true.   
   Philadelphia's Market St. subway/elevated uses it as well.  There are no   
   grade crossings on that line, however.   
      
   Michael Finfer   
   Bridgewater, NJ   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)