Friday, November 4, 2011

The value of crash energy management

FRA delay and refusal to reform on its current "safety" regulations is inexcusable.



Edit on July 7, 10:15am: This brief paper puts forth in lives the difference between current standards and CEM: With only a 30 mile per hour impact, 55 lives would have been lost in the demonstrated collision with FRA equipment, but none with a CEM consist.

12 comments:

  1. So is the top one supposed to be current FRA standards? And what would the bottom one be?

    Btw, can I add how frustrating it is to try to comment on your site?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The bottom one is cars retrofitted with a fairly basic CEM system.

    What, in particular, is the difficulty with commenting on here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I second that. Logging in sucks. Deleting a few bits of spam every so often is worth it for the comments you're losing by keeping it login-only.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Comment settings have been changed to allow anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve, since apparently I can't comment on your Forbes posts without being a Forbes member, I'd like to add that it gets worse with your last sentence. 1950s-era lightweight cars were actually lighter than FRA-standard "modern" equipment. The B&M even had Talgo trains pulled by Alcos--no cinderblocks or anything! That's right, the FRA has been overweighting passenger equipment since the day it was first signed into law.

    If there was ever an instance of out-of-control insane regulation (beyond just bad regulation), it's the FRA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Paulus, what would the CEM system displayed in the video fall into in the realm of railroad safety standards? Is it similar to UIC standards? I just want an understanding of where it stands.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not 100% sure on what the UIC standards are (I'll admit to not looking into the specific requirements before) or which were tested here. I believe, however, that it was designed to test the standards described here:

    "The train level requirements specify a collision scenario for which there must be no intrusion into the occupied areas and limits on the relative velocities at which the operator and passenger may impact interior surfaces. The car and mechanism level requirements follow from the train level requirements. The car level requirements include specifications for a crush zone at the cab end of the cab car capable of absorbing 3.0 million ft-lbs of energy and crush zones at the non-cab end of the cab car and each end of trailer cars capable of absorbing 2.0 million ft-lbs. Specifications are also provided for the crush zone kinematics and the target force/crush characteristics of the crush zones. Mechanism level requirements include specifications for the CM, LTM, and PEAM."

    I've also added to the main post a link to research related to this test about the fatality levels involved with such a crash with a full loaded commuter train.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Other Steve – Trust me, I know. It is possible to sign up and shit, but I admit, it's a huge pain in the ass. It's the thing I miss most about Market Urbanism...actually having commenters. Unfortunately, I'm not really in a position to call up other other Steve Forbes and discuss it with him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since they aren't safety regulations, can we call the FRA regulations "Schmafety Regulations"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The video is "private"

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think small businesses operate out of small buildings, and manage a smaller plant, as a result, the building itself might be dated, which can compromise energy efficiency and lead to an increase in costs over the long run. Luckily, there are various resources, technology, and software available that can help plant and facility project managers and teams monitor overall energy usage. Energy management Software review

    ReplyDelete