Thursday Proto Photo, Nov 18/21

[Lenny53]

Beaconsfield, QC Dec '05

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[davefoxx]

^ All right!  Ed's Law for Class 1 railroad train lengths . . . with caboose! 

DFF

[wes_sutton]

Another from our brief sojourn up North a few weeks ago. On 3 October 2021 at Wirrappa, South Australia, SCT Logistics 7MP9 service from Melbourne to Perth is hauled by company locos SCT014/SCT011 (scaled down version of an SD70MAC).

West through Wirrappa by Bingley Hall, on Flickr

[cv_acr]

Interesting combination of sort of "European" style low-clearance engine carbody, and full double stacks...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Interesting combination of sort of "European" style low-clearance engine carbody, and full double stacks...

Yeah, Australian stuff is so wild. I dig it.

I really like the units with Pilbara cabs. They're both familiar and exotic. And amusingly, designed around toilets.

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p624834.htm

[C855B]

Yeah, Australian stuff is so wild. I dig it.

I really like the units with Pilbara cabs. They're both familiar and exotic. ...

Honorary U50s. Only possible on lines with essentially no grade crossings.

[Leggy]

Honorary U50s. Only possible on lines with essentially no grade crossings.

That's quite incorrect.

Our locomotives are quite robust when it comes to crossing accidents and there's quite a number of at level crossings in the Pilbara.

As far as being amused at our small locomotives in the rest of the country hauling double stacks, that only occurs between Adelaide, Perth and Darwin...

[C855B]

“Robust” doesn’t mean a thing when the car, semi, cow or pieces thereof are deflected up into that brow-type windshield. Why do you think US designs have that ugly nose?

I can’t quote chapter and verse, but that particular design would not pass safety muster here.

[Leggy]

Why are US locomotives the only ones in the world these days with those noses?

[C855B]

First thing that comes to mind are several studies that determined the biggest problem with injuries or fatalities in train vs. vehicle collisions was debris through the windshields, not structural compromise. IIRC, while EMD pioneered the modern era wide nose, it was the Canadians who took it to heart and maybe even eventually mandated it (a little help here?).

Then there’s US tort law, where the liability hammer comes out whenever there is a “known” safety issue. In this case, collision debris around an old-style nose.

Another issue is RR sensitivity to the problem, sometimes driven by union agreements. Old-school case in point is Southern Railway’s preoccupation with long-hood forward designs into the 1970s, entirely justified with the grade crossing argument.

In turn, all this attention on grade crossing collision protection is a direct result of the large number of recorded incidents. Until surprisingly recently, level crossings were permitted by whim, or so it seemed. I don’t have any statistics at hand, but I’m certain they exist, that grade crossings per mile are an order of magnitude greater than the next contender.

I, for one, do not at all care for the aesthetics of modern North American cab design, but I do recognize that it’s all about proven safety backed by a phalanx of attorneys.   

[Missaberoad]

while EMD pioneered the modern era wide nose, it was the Canadians who took it to heart and maybe even eventually mandated it (a little help here?).

I have to disagree with this statement. The DDAX40 (and cowl units) nose is not a "modern era wide nose" by any means. It provides no structural safety benefit and is definitely closer in design to a F unit then a SD60/70/80/90. CN and Montreal Locomotive Works originated the design of the Canadian Safety Cab, which was later adopted by EMD and GE in various forms.

The biggest feature for keeping crews safe is less the full width nose and more the heavy vertical members that prevent the cab from crushing in an accident.

I seem to remember there's an interesting history behind it all, I'll have to see what all I can dig up...

As for wide noses being mandated I'm aware of no such regulation. Would be interested to see it tho...

I think given the proper construction the Australian cabs could be as safe as their North American counterparts. Amtrak goes alot faster then any dash9 and their locomotives seem to have a decent safety record...

Also reminds me of this http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2112251

Now that horn placement wouldn't work in North America, at least anywhere with snow! 

[wazzou]

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p624834.htm

I dig the Alco C-636ish Hi-Ad trucks.

[Leggy]

Exactly the point, the nose isn't the part that's designed to protect, it's the structural integrity of the crew occupied space and to say that here in Australia our safety standards are worse is laughable. Locomotives have been in collisions here that have had such force that the cab itself has been torn from the frame yet stayed intact and crew survived. Same with literally every other country that uses flat nosed locomotives. Unions here have pushed for safety just as hard as anywhere else yet the only locomotives in this country resembling a US wide nose are a single class of 10 from 1977 and a handful of more recently built units for lesser service (point to the Pilbara all you like, it's literally a small part of this vast continent and operates unlike anywhere else here). In spite of this when the NR Class was designed in the early/mid 90s the unions were consulted and infact part of the design process when it came to the cab of that locomotive, surely if safety was only achieved with a wide nose they'd have ended up with them?

It seems to come down to the same culture that has made cab overs such a rarity in US trucking, ya'll only feel safe with a big nose to plow thru things.


The BHP locomotive pictured is a frame up Dash 8 GE rebuild of a C636/M636C type locomotive so those are true ALCo Hi-Ad bogies.

[wazzou]

It seems to come down to the same culture that has made cab overs such a rarity in US trucking, ya'll only feel safe with a big nose to plow thru things.

Cabovers fell out of favor for a number of reasons, but mainly due to relaxation or changes in overall length restrictions.

[Lenny53]

. In spite of this when the NR Class was designed in the early/mid 90s the unions were consulted and infact part of the design process when it came to the cab of that locomotive, surely if safety was only achieved with a wide nose they'd have ended up with them?

The Canadian safety cab also had union involvement in the design yet the result could not be more different.