Completely OT - US stock Re: Old stock


Tony Bailey <mercurytravel@...>
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Krist van Besien" must be one of
tghe most underfunded railway operators in the
world. So no money trees there. Yet they rely very strongly on
classical loco + train consists.
Not having a lot of money is no guarantee that money will be spend
more wisely...
There is more to it then that.

In the US, FRA requirements for a mixed operation line (passenger and
freight) require insane construction requirements for EMUS and DMUS.
Standard European (or even Australian) stock is not acceptable.

Tony Bailey


bob gillis <robertgillis@...>
 

Tony Bailey wrote:
--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, "Krist van Besien" must be one of tghe most underfunded railway operators in the
world. So no money trees there. Yet they rely very strongly on classical loco + train consists.
Not having a lot of money is no guarantee that money will be spend more wisely...
There is more to it then that.
In the US, FRA requirements for a mixed operation line (passenger and
freight) require insane construction requirements for EMUS and DMUS.
Standard European (or even Australian) stock is not acceptable.
If you had seen any of pictures of the LA metro and UP freight
collision in Chatsworth CA a few days ago you would not think then insane!
Tony Bailey
------------------------------------


Tony Bailey <mercurytravel@...>
 

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, bob gillis <robertgillis@...> wrote:
If you had seen any of pictures of the LA metro and UP freight
collision in Chatsworth CA a few days ago you would not think then
insane!


Adequate safe working is more important.


Tony Bailey


Bill Bolton
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400, Bob wrote:

If you had seen any of pictures of the LA metro and UP freight
collision in Chatsworth CA a few days ago you would not think
then insane!
Safety practices need to start a ***LONG*** before a head-on
collision.

The "insanity" in FRA approaches is the sort of safe-working practices
they allow passenger rail operators to get away with, while insisting
on rolling stock construction standards which make relatively little
difference in an accident such as the recent Metrolink event.

Even a simple train stop and catch-point would have kept the two
trains involved in the Metrolink event apart. That is century+ old
rail technology that was designed to provide for safe operation with
relatively fragile wood-bodied passenger rolling stock!

Cheers,

Bill

Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia


Bill Bolton
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400, Bob wrote:

If you had seen any of pictures of the LA metro and UP freight
collision in Chatsworth CA a few days ago you would not think then insane!
I asked this on another mailing list...

"Are their "dead-man" (or other "surveillance" level) controls
at Metrolink driving positions?"

To which the answer came...

"Believe it or not the MetroLink engines DO NOT have any kind
of a dead man or emergency train stop system in use if
something happens to the engineer."

Which shows where the real 'insanity' lies.

I can't think of any other 1st world country where that would be
permitted in 'line haul' level operations.

Cheers,

Bill

Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia


pascal_joris
 

[moderator's note: Please come back to Swiss subjects. There might
be some general interest in comparing safety "strategies". This has
been done now. So we should continue with on-topic posts. Thank you.]

--- In SwissRail@yahoogroups.com, bob gillis <robertgillis@...> wrote:
If you had seen any of pictures of the LA metro and UP freight
collision in Chatsworth CA a few days ago you would not think then
insane!
The pictures of this accident confirm that the requirements are
insane, as even them would really help against a train crash.

The safety approach used here is insane:
- Don't use any significant measures protecting against accidents
happening (no dead-man-pedals, no even primitive movement protection,
not even a safty switch)
- Try to make the vehicles as crashworthy as possible, hoping (in
vain) to reduce the consequences of accidents that would not have
happened with even the simplest active safety measures...

Sorry, but in term of railway safety, the FRA is more than 50 years
behind...