Train-to-Train Impact Test of Crash Energy Management Passenger Rail Equipment

On March 23, 2006, a full-scale test was conducted on a passenger rail train retrofitted with newly developed cab and coach car crush zone designs. This test was conducted as part of a larger testing program to establish the degree of enhanced performance of alternative design strategies for passenger rail crashworthiness. The alternative design strategy is referred to as Crash Energy Management (CEM), where the collision energy is absorbed in defined unoccupied locations throughout the train in a controlled progressive manner. By controlling the deformations at critical locations, the CEM train is able to protect against two very dangerous modes of deformation: override and large scale lateral buckling. Frames from high-speed movies recorded at the train-to-train test of existing equipment and the train-to-train test of CEM equipment are included in this paper. In the train-to-train test of existing equipment at a closing speed of 30 mph, the colliding cab car crushed by approximately 22 feet. No crush was imparted to any of the trailing equipment. Due to the crippling of the cab car structure, the cab car overrode the conventional locomotive. The space for the operator’s seat and for approximately 47 passenger seats was lost. During the train-to-train test of CEM equipment, at a closing speed of 31 mph, the front of the cab car crushed by approximately 3 feet, and the crush propagated back to all of the unoccupied ends of the trailing passenger cars. The controlled deformation of the cab car prevented override. All of the crew and passenger space was preserved.

[1]  Ronald A. Mayville,et al.  Evaluation of cab car crashworthiness design modifications , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference.

[2]  Kristine Severson,et al.  TRAIN-TO-TRAIN IMPACT TEST OF CRASH ENERGY MANAGEMENT PASSENGER RAIL EQUIPMENT: OCCUPANT EXPERIMENTS , 2006 .

[3]  Clifford Goodman,et al.  American Society of Mechanical Engineers , 1988 .

[4]  David C. Tyrell Passenger rail train-to-train impact test. Volume 1 : overview and selected results , 2003 .

[5]  David Tyrell,et al.  Impact Tests of Crash Energy Management Passenger Rail Cars: Analysis and Structural Measurements , 2004 .

[6]  Ronald A. Mayville,et al.  LOCOMOTIVE CRASHWORTHINESS RESEARCH. FINAL REPORT. VOLUME 5: CAB CAR CRASHWORTHINESS REPORT , 1996 .

[7]  Eloy Martinez,et al.  Overview of a crash energy management specification for passenger rail equipment , 2006 .

[8]  Eloy Martinez,et al.  A Crush Zone Design for an Existing Passenger Rail Cab Car , 2005 .

[9]  R. A. MacNeill,et al.  Development of a computer model for prediction of collision response of a railroad passenger car , 2002 .

[10]  David Tyrell,et al.  SINGLE PASSENGER RAIL CAR IMPACT TEST. VOLUME 1: OVERVIEW AND SELECTED RESULTS , 2000 .

[11]  A. Benjamin Perlman,et al.  Evaluation of Rail Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Strategies , 2003 .

[12]  Ronald A. Mayville,et al.  Rail vehicle cab car collision and corner post designs according to APTA-S-034 requirements , 2003 .

[13]  John Zolock,et al.  PASSENGER RAIL TWO-CAR IMPACT TEST. VOLUME I: OVERVIEW AND SELECTED RESULTS , 2002 .

[14]  David C. Tyrell,et al.  US rail equipment crashworthiness standards , 2002 .

[15]  A. Benjamin Perlman,et al.  Analysis of Collision Safety Associated With Conventional and Crash Energy Management Cars Mixed Within a Consist , 2003 .

[16]  K. Severson,et al.  Effectiveness of alternative rail passenger equipment crashworthiness strategies , 2006, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference.

[17]  David Tyrell,et al.  Locomotive Cab Occupant Protection , 2003 .

[18]  D. Tyrell,et al.  Impact test of a crash-energy management passenger rail car , 2004, ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, 2004. Proceedings of the 2004.

[19]  John H. White The American Railroad Passenger Car , 1978 .