Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(1230339)

view threaded

NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:05:04 2013

What happened? Where are the links, the photos?

ROAR

Post a New Response

(1230343)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:12:23 2013, in response to NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:05:04 2013.





ROAR

Post a New Response

(1230345)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 21 15:18:36 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:12:23 2013.

http://pix11.com/2013/06/21/new-jersey-transit-train-hits-tractor-trailer-in-garfield-bergen-line-service-suspended/


Looks like train #1255

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen


(1230348)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 21 15:21:56 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:12:23 2013.

Glad for the engineer it was not the cab car.

Post a New Response

(1230352)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 21 15:26:35 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 21 15:21:56 2013.

And being a westbound, probably had no more than 12-15 people on it.

Post a New Response

(1230358)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:50:38 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:12:23 2013.



Truck was transporting plastic Pellets, probably from a plastics plant on the corner of Hobart and River.

Why was it on Hobart anyway? It is just a short residential road. But maybe the truck could not go through the underpass on River place.

ROAR

Post a New Response

(1230365)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 21 16:26:34 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 21 15:26:35 2013.

Channel 7 said 38 passengers

Post a New Response

(1230371)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by seabeachexpress on Fri Jun 21 17:02:08 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 21 16:26:34 2013.

Chl 7 says it was a "low boy" trailer which are banned at this crossing and it is so posted.

Post a New Response

(1230391)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 19:37:18 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 21 15:18:36 2013.

It is..


Post a New Response

(1230392)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 19:38:10 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by seabeachexpress on Fri Jun 21 17:02:08 2013.

It was a tanker.
It looks like bulk tanker

Post a New Response

(1230393)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jun 21 19:49:55 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 19:38:10 2013.

Looks like a bulk dry cement trailer. A highway version of a covered hopper.

Post a New Response

(1230394)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 20:05:14 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jun 21 19:49:55 2013.

plastic pellets


Post a New Response

(1230396)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Jun 21 20:12:29 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 20:05:14 2013.

ok, they go in those trailers too.

Post a New Response

(1230418)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 21:43:48 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 21 20:05:14 2013.

And the plastic factory was a the other end of that three block street. Why the truck was on that street at all is another thing to look at. It is likely that it was too tall for the underpass on the main road a few blocks away.

Post a New Response

(1230424)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 21 22:07:20 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jun 21 15:12:23 2013.

Ow!!!!

Post a New Response

(1230425)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Jun 21 22:09:37 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri Jun 21 22:07:20 2013.

Yep, Engine 4020's gonna need a nose job.

-=w=-

Post a New Response

(1230426)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Peter Rosa on Fri Jun 21 22:28:49 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Jun 21 22:09:37 2013.

I'm trying to figure out if the truck will have to be junked. At least the tractor unit, which is pretty much all we can see. I did some online research and found out that this truck was repaired. Its body damage seems worse, however some news photos show that the rear wheels (the ones which fit under the trailer unit) on the truck in the NJT crash are all twisted, meaning that the suspension probably was destroyed. So I just don't know.

My blog

Post a New Response

(1230428)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Peter Rosa on Fri Jun 21 22:35:01 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Peter Rosa on Fri Jun 21 22:28:49 2013.

Ah, here is the picture that shows the damage to the truck's suspension. Note the twisted wheels at the left side of the photo. These wheels aren't meant to turn, so their current condition must mean that the suspension is gone. Again, I don't know if that is repairable or not.

My blog

Post a New Response

(1230433)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 21 22:56:39 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Peter Rosa on Fri Jun 21 22:35:01 2013.

Only thing that really matters on any vehicle is the frame itself. As long as the frame survives, the other parts can be replaced until the price to do so reaches the insanity level. :)

Post a New Response

(1230450)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jun 22 00:18:14 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Jun 21 22:09:37 2013.

Good thing it wasn't a WillDMU or it would need to get a write off.

Post a New Response

(1230490)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 22 09:32:37 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jun 22 00:18:14 2013.

You can see the exposed CEM panels in the nose on either side of the NJT logo. Good thing they ordered from a European manufacturer whose UIC safety standards are actually better for grade crossing safety than the FRA's. As Joe said, it's a good thing the engineer wasn't in the cab car, but if the cab car were equipped with a proper CEM equipped front end he'd have been just as safe as if he'd been in a locomotive.

Post a New Response

(1230503)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 22 11:07:12 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 22 09:32:37 2013.

the locomotive was build to US safety standards not UIC.


Post a New Response

(1230514)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 22 12:22:17 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 22 11:07:12 2013.

Yes, the beast's weight when compared to its European counterparts makes that much clear. But in designing the PL42AC Alstom and Vossloh left the crash energy management elements of their Prima locomotive in place in addition to the rigidity required for the US market. The FRA has finally caught up with way the rest of the world has known for a decade or more and acknowledges that CEM oes a superior job of protecting occupants, particularly the engineer, in grade crossing collisions than did their old crash worthiness standards.

Post a New Response

(1230521)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 22 13:40:28 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 22 12:22:17 2013.

WillD stop pretending you know what your talking about.


Post a New Response

(1230529)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jun 22 14:54:33 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 22 12:22:17 2013.

Crash energy management means you get to buy a new car instead of new bodywork. I'll give you that a straight head on impact might kill people in the WillDMU, but without some sort of heavy frame behind it there is probably going to be non-repairable structural damage. Moreover with less weight the WillDMU is liable to leave the track and split open where there's nothing to crumple.

In Europe level crossing accidents such as these are highly rare events often making national news headlines and usually resulting in the rail vehicle being written off. In the US grade crossing accidents are to be expected as a matter of course. If your vehicles can't survive them you'll soon run out of vehicles. Read some of the UK's RIAB reports on level crossing accidents, you'll see how they end up even i nobody dies.

Post a New Response

(1230648)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 23 01:36:54 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Jun 22 13:40:28 2013.

Yeah, what does that pesky FRA know about anything? They're the ones who state without reservation that deformable energy absorbing structures make current UIC stock safer for the crew and passengers than their own regulations.

Post a New Response

(1230650)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 23 02:43:02 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jun 22 14:54:33 2013.

Crash energy management means you get to buy a new car instead of new bodywork.

No, as usual, the real world situation is quite the opposite of your hypothesis. The DOT's tests readily demonstrate how easily rigid railcar bodies will buckle under stress. The whole point behind CEM is to keep the passenger cabin and underbody from suffering intrusions and intact. By containing the failure to essentially disposable areas of the railcar while keeping the frame and cabin damage-free they're actually making it *easier* to repair a vehicle which had been damaged in a grade crossing accident. It's no different than Amtrak's bolt-on noses for the P42s, but on a larger, more comprehensive scale.

Caltrain's submittals to the FRA clearly state the collision scenarios and the amount of repair work required. Only on striking a semi-truck with a large payload at somewhere north of 50mph is any major repair work required. At speeds below that, or on striking an automobile at most speeds, they do not anticipate any major repair work resulting from the collision. Even then major repair work would consist of replacing the deformable energy absorbing units ahead of the cab, putting the fiberglass covers over those items, and repairing the shear-back couplers. They anticipate these repairs being cheaper and easier to perform than doing the metal work to repair a damaged FRA compliant cab car.

Siemens enumerates the variety of repair services they have supplied to customers of their rolling stock. Alstom states that they provide similar services. But then replacing extruded steel or aluminum and applying some fiberglass covers while replacing some shear pins can just as easily be done in-house.

but without some sort of heavy frame behind it there is probably going to be non-repairable structural damage. Moreover with less weight the WillDMU is liable to leave the track and split open where there's nothing to crumple.

Again, the FRA's documentation disagrees very explicitly with your narrative. Without CEM the crash energy is distributed throughout the train buckling cars at random. But with CEM that energy can be distributed and bled off at engineered points far from the passengers and crew. That makes it more likely the CEM equipped train will remain upright and on the tracks.

In Europe level crossing accidents such as these are highly rare events

That definitely is not the case. Just from a quick look at Google News I count at least four separate bahnübergang unfälle being reported on in German language media the past month. I'd argue (again) your claim is not reflected in the real world. They actually have a large number of grade crossing accidents owing to ubiquity of railroads, particularly passenger railroads, and some of the densest road traffic in Europe. But because of that same ubiquity of passenger rail those collisions are actually less noteworthy than here in the US where passenger rail is relatively rare.

Incidentally, yesterday a DB train struck a semi and while there were 32 injuries, there were no fatalities. This despite it being a fairly old, outdated BR 628 or similar DMU.

Post a New Response

(1230666)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 23 07:34:37 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 23 01:36:54 2013.

It says its option, but CEM is only effective if your not hitting dead objects weighing more than structure with CEM.
The PL42ac has no CEM structure at all, neither has any new passenger equipment currently in service.

Post a New Response

(1230697)

view threaded

Re: NJT Collision in Bergen

Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 23 13:09:13 2013, in response to Re: NJT Collision in Bergen, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Jun 23 07:34:37 2013.

It says its option, but CEM is only effective if your not hitting dead objects weighing more than structure with CEM.

What? Where do you come up with this crap? It's clear you didn't bother to read where the damn FRA said you're completely wrong. Anything that absorbs crash energy and allows the rear cars to decelerate slower and in a more controllable manner (without the buckling and derailing that is the hallmark of American collisions) is an asset in any crash, regardless of the mass of the colliding objects.

The PL42ac has no CEM structure at all, neither has any new passenger equipment currently in service.

Well we know that is not true. Metrolink's new Rotem cars are called the CEM fleet for a very specific reason. But it was someone who claimed to be an NJT employee on RR.net who stated they were equipped with the same CEM elements in the cab as other Prima locomotives built at the same time. Unfortunately with all the changes RR.net has undergone (this was around 2006 in the 2nd iteration of the site) I can't seem to find the discussion.

Post a New Response


[ Return to the Message Index ]