Hackworth, Timothy (1786–1850), locomotive engineer

2004 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Locomotive Engineer

Secondary Impact Protection for Locomotive Engineers – Improved Airbag Design

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Gordon ◽  
Florentina M. Gantoi ◽  
Som P. Singh ◽  
Anand Prabhakaran
Keyword(s):  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Secondary Impact ◽  
Sled Test ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Occupant Protection ◽  
Injury Index ◽  
Impact Protection ◽  
Passenger Airbag ◽  
Locomotive Engineer ◽  
System 1

Abstract Under the locomotive cab occupant protection research program sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Sharma & Associates, Inc. (SA) developed a Secondary Impact Protection System (SIPS) for locomotive engineers. The system uses a large, automotive-style, passenger airbag in combination with a deformable knee bolster to provide the level of protection needed for the locomotive engineer, without compromising the normal operating environment and egress. A prior version of the system [1] was prototyped and tested in a dynamic sled test with a 23g crash pulse and was shown to meet most limiting human injury criteria defined in the Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS 208) [2] for the head, chest, neck, and femur. The system also showed marginal performance for the chest injury index and indicated potential for an improved airbag design to fully meet all requirements. In the current study, simulations with an optimized airbag and higher capacity inflator system showed that SIPS can provide excellent occupant protection for an unbelted locomotive occupant in a frontal crash. Sled testing of SIPS confirmed the performance, and the system successfully met all eleven (11) criteria of the FMVSS 208 standard [2]. The shape and position of the airbag module and its attachments to the desk were generally the same as those presented in previous research. The key changes that helped meet all criteria were the higher capacity inflators, knee bolster system brackets moved forward, thicker knee plate, higher volume airbag and additional vents.

The Hoghead: An Industrial Ethnology of the Locomotive Engineer

1983 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 522
Author(s):  
David H. Shayt ◽  
Frederick C. Gamst
Keyword(s):  
Locomotive Engineer

Automated-Horn Warning System for Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: Evaluation at Three Crossings in Ames, Iowa

2000 ◽  
Vol 1708 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve J. Gent ◽  
Scott Logan ◽  
David Evans
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Warning System ◽  
Volume Data ◽  
Land Area ◽  
Large Area ◽  
Strobe Light ◽  
Locomotive Engineer ◽  
Horn Systems

Traditionally, locomotive engineers begin sounding the train horn approximately one-quarter mile from the crossing to warn motorists and pedestrians approaching the intersection. To be heard over this distance, the train horn must be very loud. This combination of loud horns and the length along the tracks that the horn is sounded creates a large area adversely impacted by the horn noise. In urban areas, this area likely includes many nearby residents. The automated-horn system provides a similar audible warning to motorists and pedestrians by using two stationary horns mounted at the crossing. Each horn directs its sound toward the approaching roadway. The horn system is activated using the same track–signal circuitry as the gate arms and bells located at the crossing. Once the horn is activated, a strobe light begins flashing to inform the locomotive engineer that the horn is working. Horn volume data collected near the crossings clearly demonstrate the significant reduction of land area negatively impacted by using the automated horns. Residents overwhelmingly accepted the automated-horn systems and noted a significant improvement in their quality of life. Motorists preferred the automated-horn systems, and locomotive engineers rated these crossings slightly safer compared with the same crossings in the before (train horn) condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document