need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[Steve Raney]

Here in the Bay Area, the preferred suicide method is getting hit head-
on by a 60 mph commuter rail train. It's a pretty awful way to go.

Does anyone know the physics of such collisions and whether some sort
of cow catcher (http://www.locomotivegeneral.com/generalparts/images/
CowCatcher.jpg) could be designed to push people off the tracks with
enough cushioning so they end up bruised but alive? Would a big
gymnastic landing pad / gymnastic foam wedge absorb some of the
contact before the potential suicide victim is moved to the side at a
reduced speed? Something like a sideways version of :
http://www.robbinssports.com/sporting-goods-store/images/american-athletic-gymnastics-training-wedges-mats.jpg

Any thoughts?

- Steve

[Jerry Roane]

Steve

You are on the right train of thought (pun intended).  A pre-inflated air bag that leads the train by 100 feet would be able to scoop up the troubled guy and lay him in a soft bed so the emergency personnel can get him to some help.  Same for cows I guess too if cows need help with their propensity to stand on the high ground of the tracks.  Cow retraining institute.  (ouch second pun not intended) 

This device would cost almost nothing compared to the cost of reporting a crash and kill.  To calculate the Gs for different distances of air bag use this calculator:  http://tritrack.net/accelerate.html  Plug in the G force he experiences and it will give length of the airbag deflection in the blank called "Up Ramp:_____feet______seconds"

The longer the leading air bag the gentler the save.  I suppose if it were good enough at catching bodies it could be used for Jerry's no stop Chinese train.  ;-) 

Jerry Roane

[Walter Brewer]

How about a good blast of air, (gas), from the front side of the locomotive
pushing the guy ahead and to the side. Human can take 6 to 8 "g" but might
hit something on the side.
(Be sure to hire a good lawyer)

Walt Brewer

[Steve Raney]

Jerry,

Would the air bag be semi-aerodynamic or would there be a bit of a
train efficiency loss caused by it?

You couldn't perchance sketch what you're thinking of?

[Steve Raney]

Walt,

So are you suggesting:
* a system to detect collisions, something akin to forward facing stop
and go adaptive cruise control LIDAR on a Lexus
* once a collision is detected, blast in front of the train with air
to push the guy off.
* two air guns, shooting on opposite diagonal trajectories. Based on
the location of the obstacle, blast one or the other air gun to push
the guy to the side.

I suppose it's more difficult to blast the person off when the person
lays down on the tracks. And standing-up suicide attempter is easier
to blast.

[eph]

Memory foam so the guy doesn't bounce off.

F.

[Jack Slade]

Here in Toronto they spent 8.5 million to put a safety net on a bridge that was a favourite junp-off spot for suicides.  Now they find a train to jump in front of. Any thoughts?  Yes, my first thought is that this was wasted money, because you are trying to save somebody who doesn't want to be saved. There are just too many other alternatives, and they will find another way.   Jack Slade --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org> wrote:

From: Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org> Subject: [t-i] need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[Robbert Lohmann]

I agree with Jack. You need to design for preventing accidents; if you
start designing to prevent potential suicides you are running into a
very complicated problem! Even if you have an airbag or a air-gun, how
are you going to make sure that if the guy is pushes or 'blasted' from
the track to prevent the colission, he's going to land safely and
softly? Especially if you have an elevated guideway this becomes an
interesting problem. I can totally foresee what happens: instead of
commiting suicide, the guy is pushed aside, falls and breaks his neck.
He's officially killed by the system?!

Robbert

[Walter Brewer]

Note: Hire a good lawyer,(or two).
Parachute escape doesn't always work either, but the safe landing
probability is high enough to support the investment. Then there is the
train in the opposite direction alongside which happens to arrive at the
wrong moment##.


Back to design; Indeed better a combination of the airbag and airgun.
Release the gas ** instead into the large airbag, shaped to usually capture
the person. Thus avoiding the need for a 20 foot floppy thing in front of
all locomotives all the time. 20 feet because that produces a 60 mph capture
exposing the victim to about 6 "g" assuming constant deceleration and
negligible train deceleration during about .2 seconds capture time.
While I believe a two level air blast would scoop prone victims off the
tracks, better, the airbag could have a high pressure lower segment that
could lower to track level in the airbag deployment process, and be shaped
to scoop the victim to the upper part.
Two pressure levels for cows and such?

## Probably impatient people and vehicles bypassing crossing gates is a
bigger problem. That seems to be a major problem with several LRT line
crossings in LA. Also very recently in Western NY impatient backed up
vehicles went around gates that hadn't opened after a slow feight went by.
One that didn't make it killed three occupants when they were clobbered by a
blocked view train coming in the opposite direction.

** Might be a chemical reaction to avoid storing compressed gas?

Next problem; How to push autos and at least light trucks aside?

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

[Walter Brewer]

Would help, but also maybe sticky stuff on airbag surface to help capture?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[eph]

Sure, I was thinking non-elastic collision. Maybe the memory foam (or
whatever) would hold the guy there until the train comes to a stop.
The whole thing might clip his legs or not work if he lying down
though and it's not really practical, like others have been saying,
they'll find other ways.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

Steve

A lead car that is made of soft material and or air could easily be aerodynamic because the cow or distraught person would need to be lifted slightly and pushed along to the side or to the middle just like air needs to be gently push aside or to the middle and up over.  This can be its own car just in front of the train engine.  If I were running a train and I were engineer (different from BSEE engineer) I would put one of the train cars out front instead of putting all the cars behind the engine.  It could be low or clear or use cameras to see ahead of the lead sacrificial car.  This way the impact of a car or truck with an IDIOT for a driver would not kill me as a train driver.  If I were to use a new design car for this purpose it would look a whole lot like those barrels with sand that sit on highway exit ramps for those who cannot make last minute decisions on the exit.  Behind the sand filled plastic barrels would be one off those guardrail extruding mechanisms that bend guard rail into a spiral as the car hits the end of a guardrail starting section.  Reuse all that highway technology for side protection that years of bloodshed have created.  Refine from there.  Perhaps the moving train design could use lots and lots of these things to catch the flying minicar when it misses the end of the train.  ;-)  Any design that requires a binary descision needs an analog crash zone for the last instant redirect.  That would be true of any constantly moving train with chaser vehicles or worse, roof top drop down vehicles.  There will always be opportunity for a last second change of mind that will result in failures so the failures need to be safe also.  With enough fluff added to existing crash technology I believe you could catch a cow unhurt or a distraught person unhurt or a big rig but hurt some but not enough to kill the driver. 

It would be worth a student study in engineering class to go through the number crunching to design a lead train car that is always on the nose of a train with requirement that it cradle and save a cow or deer but also be able to take a tractor trailer or a sedan and save the life of the IDIOT driver.  Train engines have couplers in the front so why not?

One other comment trains are not, I repeat not aerodynamic.  They have as little as 4000 hp and as much as 20,000 hp to pull a train up a mountain and the measly 185 hp needed to overcome air drag is nothing in comparison.  Trains and aero drag are worlds apart.  They do not get miles per gallon they are measured in gallons per mile empty or full fast or slow.  Aerodynamics is for high speed cars and flying machines.  Trains are not really changed by the air movement around them especially at US "high speed train" speeds. 

The general shape would be a big wedge low and hugging the rails in the front and just over the top of the engine at the back.  Probably a curved valley in the middle so the caught item stays on the soft mattress in the middle.  It would look a lot like a kid's slide but with a traction fabric so once caught you would not slide back down to the rails again.  Lots of tough polyurethane foam construction atop crushable steel big rig catcher.

Jerry Roane

[Jerry Roane]

F.

Usually people making a show of their demise are making a cry for help rather than actually wanting to murder their life.  Some places like bridges make it more romantic and those places are the ones where they put in lots of expensive people catching devices.  Once it becomes romantic to throw yourself in front of a train it catches on.  There are certain bridges that have a reputation and the falls in Niagara seem to be full of bodies that one gentleman has to go dig out below because they are a bio-hazard to the water quality.  I guess the catcher could be justified by catching cows and deer for those who disregard the people with a momentary panic in their lives. 

The trick to not snapping off the ankles is to have a soft material that is angled so as each section compresses it results in a vertical force lifting the weight of the deer or person as it compresses (either elastic on one time compressive) The problem is the center of the railroad ties is ill-defined and they allow crap to collect in that zone between the tracks and above the wood ties.  That part of the catcher would be very hard to compensate for with a passive design but no one said it has to be passive.  It could be dynamic and quickly grab and lift under computer control based on the optical image the computer sees.  This is just a word exercise because I doubt the railroad gives a shit.

Jerry Roane   

[eph]

So here's a more generally useful idea I had a while ago. A small
remotely controlled vehicle with the highest braking ability (and
lowest weight) would run stopping distance ahead of a large, slow
braking train. The lead vehicle could monitor tracks, alert if a
switch is in the wrong position, alert to obstacles and provide
whatever else might be useful. It gives the train reconnaissance
ability and stop ability. This would probably work for deer and cows,
but humans would have to time their suicide to occur between the lead
vehicle and the train.

@ 27 m/s (60 mph), -3 m/s^2 deceleration (.3g - guess) it takes 121 m
to stop or 4.5 s gap between the lead vehicle and the actual train.

F.

On Oct 14, 12:48 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> Usually people making a show of their demise are making a cry for help
> rather than actually wanting to murder their life.  Some places like bridges
> make it more romantic and those places are the ones where they put in lots
> of expensive people catching devices.  Once it becomes romantic to throw
> yourself in front of a train it catches on.  There are certain bridges that
> have a reputation and the falls in Niagara seem to be full of bodies that
> one gentleman has to go dig out below because they are a bio-hazard to the
> water quality.  I guess the catcher could be justified by catching cows and
> deer for those who disregard the people with a momentary panic in their
> lives.
>
> The trick to not snapping off the ankles is to have a soft material that is
> angled so as each section compresses it results in a vertical force lifting
> the weight of the deer or person as it compresses (either elastic on one
> time compressive) The problem is the center of the railroad ties is
> ill-defined and they allow crap to collect in that zone between the tracks
> and above the wood ties.  That part of the catcher would be very hard to
> compensate for with a passive design but no one said it has to be passive.
> It could be dynamic and quickly grab and lift under computer control based
> on the optical image the computer sees.  This is just a word exercise
> because I doubt the railroad gives a shit.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

[rober...@aol.com]

Jerry R,

Your know our answer to this problem.

www.tubularrail.com

change the train

[Brad Templeton]

I proposed something like that long ago as well. It would work to
prevent hitting cars stopped on the tracks, which is good, but would
not stop suicides who would in fact find the lead car a handy signal
about when to jump on the tracks.

[Jerry Roane]

Robert

You forgot when pigs fly.  They will get speared by your train.  ;-) 

Jerry Roane

[Lee S. Walker]

I have endorsed an advance vehicle, but mostly to detect derailment
risks.
BTW, by the numbers, my impression is that the GG bridge is more
preferred suicide technique than a train. I would prefer they jump
off freeway overpasses instead.

The possible risk to transit is that the GG Bridge district is
considering making jumping more difficult, which might result in a lot
more train suicides shutting down transit.

I think if there was any practical way to cut train suicides
(besides separated-grade), it would already have happened. separated
grade ART/PRT/GRT is the only practical solution.
-lee

On Oct 14, 10:01 am, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

OK, but it has to be designed compatible with HSR. It's primary use will
turn out to watch for terrorist activity. So what separation would that
take?
And a corollary use maybe. When the San Diego airport was drifting toward
the desert 50 miles away, connected with HSR a suggestion was to perform
security inspections on the way on the trains. But what about baggage? A
blown up suitcase could cause some unpleasant complications. So the
suggestion was a trailer car for baggage check. If something blew up the
damage would be limited,(somewhat!). But with a Snoopy car ahead for that
function too, not sure the damage could be contained sufficiently?

Walt Brewer

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Lee S. Walker" <b4p...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[Walter Brewer]

It's been fun speculating about this real world problem. Several of us think semi-reasonable solutions would just require some good quality engineering design. Enough perhaps for someone to see a big profit potential to build the thousands of perhaps Jerry's Safety Snoopy Vehicle. (SS not Supersonic)

But wait; we haven't even addressed the real problem. Imagine convincing all those railroad companies, and Cities with their new bright and shiny LRT's that these modifications must be done, presumably at their expense! As a start up under today's definition for private enterprise I suppose though a new company might latch on Stimulus funds use that is closer to productive than other parts of the list.

[Steve Raney]

1. If there was a prototype for a shock-absorbing commuter rail
suicide preventer, would it be helpful to mount said prototype on a
truck and then crash said truck into a sensor-laden crash test dummy?
IE assuming that it is tricky to get access to a commuter rail
locomotive and track, what's a good initial method for testing to get
to something that seems credible enough to go to the next step?

2. There are some pretty good initial ideas on this thread. I wonder
if folks know of some good web chat forums / communities of practice
on mechanical design where you might entice someone to sketch out a
design? Something like http://www.productdesignforums.com/?

3. Why can't we get those Discovery Channel mythbuster design guys to
just solve the problem as part of their TV show? (http://
dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html).

- Steve

[Dennis Manning]

Egad. We are spending time on our ti-list to improve on the RR cowcatcher???
We've drifted just a bit off topic.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:22 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides


>

[Steve Raney]

It's definitely a bit off topic, agreed. But, this is a community of
inventors, so there is plenty of brainpower to be had. That's part of
the attraction of communities of practice on the web. I wanted to
obtain some initial concepts, with the idea of taking the concepts to
another forum. Hence I'm querying about whether there are other forums
that I should move the conceptualizing to.

The specifics on suicide is that we're having a rash of high school
suicides here in Palo Alto (ultra high pressure school district) via
jumping in front of Caltrain. The other cities are not impacted as
much. A really special friend of mine lost her daughter that way. My
feeling is that these "dramatic" suicides are such that these high
schoolers wouldn't change methods to something more mundane like a
drug overdose. I could be wrong. I'm not Dr. Phil, though I style my
hair like him.

On Oct 15, 9:37 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

Wow. Hard to respond to that. We aren't a group set up to get into safety
measure issues of commuter rail and LRT. We do have solutions to the
problem, but it has nothing to do with what the commuter rail LRT people do.
It's about a network that separates people from the system and eliminates
the problem.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[Jack Slade]

Perhaps somebody will volunteer as a dummy.   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

What relation do gasbag declerators have to PRT spacing and brick wall
stops?

Walt Brewer

[Walter Brewer]

The relation between even smart people and mechanical dummies and also cadavers has been pretty well established.

 

 Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Jack Slade

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Walter Brewer]

Steve,

Considering reaction of others your call on further actions.
I think all the major car companies have crash testing labs that can be
adapted. I believe Calspan in Buffalo which started the whole automotive
crash safety activity still does crash testing. I'll as if you wish, or
maybe someone else knows.

Such testing for some of the ideas might lead to general application, such
as protection for buses.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:22 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides


>

[eph]

It certainly flags one of rail's weaknesses, but I could see even a
segregated system having the same problem - someone jumps a fence or
climbs a post and clears a path to other suicide-method-seeking
people. Not all systems are low-speed podcars.

F.

On Oct 16, 1:07 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

None that I know of.

[Jerry Roane]

Steve

Teen brains have not fully cross linked and on a minute by minute basis they flip from 4 year old to 25 year old and back in their decisions.  Providing a "dramatic" demise has a certain appeal that could contribute to such a tragedy.  It is a fine line to walk to even talk about the subject as it adds power to the thought inside the teen.  Putting visible effort into the subject could make it even more "romantic"  Shakespeare did not help!!!!!  The movie industry and the news 24/7 do not help.  I am positive a mechanical device can be built to save these immature persons with a short term problem they do not at the time have the mental tools to deal with in a rational way. 

I doubt that the railroads will buy such things and they probably would not take the time to couple them onto the front of the train if they were given free by crisis prevention philanthropists.  How it relates to advanced transportation Pod shaped cars is safety of moving objects is in common.  It takes distance and G forces to protect life either from a child who is confused momentarily or two pod cars that have somehow become disconnected from control.  If the cars have another layer of crash protection beyond grade separation which is significantly safer than buses or street cars then they will be safer still.  This is a diminishing return but since you cannot put a price tag on any one's daughter or son the diminished return is still worth doing.  The concept of active armor is intriguing if the nose of a pod car has shape charges embedded so that they direct forces alternative ways that could have use in crashes.  This idea is not fleshed out so you will have to do your own invention from this kernel.  The idea for crash mitigation (since crash avoidance has obviously broken down at this instant) should be layered onto all other crash prevention.  The steering wheel airbag is one such active armor device.  The trick is to move that concept to the nose and tail of pod cars possibly.  An air blast is more effective if it is inside the air bag.  A lower cost solution is to inflate the air bag before it is needed in that millisecond of the crash.  This takes the $1000 air bag down to a $5 ball.  For initial slow speed operation it may be wise to strap a ball to the nose and tail of pod cars.  In the event of screw up the pre-inflated balls could reduce harm in a crash.  The drawback at slow speed is only looks and spacing in stations.  A small trade for damage to people's bodies it might reduce.  Again this is not a final design or even close just a thought tossed out in an effort to be collaborative for this sad problem.     

I would love to work on Mythbusters.  That would be such a fun job.  My previous neighbor was one of the idea women behind that show.  I do not think she has any more ties to the show though. 

Jerry Roane 

[Roy Reynolds]

By Brad Tuttle

 

(Budget Travel) -- It's all the rage to criticize the airlines. But we found some smart, practical initiatives that point the way to a better future.

This test design for Personal Rapid Transit is part of plans for driverless pods to replace airport shuttles.

Driverless pods at airports

Someday, driverless pods may be zipping passengers between an airport and its parking lots. Fully automated, pods are more convenient than shuttle buses driven by humans. Currently, 18 pods are being tested at London Heathrow's Terminal 5. They let you board when you want to, rather than wait for a bus on a fixed schedule. Punch in your destination, such as a parking lot, on a touch screen. Then leave the driving to the machine, which glides on rails at speeds of 25 mph. A bonus perk: The pods are battery powered, so they don't spew out environmentally destructive exhaust. 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/10/16/flight.innovations/ 

[Lee S. Walker]

it is on topic, my brainstorm:

The enemy of prt is the "electric cars might be sustainable" myth.
ALL improvements to transit will reduce the number of people dependent
on autos and thereby making excuses for continued auto industry
subsidies. This last thing (cash for clunkers) is just unbelievable
after the previous subsidies and stockholders-take-more-than-all
industry bailout/payoff..

There is no reason to innovate (except boredom) when even the best
president ever would leech the nation for a doomed industry.

However, I will share my IDEA,
because if there is any to stop same-grade rail victim injuries, it
will be an incredible advance for transit and transit agencies will
have more money for PRT & GRT-complete solutions to this problem too.
(the main problem is people intentionally jumping in front of
trains)

IDEAS:
1- make it public knowledge TO EVERYONE that, if you change your mind
after jumping, the center of the tracks is a safe place to lay down.
(But maybe this could make it worse by more people thinking they have
a way out. Conductors might have to deal with a lot of kids doing it
on a dare, and that still causes major problems.*
(this was the early question asked)

2-Trains can have a very long pointed cone (flat on the bottom)
composed of less rigid material, to hopefully eject the animal or
attempted-train-saboteur up and over without getting killed. I am
thinking a 50'(?) cone mode of some sort of bouncy foam materials.
This is the only other suggestion coming to mind for same-grade rail
vehicles (is this the right term?)
-the cone will improve aeordynamics
-make jumpers LESS sure of their deaths, even if it doesn't always
save everyone, so they will be a lot less likely to jump

But who knows, that would probably motivate daredevils to do it for
attention. So you see, the only solution is grade-separation with
barriers against jumpers and livestock. Wouldn't it be GREAT for us
if someone started pushing the foam-rubber cone idea, thus reminding
everyone that grade separation is so needed as to be inevitable?

(Oh I just had another idea: very low "cattle-catchers") that will
only destroy the jumper's feet, push them up and catch the person in a
cushioned basket, VERY un-aerodynamic, but it might work for
streetcars. That system would make it impossible to lie down on the
train tracks and survive uninjured. SF has huge problems with transit
vehicles hitting/killing people because the drivers are forced to rush
on impossible schedules for any hope of a bonus. The solution to that
would be to somehow separate the agency from city govt., because the
transit union is so dominant that it runs city hall, not for the good
of transit, but to prevent any changes in the system. So I would say
that REAL election reform is a vital part of reducing deaths. SF just
recently has IRV elections and has some better transportation
policies, but it will be a major change in policy to stop this bonus/
schedule problem, and SF has not had a new IRV mayor elected yet, and
thus there has not been a real test of proposals to REALLY transit.
The media/newspaper makes it worse by focusing about transit not being
on schedule as if anyone else would even look at the schedules (for
the busy routes.)
(Liability for so many transit injuries is a HUGE cost for SF, )

* two personal experiences:
1- Just 20- feet from me, I saw a person jump just in front of a BART
train. She was uninjured because she laid between the tracks, but
the track was shut down for at least an hour-HUGE expense and
inconvenience.

2-These trains are a menace. My horse(s) ran off in a storm (just
like that song Wildfire) and the train tracks were the only snow-free
place to walk, so they were all killed. That is probably why I gave up
farming.

To repeat, there is no solution to this except separated-grade with
barriers, because people and animals will just take riskier behavior
if the trains were miraculously made any safer-the LAW OF AVERAGES.
-lee (I do agree, hopefully this topic is over)

[Dennis Manning]

It's encouraging to see the increasing number of mass media articles on PRT even if the reporters don't always get the story written accurately.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Roy Reynolds

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Walter Brewer]

Again:  "What relation do gasbag declerators have to PRT spacing and brick wall
> stops?"

 

I can't believe protection inside and/outside the pod has not been analysed as a way to reduce separation/increase throughput?

 

 Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:11 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[Dennis Manning]

I think this gasbag issue may have some relevance to PRT headway restrictions. It's a matter of a brick wall versus a gasbag stop. Could have some implications in the future.

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

The advantage guideway cars have in a nose to tail bump is the protection device is lined up by the guideway.  To rag on cars and buses for a moment cars back in their inception days had "bumpers" that you could bump.  I think the cars went down the assembly line bumper to bumper in places.  They used spring steel that was intentionally springy for protection of the car and less so the driver in a slow speed impact.  Over time art majors took over car design and bumper is now just a term used for a body panel.  If you bump your bumper of a car to a bus your will be paying a lot of money because that decorative panel is the wrong height off the ground big vehicle to little vehicle.  As a minimum, guideway vehicles allowed on a particular guideway will have a specified bumper dimension so that when guideway cars do bump for uncontrolled reasons that less damage is done.  A simple long shock absorber out front and out back would go a long way to destroy the art project but make the car safer.  The 1972 bumpers were a poor attempt at this idea but with thought and intent on a guideway it would be easy to make bumpers actually into bumpers.   Free-ranging bumpers do what they do which is not much if you visit your nearest junk yard and observe.  As a teen I spent a lot of time in junk yards.  I think it should be a requirement of any car designer to spend a lot of time visiting junk (scrap) yards.  There is a lot to be learned there and the testing is already paid for at that point. 

If congress wanted to do something constructive with their time they could mandate bumper geometry that functions.  IMHO

Jerry Roane

[eph]

I think we did talk about it a while back. Outside deceleration only
helps if inside deceleration works. It seemed fairly simple to stop a
guideway bound car quickly, but how do you protect the occupants?
Airbags/seatbelts means passengers must be in particular locations and
without gear - strollers, wheelchairs, bikes...

I had a funky tilting vehicle design to transfer deceleration force to
the cabin floor.

F.

On Oct 16, 5:40 pm, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Again:  "What relation do gasbag declerators have to PRT spacing and brick wall
>
> > stops?"
>
> I can't believe protection inside and/outside the pod has not been analysed as a way to reduce separation/increase throughput?
>
>  Walt Brewer
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jerry Roane
>   To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:11 PM
>   Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides
>
>   Steve
>
>   Teen brains have not fully cross linked and on a minute by minute basis they flip from 4 year old to 25 year old and back in their decisions.  Providing a "dramatic" demise has a certain appeal that could contribute to such a tragedy.  It is a fine line to walk to even talk about the subject as it adds power to the thought inside the teen.  Putting visible effort into the subject could make it even more "romantic"  Shakespeare did not help!!!!!  The movie industry and the news 24/7 do not help.  I am positive a mechanical device can be built to save these immature persons with a short term problem they do not at the time have the mental tools to deal with in a rational way.  
>
>   I doubt that the railroads will buy such things and they probably would not take the time to couple them onto the front of the train if they were given free by crisis prevention philanthropists.  How it relates to advanced transportation Pod shaped cars is safety of moving objects is in common.  It takes distance and G forces to protect life either from a child who is confused momentarily or two pod cars that have somehow become disconnected from control.  If the cars have another layer of crash protection beyond grade separation which is significantly safer than buses or street cars then they will be safer still.  This is a diminishing return but since you cannot put a price tag on any one's daughter or son the diminished return is still worth doing.  The concept of active armor is intriguing if the nose of a pod car has shape charges embedded so that they direct forces alternative ways that could have use in crashes.  This idea is not fleshed out so you will have to do your own invention from this kernel.  The idea for crash mitigation (since crash avoidance has obviously broken down at this instant) should be layered onto all other crash prevention.  The steering wheel airbag is one such active armor device.  The trick is to move that concept to the nose and tail of pod cars possibly.  An air blast is more effective if it is inside the air bag.  A lower cost solution is to inflate the air bag before it is needed in that millisecond of the crash.  This takes the $1000 air bag down to a $5 ball.  For initial slow speed operation it may be wise to strap a ball to the nose and tail of pod cars.  In the event of screw up the pre-inflated balls could reduce harm in a crash.  The drawback at slow speed is only looks and spacing in stations.  A small trade for damage to people's bodies it might reduce.  Again this is not a final design or even close just a thought tossed out in an effort to be collaborative for this sad problem.      
>
>   I would love to work on Mythbusters.  That would be such a fun job.  My previous neighbor was one of the idea women behind that show.  I do not think she has any more ties to the show though.  
>
>   Jerry Roane  
>

[Jerry Roane]

F

I like your concept of a tilting protective move by the crashing vehicle.  Our bodies do this in sports (football) and the difference between a season ending injury and going in for the next play is how you land in a protective action.   It usually does not take a lot of distance to crush to save lives because usually there is some form of emergency stop or turn just before impact.  The combination of all these actions inside and outside the car pluss evasive action work to the good. 

In a past life I worked on a Navy project to eject a naval pilot into MACH speed airstream.  The information from that experience says that if you can keep the extreme G forces straight forward your survivability goes way up.  If you could get the car to go floorboard first that might be a good design.  The worst possible is glass windshield first which is the norm. 

My only wreck of any consequence was I hit a bridge pillar going backwards.  The trunk on that full sized 1965 Pontiac Catalina and the bending of the seat bracket allowed me to crash into a "brick wall stop" (actually a cylinder of concrete) at 60 mph with no damage to my body.  The windshield did shatter and its momentum came across my face and ripped my glasses off and gave me a black eye but no other damage to me.  My two friends in the same seat suffered much more harm each being in intensive care for two weeks.  The "shotgun" seat had a bruised brain.  The middle position had 7 cracked vertebrae.  The crush of that long car saved our lives but if we had not spun backwards we would have all three died.  This was a defective sidewall blowing out in the rain on highway 121 in Fort Worth at the Beach exit.  It took 25 years for the blue paint to wear off from all the other wrecks on that post.  Now they have a guardrail in front of it.  I was spun around by one of those little reflectors on a metal post that snagged on the middle of the front bumper pulling the post in half before hitting the concrete.  It was a combination of spinning backwards before impact, the front bumper being pulled into a V and the rear of the car crushing into a mushed mess.  The drive train was ripped from the car and the rear end was beside the car when it stopped.  The degrees of health damage from the exact same event was very different.  It means to me we should err on the side of too much protection and of course the most important is grade separation safely constrained to a guideway so the attacks are probably straight on.  Full belly pad of course. 

Jerry Roane 

[eph]

Wow, that's some story.

F.

[Walter Brewer]

OK. Hardware speculations are fun, but has there been a serious trade-off
analysis to show what degrees of pod and/or occupants protection will
generate what additional guideway throughput? How will such fit with safety
regulations?

[Kirston Henderson]

on 10/16/09 9:41 PM, Walter Brewer at catc...@verizon.net wrote:

> OK. Hardware speculations are fun, but has there been a serious trade-off
> analysis to show what degrees of pod and/or occupants protection will
> generate what additional guideway throughput? How will such fit with safety
> regulations?
>

Walt,

I can't speak for others on this subject, but it has always been a very
integral part of our internal system design effort and will continue top be
be so. Frankly, such discussions as we have just seen with regard to
"cowketchers) are really just a diversion by a lot of people not really that
close to the problem.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Jack Slade]

A better suggestion for Steve is to go back to the beginning of the problem, and make the solution there.   I know it is hard to comprehend that parents of a young person that has committed suicide would want to demand a drug test, but I would have if it had happened to one of my kids. Mind-changing drugs is probably the biggest problem on this Continent, and it makes no difference if somebody on drugs"wants" to step in front of a train, or is so spaced out that rhey dont even hear the train. There is no way to determine which is the case, in any given incident.   The incidents he is talking about seem localized to one area, so I would guess at contaminated drugs. The cure is to apply a murder charge to suppliers of this crap, and make sure the sentence is applied and carried out in a very short time. I would suggest about 2 months.   This is against the law, so change the law. Guess what would have happened to any supplier who killed one of my kids, if I had found him before the law did.   Jack Slade   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[Jack Slade]

More than that, the  "bumpers" on most cars today are just $1500 pieces of plastic ornamental junk that is there for appearence, not protection. The chrome-plated steel bumper on my 54 Ford that I drove for 9 years had a couple of scratches, but never needed any repairs.   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

[eph]

Prescribed anti-depressant withdrawal can also cause suicides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/YELLOW%20CARD%20REVIEW.pdf

F.

On Oct 17, 3:36 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> A better suggestion for Steve is to go back to the beginning of the problem, and make the solution there.
>  
> I know it is hard to comprehend that parents of a young person that has committed suicide would want to demand a drug test, but I would have if it had happened to one of my kids. Mind-changing drugs is probably the biggest problem on this Continent, and it makes no difference if somebody on drugs"wants" to step in front of a train, or is so spaced out that rhey dont even hear the train. There is no way to determine which is the case, in any given incident.
>  
> The incidents he is talking about seem localized to one area, so I would guess at contaminated drugs. The cure is to apply a murder charge to suppliers of this crap, and make sure the sentence is applied and carried out in a very short time. I would suggest about 2 months.
>  
> This is against the law, so change the law. Guess what would have happened to any supplier who killed one of my kids, if I had found him before the law did.
>  
> Jack Slade
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Walter Brewer <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> From: Walter Brewer <catca...@verizon.net>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Received: Friday, October 16, 2009, 9:40 PM
>
> Again:  "What relation do gasbag declerators have to PRT spacing and brick wall> stops?"
>
>  
> I can't believe protection inside and/outside the pod has not been analysed as a way to reduce separation/increase throughput?
>  
>  Walt Brewer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jerry Roane
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:11 PM
> Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides
>
> Steve
>
> Teen brains have not fully cross linked and on a minute by minute basis they flip from 4 year old to 25 year old and back in their decisions.  Providing a "dramatic" demise has a certain appeal that could contribute to such a tragedy.  It is a fine line to walk to even talk about the subject as it adds power to the thought inside the teen.  Putting visible effort into the subject could make it even more "romantic"  Shakespeare did not help!!!!!  The movie industry and the news 24/7 do not help.  I am positive a mechanical device can be built to save these immature persons with a short term problem they do not at the time have the mental tools to deal with in a rational way. 
>
> I doubt that the railroads will buy such things and they probably would not take the time to couple them onto the front of the train if they were given free by crisis prevention philanthropists.  How it relates to advanced transportation Pod shaped cars is safety of moving objects is in common.  It takes distance and G forces to protect life either from a child who is confused momentarily or two pod cars that have somehow become disconnected from control.  If the cars have another layer of crash protection beyond grade separation which is significantly safer than buses or street cars then they will be safer still.  This is a diminishing return but since you cannot put a price tag on any one's daughter or son the diminished return is still worth doing.  The concept of active armor is intriguing if the nose of a pod car has shape charges embedded so that they direct forces alternative ways that could have use in crashes.  This idea is not fleshed out
>  so you will have to do your own invention from this kernel.  The idea for crash mitigation (since crash avoidance has obviously broken down at this instant) should be layered onto all other crash prevention.  The steering wheel airbag is one such active armor device.  The trick is to move that concept to the nose and tail of pod cars possibly.  An air blast is more effective if it is inside the air bag.  A lower cost solution is to inflate the air bag before it is needed in that millisecond of the crash.  This takes the $1000 air bag down to a $5 ball.  For initial slow speed operation it may be wise to strap a ball to the nose and tail of pod cars.  In the event of screw up the pre-inflated balls could reduce harm in a crash.  The drawback at slow speed is only looks and spacing in stations.  A small trade for damage to people's bodies it might reduce.  Again this is not a final design or even close just a thought tossed out in an effort to
>  be collaborative for this sad problem.     
>
> I would love to work on Mythbusters.  That would be such a fun job.  My previous neighbor was one of the idea women behind that show.  I do not think she has any more ties to the show though. 
>
> Jerry Roane 
>

[Richard Gronning]

How about getting those guys @ Mythbusters to "disprove" PRT?
In the process, PRT gleans excellent PR!

[Steve Raney]

Here's the specification for a "people catcher" design project that
I've been sending around: http://www.cities21.org/cow_catcher.htm

I've made initial communication Caltrain, Amtrak Capitol Corridor,
City of Palo Alto, design firms (IDEO, Mindtribe, Makani Power [air
bag expertise], Mission Motors, Humcycles), Stanford Design Program,
UC Berkeley SafeTREC (Safe Transportation Research and Education
Center), Pasadena Art Center College of Design (automotive design,
industrial design, etc), National Transportation Research Board
committees: Commuter Rail Committee and Rail Operations Safety
Committee, and Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety.

If no progress by Nov 30, then I suppose it's worth it to post a "job
spec" to the 708 elance.com industrial designers for a sketch design
where the designer provides their own physics calcs and a cost
estimate for a prototype.

[Jerry Roane]

Steve

Thanks for the mention.  I would add a net at the top of the photo image that snags the body.  I would also suggest that under the mat for light weight objects that metal bendable structure actually be able to catch a small car and help slightly in a truck crash.  Any amount of bendable stuff out in front of the train would help any collision to be more survivable.  It would also suggest drab colors for this mat so you don't attract attention and dare a gymnast to dive into it on a dare.  Also the under structure of the leading edge needs to have pivotal underpinnings that when impacted rotate back and up so that the ankles of the child are lifted up on the first foot of impact.  This underpinning would be simple PVC plastic pipe possibly but that it gives a slight upward force on the very first part of the impact to save dragging down under this device.  This same effect could be done by sculpting the foam under the pad to flex up.  There are a lot of ways to get a slight upward force under the cover of the mat. 

Jerry Roane

[Steve Raney]

There are two recent "train collision with pedestrian" patents, one
with an air bag. The Australia government also called for something
similar in their 2008 rail safety study:

US Patent #6293205: "Train collision system." A train collision system
helps reduce the severity of impact between a train and a land vehicle
or pedestrian. The system uses a flatbed rail car that is coupled to
the front of a train. Several deformable barrels, each at least
partially filled with an inert material, are attached to the top.
Inventor: Paul A. Butler.

US Patent #6474489, "Collision Attenuator"
A train collision attenuator mounted on a leading end of a train for
attenuating the force of impact between a moving train and a
pedestrian or motor vehicle. The train collision attenuator includes
an energy absorbing assembly and a mounting assembly. ... A
selectively-inflatable, externally-mounted airbag including an upper
pedestrian cushioning portion and a lower pedestrian support portion
is also provided. Inventor: Thomas S. Payne.

"Improving crashworthiness of trains: Change to the design of trains
could provide protection for train crew and passengers, as well as
road users, against injury or loss of life in the event of a crash.
These types of technologies, or design changes have a similar purpose
to passive technologies found in vehicles, such as seatbelts, air
bags, and the vehicle crumple zone which compress and absorb energy in
a crash. In submissions to the Inquiry, Dr Wigglesworth and DVExperts
International suggested that research be undertaken into energy
attenuating systems, such as airbags on the front of locomotives to
reduce the severity of a crash." From: Road Safety Committee Inquiry
into Improving Safety at Level Crossings, December 2008,Parliment of
Victoria, Australia, pg 119

I can't locate the two inventors. Dr. Wigglesworth has passed away,
but I have a ping into DVExperts.

Latest info: http://www.cities21.org/cow_catcher.htm

[Steve Raney]

Jerry R (and others with some collisions physic backgrounds),

Do you have bandwidth to look at US Patent #6106038: "System for
Collision Damage Reduction:"
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=SCoDAAAAEBAJ&dq=6106038

The inventor believes that his 5-foot-long, front-facing exterior air
bag system allows a driver to survive a 45-mph collision between the
driver’s 3,000 lb car and an immovable wall. The inventor explains
that human can only stand 18 g’s of deceleration.

The inventor hints at a 50-foot-long air bag system with higher crash
capability. I do not understand how a 200 lb human colliding with a
locomotive would change the physics. Do you? The inventor envisioned
his invention being applied to trains and buses, as well as cars.

The inventor appears to have considered and addressed many design
challenges. The design is much more complicated than a typical inside-
the-vehicle air bag system. A special, extra-strong air bag fabric is
used. The venting system is clever: the “collidant’s” velocity drops
off exponentially with each additional foot of air bag compression. To
ensure that the air bag doesn’t pop, blowout patches relieve the
pressure. An inside-the-vehicle air bag fills and deflates rapidly.
The inventor’s external air bag stays inflated until the collision
occurs. (A radar or sonar sensing system is used to detect an imminent
collision.) The inventor creates downward pressure to keep the air bag
from hinging upward. A system of air bag compartments is used.

The inventor envisions a cost of only $300 per vehicle. This is
encouraging given the comment from FRA about a $10,000 budget per
locomotive for an air bag safety system.

I sent snail mail to the inventor, Peter Dreher. As of now, I’d say
that getting some relevant crash calculations made is the biggest
challenge. Given a “promising” mathematical conclusion, such as “you
need an 18-foot external air bag system for 50 mph collision to safely
decelerate a 200-pound human and 22 feet for 60 mph,” then it comes
back to design issues such as a) preventing the air bag from hinging
upwards, b) fabric that won’t pop when pressed to the train tracks, c)
keeping the cost low, d) meeting the requirements of commuter rail
operators, e) preventing people from getting their ankles caught, f)
how to fund, develop, and test a prototype, etc.

[Michael Weidler]

I wonder what the result would have been in my deer crash this past June? The air bag inside the vehicle eventually went off after dribbling the deer. --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org> wrote:

From: Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: need invention: cow-catcher to prevent suicides

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jerry Roane]

Steve

A human can stand much more than 18gs in most cases.  Obviously the lower the g force the less likely a fatal accident will occur but 18gs is not very much in a bump.  Special teams in football would be a good starting point for g force data.  The helmet pads are about 1.5 inches or less and they prevent head injuries some with a head on collision between the two kickoff team members.  The rocket sled experiments say otherwise but that is a healthy in shape man with the g force being straight forward.  Side g forces are less for survivability.  64 gs is more like a fully fatal g force.  Stopping a car with an airbag sounds like it will take a whole lot of hot gas to inflate if the bag has to deploy.  On a train I would imagine that a pre-inflated air bag would be easier and cheaper.  Keep in mind that a gas generator is an ordinance device and can kill you if you get the gas pressure applied incorrectly.  Also the edges of the safety zone would be more of a design factor than a middle of the sweet spot hit so the shape of the airbag may not be a simple wedge but it may take on a hammerhead shark kind of look to get all persons in front of a moving train to be safely caught by the device.  I am sure you want to catch the person not shove them to the side where there is a great risk of fatally hitting something near the train tracks. 

Another important fact of life is the insurance and product liability on this device will probably cause its downfall.  Even with the best of intentions our legal system will probably bring this product idea down.  Scenario--  A kid decides to make a cry for help and jumps in front of a moving train and the airbag/catcher catches them but breaks their spine in the process.  They are alive but now they are partially paralyzed.  Our legal system extracts millions of dollars for an injury like this and often the money changing hands is greater for an injury than for a death.  Not to pour cold water on the idea but I would not want to risk that much to sell a product with potential legal risk this large. 

The important part of the body to try to protect is the brain stem.  Also the mass of the head works against you when you hit a human body as that mass tends to whiplash the spine in the neck just where it is weak. 

I doubt that an airbag tied to the nose of a train is patentable but I have been dead wrong about the patent office before. 

In a normal car the driver gets to pick steering wheel parts out of his teeth if there is no airbag.  With this front of a train bag the steering mechanism is not a factor so that is a better situation than a car hitting a wall. 

One other potential problem.  If your sensors are not smart enough or get outsmarted by the situation you could get a false firing of an inflatable bag and that could cause a wreck that otherwise might not have happened.  My first job as a teen was repairing TV and stereo equipment.  In that first job I got to see lots of what can go wrong with electronic circuit components.  Parts fail lots of different ways that are unpredictable.  Sensor or controller failure will be just as common as with TVs going bad so given a whole community with explosive devices on the nose of their cars there will be a lot of false firings and some percentage of these electronic failures will probably cause harm.  This risk of the fix has to far outweigh the danger you are trying to avoid obviously. 

I know of an embedded design laboratory that could do the sensor design for such a system but again products that need to be developed cost money for the talent.  I hope this helps you out.

Jerry Roane

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Raney]

For your review & feedback, here's very rough start at work items for
a TCRP problem statement (to be submitted for TRB Jan 11-13
discussion):

* A talented, multi-disciplinary oversight panel with a mix of rail
operations and collision expertise will aide the research. The
research team should regularly report in to the oversight panel so
that the panel can ensure the research activities meet the complicated
needs and stay grounded in practicality.
* Develop a specification encompassing commuter rail operating
constraints including operator line-of-sight requirements. Specify a
series of "use cases" based on actual incidents that encompass the
angle, location, and speed of collisions between pedestrians and
locomotives.
* Identify whether advanced air bags are truly the only direction to
follow in solving this problem, or are their other technologies worth
considering?
* Working with advanced airbag design experts, develop a detailed
design. Report on the feasibility and practicality of that design.
Report on the expected efficacy under the range of use cases.
* Hold a design review workshop with outside experts, where the
detailed design is critically analyzed.
* Analyze implementation liability considerations. Is new liability-
limiting legislation required to enable implementation? Comments Jerry
Roane: "Another important fact of life is the insurance and product
liability on this air bag will probably cause its downfall. Even with

the best of intentions our legal system will probably bring this
product idea down. Scenario-- A kid decides to make a cry for help and
jumps in front of a moving train and the airbag/catcher catches them
but breaks their spine in the process. They are alive but now they are
partially paralyzed. Our legal system extracts millions of dollars for
an injury like this and often the money changing hands is greater for
an injury than for a death. Not to pour cold water on the idea but I
would not want to risk that much to sell a product with potential
legal risk this large."

* Rank US rail systems in terms of cost-effectiveness of
implementation, IE the higher the level of fatalities per locomotive,
the more cost-effective.
* Develop a prototyping and implementation plan, with expected costs
and a roll-out time line.
* Coordinate work with the Australian rail safety effort to reduce
damage from locomotive collisions. Identify any other compatible
international efforts to liaise with.
* Develop a narrative about historical inertia of safety regimes for
different transit technologies. New transit technologies such as HSR
and PRT are held to a new safety standard. With older transit
technologies, frequent fatalities are an accepted part of the
paradigm.

[Steve Raney]

1) Letter requesting federal research below
2) There's now a rough sketch of a 15' long by 7' high front-of-train
airbag at: http://www.cities21.org/cow_catcher.htm

Subject: Air Bag System to Reduce Railway Fatalities - TCRP federal
research

Dec 18, 2009

To: Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committees AP065, AP070,
AP075:
• AP065, Rail Transit, Steve Abrams, Chair
• AP070, Commuter Rail, David Wilcock, Chair
• AP075, LRT, John Wilkins, Chair

Cc: Federal Railroad Administration, American Public Transit
Association, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, Caltrain, City of Palo Alto, TRW
Vehicle Safety Systems, Bosch Research US, Operation Lifesaver,
Transit Cooperative Research Program Senior Program Officer Diane
Schwager, TRB Public Transportation Specialist Dr. Peter Shaw, TRB
Rail Transport Specialist Elaine King, IDEO, Stanford D-School

From: Steve Raney, Tom Rubin, Walter Brewer, Jerry Roane, David
Maymudes.

Dear Transportation Research Board Committees,

Please consider having one or more committee members review and
enhance the draft Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Problem
Statement (for June 2010 submission for 2011 TCRP) found in the web
PDF or Word doc link below. Please also consider agendizing this topic
at a future committee meeting.

http://www.cities21.org/cms/tcrp_rail_airbag.pdf
http://www.cities21.org/cms/tcrp_rail_airbag.doc

I. TCRP PROBLEM TITLE

Air Bag System to Reduce Railway Pedestrian Fatalities

II. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

In the US in 2006, there were 500 fatal collisions between trains and
pedestrians. Of these 500, about 360 were suicides. Psychologically
speaking, these are “dramatic” suicides where less-dramatic suicide
methods would not be substituted. These fatalities are devastating to
families and to rail transit personnel. Rail transit systems
experiencing frequent fatalities include: Caltrain, Amtrak Capitol
Corridor, Washington DC Metrorail, and others. Rail pedestrian
fatalities are also an international problem. The UK Rail Safety and
Standards Board estimates the total cost of suicides (trackside and at
stations) to the UK rail industry in 2003 was more than 11M GBP at
61,000 GBP cost per suicide. This cost includes delay to trains and
lost working time as a result of trauma suffered by staff . Each year
the UK experiences about 200 rail suicides. In 2008, there were 2,000
rail suicides in Japan. Germany experiences roughly 936 railway
suicides per year. Australia has called for improved crashworthiness
of trains.

A front-of-train air bag system shows promise in increasing rail
safety. When inflated, the air bag system might be 15 feet long and 7
feet high. The system will be able to safely handle a collision
between a pedestrian and a 60 mph locomotive, grabbing and holding the
pedestrian until the locomotive comes to a stop. Collision physics
calculations have been validated for a constant 20g deceleration. Such
an air bag system will necessarily have a more complicated design than
current in-vehicle automotive air bags. States a Principal Engineer
at TRW Automotive: "I believe that this concept is possible. I believe
that it would take quite a bit of development due to the volume of the
'bag' and the volatility of the propellants commonly used in air bag
systems. We would need to perform a lot of experimentation but I
overall I think it can be developed."

Proposed is a two-phase research study. The first phase covers design
and feasibility. The second phase creates an implementation plan.

III. OBJECTIVE

Save a significant portion of the 500 US lives per year lost to
railway pedestrian collisions, providing an annual value in lives
saved of $1B (based on low $2M value of a human life) and an annual
rail operating cost savings of $49.5M (based on UK Rail Safety and
Standards Board cost estimates). In Phase I, design the air bag system
and validate feasibility. In Phase II, create an implementation plan.