Re: Implications of ICE crash

[steam4me@enternet.com.au (Yuri J Sos/Melbourne AUS)]

dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote, and I selectively
quote:

>power. Can any drivers reading tell me if a train dividing would feel much
>different to the guard pulling the tap?
>
>It has been estimaged the rear portion had slowed to about 100km/h before
>it struck the bridge, then stopped in less than 50m. The front portion
>took 2300m to stop under emergency braking. 

I know I'm only a vet, but I'd like to ask the drivers here.....what
stops faster from 100km/h, a train or a light engine?  

I remember someone telling me that some loco runaways occur (we were
talking about a T class descending Ingliston Bank at an indecently
fast rate) because the driver doesn't realise that the absence of a
train makes for much reduced braking ability of the loco alone.

*If* this is correct, one would expect the leading loco to take 2.3km
to pull up.

>The normal length of a first generation ICE set is 410m. The rear portion
>was reduced to 50m.
 
The aerial photo I pulled off "The Age Online" shows the last 5-6 cars
and the trailing power unit jack-knifed on and beside the bridge, so I
don't think this sentence is correct.

Regards

Yuri
--  

"The gene pool could use a little chlorine."