Office of Research 

and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

Evaluation of Concepts for Locomotive 

Crew Egress 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

DOT/FRA/ORD-03/07 Final Report

March 2003 

This document is available to the 

U.S. public through the National 

Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161. 
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of 

the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes 

no liability for its contents or use thereof.

NOTICE 

The United States Government does not endorse products 

or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear 

herein solely because they are considered essential to the 

objective of this report. 

 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

DOT/FRA/ORD-03/07 

2. Government Accession No. 

 

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

 

5. Report Date 

March 2003 

4. Title and Subtitle

Evaluation of Concepts for Locomotive Crew Egress 

6. Performing Organization Code

DFRA.020021 

7. Author(s)

James Carter, Judith Gertler, Sarah Acton, Stephen Kokkins 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Foster-Miller, Inc. 

350 Second Avenue 

Waltham, MA 02451-1196 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFR53-01-D-00029

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report 

September 2001 – August 2002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development 

1120 Vermont Avenue, MS20 

Washington, DC 20590

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 

15. Supplementary Notes

COTR: Mr. John Punwani

16. Abstract

This report presents the results of the first phase of a program to develop innovative concepts for a locomotive crew egress system. 

The program targeted rollover derailment accidents, where the options for crew egress are most limited. 

In Phase I of this program, Foster-Miller conceptualized an integrated roof mounted escape hatch system for use in a road locomotive 

cab. This system provides a centerline mounted escape hatch, along with a series of deployable hand/footholds to aid in climbing. 

The design approach was presented to railroad crews who provided feedback as a basis for design revisions. In general, the escape

hatch concept was viewed as a significant improvement in locomotive egress equipment. Preliminary evaluation indicates that the 

hatch can be integrated into new locomotive designs with minimal cost impact. 

The utility of the overall concept was evaluated using untrained personnel in a full-scale mockup of a toppled locomotive. With a 

minimum of instruction, test subjects were able to actuate the hatch and escape the cab in 30 s or less. Future research will involve 

refining the hatch design so that it is manufacturable. Secondary egress options identified in Phase I will also be given further 

attention in the subsequent research.

17. Key Words

egress, locomotive, safety, emergency rescue 

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the U.S. public through the 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

70 

22. Price 

 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

 i 
 ii 
Contents

Section Page 

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... xi 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 3 

1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................... 4 

1.3 Overall Approach ........................................................................................................ 4 

1.4 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 4 

1.5 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................... 5 

2 Inventory of Current Egress and Emergency Rescue Equipment ............................... 7 

2.1 Side Windows.............................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Doors........................................................................................................................... 9 

2.3 Windshields............................................................................................................... 10 

2.4 Hatches...................................................................................................................... 12 

2.5 Assessment of Current Options................................................................................. 16 

2.6 Ergonomic Design Criteria........................................................................................ 17 

2.7 Emergency Responder Equipment ............................................................................ 18 

3 Development of Preliminary Design Concepts......................................................... 23 

3.1 Hand/Footholds......................................................................................................... 23 

3.2 Hatch ......................................................................................................................... 26 

3.3 Windshield Removal ................................................................................................. 28 

4 User Review of Preliminary Concepts...................................................................... 33 

4.1 Focus Group Interviews with Railroad Labor........................................................... 33 

4.2 Interviews with Rescue Personnel............................................................................. 40 

4.3 Recommended Design Changes................................................................................ 43 

5 Revised Design Concepts.......................................................................................... 45 

5.1 Hatch ......................................................................................................................... 45 

5.2 Hand/Footholds......................................................................................................... 45 

5.3 Windshield................................................................................................................. 47 

5.4 Cost/Design Considerations...................................................................................... 47 

 iii 
6 Mockup...................................................................................................................... 53 

6.1 Locomotive Cab Mockup.......................................................................................... 49 

6.2 Roof Egress Hatch Mockup ...................................................................................... 50 

6.3 Hand/Foothold Mockup ............................................................................................ 50 

6.4 Initial Concept Evaluation......................................................................................... 51 

6.5 Observations/Conclusions......................................................................................... 53 

7 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................... 55 

8 References................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix A - Focus Group Questions......................................................................................... 59 

 iv 
Illustrations 

Figure 1. Aftermath of Accident in Carlisle, OH............................................................................ 3 

Figure 2. Overall Approach ............................................................................................................ 5 

Figure 3. Single Sliding Side Window in GE AC6000 Locomotive .............................................. 7 

Figure 4. Double Sliding Side Window in EMD SD-60 Locomotive ............................................ 8 

Figure 5. Removable Side Window for F59-PHI Locomotive by R. E. Jackson, Co..................... 8 

Figure 6. Inner Nose Door to Locomotive Cab (GE CW40-8)....................................................... 9 

Figure 7. Outer Nose Door to Locomotive Cab (GE CW40-8).................................................... 10 

Figure 8. Rear Door of Locomotive Cab (GE AC6000)............................................................... 11 

Figure 9. Typical Locomotive Windshield (GE AC6000)............................................................ 11 

Figure 10. Typical EMD Windshield (EMD SD-60).................................................................... 12 

Figure 11. Windshield Framing “J” Channel (EMD SD-70)........................................................ 13 

Figure 12. Typical Windshield Gasket Installation (EMD).......................................................... 14 

Figure 13. Pantograph Access Hatch in Amtrak Acela Express Power Car................................. 14 

Figure 14. Transit Bus Hatch with Venting Hinge (Transpec)..................................................... 15 

Figure 15. Sidewalk Hatch for Subway System, Boston, MA...................................................... 16 

Figure 16. Typical Firefighter’s Gear........................................................................................... 19 

Figure 17. Breathing Apparatus.................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 18. Body Board Utilized by Rescue Personnel ................................................................. 21 

Figure 19. Typical Pry-Bars Carried by Fire and Rescue Crews.................................................. 22 

Figure 20. Hallagan Bar................................................................................................................ 22 

Figure 21. Cab Ceiling View of Hand/Foothold Layout .............................................................. 24 

Figure 22. Swing-Out Rung Concept............................................................................................ 25

Figure 23. Pull-Out Rung Concept ............................................................................................... 25 

Figure 24. Fold-Out Rung Concept .............................................................................................. 26 

Figure 25. Initial Design for Roof-Mounted Escape Hatch.......................................................... 28 

Figure 26. Emergency Roof Hatch in Operation to Allow Crewmember Egress......................... 29 

Figure 27. Roof Hatch Seal and Mounting Concept..................................................................... 30 

Figure 28. Roof Hatch Provides Easy Access for Rescue Personnel ........................................... 30 

Figure 29. Removable Windshield Gasket Concept..................................................................... 31 

Figure 30. Externally Removable Windshield Concept ............................................................... 32 

 v 
Figure 31. Removable Windshield Provides Easy Access for Rescuers...................................... 32 

Figure 32. Revised Hatch Design ................................................................................................. 46 

Figure 33. Locomotive Cab Mockup............................................................................................ 49 

Figure 34. Hatch Mockup ............................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 35. Hand/Foothold Mockup .............................................................................................. 51

Figure 36. Egress of 50th Percentile Female Subject, Interior View............................................. 52 

Figure 37. Egress of 50th Percentile Female Subject, Exterior View ........................................... 52 

Figure 38. Egress of 95th Percentile Male Subject, Interior View ................................................ 53 

Figure 39. Egress of 95th Percentile Male Subject, Exterior View............................................... 53 

Figure 40. Simulation of Injured Crewmember – One Handed Egress........................................ 54 

Figure 41. Simulation of Injured Crewmember – One Legged Egress......................................... 54 

 vi 
Tables 

Table 1. Applicable Hatch Standards............................................................................................ 17 

Table 2. Applicable Handhold Standards ..................................................................................... 18 

Table 3. Profile of Focus Group Participants................................................................................ 34 

Table 4. Assessment of Hand/Foothold Concepts........................................................................ 37 

 vii 
Abbreviations 

BLE Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

UTU United Transportation Union 

 viii 
Acknowledgments

This report presents the results of the first phase of a program to develop innovative designs for a 

locomotive crew egress system. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Research 

and Development funded this work under Contract DTFR53-01-D-00029. Mr. John Punwani, 

the FRA COTR, provided guidance and encouragement to the study team. 

In addition to Mr. Punwani, thanks are due to numerous individuals and organizations that 

provided information and feedback on our egress concepts. The locomotive window and door 

manufacturers, and the hatch manufacturers willingly provided information about their products. 

Assistance on manufacturing issues was rendered by a consultant to the program, Mr. Allen 

Bieber. Capt. Stephen Persson from the Cambridge, MA Fire Department gave the study team

insights on the job of the emergency responder and provided feedback on candidate egress 

system designs. American Medical Response demonstrated their emergency rescue tools and 

allowed us to measure and photograph their rescue equipment. (AMR is responsible for 

municipal ambulance service in several communities in west suburban Boston.) 

Thanks are extended to Mr. Ed Farr of CSX in Allston, MA and Mr. Paul Cottam of Amtrak’s 

South Boston Repair Facility, who provided access to operational locomotives for close-up 

study. 

The focus group research would not have been possible without the generous cooperation of 

numerous officers from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United Transportation 

Union. The authors wish to thank all of the focus group participants who provided valuable 

feedback on the candidate egress equipment designs. Their feedback was incorporated into the 

final designs described in this report. 

Thanks are also extended to Mr. Fran Aho and Ms. Darlene Stokes for serving as test subjects for 

the initial usability evaluation. Finally, special thanks are due to Mr. John Flynn, Mr. Anthony 

DeMeo and Mr. Robert Clark of Foster-Miller for their time and effort in the construction of the 

locomotive cab mockup. 

 ix 
 x 
Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the first phase of a program to develop innovative concepts for 

a locomotive crew egress system. Current egress equipment, including cab doors and windows, 

is adequate for most accidents in which the locomotive remains upright. However, the 

equipment has serious limitations in rollover derailment accidents. In these scenarios, viable 

egress options for crewmembers are greatly reduced, particularly for injured persons. These 

limitations also hamper rescue workers who respond to these accidents by reducing the access to 

the cab and the injured crew members inside. 

The Phase I effort defined and developed three concepts to improve the crew egress from a 

rollover accident. The initial set of concepts included hatches, removable doors, side access 

panels, and removable glazing systems. Ease of use, cost, manufacturing considerations, and 

other practical issues associated with integrating these concepts into new locomotives were 

weighed. From the overall concept list, three were chosen for further development: 

1) Hand/footholds to aid climbing inside a toppled locomotive. Anecdotal evidence indicated 

that in several rollover accidents, uninjured crewmembers escaped from the cab by climbing up 

the consoles and seats to reach the side window on the high side of the locomotive. To aid 

crewmembers in climbing out of a toppled locomotive, a hand/foothold system on the cab ceiling 

was proposed. If the locomotive were toppled, the hand/foothold could be extended to provide 

climbing points to reach the high side of the locomotive. Notionally, the hand/footholds would 

be recessed into the cab ceiling in normal operation, and would be deployed by the crew in the 

event of an emergency. 

2) Roof-mounted escape hatch. Many transportation vehicles, in particular transit and school 

buses, have a roof hatch as an emergency exit. A roof-mounted hatch could provide a means of 

crew egress and would be of particular value in the event of a toppled locomotive. The clear 

opening of the hatch must be of adequate size to allow easy egress by crewmembers. The hatch 

must also be sized such that rescue personnel in heavy gear could access the cab, as well as 

remove an injured crewmember on a body board. Opening the hatch must be accomplished by a 

single movement that requires little force, and be functional even if the cab is slightly deformed. 

With regard to exterior access, the hatch should provide easy operation for rescue personnel 

while not encouraging unauthorized use. 

3) Externally removable windshield. To facilitate access for rescue workers, a removable 

windshield panel was proposed. The approach utilized a cutting cable to sever the windshield 

gasket, providing easier access from outside the cab. The commonality of windshield gasket 

design allows this concept to be adapted to various windshield configurations. The changes 

required to make the windshield removable by the crew from inside the cab, however, would be 

too costly to implement. This is driven by the structural requirements of the windshield, as it is 

designed to withstand the high loads associated with frontal impact. 

Review of Concepts 

As the potential users of the egress equipment, train crews and emergency rescue workers were 

interviewed to provide feedback on the design concepts. Focus group interviews with locomotive 

 1 
engineers and conductors provided a forum to gather information about train crew perceptions of 

the three proposed locomotive egress designs. 

Overall participants viewed the hatch concept as a significant improvement in cab egress. 

Several participants suggested that the design be such that the hatch falls out upon release, like 

an airplane’s emergency exit. When asked which design provided the quickest escape for the 

crew, they unanimously agreed on the roof hatch. Similarly, participants unanimously agreed 

that the hatch would provide the quickest access for rescue workers. 

Interviews with rescue personnel also provided insight to the basic problem of a locomotive 

rollover. Two major issues pertaining to rescue personnel facing a locomotive accident were 

identified: ease of access and personnel safety. Compared to current procedures, the hatch 

would make it much easier to get into the locomotive cab and rescue an injured person. The 

removable windshield was also viewed favorably by the rescue personnel. Safety issues related 

to the size of the opening, the ability of the personnel to access the cab in normal protective 

equipment, and the location of hazards in the cab such as electrical and air lines. In general, the 

rescue workers expressed a lack of specific knowledge of locomotive systems, and the need for 

training materials to improve preparation for accident response. 

Revision and Evaluation of Concepts 

The user feedback led to several changes to the basic concepts. The hatch was redesigned to fall 

away from the roof when opened. The hand/footholds became an accessory to the hatch, rather 

than a stand alone system. To be a viable egress option, the removable windshield would have to 

be usable from the cab interior. 

Construction of a system mockup facilitated evaluating the overall concept. A full-sized 

locomotive cab, with an integrated hatch and hand/foothold system was constructed. The 

mockup is a wood-framed, plywood-sheathed structure representing a “generic” freight 

locomotive cab, using dimensions common to both GE and EMD road locomotives currently in 

service. The mockup was oriented to represent a toppled locomotive for egress evaluation. 

The utility of the egress system was evaluated by two test subjects representing a likely range of 

personnel working as crew in locomotives. Neither of the subjects was familiar with locomotive 

equipment or operations. Both were able to exit the toppled cab utilizing the hatch in 30 s or less 

with little or no instruction. Two brief simulations of injured crewmembers were also attempted, 

with the test subject able to egress the cab without full mobility. 

The present development of the hatch system design is not sufficiently detailed to allow for an 

in-depth analysis of its likely cost. However, a preliminary study identified the cost implications 

of several aspects of the design. These issues relate to the initial engineering rather than the 

recurring component costs in manufacturing. As such, it is believed that the overall cost for 

implementing the hatch in new locomotives will be low. 

The results of this study suggest areas for future research relative to improved egress for 

locomotive crews. These include refining the design of the roof hatch into a manufactureable 

device, re-evaluation and development of the secondary egress options such as the internally 

removable windshield, and development of training aids for emergency personnel on locomotive 

accidents and rescue procedure. 

 2 
1 Introduction 

1.1 Background 

Improving the survivability of a locomotive crew in the event of an accident has been a concern 

of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the past decade. The Rail Safety Enforcement 

and Review Act, passed by Congress in 1992, required the FRA to conduct an inquiry into 

locomotive crashworthiness and the safety effects of cab working conditions on productivity. In 

response to this mandate, the FRA undertook a comprehensive study of many aspects of 

locomotive crashworthiness (FRA, 1996). While the focus of this study was not specifically on 

emergency egress, the FRA’s Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working Conditions Report 

to Congress did note that, “Implementation of a crash survivability strategy should include 

consideration of an optional egress path in the roof of the cab to be used as an emergency exit.” 

The FRA emphasized in this report that the acceptance of any improvements by locomotive 

crews should be considered in future research on proposed crashworthiness concepts. 

Locomotive crashes can injure the crew as well as deform the locomotive cab. Exiting from a 

deformed cab can be difficult, particularly for injured crewmembers. If the locomotive is 

toppled, egress is even more challenging with current cab configurations. Fortunately this type 

of accident does not occur frequently, since its consequences can be significant. For example, a 

relatively recent accident in Carlisle, OH on 17 February 2001 caused the locomotive to topple. 

Figure 1 shows the position of the locomotive after this crash. Rescue workers could not readily 

enter the cab and one crewmember died as a result of the accident. 

Figure 1. Aftermath of Accident in Carlisle, OH 

3
In 2000, the FRA initiated a preliminary study of existing cab egress issues (Kokkins, 2002). 

The objectives of this study were to survey, identify and evaluate many aspects of current 

locomotive design and operation that affect crew egress or access by rescuers after an accident. 

This work included a broad survey of current egress and survivability issues and identified many 

opportunities for improvements. One area that the study identified as requiring improvement 

was equipment related to egress routes for crewmembers following an accident. This equipment 

could include doors, windows and other access points such as hatches, windshields and 

removable panels. The work described in this report builds on the preliminary study and focuses 

on the development of these types of egress systems. 

1.2 Objectives 

The purpose of the research described in this report was to evaluate locomotive cab egress/access

equipment currently available in modern freight locomotives and to investigate modifications

that will lead to improved survivability. The project had the following goals: 

• Assemble data and information on currently available egress-related equipment. 

• Identify and examine specific design improvements that will provide improved 

emergency egress. 

• Determine required changes in locomotive cab structure to accommodate the candidate 

improvement concepts. 

• Develop engineering designs for the innovative concept that provides the greatest 

enhancement to available egress routes. 

• Demonstrate the selected concept via a full-size laboratory cab mockup. 

1.3 Overall Approach 

Figure 2 illustrates the overall approach to the design and development of an innovative egress 

concept. This project began with an assessment of current egress equipment, building on the 

information gathered in the initial study described above. The development of preliminary 

design concepts grew from an understanding of existing locomotives and their egress features. 

User acceptance will be key to future acceptance of any egress concept. Focus groups with train 

crews and interviews with emergency responders provided feedback on the designs, thus 

assuring that the design addresses all features and concerns of the likely users of the device or 

system. This feedback allowed the final design and mockup construction phases to focus on the 

concept most preferred by the users. The process of developing new concepts and reviewing 

them with train crews also identified additional areas where cab egress can be enhanced with 

further research. 

1.4 Scope 

The scope of this research was limited to road freight locomotives. While the egress concepts 

explored in this effort can potentially be incorporated into passenger and switching locomotives, 

the structural design considerations will differ for each type of locomotive. Since crew egress 

4
Figure 2. Overall Approach 

from a toppled locomotive is the most challenging situation, the present study focused on this 

scenario. Egress options, in terms of door and windows, already exist when the locomotive is 

upright. The mockup, although operable, is intended to illustrate an egress concept. It is not 

intended as a working mechanical prototype. 

1.5 Organization of the Report 

Section 2 provides an inventory of existing egress equipment and ergonomic standards that apply 

to any means of egress. Section 3 describes the development of three preliminary egress 

concepts and Section 4 presents user feedback on these concepts. Modification of the 

preliminary concepts, based on user feedback, is described in Section 5. Section 6 describes the 

construction of the locomotive cab mockup that incorporates the preferred egress system and 

presents the results of a preliminary functional evaluation. Recommendations for future cab 

egress research are in Section 7. 

5

2 Inventory of Current Egress and Emergency Rescue Equipment 

A previous study investigated the current configuration of locomotive cabs in terms of 

emergency egress (Kokkins, 2000). This investigation identified several areas including doors 

and windows as basic means of egress in the event of an accident or emergency. At the onset of 

the current program, this data was reviewed. Additional data was collected for not only current

egress options but also emergency rescue equipment that is used to rescue locomotive 

crewmembers following a crash. This section provides a summary of the findings of this data 

collection effort as well as ergonomic design standards relevant to egress devices. 

2.1 Side Windows

The basic side window configurations used in locomotives were reviewed from the previous 

egress study. In addition, some additional investigations were done to determine the status of 

any new systems being developed by window manufacturers. Finally, a series of windows were 

studied and measured at the CSX repair facility in Allston, MA. This provided a firsthand view 

of the various window configurations. 

Side windows currently in use fall into two basic configurations – single slider and double slider. 

The single slider version is shown in Figure 3, as installed in a GE AC6000. The double slider is 

shown in Figure 4, as installed in an EMD SD60. Both configurations are available from the 

major window manufacturers. The clear opening of these windows varies from manufacturer to 

manufacturer, but measurements indicate that the maximum opening of both single and double 

sliding windows is large enough to provide an egress route for a 95th percentile male 

crewmember. 

Figure 3. Single Sliding Side Window in GE AC6000 Locomotive 

7
Figure 4. Double Sliding Side Window in EMD SD-60 Locomotive 

Currently, there is only one side window designed specifically as an emergency egress device. 

This window is manufactured by R. E. Jackson for use in the F59-PHI Passenger Locomotive 

cab. An example of this window is shown in Figure 5. Although developed for passenger rail 

use, the design of this unit could be adapted for use in freight locomotives if required.

Figure 5. Removable Side Window for F59-PHI Locomotive by R. E. Jackson, Co. 

8
2.2 Doors 

Doorways in the locomotive cab are the common access routes for railroad personnel. As such, 

they are also the most obvious means of egress in the event of an accident. Door sizes range 

from 18 in to 23 in wide and 58 in to 72 in tall, depending on location. Given these dimensions, 

some of these doors are too small for a large segment of the train crewmembers to utilize 

comfortably even in normal operating situations. The viability of using these doors in an 

emergency is questionable, depending on the orientation of the cab and physical condition of the 

crew. 

The crew doors in the nose of the locomotive hinge in opposite directions, with both doors 

opening outwards. Although there is adequate space between the doors so that both could be 

open at the same time, for a toppled locomotive, one would always tend to close due to gravity, 

which would limit access and egress. The inner door, shown in Figure 6, lies on the centerline of 

the cab. The outer-most door, shown in Figure 7, is off-center. For this reason, the path to the 

cab is not straight. In addition, the outer-most door is not rectangular. There is a corner cut 

above the hinge (right side as facing the locomotive), so that the full height varies from 64 in to 

59 in. The door is only 23 in wide. The inner door is rectangular, 69 in tall and 22 in wide. 

Figure 6. Inner Nose Door to Locomotive Cab (GE CW40-8) 

9
Figure 7. Outer Nose Door to Locomotive Cab (GE CW40-8) 

The rear door is a narrow, angled door, as shown in Figure 8. The configuration is similar to the 

outer-most door in the nose. The height varies from 68 in at the hinge side to 73 in towards the 

centerline of the cab. The door is only 18 in wide. For a toppled locomotive, this is not the best 

egress route. If the door were on the grounded side, the crew would have to crawl out under the 

locomotive to escape through this door. If the door were on the high side, the hinge orientation 

would tend to have this door fall closed. 

2.3 Windshields 

Typically, a freight locomotive windshield is constructed of two rectangular pieces of glazing 

fitted into the structural frame of the cab. In general, there is one piece of glazing on either side

of the cab centerline, each measuring 51 in wide and 17 to 18 in tall. A typical windshield is 

shown in Figure 9. In locomotives manufactured by EMD, the windshield has a triangular 

extension along the lower outside edge to improve visibility along the track. A typical EMD 

windshield is shown in Figure 10. Impact requirements set in 49 C.F.R. § 233, Appendix A 

dictate that the glazing and frame must withstand the equivalent of a 24-lb concrete block 

traveling at 44 ft/s. For a typical road locomotive, the impact energy is on the order of 360 ft-lb. 

To meet this impact requirement, the glazing is typically 5/8 to 9/16 in thick laminated glass. 

10
Figure 8. Rear Door of Locomotive Cab (GE AC6000) 

 

Figure 9. Typical Locomotive Windshield (GE AC6000) 

11
Figure 10. Typical EMD Windshield (EMD SD-60) 

Structurally, the windshield is installed directly into the cab frame. In both GE and EMD cabs 

the windshield frame itself is a formed “J” channel of 0.09 in thick steel, welded into the cab 

body. A rubber gasket is used to hold the glazing into the frame. The inner edge of the Jchannel extends approximately 1 in further into the opening than the outer edge. The extended 

inner channel edge provides structural support to the gasket and glazing against frontal impact 

loads as described above. The lowered outer channel edge provides clearance for inserting the 

glazing. A typical windshield frame is shown in Figure 11. The glazing and gasket are installed 

directly into the frame during assembly. A schematic of this assembly is shown in Figure 12. 

The gasket is pushed into the channel to provide a weather seal to the frame. Shims are installed 

to insure that the glazing is centered properly in the gasket. A locking rib in the gasket is then 

pushed into place to secure the glazing and provide a seal to the glass. 

2.4 Hatches 

Although there are no hatches currently in use in road locomotives, the inclusion of one in future 

designs is an option. As such, hatches used in other applications were investigated. Many 

transportation vehicles utilize roof hatches for different purposes. As part of this study, bus, 

plane and boat hatches were considered. An additional hatch, used as part of a subway escape 

system was also reviewed. 

2.4.1 Passenger Rail Equipment 

In searching current systems for a hatch being used in railroad operations, only one hatch was 

found. This hatch provides access to the roof pantographs on the Acela Regional and Acela 

Express power cars currently in Northeast Corridor service for Amtrak. The hatch is located at 

the rear of the power car. These hatches have an integrated locking system that holds down the 

pantographs prior to unlatching the hatch cover. An interior view of this hatch is shown in 

Figure 13. 

12
 

Figure 11. Windshield Framing “J” Channel (EMD SD-70) 

The ladder shown in the photograph locks into the hatchway to provide access to the car roof. 

Given the level of effort associated with using this hatch/ladder system, it was not considered as 

a viable egress route in the event of an accident.

2.4.2 Buses 

Typically, transit and school buses have roof hatches for use in emergencies. Most of these 

hatches are dual-use, allowing them to be used as vents in normal operation and fully opened for 

egress in emergency situations. Many hatches also provide exterior access to the latching 

mechanism for rescue personnel. Transit buses can only be opened from the inside. An example 

of a bus hatch is shown in Figure 14. The primary components are molded, high-impact plastic. 

The venting mechanism seen in Figure 14 would be considered unnecessary for the locomotive 

cab, but the size seems applicable for railroad use. Other aspects of the design including 

materials, hinging, latching and sealing might also be adaptable, depending on the environmental 

assessment in the locomotive cab. The general size and shape of the opening does provide ample 

opening for egress. 

13
Figure 12. Typical Windshield Gasket Installation (EMD) 

Figure 13. Pantograph Access Hatch in Amtrak Acela Express Power Car 

14
. 

Figure 14. Transit Bus Hatch with Venting Hinge (Transpec) 

2.4.3 Airplanes 

Airplanes have utilized hatches for egress and access for more than 50 years. Typical access 

hatches are hinged openings providing space for crewmembers to enter and exit. Escape hatches

are typically designed to fall away, providing a maximum opening. In the case of highperformance jet aircraft, these hatches are usually opened pyrotechnically. The explosive 

mechanism for ejecting these hatches is not suitable for railroad use. 

2.4.4 Boats 

In terms of retrofit and usability, boat hatches were considered impractical for railroad usage. 

Typically, the boat hatches were circular in shape and not considered conducive to the 

locomotive roof support structure. However, several designs of boat hatches were studied. Due 

to the harsh environment to which these hatches are exposed, they were considered for examples 

of latching and sealing mechanisms. Some aspects of these designs were applicable to the 

railroad application, but most would require extensive modifications to meet the desired 

structural requirements and cost targets. 

2.4.5 Subway Tunnel Hatches 

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) subway rail lines employ hatches as a part of 

their normal emergency equipment for the MBTA. They are located at the end of escape routes 

from the underground rail lines. Figure 15 shows an example of this hatch. 

15
Figure 15. Sidewalk Hatch for Subway System, Boston, MA 

The escape routes lead to stairways that provide passengers access to street level. The stairways 

terminate at an emergency hatch in the sidewalk. These hatches are 3 x 5-ft steel doors held 

flush to the sidewalk surface. The door is quite heavy, and is counter-balanced for operation by 

a single person. This device was designed to be very easy to operate in the dark by an injured 

person. It is also accessible from the street side by rescue personnel and provides a large access 

port when open. Although too large to be practical for use in the locomotive cab, the hatch 

arrangement did provide insight into methods of latching, releasing, and securing a hatch from

vandalism while still providing easy access for both passengers and rescue personnel. 

2.5 Assessment of Current Options 

None of the existing egress options appears satisfactory in the event of a rollover. The windows 

may be an option when the locomotive remains upright, but an injured crewmember would have 

difficulty exiting via the window. Emergency rescue workers could fit a body board through 

existing windows but maneuvering the body board with an injured person would be difficult. In 

general, the size of most windows makes them not well suited for external rescue. The 

removable window does provide a larger opening but it must be actuated from the interior and as 

such it does not solve the problem of access from the exterior. If all crewmembers are injured 

and unable to release the window, it does not improve the egress situation. 

Doors are not a viable egress route in the event of a rollover. The position of the two front doors 

limits access for rescuers with a body board. The rear door will only be accessible if the 

locomotive rolls to the opposite side. There is also the risk that the crash could deform the door 

frame, making the doors inoperable. 

The windshield is the largest single opening accessible in a rollover. However, the windshield is 

virtually unbreakable by a crewmember and therefore does not offer an egress option to the 

crewmembers. Emergency rescue workers could likely break the windshield, but breaking the 

glass brings the risk of injuring the crew. 

16
2.6 Ergonomic Design Criteria 

To insure that any design implemented into railroad use would be both functional and practical, 

several references were consulted to determine the standards currently in use for hatches. The 

documents studied included U.S. military, U.S. civilian, and European transit standards. Where 

applicable, the basis for sizing was also noted, particularly for Mil-Spec requirements on 

clothing type and body size. 

2.6.1 Size 

The size of the opening is important when considering doors, windows, windshields, or hatches 

for emergency use. The most extensive information on hatch size standards is available from the 

U.S. Department of Defense. European and other transportation hatch standards were also 

reviewed. When applied to the proposed solution of a locomotive roof hatch, other factors were 

included. Most notably, the ability of rescue workers to access the cab in an emergency was 

considered as important. For that reason, clothing and gear typically worn by fire and rescue 

personnel, as well as typical rescue equipment were also taken into consideration when assessing 

size requirements. Table 1 shows the recommended size ranges for hatch openings. 

Table 1. Applicable Hatch Standards 

Standard 

Size

(in) Additional information

49 C.F.R. § 238.441 18 x 24 High speed passenger rail 

European Specs for safety 23 x 31 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) 217 

16 x 16 For school bus 

MIL-STD-1427F 13 x 23 Top and bottom access, light clothing

16 x 27 Top and bottom access, bulky clothing

26 x 30 Side access, light clothing

29 x 34 Side access, bulky clothing 

2.6.2 Engagement/Deployment 

Handle shape and operation were considered for the hatch design. Most of the basic standards 

available relate to U.S. military requirements for ease of use. However, these requirements 

assume an able-bodied user. In the case of the locomotive hatch, it is assumed that an accident in 

which the hatch would be needed for escape would likely cause injury to the crew to some

degree. For that reason, the U.S. military specifications were taken as a guideline rather than a 

firm requirement. The basic criteria for opening the hatch were determined to be: ease of 

operation by an injured crewmember; impervious to jamming, even in the event of a wreck; and 

resistant to accidental opening. 

17
2.6.3 Hand/Footholds 

To assist the crew in reaching the hatch opening, it was determined that a set of hand/footholds 

should be set into the ceiling. These could be recessed in normal use, and deployed to aid in 

reaching the side window or roof hatch if the locomotive was toppled. A number of applicable 

standards for handholds, ladders, and other climbing aids were reviewed. For railroad specific 

information, the main reference was 49 C.F.R. § 238, which contains specifications for 

handholds on different types of rail cars. Additionally, U.S. military and Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for ladders were reviewed. For handholds, the 

minimum diameter was generally 5/8 in, with a minimum length of 16 in and 2.5 in of clearance 

(preferred). Table 2 is a summary of the 49 C.F.R. § 238 specifications for handholds and grab 

irons. 

Table 2. Applicable Handhold Standards 

Type of handhold 

Minimum 

Diameter 

(in) 

Minimum Clear 

Length 

(in) 

Minimum 

Clearance 

(in) 

Side - Box and other 

House cars 

5/8 16

24 preferred 

36 Caboose 

2 

2.5 preferred 

Side – Passenger Cars 5/8 16 

24 preferred 

1.25 

1.5 preferred 

Horizontal End 5/8 18 

24 preferred 

2 

2.5 preferred 

End - Passenger car 5/8 16 2 

2.5 preferred 

Side – Steam Locomotives 5/8–horizontal

7/8-vertical 

16 2 

2.5 preferred 

Ladder rung sizes vary based on the application and required standard. Rung diameter may vary 

from 3⁄4 in to 11⁄2 in in diameter, depending on the type and arrangement of the ladder. OSHA 

standards given in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053 provide a wide range of specifications for various 

ladder types. Typically, rungs may be spaced between 10 and 18 in apart with the width of the 

rungs being a minimum of 111⁄2 in. Ladder specifications provided in MIL-STD-1472 are similar 

in sizing and spacing. 

2.7 Emergency Responder Equipment 

For accidents that might result in a rollover, it was assumed that firefighters or other rescue 

personnel would eventually respond to the scene. For this reason, the typical equipment used by 

emergency responders was reviewed. The equipment would affect the overall suitablity of the 

18
roof hatch as an access point, depending on the circumstances. The clear opening of the hatch 

and windows would need to be sized such that rescue personnel in heavy gear could access the 

cab. The typical tools available would also affect the ability of the rescue crews to open the 

hatch from the outside. Opening size and configuration would also determine the feasibility of 

using stretchers, body boards, or other equipment. 

2.7.1 Gear 

Clothing and breathing apparatus worn by rescue personnel, particularly firefighters, is intended 

to protect them from the hazards of their environment. Its bulk and weight, however, can limit 

their ability to perform certain functions. To better understand the implications of this 

equipment, typical fire fighting gear was reviewed and measured. In doing so, it would allow 

designers to determine the utility of hatch openings when approached by rescue personnel. An 

example of firefighters’ clothing is shown in Figure 16. 

Figure 16. Typical Firefighter’s Gear 

The jacket and trousers are fire resistant and very bulky. The boots are similar in size and 

construction to heavy-duty work boots. In general, the bulk of these items would have an impact 

on access through a window opening or hatch. However, since they are worn close to the body, 

the overall impact would be small. 

The helmet shown in Figure 16 is made of hard leather and has a clear plastic face shield. It has 

a brim that extends approximately 2 in around the front and sides and about 4 in in the back. 

This style of helmet is still typical in certain parts of the country, but most fire departments are 

shifting to helmets constructed of Kevlar and high-impact plastic. The brim would likely have 

an impact when entering a confined space, but again, this impact may not be that great. 

19
The breathing apparatus would likely provide the largest impediment to entry through a small 

opening. This is mainly due to the size of the oxygen tank. Typically, the tank supplies 30 min 

of oxygen. The high-pressure version of the tank is about 8 in in diameter and 20 in long. The 

low-pressure version is approximately 10 in in diameter and 22 in long. There is also a highpressure 60-min tank that is the same basic dimensions as the low-pressure 30-min tank. The 

tanks are carried in a harness worn on the firefighter’s back. This adds 8 to 10 in of depth to the 

body, creating an overall “thickness” of nearly 2 ft. A typical oxygen tank arrangement is shown 

in Figure 17. 

Figure 17. Breathing Apparatus 

2.7.2 Body Boards 

Before moving an injured person, firefighters and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) will 

immobilize the victim by strapping him/her to a body board. These boards are typically made of 

fiberglass and fitted with handholds and tie-down points. Typically, they are 16 in wide and 6 ft 

long. Shorter lengths are also available for use in automobile accidents where there is limited 

space and victims are in a seated position. Figure 18 contains an example of the longer board. 

20
Figure 18. Body Board Utilized by Rescue Personnel 

2.7.3 Tools 

The rescue workers carry various tools that help them access victims in a variety of situations. 

One idea for the hatch locking mechanism was to design the lock so that it could be opened from

the outside using a tool that was only common to emergency responders. This would limit the 

possible vandalism issue with the unlocked roof hatch. A similar concept is already in place 

with the subway tunnel hatches in Boston, MA. As described above, the subway tunnel can only 

be opened with a special wrench. The wrench, however, is not common throughout the United 

States. 

Most fire and rescue crews in the United States utilize the Hurst Rescue Tool, commonly known 

as “The-Jaws-of-Life.” Although this tool has been shown to be effective in responding to 

railroad accidents, it is not well suited to the non-destructive opening of a roof hatch latch. 

However, there are a number of commonly used hand tools that might be used to turn a latching 

mechanism, allowing firefighters and rescue personnel to open a hatch while limiting access to 

vandals. Two types of pry-bars that would be suitable for this purpose are shown in Figure 19. 

The common tool best suited to use with the latching mechanism is known as a Hallagan bar, 

shown in Figure 20. This tool was originally developed by a New York City firefighter as a 

multi-purpose prying tool. The double tyned end of the bar is well suited to use as a “key” for 

turning the exterior handle of the hatch. 

21
Figure 19. Typical Pry-Bars Carried by Fire and Rescue Crews 

Figure 20. Hallagan Bar 

22
3 Development of Preliminary Design Concepts

Current egress equipment, including doors and windows, is adequate for most accidents in which

the locomotive remains upright. However, these devices have serious limitations in a 90o 

rollover. In the event of a toppled locomotive, certain door openings would be blocked or 

unreachable and only one window would be accessible. For these reasons, rollover derailment 

accidents were the focus of the egress concept development. 

Once the target accident case was determined, early concept development for new locomotive 

egress systems focussed on two key issues: ease of use and technical viability. Usage issues 

included ergonomic and structural aspects of the devices, where viability issues centered on cost 

and implementation. All were evaluated for practicality based on both rollover and non-rollover 

accidents, but the issues were weighted toward the 90o rollover. Initially, a large number of 

concepts were developed, including hatches, removable doors, side access panels, and removable 

glazing systems. Many of these concepts were rejected as either impractical or unreasonably 

expensive. Three basic concepts were chosen for further development: 1) hand/footholds for use 

as a climbing aid, 2) an escape hatch in the cab roof, and 3) a removable windshield. The 

following subsections describe each of these concepts. 

3.1 Hand/Footholds 

Anecdotal evidence indicated that in several rollover accidents, uninjured crewmembers had 

escaped from the cab by climbing up the consoles and seats to reach the side window on the high 

side of the locomotive. In most cases, an injured crewmember would be unable to accomplish 

this climb. To aid crewmembers in climbing out of a toppled locomotive, a hand/foothold 

system was proposed. These devices would be placed in the ceiling of the cab to be accessed in 

the event of an emergency. In normal operation, they would be flush with the ceiling. If the 

locomotive were toppled, the hand/foothold could be extended to provide climbing points to 

reach the high side of the locomotive. 

The design concept provides for six hand/footholds, spaced approximately 16 in apart. A 

possible layout is shown in Figure 21. The hand/footholds would be recessed such that they are 

flush with the ceiling in normal operation. Once opened, the series of hand/footholds would act 

as a ladder, with each hand/foothold being a single rung. Each rung would be a minimum width 

of 12 in wide and would provide 4 in of toe depth. This provides a reasonably comfortable 

ladder step for climbing. To meet the basic 49CFR guideline, the rungs would be 1 in in 

diameter. Each rung would be designed to support the weight of a 300-lb crewmember, with 

overload reserve. 

Three design approaches were investigated for deploying the rungs from their recessed position:

swing-out, pull-out, and fold-out. In each case, it was determined that the rung must be usable 

regardless of the attitude of the locomotive. In addition, it should provide maximum access to 

the upper side of the cab to provide effective egress. 

The swing-out rung approach is illustrated in Figure 22. In this approach, the rung is locked into 

a ceiling well during normal operation. When needed, the rung can be pivoted outward 90o. The 

rung will lock in place to provide climbing support. The well is designed to provide toe 

clearance for a boot. Once rotated into position, it would be usable from either direction. 

23
Figure 21. Cab Ceiling View of Hand/Foothold Layout 

Conceptually, the swing-out rung is the simplest of the three approaches. However, it does 

require a large amount of ceiling area when folded. In addition, the locking device must be 

robust enough to support the entire weight capacity of the rung, since it would need to be usable 

from either direction. 

The pull-out rung approach is shown schematically in Figure 23. In this concept, the rung is 

locked into a ceiling well such that it is flush in normal operation. When needed, the rung can be 

pulled out and locked into position. Again, the well is designed to provide toe clearance. 

To provide adequate strength, the actual mechanism would need to telescope in a much more 

robust fashion than shown. As with the swing-out rung, the locking device may have to carry the 

full weight capacity of the rung. Conceptually, however, this approach does have some

advantage over the swing-out rung. The rung is actuated by a pulling action, which implies that 

it could be deployed by the weight of a climbing crewmember. It would also provide some level 

of utility even if not actuated. Actuation would be necessary to provide comfortable toe 

clearance, since the well depth would be limited to the framing in the cab roof. The added area 

on both sides of the rung also impacts the amount of ceiling area required. 

24
Figure 22. Swing-Out Rung Concept 

Figure 23. Pull-Out Rung Concept 

25
The fold-out rung concept is illustrated in Figure 24. In this concept, the rung is folded latterally 

to be flush with the ceiling. When needed, the rung is unfolded so that it provides 4 in of 

clearance from the ceiling. It will lock in place when actuated to provide climbing support. 

Figure 24. Fold-Out Rung Concept 

The fold-out approach would use the minimum amount of ceiling area since there is no toe well. 

The main advantage of this approach is that the locking device would not be required to carry the 

entire weight capacity, since the pivot arms act as the main structural member. However, it is the 

most mechanically complex concept, and potentially the most expensive option. 

Given the merit in each of the approaches, all three concepts would be provided for review by 

the users. In this way, crews familiar with the operational environment of the locomotive could 

assess the overall utility of each approach based on experience. From a cost assessment, each 

concept was considered to be roughly equal, with the fold-out rung being slightly more 

expensive. However, there was not a sufficient difference from the other two concepts to 

eliminate the fold-out rung based on cost alone. 

3.2 Hatch 

Design of the hatch system began with consideration of the bus hatch in the hope that it might be 

possible to adapt an existing hatch for use in a locomotive roof. Typically, the bus hatches are 

26
constructed of high impact plastics, are 22 x 22 in , and can function as vents, as shown 

previously (Figure 14). Conceptually, the operation of the hatches would adapt well to 

locomotive design, but some of the aforementioned attributes are not suitable for a locomotive. 

Structurally, it is desirable that the hatch be constructed of steel. Dimensionally, the hatch 

should be larger than a standard bus hatch. Given the proximity of the hatch to the diesel 

exhaust, a vented hatch would not be practical. 

From the standpoint of external conditions, the hatch should seal completely against weather. 

This would include moisture driven by movement of the locomotive. In addition, the seal should 

prevent internal air from escaping under normal conditions. It should also prevent permeation of 

exhaust gases from the outside. Due to the proximity of the hatch to the diesel exhaust in a 

locomotive, both the structural material and the seals would need to withstand temperatures 

approaching 300oF for periods of 20 to 30 min. 

Operationally, the hatch should provide a full open area for egress. Hinges, latches, seals, or 

other mechanical aspects of the hatch should not occlude the available opening. Ideally, the 

hatch would open flush to the roof of the cab. For egress, opening the hatch must be 

accomplished by a single movement that requires little force, and be functional even if the cab is 

slightly deformed. For access, the hatch should provide easy operation for rescue personnel 

while deterring vandalism. 

Based on these attributes, some basic conceptual drawings of the hatch were developed. 

Dimensionally, the hatch would be 22 in wide and 30 in long. This is a larger opening than a 

standard bus hatch. It would, however, provide maximum clearance for egress by the crew and 

permit rescuers to utilize body boards. Initial investigation with some current hatch 

manufacturers indicated that the high impact plastic construction of some bus hatches would 

meet the structural requirement for the locomotive cab. Hatch manufacturers indicated that it 

would be possible to construct the hatch frame or panel out of steel if necessary. 

Operationally, the proposed unit would look similar to that shown in Figure 25. The latch would 

be to the far left, actuated by a handle that turns 45o in either direction. The hatch would be 

hinged on the far right, allowing the hatch to fully open in the event of an emergency. The 

crewmember would then be able to climb out through the hatch utilizing the hand/footholds as 

shown in Figure 26. 

Making the hatch weather tight is an engineering challenge when highspeed operation, long term

durability and snow/ice accumulation are considered. Based on the assumption that a bus hatch 

could be adapted to use in the locomotive, a double sealing approach was devised. The overall 

concept, illustrated in Figure 27, includes a molded composite hatch cover similar to those 

currently manufactured for buses. The dual seal would provide an outer wiper seal to prevent 

penetration of moisture driven by wind and motion, and an internal compression seal that blocks 

air and moisture flow into the cab. The entire unit could be bolted to the cab roof as a final 

operation during construction. A butyl rubber or similar material would provide a seal between 

the cab roof and the hatch frame. 

27
Figure 25. Initial Design for Roof-Mounted Escape Hatch 

The oversized hatch also provides maximum access for rescue personnel. Unlike the exterior 

doors and windows, the hatch was sized to accommodate the use of a body board as illustrated in

Figure 28. In addition, the exterior latch would be actuated by a tool commonly carried by 

rescue personnel, such as the Hallagan bar shown in Figure 20. This increases the overall 

effectiveness of the hatch, making it usable for the crew and rescuers while making it secure 

from vandals. 

3.3 Windshield Removal 

The final area targeted as a potential egress route was the windshield. As described in subsection 

2.3, the windshield represents a significant opening in the cab, providing there is a means of 

removing the glass. In the discussions with firefighters, paramedics, and police officials, the 

rescue workers immediately viewed the windshield as a possible means of access to the cab. 

Several types of windshield construction are used, depending on the model and manufacturer, so 

a “universal” method for opening the windshield is required. In all cases, a rubber gasket is used 

as a weather seal between the glazing and a fixed frame. This commonality of design does allow 

concepts to be adapted to various windshield design. Every approach, however, must be capable 

of meeting the impact requirements for the windshield. In older model locomotives, particularly 

EMD cabs, the gasket is the principal structural retainer for the glass, and methods that 

compromise this structure were avoided. 

28
Figure 26. Emergency Roof Hatch in Operation to Allow Crewmember Egress 

One design scheme developed for a removable windshield is shown in Figure 29. In this 

approach, a cutting wire would be imbedded in the gasket. Inside the cab, a handle allows the 

crewmember to pull the cable, severing the outer portion of the gasket. To facilitate this action, 

the gasket would be extruded with voids near the glass face to allow an easy path for the cable. 

The cable would be looped on itself like a lariat, so that as the handle is pulled, the cable 

constricts around the perimeter. Once the gasket begins to tear, the force required to fully 

separate the gasket is reduced. An access plug would be provided on the exterior of the cab so 

that rescuers could reach the cable to sever the gasket from the outside. 

Early investigation into using the windshield as an egress route indicated that implementation of 

this approach would prove to be costly. The primary difficulty is circumventing the strong 

backup flange of the cab windshield frame. As such, the overall approach to windshield use was 

changed to removal by rescue workers rather than as a means of egress. To facilitate access for 

rescue workers, the cable cutting windshield gasket was redesigned to provide easier access to 

the cable from outside the cab, and coupling the glass and cutting cable. This approach, shown 

29
Figure 27. Roof Hatch Seal and Mounting Concept 

Figure 28. Roof Hatch Provides Easy Access for Rescue Personnel 

 

30
Figure 29. Removable Windshield Gasket Concept 

in Figure 30, allows the glazing to be removed by a rescue worker at the end of the gasket 

cutting. To limit the possibility of vandalism, the gasket would be close fitted to the frame and 

there would be no external handle to remove the gasket. Rather, an access point will be provided 

at several places around the window perimeter, which would allow a screwdriver or small prying 

tool to be used to pull up the gasket. Once the gasket is pulled free, the glazing could be 

removed or allowed to fall out of the opening as shown in Figure 31. The strength of the gasket 

would not be compromised, as the primary direction of impact load would be toward the cab 

frame. 

31
Figure 30. Externally Removable Windshield Concept 

Figure 31. Removable Windshield Provides Easy Access for Rescuers 

32
4 User Review of Preliminary Concepts

Train crews and emergency rescue workers will be the potential users of egress equipment. 

Before proceeding with further design work, the study team sought feedback from these two 

stakeholder groups. Since train crews are of primary concern, input from locomotive engineers 

and conductors was obtained through focus group interviews. An interview with a fire 

department specialist in emergency rescue and contacts with an ambulance company provided a 

critical review of the concepts from the second group of potential users. 

4.1 Focus Group Interviews with Railroad Labor 

Focus group interviews with railroad engineers and conductors provided a forum to gather 

information about train crew perceptions of the three proposed locomotive egress designs. This 

forum allowed the railroad workers to review the three concepts, provide feedback on the 

validity of the designs, and suggest other emergency improvements. The group interview also 

gave the workers an opportunity to express their concerns about safety and personal security in 

the locomotive. 

The following sections summarize the information gathered from the three focus groups. The 

information is organized and presented by topic. Appendix A contains the original set of focus 

group questions. The responses from the sessions are reported as a whole as the questions were 

the same for each group. 

4.1.1 Procedures 

Chicago, IL was selected as the focus group interview site because of the large number of 

railroad road freight workers available. Chicago is the country’s most active rail hub and has 

many railroad workers living in the area. 

Participants were recruited from the two crafts that make up the road freight train crew: 

engineers and conductors. An attempt was made to have both crafts represented in each focus 

group. The unions representing these crafts, the United Transportation Union (UTU) and the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), assisted in identifying candidate participants. 

The following criteria were used to identify candidate participants: 

• The candidate must be a current engineer or conductor and preferably have been in a road 

freight wreck. 

• The candidate must have at least five years experience on a road freight crew. 

• The candidate must be interested in sharing his or her perceptions and opinions regarding 

innovative concepts for emergency locomotive egress. 

A total of three focus groups were conducted. The same concepts were presented to each group 

in the same order, using the same props and pictures to convey the design’s purpose and 

properties. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 11⁄2 h and participants were 

compensated for their participation. 

33
Each session began with an explanation of the purpose of the meeting. The participants 

introduce themselves, giving their craft and years of railroad experience. After the introductions, 

the facilitator asked the participants to describe a significant locomotive wreck in which they 

were involved. The purpose of sharing wreck experiences was to have situations to which the 

group could relate when discussing the proposed locomotive egress concepts. 

The facilitator also asked the participants to identify any safety risks they perceive when riding 

in the locomotive cab. Responses to this question provided an indication of crewmember 

concerns with regard to personal safety in the cab. The facilitator also asked about personal 

security concerns on the job. This issue was of interest with regard to the need to lock or secure 

any egress device to protect against intruders. The majority of the focus group discussion 

focused on review of the three novel egress concepts: hand/footholds, ceiling hatch with 

hand/footholds and removable windshield. At the end of the session the participants completed a 

brief anonymous profile form. 

4.1.2 Participant Profile 

A total of 18 people participated in the 3 focus groups interviews. Each group included both 

engineers and conductors and drew from the membership of both the UTU and the BLE. Nearly 

two-thirds of the participants were BLE and one-third were from the UTU. Years of experience 

ranged from 2 to 42 years, with the median being 29.5 years.1

 Twelve of the 18 participants had 

been in a wreck of some kind. Table 3 presents a profile of the participants across all three focus 

group interviews. 

Table 3. Profile of Focus Group Participants 

Craft Engineers 15

Conductors 3

Union Affiliation BLE 10.5*

UTU 7.5*

Years on a road crew (median) 29.5 

Experienced a wreck? Yes 12

No 6

* One participant reported membership in both labor organizations. 

4.1.3 Cab Safety Environment 

This section summarizes the information from focus group participants with regard to safety in 

the locomotive cab. There is information dealing with wreck experiences, perceived cab safety 

risks and personal security issues. 

 

1

 Although the criterion for participation in the focus groups was five years of experience, one individual reported

two years of road freight experience on his participant profile form. 

34
Representative Wrecks

Group participants reported a variety of wreck experiences. The ones with the most relevance to 

the egress concepts under considerations were the following: 

• A conductor reported that his train proceeded at slow speed through a Wye and was hit 

by another train entering from a siding. The engine toppled to a 45° angle and two small 

fires resulted on either side of the locomotive. The impact of the crash caused both the 

engineer and the conductor to be thrown around the cab. The crew was able to exit via 

the cab’s front door. 

• An engineer reported that his train hit a school bus at a grade crossing. The crash took 

out the engineer’s side of the cab, but the locomotive remained upright. The crew exited 

through the door on the fireman’s side of the cab. 

• An engineer reported that his locomotive hit a large truck at a grade crossing. The 

locomotive derailed and rolled over on its side. The front door was unusable as a result 

of the accident. The crew got out of the locomotive through the side door, which was 

now on top. 

• An engineer reported that after moving past a stop signal his locomotive hit a derail 

causing the engine to overturn and slide down a 40-ft embankment. This accident 

occurred at 11 p.m. so it was completely dark inside the cab. The engineer was thrown

on top of the control stand and the conductor was on the floor. Some 15 to 20 min after 

the impact, the crew exited via the engineer’s side window using the engineer’s control 

stand as a platform to reach the window. 

Typical comments were: 

• “When I got hit I wasn’t thinking straight.” 

• “Your mind clears maybe after 30 s.” 

• “I didn’t know where I was initially.” 

Safety Risks 

Participants voiced a number of safety concerns. Their comments fell into two broad categories:

dealing with a wreck and structure of the cab. They were concerned with finding a way out of 

the cab in the event of a wreck. This concern also involved the absence of emergency lighting to 

help find a way out quickly and safely. The speed of rescue was also a concern. Many 

locomotive wrecks happen in rural areas, hours away from towns and rescue personnel. There 

was also a concern about the lack of tools in the cab that could aid in an escape from the cab or 

could be used to signal for help. 

In terms of the structure of the cab, participants pointed out that interior surfaces of many cabs 

do not have rounded edges. The radio housing in particular could cause injury in an accident. 

Participants were concerned about possibly hitting the edges in an accident and sustaining lifethreatening injuries. Several participants also voiced concern that currently there is no “safety 

cage construction” in locomotives to make the cab crashworthy. They also pointed out that there 

is no automatic fire suppression equipment in the cab. 

35
Personal Security 

Participants voiced one primary security issue – protection from transients. There were 

numerous stories of transients climbing up onto the locomotive to ask for money, attempt to 

damage the locomotive or physically threaten the crew. The discussion in all three sessions 

centered on the need for locks on the cab doors to protect the crew from these intruders. The 

participants were unanimous in their feeling that their personal security concerns would be 

eliminated if all locomotive doors had locks that could be locked by the crew from inside the 

cab. 

Typical comments were: 

• “Transients come up on the train and startle you.” 

• “I think it’s more important that we have the [door] locks. When a wreck comes I don’t 

think there’s going to be a problem getting in or out. [The loco] is not going to be 

intact.” 

• “If you had an escape route other than doors, I think I’d rather have a locked door while 

sitting at a signal.” 

4.1.4 Design Concepts 

This section presents the focus group findings with regard to each of the three design concepts. 

Hand/Footholds 

Overall Assessment 

The three groups were presented with diagrams of a locomotive roof with hand/footholds located 

every 16 to 17 in (see Figure 21). The facilitator explained that this concept is intended for 

installation in new cabs but a retrofit into existing cabs is also possible. The purpose of the 

hand/footholds is to assist the crew in reaching the side window that would be above their heads 

in a rollover. 

The general consensus was that the hand/foothold concept would be of limited utility unless the 

locomotive has toppled to nearly a 90° angle. If this were the case, then probably the crew could 

use the hand/footholds to exit out the side doors, or reach the side windows with little difficulty. 

Participants in each group agreed that the concept would have been helpful in the rollover 

wrecks that they described. 

Participants saw some potential problems with the hand/foothold concept. They felt that the 

hand/foothold mechanisms might jam preventing them from engaging the hand/foothold. They 

suggested that the simpler the construction of the engagement mechanism, the less likely it 

would be to jam. They also pointed out that the normal locomotive vibration might cause 

hand/footholds to release and protrude from the ceiling. The participants voiced concern that if 

the hand/footholds engage on their own, they become a protruding obstacle that can injure a crew 

member. Several participants commented that the width of the hand/foothold might not be 

adequate and suggested that the design team examine OSHA standards for ladders. 

36
Another concern raised by participants had to do with lighting. Without adequate lighting, the 

hand/footholds may be difficult to find in the dark. They suggested that this problem could be 

solved with track lighting or lights placed within the recessed area of the hand/foothold.

The groups also mentioned that the crew might have a tendency to “play” with the 

hand/footholds. This was seen in a positive light in one group because playing with the device 

would make crewmembers familiar with its operation. One participant commented that everyone 

would likely know how it worked because every new device on the train gets “played” with. In a 

different session, this was seen in a negative light because if someone is engaging the mechanism

for fun, they might leave it in its operational mode and the next person to enter the cab might hit 

his/her head on the hand/foothold. 

Comparison of the Alternative Hand/foothold Concepts 

Table 4 summarizes the overall assessments of the three hand/foothold concepts.

The pull-out design (Figure 23) was shown first. Participants noted that this design was probably 

not useful if it jams and it is likely to be a safety hazard if not locked in position. The majority 

of participants said this design appeared easy to use and a minority favored it over the other two 

designs. 

Participants pointed out that the swing-out design (Figure 22) might pin a crewmember’s fingers 

when trying to engage it. There was also the problem of using this design if the cab did not roll 

in a position that allowed engagement of the device by pulling down. Participants felt it would 

be hard to lock the hand/foothold into position if it had to be pushed up instead of swung down. 

Overall, participants found this design more foolproof and more accessible than the pull-out 

design. They felt that it would be useful even if jammed because the opening alone would allow 

for foot or hand placement. Overall, the majority favored this design. 

Table 4. Assessment of Hand/Foothold Concepts 

Concept Assessment

Pull-Out • Not useful if it jams

• Safety hazard if not locked in position 

• Easy to use 

• Favored by minority 

Swing-Out • Risk of pinching fingers when opening 

• Direction problem-hard to lock if in swing-up position 

• More foolproof than pull-out 

• More accessible than pull-out 

• Useful even if jammed 

• Favored by majority 

Fold-out • Risk of pinching fingers when opening 

• Risk of it refolding if not locked properly 

• Less expensive 

• Easier to retrofit into existing locomotives 

37
The fold-out design (Figure 24) was the last one shown to the groups. Participants felt this 

design had the highest risk of pinning fingers when opening and also a risk of it folding in if not 

properly locked in position. However, participants felt that it was the least expensive to install 

and easier to retrofit into existing locomotives than the other two designs. 

Participants suggested two improvements to the swing-out design. First, the swing-out design 

could be made easier to use by making the release area bowl-shaped. This design would provide 

adequate space so that the hand/foothold could be used as a step whether or not the swing-out 

mechanism was engaged. The second suggestion was to provide lighting to the hand/footholds 

so that they could be located in the dark. 

Some typical comments were: 

• With regard to knowing how to use the hand/footholds “You’re either gonna be out of it 

or with it. If you’re out of it, it doesn’t matter.” 

• “If you are that banged up, would you be smart enough to pull something out when you 

don’t use it every day?” 

Hatch with Hand/Footholds 

The facilitator explained the roof hatch concept using three drawings: 1) a life size sketch of a 

roof hatch, 2) an artist’s rendering of people climbing out through the hatch, and 3) an artist’s 

rendering of rescue workers using a roof hatch to extricate an injured crew member. The 

facilitator demonstrated the operation of the Transpec bus hatch to illustrate how the locomotive 

hatch might operate. The hatch was presented in conjunction with the hand/footholds as steps to 

help reach and then exit via the hatch.

Overall participants viewed the hatch concept as an improvement in cab egress. They offered a 

number of possible improvements to the proposed design. The first improvement concerned the 

hinge. The hatch would be useless if there were something obstructing the hatch door from

opening out. To eliminate the problem facing a hinged hatch, several participants suggested that 

the design be such that the hatch falls out upon release, like an airplane’s emergency exit. The 

second suggestion concerned the need for emergency lighting. If there were no lighting, then it 

would be difficult to find and engage the hatch in nighttime accidents. 

Other concerns were that the hatch be rugged enough to withstand the crash and also 

weatherproof. They also wanted the hatch to be easy to engage. All three groups felt that 

additional grab irons or handholds should be placed on the roof around the exterior edge of the 

hatch to provide an assist when exiting. 

With regard to an exterior locking device, the overwhelming majority of participants said that 

there was no need to lock the roof hatch. They felt that the security issues come from the doors 

to the cab not having locks. They did not see a roof hatch as a security risk in terms of transients 

entering the cab. One individual was concerned with terrorists entering via the hatch. The 

facilitator suggested that a lock that would only open with a rescue tool was a possible solution. 

All three groups favored the idea of a roof hatch that could be utilized if the locomotive were to 

topple over. Participants recognized that the hatch would not help in every situation, but would 

like to have it there in the roof as an option if the cab did roll on its side. 

38
Typical comments included: 

• “All my prayers are answered with this. If someone is injured, he could probably get 

out.” 

Removable Windshield

The facilitator described the removable windshield concept using artistic renderings of the 

concept. The picture showed a rescue worker removing a windshield from an overturned freight 

locomotive. The rescue worker was depicted standing outside the wreck, removing the gasket 

from around the windshield and then lifting it up out of the frame. 

Participants saw one major limitation to the removable windshield – it can only be accessed from

the outside and the crew cannot remove the windshield themselves. The participants wanted the 

windshield to be made in such a way that the crew could either kick it out or remove the gasket 

from the inside. They indicated that the wreck might occur in a remote area. If not seriously 

hurt, the crew should have a way to egress quickly and not have to wait for the rescue teams to 

come. 

Another concern was that of the windshield popping out of the frame on impact. If this were to 

happen, some of the crew may be thrown from the train. In making the windshield removable, it 

must be rugged enough to withstand impact. 

The issue of vandalism or terrorism was an initial concern with one group. However, someone 

commented that, “The element of safety that it provides far overrides the security risk.” This 

sentiment seemed to be the consensus of the group. 

The groups were not against the removable windshield concept, provided that it was designed to 

stay in place during a wreck. Participants liked the idea of an easy way for rescue workers to 

reach them if they were incapacitated. They would prefer if the windshield could be designed in 

a way that allows the crew as well as rescue workers to remove it. They also wanted it to be easy 

to engage so that other train crews and “Good Samaritans” who might reach the wreck before the 

rescue team could remove the windshield. 

Some typical comments were: 

• “If you’re incapacitated, you’ll need some way to get you out.” 

• With regard to ease of use, “Make it idiot proof.” 

Comparison of Concepts 

After discussing the three design concepts, the facilitator asked the participants to compare the 

designs. When asked which design provided the quickest escape for the crew, they unanimously 

agreed on the roof hatch. Similarly, participants unanimously agreed that the hatch would 

provide the quickest access for rescue workers. 

4.1.5 Other Egress Concepts 

Participants offered suggestions for additional improvements to egress options in the locomotive 

cab. The most frequently voiced idea was standardization of door locks. Wider doors and a 

second back door were also mentioned. One participant suggested doors that provide an exit 

39
through the car body, as in Amtrak locomotives. When speaking of the removable windshield, 

several participants wanted all the windows in the cab to be removable. Grab irons next to the 

side windows were also suggested to facilitate egress through the windows. 

4.2 Interviews with Rescue Personnel 

Interviews with firefighters and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) provided insight as to 

how emergency egress equipment might be utilized by rescue personnel responding to a railroad 

accident. This information allowed the designers to tailor certain aspects of the design to better 

suit rescue personnel while maintaining maximum utility to the locomotive crews. The 

following sections summarize the information gathered from an interview with Capt. Steven 

Perrson of the Cambridge, MA Fire Department. 

4.2.1 Fire Department Rescue Personnel 

To obtain feedback from fire personnel on the egress concepts, two study team members met 

with Capt. Steven Perrson, Training Officer for the Cambridge Fire Department. Capt. Perrson 

is a 20-year veteran of the department, and has had experience with passenger train and subway 

rescue procedures. In addition to being a Battalion Commander for the East Cambridge district, 

Capt. Perrson is responsible for all training conducted in the Boston area related to rescue 

procedure. Due to the high concentration of rail traffic within the city limits, including freight, 

passenger rail, and subway, Capt. Perrson has become familiar with rail systems in general and 

possible responses to an accident. Photographs and drawings of the egress concepts facilitated 

the discussion. 

To begin the session, Capt. Perrson was shown two photographs of the toppled locomotive from

an actual rollover derailment. While reviewing the photos, it was mentioned that generally two 

crewmembers are in the cab, and occasionally three. He was then asked how he would apply the 

current rescue procedures and equipment if responding to this accident. Capt. Perrson began by 

assessing the apparent situation, and the general condition of the locomotive. 

The first issue addressed was gaining access to the inside of the cab. Capt. Perrson determined 

that the locomotive could not be accessed from underneath the cab due to the structure and 

thickness of steel. He noted that he was not familiar with freight locomotives and would assume

that the door on the nose led to the engine. He stated that the most likely point of entry would be 

from the side, which was now in an upward position. This would require using a ladder to climb 

up onto the side of the locomotive. The firefighters would then try to open the window to access 

the cab. Generally, they would use their normal “forcible entry tools.” These would be hand 

tools followed by power tools if needed. 

Capt. Perrson noted that a major concern would be the size of the openings, either windows or 

holes made by the firefighters. In Cambridge, procedure dictates that all the firefighters be in 

“full protective gear,” which includes helmets and breathing apparatus. He stated that the 

Cambridge department has done rescue training on Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority 

(MBTA) trains, both commuter rail passenger cars and F40 locomotives. He has never 

encountered a toppled train, but felt that such an incident could happen in certain areas of the 

city. When doing the MBTA drills the firefighters’ immediate concern was shutting down fuel 

lines and high voltage electrical service on the car. 

40
4.2.2 Design Concepts 

Hatch 

Capt. Perrson was provided with the artist’s depiction of the egress roof hatch on a toppled 

locomotive. In this picture, a body board is used to remove an injured person through a roof 

hatch. Capt. Perrson’s immediate response was favorable, followed by questions concerning the 

height and size of the hatch. He was told the size of the hatch and its location in the roof of the 

locomotive. Based on this, the position of the hatch was described in relation to the ground for 

the accident in the photo. Capt. Perrson commented that the angle of the locomotive would 

determine how viable the hatch would be as an access route. He commented his approval of the 

concept again, pointing out that there should be no “rough spots” around the opening that might 

snag or cut. He also asked about the location of the high voltage and fuel lines on the 

locomotive. 

Capt. Perrson stated that from a rescuer’s perspective, it is much easier to extricate a victim

through a side opening than lifting him or her up and overhead. Compared to current procedures, 

the hatch would make it much easier to get into the locomotive and rescue an injured person. 

Capt. Perrson could not think of any potential problems or disadvantages to the design except for 

the concern of vandalism. For this reason, he suggested that the hatch should be flush to the cab 

roof and secure. 

Regardless of the direction of access to the locomotive, the size of the opening is an issue. A 

firefighter’s gear is bulky and heavy. Capt. Perrson said that most rescue personnel would be 

wearing breathing apparatus. This is the standard procedure in Cambridge and for most other 

departments in Massachusetts. Capt. Perrson believed that it is the common practice nationwide. 

The breathing apparatus does add another 10 in to a person’s thickness, as discussed in Section 2 

(Figure 17). If entering from the top, a ladder would have to be inserted so that the rescuer could 

climb down into the cab. This further decreases the usable opening space. The ladder combined 

with the gear and breathing apparatus might make it impossible for the rescue worker to gain 

access through the current window openings. 

Capt. Perrson was then asked for his thoughts regarding the exterior design of the hatch. The 

question was asked with the constraints of locking for vandalism and designing the hatch with a 

tool that most rescue personnel across the United States would possess. Capt. Perrson said that a 

specific tool for operating the latch would facilitate access. He also commented that firefighter 

would get in eventually. In his opinion, designing a lock to be used with a common tool would 

decrease rescuer entry time significantly. He suggested that the opening device be flush to the 

hatch. Exterior access should require a tool that is not easily accessible to the general public. He 

suggested the six-sided spanner wrench used for the MBTA subway hatches in Cambridge, but 

he noted that it might not be universal. He commented that there had never been a problem with 

someone getting into a subway hatch by opening it from the outside. 

Capt. Perrson saw the need for two types of instruction. First, if the hatch were implemented, 

there would have to be some external labeling for on-scene use. In addition, Capt. Perrson feels 

there is a need for a short training video showing how to safely access a locomotive after a 

wreck. The video could have a short segment on opening the hatch and other egress options. 

This video could be sent to the National Fire Academy and the National Fire Prevention 

41
Association. He thought it would be fairly easy to distribute the tapes nationwide. He knows of 

no current nationwide training on railroad safety or rescue. 

Removable Windshield

Capt. Perrson was provided with the artist’s depiction of a rescue worker gaining access through 

the windshield via a pullout gasket. His immediate reaction was that this design was preferable 

to dropping down from the top. The windshield in a toppled locomotive would be close to the 

ground and provide crawling or possible crouched access if it were easily removable. He has 

removed a gasket from a MBTA train passenger window and an automobile windshield for 

access, so he is familiar with the concept. The 50-lb weight of the windshield did not appear to 

be an issue. Capt. Perrson said that when removing a car windshield, they generally use two 

people because of the awkwardness of the shape. 

One potential problem Capt. Perrson saw with the removable windshield design was vandalism. 

Another potential problem might be the layout of the cab behind the windshield. He was shown 

photographs of the console layout, windshield, and cab interior. His impression was that 

maneuvering through the windshield and past the console looked fairly easy. To extricate a 

victim from a cramped space such as the cab, the firefighters would probably orient a body board 

to match the victim’s position prior to passing it through the opening. Having to turn a body 

board on its side to extract a victim through the windshield opening was still preferred over 

lifting the person up through the top. 

Comparison of Concepts 

Overall, Capt. Perrson prefers an access method that does not require a rescuer to drop down or 

to lift a victim vertically. Both the hatch and the windshield offer access closer to the ground but 

Capt. Perrson preferred the hatch to the removable windshield. 

4.2.3 Discussion

Capt. Perrson identified two major issues pertaining to rescue personnel facing a locomotive 

accident: ease of access and personnel safety. The access issue surfaced in several forms. First 

was the addition of normal equipment to the physical size of the firefighter. On several 

occasions, Capt. Perrson noted that the firefighters would be wearing “full protective gear” when 

responding to an accident. Helmets and bulky clothing certainly will inhibit access though any 

opening, but the breathing apparatus appears to be the biggest issue. Capt. Perrson did not 

appear concerned about entering through the windshield opening even though he was told that it 

was only 17-18 in high. It would be best if no entry dimension was smaller than this. 

The second access issue was one of geometry. Capt. Perrson noted several times that a 

horizontal entry is preferable to a vertical one. Having to drop into the toppled cab from the high 

side would be difficult without a ladder. Adding a ladder to the opening would greatly limit 

access for a rescuer in protective clothing and wearing breathing apparatus. A vertical access 

would also require lifting a victim to extricate him/her from the cab. Based on Capt. Perrson’s 

comments, this would require two firefighters inside the cab, and two or more outside the cab. 

Given the cramped nature of the cab itself, the addition of several persons would make rescue 

work very difficult. 

42
Personnel safety was the second major issue. When discussing procedures in and around trains 

and subway cars, Capt. Perrson always mentioned high voltage electricity and fuel shutoffs. 

Typically, rescue workers will cut their way into a vehicle by whatever means necessary. Hitting 

a high voltage line with a hand tool or power saw is likely to occur. Since he felt that most 

rescue personnel are not familiar with locomotives, Capt. Perrson suggested that some type of 

training aid be developed showing the likely paths of electrical wiring. He also mentioned 

pressurized pneumatic and hydraulic lines as possible hazards. 

Fuel shut off is another safety issue. Leaking fuel or the possibility of leaks greatly increases the 

hazard to the rescue personnel, regardless of fire. Clearly, the ability to quickly neutralize this 

threat would be of interest to the firefighters. Due to the variety of configurations of 

locomotives, it may not be possible to describe the position of a fuel shutoff in every make and 

model. However, a generalized description would be valuable. 

Another significant comment made several times by Capt. Perrson related to the determination of 

the rescuers. When discussing tools, methods, or procedures for gaining access, the comment 

invariably ended with “we’ll find a way in.” Based on this, it is clear that the rescuers will 

continue to escalate their efforts to gain access. He did note on several occasions that any device 

or scheme that would ease access would be of benefit to the rescue personnel, as this would 

reduce the time spent extricating victims. 

4.3 Recommended Design Changes 

The information gathered through the focus group interviews and the meeting with the 

Cambridge Fire Department clearly indicates that the hatch concept appears most promising and

should be the one that is developed in the mockup. The engineers and conductors clearly 

preferred the hatch concept. The preference of emergency rescue personnel, as indicated through 

Captain Persson, was the removable windshield, however, he also clearly saw the benefit of the 

hatch. The immediate preference by rescue personnel for the removeable windshield is a 

reaction to training. Typically, when responding to automobile accidents, rescue personnel are 

trained to break out windshields to gain access to trapped victims. When informed of the basic 

construction of a locomotive windshield, all of the emergency personnel asked about other 

means of access. As indicated by Captain Perrson, most firefighters are unfamiliar with freight 

locomotives and would probably benefit from some specific training. Ultimately, the 

crewmembers are the primary stakeholders so the hatch system became the focus of the mockup. 

Based on the feedback from the focus group participants one major design change is necessary. 

The hatch should have a “fall away” rather than hinged design. Other design issues that merit 

further consideration are the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Noise insulation. 

Vibration effects. 

Weather sealing. 

Structural considerations. 

Exterior profile. 

Exterior grab irons. 

43
With regard to the hand/foothold design that is used with the hatch, the swing-out design is 

preferable. Further design work on this concept should focus on the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Shape of the opening. 

Surface and length of rung. 

Locking mechanism.

Direction of actuation. 

44
5 Revised Design Concepts

The feedback from both the train crews and emergency rescue personnel led to modification of 

the design concepts described in Section 3. This section describes each of the three revised 

concepts. Potential users of egress equipment clearly favored the hatch in conjunction with 

hand/footholds. Cost considerations for this concept are also considered in this section. 

5.1 Hatch 

Based on the feedback from the focus groups, the hatch was clearly the most desirable egress 

option for the crew. Each group had concerns as they relate to the design, some of which 

overlap, others of which are unique to one or the other group. 

The railroad crews would clearly prefer a non-hinged, fall away hatch. The rescue workers had 

no particular preference to hinging, provided the opening would provide clearance for entry and 

extraction of victims. The overall design should be free from sharp corners or edges. According 

to the railroad crews, the exterior latching arrangements did not need to be secure. In fact, they 

would prefer a simple handle arrangement that could be operated by a passerby in the event of an 

accident. 

Based on these attributes, a revised hatch design was developed. The basic size of the hatch was 

left unchanged from the conceptual design presented to the focus groups. Functionally, the hinge 

was eliminated and the latching arrangement altered. These changes allow the hatch to fall free 

after opening, and the handle to be moved to a more central location. Conceptually, the weather 

sealing arrangement would remain unchanged. External locking or tamper proofing of the 

latching mechanism is not part of the revised design. It is likely, however, that the locking issue 

will be raised again in the future. A schematic of the design is shown in Figure 32. 

5.2 Hand/Footholds 

The train crews favored the use of hand/footholds as part of a hatch egress system. However, as 

a standalone device, they considered the concept marginal. This was mainly due to their view 

that climbing out of a wreck would always be possible for an uninjured crewmember. They did 

feel that the use of hand/footholds would provide aid for an injured crewmember, and as such 

should be pursued. In practice, the crewmembers’ chief concerns were the size of the rungs, the 

ease of use, and the approach to locking. In general, the groups felt that the device should still 

provide some basic utility when jammed. 

Of the three possible solutions provided (swing-out, pull-out, fold-out) the railroad crews 

preferred the swing-out. Pull-out was considered second best, and fold-out was a distant third. 

This was mainly due to the simplicity of the Swing-out design and the perception that it would 

be the easiest to operate in the event of an accident. 

Given that the hand/foothold concept would be adopted as part of the hatch system, several 

design changes were introduced. First among these is the alteration of the design as a “one-way” 

device. The rung could be centered in a relatively compact opening, providing toe clearance 

both above and below the bar. This would provide utility even if the rung jammed in place. The 

45
Figure 32. Revised Hatch Design 

major design challenge in this case is providing toe clearance for a jammed rung while still 

providing noise abatement from the cab roof. 

Design approaches for the locking device could be greatly simplified. In the stowed condition, a 

simple detent pin could be used to hold the rung in place. In an emergency, the pin would 

deploy over the rung to prevent it from refolding under load. A block below the hinge could be 

used as a support for the rung, providing ample strength for climbing. 

Rung dimensions were altered slightly from the original design. To minimize any framing 

alterations required to install the hand/footholds, the rung width was reduced to 11 in. Based on 

the hand and foot width of a 99th percentile male, this leaves ample room to either grab a rung 

with both hands or stand on a rung with both feet. To make the rung more comfortable to use, 

the rung diameter was increased to 11⁄4 in. The rung surface could be roughened to provide a 

46
non-skid foot surface, but the level of roughness would need to be limited so it would still be 

useful as a handhold. 

5.3 Windshield 

As a means of access for rescue workers, the windshield is considered to be the next best option 

to the hatch. Feedback from the rescue personnel indicates that the windshield would be 

immediately targeted as a means of entry to a toppled locomotive. The firefighters main concern 

was for easy access while wearing equipment. This might, in certain situations, preclude access 

via the doors or “up-side” windows. From the view of the railroad crews, external windshield 

removal was considered a distant second to the hatch concept, since it was not useable from

inside the cab. If implemented, their concern would be ease of use by non-trained “Good 

Samaritans” who would likely be on scene before professional rescue workers. 

Utilizing this information, a removable windshield gasket is still considered the best option for 

outside access. The glazing itself would be removable from the outside with very simple tools, 

making it possible for passers by to remove. Design impact on the locomotive frame would be 

minimal.

5.4 Cost/Design Considerations 

The present state of development of the design for the hatch system is not sufficiently detailed to 

allow for an in-depth analysis of its likely cost. However, it is possible to identify the cost 

implications of several aspects of the design. This preliminary study suggests the following cost 

implications: 

• Modification of current locomotive designs to accommodate a hatch will likely require 

relocation of a few structural roof members and rerouting of wiring and air lines for 

wipers. This appears feasible and not likely to be a costly change. 

• The current hatch design has internal rounded corners. From a structural perspective, the 

rounded corners will make it easier to incorporate a gasket and minimize seams and 

potential leaks. However, rounded corners require special dies and fixtures to produce 

and additional manufacturing operations, thus making them more costly to manufacture 

than square corners. The limited production runs of the locomotive manufacturers may 

not justify the added expense. 

• Design of the combined seal and latching mechanism proposes challenges that may result 

in a costly solution. The proposed hatch is 22 in x 30 in. The length required to seal the 

perimeter of the hatch would be 104 in. The forces required to compress a seal of this 

length can become very high, placing considerable strain on the latching mechanism. 

The seal must secure the opening from air and water leaks while still allowing for quick 

release with one hand by a crewmember. Installation of the hatch cover may require 

more than one person, but this is not a major concern because this will not be a timecritical activity. 

• If the hatch frame is distorted in a crash, the hatch cover may become jammed in the 

opening. Sloped edges on the hatch cover may help the release under these 

circumstances but a sloped-edge design will have a corresponding increase in the cost to 

47
manufacture the hatch system. Another option is to allow extra space between the frame 

and the cover but this may compromise the effectiveness of the seal. 

• The hatch cover must be designed so that it can support the weight of a railroad worker 

walking on it. This requirement may lead to the use of a high strength material that is 

more costly than the steel used for the roof. Alternately, the structural design of the hatch 

may become more complex, which would also affect the overall cost of manufacture. 

48
6 Mockup 

Construction of a mockup of a locomotive cab with the hatch system provided a means to 

conduct a preliminary assessment of its function. This section describes the mockup along with 

the results of initial testing. 

6.1 Locomotive Cab Mockup 

To evaluate the overall utility of the egress concepts developed under this program, a full-size 

mockup of a locomotive cab was constructed. As Figure 33 illustrates, the mockup is a woodframed, plywood-sheathed structure representing a “composite” locomotive cab. The cab 

dimensions reflect sizes common to both GE and EMD locomotives currently in service. The 

cab interior is 9.5 ft wide, 6.5 ft from floor to ceiling, and 7.5 ft from the operator’s console to 

the rear wall. In its current configuration, the rear wall has been removed to provide better 

viewing and access for testing. The mockup was constructed with openings for a roof hatch and 

hand/footholds in place. Currently, the mockup is built to represent the basic configuration of 

the operator’s station, roof, windshield, and hood, and does not include the front doors, electrical 

switching panels, or seating. The design of the structure is such that refinement and expansion of 

the mockup is possible. 

Figure 33. Locomotive Cab Mockup 

Originally, the structure was assembled at Foster-Miller’s Corporate Headquarters in Waltham. 

During the initial assembly, the mockup was oriented in the normal operational configuration. 

This allowed various aspects of the geometry to be compared to actual locomotive dimensions. 

Following this initial fit-up, the structure was disassembled and moved to Foster-Miller’s 

49
Locomotive Structural Test Facility in Fitchburg, where it was reassembled on its side. In this 

configuration, the mockup is in the orientation of a 90o rollover derailment, allowing evaluation 

of the conceptual egress equipment. 

6.2 Roof Egress Hatch Mockup 

A functioning mockup of a roof hatch, shown in Figure 34, was constructed for use in the 

toppled cab. As with the mockup itself, this hatch is wood-framed and plywood sheathed. A 

latching mechanism consisting of aluminum dead-bolts and a central cam allows all four sides of 

the latch to operate simultaneously. The cam can be actuated from inside and outside the cab by 

use of a handle. 

Figure 34. Hatch Mockup 

Prior to testing, a cover was fitted over the mechanism and appropriate placards for its use 

applied to the surface. The signage was designed to be informative to persons unfamiliar with its 

use, so they could readily identify the device, operate the hatch, and clear the opening for egress. 

6.3 Hand/Foothold Mockup 

Hand/footholds on the interior of the cab provide a means of reaching and utilizing the hatch. 

The hand/footholds are constructed of 11⁄4 in diameter wooden dowels, held in place by 

aluminum hinge brackets. The rungs are 11 in wide, and re-enforced with a full length of 1⁄4 in 

diameter steel rod. The rungs are hinged so they can be folded flush to the ceiling when not in 

use, and folded down to allow access to the roof hatch as shown in Figure 35. An additional 

wood block is included in the mockup framing to provide positive locking of the rungs for 

climbing. 

There are two hand/footholds below the hatch, and one above the hatch in the rolled-over 

orientation. The spacing between the hand/footholds is approximately 16 in. The single rung 

above the hatch was included for use as a climbing aid. In the fully outfitted cab, there would be 

50
Figure 35. Hand/Foothold Mockup 

two rungs on either side of the hatch. As a visibility aid, the rungs were coated with reflective 

black and yellow tape. 

6.4 Initial Concept Evaluation 

To provide insight into the utility and effectiveness of the hatch and hand/foothold concepts, a 

limited sequence of testing was performed. These tests utilized a 50th percentile female subject 

and a 95th percentile male subject. Neither subject had railroad industry experience and both had 

limited prior knowledge of the egress program. Each subject was tested independently. In each 

case, the subject was given a brief orientation in an actual locomotive cab frame. The frame is 

an unfinished EMD locomotive currently under test at the same facility. The orientation of the 

test subjects consisted of a basic description of the cab layout, generally utilized egress routes, 

and the areas where egress would not be possible in a working locomotive. Following this, they 

were given a description of the roof hatch concept and the mockup orientation of the 90o 

rollover. They were not given any instruction on the use of either the hatch or the 

hand/footholds. Once the orientation was complete, the subject was placed in the mockup cab 

and instructed to escape. 

6.4.1 Egress Test 1 - 50th Percentile Female Subject 

The female subject unlatched the hatch without difficulty while standing on the side wall of the 

mockup. She did have some difficulty pushing the hatch out, due to lack of leverage. Once the 

hatch was pushed free of the opening, she climbed up the wall using the hand/footholds. She 

went out through the opening head first, grabbed an external framing member to pull herself up, 

and sat in the opening. She then brought her legs through, and climbed backwards down the roof 

of the cab. On the outside, it was necessary for her to grasp and step on the exposed framing to 

maintain balance and safety indicating a need for exterior grab irons. The escape sequence is 

shown from the inside in Figure 36, and from the outside in Figure 37. A total of 30 s elapsed 

between actuating the latch handle and clearing the opening after egress. 

51
Figure 36. Egress of 50th Percentile Female Subject, Interior View

Figure 37. Egress of 50th Percentile Female Subject, Exterior View

6.4.2 Egress Test 2 - 95th Percentile Male Subject 

The male subject unlatched and opened the hatch in less than 4 s. He folded down the 

hand/footholds below the hatch, climbed up to grasp the hand/foothold above the hatch, and 

pulled himself up to the opening. He then dropped his legs out through the hatchway, and 

lowered himself to the ground. The escape sequence is shown from the inside in Figure 38, and 

from the outside in Figure 39. A total of 15 s elapsed between actuating the latch handle and 

clearing the opening after egress. 

6.4.3 Egress Test 3 - Simulation of Injured Crewmember 

With the hatch removed, two brief simulations of injured crewmembers were attempted. These 

simulations were performed to establish the level of difficulty an injured crewmember might 

have in utilizing the hatch. The subject in this case was a 25th percentile male. It is important to 

note that in both cases, the subject was able-bodied, and simply limiting the use of his arms and 

legs. This subject was very knowledgeable in the design and usage of the hand/footholds. 

52
Figure 38. Egress of 95th Percentile Male Subject, Interior View

Figure 39. Egress of 95th Percentile Male Subject, Exterior View

In the first simulation, the subject utilized the hand/footholds to egress the cab using one hand. 

In the second, the subject egressed the cab using only one leg. In both cases, the subject was 

able to maneuver through the opening and drop to the ground. The one-handed egress is shown 

in Figure 40, the one legged egress is shown in Figure 41. The one handed egress was relatively 

easy, but did require a degree of arm strength to accomplish. Pain caused by the injury would 

likely have made this egress much more uncomfortable. The one legged egress was much more 

difficult, and did require grasping of the exposed exterior framing to accomplish safely. In 

practice, this might not be possible without assistance. 

6.5 Observations/Conclusions 

Testing of the hatch and hand/footholds did show that with minimal knowledge and training, the 

devices were easy to use. None of the subjects had complaints about the location of either the 

hatch or hand/footholds. It should be reiterated that for this preliminary test, the subjects were 

not experienced railroad workers and were performing in an incomplete cab. Future testing will 

53
Figure 40. Simulation of Injured Crewmember – One Handed Egress 

Figure 41. Simulation of Injured Crewmember – One Legged Egress 

require actual train crews and a more fully fitted cab. The testing does indicate, however, that in 

their current form, the hatch and hand/footholds are practical and useful as a means of 

locomotive egress. 

From the case of the female subject and the injured crewmember, it is clear that exterior grab 

irons would be a necessary addition to the egress system. In both cases, the subjects needed 

some means of exterior support to egress the cab and safely reach the ground. 

54
7 Recommendations for Future Research 

The results of this study suggest areas for future research relative to improved egress for 

locomotive crews. These are discussed below. 

• Prototype hatch system. 

The mockup described in this report demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed roof hatch 

with a hand/foothold system to facilitate access to the hatch. The next step in the 

development of this concept is construction of a working prototype that can be used for 

operational testing. Progressing from the current mockup to a working hatch prototype will 

require detailed latch and seal designs, an overall framing structure for the hatch, enclosures, 

insulation and actuators. Design of the prototype hand/footholds will require consideration 

of rung sizing, hinging, mounting arrangements and locking devices. The goal should be to 

design the prototype hatch system as close as possible to the units that would ultimately be 

installed in new locomotives. 

• 

• 

Roof strength verification. 

In designing the mockup, the issue arose as to whether or not the hatch opening will diminish 

the cab roof strength. This issue must be a part of the overall design process for the 

prototype. One method for assuring equivalent strength will be to compare the structural 

performance of a typical cab roof with and without such a hatch opening. A finite element 

analysis of the roof, subjected to a series of simplified static overall roof loads such as shear, 

axial compression and panel bending, can be the basis of this analysis. 

Usability testing.

The hatch system must be easy for crewmembers and emergency rescue personnel to use. Of 

specific concern are 1) access to the hatch from inside the cab in a rollover or partial rollover 

accident, 2) ease of operation of the release mechanism for uninjured and injured 

crewmembers, and 3) ease of egress through the hatch opening. Once the prototype is 

complete, a well-structured usability test can assure that the design meets specific operational 

criteria. 

• 

• 

Improved emergency egress lighting.

Focus group participants emphasized that crew egress from locomotive cabs in an emergency 

or accident situation can be critically dependent on availability of adequate interior lighting. 

Consideration of the lighting issue was beyond the scope of the present study but it should be 

addressed in future emergency studies. Once a lighting design is identified, it can become a 

part of the working prototype hatch system described above. 

Improved secondary egress equipment. 

The program described in this report identified several areas where additional aids could 

enhance crew survivability in the event of an accident. In addition to the primary 

recommendation of a roof hatch and associated hand/footholds, proposed improvements 

include removable windshield glazing, and removable door hinge pins to enable the crew to 

cope with a jammed or distorted door. 

55
Focus group participants felt that a removable windshield would be most useful if inside 

actuation by the crew were possible. Future research should explore the feasibility and 

design that would allow inside release of the windshield glazing. In a typical locomotive, 

release of the windshield would provide an opening of 17 in x 55 in. 

Another secondary egress aid is a removable door hinge pin. Existing cab doors, including 

the side-facing doors on passenger locomotives, rear doors on freight locomotives and front 

cab doors on narrow-nose freight locomotives, all use side hinges attached to the cab 

structure. Some designs use a “refrigerator” style configuration in which the door overlaps 

the body. The refrigerator design resists jamming but distortion of the cab in an accident can 

freeze the door due to its fixed hinges and latch. If either a crewmember or a rescuer could 

remove the hinge pins, then a jammed door could be released and the crew could escape. 

Further research should examine the feasibility of hinge pins that can be removed from the 

cab interior. While outside removal of hinge pins is desirable for emergency rescue workers, 

there is a concern that vandals or intruders could have cab access with this feature. Removal 

from the cab interior is clearly the priority. 

• Training video for rescue workers.

Contact with emergency rescue personnel revealed that there is a lack of training materials 

regarding emergency rescue from a locomotive. It is not a situation that emergency workers 

encounter frequently, but nevertheless they must be adequately prepared to deal with this 

type of situation. Moreover, in the future, emergency rescue personnel must be aware of the 

hatch system and the access that it will provide for accessing the cab. Given this situation, 

there is a need to develop a videotape to train emergency workers on rescue from the cab of a 

locomotive. The users of this training video will be primarily the Fire Academies in each 

state. Fire departments in areas where there is heavy train traffic, such as the Chicago area, 

might also have an interest in the video. 

56
8 References 

DOD-HDBK-743A, Anthropometry of U.S. Military Personnel, 13 February 1991. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. § 571.217 (2001). 

Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, (1996). Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab 

Working Conditions, Report to Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

Kokkins, S.J. (2002). Locomotive Crashworthiness Research: Locomotive Crew Egress 

Evaluation. (DOT/FRA/ORD-02/03). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. 

MIL-STD-1472F, Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard, Human Engineering, 23 

August 1999. 

Passenger equipment safety standards, 49 C.F.R. § 238.415 (2001). 

Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness, 49 C.F.R. § 239.107 (2001). 

Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. § 229 (2001). 

Safety Glazing Standards for Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses, 49 C.F.R. § 223 

(2001). 

Safety and health regulations for construction, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053 (2001).

57

Appendix A - Focus Group Questions 

This appendix contains the list of questions used to guide the focus group discussions held with 

railroad labor. 

Personal Experiences 

Tell us about a train accident that you were involved in. Describe the events leading up 

to the accident. Describe the situation immediately after the accident. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

What safety concerns do you have in the event of an accident while inside the 

locomotive? 

What concerns do you have about your personal security in the loco cab? 

Hand/Footholds 

Overall Concept 

How would this have helped you in the wreck you were involved in?

What do you like about the design?

What do you not like about the design?

What potential problems do you see with this design?

What are particular situations you think this design will be advantageous? 

Disadvantageous?

Do you have any suggestions for improving the design?

For Each of the Three Designs 

• How easy would this be to engage? 

1 2 3

Difficult Neither difficult nor easy Easy 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

What do you like about this design? 

What do you not like about this design?

What potential problems do you see with this design?

Do you have any suggestions for improving this design?

What potential problems do you see with this design?

59
Overall Comparison 

• Which of the three hand/footholds would you prefer to have in your locomotive?

Pullout

Swing out 

Foldout

 

• How would the handhold/foothold have helped you in the wreck you were involved in?

• 

Roof Hatch with Hand/Footholds 

How easy would this be to engage?

1 2 3

Difficult Neither difficult nor easy Easy 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

What do you like about the design?

What do you not like about the design?

What potential problems do you see with this design?

What are particular situations you think this design will be advantageous? 

Disadvantageous?

Do you have any suggestions for improving the design?

How would this have helped you in the wreck you were involved in?

How would you exit via the hatch?

In what situation would you need an assistive device such as a rope or ladder to safely 

exit via the hatch in a rollover accident? 

If anyone expressed concern about personal security, Do you feel that an exterior lock 

should be a part of the hatch?

Removable Windshield

What do you like about the design?

What do you not like about the design?

What potential problems do you see with this design?

60
• 

• 

• 

• 

What are particular situations you think this design will be advantageous? 

Disadvantageous?

Do you have any suggestions for improving the design?

How useful would this have been in your accident?

Rank the Designs 

Which design do you think would give you the quickest escape?

Handhold/footholds

Hatch with handhold/footholds 

Removable windshield 

• Which design do you think would allow for the quickest access for emergency 

responders? 

Handhold/footholds

Hatch with handhold/footholds 

Removable windshield 

Concluding 

• 

• 

Can you suggest any other methods of egress?

Is there anything else that you would like to add to what we have discussed 

tonight/today?

61
62