@rl Hmm .. I didn’t quite understand the statements about the poor design of Soviet-era trains. The ER2 had a common design flaw in the body - the absence of a body frame reinforcement. It was a disease of all electric trains of the ER series, when, for example, as a result of a collision, the first head car broke in half near the first passenger doors. ER2 was designed back in the 60s (and the progenitor of ER1 even earlier), when in world practice such technologies as they are today have not yet been introduced on rolling stock. But the fact that ER2 is just a rotten electric train as of 2010 also played a role in the accident in the photo. In ER2, structural steel was used, which by this time had rusted so much on all cars in the CIS that sometimes cracks could be seen in the body. In addition, ER2 is hollow inside because of the interior. But this is not poor build quality, but just time and the supporting structure of the electric train. The C36-7i has a completely different design and a reinforced frame, on which the engine, cab and other equipment are installed in a modular way (and the C36 is corny many times heavier than one ER2 car). If at such a speed ER2 collided with the same CHME3 or TEM7, the effect would be approximately the same - a rotten body at a speed of 70 km/h crashes into a locomotive at a speed of 30 km/h, where a solid frame is installed. By itself, the electric train is simply mounted on a diesel locomotive in this case. There is an interesting documentary film, where such cases are described in world practice, when the structures of cars similar to ER2 were simply torn apart when colliding with more massive equipment, and then reinforcements were used in the body frame with absorption in case of impacts, crash systems, like this now on Stadlers it is installed under the driver's cab (so that the cars do not overlap each other in the event of an accident). So the claim about the poor design of the ER2 is unfounded.