As matlab programming number of marshalling vehicles greater, matlab programming energy absorption of matlab programming basic subway vehicles was 114 kJ, 149 kJ, 179 kJ and 234 kJ. The corresponding consequences for matlab programming energy absorption of matlab programming interface of matlab programming second car of matlab programming activepassive safety vehicles were 173 kJ, 231 kJ, 284 kJ and 337 kJ. It can be seen that when matlab programming energy architecture of matlab programming subway automobiles was improved to matlab programming activepassive energy absorber, matlab programming collision energy dissipation step by step shifted to matlab programming second car, which suggests that matlab programming energy absorption at matlab programming interface of matlab programming second car was tremendously increased compared to that of matlab programming equivalent interface for matlab programming basic subway vehicles. The energy absorption of matlab programming interfaces of matlab programming head car was reduced. This also shows that matlab programming activepassive safety vehicles were able to fritter away matlab programming kinetic energy as matlab programming impact speed rose above 25 km/h. Comparison of matlab programming energy absorption at alternative interfaces of matlab programming classic subway vehicles and matlab programming activepassive safety subway automobiles with 8 , 7 , 6 and 5 car marshallingComparison of matlab programming energy absorption at various interfaces of matlab programming classic subway vehicles and matlab programming activepassive safety subway cars with 8 , 7 , 6 and 5 car marshallingA evaluation of matlab programming energy absorption at matlab programming interfaces of matlab programming head car and matlab programming second car of both matlab programming classic subway automobiles and matlab programming activepassive safety subway vehicles with 8 , 7 , 6 and 5 car marshalling is shown in Fig.