The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
With all the discussions about the engine shutting down in Canada, I'm surprised at the upset of this video showing engines left running. The bigger danger about the possible movement of those unattended engines isn't from them being under power, but rather (assuming there is enough of a grade) movement because of no brakes holding them. As we have learned, with engines shut down and air leaking away, eventually the only thing to hold will be the hand brake. It's the easiest thing to access of any of the other controls needed to allow the engine to move. It's also probably the easiest of the controls for someone, with no other clue, to figure out how to operate.
Even with the cab locked, which this video may predate the requirement and equipping of engines with locks, the automatic and independent properly applied, the reverser removed and (I assume because I don't think he showed them) a couple of other switches properly positioned, with the engine shutdown you could still release the hand brake.
There are times, and I don't know the details behind this situation to say any would apply, when it is necessary to leave engine(s) running.
Jeff
jeffhergertEven with the cab locked, which this video may predate the requirement and equipping of engines with locks
It was uploaded in 2010. It could have been shot earlier, but more likely it was shot and quickly posted.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm jeffhergertEven with the cab locked, which this video may predate the requirement and equipping of engines with locks It was uploaded in 2010. It could have been shot earlier, but more likely it was shot and quickly posted.
It appeared the second engine had not yet been equipped with an exterior door lock. Locks have been appearing for a while, but the requirement (and the issuance of keys to TE&Y) has only been about a year or so. It accelerated after the Canadian incident.
Then you have to have an engine that has a working interior (back cab door) and an exterior door lock. It's not uncommon to have one or the other not functioning. On key trains, if you can't lock the doors, the engineer needs to take the reverser with him/her when leaving one unattended.
Jeff - I am a little late to the party - sorry. A few years ago, we saw a switcher sitting very near a public street, running and the doors all standing open. This troubled me and I said so on the forum. Everyone said it was no big deal and that doors were never locked. Now this is a rule? And do they leave the reverser in the engine or still take it with them after they lock up.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Sometimes engines are tagged "Do not shut down", mostly account of weak batteries. Newer locomotives are equipped with systems which will automatically fire them up when certain parameters are reached (low main reservior, low battery charge, low block temp.) As for locking the cab, that's a real recent thing. I have yet to do it, but I've been working thru jobs.
We have been over this before, but seriously, before Bucky and Schlimm have panic attacks…just exactly where would you go with a stolen locomotive, especially those, where the authorities couldn’t find you?
It’s not like you can hang a right and stash them at a locomotive chop shop.
And if it is CTC territory, the moment it hits the main, the dispatcher will know.
Either of you guys feel like telling us how you would go about moving these locomotives….you know, a step by step description of what you do to make them, let’s say, go ahead?
23 17 46 11
edblysard We have been over this before, but seriously, before Bucky and Schlimm have panic attacks…just exactly where would you go with a stolen locomotive, especially those, where the authorities couldn’t find you? It’s not like you can hang a right and stash them at a locomotive chop shop. And if it is CTC territory, the moment it hits the main, the dispatcher will know. Either of you guys feel like telling us how you would go about moving these locomotives….you know, a step by step description of what you do to make them, let’s say, go ahead?
Vandals, if they were clever enough to get one of these going (one of the operating personnel said it's not that hard) could create a damaging or dangerous situation of some sort: derailment or a collision with another train. It really is not so hard to conceive of the damage some reckless fool/criminal could cause.
And drop the sarcasm.
Locks keep out the honest.
edblysardWe have been over this before, but seriously, before Bucky and Schlimm have panic attacks…just exactly where would you go with a stolen locomotive, especially those, where the authorities couldn’t find you?
Ed,
What is it that you might think I would have a panic attack about? Are you saying that it is unnecessary overkill to require railroads to lock up their parked locomotives? Particularly in the wake of Lac Megantic, there has been considerable criticism of the practice of leaving locomotives running, unlocked, and accessible. The TSB of Canada was quick to condemn that practice for oil trains.
I recall a few years ago, we had a thread here about a news story somewhere in which the TV news station people boarded unlocked and idling locomotives somewhere out in the country, and presented it as unsafe practice. Of course there was the usual hooha and bluster here on the forum about “how dare they…!” and how the railroad should charge them with trespass, etc. But I seem to recall that the FRA even commented, and they were not critical of the TV station’s role in the illustration.
Since 911 happened, everybody has been anticipating a terrorist attack using trains and hazardous material. Security has been stepped up everywhere, so it is not surprising that the practice of leaving parked locomotives running and accessible would come under scrutiny. But frankly, I think the railroad terrorist angle is overblown. Messing around trying to deliver tank cars like bombs would be too tedious and imprecise for terrorists. That clumsy method would be small potatoes for terrorists. When they show up here, they will be frying much bigger fish than trying to crash trains.
The day of the Lac Megatic wreck there was an Eastbound train at a siding a little East of Megantic The lead engine was running to maintain air, the windows were closed and the doors were closed (not locked).
A person decided that he had the right to make a youtube video of himself trespassing, climbing up onto the locomotive and opening the doors. He gave us all a video tour of the locomotive cab. It was this event by an individual that caused the rules for securement to be changed.
The fact of the matter is there are few if any consequences for this type of action.
A few miles to the West there was a train that was trapped by a small derailment. The engine was brought to a spot near a crossing and shut down. Over the next few months every bit of copper was systematically stripped from this engine turning it into scrap metal. The spot was not hidden, it was right in plain sight in the middle of a flat field.
No one was caught or prosecuted for causing $200,000.00 damage to the locomotive.
I have no illusions that anyone can be trusted anymore. Being in the railroad business is foolish these days. Let the criminals take it all and drive costs up to the point that it's not worth moving a train.
Randy Stahl ....Over the next few months every bit of copper was systematically stripped from this engine turning into to scrap metal. The spot was not hidden, it was right in plain sight in the middle of a flat field. No one was caught or prosecuted for causing $200,000.00 damage to the locomotive.
....Over the next few months every bit of copper was systematically stripped from this engine turning into to scrap metal. The spot was not hidden, it was right in plain sight in the middle of a flat field.
I'm not implying that all scrap dealers are dishonest; but what I am saying is that the four scrap dealers that I worked for were each one more dishonest than the other.
Just sayin'.....
Am I missing something here?
How is locking the doors of a loco going to help secure a train in any way?
Unless someone has a reverser key AND knows what breakers/switches to enguage AND what controlls to operate to release the brakes & apply power, then there isn't much they could do other then mabee do some damage.
If shutting off the unit is the concern...anyone can just walk up and hit the emergency fuel shutoff.
Likewise anyone could walk the train releasing the handbrakes untill off it goes....
Chad,
The issue of locking the locomotive doors played no role in the Lac Megantic wreck. However, it is a security concern, and leaving the MM&A oil train with locomotive unlocked raised the issue of sabotage playing a role in future oil train parking with equipment unattended. Locking the doors is one form of securement, but the securement issue in the Lac Magantic wreck is confined to securing the train from inadvertently rolling after being parked.
It is true than anyone can shut off a running locomotive, but there should be no safety threat from doing so if the train is properly secured against inadvertent rolling.
Mookie Jeff - I am a little late to the party - sorry. A few years ago, we saw a switcher sitting very near a public street, running and the doors all standing open. This troubled me and I said so on the forum. Everyone said it was no big deal and that doors were never locked. Now this is a rule? And do they leave the reverser in the engine or still take it with them after they lock up.
Our rules requiring the locking of doors is fairly recent. You are to lock the cab doors on all trains unattended outside of terminal areas. Key trains are to have their cab doors locked no matter where they are left unattended. If the engines don't have locks, or they don't work, only key trains have the requirement to remove the reverser from the cab. I know many engineers on any train will take the reverser if the doors don't lock. Engineers called for a key train that's tied down are to obtain a reverser, if they don't already have one, at the on duty point before heading out to the train.
The locking and reverser removal requirement only applies to the lead engine. Other units in the consist and dp units are to be left unlocked.
Hi Jeff, So what is locking the doors supposed to actually accomplish ?
If securing the train is the goal, then wouldn't putting padlocks on the handbrakes of every car be more effective???
chad s thomas Hi Jeff, So what is locking the doors supposed to actually accomplish ? If securing the train is the goal, then wouldn't putting padlocks on the handbrakes of every car be more effective???
I think they are more afraid of someone letting an unattended train go under power. Not so much that some one would release all the hand brakes and the air brakes and just let it roll.
Although the attention is given to securing equipment from those with malicious intent, the bigger worry is probably some inquisitive (not necessarily just railfans,) and/or bored person who just wants to "take a look." ("What's this handle do?" etc.) It's easier to secure against the latter, almost impossible against the former.
Chad and Jeff:
You are correct about the hand brake handle. I remember reading an BN F-27 (Accident Report) from the BN's Agent at Anoka,MN regarding a hand brake that had been released on a D/F car of canned goods spotted at a warehouse. The one truck of the car went off the end of the spur and needed to be re-railed.
Ed Burns
Retired NP-BN-BNSF
jeffhergert chad s thomas Hi Jeff, So what is locking the doors supposed to actually accomplish ? If securing the train is the goal, then wouldn't putting padlocks on the handbrakes of every car be more effective??? I think they are more afraid of someone letting an unattended train go under power. Not so much that some one would release all the hand brakes and the air brakes and just let it roll. Although the attention is given to securing equipment from those with malicious intent, the bigger worry is probably some inquisitive (not necessarily just railfans,) and/or bored person who just wants to "take a look." ("What's this handle do?" etc.) It's easier to secure against the latter, almost impossible against the former. Jeff
Thanks Jeff.
Still seems like lame logic to me. If some one knows enough to take off in power in that lead unit, they probably could also jump in one of the trailing units (that's still not locked, right?) and switch the MU controls to 'lead' and run the train from there.
The whole thing wreaks of 'warm & fuzzy' but meaningless to me.
And it keeps people out of the cab that just want to take a crap on the floor or fire the extinguisher..
NP Eddie Chad and Jeff: You are correct about the hand brake handle. I remember reading an BN F-27 (Accident Report) from the BN's Agent at Anoka,MN regarding a hand brake that had been released on a D/F car of canned goods spotted at a warehouse. The one truck of the car went off the end of the spur and needed to be re-railed. Ed Burns Retired NP-BN-BNSF
Which could just as easily been a train parked on the main.
Randy Stahl jeffhergert chad s thomas Hi Jeff, So what is locking the doors supposed to actually accomplish ? If securing the train is the goal, then wouldn't putting padlocks on the handbrakes of every car be more effective??? I think they are more afraid of someone letting an unattended train go under power. Not so much that some one would release all the hand brakes and the air brakes and just let it roll. Although the attention is given to securing equipment from those with malicious intent, the bigger worry is probably some inquisitive (not necessarily just railfans,) and/or bored person who just wants to "take a look." ("What's this handle do?" etc.) It's easier to secure against the latter, almost impossible against the former. Jeff And it keeps people out of the cab that just want to take a crap on the floor or fire the extinguisher..
Now that i understand Randy.
Or to keep #@!$s with cameras out.
Now it is monetary settlement time - all the 'rats' are scurrying under cover.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/transport-canadas-classified%E2%80%9D-lac-megantic-payment.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There has been a lot of discussion about the fault for the Lac Megantic runaway disaster. Blame has been laid on the following:
The engineer for failing to secure the train.
The engineer’s supervisors for failing to check his work.
The CEO for inadequate safety training.
The firemen for shutting down the last locomotive running.
The mechanical failure that caused the fire on the last locomotive running.
Tank cars that breach too easily.
Fossil fuels.
Crude oil that is too volatile.
Demanding too much from one-man crews.
This latest news highlights blame being placed on Transport Canada, the federal regulator. Off hand, I cannot recall this being discussed in the final report at the start of this thread, but maybe it was. Apparently Transport Canada is being blamed for item #9 above, the permitting of MM&A operating with just the engineer.
Is this a legitimate complaint against Transport Canada? If the engineer had not violated the securement rule, the disaster would not have happened. If there were two people in the crew of the ill-fated train, would Transport Canada be blamed for not requiring three people?
Euclid9. Demanding too much from one-man crews ... Apparently Transport Canada is being blamed for item #9 above, the permitting of MM&A operating with just the engineer.
This, to me, is actually two very different things. Was there too much being put on Harding with the smoking engine, the long walk back to secure the train, etc. as the 'single crew'? That is the point of item 9. The current complaint about Transport Canada, though, is that they licensed single-crew operation, which I'm sure was done on separate grounds from predicting the kind of 'perfect storm' of circumstance and incompetence that led to the Lac Megantic accident. Yes, I see strong elements of 20/20 hindsight and blame-the-government action in it, and yes, it's more than a little red-herringish relative to the actual reasons why the accident occurred as it did... in my opinion.
RME Euclid 9. Demanding too much from one-man crews ... Apparently Transport Canada is being blamed for item #9 above, the permitting of MM&A operating with just the engineer.
Euclid 9. Demanding too much from one-man crews ... Apparently Transport Canada is being blamed for item #9 above, the permitting of MM&A operating with just the engineer.
Personally, I don't think any "guard dog' could have thought all those "conclusions" that combined to produce the runaway could have been predicted from single-man operation alone. In my opinion, far more of the cause was associated with other aspects of operations, ones that would have applied almost regardless of the number of crew -- specifically including the decision not to have Harding return to the locomotive upon the discovery it was on fire, which I suspect would have been even more 'determined' were multiple hours-of-service violations involved.
RME Personally, I don't think any "guard dog' could have thought all those "conclusions" that combined to produce the runaway could have been predicted from single-man operation alone. In my opinion, far more of the cause was associated with other aspects of operations, ones that would have applied almost regardless of the number of crew -- specifically including the decision not to have Harding return to the locomotive upon the discovery it was on fire, which I suspect would have been even more 'determined' were multiple hours-of-service violations involved.
The primary cause was the MM&A's safety culture - or the resounding lack of it. One man, two man or 10 man - the job that was performed by Mr. Harding was sorely lacking in railroad safety and craft.
As a retired professional railroader, I must agree with Transport Canada's report. If a number of items happen in a row, an accident will probably occur. Look at the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, MN. I really don't like one man crews---too much for one man to do if something happens.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.