Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="oltmannd"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] Don, Well, my point was that the public reported seeing heavy black smoke, unburned fuel, and sparks— all of which were erupting from the exhaust stack, so they interpreted it as a fire and called the fire department.  Since this fire and smoke was coming from the exhaust stack, I surmised that the the so-called "fire", contrary to the news reports, was not a free burning fire onboard the locomotive such as a burning fuel from a leak or an electrical fire.  Instead, I concluded that the so-called "fire" was an extension of the combustion process originating inside of the prime mover. I theorized that it was a turbo that had failed, causing air starvation, and resulting in a fuel-rich ratio.  But if a turbo can’t cause that, and if an injector nozzle can, then that sounds like a plausible explanation.  Although, I am surprised that one could cause the extent of the symptoms reported. In any case, my larger point is that the MM&A chose to let the ailing engine idle all night rather than shut it down and run one of the other four.   And to me, this indicates a hurry to quit, and a lack of care that might have a connection to the lack of care in securing the train.   A still larger point is that this hurry and lack of care seems to have been a decision of the engineer’s supervisor, and was actually opposed by the engineer. And so my largest point is that until we know that MM&A train securement rules and policy was not sloppy and inadequate, it is premature to blame the engineer.  The failed train securement may have been caused by the MM&A rather than the engineer.  [/quote] I'm not you have a point to make - too many nested "if" statements. IF the problem was aided by an ailing locomotive and IF the engineer didn't properly tie down the train and IF the locomotive's problems started before the engineer taxied away and IF the problems were noticeable by the engineer at the time he left. and etc. etc. This is really quite simple: Did the engineer properly secure the train with handbrakes?  That is, did he tie the train down and the see if it would move?  That's the "belt".  The air is just "suspenders."  If the suspenders fail, the belt still holds up your pants. If "no" then it's on the engineer, pure and simple.[/quote] But you are responding to a picture that I did not paint. In answer to your bullet points: I don’t believe, nor have I ever suggested that the runaway problem was aided by the ailing locomotive. The locomotive problems did start before the engineer taxied away. The problems were noticeable by the engineer at the time he left, and he commented to the taxi driver that he did not favor leaving the locomotive idle in that condition, and he intended to re-contact the company to see if they might reconsider their decision to leave the locomotive idle.  I understand your belt = handbrakes and suspenders = air brakes analogy.  But I believe the question goes beyond whether the engineer set handbrakes and performed a successful push-pull test.  I think the question also includes the question of whether the MM&A required a push-pull test, and-or whether the MM&A rules called for a sufficient number of handbrakes in lieu of empirical proof of a push-pull test.  As I carefully explained in my first post, there are reasons to doubt the MM&A train securement rules.  I find it rather suspicious that the entity that is so over the top in publicly rushing to condemn the engineer for causing the disaster is the very entity that is likely to be the cause if the engineer is vindicated.  I agree that it is quite simple.  I see three possible causes for the runaway:   1) The engineer failed to set sufficient handbrakes per the train securement rules of MM&A. 2) Somebody released the handbrakes after the engineer set them. 3) The train securement rules of the MM&A are inadequate.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag