Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tree68"] While it's obvious that at some point in the timeline there were not sufficient brakes to hold the train, there is nothing to indicate that the engineer did not set sufficient brakes per MM&A rules.  The fact that the train was not rolling away as he left it indicates that he did set sufficient brakes to hold the train at that point.[/quote] It does not indicate that.  He did have sufficient brakes set to prevent the train from rolling, but that included all of the automatic air brakes and independent brakes.  The engineer’s responsibility under rule 112 is to set sufficient handbrakes to hold the train, and that requirement must be met completely without air brakes being set.  The air brakes alone could have held the train, so we don’t know if the engineer set any handbrakes even though the train did not move when he left it. He was, of course, free to add air brakes to the securement, but air brakes cannot be counted in the fulfillment of the securement rule.    I agree that they may have done the same procedure without any problems many times in the past.  However, it may be the case that their past securements were relying on air brakes to hold the train without enough handbrakes to hold it on their own.  It may be that they did that repeatedly and were just lucky that the air brakes remained set.  So, the mere fact that the train with air brakes set does not roll does not prove that the train securement handbrake rule has been fulfilled.
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