Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
MM&A President Burkhardt Blaming Oil Train Engineer
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="Bucyrus"]</p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">My concern is with this sentence: </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:medium;">“Special instructions will indicate the minimum hand brake requirements for all locations where equipment is left.”</span>[/quote]</p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">In order to analyze GROR Rule 112, one would need to see those special instructions that the TSB says may accompany Rule 112. As I understand it, those special instructions can vary from one company to another. So you would have national Rule 112 and private special instructions working together to define the terms of train securement. While Rule 112 is public information, special instructions are often not disclosed to the public. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">The special instructions may stipulate a minimum number of handbrakes to secure a train on various grades, with various tonnages. Whereas, Rule 112 requires a push-pull test to prove the number of handbrakes set is adequate. In order for this to work, the special instructions would have to include a statement like this:</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">“All conditions of GROR Rule 112 must be met.” </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">If that were not included, the special instructions alone might be assumed to completely cover the issue of train securement. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">Any time a minimum is specified, it comes with the natural implication that the minimum is sufficient. Therefore, without the special instructions calling for the full requirements of Rule 112, it might be interpreted to mean that the special instructions are an alternative to Rule 112, or take precedence over the rule. And if that were the case, the minimum number of handbrakes required by the special instructions might be deemed adequate without a push-pull test which is a requirement of Rule 112.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">One might ask why a crew would go to the trouble of applying the minimum number of handbrakes and then not bother to do a push-pull test. The answer is that the test might indicate that more brakes need to be applied, and then tested a second time. This is more work, and if the crew believes that the minimum number of handbrakes is the full requirement, they might just leave it at that. </span></p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy