Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="jeffhergert"] [quote user="Bucyrus"]  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. 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.  <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] In the real world, minimum means just that.  What the powers that be have decreed must be applied.  For some trains/cuts of cars it might be overkill, for others not enough.  That's why the securement rules also specify a "sufficient number" and require (for us) a release test to verify.  Even in those known cases leaning towards overkill, a release of the air brakes is still done. I will agree to a point, that some may start with the minimum required by local instructions.  But they will do a release test and if it doesn't hold, they tie more brakes and do another release test.  This is done until they are satisfied nothing is going to roll away. We do have a chart that shows the number of brakes to set without releasing the air brakes to verify, but it is (or at least has been) for those times when a release test was impractical.  It's a good bet that the chart in most cases has a good safety factor built in, that the number is more than a "sufficient number." I see nothing wrong with the CROR securement rule as written and quoted.   Jeff   <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] Jeff, I understand your points, and agree with them.  Like you, I also see nothing wrong with Rule 112.  It is the STB of Canada who has stated that they have found a problem with Rule 112.  They say that it is impossible to verify securement with a push pull-test on high grades. My point posted on the previous page is only about a possibility of misinterpreting Rule 112 by viewing it through a layer of special instructions.  Specifically, such a possibility would be developing a routine of setting a certain number of handbrakes (the minimum) thought to be sufficient without testing.     Such a problem might arise from the language of the special instructions and/or improper interpretation of them.  MM&A has been asked by the news media to reveal their special instructions for train securement at Nantes, but I understand they have refused to do so.
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