CMStPnP Norm48327 It's mashochism schlimm. Feels good to keep bashing my head against the wall. Is this the same "Norm" that roosts at the Cheer's Bar sucking down brews and throwing out caustic comments every so often?
Norm48327 It's mashochism schlimm. Feels good to keep bashing my head against the wall.
It's mashochism schlimm. Feels good to keep bashing my head against the wall.
Is this the same "Norm" that roosts at the Cheer's Bar sucking down brews and throwing out caustic comments every so often?
Sorry, not even close, but I'll admit that some days Bucky could drive me to drink.
Norm
Randy Stahl Euclids logic concerning the Lac Megantic wreck is sound. I wonder, at what point does one consider an employee trained? Most of the MMA Canadian employees where trained and qualified engineers from the Canadian Pacific. The MMA did not train them ( although they were all tested and recertified periodically). Did they need to? Any arguement stating that training was not up to par would condemn all employees as unqualified. The narrative of untrained or undertrained employees is false. The crew alerters were (and sometimes still are) wired directly to the batteries, not to the load side of the knife switch. People seem to forget that the alerters are made for a MANNED train, not an unmanned runaway train. The method of wiring the alerter is irrelavant. Canadian rules were specific about leaving an unattended train with the automatic air released, MMA crews were tested on this and if an unattended train was found with a brake application the employee was written up. This rule has nothing to do with preserving the airtest on the train as Canadian rules allow a train off air to sit for 48 hours without retesting. That said, I have operated heavy trains as a single man on the MMA and did not feel unsafe or afraid. I know my limitations and if I needed help I would make that quite clear. One thing that has changed since the wreck is the fact that I no longer trust my employees to do thier job.
Euclids logic concerning the Lac Megantic wreck is sound.
I wonder, at what point does one consider an employee trained? Most of the MMA Canadian employees where trained and qualified engineers from the Canadian Pacific. The MMA did not train them ( although they were all tested and recertified periodically). Did they need to? Any arguement stating that training was not up to par would condemn all employees as unqualified. The narrative of untrained or undertrained employees is false.
The crew alerters were (and sometimes still are) wired directly to the batteries, not to the load side of the knife switch. People seem to forget that the alerters are made for a MANNED train, not an unmanned runaway train. The method of wiring the alerter is irrelavant.
Canadian rules were specific about leaving an unattended train with the automatic air released, MMA crews were tested on this and if an unattended train was found with a brake application the employee was written up. This rule has nothing to do with preserving the airtest on the train as Canadian rules allow a train off air to sit for 48 hours without retesting.
That said, I have operated heavy trains as a single man on the MMA and did not feel unsafe or afraid. I know my limitations and if I needed help I would make that quite clear.
One thing that has changed since the wreck is the fact that I no longer trust my employees to do thier job.
Randy,
Thanks for that clarification. As I understand you, it would be a rules violation to leave the train secured with either the automatic or independent air brake applied. So the engineer complied with the rule when he left the automatic released and violated the rule when he left the independent applied.
I assume that the reasoning for the rule is that they don’t want the air brakes applied because it might encourage less than adequate application of the hand brakes and an alternative reliance on air brakes. And of course, they don’t want any reliance on air brakes because they can leak off.
However, I can also see why some might believe that if sufficient hand brakes are set to adequately hold the train without air; then adding air brakes can’t hurt, and it is just more insurance. The problem is that maybe it can hurt.
I see this reasoning as a classic case of shades of gray. The best safety system has one course of action which is robust enough to do the job. It is black and white. Either it is in effect or it is not. It might seem that the same effect can be had by combining a series of weaker safety systems in tandem, expecting them to add up to the adequately robust safety system.
The problem is that since no one of the individual safety systems in tandem are expected to be adequate to do the job, it may fail. And when one fails, the whole chain of tandem safety systems fails.
No,Locomotives must be left with the independant applied, train fully charged and released, sufficient handbrakes applied.
Randy Stahl Canadian rules were specific about leaving an unattended train with the automatic air released, MMA crews were tested on this and if an unattended train was found with a brake application the employee was written up. This rule has nothing to do with preserving the airtest on the train as Canadian rules allow a train off air to sit for 48 hours without retesting.
I think you mean MMA's rules, before Lac-Megantic CN's rules required a full independant and full service automatic brake application on unattended trains, but only one handbrake on the lead locomotive. Transport Canada was fine with this as well. Of course as I noted in an earlier post the rules have since been changed, and the current rule requires both handbrakes and and an automatic brake application on unattended trains.
Randy Stahl That said, I have operated heavy trains as a single man on the MMA and did not feel unsafe or afraid. I know my limitations and if I needed help I would make that quite clear. One thing that has changed since the wreck is the fact that I no longer trust my employees to do thier job.
But not everyone is smart enough to recognize their own limitations, especially when fatigue is setting in and clouding the mind. Which is one reason why 2 heads are better than one onboard a train. I have had many excellent and informative conversations (job briefings) with my crewmates on the rules and train securement procedures, especially post Lac-Megantic and the knowledge flows both ways, sometimes I learn something from them, sometimes they learn something from me. Having a conversation about something can bring to the forefront of the mind things that you knew but may not have remembered at the time. I do not have a conversation like that on every trip, but on several occasions they have saved me or my crewmate from doing something stupid.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2Dude Having a conversation about something can bring to the forefront of the mind things that you knew but may not have remembered at the time. I do not have a conversation like that on every trip, but on several occasions they have saved me or my crewmate from doing something stupid.
Having a conversation about something can bring to the forefront of the mind things that you knew but may not have remembered at the time. I do not have a conversation like that on every trip, but on several occasions they have saved me or my crewmate from doing something stupid.
SD70M-2Dude Randy Stahl Canadian rules were specific about leaving an unattended train with the automatic air released, MMA crews were tested on this and if an unattended train was found with a brake application the employee was written up. This rule has nothing to do with preserving the airtest on the train as Canadian rules allow a train off air to sit for 48 hours without retesting. I think you mean MMA's rules, before Lac-Megantic CN's rules required a full independant and full service automatic brake application on unattended trains, but only one handbrake on the lead locomotive. Transport Canada was fine with this as well. Of course as I noted in an earlier post the rules have since been changed, and the current rule requires both handbrakes and and an automatic brake application on unattended trains. Randy Stahl That said, I have operated heavy trains as a single man on the MMA and did not feel unsafe or afraid. I know my limitations and if I needed help I would make that quite clear. One thing that has changed since the wreck is the fact that I no longer trust my employees to do thier job. But not everyone is smart enough to recognize their own limitations, especially when fatigue is setting in and clouding the mind. Which is one reason why 2 heads are better than one onboard a train. I have had many excellent and informative conversations (job briefings) with my crewmates on the rules and train securement procedures, especially post Lac-Megantic and the knowledge flows both ways, sometimes I learn something from them, sometimes they learn something from me. Having a conversation about something can bring to the forefront of the mind things that you knew but may not have remembered at the time. I do not have a conversation like that on every trip, but on several occasions they have saved me or my crewmate from doing something stupid.
The MMA adopted the Canadian Pacific train handling and airbrake rules as thier own. Since we operated on CP from St Jean to St Luc Montreal it was a natural fit.
blue streak 1 SD70M-2Dude Having a conversation about something can bring to the forefront of the mind things that you knew but may not have remembered at the time. I do not have a conversation like that on every trip, but on several occasions they have saved me or my crewmate from doing something stupid. Having been on two and three person crews that is a very correct, real, and profound statement.
But have you ever operated a single man train?
I found that being by myself raised my own level of awareness. I don't object to having additional crew members but I am comfortable either way.
Unattended trains that run away are one of the oldest stories in railroading. It's happened when crews turned their backs for 5 minutes, never mind when a live train is expected to babysit itself for hours.
Combine that with the accident-waiting-to-happen grade the train was poised at the top of, and the explosive lading, and the whole thing amounts to an indictment of the operation of a cheapskate railroad and inattention by the regulators.
All the rest of it is incidental.
I thought I had heard that CP had in their Canadian securement rules to leave the automatic brake in release. I've never heard the reasoning for that. If the brakes had been applied, it most likely wouldn't have run away after the train line leaked off once the only engine supplying air was shut down. Has, I believe SD70mDude said, the brakes then would have only applied harder as the train line bled down.
Note for some. Leaving a train with the air brakes applied is not leaving the train "off air" where a retest might be required after 4 hours (US). As long as 60psi or more is maintained in the train line, it would be considered as being on air.
I've only had to run in the cab by myself only when pulling out of the yard complex while the conductor is in the van getting switches ahead and behind the train. Maybe 4 or 5 miles at the most. However, there have been times in the past where it felt like I was working alone in the cab.
Jeff
jeffhergertIf the brakes had been applied, it most likely wouldn't have run away after the train line leaked off once the only engine supplying air was shut down. Has, I believe SD70mDude said, the brakes then would have only applied harder as the train line bled down.
If all that bleeds down is the trainline, you're right. But if the air leaks off the brake cylinders, the brakes will release. I see that on a regular basis...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I've found that in my industry accidents and violations are much more often caused by complacency than by lack of training. We all know not to speed for example, yet speeding violations, even for professional drivers where the consequences remain severe and career limiting, are common. Almost no one visually inspects the trailer kingpin prior to hookup or visually inspects that the trailer fifth wheel jaws are locked around the pin after hookup. People are taking shortcuts all over the place even though they know better. Maybe the same applies to the railways, I don't know.
tree68 jeffhergert If the brakes had been applied, it most likely wouldn't have run away after the train line leaked off once the only engine supplying air was shut down. Has, I believe SD70mDude said, the brakes then would have only applied harder as the train line bled down. If all that bleeds down is the trainline, you're right. But if the air leaks off the brake cylinders, the brakes will release. I see that on a regular basis...
jeffhergert If the brakes had been applied, it most likely wouldn't have run away after the train line leaked off once the only engine supplying air was shut down. Has, I believe SD70mDude said, the brakes then would have only applied harder as the train line bled down.
And I've seen cuts of cars in storage that had 90% of their cylinders still holding the brakes applied after sitting for weeks being off air. While it would be possible that enough of the brake cylinders would leak off over night (why hand brakes are still required) I would wager most would've held until the next crew/person (To me it's hard to describe a single person as a "crew".) came on duty.
jeffhergert tree68 jeffhergert If the brakes had been applied, it most likely wouldn't have run away after the train line leaked off once the only engine supplying air was shut down. Has, I believe SD70mDude said, the brakes then would have only applied harder as the train line bled down. If all that bleeds down is the trainline, you're right. But if the air leaks off the brake cylinders, the brakes will release. I see that on a regular basis... And I've seen cuts of cars in storage that had 90% of their cylinders still holding the brakes applied after sitting for weeks being off air. While it would be possible that enough of the brake cylinders would leak off over night (why hand brakes are still required) I would wager most would've held until the next crew/person (To me it's hard to describe a single person as a "crew".) came on duty.
I have seen that too, of couse it is also dependent on temperature but I find it hard to believe that a majority of the 73 cars of MMA 002 would have leaked off overnight (in July). The TSB found in their report that 18 to 26 handbrakes would have been required to hold the train stationary on the grade at Nantes (MMA's rules required a minimum of 9), so even if half of the cars leaked off completely the train still would not have moved if the automatic brake had been set and no handbrakes applied.
I am not sure how the force exerted by a car's air brake application compares with the force exerted by a handbrake on that same car (by the numbers, ft-lbs of retarding force), but in my experience a full-service air brake application seems to have a similar effect as a moderate handbrake. My experience comes from riding and manually braking free-rolling cuts of cars in yards.
jeffhergert However, there have been times in the past where it felt like I was working alone in the cab.
However, there have been times in the past where it felt like I was working alone in the cab.
Unfortunately I think every railroader has been there at one time or another for various reasons. Doesn't make it right, but it's not going to go away as long as our current working conditions stay the same.
Randy Stahl I found that being by myself raised my own level of awareness. I don't object to having additional crew members but I am comfortable either way.
I'll partly agree with that, having been in de-facto similar situations with pretty useless co-workers both on the railroad and in my previous career, but I would argue that one person's raised awareness is still not equal to the normal awareness of 2 competent people.
Goes back to my earlier point about how the TSB found that 2-person crews would consistently apply the minimum number of handbrakes required by MMA's rules at Nantes, but it varied among 1-person crews.
And sometimes its not just about awareness. In an emergency situation (let's say you're having chest pains or you injured yourself) even a useless boob can contact first responders or provide some kind of assistance. Nothing like being in the middle of nowhere and then having to cope with a serious life or death problem on your own.
Randy Stahl No,Locomotives must be left with the independant applied, train fully charged and released, sufficient handbrakes applied.
I can understand the point of setting hand brakes, but what it the reasoning behind requiring the automatic to be released and the independent applied?
Randy StahlBut have you ever operated a single man train? I found that being by myself raised my own level of awareness. I don't object to having additional crew members but I am comfortable either way.
It's not a "single man train," but I routinely run in the engine by myself on our trips. The rest of the crew is back on the train. As Randy says, it increases your level of awareness.
It also takes away a potential distraction. "How'd the baseball team do today?"
If you have more than One person on the crew, it is likely the other crew member(s) would make sure that the rules are followed.
SD70M-2Dude I am not sure how the force exerted by a car's air brake application compares with the force exerted by a handbrake on that same car (by the numbers, ft-lbs of retarding force), but in my experience a full-service air brake application seems to have a similar effect as a moderate handbrake. My experience comes from riding and manually braking free-rolling cuts of cars in yards.
There has been a lot of discussion in several threads here regarding why you are not allowed to secure with air brakes; the reason why that is not allowed; and whether including air with the hand brakes would result in better securement than hand brakes alone.
One fine point of including air brakes in the securement was whether the automatic was left in partial service or emergency. It was said that the problem with the service application was that a slight brake pipe pressure increase would release the brakes on the whole train. Various reasons for the brake pipe over-pressure were given. In any case, that was the issue regarding the overnight loss of air brakes on the whole train, and it required a service application to produce a full release from brake pipe over-pressure.
The point of leaving the train with an emergency application was that the train brakes could not be released with a slight over-pressure as they could if left with a service application. The general consensus was that if left in emergency, the train brakes would have held overnight without question and probably for days, weeks, or months longer. The leakage when left in emergency is on a car by car individual basis, and while one or a few might leak off, the rest of the train will hold. So the loss of a few cars worth of brakes would not be enough to let the train run away.
jeffhergert Depending on the brake equipment used on the car, the hand brake may only work on the truck next to the hand brake. Tank cars and covered hoppers are the types I see that sometimes are equipped that way. One Service Unit used to (might still) specify that when counting cars for securement purposes, those types equalled half a car.
Depending on the brake equipment used on the car, the hand brake may only work on the truck next to the hand brake. Tank cars and covered hoppers are the types I see that sometimes are equipped that way. One Service Unit used to (might still) specify that when counting cars for securement purposes, those types equalled half a car.
Some of our industries and locations have similar rules that require you to apply extra handbrakes for that reason.
In my experience most of those cars have truck-mounted brake rigging, with pistons within the confines of each truck and only an air pipe going from the control valve to the truck on the other end of the car, no physical brake rigging connection. So the handbrake will only tighten the piston on the B-end truck.
This contrasts with cars which have one brake piston and a system of rods and levers (brake rigging) to transfer force from it to both trucks. When applied the handbrake pulls the piston out and in doing so applies the brakes on both trucks. Most tank cars, and indeed freight cars in general (the ones I see at least) have this type of brake system, and those with truck-mounted brake rigging seem to be the minority.
And I am sure you know all this already Jeff, just though I would provide a more detailed explanation for those reading this who do not have much experience with railway braking systems.
JOSEPH RENNERno there were two.
?
Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*.
Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew.
N.F.
nfotisNote that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F.
Since the 'new normal' for US through freight operations are trains of 14K feet and 20K tons - how many of these kinds of trains are operating in Europe?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD nfotis Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F. Since the 'new normal' for US through freight operations are trains of 14K feet and 20K tons - how many of these kinds of trains are operating in Europe?
nfotis Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F.
A 2nd set of eyes has little relationship to train length. With its pattern of labor cost cutting, railroad mgmt.soon will want autopilot through trains, getting a remote "pilot" for yarding.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm BaltACD nfotis Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F. Since the 'new normal' for US through freight operations are trains of 14K feet and 20K tons - how many of these kinds of trains are operating in Europe? A 2nd set of eyes has little relationship to train length. With its pattern of labor cost cutting, railroad mgmt.soon will want autopilot through trains, getting a remote "pilot" for yarding.
And all the defect detectors, the low hanging air hose that come uncoupled over road crossings - 2nd pair of hands comes in handy. We are talking failable mechanical things that cumulatively have millions of breakable parts.
BaltACD schlimm BaltACD nfotis Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F. Since the 'new normal' for US through freight operations are trains of 14K feet and 20K tons - how many of these kinds of trains are operating in Europe? A 2nd set of eyes has little relationship to train length. With its pattern of labor cost cutting, railroad mgmt.soon will want autopilot through trains, getting a remote "pilot" for yarding. And all the defect detectors, the low hanging air hose that come uncoupled over road crossings - 2nd pair of hands comes in handy. We are talking failable mechanical things that cumulatively have millions of breakable parts.
I agree but RR beancounters not so much.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm BaltACD nfotis Note that single person operation is not unusual here in European railroads *in signaled territory*. Unsignaled territory, or need for switching cars leads normally to two persons crew. N.F. Since the 'new normal' for US through freight operations are trains of 14K feet and 20K tons - how many of these kinds of trains are operating in Europe? A 2nd set of eyes has little relationship to train length. With its pattern of labor cost cutting, railroad mgmt.soon will want autopilot through trains, getting a remote "pilot" for yarding. And all the defect detectors, the low hanging air hose that come uncoupled over road crossings - 2nd pair of hands comes in handy. We are talking failable mechanical things that cumulatively have millions of breakable parts. I agree but RR beancounters not so much.
Until everything comes to a gridlocked mess - with not enough hands on deck.
If there are two words that I have learned in 51 years of 'the game' - malicious compliance! Working to the exact letter of the rules - ALL of them. The best way to get bad rules and/or instructions changed is to comply with them - to the letter. It is the law of unintended consequences.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.