Hi Ed,
I have looked all over the papers and TV for any plausible explanation, to no avail. Then I thought, go to the Trains Forum and get some answers.
Thanks for the good explanation.
Yours In Model Railroading,
John
Littleton, CO
Possibilities:
Engineer goofed.
Firefighters goofed.
Mechanical failure.
Vandalism / terrorism (although the latter is directed toward the U.S. rather than Canada).
Other than that, I will wait for the TSB report before speculating.
Norm
For the record, I never said that I blamed the engineer.
I quoted several recent articles I found on the wreck.
If anything, the earlier accident shows implies that the training programs were not as good as they could have been , particularly if the engineer was sent for refresher courses after the earlier accident.
I think the real important quotes were the ones on the engine spraying oil out of the stack, and the one where several MM&A employees refer to Quebec natives as "------- frogs."
That said, Huffington Post is not exactly another Wall Street Journal, but it's what I found. These stories can almost certainly be confirmed in other newspapers (not saying that Huffington Post is newspaper).
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
BigJim However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. Bucyrus,There is no need to single them out. They know who they are. And, it is not just about blaming the engineer. Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself.
However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it.
Bucyrus,There is no need to single them out. They know who they are. And, it is not just about blaming the engineer. Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself.
When criticizing the forum membership as whole, perhaps the offenders do know who they are. But there is also the possibility that the person criticizing is unjustified in the criticism. He may have his facts wrong, or simply not have understood what the person was saying. And by criticizing the forum as a whole, nobody can defend against an unfair criticism if they do not know what it specifically is about. And also, when you criticize the forum membership with the idea that the guilty ones know who they are, even if that is true, other forum members may have no idea who or what comments you are referring to.
I certainly accept your explanations about air brakes, but there are many people speaking about the topic, and it has to be one of the hardest topics to explain even if you understand it perfectly. So, what may appear to be someone ignoring what you explain might just be a case of someone not understanding your explanation. If they don’t see your point, they cannot acknowledge it.
But when you generalize by saying, “Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself,” I have no idea what you are specifically talking about, or whom you are referring to.
So, I think it is just common courtesy and responsible fairness to specifically respond to people who you disagree with or those who seem to not understand you. Otherwise, it becomes a part of that “mob-rule” posting that you refer to.
edblysard By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire. If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged.
By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire.
If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged.
Ed,
The story that I have seen about the engineer saving some of the tank cars says he used a piece of heavy equipment, and not the train’s locomotives. As I understand it, the locomotive separated from the train during the wreck and continued about ½-mile further down the track before stopping. What is not clear is from which end of the train the engineer pulled cars.
In the incredible fire video taken from behind the train, you can see maybe 10 cars still coupled and on the rails with the EOT flashing. I do not know if any cars were still coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck. I assume that if he pulled cars from the hind end of the train, there would have been no hand brakes to release if hand brakes had been set on the train.
But the condition of the wreck on the head end raises a question about hand brakes. If there were say ten cars coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck, one would expect hand brakes to still be set, if they were set at the top of the hill. However, if all the head end cars are in that jumbled heap, I do not know how one can inspect them and conclude whether or not hand brakes were set at the top of the hill.
UlrichNo pipelines to the east coast yet, and as far as I'm aware none in the planning stages.
Meetings, as well as formal written communications, have taken place between the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick concerning a pipeline. There are no physical plans yet drawn up. Interestingly, one of the stumbling blocks has been how to get the government of Quebec on board, to allow passage of such a pipeline through their province. This could become a watershed discussion concerning all forms of oil transportation in Canada.
Such a pipeline would take US sources of oil, such as the Bakken field, off the menu for Saint John refineries and replace it with readily available Alberta oil. Even before this incident, convincing Quebec to allow American sourced oil to pass through their province on the way to another province would have been a non-starter. Which is not the same thing as US pipelines going to refineries in Quebec. Trust me.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Google "pipeline accidents"....sheeeesh... I think rail is still the safer option.
For the record , I am safe and sound. For obvious reasons I cannot talk about anything.
I have NEVER heard a railway employee here refer to Quebec folks as frogs.. only friends
Randy
Randy Stahl For the record , I am safe and sound. For obvious reasons I cannot talk about anything. I have NEVER heard a railway employee here refer to Quebec folks as frogs.. only friends Randy
Didn’t want to say anything in public, for the obvious, but heard thru the grapevine you were OK, which is a relief to say the least.
Stand strong.
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus edblysard By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire. If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged. Ed, The story that I have seen about the engineer saving some of the tank cars says he used a piece of heavy equipment, and not the train’s locomotives. As I understand it, the locomotive separated from the train during the wreck and continued about ½-mile further down the track before stopping. What is not clear is from which end of the train the engineer pulled cars. In the incredible fire video taken from behind the train, you can see maybe 10 cars still coupled and on the rails with the EOT flashing. I do not know if any cars were still coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck. I assume that if he pulled cars from the hind end of the train, there would have been no hand brakes to release if hand brakes had been set on the train. But the condition of the wreck on the head end raises a question about hand brakes. If there were say ten cars coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck, one would expect hand brakes to still be set, if they were set at the top of the hill. However, if all the head end cars are in that jumbled heap, I do not know how one can inspect them and conclude whether or not hand brakes were set at the top of the hill.
Even if he used a piece of “heavy equipment” to move the cars, regardless of which end he moved, the cars would have had to have been bled off….if it was the head end, he would have had to knock off the brakes he found and bleed the air off….short of one of those massive bulldozers from a pit mine, there isn’t a lot of equipment he could have used to move over 5 or 6 cars with hand brakes and air on them.
Assuming it was a backhoe or front end loader, the most common equipment found at construction sites, he would have had to remove the brakes for the cars to roll.
Two or three he might have been able to slide them, but beyond that ….
The reason I am not pointing out a particular individual is to prevent an insult war…they are aware of their post, and if they wish to discuss that particular posting in any more detail, my email address is right there, we can conduct our argument off site, to do so here would be…I don’t know, maybe an insult to the people who perished, are hurt, missing and somehow involved in this accident.
The nit picky stuff belongs elsewhere.
I agree with your point about needing to bleed the cars to be able to move them out of danger. My only point about which end was to wonder if any head end cars were still standing on the rails or if they were all piled up.
And then based on that question, if they are piled up, can an investigator go through there and say that the cars in the pile show that the hand brakes were not applied at the top of the hill? Mr. Burkhardt seems to be saying that his people did discover that no hand brakes were applied to the cars. But then he also says that he feels that no hand brakes were applied.
Now if there happened to be say ten cars on the head end still on the rails with no hand brake applied, I would say that is strong evidence that no brakes had been applied to those head end cars prior to the runaway.
Daveklepper's posting early today of the writing of an eco extremist put this terrible event in a new light for me. (Disclaimer: I like clean air and water too; but I also like electricity and my motor vehicle.)
Before reading that posting, I could not imagine anyone really tampering with the train. But we now know that this specific movement of oil was a target of extreme environmentalists who had physically blockaded the tracks in Maine two weeks earlier. Well, when that didn't stop the movement of oil, what would be their next step?
Some of these folks will take any measures necessary to further their agenda. I would not put tampering past them. I do not know that it happened. But it's no longer so far fetched in my thinking.
Remember, as Lt. Col. Hackworth wrote, the enemy is always watching and learning. If you've got a weak point he'll find it and use it. I don't put sabotage beyond some of these people. It should be a valid consideration in the investigation. If the eco extremists spotted this seemingly regular tie up as a weak point they could well have exploited it. Extreme does not mean incompetent.
If they were involved they are certainly evil, but also certainly not incompetent.
Yes, I think the motive for eco-terrorism is undeniable. When we were talking about that article about the activist opposition to shipping oil by rail last week in the Oil By Rail Part 2 thread, I mentioned that they would seize on the next oil train derailment and use it as their poster child for their opposition against shipping oil by rail.
At that time, I was actually thinking about the possibility of such a derailment being caused by the very people who would want it as a symbol of their argument that it is too dangerous to ship oil by rail. But I did not predict it or even mention it. Then this Lac-Megantic disaster occurred on Sunday, and those thoughts I had about the possibility of eco-terrorism have been on my mind again since the wreck on Sunday.
Whatever the motive for a terrorist attack, it certainly would not be farfetched for terrorism to have been the cause. After all, the authorities have been warning about the scenario of using a train as a method of terrorism for at least 15 years.
For shame. No evidence to support the conspiracy fans about terrorism and much that folks who are actually involved with the disaster say rules it out. But that doesn't stop folks with various agendas from seizing on the opportunity.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
They say they are considering the possibility that this was a criminal act, but they assert that it was NOT terrorism. I have to wonder how they can be sure what the cause was not, when they do not know what the cause actually was.
So I do not know how they define terrorism. But I would not rule out a malicious act to wreck the train for all possible motives. Nobody is charging a conspiracy. But it only makes common sense to consider all possibilities including activism strongly opposed to shipping oil by rail.
BucyrusThey say they are considering the possibility that this was a criminal act, but they assert that it was NOT terrorism.
Negligence is a crime, especially with such a dire outcome.
Terrorism wouild require an overt act, and so far, there's been no mention of such an action by anyone that I've heard.
Besides, terrorists rarely can keep quiet for long - they've got to make sure everyone gets their point.
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 like that reasoning. Terrorists - even eco-terrorists - want to get their message out. There has been no "manifesto", so I highly doubt that it was terrorism.
tree68Negligence is a crime, especially with such a dire outcome. Terrorism wouild require an overt act, and so far, there's been no mention of such an action by anyone that I've heard. Besides, terrorists rarely can keep quiet for long - they've got to make sure everyone gets their point.
I am not saying that I believe it was terrorism. But I will say that I believe it is foolish to rule it out without any reason, or rule it out just because there is no direct evidence of it yet. Let the evidence take this where it may.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that terrorism would require an overt act. If this train wreck was sabotage, I would say the train wreck was certainly an overt act. Some may quibble with the term “terrorism” as it would apply to sabotaging an oil train. I would simply call it sabotage in the name of a cause.
But you don’t have to look too hard to see that there is bitter opposition to oil trains. It is not just the way it has always been either. The opposition to oil is clearly is convinced that the destruction of the planet is sure to happen as a result of burning fossil fuels, and they are quite energized to do something about it. And they are particularly energized because fracking and tar sand oil has suddenly exponentially increased the potential supply. So the opposition feels especially threatened by this sudden ramp up in oil production.
I would not discount the possibility of this type of sabotage for the cause just because nobody has taken credit for it yet. There would be no need to take credit for it. In fact, it might be more effective to not let the world know that it was sabotage. I say that because the usefulness of such sabatoge by the anti-oil train faction would be to show the world that shipping oil by rail is too dangerous. Admitting that it was sabatoge would undermine that objective. Wrecking a train does not show that trains are dangerous if it is revealed that the wreck was intentionally caused.
Bucyrus Paul_D_North_JrWho - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ? [snipped; emphasis added - PDN] . . . The engineer did not seem too concerned, but shortly after, someone noticed a small fire and called the fire department. . . .
Paul_D_North_JrWho - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ?
- Paul North.
Paul,
All of that information kind of came out in a sequence. As you probably know, on Sunday, there was a lot of news about the engineer securing the train for the night and then checking into the hotel. Next thing you know, the train ran away. So the focus was on the engineer because he was the last man to deal with the train that ran away.
It must have been at least a day later, or even Tuesday when the news revealed that, between the point where the engineer left the train and the train ran away, the locomotive caught fire and twelve fire fighters and one person from the railroad showed up and put the fire out. I thought; you have got to be kidding! I was stunned to learn of that incredible detail that seemed to have been added almost as an afterthought to the story of the wreck.
The news said that someone saw the fire and called the fire department. I don’t recall verbatim but I think they said that it was somebody living near the railroad track and the idling locomotive that saw the fire and called the fire department. I don’t think they gave the person’s name. It might have somebody at the hotel, but I don’t know the proximity of the hotel to the train. That news came out right with the news that there had been a fire.
It was about yesterday when more news came out about the taxicab picking up the engineer to take him to the hotel. The cab driver asked the engineer why the engine was making so much smoke, and noticed that oil droplets were landing on the taxicab. The cab driver indicated that he believed the oil was coming from the smoke. When he inquired about the smoke, the engineer dismissed it and said something to the effect that he had followed the proper procedures.
Then it was just minutes after that point when the fire was discovered. As I understand, however, it was not the cab driver or the engineer that discovered the fire. I might be able to find the link to this final phase of news about the oily smoke. I think I have seen every bit of news on this wreck since it happened on Sunday.
I found this detailed report about the fire. It sounds like a fuel oil fire. When she mentions the very strong scent of fuel, that would be fuel leaking onto a hot surface and vaporizing. It would create a fog of unburned fuel vapor, which is really irritating to breathe. Apparently, that leaking oil eventually ignited from the hot surface that had been vaporizing it. I did not realize it, but the engineer went to a hotel in Lac-Megantic, so he was there at the site of the wreck when the train arrived and piled up. That would explain how he was available to help pull back the tank cars that had not derailed. I had read the account of somebody at the hotel seeing the engineer respond almost in a state of shock, but I did not realize that he was right there at ground zero. He was shaken out of bed by the blast just like everyone else in the hotel. I had thought he was in a hotel in the town with the parked train:
(QUOTED FROM THE LINKED ARTICLE)
On Friday evening, the eastbound train, five locomotives and 72 tanker cars, all but one carrying crude oil, sat parked for the night about 10 kilometres to the west of Lac-Mégantic, in the village of Nantes.
The engineer, Tom Harding, was the only employee of the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA) on the train. He left to check in to a hotel in Lac-Mégantic.
Danielle Veilleux was driving back to her home in Nantes after a camping trip when the powerful smell of fuel permeated her car.
She was approaching her house, across the street from the tracks, and noticed there were sparks flying from a parked train. A huge cloud of smoke surrounded her car.
“There are always trains running through here and they smell, but this was a very strong scent of fuel,” she said, mentioning there were no firefighters in sight.
Around 11:30 p.m., a fire in a parked locomotive was reported to the rail-traffic controller by a citizen. Firefighters and an employee of MMA (not the engineer) arrived on site. The fire was extinguished. Around midnight, the locomotive’s engine was shut down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link. It is an extremely well-written and emotionally powerful chronology of the whole incident:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/07/12/lac_megantic_explosion_a_chronicle_of_the_tragedy.html
Possible chain of events.
1. Engineer either enters a siding or goes to top of hill.
2. Makes a brake set.
3. dismounts (?) and sets hand brakes
4. At last car uses the remote controller to release the air brakes to check hand brakes will hold ?
5. either finds hand brakes hold if not reappplies air brakes with remote and then sets hand brakes on a few more cars.
6. Repeat # 4 until hand brakes hold.
7. shuts down trailing engines or may have done afte r#2 ?
8. Places remote controller back into RCO caboose.
9. eiher secures lead loco or may have after #1 ?
10. climbs into taxi.
11. After fire train moves maybe because of air brake release. Could remote controller or RCO car have caused air brakes to release ?.
EDIT::: after [osting realized that maybe remote controller carried in first unit and used for initial set of air brakes ???
schlimm For shame. No evidence to support the conspiracy fans about terrorism and much that folks who are actually involved with the disaster say rules it out. But that doesn't stop folks with various agendas from seizing on the opportunity.
Horsefeathers!
There is no shame in thinking of possibilities. Nobody knows why this happened. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. But, it is an established fact that radical environmentalists had targeted this specific movement of oil before. They blockaded the tracks to stop it. That didn't work. So just what would be their next move? Some of these folks won't just accept defeat and go home.
The way I see it one of two things happened.
1) The engineer failed to properly set enough hand brakes to hold the train.
2) The engineer properly set enough hand brakes to hold the train, then someone released the brakes.
It's not hard to see how to release hand brakes, if you're watching and learning.
What I am reasonably saying is that sabotage should not be ruled out. I don't say that there is evidence of sabotage. But neither is there any evidence that the engineer failed to properly do his job. Who knows why this happened?
Given the established fact that this particular movement of crude oil was the object of extra legal actions by radical environmentalists in the past, doesn't it make sense to think about the possibility that they had something to do with this? Certainly no shame in checking that out.
I don't think the possibility of extreme groups opposed to use or transportation of petroleum doing something should be ruled out.
First, if someone opposed to oil did this, why would they claim they did it? They would want to show that transporting oil is dangerous under normal circumstances. If they claimed responsibility, they couldn't claim that a willful act of sabotage is normal circumstances. (Oh they could try I suppose, but I think most reasonable people wouldn't think of a deliberate act as normal.)
Second, there was a great loss of life and destruction. If someone caused this, that may not have been their original intent. Yes, they wanted the train to roll away. Maybe they wanted the train to derail and cause an environmental disaster. I doubt they wanted the train to derail and wipe out part of a town and it's inhabitants, unless maybe the town was full of families of oil or coal executives.
Third, with the great loss of life and destruction any willful act of sabotage is going to be treated with harshly. Much more so than if it turns out, whether in actuality or the way it is handled, to be a case of negligence. Beyond the criminal penalties, some group claiming responsibility could actually hurt their cause. Most people aren't going to accept that it's necessary to kill people to save the planet from the evils of oil.
I'm just hoping that the crewmember after setting hand brakes released the air and independent to see if the hand brakes held. The event recorders would show that. If he did and the down load shows that, it's going to be hard to rule out a deliberate act. Shutting off an engine or even just releasing the air brake, even if inadvertently, by itself wouldn't be enough. I think they would then have to look at someone releasing hand brakes.
Jeff
greyhoundsSome of these folks won't just accept defeat and go home
Russell
greyhounds I don't say that there is evidence of sabotage. But neither is there any evidence that the engineer failed to properly do his job.
No "evidence" that the engineer was negligent, but the CEO of the railroad, who is in a position to know more than you or the rest of us seemed to think it likely. And no reason to believe terrorism of any sort.
"As residents shouted insults, Burkhardt said the engineer did not apply the hand brakes on enough of the cars to keep the parked train in place. Burkhardt, who joked he’d have to wear a bulletproof vest on his visit, didn’t mention Harding by name but he said the engineer was suspended without pay and was under police investigation. “We think he applied some hand brakes. The question is, did he apply enough of them? He’s told us that he applied 11 hand brakes. Our general feeling is that that’s not true. Initially, we took him at his word,” said Burkhardt. (from the timeline posted 7/12)
This whole air brake thing has me a tad confused. I guess I had no idea that air brakes were more complex than I thought.
1. What is the difference between "Full application", "independent application" and "line application"?.
2. Is the braking system "charged" with air when the brakes are off? In other words, is there air in the system while the train is moving?
3. If the line is "open to the atmosphere" (that term has been mentioned a few times) are the brakes applied, or not, at that point.?
4. Can a cut of cars (any kind, not necessarily the tank cars in question in this disaster) be charged with air, the brakes applied, and then the air disconnected, the pipes closed, and still remain applied, or not?
5. I understand that hand brakes are independent of and a different system from, the air brakes. I understand that a hand brake is used to hold car(s) in place when there is no air in the air brake system.
6. Now, do the brakes apply due to negative pressure (i.e.air escaping from the system) or positive pressure (air being pumped into the braking system) It has been mentioned that if the brakes are applied at a certain pressure, those brakes will release if the pressure increases only slightly. And, if that is the case... what is the point of that?
7. I live along the BNSF, occasionally, a train will come to a screeching stop, due to the fact that somehow or another, the train "dumped it's air" and the brakes applied. I have heard the engineers use the term "emergency". This must mean it's a negative pressure application of the brakes. However, it seems that air brakes can work either way?
I know it's alot, but it seems (to me, anyway) that air braking is a rather precise braking system that, in order to work has to have the system set to certain parameters. (However, there is a very good chance that I am totally misunderstanding this) .
Now. for the next question. IF the air brakes were applied properly, and IF the hand brakes were applied properly, and the IF the engineer followed all of the protocols for "tying down" the train so it would not move, at all. Then, how did the brakes fail? If the air brakes failed, then, the hand brakes were supposed to provide sufficient holding power in order to keep the train from moving. Am I understanding this properly? If that were the case (and we won't know for some time) How hard would it be for a person, or persons to release the brakes, both air, and hand, in order to cause a runaway. (Also how loud would the air brake release be?) OR, what would have had to happen with the air brakes, and a lack of hand braking, and the locomotives to cause the train to run away, if the engineer was in error?
The member formerly known as "TimChgo9"
examination of the cars the engineer pulled away from the train may show if they had extended brake wear from the trip down the hill.
A question to engineers and conductors. Having no idea how brakes work the question comes up ---
1. Do brakes perform the same way thru temperature changes ? I would think that a cooling outside temperature woould cause the brake chain to slightly shrink. Do temp changes on the brake rigging cause the hand brakes to get tighter, looser, or stay the same ? ?
2. Next question if temps matter would be what temps did the train experience both before arriving and while parked ?
3. The air compressors on the locos certainly heat up the compressed air. When cooling the pressure will decrease in relation to the absolute temp. ( degrees kelvin - Boyles and Charles laws )
The National Post published an infographic that illustrates many of the topics discussed here: timeline, elevations, speeds, maps, air brake diagrams, and more.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/12/graphic-the-lac-megantic-runaway-train-disaster/
The LION does not know all of the terms and may be incorrect in come of his answers but here are some answers to your more basic questions. Four Kinds of Brakes: 1) Service brakes are air brakes controlled by the brake line on all of the cars of the train. 2) Intependent brakes are air brakes on the locomotive consist, they can be operated independently of the Service brakes. 3) Dynamic Brakes are and electrical braking system that is part of most locomotives which uses the motion of the train to generate electicity which is burned off in the brake grids, using the motors as generators to slow the train. Dynamic brakes can NEVER stop a train since as the speed of the train approaches zero there is not sufficient electrical generation to slow the train any further. and 4) there are HAND BRAKES that are supposed to hold the car and the train when it is not being run. Failure to apply these hand brakes correctly will result in a car with no brakes, and is free to move at the whims of gravity.
Photog5661. What is the difference between "Full application", "independent application" and "line application"?.
The independent brakes are the air brakes on the locomotive. They may be applied without applying the brakes on the rest of the train. This would slow the front of the train down allowing butf forces to remove the slack in the train.
An "application" of the brakes reduces the pressure in the brake pipe. Each car as its own pressure tank from which are is actually drawn to apply the brakes. The reduction of pressure is the control signal to the brake valve on each car to apply some brakes. About a 10# reduction is sufficient. The engineer then close the valve to hold that reduction (actually he doe not do that, the brake valve on the control stand is "self lapping" and will do that for him.) An increase in the trainline pressure releases the brakes, and recharges the pressure tank on each car.
Photog5662. Is the braking system "charged" with air when the brakes are off? In other words, is there air in the system while the train is moving?
There MUST be air in the system to release the service brakes. The system must be fully charged in order to release the brakes to operate the train. A reduction in the pipe pressure applies the brakes, am increase in pressure releases the brakes. If the brake line is open, blown because a brake hose is broken or comes undone, or if the brakes are applied by the conductor or from the caboose, the train goes into "EMERGENCY" (BIE) and an emergency application of brakes is applied throughout the train.
Photog5663. If the line is "open to the atmosphere" (that term has been mentioned a few times) are the brakes applied, or not, at that point.?
Yeah, well now that is another kettle of fish... If the train had been operating and the line is opened to the atmosphere the train goes into an emergency brake application. But this is an application of the service (or air brakes) Eventually the air that is in each car's pressure tank will bleed off and the brakes will be released, because it is AIR that applies the brakes. The control of the air applies and releases the brakes. The train must be fully charged to release the brakes when the brakes are operating. On a car that has been sitting on a siding, eventually the air pressure will leak out of the pressure tank, and will release the brakes, and the car will roll unless the hand brakes are applied.
Photog5664. Can a cut of cars (any kind, not necessarily the tank cars in question in this disaster) be charged with air, the brakes applied, and then the air disconnected, the pipes closed, and still remain applied, or not?
Yes, brakes would remain applied, if you stopped the train and left the air bottled in each car (or the train) by closing the angle cocks the brakes would remain applied. You might do this when leaving a cut of cars on the mail line while setting out another cut of cars on a siding. If you would not do it this way, you would have to dump the train line, which would apply all of the brakes on a cut, but you would have to recharge the brake line before you could move the cars.
I do not think that this is a normal procedure but that may vary with the railroad.
Photog5665. I understand that hand brakes are independent of and a different system from, the air brakes. I understand that a hand brake is used to hold car(s) in place when there is no air in the air brake system.
Each wheel has one pair of brakes that can be applied to it. In normal service, these are controlled by the air brake system. On a parked car, this is not considered sufficient, and hand brakes must be applied: a brake wheel or lever is operated to use a chain which pulls the brakes into a locked configuration regardless of what the air brakes might or might not be doing. When you park a train for the night, the air brakes are not considered sufficient to hold the train in place and a certain percentage of cars must have their hand brakes applied to assure that the train does not move.
When a car is left at a siding, say at a grain elevator, the air is dumped and the brakes are aplied. The hand brake is also set, because otherwise the car may eventually move. Now suppose the people at the elevator want to move the car from there to here. They want to put grain in it. They release the hand brake, but the care will not move because there is still air in the presure tank even though the brake line is open to the atmosphere. (The word atmosphere is used because it is a pressure, it is not zero pressure, only a differental in pressure that is equal on both sides of the opening.) Anyway, Joe at the elevator can not yet move his car, so he goes to the pressure tank, and RELEASES the bottled pressure that is in it. NOW the air brakes are fully released and the car is free to move. Some elevators will have their own locomotives, some will just us a truck or a tractor to move the cars, and others will use a cable and capstan.
Photog5666. Now, do the brakes apply due to negative pressure (i.e.air escaping from the system) or positive pressure (air being pumped into the braking system) It has been mentioned that if the brakes are applied at a certain pressure, those brakes will release if the pressure increases only slightly. And, if that is the case... what is the point of that?
The brake line both pressurizes the brake system, and then once pressurized, controls the system.
You need air pressure in the pressure tank (gee, I wish I knew how to spell resivour-- but spell check is letting me down big time.) to release the brakes. Some of the pressure in this tank will be used to apply the brakes. So a reduction in pipe pressure signals the brakes on each car to apply the brakes from the pressure in its reserve. IT TAKES TIME FOR THE PRESSURE CHANGE IN THE BRAKE PIPE TO PROPAGATE TO THE WHOLE TRAIN.
If the train breaks in two, the pipe pressure falls rapidly to zero, and the cars use the pressure in their brake tanks to apply the brakes in an emergency setting.
So each time the engineer applies the brakes (makes an air reduction in the air pipe, he is using some of the air saved in each car's own pressure tank. This is why dynamic braking is so important in hilly country, the use of dynamic brakes does not reduce the pressure of the trains reserve. One very nasty sequence on the simulator is a school bus at the grade crossing: the engineer is tempted to put his train into emergency (which of course will not stop it in time to save the bus) but it does deplete the reserve on his train so that he has no brakes left for the down grade which the user of the simulator will not know about until he gets to it. He wrecks the train at the bottom of the hill.)
Photog5667. I live along the BNSF, occasionally, a train will come to a screeching stop, due to the fact that somehow or another, the train "dumped it's air" and the brakes applied. I have heard the engineers use the term "emergency". This must mean it's a negative pressure application of the brakes. However, it seems that air brakes can work either way?
The air can be dumped for many reasons, once it is dumped the train is BIE (Brakes in Emergency). The control / fill pipe is at zero pressure, the pressure in each car 's tank will apply the brakes until things can be put back together again.
For more info, Google "Westinghouse Air Brakes" and you should be able to find diagrams of all of this.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.