The owners of the company should at least talk to the public. They have not done that and they continue to blame the firefighters.
What say you on this?
.
edblysard There is a difference between unattended and unsecured. Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew. Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars. The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules. From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew? This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
There is a difference between unattended and unsecured.
Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew.
Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars.
The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules.
From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew?
This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
I think there will be some significant TSB/FRA questions about single crews on these and any other trains, given the variety of freight carried and its potentially hazardous qualities. Class 1-2-3 RR's and others will need to take note.Pandora's Box is now wide open. Operating practices for all are now under close scrutiny I'm quite sure.
Hope Randy is OK.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
Bucyrus This is thoroughly amazing! The president of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railroad says that the train ran away because the fire department shut down the one engine that was running; and that the engine needed to be running in order to prevent the train from losing braking and running away. So, according to the president of the railroad, it was essential for one engine to be running because if it stopped running, the train would run away on the grade. Engines can automatically shut down for a variety of reasons, so it would be the height of irresponsibility to base the prevention of an inevitable catastrophe solely on the expectation that a running engine will keep running.
This is thoroughly amazing!
The president of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railroad says that the train ran away because the fire department shut down the one engine that was running; and that the engine needed to be running in order to prevent the train from losing braking and running away.
So, according to the president of the railroad, it was essential for one engine to be running because if it stopped running, the train would run away on the grade.
Engines can automatically shut down for a variety of reasons, so it would be the height of irresponsibility to base the prevention of an inevitable catastrophe solely on the expectation that a running engine will keep running.
Like some of the other posters, I too am surprised at the explanation that the cause of the runaway was that the loco was no longer running or supplying air to the train. That implies that the railroad was relying on the air brakes to secure an unattended train. I don't know what the rules are in Canada, but that's a huge no-no on a U.S. railroad (and I doubt that MMA would have different train securement procedures in Canada than in the U.S.). I'm also surprised that Mr. Burkhardt (a very experienced railroader) would say what's being attributed to him. However, based on prior experiences I've had, I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the media to get a story like this straight, and I rather suspect that the actual cause of this accident will prove to be somewhat different than what the media has been reporting. We shall see.
I agree on the "Fog". Nobody really knows why this happened. But we do know the result. It's God Awful. Many people burned, some of them burned to death while alive.
If I had to guess, I'd guess Burkhardt is rattled and grasping at straws. He's facing a very dark end. I don't see the railroad company surviving this. He's advanced in age and this is his last railroad. He's a railroader and the railroad is HIS railroad. He created it out of financial wreckage. It's probably going to be lost to him. He'll be remember for this above all other things he's done. Hard to face.
But that can't change the fact that a train operated by his creation burned up a lot of folks. That would rattle anyone.
BigJim the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe. Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point?
the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe.
Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point?
When I get to our trains in the morning, all of the air has bled off at some point overnight and the brakes are released. If not for the handbrakes on a couple of the cars and the locomotive, and a wheel chock or two, we'd find the train down the hill. And apparently that has happened at some point in the distant past.
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...
Falcon48However, based on prior experiences I've had, I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the media to get a story like this straight, and I rather suspect that the actual cause of this accident will prove to be somewhat different than what the media has been reporting. We shall see.
Well, I don’t know if the media has the story screwed up. They are quoting Burkhardt in the article I linked on the previous page. It is here: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/firefighters-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes-20130709-2pn1q.html
If he did not mean to say what they are saying that he said, he had better get it corrected fast. But as it stands in the article, he is on record for the following statements:
1) He dismisses the responsibility to set hand brakes to the extent that they could hold the train from rolling away.
2) He blames the fire department for shutting down the burning locomotive.
3) He blames the fire department for not notifying the MM&A Ry. when they did actually notify the railroad company.
Quotes from the link:
Air brakes that would have prevented the disaster failed because they were powered by an engine that was shut down by firefighters as they dealt with a fire shortly before the calamity occurred, the head of the railway [Mr. Brukhardt] that operated the train said.
The problem was that the engine had been left on by the train's engineer to maintain pressure in the air brakes, Ed Burkhardt, chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA), said in an interview. As the pressure gradually "leaked off", the air brakes failed and the train began to slide downhill, he said.
Burkhardt said that after the pressure leaked out of the airbrakes, the handbrakes would not have been strong enough to keep the train in place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that there is a fog of war about this event. And I think Mr. Brukhardt is indeed rattled about the disaster. He probably should not say anything until they get their information collected and sorted out. But he is probably under a lot of pressure from the public to explain what happened, so he speaks out before he should.
I would like to point out that some of you are discussing information from an article by the Brisbane Times. Brisbane is located in Australia, on the opposite side of the world. (The other side of the Pacific Ocean in the southern hemisphere!) Most of you have probably seen examples in the past of how our own media botch reporting of railroad events. The Australians will not have any direct information, and are probably only putting their own misinterpretation on already questionable reports.
The MM&A is not a busy main line with lots of officials and crews. As I understand it, the regular through trains are tri-weekly, so the crude oil trains are a significant addition to their business. The length of the system means it is more like a regional than a short line, but the infrequent trains mean minimal staff has to be the rule. The business is just not there to have officials on duty 24 hours a day at every major town, as some of you seem to have expected.
As to the root causes of this catastrophe I have no idea, nor does anyone else at this time, including the rail experts now investigating the scene. Note that I used the plural "causes". Almost invariably when something major goes wrong it turns out that it was caused by a series of factors. Eliminate even one of them, and nothing would have happened. Canada's Transportation Safety Board will be doing a thorough investigation. Their final report will probably be a year or so away, but will be well worth reading, and provide us with complete and exact details.
At present we just have news media reports, which are generally lacking critical information because the reporters have no understanding of railroads, do not know what questions to ask, and often make wild interpretations. The sources the reporters are using are generally local townsfolk and officials, who have just as little knowledge about railroads. And, although I hate to say it, while the average railfan knows a lot more than the general public, their knowledge is woefully lacking when it comes to the nitty-gritty details of operations.
John
Again, if memory is correct, during the period in 1952-1953 when I regularly rode a B&M freight in GP-7's 1567 and 1568, the rule was one in five handbrakes aplied on the level and handbrakes on all cars on a steep grade. The one-in-five rule could be applied to adjacent cars and did not need to be distributed along the length of the train. If the loco was coupled, its handbrake also had to be applied.
Current railroaders please comment.
tree68 BigJim the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe. Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point? When I get to our trains in the morning, all of the air has bled off at some point overnight and the brakes are released. If not for the handbrakes on a couple of the cars and the locomotive, and a wheel chock or two, we'd find the train down the hill. And apparently that has happened at some point in the distant past.
Here's a link to a Reuters story from last night (July 8). It largely repeats what's already been said but is more "local" (bylines of Chicago and Lac Megantic) than Brisbane.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-train-narrative-insight-idUSBRE96801Q20130709
From the article:
Nantes Fire Chief Patrick Lambert said the fire department got a call about a blaze on one of the locomotives at 11:30 p.m. He said the fire was likely caused by a broken fuel or oil line. Firefighters reached the scene within seven minutes. "It was a good sized fire, but it was contained in the motor of the train," Lambert told Reuters. "By 12:12, the fire was completely out." But as they extinguished the fire, the 12 volunteer firemen also switched off the locomotive, in line with their own protocols, to prevent fuel from circulating into the flames. One of the many unknowns in the story is precisely what happened next. Lambert said the fire department contacted the railway's regional office in Farnham, Quebec, and spoke to the dispatcher. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said. "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them." It was not known what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. Burkhardt said he was not sure if the dispatcher was told that the engine had been shut down, or what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. The company is still investigating the incident, as are Canadian authorities.
Firefighters reached the scene within seven minutes.
"It was a good sized fire, but it was contained in the motor of the train," Lambert told Reuters. "By 12:12, the fire was completely out."
But as they extinguished the fire, the 12 volunteer firemen also switched off the locomotive, in line with their own protocols, to prevent fuel from circulating into the flames.
One of the many unknowns in the story is precisely what happened next.
Lambert said the fire department contacted the railway's regional office in Farnham, Quebec, and spoke to the dispatcher. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said. "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them."
It was not known what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. Burkhardt said he was not sure if the dispatcher was told that the engine had been shut down, or what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. The company is still investigating the incident, as are Canadian authorities.
Reading what the Fire Chief says...if the dispatcher was told what was done and how, what did he/she do? Some of that may depend on what they heard or the FD folks say or if something was misunderstood.
Burkhardt blames the FD, the FD says the Dispatcher knew.
More from the article:
Shortly after the firefighters left the Nantes siding, an eyewitness reports seeing the train - some four-fifths of a mile long - start rolling down the gentle hill. "About five minutes after the firemen left, I felt the vibration of a train moving down the track. I then saw the train move by without its lights on," said Andre Gendron, 38, whose trailer and off-the-grid wooden cabin are the only buildings anywhere near the rail siding. "I found it strange its lights weren't on and thought it was an electrical problem on board. It wasn't long after that I heard the explosion. I could see the light from the fires in Lac-Megantic." Burkhardt said the train picked up speed quickly and was likely going "far, far faster" than the speed limit of 10 miles per hour (16 km per hour) as it reached a curve in the track in the very center of Lac-Megantic at around 1:15 a.m. on Saturday and jumped the tracks. He said the locomotives separated from the buffer car - a heavy railcar loaded with stones or rocks or sand - and the tanker cars, which were laden with a free-flowing type of Bakken oil from North Dakota.
"About five minutes after the firemen left, I felt the vibration of a train moving down the track. I then saw the train move by without its lights on," said Andre Gendron, 38, whose trailer and off-the-grid wooden cabin are the only buildings anywhere near the rail siding.
"I found it strange its lights weren't on and thought it was an electrical problem on board. It wasn't long after that I heard the explosion. I could see the light from the fires in Lac-Megantic."
Burkhardt said the train picked up speed quickly and was likely going "far, far faster" than the speed limit of 10 miles per hour (16 km per hour) as it reached a curve in the track in the very center of Lac-Megantic at around 1:15 a.m. on Saturday and jumped the tracks.
He said the locomotives separated from the buffer car - a heavy railcar loaded with stones or rocks or sand - and the tanker cars, which were laden with a free-flowing type of Bakken oil from North Dakota.
So we have a rough, partial timeline now and know the speedlimit of the track: 10 MPH.
Timeline:11:25 PM Train tied down according to engineer11:30 PM Locomotive fire reported in Nantes11:37 PM FD on scene of locomotive fire12:12 AM Fire out12:?? AM FD left. Larry - any insight on time to pack up gear and roll out? 12:?? + ~5 minutes Train starts to roll1:15 AM Derailment and fire in Lac Megantic
In reading a document on Maine's rail condition (http://www.maineasce.org/MaineRC/MaineRailroads12062012.pdf) "most" of the state's tracks could only handle a 263k lb car and not a 286k lb car. I'm presuming that weight as I wouldn't think MMA would accept a car heavier than they could run in Maine, per that report. 10 MPH max speed could be a "Class 1" track...so knowing these things and that Nantes is roughly 7 miles outside of Lac Megantic how fast was this thing going to accordion like that? I can't find reference to the grade. Yet.
EDIT:Found a Canadian article: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/devastated-lac-megantic-begins-a-work-week-with-its-core-shattered-214570691.html
Nantes is at 1,685' above sea level and Lac Megantic is at 1,361' above sea level. That works out to an average downhill grade of .87 from ((324/36960) x100).
Dan
Pure speculaton but possibly the truth:
The fireman released the locomotive handbrake when he shut down the locomotive, thinking it was part of the shutdown. And a few cars' handbrakes next to the locomotive would not be enough to stop the train from rolling after the air bled off, without the loco's handbrake.
The Police and/or Fire Department should have insured the trainmen got to the scene as soon as possible, and the locomotive shutdown should have been done by the trainmen or under their direction.
After the fire was out, the trainmen would then insure the train was secured. Or even while it was being extinguished.
I still want to know: What is the practice on using handbrakes to secure unattended cuts and trains on YOUR railroad?
Also, the signage on the handbrake controls may have been purely English, and the Quebec Fireman knows only French.
daveklepper Pure speculaton but possibly the truth: The fireman released the locomotive handbrake when he shut down the locomotive, thinking it was part of the shutdown. And a few cars' handbrakes next to the locomotive would not be enough to stop the train from rolling after the air bled off, without the loco's handbrake. The Police and/or Fire Department should have insured the trainmen got to the scene as soon as possible, and the locomotive shutdown should have been done by the trainmen or under their direction. After the fire was out, the trainmen would then insure the train was secured. Or even while it was being extinguished. I still want to know: What is the practice on using handbrakes to secure unattended cuts and trains on YOUR railroad?
greyhounds I agree on the "Fog". Nobody really knows why this happened. But we do know the result. It's God Awful. Many people burned, some of them burned to death while alive. If I had to guess, I'd guess Burkhardt is rattled and grasping at straws. He's facing a very dark end. I don't see the railroad company surviving this. He's advanced in age and this is his last railroad. He's a railroader and the railroad is HIS railroad. He created it out of financial wreckage. It's probably going to be lost to him. He'll be remember for this above all other things he's done. Hard to face. But that can't change the fact that a train operated by his creation burned up a lot of folks. That would rattle anyone.
This. one could not develop a Greco-Roman tragedy on this scale alone though.
The death toll now is at 14...still many missing...
There was one local bar that was full of people apparently at that hour....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
BroadwayLion LION thinks that they can be far superior to knuckles but how would him know. I'll ask some of my NYCT pals what they think. Surely the older H2C (?) type couplers would not cut it but the newer ones look like they would be every bit as strong as a drawbar, which is what they are in essence.
LION got the info from Dutchrailnut, a locomotive engineer on Metro-North Railroad.
He replies:transit coupler is a big range, but if your talking AAR approved automatic couplers like the N2a type or what is used on M7-M8 yes they are just as strong and no slack.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BigJim What say you on this?The LION needs to quit referring to itself in the third person.
Eh? Why should the LION ever want to do that? You are just going to have to get in step with LIONSPEAK.
Mr. Burkhardt, president of the MM&A Ry., has been quoted as saying that if the air brakes released, the hand brakes would not have been capable of holding the train.
It is astounding that a man with his background would make such a statement.
The premise of applying hand brakes is that they alone are to be set to hold the equipment 100% independently of the air brakes. This requirement is necessary because the hand brakes are a backup in case of complete release of the air brakes, which can happen for a variety of reasons.
Hand brakes are not intended to merely add braking power to the air brakes. They are a backup and completely redundant to the air brakes.
Not only does Mr. Burkhardt’s comment on the performance of hand brakes demonstrate incorrect knowledge, but it also gives insight into the possible explanation of why the hand brakes did not hold the train in this case.
Everybody knows that air brakes are all that is needed to hold or control a train.
If you believe that hand brakes are merely to add a little more power to air brakes, (as Mr. Burkhardt’s statement indicates) then it follows that you believe that hand brakes are mostly a symbolic gesture because air brakes don’t need any help.
Setting hand brakes properly is a fair amount of work. If you believe that they are only a symbolic gesture, it would be easy to rationalize applying only a half-hearted effort and diligence to the application of hand brakes.
Part of the question is whether people from MM&A's engineering department showed up to help or not. I have heard conflicting stories as to this point.
If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours. Even if they didn't turn off the locomotive (it currently sounds like the firefighters did that), they still would have been informed by the firefighters, and should have known that they would at least need to check the handbrakes now that the train brakes were effectively released. The engineering division of a railroad is supposed to be trained in operations of a railroad so that they can take over in case of a strike. If people from the engineering department showed up to help, I can see a thorough investigation of MM&A's training programs coming.
If no one from MM&A showed up to help with the fire, then MM&A is guilty of negligence. Firefighters may have training to deal with train fires, but someone from the railroad should be there to make sure that everything is properly taken care of, including securing the train if the firefighters changed anything.
In addition, Mr. Burkhardt should not have given out information before he had the accurate information to give out. Also, by saying that the train's handbrakes would have not been enough to stop the train from rolling, Mr Burkhardt showed that he does not know as much about how railroads operate as he should. Perhaps he meant that the handbrakes that were applied were not enough to keep the train from rolling. Either way, Mr. Burkhardt should have checked his facts and had a prepared statement that was as accurate as possible.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Schuylkill and Susquehanna Part of the question is whether people from MM&A's engineering department showed up to help or not. I have heard conflicting stories as to this point. If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours. Even if they didn't turn off the locomotive (it currently sounds like the firefighters did that), they still would have been informed by the firefighters, and should have known that they would at least need to check the handbrakes now that the train brakes were effectively released. The engineering division of a railroad is supposed to be trained in operations of a railroad so that they can take over in case of a strike. If people from the engineering department showed up to help, I can see a thorough investigation of MM&A's training programs coming. If no one from MM&A showed up to help with the fire, then MM&A is guilty of negligence. Firefighters may have training to deal with train fires, but someone from the railroad should be there to make sure that everything is properly taken care of, including securing the train if the firefighters changed anything. In addition, Mr. Burkhardt should not have given out information before he had the accurate information to give out. Also, by saying that the train's handbrakes would have not been enough to stop the train from rolling, Mr Burkhardt showed that he does not know as much about how railroads operate as he should. Perhaps he meant that the handbrakes that were applied were not enough to keep the train from rolling. Either way, Mr. Burkhardt should have checked his facts and had a prepared statement that was as accurate as possible. S&S
Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away. Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes. The reporter (not out of malice, but out of ignorance) understands this conversation to mean that Mr. B believes the cause of the accident was that the air brakes bled off, and that's the story he publishes.
Again, this is all my own speculation. But I've seen this kind of thing happen time and time again when the general media publishes stuff about railroads.
Good point. Reporters are not known for getting the facts straight, especially when it comes to trains. It's also true that at a press conference, it is the job of the person giving he conference to make sure that the reporters do get the facts straight. It's one thing when the reporters are getting the facts on their own, it's another entirely when the facts are being handed to them. Of course there always could be incompetence on the reporter's part, and the person giving the press conference can't do anything about that.
Falcon48 Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away. Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes.
Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away.
Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes.
If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours.
There are a lot of truths still to come out of this and far too much uneducated misinformation being bandied about.
To Poster S&S:
A couple of things that are bugging me personally, first. You arre making some pretty broad based accusations (IMHO). You seem to have no expertise in theings related to real world railroading (?). Particularly where trainline functions and operations of Air Brak Appliances on railroad cars, and on locomotives.
Next ,you make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves. I do not know Ed Burkhardt, but have read about him and his various undertakings in the Railroading Area. I know in 1999 he was "Railroader of the Year'. That is an industry award and is not given out lightly by AAR. I know he has been involved in any number of Railroad endeavors in the U.S. A and Internationally, and currently he is with the MM&A. and in Feb. of 2007 he was subject of a story spread in TRAINS magazine.
@ http://www.mmarail.com/sections/news/files/railworld_trains_0702.pdf
So his history and deeds are a matter of record.
I have no idea of what happened in Lac Megantic, P.Q. except of the recounting of the death and destruction as reported by the media. Bearing in mind, a media that has historicall ( and histerically) been more often than not the fountain of mis information, particularly, where things railroading have been concerned. So of which gets pointed out around these FORUMS on a fairly, regular basis.
In fact, here is a link to a CNN Story on the wreck that is dated this date; 07/09/2013
@ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
If the fire department shows up at the railroad tracks to put out a fire on a locomotive, who would have the knowledge, and/or authority to shut off the locomotive? You'd sure as heck think that the fire department would contact somebody at the railroad, if they were putting out a fire on a locomotive on that railroad's tracks.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The big issue about Burkhart is that he kept silent for days then started to shout comment that, once reported, sounded harsh. Is accusative mood was the last thing people wanted to hear and will be his downfall. TSB seems to be ready to inquiry every bits of this incident because of public attention it gathered worldwide and the number of victims.
In fact, the only thing medias and victims wanted to hear from him was some empathy toward the victim, said he was sorry that his company was in the middle of such disaster, that it was too early to try to find a culprit and that MMA would do everything in it's power to help enquiry and take action so such event would never occur in the future. That alone would have been enough to appease people and feel he wasan experimented railroader able to take his responsabilities. There was no need to go in details at this point, just to acknowledge the event and take immediate action or stance. He could have said all that without having to accept legal responsability at this point.
Instead of that, he turned, in the eyes of many people and media as this caricatural business magnate smoking cigar in his penthouse office in Chicago. Is this the reality, probably not, but now, he is depicted as this which is bad for him, bad for his company(ies) and bad for the railway business in general.
He said he "blew it out". He talked about the derailment, but this statement fits perfectly was he did while talking with the media. His airbrake theory, as pointed out by people in this thread, doesn't make sense at all.
All that useless talk mined is credibility and will, subsequently be taken in account against him.
The poor guy just made himself a future case study about what you should do when your business is walking a tigh rope.
I don't know what will happen when he will get in Megantic tomorrow as scheduled, but I would rather not be in his pants.
Oh! And never use Google Translate to do public relations, even a grade schooler knows that... Bad idea, really bad idea!
As for the incident itself, the more I hear, the more I think the cause is related to handbrake... Everything else sounds too complicated or exotic a theory. TSB seems to point their investigation towars this too. Mr. Belkaloul, in his first press conference a few days ago made clear they would check handbrakes as soon as they would get access to wrecked cars. No conclusion on my part, I'm no railroader and won't venture on a subject I only know from an historic and cosmetic standpoint.
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
Murphy Siding If the fire department shows up at the railroad tracks to put out a fire on a locomotive, who would have the knowledge, and/or authority to shut off the locomotive? You'd sure as heck think that the fire department would contact somebody at the railroad, if they were putting out a fire on a locomotive on that railroad's tracks.
The forty or so local firefighters I gave a presentation to a couple of months ago now know there is an emergency fuel shutoff on locomotives. Those local firefighters may have been provided similar information.
It's usually pretty plainly marked anyhow.
Per all reports, the firefighters did contact the railroad. What happened next is still up in the air.
If the cab of the controlling locomotive was locked, then it's unlikely the firefighters did something with the air brakes accidentally or intentionally.
If the automatic brake handle was still in place (some folks remove it under such circumstances) and the firefighters did enter the cab of the controlling locomotive, it's not unreasonable to think that someone could have released the train brakes, and possibly even the independent, both accidentally. I've bumped the automatic myself, getting into or out of the seat. I know enough to put things back where they should be. The firefighters may not have been aware of what they did, if they indeed did it.
We can continue to speculate based on what information is coming out, but in the end, only the investigators will be giving us the straight up answer.
BTW, in French Canadian medias, it has been said that the FD was trained, years ago about the procedure when putting ou fire from a locomotive by MMA personnel.
TSB has release a revised timeline of the events late this morning. I think it will help to clear some misunderstandings. At this point, rantling about the causes from a computer, miles away from the incident, isn't the most accurate thing to do. I guess most of us just try to figure out what happens and that stays hypothetic at best.
As for my comment on Burkhardt, I only discovered the guy because of the wreck. I talked about his actual public image forged by media, not the real man which is probably something else. But even if just an image, it unfortunately what counts in the end for many people, politicians and others.
But the locomotive handbrake and several cars worth of handbrakes would have prevented a runaway.
If Ed Burkhardt knew that an oil tankcar train was left unmanned, what would his reaction be? If no tragedy had occured?
Is it normal on YOUR railroad for an oil tankcar train to be left unmanned under any circumstance?
Recall that two different plots against Canadian railroads have been foiled by Canadian police in the recent several months.
After the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.?
If they had done so, the moment the train began to move, an alarm would have been sounded.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.