Euclid BaltACD Had all hand brakes been released, I suspect the engine consist would not have been able to hold the train of almost 18000 tons in place to allow the Conductor to be able to reboard the locomotives. It can be argued that the hand brakes should have been released from the Westernmost car Eastward as the Conductor returned to the head end. Report seems to indicate that the hand brakes were released from the engines Westward which left the rear portion of the previously applied hand brakes still applied. As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive?
BaltACD Had all hand brakes been released, I suspect the engine consist would not have been able to hold the train of almost 18000 tons in place to allow the Conductor to be able to reboard the locomotives. It can be argued that the hand brakes should have been released from the Westernmost car Eastward as the Conductor returned to the head end. Report seems to indicate that the hand brakes were released from the engines Westward which left the rear portion of the previously applied hand brakes still applied.
As the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive?
When you are 'recharging' the air brake system - it is releasing the air brakes throughout the train. With the trains air brake system being recharged, the only brakes to hold back the train on a grade are whatever hand brakes have been applied as well as the Independent brakes that are applied on the locomotives.
On Sand Patch's grades, 17K+ tons of train can easily overpower the sole braking power of 5 locomotive units.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidAs the conductor releases the handbrakes, wouldn't the train be held by the automatic air brakes throughout the train, thus allowing the conductor time to get the handbrakes released and board the locomotive?
Sure - but then there wouldn't be enough air in the reservoirs on the cars for another application, which would be needed almost immediately. You'd be amazed at how fast a train of that size can get rolling in no time at all, on a grade like that.
Engineers who make repeated sets without letting the entire train recharge are said to be "pissing away their air." Pardon the vernacular. This has been a common cause of runaways for years. In this case, starting from a set would have put the engineer at an immediate disadvantage due to the reduced pressure left in the service reservoirs.
As Balt notes - this was a lose-lose situation under the circumstances.
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...
BaltACDHad all hand brakes been released, I suspect the engine consist would not have been able to hold the train of almost 18000 tons in place to allow the Conductor to be able to reboard the locomotives. It can be argued that the hand brakes should have been released from the Westernmost car Eastward as the Conductor returned to the head end. Report seems to indicate that the hand brakes were released from the engines Westward which left the rear portion of the previously applied hand brakes still applied.
NO!
I have had simulator time being supervised by a CSX Road Foreman of Engines. I know it is nowhere near the real thing.
I did recieve 'Trainmasters Training' at the Chessie System Engineers Training School; of course at that time GP40's were the company's BIG power of choice. Needless to say this was all a few years ago and not being a Engineer by trade I have no day in, day out experience of operating trains big or small, flatland's or mountains.
I do understand train dynamics as well as draft and buff forces and how they act within a moving train. I have been the recipent of a 'wild ride' in a caboose as well as nearly being knocked off a caboose by slack action. I have held onto the side of a car that had to be shoved a couple of miles to be spoted (without shoving platform).
My career didn't have me operating trains daily, rather supervising the men and women that operated them as well as creating some of the computer applications that affect the operations of trains and yards as well as dispatching them.
BaltACDCrew was not able to move the train with all 58 hand brakes applied.
.
Gentlemen,
I have no dog in this fight but from my perspective I believe it may have resulted in a different outcome had the crew requested assistance either in the form of a couple of locomotives connected to the rear to act as braking power or at the head end for the dynamics. Bottom line as I see it was the lack of being able to control the train on the downgrade even with some brakes set.
Norm
BigJim BaltACD Have you oprated the East slope of Sand Patch? I get the feeling, once the train got stopped - this became a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of train. Had the train not been stopped by a UDE it may have been able to be properly controlled with the use of both air and dynamics. Once it was stopped, the dynamics of trying to get the train started and not have it become a runaway became much more difficult. No, I haven't operated the East slope of Sand Patch. That is a moot point. This wasn't a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. You are correct that had the train not had to stop, things would have probably gone along fine. Now, it is my understanding that the first crew stopped the train on their own volition because they felt something was wrong with the brakes, not because of a UDE. They also, properly tied up enough hand brakes to hold the train in order that the brake pipe pressure could be restored to fully charged. It really makes no difference how the train stopped, nothing derailed at that time. It was only after the second crew took over that things took a turn for the worse. And, therein begins the story!
BaltACD Have you oprated the East slope of Sand Patch? I get the feeling, once the train got stopped - this became a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of train. Had the train not been stopped by a UDE it may have been able to be properly controlled with the use of both air and dynamics. Once it was stopped, the dynamics of trying to get the train started and not have it become a runaway became much more difficult.
No, I haven't operated the East slope of Sand Patch. That is a moot point.
This wasn't a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. You are correct that had the train not had to stop, things would have probably gone along fine. Now, it is my understanding that the first crew stopped the train on their own volition because they felt something was wrong with the brakes, not because of a UDE. They also, properly tied up enough hand brakes to hold the train in order that the brake pipe pressure could be restored to fully charged.
It really makes no difference how the train stopped, nothing derailed at that time. It was only after the second crew took over that things took a turn for the worse. And, therein begins the story!
Crew was not able to move the train with all 58 hand brakes applied.
NTSB Preliminary ReportThe second crew, thinking the train may still have air brake problems, kept all 58 hand brakes applied and unsuccessfully tried to pull the train down the hill. The conductor of the second crew then released the first 25 hand brakes, leaving 33 hand brakes still applied. The engineer applied a minimum air brake application and started the train with locomotive power down the grade. The train speed varied from 20 to 30 mph. The engineer transitioned from locomotive power to dynamic braking three times before the train derailed.
Had all hand brakes been released, I suspect the engine consist would not have been able to hold the train of almost 18000 tons in place to allow the Conductor to be able to reboard the locomotives. It can be argued that the hand brakes should have been released from the Westernmost car Eastward as the Conductor returned to the head end. Report seems to indicate that the hand brakes were released from the engines Westward which left the rear portion of the previously applied hand brakes still applied.
BaltACDHave you oprated the East slope of Sand Patch? I get the feeling, once the train got stopped - this became a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of train. Had the train not been stopped by a UDE it may have been able to be properly controlled with the use of both air and dynamics. Once it was stopped, the dynamics of trying to get the train started and not have it become a runaway became much more difficult.
BigJim BaltACD One thing to remember - ahead of the initially derailed car was 1600 tons of train. Behind the initially derailed car was 16000 tons of train. The initially derailed car was 35 from the engines and was in a cut of 27 empty cars. While this may have contributed to the derailment, it surely wasn't the sole cause. There are a lot of things going on that caused this one. And don't put too much blame on that cut of empties either, I've had worse and didn't derail!
BaltACD One thing to remember - ahead of the initially derailed car was 1600 tons of train. Behind the initially derailed car was 16000 tons of train. The initially derailed car was 35 from the engines and was in a cut of 27 empty cars.
One thing to remember - ahead of the initially derailed car was 1600 tons of train. Behind the initially derailed car was 16000 tons of train.
The initially derailed car was 35 from the engines and was in a cut of 27 empty cars.
While this may have contributed to the derailment, it surely wasn't the sole cause. There are a lot of things going on that caused this one. And don't put too much blame on that cut of empties either, I've had worse and didn't derail!
Have you oprated the East slope of Sand Patch?
I get the feeling, once the train got stopped - this became a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of train. Had the train not been stopped by a UDE it may have been able to be properly controlled with the use of both air and dynamics. Once it was stopped, the dynamics of trying to get the train started and not have it become a runaway became much more difficult.
Euclid BaltACD One thing to remember - ahead of the initially derailed car was 1600 tons of train. Behind the initially derailed car was 16000 tons of train. The initially derailed car was 35 from the engines and was in a cut of 27 empty cars. I would not rule that out as being either part of the cause or the sole cause. I also do not see any reason to conclude that the accident was caused by human error of the crew.
I would not rule that out as being either part of the cause or the sole cause. I also do not see any reason to conclude that the accident was caused by human error of the crew.
It's pretty straightforward, in the NTSB report that I read, that the derailed wheelset was in the middle of a block of cars with evidence of slid wheels from overapplied handbrakes, all of which were empty, all of which were in the part of the 58-car section that the crew couldn't be bothered to walk to to correct the brake application. Herein is the 'crew error' imho.
Even the CSX 'emergency' procedure calls for application of 'retainer handbrakes' only on loaded cars. If I understand the intent of this rule correctly, what 'should' have happened is that the relief crew, concerned about airbrake integrity, would (in some safe order) set the necessary number of brakes on known loaded cars, probably but not necessarily at optimal point(s) in the consist, and then release all the handbrakes on empty cars, not just the first 20 or so of them they happened to come to when walking back from the head end, as the NTSB report appears to clearly state they did.
And yes, had they done this, powering the train downhill would not have produced the wear and damage observed, and in all probability would not have resulted in the single wheelset derailing when it did. (Whether or not you think, as I happen to, that any use of handbraking as 'retainers' for a power downhill move is dumb.)
I'm sorry, I see nothing in the Railway Age article that says the crew was as fault, as such, except the headline and the sub-headline.
While the article does say that there was damage to wheels, apparently due to handbrakes being left set, it does not say that the crew erred in that regard.
One could just as easily assume that the crew's error was switching between dynamics and air several times...
The Railway Age article interprets the NTSB report as saying that the crew caused the derailment by human error. I have read the NTSB report many times and I do not interpret it as saying that the crew caused the derailment, although the investigation still has a long way to go. I believe the crew intentionally left the handbrakes set in order to supplement the air brakes, perhaps because they did not fully trust the air brakes after the experience of the previous crew who had trouble with the air brakes.
Although I do feel that the NTSB could have described this more carefully because it might not be obvious to many that proceeding with handbrakes set is an acceptable practice. Certainly several people in the previous threads indicated that proceeding with handbrakes set was never acceptable. And if you believe that, then the only meaning you can draw from the NTSB report is that the crew likely forgot to release the handbrakes. When I first read the report, that is what I thought it was saying.
Regarding the reason for leaving handbrakes set, here is the most definitive sentence from the NTSB report.
“The second crew, thinking the train may still have air brake problems, kept all 58 hand brakes applied and unsuccessfully tried to pull the train down the hill.”
When I read that, the key phrase is: “thinking the train may still have air brake problems.” The way that is inserted into the sentence means that that is the reason why the crew kept all 58 hand brakes applied.
While at Raiway Age, I checked their evaluation of the NAS/TRB ECP study.
I don't think this table appeared in any of the summaries, only the average number of derailed cars...
ECPOverlay
DP orEOT
Conventional
Average
21.0
23.1
25.5
Minimum
12
14
8
Maximum
28
39
45
Range
16
25
37
Standarddeviation
4.4
5.6
7.2
So while the averages are similar, and allow the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment, the minimum and maximum number of derailed cars is significant.
Not surprisingly, ECP worked more consistently in the eighteen tests that each system underwent. The possible range of the number of derailed cars for ECP was less than HALF that for conventional brakes.
So if your train had ECP brakes in an accident with the conditions simulated, the maximum number of cars derailed would be 28 compared to 45 for conventional brakes and 39 for DP operation.
What is surprising is that for conventional front end initiated Westinghouse operation, the minimum number was only 8 cars derailed, compared to 12 for ECP and 14 for DP.
This clearly shows a wide variation in the effectiveness of operation of air brakes in emergency mode. Emergency is at the "edge of the envelope" and can sometimes work very well but at other times (presumably with exactly the same consist) not very well at all.
To quote
Railway Age asked noted rail industry technical expert Steven R. Ditmeyer, who has a long history with ECP brakes and PTC, among other technologies, to review and comment on the NAS/TRB report:
in which he concluded...
“I believe that the silly argument going on between FRA and the AAR on how much of a safety improvement ECP brakes will provide by reducing the number of tank cars derailed and punctured in an oil train derailment is preventing the railroad industry from implementing a technology that can also provide it with significant operating and maintenance savings. The TRB committee report provided no guidance or encouragement to bringing this about.”
I myself am struck by the old adage about, "lies, bad lies and statistics".
If the maxima and minima had been quoted in the main body of the press release, fewer people would have felt happy with the conclusion that ECP doesn't help in a derailment.
Peter
No - it says that a number of cars were found with flat spots, indicating that the hand brakes were still applied.
Any correlation between the train crew erring and the handbrakes being set is inferred, even in the story.
The actual NTSB makes no such inferrence, and in fact states:NTSBNTSB is investigating many factors into the cause of the derailment, including the length, make-up, and operation of the train, as well as the condition of the railcars and track. The actual report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/DCA17FR011-prelim-report.aspx
NTSBNTSB is investigating many factors into the cause of the derailment, including the length, make-up, and operation of the train, as well as the condition of the railcars and track.
The actual report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/DCA17FR011-prelim-report.aspx
The actual NTSB report is considerably more interesting. You can’t tell puckey from that Railway Age story, but I think the preliminary report tells quite well, albeit a little between the lines, what the problem was and how the accident developed.
I can’t paste the link from a phone, but it’s the first thing that comes up when you google “NTSB Hyndman”.
Here is something interesting from Railway Age. It seems to say that the NTSB blames the Hyndman derailment on the train crew for failing to release all of the handbrakes. From the article:
“A preliminary report cites human error as the cause of a fiery CSX derailment Aug. 2 that forced the evacuation of Hyndman, Pa.”
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/ntsb-preliminary-report-cites-crew-error-in-csx-hazmat-derailment.html
cx500 Euclid I am keeping an open mind until I see the official report. Is that ok with you? That is what the rest of us are doing. And most of us know enough to wait patiently, and quietly, until some facts are known relevant to the actual incident rather than blathering away in a vaccuum with sometimes wild theories. We would all prefer to ignore you; however in the interest of ensuring those without much experience in railroading do not get misled some dedicated souls feel it necessary to keep correcting you. We don't want those who wish to learn more believing you have any credibility. You probably also missed the fact those who have real experience refrain from posting outside their specific areas of expertise. So, sure keep an open mind. And the best way to keep it open is to not have it overflowing with idle speculation so that there is no room when the truth comes out. John
Euclid I am keeping an open mind until I see the official report. Is that ok with you?
I am keeping an open mind until I see the official report. Is that ok with you?
That is what the rest of us are doing. And most of us know enough to wait patiently, and quietly, until some facts are known relevant to the actual incident rather than blathering away in a vaccuum with sometimes wild theories.
We would all prefer to ignore you; however in the interest of ensuring those without much experience in railroading do not get misled some dedicated souls feel it necessary to keep correcting you. We don't want those who wish to learn more believing you have any credibility. You probably also missed the fact those who have real experience refrain from posting outside their specific areas of expertise.
So, sure keep an open mind. And the best way to keep it open is to not have it overflowing with idle speculation so that there is no room when the truth comes out.
John
No that is not what the rest of you are doing. One person is insisting, as speculation, that the Hyndman wreck was caused by improper train make up. I am not saying it is incorrect. I don't know the cause, and I don't care if anyone speculates. I also believe that I am not obligated to endorse someone else's speculation just because they or others insist it is accurate. Yet that is suddenly the latest greivance here.
DOT's updated regulatory impact analysis of a 2015 braking mandate for certain unit trains found that its costs exceed its estimated benefits, putting the rule one step closer to repeal later this year.
While costs and benefits associated with the electronically controlled pneumatic braking requirement both decreased, the estimated benefits plummeted even more compared to the original analysis. DOT attributed the change to the decline of tank cars transporting flammable energy goods since 2015 and to railroads failing to order ECP brakes on new trainsets, meaning required installations would have to be done via costlier retrofits.
The FAST Act directed DOT to update its analysis to take into account studies by GAO and the National Academies on ECP brakes, though the department indicated it will review the National Academies report during the comment period. Freight railroads and some lawmakers had protested the ECP requirement, arguing that not enough data exists to justify the cost of retrofitting them onto locomotives.
DOT has until early December to justify the ECP requirements or repeal them.
The Association of American Railroads applauded the updated report and said it shows the rule should be thrown out. But the group took issue with DOT's citations of testing FRA conducted within the analysis, pointing to the National Academies study that couldn't conclude whether those brakes were more effective than others.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," the group said, regarding the study's validity.
Comments on the updated analysis are due Nov. 1.
Source- Shortline RR Assn.
Randy
Fine with me. Maybe you'll dispense with the "yes, but..." responses when someone posts something. It seems like every time someone posts, you've got a "yes, but..." response to it, usually regurgitating the same thing you've said time after time before.
So, since you are going to wait until the official report is out, and you've already stated your beliefs here...
I have to say, though, that it's not necessarily what you actually write here that is grating. It is the implications you make that, clearly, what is generally believed to be the reason is wrong, and that you have the correct answer.
So now, it's time to wait for the final report to see if your claims are correct. If they are, you can crow.
The recent testing of ECP on tank car derailments is inconclusive for reasons given in this article. At the bottom of the article is a link to the test results and report:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/nas-trb-ecp-study-inconclusive.html
Here is a description of the test plan and objectives before testing was conducted:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ECP/AnalysisandTestPlan.pdf
You said something else too:
BigJimThe use of hand brakes to controll the movement of a train over the road is totally unsafe and unacceptable!
I understand the testiness towards Euclid I had my own encounter with him.
But we should be fair and not read something into his posts he didn't say just to have a point.
Experts (railroaders) or me as a civil engineer often explain in a way as if the counterpart has some knowledge. So to completely understand one needs to ask questions. Some people are content without the additional questions, others like Euclid or me aren't.
I think professionals have to stand these inquiries.Regards, Volker
EuclidSo you are wrong when you say the practice is never allowed.
tree68 Forget it Balt - Bucky has his mind made up, and no end of expert knowledge or real-life experience will change that.
Forget it Balt - Bucky has his mind made up, and no end of expert knowledge or real-life experience will change that.
What is it that I am supposed to believe? Balt may be absolutely right about the cause. I am not saying otherwise. I just want to wait for the expert investigators to tell us what they found. So actually, my mind is not made up. I am keeping an open mind until I see the official report. Is that ok with you?
BaltACDI am a blind squirrel - I like to gnaw at and occasionaly break the occasional nut.
Well, I'm guilty of that sometimes, too...
tree68Forget it Balt - Bucky has his mind made up, and no end of expert knowledge or real-life experience will change that.
I am a blind squirrel - I like to gnaw at and occasionaly break the occasional nut.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.