BaltACD Think this may be the incident being talked about https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+6+(byhits+(general+(phrase+%601916))))
Think this may be the incident being talked about
https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+6+(byhits+(general+(phrase+%601916))))
As noted in the report, this incident is most definitely a case of 'peeing away the air'.
It should be noted that the air brakes in use in 1916 were somewhat different than what we are used to today, in particular the pressure-maintaining feature of the automatic brake valve was still decades in the future. 'Cycle braking' (releasing and then re-applying the automatic) several times would have been a normal strategy when descending a long grade like this, and as long as the releases were made at low enough speeds the retainers (and possibly handbrakes) should have held the train back enough while it recharged. Even today it is normal to have a few cars with inoperative brakes in a train, and this alone should not have caused the runaway.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
i remember this "Mule Shoe" route having been on a fan trip over it. Not a grade to be on without brakes! The trip I was on was a round trip using Horse Shoe one way and Mule Shoe the other. Maybe someone else remembers when it operated.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
See the recapitulation of legislation from the Lind bill/Safety Appliance Act of 1893 (effective 1898) through revisions in 1903 and 1910.
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/16422/1993_THE%20FEDERAL%20RAILROAD%20SAFETY%20PROGRAM%20-%20100%20YEARS%20OF.PDF
Note that the criterion even in 1910 was the ability to stop the train... with equipment controlled from the licomotive cab... without recourse to 'down brakes' or any other recourse to manual application of handbrakes. (Retainers although manually applied counted as part of the air brake system.)
Without having actually read the 1916 account fully yet, it seems clear from the description that the engineer did piss his air away with repeated applications and releases -- probably down to the 'retained' set on the cars, which would have gotten into more or less severe brake fade relatively fast on a 14-mile 1.6% downgrade.
Absence of 8 functional brakes is below the threshold of 50%. It is certainly possible that those eight brakes might have provided additional retainer capacity at 15# or whatever set they held, but I think it is likely that if the engineer lost air and had no time for recharge, the 8 cars wouldn't have made enough of a difference. Remember that it was the engineer's responsibility to judge that his automatic and independent brakes could stop the train under operating conditions. That is manifestly something that repeated applications and releases makes difficult or impossible to achieve on a significant grade with a train that size...
According to the 1998 Conrail EC99 Brake Rules (and things haven't really changed much since), all cars must have operating brakes leaving an initial terminal, and brakes that fail enroute may not be more than 85% of the consist.
From those rules, a sixty car train could have up to nine cars with inoperative brakes, none consecutive. Based on the modern rules, the train was legal if the brakes failed enroute. I would opine that the train in question left its initial terminal with a lot more than zero cars with inoperative brakes.
I have no idea what the comparable rules were in 1911.
That said, one must consider inoperative brakes (the brakes are cut out, simply don't work or are noticably out of tolerance) versus ineffective brakes, where the mechanism works, but those brakes contribute little to the overall braking effort.
The loss of eight known inoperative brakes, combined with the possibility of more ineffective brakes would certainly contribute to the problem.
It's possible that whoever inspected the brakes regarded some as "good enough..."
Odds are the engineer ended up "p***ing away" his air trying to keep the train under control. One might conclude he was placed in an unwinnable situation.
http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/CR/CR%20Rules/CR%20Air%20Brake%20&%20Train%20Handling%20Rules%201-1998.pdf
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...
It would have been helpful to include a link to the report you mentioned. That said, all of the things you mentioned would have contributed to the runaway in some way, though how much they contributed will depend on numerous other factors not mentioned (train length, tonnage, weather, years of experience of the crew, etc.). Sending a train out with eight defective car brakes today would probably result in prison time for the people involved in the decision. But in 1916, I suspect the prevailing attitude was that engineers were expected to find a way to run the train that was given to them with whatever it had. Their job was to "figure it out" and if they didn't, they would end up with most or all of the blame.
In reading about a runaway freight train accident in 1916 the ICC Investigation noted that a number of cars without functioning airbrakes were set out from the receiving yard before the train was released. Yet, the train of 60 cars still had cars (8) without brakes and was released to descend a 1.6% grade 14 miles in length. Retainers were set. There was a set of light helpers 20 minutes ahead within the block at the top of the grade. The freight entered the block with a signal indicating proceed at reduced speed prepared to stop. The normal freight speed was 20 mph. The engineer within 5 miles and a couple of brake applications had lost the train's braking. My question is, was the mistake allowing 8 cars without brakes in the consist? Would the loss of braking power on the 8 have contributed substantially to the runaway? Did those 8 cars make the reduced running speed more difficult to maintain? The ICC laid everything on the engineer's shoulders.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.