mlehman I still haven't figured out if the locos led or were following the train's cars, so don't know if the cars in question led the way in the runaway or if they were on the other end and possibly less damaged.
I still haven't figured out if the locos led or were following the train's cars, so don't know if the cars in question led the way in the runaway or if they were on the other end and possibly less damaged.
There have been reports on CNN and elsewhere that there were 5 locomotives at the head end of the train, and that they went another 1/2 mile beyond the site of the derailment and fire before stopping.
BATMANThere must be something already known, otherwise the company is putting itself in a questionable legal situation by removing a persons livelihood so early on after the incident.
Yeah, those were my thoughts. Something physical must have been found that called into question what I presume were the employee's original statements about tying down the brakes.
There was a great deal of destruction, but my guess is that the physical evidence may now show the proper number of hand brakes were not properly set, possibly putting previous statements in question. My guess is that when this is done, it is for the cars closest to the locos. I still haven't figured out if the locos led or were following the train's cars, so don't know if the cars in question led the way in the runaway or if they were on the other end and possibly less damaged.
I presume that a set brake would still indicate it was applied, while the lack of application would be similarly obvious. Anyone know?
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
BroadwayLionYou stand by them until all of the facts are out and then if your employee is at fault you deal with that issue when it comes.
This has generally been the case in incidents I have seen and had dealings with. The one thing I have wondered about is the employee in question has been suspended without pay. I have seen a lot of employees suspended in my years and it has always been with pay in these kind of situations. Also employees that have found themselves on the receiving end of an investigation have always been treated with a great deal of respect and handled with kid gloves pending the outcome. That is only being a good manager. Emotional finger pointing by any manager/CEO tells me they should not be holding that position.
There must be something already known, otherwise the company is putting itself in a questionable legal situation by removing a persons livelihood so early on after the incident. It is more cost effective to retain a person on the payroll than to deal with the fallout of punishing an innocent employee.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Mr. Burkhardt, CEO of Rail World Inc. and the MM&A made a serious blunder after he arrived in Quebec. The business language of Quebec is French, and Mr. Burkhardt talked in English, and did not bring any translators. This naturally caused outrage in Quebec, and even the Prime Minister was upset about this.
I would think that someone on Mr. Burkhardt's staff or one of his lawyers, etc. would have known that he should have spoken in French or had a translator with him. Perhaps he never got told, or it never made it up the chain of command.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
mlehmanOne thing I did notice was that Mr. Burkhardt ardently defended his employee at first. That then changed. The things that people are bagging on him for where said prior to whatever changed with regard to new information that now makes the employee's actions suspect.
You're darn right a supervisor will stick up for his employees. It is expected. And it is expected that your employees will stick up for you. If that is not the case, you do not belong in that position. Beyond that Mr. Burkhardt should have kept to the line of how sorry he was that such a thing should happen, and what he can and will do to help set thing as right as possible. Obviously he cannot bring people back to life or heal the emotional wounds that have occurred. Buy you certainly do not want to make things worse.
You tell this to the press and you add that the investigation is continuing and that you are cooperating, and will cooperate with the findings of the TSBC. That is where you keep your focus and you do not undercut your employees. You stand by them until all of the facts are out and then if your employee is at fault you deal with that issue when it comes. You may say, "Yes, the employee has been suspended, and this is the standard practice in a situation like this and that nothing can be read into this."
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Phoebe Vet:
If you Google Rail World Inc. there is an entire page on their site dedicated to Mr. Burkhardt. Seems a bit showy for my tastes - in my opinion a paragraph or two would have been plenty on a company site - but it gives a pretty good background.
From what I've picked up on the MM&A, they have had what I would say is an unusually large number of accidents since 2003 when Rail World Inc. bought the line. To be more specific, there were over 140 accidents, several serious. They average just under 18 over 14 per year. Some Google searches for MM&A should turn up more. Not all places list all the accidents because some took place in the US and some in Canada, and apparently the MM&A did not report all the accidents to both.
As well as an examination of the actions of employees and condition of equipment, an examination of rules and procedures of both the railroad and any regulatory agencies are always part of an investigation like this.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I thought he flip-flopped a lot. Could have been that he just changed his story as he got new information. Still, changing your story too many times costs your public opinion because it looks like you are constantly misinformed or ignorant. When giving a press conference, you should never speculate.
Still have to give Mr. Burkhardt points for defending his employee initially.
One thing I did notice was that Mr. Burkhardt ardently defended his employee at first. That then changed. The things that people are bagging on him for where said prior to whatever changed with regard to new information that now makes the employee's actions suspect.
Yes, too soon to judge here about the specifics.
I'll stand by my argument that this incident requires an examination of rules and operating practices to see if they are sufficient to deal with the hazards known to exist now, if not prior to this tragedy. Crude oil is nasty stuff, but in terms of its potential to injure by exposure it's way down the list of some really nasty things that are transported by rail. Part of the reason for rail transport in the first place is the assurance of safety and integrity of the system with some of these substances, because road transport and other methods pose greater risks. This is an advantage I'm sure the railroads don't want to sacrifice by failing to address all the issues this incident raises.
No apology is required. Discussion is how differences of opinion are resolved.
I do not know anything about the CEO or that particular railroad. As such, I have no opinion of either.
Still friends?
My apologies to you and my Dad.
My dad came up with the list, I came up with the elaborations. Everything in bold is my dad's. I definitely messed up. I'm ticked off at the CEO, and it came through. I'm sorry.
I should have emphasized that it seems that the management system failed, and the CEO's actions seem suspicious, or possibly misinformed. The CEO has not handled this well.
I can't wait to see what they find as well. Criminal activity seems unlikely to me, but still a definite possibility. I like the negligence option. Failing to set enough handbrakes when on a grade is just plain ignorant.
Although not his fault, the CEO is the public face of the company, and again, he did not handle this well. Even if the attitude at a railroad is "stuff happens", that view should never be expressed to the public.
Again, I'm sorry for letting my anger at the CEO influence my writing.
S&S:
Reread your original post carefully and pay particular attention to the things you chose to highlight.
You posted a list of possibilities, all of which pointed to the CEO being at fault and you then complained about the CEO's actions since the accident. You credited your Dad with the list.
I am not an auditor, but I spent many years as an investigator, a trainer, and a supervisor. People frequently fail to do things they were trained and/or ordered to do. Sometimes it is intentional, sometimes it is just an innocent error. It is not possible for the CEO to monitor all employees all the time. It is not automatically his fault if one of them fails.
A dispassionate investigation is required to determine what happened here. There is insufficient information in the various press articles for anyone here to make a determination who is at fault. There is insufficient information available to us for us to claim anyone is a scapegoat. I have no idea why the engineer has been suspended, but I bet the CEO does.
It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation. There are many possibilities. It could be employee negligence, it could be inadequate rules or training, it could by criminal activity by someone not associated with the rail road.
Phoebe Vet "Dad" sounds like a union rep. If a person didn't do his job properly it must be the fault of the CEO because he wasn't trained properly. Sometimes people don't do things the way they were taught and instructed to. Sometimes employees, particularly people who don't have a supervisor physically present, take short cuts. That is why we do unbiased investigations before assigning blame. "Dad" doesn't seem to have considered the fact that the engineer may have admitted he didn't set the brakes the way the rules require, or that physical evidence may have shown that. Do locomotives have event recorders? Did someone else enter the train after the engineer left? Did someone other that the crew make any changes to the train condition?
"Dad" sounds like a union rep. If a person didn't do his job properly it must be the fault of the CEO because he wasn't trained properly.
Sometimes people don't do things the way they were taught and instructed to. Sometimes employees, particularly people who don't have a supervisor physically present, take short cuts.
That is why we do unbiased investigations before assigning blame. "Dad" doesn't seem to have considered the fact that the engineer may have admitted he didn't set the brakes the way the rules require, or that physical evidence may have shown that. Do locomotives have event recorders? Did someone else enter the train after the engineer left? Did someone other that the crew make any changes to the train condition?
As the edit on my post says, my dad is a national health and safety auditor, and he is not affiliated with any unions. I guess I didn't express myself as well as I could have. Here are a couple clarifications.
My dad audits to various ISO standards, including 9001 and 14001. He has done work in the past for ANSI.
The point my dad made to me was that the CEO is trying explain away something that needs a deeper investigation. He felt that the core cause was the training. One "piece" that my dad told me was that when someone tries to explain away a mistake on an audit, he knows that he should dig deeper, and will usually find a nonconformance.
If the engineer didn't do what he was supposed to, then no controls were in place to make sure that he was doing what he was supposed to. If the engineer did not do what he was supposed to because he didn't know what to do, then the training is a fault.
Is someone else made changes to the train's condition (like the firefighters shutting down the locomotive because the MM&A guys TOLD them to), then whoever directed the change is responsible, and the question becomes why didn't they make sure that the train was secured after the change.
There were multiple mistakes made, and each mistake will require a root cause analysis. It is likely that they will find problems with multiple training programs and the controls that make sure that the employees are following their training.
I had a similar experience at the train club last night. Only the member who works as a conductor on the Reading and Northern was familiar with the train accident. Several other members had heard of it in passing, and a couple were completely in the dark.
What's more important; a plane crash due to pilot error that kills 2 people, or a train accident that kills over 20 with 30 missing and that just so happened to flatten a good portion of a small town in Canada?
Which one was in the news for 4 days?
P.S. My dad is a national health and safety auditor, and is not affiliated with any unions.
It was terrorists I tell you.....TERRORISTS!!!!
While at lunch the other day at work, many in the break room were talking about the plane crash. I mentioned the train explosion and they all thought I was crazy. They hadn't even heard about it!
It is not unusual on small railroads to leave a train sitting on a grade or on the main...since most only have a main and a few sidings to begin with. I have seen coal hoppers blow through a crossing all by themselves. They figured these cars would go ten miles before they stopped but didn't even make it five miles. The crossing I saw them go through was the only crossing the hit. I also responded to a railroad accident in which an empty box car rolled down an abandoned siding, busted through makeshift "bumper" at the end of the rails, leaves the rails and continue on across and abandoned crossing. The tracks had been ripped up and it made it's own path. Good thing no one was going through the crossing at the time!
Hopefully they figure out what really happened and find all the people they say are missing.
Robert H. Shilling II
On the radio this morning it was reported that Burkhardt said the engineer was suspended without pay and that he was subject of police investigation - his quote was something like "he's not under arrest, but the police want to know where he is at all times".
I agree with Crandell. After having served on three trial juries in the past , I never question the outcomes that other juries arrive at. How anyone can, based on snippets of information they hear on the news is beyond me. The media does still like to fuel the fires by throwing truckloads of speculation into the works. Anytime I listen to conversation on talk shows or on some other medium, about something I do have a good deal of knowledge about, my eyes roll heavenward and I just shake my head at what is being said.
The devil is in the details as they say, so we will have to wait and see.
I worked 36 years in logistics. Planes, trains, trucks, ships and anything else that moved. Safety was always paramount. All the training in the world will not prevent an accident if a worker does not do his job and follow protocol. Everything has redundancy built into it. At least two or more things must go wrong to have an accident.
The investigation may find a interesting series of events lead to this disaster. When the report comes out I suggest reading the whole thing. You will get quite a different view of actual events than if you just rely on snippets from the press. The press will tell you what happened, but not the hows and whys.
I have given testimony at more than one accident investigation. Being a bottom rung union guy myself, I would never say someone was just a scapegoat. You either did your job or you didn't. You will get no sympathy from me if it was the latter.
I wonder how many very angry people pointing fingers at the irresponsible train crew, just put their own vehicle in park and don't set the parking when they leave the vehicle. First offense is a well deserved one week suspension in my book. Or do accidents only happen to other people.
We live in a complex social system that includes businesses, labour, the media, and regulators. Notice how in both the Asiana air incident and the Lac Megantic disaster, there's tons of finger-pointing and speculation. Sully Sullenberger said yesterday on CNN that there's far to little known about the air incident to begin counting facts. As a matter of fact, said he, we don't even know which questions we should be asking at the moment. I suspect the two cases have marked parallels, including lessons to learn for both the media and fans of either industry.
We should be patient and wait until real authorities begin to state verified facts.
Crandell
You'd be surprised how quickly vandals can learn how things work - a bucnh of years ago I belonged to a club that was located right next to some tracks which were under slow orders. Made for great train watching, in our break room we had a scanner so always knew when something was coming - it was often a mad dash under the layout to the back door to watch. One night we're out watching when the train goes into emergency. Not a huge deal when the thing's only moving at about 5mph. Listening in on the scanner, we heard the conductor start walking the train to find the parted air hose. The train was maybe 3/4 of the way past the grade crossing where out club was, and just as we saw the conductor's lantern coming down, the heard the engineer call back on the radio that the air was coming back up. Conductor kept checking, found the last 3 cars about 2 car lengths behind the rest of the train - and the angle cock closed on the now last car - seems these vandals who pulled the pin also knew that if they closed the valve, the air would come back up. What they planned to do witht he 3 EMPTY cars left sitting on the low speed rarely used line, I have no idea. After pumping the air back up, the crew backed up and grabbed the last 3 cars, and then took off.
Doesn;t take much of a stretch to think someone could easily figure out how to trip the release pawl on the hand brakes, and if there was a grade, they never would have had to release all 10 that were set before things started rolling.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
If true, that would explain this accident. The assumption must have been that 10 cars with brakes set properly would hold -- regardless of a flaming, shut-down engine or not -- and now there's evidence they were not set.
Maybe that many hand brakes set on a grade makes sense and is done all the time, but it still sounds iffy standing on a grade with no one around. If nothing else, an enterprising vandal could decipher all they need to know to spread mayhem -- let alone someone with a more sinister agenda than simple stupidity.
I suspect we've still not gotten to the bottom of this.
It's been pretty much standard practice for a LONG time that a crew invovled in an accident gets to sit home without pay while things are investigated. If at fault - seeya. If not, you get to go back to work. Kinda wish they'd apply the same standards to truck drivers.
Is it just me, or does this disaster sound very familiar?
Brake system
No Engineer in the locomotive
String of deadly explosive cars, heading to a town full of people.
hint: Denzel
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
From http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/218974.aspx?sort=ASC&pi332=17
overall NPR is reporting that the engineer on this train has been "suspended without pay" for not setting enough hand brakes. I guess when it's all said and done, the railroad will be to blame and the whole industry will suffer for one man's lapse in judgement.
NPR is reporting that the engineer on this train has been "suspended without pay" for not setting enough hand brakes. I guess when it's all said and done, the railroad will be to blame and the whole industry will suffer for one man's lapse in judgement.
My dad is an auditor, and had a couple good comments. I will relay them.
First, the engineer is just another scapegoat. The railroad needs to get to the "root cause" of the accident. The train derailed. Why? The brakes weren't set. Why? The engineer did not properly set the brakes. Why? Was he improperly trained or not familiar with the equipment?
If he was improperly trained (this includes simply forgetting to set the brakes), then the railroad is responsible because they need a better training plan, or they need to make sure that the train crews are properly trained.
If he was not familiar with the equipment, then the railroad should have trained him on the equipment. Hand brakes are fairly basic in terms of training, so why wasn't he adequately trained.
Secondly, this seems to be the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Burkhardt (the president of MM&A) was way to fast in assigning blame. In my dad's experience, it suggests that Mr. Burkhardt has something to cover up, and that the problems go much deeper than they appear.
Third, Mr. Burkhardt should have gone to the scene of the accident as soon as it happened. Instead, he waited in Chicago to see how it would turn out. Basic PR says that he should be on the scene as soon as possible, giving his condolences and saying that he will get to the bottom of it.
Fourth, Mr. Burkhardt obviously didn't listen to his PR guys, as they would have known not to give out "what really happened" before he had all the information. So far Mr. Burkhardt has blamed vandals, the firefighters, "tampering", and now the engineer. I wonder if he'll get around to blaming the dispatcher too. All he is doing is wasting political capital and lowering his public opinion.
Fifth, MM&A does not seem to have a business climate where safety is a primary concern. Mr. Burkhardt has tried to explain away the accident as stuff happens. MM&A does not spend as much as they should on maintenance and upkeep. Their locomotives are old, the tracks are poor, and multiple people have made multiple mistakes. The engineer should have applied more hand brakes, the engineer should have properly locked out the train before going off duty, the dispatcher should have notified both train crews, and (unconfirmed) the dispatcher should have lined the switches in case the train rolled as the engineer asked.
It seems as if the managers of the MM&A are only concerned about the end of year books. They would rather spend say $10,000,000 on accident insurance premiums, instead of $20,000,000 on the back maintenance that would prevent the accident. Their one year only approach costs them more in the long run, because the back maintenance costs go up only slowly, but they pay large insurance premiums each year. After several years, it would have cost less to do the maintenance.
It would be interesting to see how other railroads owned by Rail World Inc. are managed. It turns out that MR. BURKHARDT is NOT just the president of MM&A. He is the president of Rail World Inc., the president of MM&A, the president of The San Luis Central Railroad Company, serves on the Board of Directors of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of AS Baltic Rail, and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Rail Polska. So he is in essence the president of 5 railroads in 4 countries.
EDIT: My dad is a national health and safety auditor, and is not affiliated with any unions.
One of our TV stations here in Maine, Channel 6 out of Portland just posted the following AP statement on their website:
"
LAC-MEGANTIC, Quebec (AP) - The president and CEO of the railway's parent company says an employee failed to properly set the brakes of the train that crashed into a town in Quebec, killing at least 15 people.
Edward Burkhardt made the comments during a visit today to the town that was devastated by the runaway oil train four days ago.
He said, "It was questionable whether hand brakes were put I place at this time." Burkhardt added, "I don't think any employees removed brakes. They failed to set the brakes."
He said a train engineer has been suspended without pay.
Officials say 60 people are missing or dead in the aftermath of the train crash."
Carl
"I could never belong to any club that would have me as a member."
From what I've read in the various news accounts and the Trains forum it appears that the following questions need addressed.
1. How was the train secured when the engineer left it?
2. During the first fire on the locomotive, what did the firemen or anyone else do to the engine/train?
3. What did the railroad people do if anything after the first fire to check/secure the train?
4. What if any vandalism occurred?
I'm sure there are other things that will be checked/investigated also.
Everyone involved is of course claiming that they did what they were supposed to, so it'll be up to the investigators to sift through the wreckage, stories, and eyewitness accounts. And of course the fire was so intense that there may be (will be) problems with the physical evidence. This will take a long time, maybe years before a report is released.
Paul
Single-person crews are just not a good idea. You're a long way from anywhere on most RRs in Canada. If you need first aid or even just a hand up, not much there to work with in a pinch. I know they sent them poor folks out to haul the mail on dog sleds one at a time, but them dogs can only pull so much. It's the 21st century and a train can easily handle the most portly conductor without getting winded.
A terrible tragedy.
I'm no legal expert, even less so in Canada. I wonder if talk of a criminal investigation is related to the original fire on the train? I heard speculation of a loose fuel line, so don't know if there's more to that or other evidence that in retrospect throws that in a different light.
As for criminal negligence, assuming the crew(member), the RR, and the fire folks all followed procedures, as reported, I can see possible civil liability, but not criminal violations, at least the way things are done in the US (but certainly not presuming that's the case in Canada.)To me, presuming nothing else is known, it's the dispatcher who kind of ends up at the bottom of the hill when things start running downhill. It's a job that requires intimate knowledge of equipment, track, and operating practices to prevent these situations from getting out of control. It's possible they weren't fully informed of the situation, so I don't presume anything other than the fact someone's gonna get blamed when things go this wrong. But criminal, even just criminal neglect? That's hard to say. I'd say look at the big picture with this practice...
To me, even if by the book, the unaccompanied stopping of train in locations where they are subject to runaway situations in the case of a mechanical failure -- other than in cases of emergency -- just seems very questionable from a risk standpoint. If legal now, it shouldn't be after this. That's what yards and sidings are for, with their grades designed to hold cars on tracks there and off the main. If I can do it on my layout, don't see what the issue is with the prototype is. We're talking 19th century engineering practice, but it's not dated in terms of its preventative nature in guarding against accidents such as this.
This line sees about three trains a week each way. According to my understanding the engineer did not dump the air, but rather just used the service brakes to hold the train. Apparently they wanted to save time with the brake tests in the morning.
According to what I understand, when you tie up a train, you SET THE HAND BRAKES and then DUMP THE AIR. It will take an extra hour or more to charge the train in the morning, but that is what the job is.
The hand brakes should be holding the train, not the air brakes. Someone said that the handbrakes are not good enough to hold the train. Maybe so, maybe not so. A former train operator for NYCT said that after each hand brake has been pulled tight, it must then be pulled in one more notch. In other words, a tight chain by itself does not equal a fully applied brake.
The newer NYCT subway cars do not have hand brakes: They have "Parking Brakes" and these are applied automatically as the train is shut down. They are released when the service brakes are activated again and take over the job of holding the train.
LION suspects that (unfortunately) this will come down to human error on the part of the train crew that tied up the train. AND it may be that it was a one man train crew such as is (in my understanding) a normal practice in Canada.
I believe I read that the train was "tied up" on the mainline and not a siding after the initial fire was put out. if this is correct (...?...), and considering the cargo it was carrying, would a portable de-railer put into place have made a good extra precaution? Do railways even use portable de-railers to help mitigate against such an event? Forgive my ignorance in these matters.
Thoughts and prayers to all affected by this tragedy...
Don.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both engines have failed, and we will be stuck here for some time. The good news is that you decided to take the train and not fly."
The locos separated from the train at some point in the downhill move. They passed across the town just ahead of the tank cars that didn't make it through the curve. The locos stopped by themselves going uphill on the other side. By chance they did not come back.
Martin