Tanker Train Disaster in Canada

[Steven Otte]

Motley

OMG! Could TA462 really be David Martin, one of the victim's?

TA462's last name is not Martin.

Though we were forced to delete it, he did reply here saying he's OK.

[post edited by author to remove user's real name]

[Phoebe Vet]

Even if he is persona non grata, I am still relieved that he is OK.  I hope his property loss was insured.

[mlehman]

I'm thankful TA462 is OK. Any bit of good news we can find in this disaster is a blessing.

[Rastafarr]

Steven Otte

Motley

OMG! Could TA462 really be David Martin, one of the victim's?

TA462's last name is not Martin.

Though we were forced to delete it, he did reply here saying he's OK.

[post edited by author to remove user's real name]

Thank you, Steve. It's a relief to hear he's OK. Best wishes, Dave!

Stu

[maxman]

Motley

I have to agree

The way to get this thread locked really quickly is to slant the topic away from the train wreck and into a discussion over whether or not a post should be deleted.

My opinion is for all of us to be happy that TA462 is okay and let the rest go.

[jeffrey-wimberly]

All right, We know he's OK. Let's get the thread back on topic now.

[Pathfinder]

Back on topic.

Here is a link to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board investigation page:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/R13D0054.asp

And here is a link to the CBC's latest update, showing that 5 more victims have been identified:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/07/17/quebec-lac-megantic-transportation-minister-raitt-mayors-train-mma.html

[mlehman]

Reuters is reporting that the runaway was caused by "insufficient braking force." The TSB "would ask the federal government to review its regulations to ensure that trains carrying dangerous goods are not left unattended on the track."

That sounds very much like what I think is needed. Obviously, the RRs will have input, but I think the facts speak for themselves as to the consequences of failing to mitigate this now obviously recognized risk.

[Paul3]

I had a long chat with a qualified freight engineer I know last night about this tragedy.  His reasoning is:

• The MMA engineer had to use the train brake to stop the loaded 73-car train on the grade, therefore the air brakes were on & working when he departed.
• There's no way all the air leaked out of all the car reservoirs in the time frame given (he's had similar cars last weeks with the air brakes applied) unless someone walked the length of the train and bled the air out of each car...which is not very likely.
• The fire dept. who put out the fire on the one idling engine were volunteers, and they were unlikely to know how to properly shut down a locomotive.
• It's possible that handbrakes on enough cars did not work properly.  His point was that with few if any car knockers anymore, with the lax brake maintenance he sees, and with the idea that if any RR operating employee reports non-working cars they get blamed for accepting them in the first place, it's not impossible that the engineer actually set the correct number of handbrakes required by rule and yet it still wasn't enough to hold the train due to handbrake malfunctions.

So how did the air brakes get released?  They were obviously applied at the time the engineer left the train, and there's no way they were there long enough to completely exhaust themselves.  The only logical way the brakes could have been released is if someone went into the cab and moved the big red lever of the train brake to "Release".  Because there was a loco fire and therefore unqualified (by RR standards) people on and around the loco, isn't it logical to assume that one of them moved the red lever on purpose or by accident as they were attempting to shut the engine down?

This is not to excuse the MMA engineer completely.  My friend was unfamiliar with the RR rules in Canada, but said on CSX (whom he doesn't work for) engineers are supposed to test the handbrakes by shoving with the engines before leaving the train.  If they have a similar rule in Canada, the engineer is still in a world of trouble.  But it appears to my friend that the MMA engineer shouldn't be the only one in trouble.

Paul A. Cutler III

[mlehman]

Paul,

Those are good points. I know there's a tendency to want to place blame on specific individuals. Railroads are complex interactions between lots of humans and machines. I know that from helping manage heavy-duty trucks, where the maintenance records can play a big role in determining causation in some cases. The driver may have been with the truck when something happened, but it could be the fault of the last guy to work on it, too.

With multiple cars involved in this accident, there could be a number of "last guys" nervous about what the investigation reveals.

[Pathfinder]

mlehman

Reuters is reporting that the runaway was caused by "insufficient braking force." The TSB "would ask the federal government to review its regulations to ensure that trains carrying dangerous goods are not left unattended on the track."

That sounds very much like what I think is needed. Obviously, the RRs will have input, but I think the facts speak for themselves as to the consequences of failing to mitigate this now obviously recognized risk.

Here is a link to the CBC News report: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/07/19/lac-megantic-train-derailment-victims-tsb.html

The TSB is asking Transport Canada to review its policies on both securing trains and for trains left unattended.  Apparently this is not the first instance in Canada in recent years of unattended trains running down grades; and not the first time the TSB has been concerned enough to ask TC for reviews.

Paul, the above article has information on Rule 112-Securing Equipment from the Canadian Railway Operating Rules that you may find illuminating.