Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Transport Canada Alleges Insufficient Handbrakes Set As Basis For Obtaining Search Warrant Of MM&A
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">That news report does seem really squirrely. It seems to jump right to a conclusion that the MM&A is at fault for insufficient handbrakes on the second train, whereas the media have not jumped to that conclusion with the train that ran away. For that one, they are generally repeating what Burkhardt said about the engineer being at fault. Yet there was no specific mention of the crew having any responsibility in the case of the second train not being tied down properly. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">The article seems to be saying that the search warrant found evidence in the MM&A office that MM&A has a policy of inadequate trains securement. But it is just not clear what they are really saying. For all I know, the search warrant was served at the MM&A office for the purpose of searching the tied up second train. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">In much of the reporting, I have sensed the animosity toward MM&A for using one-man crews. There have been many allegations that the one-man crews are unsafe with at least the implication that the use of a one-man crew was responsible for the runaway. With that backdrop of disgruntlement, I would be highly suspicious of any evidence showing anything about the securement of that second train. </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">For one thing, all of the engines were presumably shut off. I wonder if there were any air brakes applied when they checked the handbrakes some days later. If there was no air holding the train, then it was properly secured according to Rule 112, unless MM&A special instructions call for a minimum number of handbrakes. I mean properly secured in the sense that it was being held in place.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">They keep throwing out numbers of the minimum required number of handbrakes that must be applied, yet it is not clear whether these numbers are actually part of MM&A special instructions or if they are simply estimates from outsiders such as that CN engineer. It seems like the latter because they often refer to their sources for the number of handbrakes needed as “experts.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:small;">I do recall seeing that video of some people climbing around on that engine. I don’t recall how I encountered that, and did not realize what train it was showing. </span></p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy