News today indicates that the Nantes fire department was called to put out a fire on one of the units of the train after the train crew left the train in proper fashion to be "tied down" and secured. The fire department "switched off" the lcomotive to prevent a flow of fuel to the apparent fire but the train crew was not aware. Shutting locomotive down also shut down the air pumps keeping air brakes applied. The murky stuff ensues from here: one report says the MMA dispatcher was notified and he summoned a nearby track worker to the scene to observe the fire department activities but had no knowledge of the operations of a train or locomotive, his value to the scene virtually useless. Other reports indicate the railroad did not know about the fire department's activities and procedures. So....there is definitely an official line or chain of communications in a hazardous situation, that has to be examined for rewriting; there is a lot of gray area as to who is to blame....gentlemen of the railroad, gentlemen of the politic, gentlemen of the press! sharpen you fingers and get ready to do a lot of pointing and counterpointing! It is going to be loud, long, and dirty from here on out.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Any locomotive fire should raise suspicion unless an engineer or other competent railroad person can explain to the Fire Chief exactly how the fire started. But apparently the train crew were not present.
daveklepper As a former fire chief, even if it is an oil tankcar train, and two plots agains the railroads were uncovered in the recent months? I am sorry. I just don't believe you. I think you have better sense than that!
As a former fire chief, even if it is an oil tankcar train, and two plots agains the railroads were uncovered in the recent months? I am sorry. I just don't believe you. I think you have better sense than that!
As a fire chief, I'm not in the security business, except as it applies to active incident scenes. In some areas, not even then. Once the fire is out and I determine that the fire was not of suspicious origin, etc, it's not my problem. I'm going home. Unless I follow that kind of news (or it has been disseminated to such local agencies), I might not even be aware of the previous threats.
Apparently there was nothing about the locomotive fire that raised suspicion.
The cargo of the train was not involved.
We haven't seen any indication that the railroad asked local authorities (including the fire department) to secure the area around the train, and as I noted, someone from the railroad apparently responded at some point. If local law enforcement authorities were aware of a potential security threat, they likely would have responded.
The possibility that firefighters touched something they shouldn't have notwithstanding, I don't see where they did anything wrong.
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...
I apologize. It was a computer glitch and not intentional. I will now use the edit program to "unconfuse" the post.
Dave,
In the 4th post from the top of this page, you are responding in a way that makes it look like your comments are my comments. You include your comments as part of the quote of what I said. It adds confusion, and we simply cannot have any confusion on this forum.
Ulrich I'm surprised any train would be left unattended, let alone one carrying hazmat. I bet that will change as a result of this accident. Maybe crew reductions over the years were a little bit too deep. Had there been a third person on the train or, dare I say it, a caboose with someone in it, this probably wouldn't have happened.
I'm surprised any train would be left unattended, let alone one carrying hazmat. I bet that will change as a result of this accident. Maybe crew reductions over the years were a little bit too deep. Had there been a third person on the train or, dare I say it, a caboose with someone in it, this probably wouldn't have happened.
The MM&A through Lac Megantic is lightly travelled. It sees an average of two Oil Trains per week, and a three times weekly freight in each direction which also does all local work. The Outbound crew was still on their rest.
daveklepperAfter the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.?
AFAIK, we haven't heard when the "engineering department" person that supposedly responded arrived on the scene.
Speaking as a former fire chief, if I felt secure in my understanding of how the fire started, I would not have called for an outside investigation. Around here, determination of cause is my responsibility. If doing so is beyond my abilities, I'll call for help.
I would not fault the FD for assuming that the train was otherwise properly secured.
Bucyrus samfp1943 Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves. Mr. Burkhardt has the bully pulpit and should be perfectly capable of defending himself against any criticism from people whether they are anonymous or not. Mr. Burkhardt is using his bully pulpit to blame the fire department for the deaths. He says the fire department is responsible because they shut down the engine, causing the train brakes to release. He dismisses his own failure to hold the train with hand brakes as required. He says the fire department should have notified his railroad and they did not. Yet the fire department did indeed notify his railroad. In one article, Mr. Burkhardt says that there is no indication of criminal behavior, and yet in another article, he now says that he has evidence that the train was tampered with. But he does not explain what he means with that pregnant comment. It clearly implies criminal activity, but he may be just trying to paint the firefighters as criminals. A lot of people seem to hold the view that Mr. Burkhardt or his railroad should not be criticized because the media is always wrong about railroads. If you believe that, why even listen to the news? Above is quoted from a previous post. Again, there were two plots against Canadian railroads that were uncovered by Canadian securiity people in the past several months, with intended perpetrators aprehended before damage was done. But Ed Burkhardt certainly should have restricted his comments to those of sympathy for the victims and their families. That is the only correct response for one in his position. But the idea that many things go wrong to create such tragedy is correct. 1. Handbrakes should have been applied. Possibly they were, but released. 2. The train should not have been left ungarded, considering its cargo. 3. Upon notice to the police and fire department, the crew should have been awakened and rushed to the train. 4. The locomotive should have been shut down by the crew or under their direction. 5. The locomotive and train should have been under guard after the fire was extinguished. And handbrakes inspected and applied or reapplied as required. If any of 2 - 5 had been implemented, the tragedy would have been avoided or mitigated considerably. Loss of life would have been avoided.
samfp1943 Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves.
Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt..
Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves.
Mr. Burkhardt has the bully pulpit and should be perfectly capable of defending himself against any criticism from people whether they are anonymous or not. Mr. Burkhardt is using his bully pulpit to blame the fire department for the deaths. He says the fire department is responsible because they shut down the engine, causing the train brakes to release. He dismisses his own failure to hold the train with hand brakes as required.
He says the fire department should have notified his railroad and they did not. Yet the fire department did indeed notify his railroad.
In one article, Mr. Burkhardt says that there is no indication of criminal behavior, and yet in another article, he now says that he has evidence that the train was tampered with. But he does not explain what he means with that pregnant comment. It clearly implies criminal activity, but he may be just trying to paint the firefighters as criminals.
A lot of people seem to hold the view that Mr. Burkhardt or his railroad should not be criticized because the media is always wrong about railroads. If you believe that, why even listen to the news?
Above is quoted from a previous post.
Again, there were two plots against Canadian railroads that were uncovered by Canadian securiity people in the past several months, with intended perpetrators aprehended before damage was done. But Ed Burkhardt certainly should have restricted his comments to those of sympathy for the victims and their families. That is the only correct response for one in his position. But the idea that many things go wrong to create such tragedy is correct.
1. Handbrakes should have been applied. Possibly they were, but released.
2. The train should not have been left ungarded, considering its cargo.
3. Upon notice to the police and fire department, the crew should have been awakened and rushed to the train.
4. The locomotive should have been shut down by the crew or under their direction.
5. The locomotive and train should have been under guard after the fire was extinguished. And handbrakes inspected and applied or reapplied as required.
If any of 2 - 5 had been implemented, the tragedy would have been avoided or mitigated considerably. Loss of life would have been avoided.
You would think that the engineer or conductor would have come forward by now and explained how many hand brakes he set and how he knew that he had enough set to hold the train.
But the locomotive handbrake and several cars worth of handbrakes would have prevented a runaway.
If Ed Burkhardt knew that an oil tankcar train was left unmanned, what would his reaction be? If no tragedy had occured?
Is it normal on YOUR railroad for an oil tankcar train to be left unmanned under any circumstance?
Recall that two different plots against Canadian railroads have been foiled by Canadian police in the recent several months.
After the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.?
If they had done so, the moment the train began to move, an alarm would have been sounded.
BTW, in French Canadian medias, it has been said that the FD was trained, years ago about the procedure when putting ou fire from a locomotive by MMA personnel.
TSB has release a revised timeline of the events late this morning. I think it will help to clear some misunderstandings. At this point, rantling about the causes from a computer, miles away from the incident, isn't the most accurate thing to do. I guess most of us just try to figure out what happens and that stays hypothetic at best.
As for my comment on Burkhardt, I only discovered the guy because of the wreck. I talked about his actual public image forged by media, not the real man which is probably something else. But even if just an image, it unfortunately what counts in the end for many people, politicians and others.
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
Murphy Siding If the fire department shows up at the railroad tracks to put out a fire on a locomotive, who would have the knowledge, and/or authority to shut off the locomotive? You'd sure as heck think that the fire department would contact somebody at the railroad, if they were putting out a fire on a locomotive on that railroad's tracks.
If the fire department shows up at the railroad tracks to put out a fire on a locomotive, who would have the knowledge, and/or authority to shut off the locomotive? You'd sure as heck think that the fire department would contact somebody at the railroad, if they were putting out a fire on a locomotive on that railroad's tracks.
The forty or so local firefighters I gave a presentation to a couple of months ago now know there is an emergency fuel shutoff on locomotives. Those local firefighters may have been provided similar information.
It's usually pretty plainly marked anyhow.
Per all reports, the firefighters did contact the railroad. What happened next is still up in the air.
If the cab of the controlling locomotive was locked, then it's unlikely the firefighters did something with the air brakes accidentally or intentionally.
If the automatic brake handle was still in place (some folks remove it under such circumstances) and the firefighters did enter the cab of the controlling locomotive, it's not unreasonable to think that someone could have released the train brakes, and possibly even the independent, both accidentally. I've bumped the automatic myself, getting into or out of the seat. I know enough to put things back where they should be. The firefighters may not have been aware of what they did, if they indeed did it.
We can continue to speculate based on what information is coming out, but in the end, only the investigators will be giving us the straight up answer.
The big issue about Burkhart is that he kept silent for days then started to shout comment that, once reported, sounded harsh. Is accusative mood was the last thing people wanted to hear and will be his downfall. TSB seems to be ready to inquiry every bits of this incident because of public attention it gathered worldwide and the number of victims.
In fact, the only thing medias and victims wanted to hear from him was some empathy toward the victim, said he was sorry that his company was in the middle of such disaster, that it was too early to try to find a culprit and that MMA would do everything in it's power to help enquiry and take action so such event would never occur in the future. That alone would have been enough to appease people and feel he wasan experimented railroader able to take his responsabilities. There was no need to go in details at this point, just to acknowledge the event and take immediate action or stance. He could have said all that without having to accept legal responsability at this point.
Instead of that, he turned, in the eyes of many people and media as this caricatural business magnate smoking cigar in his penthouse office in Chicago. Is this the reality, probably not, but now, he is depicted as this which is bad for him, bad for his company(ies) and bad for the railway business in general.
He said he "blew it out". He talked about the derailment, but this statement fits perfectly was he did while talking with the media. His airbrake theory, as pointed out by people in this thread, doesn't make sense at all.
All that useless talk mined is credibility and will, subsequently be taken in account against him.
The poor guy just made himself a future case study about what you should do when your business is walking a tigh rope.
I don't know what will happen when he will get in Megantic tomorrow as scheduled, but I would rather not be in his pants.
Oh! And never use Google Translate to do public relations, even a grade schooler knows that... Bad idea, really bad idea!
As for the incident itself, the more I hear, the more I think the cause is related to handbrake... Everything else sounds too complicated or exotic a theory. TSB seems to point their investigation towars this too. Mr. Belkaloul, in his first press conference a few days ago made clear they would check handbrakes as soon as they would get access to wrecked cars. No conclusion on my part, I'm no railroader and won't venture on a subject I only know from an historic and cosmetic standpoint.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna Part of the question is whether people from MM&A's engineering department showed up to help or not. I have heard conflicting stories as to this point. If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours. Even if they didn't turn off the locomotive (it currently sounds like the firefighters did that), they still would have been informed by the firefighters, and should have known that they would at least need to check the handbrakes now that the train brakes were effectively released. The engineering division of a railroad is supposed to be trained in operations of a railroad so that they can take over in case of a strike. If people from the engineering department showed up to help, I can see a thorough investigation of MM&A's training programs coming. If no one from MM&A showed up to help with the fire, then MM&A is guilty of negligence. Firefighters may have training to deal with train fires, but someone from the railroad should be there to make sure that everything is properly taken care of, including securing the train if the firefighters changed anything. In addition, Mr. Burkhardt should not have given out information before he had the accurate information to give out. Also, by saying that the train's handbrakes would have not been enough to stop the train from rolling, Mr Burkhardt showed that he does not know as much about how railroads operate as he should. Perhaps he meant that the handbrakes that were applied were not enough to keep the train from rolling. Either way, Mr. Burkhardt should have checked his facts and had a prepared statement that was as accurate as possible. S&S
Part of the question is whether people from MM&A's engineering department showed up to help or not. I have heard conflicting stories as to this point.
If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours. Even if they didn't turn off the locomotive (it currently sounds like the firefighters did that), they still would have been informed by the firefighters, and should have known that they would at least need to check the handbrakes now that the train brakes were effectively released. The engineering division of a railroad is supposed to be trained in operations of a railroad so that they can take over in case of a strike. If people from the engineering department showed up to help, I can see a thorough investigation of MM&A's training programs coming.
If no one from MM&A showed up to help with the fire, then MM&A is guilty of negligence. Firefighters may have training to deal with train fires, but someone from the railroad should be there to make sure that everything is properly taken care of, including securing the train if the firefighters changed anything.
In addition, Mr. Burkhardt should not have given out information before he had the accurate information to give out. Also, by saying that the train's handbrakes would have not been enough to stop the train from rolling, Mr Burkhardt showed that he does not know as much about how railroads operate as he should. Perhaps he meant that the handbrakes that were applied were not enough to keep the train from rolling. Either way, Mr. Burkhardt should have checked his facts and had a prepared statement that was as accurate as possible.
S&S
To Poster S&S:
A couple of things that are bugging me personally, first. You arre making some pretty broad based accusations (IMHO). You seem to have no expertise in theings related to real world railroading (?). Particularly where trainline functions and operations of Air Brak Appliances on railroad cars, and on locomotives.
Next ,you make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves. I do not know Ed Burkhardt, but have read about him and his various undertakings in the Railroading Area. I know in 1999 he was "Railroader of the Year'. That is an industry award and is not given out lightly by AAR. I know he has been involved in any number of Railroad endeavors in the U.S. A and Internationally, and currently he is with the MM&A. and in Feb. of 2007 he was subject of a story spread in TRAINS magazine.
@ http://www.mmarail.com/sections/news/files/railworld_trains_0702.pdf
So his history and deeds are a matter of record.
I have no idea of what happened in Lac Megantic, P.Q. except of the recounting of the death and destruction as reported by the media. Bearing in mind, a media that has historicall ( and histerically) been more often than not the fountain of mis information, particularly, where things railroading have been concerned. So of which gets pointed out around these FORUMS on a fairly, regular basis.
In fact, here is a link to a CNN Story on the wreck that is dated this date; 07/09/2013
@ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
If they did, then they should have known that turning off the locomotive would have resulted in the brakes releasing after a couple hours.
There are a lot of truths still to come out of this and far too much uneducated misinformation being bandied about.
.
Falcon48 Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away. Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes.
Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away.
Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes.
Good point. Reporters are not known for getting the facts straight, especially when it comes to trains. It's also true that at a press conference, it is the job of the person giving he conference to make sure that the reporters do get the facts straight. It's one thing when the reporters are getting the facts on their own, it's another entirely when the facts are being handed to them. Of course there always could be incompetence on the reporter's part, and the person giving the press conference can't do anything about that.
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Let me give you an example of what I mean (which I stress is pure speculation on my part). The reporter (who possibly knows that trains have air brakes, or is told they do by Mr. B) asks Mr. B why the brakes didn't prevent the train from rolling away. Mr. B explains why the air brakes shouldn't be used for this, and that's the context in which he makes the statement that the train will roll away once the air brakes have bled off. He then goes on to explain hand brakes. The reporter (not out of malice, but out of ignorance) understands this conversation to mean that Mr. B believes the cause of the accident was that the air brakes bled off, and that's the story he publishes.
Again, this is all my own speculation. But I've seen this kind of thing happen time and time again when the general media publishes stuff about railroads.
Not only does Mr. Burkhardt’s comment on the performance of hand brakes demonstrate incorrect knowledge, but it also gives insight into the possible explanation of why the hand brakes did not hold the train in this case.
Everybody knows that air brakes are all that is needed to hold or control a train.
If you believe that hand brakes are merely to add a little more power to air brakes, (as Mr. Burkhardt’s statement indicates) then it follows that you believe that hand brakes are mostly a symbolic gesture because air brakes don’t need any help.
Setting hand brakes properly is a fair amount of work. If you believe that they are only a symbolic gesture, it would be easy to rationalize applying only a half-hearted effort and diligence to the application of hand brakes.
Mr. Burkhardt, president of the MM&A Ry., has been quoted as saying that if the air brakes released, the hand brakes would not have been capable of holding the train.
It is astounding that a man with his background would make such a statement.
The premise of applying hand brakes is that they alone are to be set to hold the equipment 100% independently of the air brakes. This requirement is necessary because the hand brakes are a backup in case of complete release of the air brakes, which can happen for a variety of reasons.
Hand brakes are not intended to merely add braking power to the air brakes. They are a backup and completely redundant to the air brakes.
BigJim What say you on this?The LION needs to quit referring to itself in the third person.
What say you on this?
Eh? Why should the LION ever want to do that? You are just going to have to get in step with LIONSPEAK.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion LION thinks that they can be far superior to knuckles but how would him know. I'll ask some of my NYCT pals what they think. Surely the older H2C (?) type couplers would not cut it but the newer ones look like they would be every bit as strong as a drawbar, which is what they are in essence.
LION got the info from Dutchrailnut, a locomotive engineer on Metro-North Railroad.
He replies:transit coupler is a big range, but if your talking AAR approved automatic couplers like the N2a type or what is used on M7-M8 yes they are just as strong and no slack.
greyhounds I agree on the "Fog". Nobody really knows why this happened. But we do know the result. It's God Awful. Many people burned, some of them burned to death while alive. If I had to guess, I'd guess Burkhardt is rattled and grasping at straws. He's facing a very dark end. I don't see the railroad company surviving this. He's advanced in age and this is his last railroad. He's a railroader and the railroad is HIS railroad. He created it out of financial wreckage. It's probably going to be lost to him. He'll be remember for this above all other things he's done. Hard to face. But that can't change the fact that a train operated by his creation burned up a lot of folks. That would rattle anyone.
I agree on the "Fog". Nobody really knows why this happened. But we do know the result. It's God Awful. Many people burned, some of them burned to death while alive.
If I had to guess, I'd guess Burkhardt is rattled and grasping at straws. He's facing a very dark end. I don't see the railroad company surviving this. He's advanced in age and this is his last railroad. He's a railroader and the railroad is HIS railroad. He created it out of financial wreckage. It's probably going to be lost to him. He'll be remember for this above all other things he's done. Hard to face.
But that can't change the fact that a train operated by his creation burned up a lot of folks. That would rattle anyone.
This. one could not develop a Greco-Roman tragedy on this scale alone though.
The death toll now is at 14...still many missing...
There was one local bar that was full of people apparently at that hour....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
daveklepper Pure speculaton but possibly the truth: The fireman released the locomotive handbrake when he shut down the locomotive, thinking it was part of the shutdown. And a few cars' handbrakes next to the locomotive would not be enough to stop the train from rolling after the air bled off, without the loco's handbrake. The Police and/or Fire Department should have insured the trainmen got to the scene as soon as possible, and the locomotive shutdown should have been done by the trainmen or under their direction. After the fire was out, the trainmen would then insure the train was secured. Or even while it was being extinguished. I still want to know: What is the practice on using handbrakes to secure unattended cuts and trains on YOUR railroad?
Pure speculaton but possibly the truth:
The fireman released the locomotive handbrake when he shut down the locomotive, thinking it was part of the shutdown. And a few cars' handbrakes next to the locomotive would not be enough to stop the train from rolling after the air bled off, without the loco's handbrake.
The Police and/or Fire Department should have insured the trainmen got to the scene as soon as possible, and the locomotive shutdown should have been done by the trainmen or under their direction.
After the fire was out, the trainmen would then insure the train was secured. Or even while it was being extinguished.
I still want to know: What is the practice on using handbrakes to secure unattended cuts and trains on YOUR railroad?
Dan
Also, the signage on the handbrake controls may have been purely English, and the Quebec Fireman knows only French.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.