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?
Here's a link to a Reuters story from last night (July 8). It largely repeats what's already been said but is more "local" (bylines of Chicago and Lac Megantic) than Brisbane.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-train-narrative-insight-idUSBRE96801Q20130709
From the article:
Nantes Fire Chief Patrick Lambert said the fire department got a call about a blaze on one of the locomotives at 11:30 p.m. He said the fire was likely caused by a broken fuel or oil line. Firefighters reached the scene within seven minutes. "It was a good sized fire, but it was contained in the motor of the train," Lambert told Reuters. "By 12:12, the fire was completely out." But as they extinguished the fire, the 12 volunteer firemen also switched off the locomotive, in line with their own protocols, to prevent fuel from circulating into the flames. One of the many unknowns in the story is precisely what happened next. Lambert said the fire department contacted the railway's regional office in Farnham, Quebec, and spoke to the dispatcher. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said. "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them." It was not known what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. Burkhardt said he was not sure if the dispatcher was told that the engine had been shut down, or what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. The company is still investigating the incident, as are Canadian authorities.
Firefighters reached the scene within seven minutes.
"It was a good sized fire, but it was contained in the motor of the train," Lambert told Reuters. "By 12:12, the fire was completely out."
But as they extinguished the fire, the 12 volunteer firemen also switched off the locomotive, in line with their own protocols, to prevent fuel from circulating into the flames.
One of the many unknowns in the story is precisely what happened next.
Lambert said the fire department contacted the railway's regional office in Farnham, Quebec, and spoke to the dispatcher. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said. "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them."
It was not known what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. Burkhardt said he was not sure if the dispatcher was told that the engine had been shut down, or what the dispatcher did after receiving the call. The company is still investigating the incident, as are Canadian authorities.
Reading what the Fire Chief says...if the dispatcher was told what was done and how, what did he/she do? Some of that may depend on what they heard or the FD folks say or if something was misunderstood.
Burkhardt blames the FD, the FD says the Dispatcher knew.
More from the article:
Shortly after the firefighters left the Nantes siding, an eyewitness reports seeing the train - some four-fifths of a mile long - start rolling down the gentle hill. "About five minutes after the firemen left, I felt the vibration of a train moving down the track. I then saw the train move by without its lights on," said Andre Gendron, 38, whose trailer and off-the-grid wooden cabin are the only buildings anywhere near the rail siding. "I found it strange its lights weren't on and thought it was an electrical problem on board. It wasn't long after that I heard the explosion. I could see the light from the fires in Lac-Megantic." Burkhardt said the train picked up speed quickly and was likely going "far, far faster" than the speed limit of 10 miles per hour (16 km per hour) as it reached a curve in the track in the very center of Lac-Megantic at around 1:15 a.m. on Saturday and jumped the tracks. He said the locomotives separated from the buffer car - a heavy railcar loaded with stones or rocks or sand - and the tanker cars, which were laden with a free-flowing type of Bakken oil from North Dakota.
"About five minutes after the firemen left, I felt the vibration of a train moving down the track. I then saw the train move by without its lights on," said Andre Gendron, 38, whose trailer and off-the-grid wooden cabin are the only buildings anywhere near the rail siding.
"I found it strange its lights weren't on and thought it was an electrical problem on board. It wasn't long after that I heard the explosion. I could see the light from the fires in Lac-Megantic."
Burkhardt said the train picked up speed quickly and was likely going "far, far faster" than the speed limit of 10 miles per hour (16 km per hour) as it reached a curve in the track in the very center of Lac-Megantic at around 1:15 a.m. on Saturday and jumped the tracks.
He said the locomotives separated from the buffer car - a heavy railcar loaded with stones or rocks or sand - and the tanker cars, which were laden with a free-flowing type of Bakken oil from North Dakota.
So we have a rough, partial timeline now and know the speedlimit of the track: 10 MPH.
Timeline:11:25 PM Train tied down according to engineer11:30 PM Locomotive fire reported in Nantes11:37 PM FD on scene of locomotive fire12:12 AM Fire out12:?? AM FD left. Larry - any insight on time to pack up gear and roll out? 12:?? + ~5 minutes Train starts to roll1:15 AM Derailment and fire in Lac Megantic
In reading a document on Maine's rail condition (http://www.maineasce.org/MaineRC/MaineRailroads12062012.pdf) "most" of the state's tracks could only handle a 263k lb car and not a 286k lb car. I'm presuming that weight as I wouldn't think MMA would accept a car heavier than they could run in Maine, per that report. 10 MPH max speed could be a "Class 1" track...so knowing these things and that Nantes is roughly 7 miles outside of Lac Megantic how fast was this thing going to accordion like that? I can't find reference to the grade. Yet.
EDIT:Found a Canadian article: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/devastated-lac-megantic-begins-a-work-week-with-its-core-shattered-214570691.html
Nantes is at 1,685' above sea level and Lac Megantic is at 1,361' above sea level. That works out to an average downhill grade of .87 from ((324/36960) x100).
Dan
tree68 BigJim the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe. Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point? When I get to our trains in the morning, all of the air has bled off at some point overnight and the brakes are released. If not for the handbrakes on a couple of the cars and the locomotive, and a wheel chock or two, we'd find the train down the hill. And apparently that has happened at some point in the distant past.
BigJim the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe. Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point?
the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe.
Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point?
When I get to our trains in the morning, all of the air has bled off at some point overnight and the brakes are released. If not for the handbrakes on a couple of the cars and the locomotive, and a wheel chock or two, we'd find the train down the hill. And apparently that has happened at some point in the distant past.
.
Again, if memory is correct, during the period in 1952-1953 when I regularly rode a B&M freight in GP-7's 1567 and 1568, the rule was one in five handbrakes aplied on the level and handbrakes on all cars on a steep grade. The one-in-five rule could be applied to adjacent cars and did not need to be distributed along the length of the train. If the loco was coupled, its handbrake also had to be applied.
Current railroaders please comment.
I would like to point out that some of you are discussing information from an article by the Brisbane Times. Brisbane is located in Australia, on the opposite side of the world. (The other side of the Pacific Ocean in the southern hemisphere!) Most of you have probably seen examples in the past of how our own media botch reporting of railroad events. The Australians will not have any direct information, and are probably only putting their own misinterpretation on already questionable reports.
The MM&A is not a busy main line with lots of officials and crews. As I understand it, the regular through trains are tri-weekly, so the crude oil trains are a significant addition to their business. The length of the system means it is more like a regional than a short line, but the infrequent trains mean minimal staff has to be the rule. The business is just not there to have officials on duty 24 hours a day at every major town, as some of you seem to have expected.
As to the root causes of this catastrophe I have no idea, nor does anyone else at this time, including the rail experts now investigating the scene. Note that I used the plural "causes". Almost invariably when something major goes wrong it turns out that it was caused by a series of factors. Eliminate even one of them, and nothing would have happened. Canada's Transportation Safety Board will be doing a thorough investigation. Their final report will probably be a year or so away, but will be well worth reading, and provide us with complete and exact details.
At present we just have news media reports, which are generally lacking critical information because the reporters have no understanding of railroads, do not know what questions to ask, and often make wild interpretations. The sources the reporters are using are generally local townsfolk and officials, who have just as little knowledge about railroads. And, although I hate to say it, while the average railfan knows a lot more than the general public, their knowledge is woefully lacking when it comes to the nitty-gritty details of operations.
John
Falcon48However, based on prior experiences I've had, I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the media to get a story like this straight, and I rather suspect that the actual cause of this accident will prove to be somewhat different than what the media has been reporting. We shall see.
Well, I don’t know if the media has the story screwed up. They are quoting Burkhardt in the article I linked on the previous page. It is here: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/firefighters-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes-20130709-2pn1q.html
If he did not mean to say what they are saying that he said, he had better get it corrected fast. But as it stands in the article, he is on record for the following statements:
1) He dismisses the responsibility to set hand brakes to the extent that they could hold the train from rolling away.
2) He blames the fire department for shutting down the burning locomotive.
3) He blames the fire department for not notifying the MM&A Ry. when they did actually notify the railroad company.
Quotes from the link:
Air brakes that would have prevented the disaster failed because they were powered by an engine that was shut down by firefighters as they dealt with a fire shortly before the calamity occurred, the head of the railway [Mr. Brukhardt] that operated the train said.
The problem was that the engine had been left on by the train's engineer to maintain pressure in the air brakes, Ed Burkhardt, chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA), said in an interview. As the pressure gradually "leaked off", the air brakes failed and the train began to slide downhill, he said.
Burkhardt said that after the pressure leaked out of the airbrakes, the handbrakes would not have been strong enough to keep the train in place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that there is a fog of war about this event. And I think Mr. Brukhardt is indeed rattled about the disaster. He probably should not say anything until they get their information collected and sorted out. But he is probably under a lot of pressure from the public to explain what happened, so he speaks out before he should.
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 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.
Bucyrus This is thoroughly amazing! The president of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railroad says that the train ran away because the fire department shut down the one engine that was running; and that the engine needed to be running in order to prevent the train from losing braking and running away. So, according to the president of the railroad, it was essential for one engine to be running because if it stopped running, the train would run away on the grade. Engines can automatically shut down for a variety of reasons, so it would be the height of irresponsibility to base the prevention of an inevitable catastrophe solely on the expectation that a running engine will keep running.
This is thoroughly amazing!
The president of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railroad says that the train ran away because the fire department shut down the one engine that was running; and that the engine needed to be running in order to prevent the train from losing braking and running away.
So, according to the president of the railroad, it was essential for one engine to be running because if it stopped running, the train would run away on the grade.
Engines can automatically shut down for a variety of reasons, so it would be the height of irresponsibility to base the prevention of an inevitable catastrophe solely on the expectation that a running engine will keep running.
Like some of the other posters, I too am surprised at the explanation that the cause of the runaway was that the loco was no longer running or supplying air to the train. That implies that the railroad was relying on the air brakes to secure an unattended train. I don't know what the rules are in Canada, but that's a huge no-no on a U.S. railroad (and I doubt that MMA would have different train securement procedures in Canada than in the U.S.). I'm also surprised that Mr. Burkhardt (a very experienced railroader) would say what's being attributed to him. However, based on prior experiences I've had, I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the media to get a story like this straight, and I rather suspect that the actual cause of this accident will prove to be somewhat different than what the media has been reporting. We shall see.
edblysard There is a difference between unattended and unsecured. Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew. Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars. The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules. From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew? This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
There is a difference between unattended and unsecured.
Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew.
Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars.
The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules.
From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew?
This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
I think there will be some significant TSB/FRA questions about single crews on these and any other trains, given the variety of freight carried and its potentially hazardous qualities. Class 1-2-3 RR's and others will need to take note.Pandora's Box is now wide open. Operating practices for all are now under close scrutiny I'm quite sure.
Hope Randy is OK.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
What say you on this?
The owners of the company should at least talk to the public. They have not done that and they continue to blame the firefighters.
LIRR also requires wheel chocks on certain tieups. What say you on this?
Train needed more handbrakes tied up.
For a unit train like this, LION still proposes transit type couplers that can communicate via telemetry with the engine on the conditions of the cars. New NYCT cars have automatic application of the hand brakes. I do not know exactly how this works or why it works, but of course a transit trainset does have power to all of the cars. Well so would this if they had transit type couplers. And those are a lot tighter and stronger than some of you have acknowledged. 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.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I think the MM&A is making a gigantic mistake in trying to blame the wreck on the fire department. That is going to come back to bite them bigtime very soon.
The fire department did notify the railroad about what they did when responding to the fire on the locomotive.
From the article I linked above:
The fire service said it contacted a local MMA dispatcher in Farnham, Quebec, after the blaze was out. "We told them what we did and how we did it," Lambert said.
Asked whether there had been any discussion about the brakes, he replied: "There was no discussion of the brakes at that time. We were there for the train fire. As for the inspection of the train after the fact, that was up to them."
hellwarrior The least that this company should do is to send a few of their bosses to see what they have done. It's a lack of respect from this company.
The least that this company should do is to send a few of their bosses to see what they have done. It's a lack of respect from this company.
They have stated that they have a dozen people on site. What more do you want?
An "expensive model collector"
Well, as a resident of the province of Quebec, I am shocked and disgusted by the way the owners of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic company are acting. The prime minister of Canada and the prime minister of Quebec have stop their activities to go and see what was going in Lac Megantic.
What have done the owners of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic? Nothing! Except maybe sending a french communique very badly translated by Google Traduction probably.
Here is the very badly written communique:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/152339327/MMA-7-7-2013-Press-Release-French-pdf
Locomotives built in 1979 that were purchased by the ATSF and are on MMA's roster:
EMD SD40-2
GE B23-7
All MMA's SD40-2s are ex CN, but they have several ex ATSF B23-7s. So my guess is this locomotive is a B23-7 numbered between 2001 and 2006.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=MMA&mid=14
blue streak 1We really need to know what the lead unit and other units were ?
Although the reporter doesn't know the differnce between a train and a locomotive here is the info you were looking for. I can't comment beyond that.
The train in question was built by General Electric in 1979 for Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway company based out of Chicago. It was then sold to MMA Railway in July 2007.
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
edblysard Jeff pretty much summed it up. Here, we tie hand brakes, and then release the train brake and locomotive brake…if everything sits still, all is good and we tie down the locomotives, as he pointed out, if it moves, even a little bit, more hand brakes till it sits still. If, and as he pointed out, a big if, the locomotives were cut away and the air on the cars bottled, that might make sense, although who cut the locomotives away and moved them? I don’t know of any fire department that carries reversers, (except Larry’s) so either someone from the railroad helped move the locomotives, or…. Either way, there should have been sufficient hand brakes to hold the cars, with or without the locomotives attached. And once the original fire had been reported, I find it odd the railroad didn’t send a crew out right then and there, if for no other reason than to babysit the train and assist the FD.
Jeff pretty much summed it up.
Here, we tie hand brakes, and then release the train brake and locomotive brake…if everything sits still, all is good and we tie down the locomotives, as he pointed out, if it moves, even a little bit, more hand brakes till it sits still.
If, and as he pointed out, a big if, the locomotives were cut away and the air on the cars bottled, that might make sense, although who cut the locomotives away and moved them?
I don’t know of any fire department that carries reversers, (except Larry’s) so either someone from the railroad helped move the locomotives, or….
Either way, there should have been sufficient hand brakes to hold the cars, with or without the locomotives attached.
And once the original fire had been reported, I find it odd the railroad didn’t send a crew out right then and there, if for no other reason than to babysit the train and assist the FD.
On the NBC evening news, there was a video segment purporting to show the engines and a cut of tank cars that were coupled to them - as the shot panned the talking head that was standing next to the 'rear' tank car - the anglecock was CLOSED.
Now - had the engines and cut of cars been pulled back from the incident, or was the engine and cut of cars still where they were located after the incident happened?
A earlier post stated that the FD didn't believe they had any obligation to notify the railroad of the fire or their handling of it. (which I find very, very odd considering all the local authorities that report most everything real and sometime imaginary about railroad property).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 overallI'm curious about the locomotive fire the Bucyrus talks about above. Will someone who is knowledgable about locomotives comment on what may of caused it? Why would a standing and idling locomotive suddenly catch on fire? I have been observing trains and railroads ever since I remember ( I'm 56 years old) and I do not remember ever hearing of such a thing. Older locomotives are prone to leak in various and sundry locations - some lubricating oil, sometimes some Diesel. It's not inconceivable that such leakage (often being captured by "diapers") might end up with an ignition source. There's electricity all over most locomotives as well - a malfunction in the wiring, together with standing leaked fluids, might provide all the factors needed. Carbon/oil build-up in the exhaust system might ignite as well, much the same as a chimney fire in the piping of a woodstove. "...I think it was the Pennsy that turned out a movie for crews on what to do if their locomotive caught fire. IIRC, it's on YouTube..." Edit - Just ran across a news report stating that there were five locomotives, and that the crew said they tied all of them down, and a sufficient number of cars.
overallI'm curious about the locomotive fire the Bucyrus talks about above. Will someone who is knowledgable about locomotives comment on what may of caused it? Why would a standing and idling locomotive suddenly catch on fire? I have been observing trains and railroads ever since I remember ( I'm 56 years old) and I do not remember ever hearing of such a thing.
Older locomotives are prone to leak in various and sundry locations - some lubricating oil, sometimes some Diesel. It's not inconceivable that such leakage (often being captured by "diapers") might end up with an ignition source. There's electricity all over most locomotives as well - a malfunction in the wiring, together with standing leaked fluids, might provide all the factors needed.
Carbon/oil build-up in the exhaust system might ignite as well, much the same as a chimney fire in the piping of a woodstove.
"...I think it was the Pennsy that turned out a movie for crews on what to do if their locomotive caught fire. IIRC, it's on YouTube..."
Edit - Just ran across a news report stating that there were five locomotives, and that the crew said they tied all of them down, and a sufficient number of cars.
Larry (tree68):
For those who might wonder. There were TWO videos by Pennsy (#1 & #2) in the title "What in Blazes" series.
#1- @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuIE_3i33Y4
#2 - @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVOBJ_Uak2k
They might be informative watching for those who do not work on Railroad Diesels every day..
It seems to me that Burkhardt is really sticking his neck out by making the following statement:
“Burkhardt said that after the pressure leaked out of the airbrakes, the handbrakes would not have been strong enough to keep the train in place.”
Isn't the point of hand brakes to be able to hold the train if the air brakes fail to hold it?
If he is misinformed, he certainly should not be making statements. If he is blowing smoke, the truth will quickly catch up with him. Experts will be carving up and analysing all the details in a way that they will not be misled.
I ain't buying it!
“Firefighters cut power to runaway train's brakes”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/firefighters-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes-20130709-2pn1q.html
blue streak 1Jeff: what if the brake control was not a 26L ? We really need to know what the lead unit and other units were ?
Jeff: what if the brake control was not a 26L ? We really need to know what the lead unit and other units were ?
23 17 46 11
If that is the case that City better open the Wallet really wide as the Lawyers are going to love them for Years on this one in Court.
tree68 I think it was the Pennsy that turned out a movie for crews on what to do if their locomotive caught fire. IIRC, it's on YouTube.
I think it was the Pennsy that turned out a movie for crews on what to do if their locomotive caught fire. IIRC, it's on YouTube.
The movie is "What in Blazes".
Now back to topic.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.