If the train was properly secured, and all the FD or anyone else did was to shut down a locomotive, it shouldn't have moved. That's what hand brakes are for. I don't know what their rules are, but ours require a train, or cut of cars, that is going to be left unattended to tie all hand brakes on the lead engine consist (all engines up front, not just leading engine) and a on sufficient number of cars. Once the hand brakes are tied, both the automatic and independent brakes are released to see if the train/cut moves. If it does, you don't have enough brakes on the cars and you repeat the process until you do. Once sufficiently tied down, you again set up the automatic and independent brakes.
Assuming they did all that, the only thing that makes sense is what a previous poster said about cutting the engines away from the train and bottling the air in the train line. Just about anything else, short of something of a deliberate and malicious nature, and the train shouldn't move.
Engines shut down? So what. As long as they are attached and the brake valve in the application zone, the train line should just bleed down. Yes, cars will eventually have their brake cylinders bleed off. But I've seen cars in storage sit for a few weeks and most still had air in their brake cylinder. It would probably take a lot longer for them to bleed off. Even then, remember we have hand brakes tied on to prevent movement, just in case.
Maybe someone with the FD entered the lead (or the one with the air brake handle cut in) and inadvertently moved the automatic to release, causing all the air brakes on the cars to release. Again, there are handbrakes tied on to prevent movement. It shouldn't matter if properly secured.
Now if the engines were cut away and someone closed the anglecocks on both engine and car, bottling the air, I could see if the train brakes releasing because of one or two cylinders leaking. Should they not tie more handbrakes on cars to compensate for any detached engines, it could very well move.
If it turns out the locomotives weren't detached, I'd begin to suspect that the train wasn't properly secured. Or that it was deliberately set loose.
Jeff
ndbprrArticle in the Chicago Trib. Say's the train was parked due to a fire in the second unit. Local fire department put out the fire and turnwd the engines off not notifying the railroad. When the air bled off off went the train. Local FD said it wasn't their resposibility to notify the RR what they did.
If the local FD made or believes that final statement - they are 100% the cause, while insufficient hand brakes on the train is a contirbuting factor, not to notify the owner of a piece of transportation equipment that is involved in a fire is nigh on to criminal.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BroadwayLionThey were to come back and complete the run after their rest.
As mentioned near the beginning of this thread, Nantes, QC is the point where US crews take over for the first half of the crossing of the northern part of the Sate of Maine. For whatever reason, they were not available to take over the train right away. There will be one more US crew before the train enters New Brunswick.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
The stringlining theory makes no sense to me.
Given how the train travelled, it's safe to assume that the engines were on the downhill end of the train when it was parked. If it were my train, I'd be tying down the cars on the downhill end of the train so the rest of the train would come up on them.
Setting the brakes on the uphill end would not only leave the rest of the train hanging off those cars, but would involve a 90+ car walk on uneven ground/ballast in the dark to reach the last cars.
Engineer left the train "before" midnight, FD responded at 11:30-ish, train ran away between 1:00 and 1:30. If the FD was on scene for a half hour, that still leaves between an hour and and hour and a half for things to transpire.
I'll stick by my theory that the train was pushed down the hill. If the wheels with brakes applied slid, it would help explain the "sudden stop at the bottom" when one or more wheels hit the switches, or something along those lines. Either that, or the heat from the friction of the set brakes (or sliding wheels) caused a catastrophic failure of a wheelset. That might also have provided the necessary ignition source.
Another thought - when we shut down our RS18u's, it dumps the air (emergency application). That leaves a brake pipe pressure of zero. Without knowing what the locomotives were, I can't say that happened in this case, but it might be a consideration if the FD did shut down the loco as reported.
And - it's been mentioned that the EOT device is visible in photos. If it is a self-powered EOT, and the one locomotive maintaining trainline pressure was shut down, the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe.
So many possibilities...
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...
Apparently the trin crew tied up for the night, and went to a motel for some shut eye.
As far as the LION can tell , there was to be no relief crew. They were to come back and complete the run after their rest.
The fire was seen by a neighbor who called the local fire department to a fire on a parked train. The firemen came, shutdown the engine and put the fire out. The notified the railroad.
Sometime late the brakes bleed off and the train ran away.
End of chapter 1.
ROAR
BaltACDhow long after the FD completed their job did the train run-a-way and were railroad personnel on scene when the FD left the locomotive?
Death toll has now risen to 13. The same story mentions that the Nantes, QC fire department responded to the locomotive fire at about 11:30 PM EDT. It does not say how long they were there. As mentioned earlier, the derailment happened between 1:00 and 1:30 AM.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lac-megantic-death-toll-rises-to-13-dozens-still-missing-1.1357612
This is such an interesting study in snippets of information and speculation. How the train was "tied down" was a hot topic (bad pun, I am sorry). Then, it turned out the locomotives had some sort of fire earlier in the evening. The news claimed that someone from the railroad's "engineering" department came to the locomotive fire. What to build a new bridge? There is even some doubt that anyone from the railroad visited the locomotive fire. The fire fighters would have noticed the big red button on the side of each locomotive for emergency fuel cut off. Pushing that button trips the fuel rack across the top of the diesel and/or cuts off the fuel supply so that eventually the diesel stops. Once stopped the locomotive's air system would have bled off and released the "independent" brakes. That takes some time since the independent brakes apply a pressure of about 50 to 60 psig to the cylinders and the air reservoirs have about 140 psig.
So during the initial fire fighting (we should call this fire #1), the locomotive air bled off slowly. When the fire department left, all was well. A couple hours later the air bled off the locomotive and their brakes released. This let the train head downhill to fire #2. Had the train really been "tied down", a number of hand brakes (usually a minimum of 10%) would have been set (including the locomotives') and releasing the independent brakes on the locomotive would not have resulted in a run-away.
BaltACD 2nd Question, how long after the FD completed their job did the train run-a-way and were railroad personnel on scene when the FD left the locomotive?
2nd Question, how long after the FD completed their job did the train run-a-way and were railroad personnel on scene when the FD left the locomotive?
I have read that the engineer left the train shortly before midnight, and the derailment happened at 1:00 AM. Starting to roll for a dead stop and covering the 7 miles must have taken at least 15 minutes. That does not leave much time to have a fire spotted, called the fire department, have them arrive, deal with the fire, and leave the scene.
My question is, if there was a locomotive fire, why was a engineering person dispatched (if it was in fact a MofW employee)? First calls by the railroad should have been to both the Trainmaster & Road Foreman of engines for the territory, second to Locomotive maintenance personnel. (TM & RFE in most instances are closer to points on their territory than locomotive maintenance personnel). The object is to get personel that can protect the company's interest on the scene as quickly as possible.
BucyrusI don't think the dragging brakes could have generated enough resistance to stringline the cars ahead of them.
I haven't seen anything yet as to probable speed. I don't know how much effect the dragging brakes would have had on the final speed at the time of the accident.
Turbocharger failures can also cause fires. Whatever the cause, the results are dramatic: http://www.railpictures.net/photo/442514
NW
blue streak 1 Speculation on the derailment itself. It appears that the engines proceeded the oil cans themselves down the hill. If either the engine was attached or was just pushed down the hill raises the question of why the cars derailed but not the engines. The center of gravity of the locomotives may have been low enough for them to remain on the track. Any observation of tank cars makes one realize that their center of gravity is high probably just a few inches below the center of the tank when it is full. That may have enabled the locos to go thru the curve but not the tank cars. Anyone able to do the calculations ??
Speculation on the derailment itself. It appears that the engines proceeded the oil cans themselves down the hill. If either the engine was attached or was just pushed down the hill raises the question of why the cars derailed but not the engines. The center of gravity of the locomotives may have been low enough for them to remain on the track. Any observation of tank cars makes one realize that their center of gravity is high probably just a few inches below the center of the tank when it is full. That may have enabled the locos to go thru the curve but not the tank cars. Anyone able to do the calculations ??
I think that theory is quite probable. The engines were not going fast enough to upset in the curve, and the tanks were. It must have been one big nightmare when that train came storming through town.
I understand the stringlining theory, but at that high speed, I don't think the dragging brakes could have generated enough resistence to stringline the cars ahead of them.
AgentKidI wonder if this would have occurred anyway had to train proceeded through Lac Megantic under power.
It occurred to me after I wrote that, runaway trains don't respect speed limits and had the train been under full control it would have gone through town without incident. I also like the stringlining theory.
This is in from Reuters...
Apparently the train was parked by the crew who vacated it for the night.
Apparently a fire started in the engine room and the Nantes fire department came and put it out. In doing so they shut down the engine which in turn allowed brake pressure to bleed off.
The Nantes fire department contacted the railroad over the affair, there was no mention of brakes, but the FD did tell that they shut down the locomotive. It is likely (According to LION) that the railroad failed to appreciate the issue with the brakes. Maybe more hand brakes should have been set. Maybe they were, and maybe they were not. There is not indication of how far a car inspector would have to travel to get to the location to see what condition their condition was in.
In the interim... bye bye train!
Train was not under control when it entered the town with its curves and switches. There is some sort of industrial complex that is served by rail just east of Lac Megantic, there was also a wye SE of town. It entered at a speed that was not appropriate for that area.
AgentKid rcdryeSo far no one seems to have noticed that Nantes is WEST of Lac Megantic and New Brunswick (the train's destination) is EAST of there How do you get that. The locomotives were found east of Lac Megantic, separated from the train. You can see the Fred flashing on the west end of the string that derailed in town. The derailment occurred midway in the train. I wonder if this would have occurred anyway had to train proceeded through Lac Megantic under power. EDIT: You may be mixing up the locations of the locomotive fire(Nantes) with the location where the engines were found the following morning. Bruce
rcdryeSo far no one seems to have noticed that Nantes is WEST of Lac Megantic and New Brunswick (the train's destination) is EAST of there
How do you get that. The locomotives were found east of Lac Megantic, separated from the train. You can see the Fred flashing on the west end of the string that derailed in town. The derailment occurred midway in the train.
I wonder if this would have occurred anyway had to train proceeded through Lac Megantic under power.
EDIT: You may be mixing up the locations of the locomotive fire(Nantes) with the location where the engines were found the following morning.
Now THAT makes sense, sort of....
So the whole train ran away after the small fire because somebody who thought he knew what he was doing did not know what the situation was.
If some brakes were set and others were not, the whole train would have started rolling. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the front was free wheeling and the rear still had brakes set, that would string-line the train at the curve, the front would keep going and the rear would pile up.
Your turn... Add another piece to the puzzle.
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.
Bucyrus Maybe I should clarify that the fire I was referring to above (and the article refers to) was not the big fire where the tank cars piled up. No, the fire mentioned above happened before the train ran away. So the engineer/conductor parked the train, set the brakes, and checked into a hotel for the night. Next thing you know someone sees that his locomotive is on fire and they call the fire department and they show up along with another employee from the railroad’s engineering department. Whatever they did about the fire on the locomotive, the train rolled away shortly afterward.
Maybe I should clarify that the fire I was referring to above (and the article refers to) was not the big fire where the tank cars piled up. No, the fire mentioned above happened before the train ran away.
So the engineer/conductor parked the train, set the brakes, and checked into a hotel for the night. Next thing you know someone sees that his locomotive is on fire and they call the fire department and they show up along with another employee from the railroad’s engineering department. Whatever they did about the fire on the locomotive, the train rolled away shortly afterward.
I'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.
If only part of the speculation I've been reading about "human error" being a causative factor in this disaster then it matters not whether the derailed cars were full of crude oil, methane, LNG or any other of dozens of hazardous materials which could have caused a similar result. If it turns out to be human error then we should not blame the type of cargo one little bit. As they say..."S _ _ T HAPPENS" and this sort of thing would have happened sooner or later so let's learn from the mistakes made and move on.
blue streak 1 UH OH The law of unintended consequences might have come to light. The folowing media posting says that the train was a run away. According to the following report the MM&A crew had gotten off the train waiting for a relief crew and the train left on its own. Unintended consequence ? Requiring a crew that has gone illegal on haz mat train to leave any train un- attended with the possibility of just this type of incident happening. http://news.yahoo.com/train-carrying-petroleum-derails-catches-fire-canadas-quebec-121417580.html This problem needs probably addressed in very detail. in a separate thread.
UH OH The law of unintended consequences might have come to light. The folowing media posting says that the train was a run away. According to the following report the MM&A crew had gotten off the train waiting for a relief crew and the train left on its own.
Unintended consequence ? Requiring a crew that has gone illegal on haz mat train to leave any train un- attended with the possibility of just this type of incident happening.
http://news.yahoo.com/train-carrying-petroleum-derails-catches-fire-canadas-quebec-121417580.html
This problem needs probably addressed in very detail. in a separate thread.
http://www.utu265.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,print,0&cntnt01articleid=8&cntnt01showtemplate=false&cntnt01returnid=37
rfpjohn I'm guessing that who ever made the cut to separate the engines away closed BOTH angle cocks, the one on the engines (proper) and the angle cock on the cars (a definite no-no!). This creates a condition called "bottling the air". Even if the air is dumped on these cars, once the angle cock is closed, if an air reservoir leaks into the train line, sufficient to raise the pressure 2 pounds, this will initiate a chain reaction, signaling the brake valves on succeeding cars to release air from their reservoirs, causing an undesired release of the brakes on the entire train. If the hand brakes set on the cars is not sufficient to hold with the air brakes released, gravity takes over. This is why you always leave an angle cock, on one end of a cut of cars, open to atmosphere. This ensures that if you have a leaking triple valve (archaic term), the air will simply vent to the big world and not cause an undesired release of brakes. Been there, done that!
I'm guessing that who ever made the cut to separate the engines away closed BOTH angle cocks, the one on the engines (proper) and the angle cock on the cars (a definite no-no!). This creates a condition called "bottling the air".
Even if the air is dumped on these cars, once the angle cock is closed, if an air reservoir leaks into the train line, sufficient to raise the pressure 2 pounds, this will initiate a chain reaction, signaling the brake valves on succeeding cars to release air from their reservoirs, causing an undesired release of the brakes on the entire train.
If the hand brakes set on the cars is not sufficient to hold with the air brakes released, gravity takes over. This is why you always leave an angle cock, on one end of a cut of cars, open to atmosphere. This ensures that if you have a leaking triple valve (archaic term), the air will simply vent to the big world and not cause an undesired release of brakes. Been there, done that!
That is a very interesting and convincing theory about the possibility of someone “bottling the air” on the train, and the effect this may have had by causing the brakes to release on the entire train.
I realize the cause is most likely different from the incident I'm about to mention, but the scenes from Quebec remind me of the Weyauwega derailment from 1996. Propane and LNG cars derailed and burned for 18 days causing 1700 people to be evacuated for about two weeks.
Dan
Just a little speculation here. My guess is that the engines were left attached to the train when the crew tied up for rest. This is to maintain air in the trainline so that a class 1 brake test would not have to be performed on the cars after being off air for more than four hours. This is a common and safe practice as it keeps the brake system charged and avoids a time consuming walking inspection of the entire train prior to the next departure. Hand brakes were likely set on the locomotives and cars, sufficient to hold the train. All is good. Sometime later a fire was observed on one of the units. Naturally, the proper thing to do is to cut the power away from the train, move the engines a safe distance away from the oil cars and extinguish the flames. So far so good. My guess is that the people doing this never thought to check if the brakes on the cars would be sufficient to hold the train after the power was detached. Locomotive hand brakes tend to be pretty good, hand brakes on cars in unit train service, maybe not as good. Even so, I can't see the brakes leaking off a big cut of cars after being dumped (brakes going into emergency after hoses are separated when making the cut) in such a short time. I'm guessing that who ever made the cut to separate the engines away closed BOTH angle cocks, the one on the engines (proper) and the angle cock on the cars (a definite no-no!). This creates a condition called "bottling the air". Even if the air is dumped on these cars, once the angle cock is closed, if an air reservoir leaks into the train line, sufficient to raise the pressure 2 pounds, this will initiate a chain reaction, signaling the brake valves on succeeding cars to release air from their reservoirs, causing an undesired release of the brakes on the entire train. If the hand brakes set on the cars is not sufficient to hold with the air brakes released, gravity takes over. This is why you always leave an angle cock, on one end of a cut of cars, open to atmosphere. This ensures that if you have a leaking triple valve (archaic term), the air will simply vent to the big world and not cause an undesired release of brakes. Been there, done that!
Leaving a locomotive running is only going to maintain main reservoir pressure if the brakes are set - it's still possible for the brakes to bleed off on the cars. It does happen.
On the other hand, loss of main res pressure would mean no independent brakes.
Of course, pretty much everything is speculation at this point, at least on our part.
Someone may have released the brakes on the consist, including the firefighters or the railroad employee. If the independent was still applied, it may well have held the train. If the one running locomotive was shut down, then eventual loss of pressure in the main res might have eliminated the one thing still holding the train - the independent.
Depending on the age of the locomotives, the handbrakes on the locomotive may only set one truck.
That does potentially assume that it may have been (informal) practice to not set any brakes on the consist. Per NORAC, a seventy car train should have a minimum of seven handbrakes set. Given the apparent grade, more would be appropriate. I would opine that an insufficient number of brakes may have been set, which together with the loss of the independent allowed the train to roll.
I would opine that with enough grade and an insufficient number of brakes set (for whatever reason), there may have been enough weight to push even the loaded cars with brakes set down the tracks. The sliding wheels may have contributed to the derailment.
Too, there's setting brakes, and there's setting brakes. Simply turning the brake wheel (or pulling the handle) until one meets resistance may not be enough to hold a car - I've seen that happen in person. Sometimes you need that one more "click."
All of which means the engineer may have done everything "right" before he left the train, but that either he didn't do things "right" enough, or something happened after he left to negate some portion of his effort.
If the train ran away because the air brakes released, as the article theorizes, there must have not been any handbrakes set.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-train-20130706,0,5046014.story
The death toll will probably increase with 40 missing. And the fire department had attended to one of the engines when parked.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A report on CNN from officials in Canada says the locomotives were 1/2 mile further down the track than where the tank cars derailed, so they were apparently still attached.
There's also indication of a fire at the location where the train was tied down and the local fire department responded along with someone from the railroad. There's also hints that the person from the railroad may have shut down the one locomotive that had been left running to retain brake air pressure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.