The names have been changed and all faces blurred in the following post to protect the innocent.
Observed on a Canadian railway forum:
This then means the on duty train crew cannot get home to start their rest cycle and be available sooner for another train start. This will snowball over time.
Almost immediately there was a pro-company poster going on a mini-rant decrying the increase in meddlesome government regulations.
You can't seem to please all of the people all of the time.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The cause was identified as not enough handbrakes being applied. I take issue with this. I do not believe it was the only cause.
1. The desk dispatcher should have had the engineer return to the train imediately upon being notified of the locomotive fire, or had someone competent from the RR get there as quickly as possible, not just a track maintainer. It would be the engineer or company official's responsibility to thoroughly inspect the train.
2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended.
3. Railroad management was at fault for having even a secured train unattended on a maiin line, any main line, but especially one on a grade. (Question: Did Ed Burkhardt actually know this was a procedure? How much contact did he have with the railroad's operation?)
4. Railroad management was at fault for not differentiating between securing a train on the level and on a grade. (Again, did Ed Burkhardt know this?)
5. The Government of Canada was at fault for inadequate safety rules.
In my mind, the possibility of vandalism or a terror attack is still not ruled out completely.
The rule about not parking on a main line does not seem to prevent a runaway. If a runaway happens to a train parked on a siding the train will roll right thru the switch breaking the throw rod and go onto a main line. If a train is secured on a siding a split rail deerail and berm may stop the runaway.
If a main line has a split rail derail on the down hill side should that not sufice ?
Why doesn't the railroad keep the train moving? Does it save them that much money to have the engineer stop the train, rest for 8 to 10 hours and then get back on the train?
If tank cars make $1500/trip-car this train makes about $100,000 every trip. If the round trip takes 20 days then the potential income from the train is $5,000/day. A standing train makes no money so wouldn't you want to keep the train rolling and start collecting that $5,000/day for moving oil?
If a crew member costs $400/day, adding another engineer to take the train over would have meant it kept rolling (and making money). Of course, now that the Canadians have ruled two man crews it is going to cost them even more.
Someone explain to me why a railroad ever wants to have a train stop for the night!
I assumed any siding would have a derail at each switch. I don't know of many mainlines with derails that are on less than grades of 1.5. But there is also another lesson: A short line or regional rail that is suddenly blessed with any huge upsurge in traffic should review all its operating practices, begining of course with safety. The informality that may be safe and efficient with short trains and few of them simply may not be appropriate any longer. The increase in business may demand operation more like those of the Class I's.
daveklepper 2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
petitnjWhy doesn't the railroad keep the train moving? Does it save them that much money to have the engineer stop the train, rest for 8 to 10 hours and then get back on the train?
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, Nantes is where the Canadian Engineer turns the train over to a US Engineer, to continue on to the next division point in Maine. The media has never understood that the Engineer that was sleeping in the hotel was waiting for an EDIT: WB(my apologies) train so he could get back to his home terminal at Sherbrooke. The number of reasons the US crew could not get to the train after crossing the border vary with the number of days in a year, assuming they had been called in a timely manner.
As to the derail question, there are no derails on mainline track, including the Kicking Horse and Rogers Pass, here in Canada(2.2%). The mandate for requiring crews to remain with trains parked on the mainline is that it is assumed a siding will have a derail. This is also not always the case. Companies wanting to tie up trains on sidings will now likely have to invest in derails on those sidings. This is interesting, the wording in the new regulations suggest that sidings have some magical holding ability mainlines do not, yet they don't specify how the trains are to stay put.
So if I understand the new rule, it says that an oil train must not be left unattended on the mainline, but it is okay to leave it unattended on a siding or yard track. Is that correct?
Is there also a stipulation that such a siding or yard track holding an unattended oil train must be equipped with a derail?
BucyrusSo if I understand the new rule, it says that an oil train must not be left unattended on the mainline, but it is okay to leave it unattended on a siding or yard track. Is that correct?
From everything I have read, yes.
BucyrusIs there also a stipulation that such a siding or yard track holding an unattended oil train must be equipped with a derail?
At this point there are no specific stipulations. It seems as though they are assuming that sidings have some magical holding properties. No specific technological measures to do this have been mentioned at this point. Trains have been left unattended in yards since the beginning of time. Nothing in the latest announcement changes that. Existing company policies will prevail.
The following indicates MM&A hired companies to clean up but has not paid them.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/23/pay-4-1m-cost-of-lac-megantic-cleanup-or-face-legal-action-railway-boss-told/
Suppose someone had been left to watch the train, and the train began rolling, then what? There are various measures that could have been implemented before the train got to downtown Megantic to stop it. Something could have been placed on the track before the train got very far. But if a competant railroad man had been watching, he would have boarded, started the locomotive, and then pumped the air and stopped the train. There was enough time.
I believe that Warren Buffet, thorough person that he is, and despite his complete confidence in BNSF's management, asked to review the rulebook and asked questions, and/or asked for a safety briefing right after he took control of the company.
If you have the historic Trains CD and wants to get to know the line, especially what it was like toward the end of CPsteam, there was an article in TRAINS around 1954, "Brownsville to Megantic."
If it was BAR and not CP, forgive me, but the name of the article referred is correct, I believe.
This is an issue between MM&A's insurance and the clean up companies. Why has the city paid them already? Normal procedure is for someone to come in and do work and be paid from an invoice. The accident is only 3 weeks old and one would expect the insurance company and railroad to negotiate the clean up (if they are responsible) with the clean up companies.
Plus, $4M in 3 weeks? That is enough to pay 800 workers. Or 400 workers and enough for trucks and cutting torches. Clearly, these numbers will be negotiated by the insurance company.
Unlike governments, private companies look at the invoices and see they are getting their money's worth.
And "face legal action"? Don't you think they will already face legal action? This will be worked out in court and not paying the cleanup fee will be a small drop in the bucket!
petitnjAnd "face legal action"? Don't you think they will already face legal action? This will be worked out in court and not paying the cleanup fee will be a small drop in the bucket!
I suspect this is just another legal maneuver, like the placeholder lawsuit preparatory to a class action lawsuit to be filed later, that was mentioned on this thread a page or so back.
daveklepper .....But if a competent railroad man had been watching, he would have boarded, started the locomotive, and then pumped the air and stopped the train. There was enough time.
.....But if a competent railroad man had been watching, he would have boarded, started the locomotive, and then pumped the air and stopped the train. There was enough time.
Enough time to prepare the locomotive for starting? (And of course let's hope it starts right away the first time; old power has a tendency to be...unpredictable).
Enough time to pump air sufficiently to charge an entire trainline with adequate air to effect a standard application? (A single compressor on an old locomotive will take quite a while to fully charge an entire trainline)
Enough time for said employee to decide whether to remain on the locomotive as the entire train begins it's decent towards town?
Does he remain on the loco long enough to use the air brakes?
What if there is insufficient air at the time of the attempted application?
Did the loco have dynamics?
Does this person ride the wreck in to hell, or does he jump?
So many questions......
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lac-megantic-prepares-large-memorial-153006057.html
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/
petitnj Why doesn't the railroad keep the train moving? Does it save them that much money to have the engineer stop the train, rest for 8 to 10 hours and then get back on the train? ... Someone explain to me why a railroad ever wants to have a train stop for the night!
...
Wanting and actually stopping are two different things.
Occasionally carriers may want a train held until the receiving terminal (railroad or customer) has space to handle the train. Congestion can be a issue with unit train style movements. When trains are being held for cause, the desire is to have it at a location where there is no crew on the train. Crews are to move trains - not just sit on them. This does not appear to be the case in the incident, although no hard facts have been published about the condition of either the final railroad terminal or the consignee's ability to handle the train.
Crews cannot be called to duty without having the legally required amount of rest. Crew bases are normally 'right sized' to cover routine operations and in covering routine operations rested crews may not be available whenever the carrier needs to call a train - the train will be 'parked' until there is a rested crew available. The 'right sized' crew base may end up 'wanting' when T&E employees mark off for various valid and in some cases invalid reasons. Some of these crew bases may be only a single crew that is qualified on the territory and one or two extra board employees that are qualified. If one of the regular crewman goes on vacation and the extra board employees are working on other jobs that the extra board covers - there is no one available to fill the vacancy until the extra board employee completes the job he is working and then gets full rest (in the US 10 hours UNDISTURBED - ie. cannot be contacted by the railroad during those 10 hours - Canadian HOS rules may be different). While the carrier would WISH to have a rested crew available to handle ANY NEED at ANYTIME - that is not the economic reality of managing carrier manpower.
As is being explained in this incident, the Canadian crew (engineer) had taken the train to the limit of his run to turn it over to the US crew. For reasons that have not been published, the US crew was not on duty to continue the movement of the train upon its arrival with the Canadian crew. Train was parked until a US crew could be obtained. Nothing has been stated as to whether the Canadian engineer knew when or if the US crew was to be on duty and expected to arrive to take charge of the train - such information COULD have had a bearing on how he secured the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy Siding daveklepper 2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended. Suppose the fire chief had left someone to *watch* the train, and it started rolling away? Then what?
I don’t think it was up to the fire chief to make sure the train stayed put. Shutting down the one running unit should not have allowed the train to roll. Even if the fire spread and all five engines burned up, the train should have not moved. So when the firemen put out the small fire, they would see no need to watch the train to make sure that it did not move.
In any case, someone from the MM&A was at the scene during the time when the engine was on fire and the firemen extinguished it. The news has not been clear about this, but it is my understanding that the person on the scene from the MM&A was the person first contacted by the individual who first spotted the fire and reported it. So, in other words, the fire was first reported to the MM&A, and then the message was conveyed to the fire department.
If somebody of official capacity were at the site, and saw the train begin to move, it might have been possible for them to react quickly enough to stop it. But there are some variables, and they might not have tried the most effective measure first. So time could quickly run out as the train gained speed. The news did report that one person who lived near the track observed the train begin to move, and slowly roll away into the darkness with no lights turned on.
Baltacd: I appreciate all of the details of crewing a train and I am sure there are many "manpower" reasons to stop a train. I was focusing on the economic reasons (which tend to dominate business discussions these days). The train can potentially make $5000/day if it is moving and the cost of an additional engineer is maybe $400/day.
As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
petitnj Baltacd: I appreciate all of the details of crewing a train and I am sure there are many "manpower" reasons to stop a train. I was focusing on the economic reasons (which tend to dominate business discussions these days). The train can potentially make $5000/day if it is moving and the cost of an additional engineer is maybe $400/day. As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
In the real world of railroading - NOTHING is as SIMPLE as you believe it is. Those on the outside can't understand the realities of real railroading until they get on the inside and become parts of the problem and also parts of the solutions.
To wreck a 'finely honed schedule' all it takes is a crew member to call in 30 minutes before his on duty time and report he has been involved in a automobile accident on his way to work and he will not be able to work his assignment - it will take a minimum of two more hours to get their replacement, if one is available - and sometimes it turns into a positive NO ONE else is available. Now that finely honed schedule has to be taken over by Plan B - what do you do with a train that isn't going to move for the foreseeable future. Just because you don't have a crew for a train doesn't make the train go away - it is now on the railroad just as immovable as if it had derailed. A problem to be worked around.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I still believe leaving a train that has had a locomotive fire unattended is bad judgement - both for the firechief and the desk dispatchder.
daveklepper You are entitled to your opinion, but I still believe leaving a train that has had a locomotive fire unattended is bad judgement - both for the firechief and the desk dispatchder.
Tlhere is a fine line between responsibility and judgement. If I see a driver going by my bus (or streetcar) stop where I am waiting, at dusk or just at daybreak, and he or she has no lights on, I wil yell LIGHTS. (or rather OR in Jerusalem). It is the driver's responsiblity to turn on his headlights before he leaves his parking place, but I show good judgement in possibly preventing an accident by yelling at him/her.
The Firechief would have shown good judgement not to leave the train unguarded, especially without a compentant rail offical or employee obviously checking its condition. By condition, I mean more than just lack of something obviously burning.
But the responsibility was clearly that of the Desk Dispatcher or Trainmaster. Whomever had been informed.
Similarly, if the bystander who is reported saw the train begin to roll without lights had been a railfan, certainly he or she would immediately have called an emergency number and somehow the main tragedy would have been averted!
Regarding the MM&A employee who watched the fire, I am sure the investigators know who he is, but apparently there is information they are keeping confidential until the full investigation is concluded. Also, the exact condition of the handbrakes on the locomotives has not been released, nor that on the tank cars thus far checked.
petitnj As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
Jeff
I agree. There may be unforseen emergencies, but such a system would be great improvement over the existing situation.
Can't speak for other carriers.
My carrier has used multiple forms of highly touted scheduling software to attempt to minimize crew costs and maximize crew productivity - then reality intrudes.
Any software - any program - has to make some very basic assumptions. We all know what ASSUME means - making a ASS of U and ME. Crewmen are human beings and human beings do not always follow 'the rules'. Throw in the disruption of weather, derailments, wayside happenings that delay trains and a million and one other happenings and the best scheduling software in the world will be sucking wind. Crew bases are finite in number - happenings on the property can use up 75% of the crew base in a single time period - the remaining 25% can't sustain the demand without interruption until the 75% have obtained their rest and begin to become available again.
Increase the board and you increase your fixed cost.Decrease the board and your variable cost in the form of train delay increase.
The theory of utilization of resources is that if you don't have a little delay waiting for the resource - you have too much of that resource. Can't say that I personally agree with it - but it is the one that is used.
Every day, every week is a juggling act.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/railroad-files-for-bankruptcy-after-quebec-tragedy-1.1401613
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.