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."
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/
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.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ?
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.
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 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.
There is also this development from the TSB of Canada in the wake of the crash:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/19/lac-megantic-railway-safety_n_3623687.html
Quote from the link:
In its other letter, the safety board urged a revision of the Canadian Rail Operating Rule No. 112 governing the securement of parked trains.
It said Rule 112 is not specific enough because it does not spell out how many handbrakes to apply for various weights and types of cargo. It also says that the standard, so-called "push-pull test" does not always accurately show whether the brakes have been adequately applied.
From an earlier report, they said this about Rule 112:
But in a 2011 report into a runaway train incident near Sept-Îles, the TSB noted that “it is impossible to verify hand-brake effectiveness by pulling or pushing cars on high grades (so) locomotive engineers cannot accurately know that management’s expectations have been met every time cars are secured.”
Here is the link to the Transport Canada press release outlining the new rules, which also contains a link to the emergency directive:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-2013-h096e-7291.html
Feds Issue Emergency Directives.
Short version: 2 man crews on trains carrying dangerous goods, no unattended locos on main tracks.
Story here:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/feds-issue-emergency-rail-directives-as-mps-nix-train-safety-study-1.1379290
IMHO 2 man crews is what is going to break the MN&A's back in the long term (assuming the courts don't stick them with a bill they can never hope to pay) and likely jeopardize the sale of the west end of the former "Short Line" to any other operator. The line can't make money hauling oil, and there isn't enough other business without it.
No surprise and there will many more to follow:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quebec-train-lawsuit-20130723,0,1645398.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
carnej1 Overmod overall All of us who are interested in this story should go to the Railway Age website and look under "latest news" for the article called "When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies and Good people" Here it is. Thanks for posting that. The article is a very concise analysis of what M,M,&A's management (primarily in the person of Ed Burkhardt) did wrong, with concrete examples of how similiar incidents have been handled. I urge all of our forum members who have taken an interest in this discussion thread to read it..
Overmod overall All of us who are interested in this story should go to the Railway Age website and look under "latest news" for the article called "When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies and Good people" Here it is.
overall All of us who are interested in this story should go to the Railway Age website and look under "latest news" for the article called "When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies and Good people"
All of us who are interested in this story should go to the Railway Age website and look under "latest news" for the article called "When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies and Good people"
Here it is.
Thanks for posting that.
The article is a very concise analysis of what M,M,&A's management (primarily in the person of Ed Burkhardt) did wrong, with concrete examples of how similiar incidents have been handled.
I urge all of our forum members who have taken an interest in this discussion thread to read it..
It is a good article, but there are many other articles online that detail the response of Burkhardt. The one thing that all the quotes of him have in common is that he appears to be taking blame off of himself and placing it on somebody else. For instance, he says he hopes the anger and hatred of the people of Lac-Megantic will dissipate. He could have said that he prays for the people of Lac-Megantic , and hopes they will heal from the disaster. But no; he hopes they will stop hating. So the problem with all those grieving people is that they hate. And since he feels that they hate him, they should stop.
He says this: "If I was in their shoes, I would be quite angry. I understand, but what more can I say? I hope that anger will dissipate and people will sit down and try to work out constructive measures."
What more can he say? After asking that question defensively, he says, in effect, that the people are wrong in being angry, and they should correct that by becoming constructive. Every time he opens his mouth, there is a condescending tone and defensive resentment because he feels that people are unfairly putting him on the spot.
He blames the sour response of the people of the Lac-Megantic to his first appearance on his translator not being very competent with the French language. He wishes he could speak in fluent French because it is a beautiful language, as though that would please the people of the incinerated town. How condescending.
He tells the victims of the catastrophe that MM&A management and the employees are also victims of the disaster.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/18/ceo-ed-burkhardt-hopes-lac-megantic-anger-will-one-day-dissipate
Authorities have set the final death toll at 47. This number was lowered from fifty after finally establishing the exact number of people who had been away, and in fact were still alive. They were on vacation. The number of bodies recovered has now risen to 42, so they now know the number of people they are still searching for.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/death-toll-in-lac-megantic-disaster-now-set-at-47-1.1374099
Norm48327 overall National Public Radio is reporting that the cause of the runaway was, in fact, not enough brake force applied to the train. That is according to the Canadian Government investigators.This came over the air at about 12:15 pm today. Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.
overall National Public Radio is reporting that the cause of the runaway was, in fact, not enough brake force applied to the train. That is according to the Canadian Government investigators.This came over the air at about 12:15 pm today.
National Public Radio is reporting that the cause of the runaway was, in fact, not enough brake force applied to the train. That is according to the Canadian Government investigators.This came over the air at about 12:15 pm today.
Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.
OMG….they turned a bunch of rocket scientist loose at a train wreck!
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus The unresolved question is why there was not enough brake force applied to the train. It could have been that the brakes leaked off, or that there were not enough hand brakes applied, or that somebody released air brakes or hand brakes.
The unresolved question is why there was not enough brake force applied to the train.
It could have been that the brakes leaked off, or that there were not enough hand brakes applied, or that somebody released air brakes or hand brakes.
and as Paul Harvey would say 'that is the rest of the story'!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
That statement almost goes without saying. The unresolved question is why there was not enough brake force applied to the train.
Train got away because of insufficient brake force. No kidding.
Norm
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
All of us who are interested in this story should go to the Railway Age website and look under "latest news" for the article called "When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies and Good people" I apologize for not knowing how to make up a link. I am not as computer literate as I need to be. Anyway, it's the best article I've read to date. I highly recommend it.
George
AgentKid There has been talk earlier on the thread about the engineer managed to hook up to the cars, but at this point I don't recall ever reading an actual confirmation of how he did. it.
There has been talk earlier on the thread about the engineer managed to hook up to the cars, but at this point I don't recall ever reading an actual confirmation of how he did. it.
I read somewhere that he got hold of a trackmobile. These are machines used by mid-sized industries to move cars around a plant site. They are less expensive than switch engines.
blue streak 1There have been reports that the engineer moved the rear of the train out of the wreck scene. If so the only way I could understand that is ----------
The engines were on the point of the east bound train. It led the tank cars down the hill. When the tank cars behind the engine derailed, the engines broke loose and continued a further 1 km. down the track.
The engineer who was woken up by the explosions while sleeping in his hotel in Lac-Mégantic ran out and found a tractor or backhoe and somehow managed to pull the rear few cars back west from the fire to the point where the pictures show the flashing FRED.
blue streak 1 ... Another report is that the clean up company is refusing to disclose how much oil has been recovered at various locations due to a confidentially clause with MM&A. Now that sucks !!!!! http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/17/size_of_lac_megantic_oil_spill_remains_a_company_secret.html
...
Another report is that the clean up company is refusing to disclose how much oil has been recovered at various locations due to a confidentially clause with MM&A. Now that sucks !!!!!
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/17/size_of_lac_megantic_oil_spill_remains_a_company_secret.html
On oil spills I've been involved with, the company, the contractors and the EPA or other regulators all knew what was going on. They might designate a spokesman to talk to the media, but everything was transparent to the authorities, and would eventually become public record. Instead it sounds like MM&A follows a pattern of disregard of a need for public accountability.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.