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.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
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.
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
23 17 46 11
Jeff: what if the brake control was not a 26L ? We really need to know what the lead unit and other units were ?
the EOT may have bled off the brake pipe.
Which would have applied the brakes. So, what is your point?
.
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 ?
“Firefighters cut power to runaway train's brakes”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/firefighters-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes-20130709-2pn1q.html
“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 ain't buying it!
It seems to me that Burkhardt is really sticking his neck out by making the following statement:
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.
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..
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
Here is the very badly written communique:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/152339327/MMA-7-7-2013-Press-Release-French-pdf
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.
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.
They have stated that they have a dozen people on site. What more do you want?
An "expensive model collector"
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."
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.