Daveklepper's posting early today of the writing of an eco extremist put this terrible event in a new light for me. (Disclaimer: I like clean air and water too; but I also like electricity and my motor vehicle.)
Before reading that posting, I could not imagine anyone really tampering with the train. But we now know that this specific movement of oil was a target of extreme environmentalists who had physically blockaded the tracks in Maine two weeks earlier. Well, when that didn't stop the movement of oil, what would be their next step?
Some of these folks will take any measures necessary to further their agenda. I would not put tampering past them. I do not know that it happened. But it's no longer so far fetched in my thinking.
Remember, as Lt. Col. Hackworth wrote, the enemy is always watching and learning. If you've got a weak point he'll find it and use it. I don't put sabotage beyond some of these people. It should be a valid consideration in the investigation. If the eco extremists spotted this seemingly regular tie up as a weak point they could well have exploited it. Extreme does not mean incompetent.
If they were involved they are certainly evil, but also certainly not incompetent.
Ed,
I agree with your point about needing to bleed the cars to be able to move them out of danger. My only point about which end was to wonder if any head end cars were still standing on the rails or if they were all piled up.
And then based on that question, if they are piled up, can an investigator go through there and say that the cars in the pile show that the hand brakes were not applied at the top of the hill? Mr. Burkhardt seems to be saying that his people did discover that no hand brakes were applied to the cars. But then he also says that he feels that no hand brakes were applied.
Now if there happened to be say ten cars on the head end still on the rails with no hand brake applied, I would say that is strong evidence that no brakes had been applied to those head end cars prior to the runaway.
Bucyrus edblysard By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire. If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged. Ed, The story that I have seen about the engineer saving some of the tank cars says he used a piece of heavy equipment, and not the train’s locomotives. As I understand it, the locomotive separated from the train during the wreck and continued about ½-mile further down the track before stopping. What is not clear is from which end of the train the engineer pulled cars. In the incredible fire video taken from behind the train, you can see maybe 10 cars still coupled and on the rails with the EOT flashing. I do not know if any cars were still coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck. I assume that if he pulled cars from the hind end of the train, there would have been no hand brakes to release if hand brakes had been set on the train. But the condition of the wreck on the head end raises a question about hand brakes. If there were say ten cars coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck, one would expect hand brakes to still be set, if they were set at the top of the hill. However, if all the head end cars are in that jumbled heap, I do not know how one can inspect them and conclude whether or not hand brakes were set at the top of the hill.
edblysard By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire. If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged.
By two account published in the local and national media, the engineer returned to his train after the runaway, and using his locomotives, he pulled several cars, (no specific number was given) away from the fire.
If that is true, then I would expect the Canadian version of the NTSB would find much less than the 11 handbrakes originally tied, as the engineer would have walked the head cut popping hand brakes till he got to a point that either his own prudence or the heat from the fire prevented him from going further, at that point, he would have looked for a coupling that had enough slack to allow him to “pull the pin” and reaching in, closing the anglecock on the car, walk back to his locomotives, pull the cut away to a distance he felt was safe, tie a few hand brakes to hold that cut in place, and cut his engines away, moving them to an even farther distance to ensure they were not damaged.
The story that I have seen about the engineer saving some of the tank cars says he used a piece of heavy equipment, and not the train’s locomotives. As I understand it, the locomotive separated from the train during the wreck and continued about ½-mile further down the track before stopping. What is not clear is from which end of the train the engineer pulled cars.
In the incredible fire video taken from behind the train, you can see maybe 10 cars still coupled and on the rails with the EOT flashing. I do not know if any cars were still coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck. I assume that if he pulled cars from the hind end of the train, there would have been no hand brakes to release if hand brakes had been set on the train.
But the condition of the wreck on the head end raises a question about hand brakes. If there were say ten cars coupled and on the rails ahead of the wreck, one would expect hand brakes to still be set, if they were set at the top of the hill. However, if all the head end cars are in that jumbled heap, I do not know how one can inspect them and conclude whether or not hand brakes were set at the top of the hill.
Even if he used a piece of “heavy equipment” to move the cars, regardless of which end he moved, the cars would have had to have been bled off….if it was the head end, he would have had to knock off the brakes he found and bleed the air off….short of one of those massive bulldozers from a pit mine, there isn’t a lot of equipment he could have used to move over 5 or 6 cars with hand brakes and air on them.
Assuming it was a backhoe or front end loader, the most common equipment found at construction sites, he would have had to remove the brakes for the cars to roll.
Two or three he might have been able to slide them, but beyond that ….
The reason I am not pointing out a particular individual is to prevent an insult war…they are aware of their post, and if they wish to discuss that particular posting in any more detail, my email address is right there, we can conduct our argument off site, to do so here would be…I don’t know, maybe an insult to the people who perished, are hurt, missing and somehow involved in this accident.
The nit picky stuff belongs elsewhere.
23 17 46 11
Randy Stahl For the record , I am safe and sound. For obvious reasons I cannot talk about anything. I have NEVER heard a railway employee here refer to Quebec folks as frogs.. only friends Randy
For the record , I am safe and sound. For obvious reasons I cannot talk about anything.
I have NEVER heard a railway employee here refer to Quebec folks as frogs.. only friends
Randy
Didn’t want to say anything in public, for the obvious, but heard thru the grapevine you were OK, which is a relief to say the least.
Stand strong.
Google "pipeline accidents"....sheeeesh... I think rail is still the safer option.
UlrichNo pipelines to the east coast yet, and as far as I'm aware none in the planning stages.
Meetings, as well as formal written communications, have taken place between the Premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick concerning a pipeline. There are no physical plans yet drawn up. Interestingly, one of the stumbling blocks has been how to get the government of Quebec on board, to allow passage of such a pipeline through their province. This could become a watershed discussion concerning all forms of oil transportation in Canada.
Such a pipeline would take US sources of oil, such as the Bakken field, off the menu for Saint John refineries and replace it with readily available Alberta oil. Even before this incident, convincing Quebec to allow American sourced oil to pass through their province on the way to another province would have been a non-starter. Which is not the same thing as US pipelines going to refineries in Quebec. Trust me.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
BigJim However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. Bucyrus,There is no need to single them out. They know who they are. And, it is not just about blaming the engineer. Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself.
However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it.
Bucyrus,There is no need to single them out. They know who they are. And, it is not just about blaming the engineer. Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself.
When criticizing the forum membership as whole, perhaps the offenders do know who they are. But there is also the possibility that the person criticizing is unjustified in the criticism. He may have his facts wrong, or simply not have understood what the person was saying. And by criticizing the forum as a whole, nobody can defend against an unfair criticism if they do not know what it specifically is about. And also, when you criticize the forum membership with the idea that the guilty ones know who they are, even if that is true, other forum members may have no idea who or what comments you are referring to.
I certainly accept your explanations about air brakes, but there are many people speaking about the topic, and it has to be one of the hardest topics to explain even if you understand it perfectly. So, what may appear to be someone ignoring what you explain might just be a case of someone not understanding your explanation. If they don’t see your point, they cannot acknowledge it.
But when you generalize by saying, “Their choice to ignore any and all attempts at education, and continue with their mob-rule posts speaks for itself,” I have no idea what you are specifically talking about, or whom you are referring to.
So, I think it is just common courtesy and responsible fairness to specifically respond to people who you disagree with or those who seem to not understand you. Otherwise, it becomes a part of that “mob-rule” posting that you refer to.
For the record, I never said that I blamed the engineer.
I quoted several recent articles I found on the wreck.
If anything, the earlier accident shows implies that the training programs were not as good as they could have been , particularly if the engineer was sent for refresher courses after the earlier accident.
I think the real important quotes were the ones on the engine spraying oil out of the stack, and the one where several MM&A employees refer to Quebec natives as "------- frogs."
That said, Huffington Post is not exactly another Wall Street Journal, but it's what I found. These stories can almost certainly be confirmed in other newspapers (not saying that Huffington Post is newspaper).
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Possibilities:
Engineer goofed.
Firefighters goofed.
Mechanical failure.
Vandalism / terrorism (although the latter is directed toward the U.S. rather than Canada).
Other than that, I will wait for the TSB report before speculating.
Norm
Hi Ed,
I have looked all over the papers and TV for any plausible explanation, to no avail. Then I thought, go to the Trains Forum and get some answers.
Thanks for the good explanation.
Yours In Model Railroading,
John
Littleton, CO
petitnj To redirect the discussion, why is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than: Directing local effort to hosting the CEO An opportunity to vent irrational anger Good press, etc.? I would guess that Mr. Burkhardt couldn't get in there and perform many investigative functions and his visit was just to show the flag. I can't imagine the resources redirected when the President decides to visit a disaster site!
To redirect the discussion, why is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than:
Directing local effort to hosting the CEO
An opportunity to vent irrational anger
Good press, etc.?
I would guess that Mr. Burkhardt couldn't get in there and perform many investigative functions and his visit was just to show the flag.
I can't imagine the resources redirected when the President decides to visit a disaster site!
Sometimes the optics and what is said or not said are important. Having him there early would show more respect to those folks who suffered losses. If we were all machines with no feelings then yes indeed... simply send the emergency response people in to clean and get back to work. People who discount the emotions, however, do themselves a great disservice. How a company or the leader of that company reacts can have a big impact on the final cost. A CEO who is shown to be responsive and caring may engender some sympathy in the courts and in the court of public opinion (which is important also if you've got rails running through towns). It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback however... none of us are in Ed Burkhardt's situation, and with the pressure on who knows really how we would respond.
.
petitnjwhy is it necessary for the CEO to visit a disaster site? What does it provide other than: An opportunity to vent irrational anger...?
An opportunity to vent irrational anger...?
So, your town gets destroyed and fifty friends get killed; and if you are angry about it, that is irrational?
Yes, Fifedog, Ed has stated the matter quite well. And, I do not recall seeing anything about it yesterday, except on the Trains forums.
Incidentally, I do not recall seeing so many posts in less than a week on any other matter.
And, when we are familiar with the editorial stance of various publications, we should not be surprised to read such opinions as that expressed in Dave Klepper's quotation of a certain English newspaper. I appreciate the comment as to what the holders of the anti-oil position should do. Just looking around my kitchen-dining-living room ( I live on the lower level of the house my daughter and I bought), I see more items that have come from petroleum than I can easily count.
Johnny
Bucyrus Ed, I appreciate your comments about the likely scenario details of the brake release and engineer’s subsequent response. However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. The “forum membership” never speaks with a single voice on anything. In fact, that is our only unifying characteristic. As to the point you make about criticizing the engineer, I would have to go back and check, but I don’t recall anybody criticizing the engineer. That post on the previous page by forum member, Schuylkill and Susquehanna was just extracted from news accounts detailing the entire record of the engineer. Other such accounts detail the entire record of the MM&A Ry regarding derailments and accidents. The does seem like pertinent information to pick up in the coverage of this derailment. Even in the news coverage, I do not find acrimony directed toward the engineer. Apparently he lives in Lac-Megantic, and is popular and well liked. They are quick to recognize and commend him for his heroism in pulling some cars out of the flaming wreck to prevent them from exploding. The one and only person who seems to have plunged a knife into the engineer’s back and is twisting it is MM&A president, Ed Burkhardt. For my own part in this discussion, I have been defending the engineer against the charges by Mr. Burkhardt on the basis that Mr. Burkhardt has only offered as evidence that he feels the engineer did not set enough brakes. Mr. Burkhardt says that his feeling has to be true because the train would not have run away if the engineer had set enough brakes. Yet earlier, Mr. Burkhardt defended the engineer, saying, “The engineer was not the last person to touch that train.” Earlier, Mr. Burkhardt blamed the whole thing on the fire department. He also said that he has “evidence of tampering with the train.” Whatever he meant by that, a failure to set hand brakes cannot be considered to be “tampering.” I do not know what role the engineer or the fire department played in the cause of this catastrophe, but I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Burkhardt. I think he has acted like a spoiled child who is desperate to avoid blame that he shoots from the hip to place blame wherever the greatest opportunity lies at the moment.
I appreciate your comments about the likely scenario details of the brake release and engineer’s subsequent response. However, I do not think it is fair for you to say that the “forum membership” is blaming the engineer. If there were such an issue with people blaming the engineer in a way that you think is unjustified, the person or persons doing that should be signaled out directly and taken to task for it. The “forum membership” never speaks with a single voice on anything. In fact, that is our only unifying characteristic.
As to the point you make about criticizing the engineer, I would have to go back and check, but I don’t recall anybody criticizing the engineer. That post on the previous page by forum member, Schuylkill and Susquehanna was just extracted from news accounts detailing the entire record of the engineer. Other such accounts detail the entire record of the MM&A Ry regarding derailments and accidents. The does seem like pertinent information to pick up in the coverage of this derailment.
Even in the news coverage, I do not find acrimony directed toward the engineer. Apparently he lives in Lac-Megantic, and is popular and well liked. They are quick to recognize and commend him for his heroism in pulling some cars out of the flaming wreck to prevent them from exploding.
The one and only person who seems to have plunged a knife into the engineer’s back and is twisting it is MM&A president, Ed Burkhardt.
For my own part in this discussion, I have been defending the engineer against the charges by Mr. Burkhardt on the basis that Mr. Burkhardt has only offered as evidence that he feels the engineer did not set enough brakes. Mr. Burkhardt says that his feeling has to be true because the train would not have run away if the engineer had set enough brakes.
Yet earlier, Mr. Burkhardt defended the engineer, saying, “The engineer was not the last person to touch that train.” Earlier, Mr. Burkhardt blamed the whole thing on the fire department. He also said that he has “evidence of tampering with the train.” Whatever he meant by that, a failure to set hand brakes cannot be considered to be “tampering.”
I do not know what role the engineer or the fire department played in the cause of this catastrophe, but I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Burkhardt. I think he has acted like a spoiled child who is desperate to avoid blame that he shoots from the hip to place blame wherever the greatest opportunity lies at the moment.
edblysard - I've been appreciating your perspective on this matter.
It seems the national media has lost all interest in this event.
BroadwayLion csxns Ulrichrail moving more oilI believe the Pipeline is going to be built. There are no pipelines to the east coast refineries. They used to get North Sea Oil by ship. Switching to Bakken Oil by rail was done for a reason, most likely because of price. Getting that pipeline built will be a nightmare compared to the XL pipeline, and yet the oil must continue to flow. Expect it to travel by rail, and NOW BE THE TIME to double down on rail transport. ROAR
csxns Ulrichrail moving more oilI believe the Pipeline is going to be built.
Ulrichrail moving more oil
There are no pipelines to the east coast refineries.
They used to get North Sea Oil by ship. Switching to Bakken Oil by rail was done for a reason, most likely because of price. Getting that pipeline built will be a nightmare compared to the XL pipeline, and yet the oil must continue to flow. Expect it to travel by rail, and NOW BE THE TIME to double down on rail transport.
ROAR
No pipelines to the east coast yet, and as far as I'm aware none in the planning stages. Perhaps trans-loading the oil on to ships from a suitable Great Lakes port for furtherance to Saint John is a possibility. Pipelines are obviously less flexible than rail and pose risks of their own. So far I haven't seen much discussion on shipping...its as if rail and pipeline are the only two ways to ship oil.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
What mood?
Oh yeah, the "shoot now, shoot later, and if anybody moves, shoot some more, then ask a few questions?"
That mood?
Outstanding analysis and commentary Ed. Beats anything I've read in the press by a country mile..
Ed, would you please stop being so rational? It spoils the mood.
This looks like would have happened if the movie Unstopable and the CSX crazy 8s incedent in Toledo OH did not have a happy ending
It is aggravating how quickly both the news media and a few members of this forum are to place blame on the engineer.
While not an engineer, I am a qualified conductor, and the following is what I would have expected to happen.
The engineer would have pulled the train into the siding with all the slack stretched, to prevent any sloshers from later upsetting the train; their action can cause some “slack walk”.
Now, any of the event recorders will have the following information, and this info will confirm or repudiate his account.
After stopping, the event recorders will show the train line brake application and the independent application…a suitable interlude of time will occur if he went back and tie the number of hand brakes he stated he tied….at this point, the event recorders will show the release of the train brakes and the independent brake, and they will show if the locomotive moved, even a small movement of say, a foot.
If the FRED is a telementry equipped FRED, the event recorders will show any movement of the rear of the train.
Again, a suitable amount of time will expire while the engineer waits to see if anything moves, then the recorders will show him doing a train brake application in accordance with his railroads rules, the independent brake being set, the locomotive being place into isolate.
If, during the subsequent engine fire, the FD moved any of the control surfaces on the lead unit, the event recorder will also have that information.
Assuming they didn’t move anything, if anyone had at a later time done so, (saboteur or vandal) that too will show up on the recorder.
If this was the case, or any scenario close to it, the event recorders will show the corresponding movement of the locomotives.
I can tell you that when that engineer walked out of his hotel room, he realized two things, first, he had to go there and see if he could help, as odd as it sounds, we think of these things as “our train” and he would have felt some responsibility….two, he also knew at that moment he was one fired SOB, and most likely all the blame would at some point be laid at his feet, it is standard company procedure to divert as much liability as possible away from the company and its operating practices and onto any crew member or outside force as can be accomplished.
I would in fact, find it rare that the engineer didn’t tie more than the required number of hand brakes, this exact scenario is every railroaders worst nightmare, a runaway that was his fault.
Until the event recorders information is made public, then blaming the engineer, without the facts, is simply scapegoating at its worst.
And by the way, the eco nut columnist ought to give up his plastic glasses and lenses, his plastic computer and key board, his cell phone, the Styrofoam cup his double twist latte came in, the “hair product” his applied to get that perfect “tousled look”, the plastic comb he failed to apply to that look, and the polyester blend hoodie and sneakers he is wearing before he demands oil stop moving!
Yeah come on Ed...keep it on the tracks!
Murphy Siding Schuylkill and Susquehanna I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca. The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business You don't say. An engineer was *involved in another incident.....train derailed...in yard..." What are the odds of that? How does that little bit of juicy gossip from an online blather website add anything to this discussion?
Schuylkill and Susquehanna I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca. The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business
I've got some updates on MMA from huffingtonpost.com and huffingtonpost.ca.
The engineer who was responsible for the train that derailed was involved in another incident not quite a year ago. On August 3, 2012, engineer Tom Harding operated a train that derailed in a Canadian National yard in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. The CN spokesman wanted to make it very clear that Mr. Harding was a MMA employee at the time. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/tom-harding-lac-megantic-explosion_n_3581552.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-business
Thanks Murphy,
Yard derailments are like having a flat tire on your car…it isn’t a matter of if, but a matter of when.
Note the CN spokesman failed to say what caused the “yard derailment”, which of course could have been a striped rail joint, gapped switch point, knuckle bypass, all the stuff that happens on a daily basis in yards.
If having a yard derailment is a qualifier of a railroader’s safety, then I am an absolute danger/disaster waiting to happen, because I have “been involved” in 6 of them in 16 years, 3 of which happened in a span of one month, and of those 3, two happened in the same place on consecutive days.
I ought to be fired!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.