You would think that the engineer or conductor would have come forward by now and explained how many hand brakes he set and how he knew that he had enough set to hold the train.
I'm surprised any train would be left unattended, let alone one carrying hazmat. I bet that will change as a result of this accident. Maybe crew reductions over the years were a little bit too deep. Had there been a third person on the train or, dare I say it, a caboose with someone in it, this probably wouldn't have happened.
samfp1943 Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves.
Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt..
Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves.
Mr. Burkhardt has the bully pulpit and should be perfectly capable of defending himself against any criticism from people whether they are anonymous or not. Mr. Burkhardt is using his bully pulpit to blame the fire department for the deaths. He says the fire department is responsible because they shut down the engine, causing the train brakes to release. He dismisses his own failure to hold the train with hand brakes as required.
He says the fire department should have notified his railroad and they did not. Yet the fire department did indeed notify his railroad.
In one article, Mr. Burkhardt says that there is no indication of criminal behavior, and yet in another article, he now says that he has evidence that the train was tampered with. But he does not explain what he means with that pregnant comment. It clearly implies criminal activity, but he may be just trying to paint the firefighters as criminals.
A lot of people seem to hold the view that Mr. Burkhardt or his railroad should not be criticized because the media is always wrong about railroads. If you believe that, why even listen to the news?
Bucyrus samfp1943 Next ,you [Schuylkill and Susquehanna] make a sort of broad based attack on Mr. Ed Burkhardt.. Again, you make no explanation of your areas of expertise (other thanyour statement of your Model Railroading interests. For the record, I'm retired, after a career of thirty plus years in Trucking, and Trucking Safety. One of my pet peaves is annoymous ad hominem attacks on individuals who currently are not able to use this venue to defend themselves. Mr. Burkhardt has the bully pulpit and should be perfectly capable of defending himself against any criticism from people whether they are anonymous or not. Mr. Burkhardt is using his bully pulpit to blame the fire department for the deaths. He says the fire department is responsible because they shut down the engine, causing the train brakes to release. He dismisses his own failure to hold the train with hand brakes as required. He says the fire department should have notified his railroad and they did not. Yet the fire department did indeed notify his railroad. In one article, Mr. Burkhardt says that there is no indication of criminal behavior, and yet in another article, he now says that he has evidence that the train was tampered with. But he does not explain what he means with that pregnant comment. It clearly implies criminal activity, but he may be just trying to paint the firefighters as criminals. A lot of people seem to hold the view that Mr. Burkhardt or his railroad should not be criticized because the media is always wrong about railroads. If you believe that, why even listen to the news? Above is quoted from a previous post. Again, there were two plots against Canadian railroads that were uncovered by Canadian securiity people in the past several months, with intended perpetrators aprehended before damage was done. But Ed Burkhardt certainly should have restricted his comments to those of sympathy for the victims and their families. That is the only correct response for one in his position. But the idea that many things go wrong to create such tragedy is correct. 1. Handbrakes should have been applied. Possibly they were, but released. 2. The train should not have been left ungarded, considering its cargo. 3. Upon notice to the police and fire department, the crew should have been awakened and rushed to the train. 4. The locomotive should have been shut down by the crew or under their direction. 5. The locomotive and train should have been under guard after the fire was extinguished. And handbrakes inspected and applied or reapplied as required. If any of 2 - 5 had been implemented, the tragedy would have been avoided or mitigated considerably. Loss of life would have been avoided.
Above is quoted from a previous post.
Again, there were two plots against Canadian railroads that were uncovered by Canadian securiity people in the past several months, with intended perpetrators aprehended before damage was done. But Ed Burkhardt certainly should have restricted his comments to those of sympathy for the victims and their families. That is the only correct response for one in his position. But the idea that many things go wrong to create such tragedy is correct.
1. Handbrakes should have been applied. Possibly they were, but released.
2. The train should not have been left ungarded, considering its cargo.
3. Upon notice to the police and fire department, the crew should have been awakened and rushed to the train.
4. The locomotive should have been shut down by the crew or under their direction.
5. The locomotive and train should have been under guard after the fire was extinguished. And handbrakes inspected and applied or reapplied as required.
If any of 2 - 5 had been implemented, the tragedy would have been avoided or mitigated considerably. Loss of life would have been avoided.
daveklepperAfter the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.?
AFAIK, we haven't heard when the "engineering department" person that supposedly responded arrived on the scene.
Speaking as a former fire chief, if I felt secure in my understanding of how the fire started, I would not have called for an outside investigation. Around here, determination of cause is my responsibility. If doing so is beyond my abilities, I'll call for help.
I would not fault the FD for assuming that the train was otherwise properly secured.
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...
As a former fire chief, even if it is an oil tankcar train, and two plots agains the railroads were uncovered in the recent months? I am sorry. I just don't believe you. I think you have better sense than that!
Ulrich I'm surprised any train would be left unattended, let alone one carrying hazmat. I bet that will change as a result of this accident. Maybe crew reductions over the years were a little bit too deep. Had there been a third person on the train or, dare I say it, a caboose with someone in it, this probably wouldn't have happened.
The MM&A through Lac Megantic is lightly travelled. It sees an average of two Oil Trains per week, and a three times weekly freight in each direction which also does all local work. The Outbound crew was still on their rest.
Dave,
In the 4th post from the top of this page, you are responding in a way that makes it look like your comments are my comments. You include your comments as part of the quote of what I said. It adds confusion, and we simply cannot have any confusion on this forum.
I apologize. It was a computer glitch and not intentional. I will now use the edit program to "unconfuse" the post.
daveklepper As a former fire chief, even if it is an oil tankcar train, and two plots agains the railroads were uncovered in the recent months? I am sorry. I just don't believe you. I think you have better sense than that!
As a fire chief, I'm not in the security business, except as it applies to active incident scenes. In some areas, not even then. Once the fire is out and I determine that the fire was not of suspicious origin, etc, it's not my problem. I'm going home. Unless I follow that kind of news (or it has been disseminated to such local agencies), I might not even be aware of the previous threats.
Apparently there was nothing about the locomotive fire that raised suspicion.
The cargo of the train was not involved.
We haven't seen any indication that the railroad asked local authorities (including the fire department) to secure the area around the train, and as I noted, someone from the railroad apparently responded at some point. If local law enforcement authorities were aware of a potential security threat, they likely would have responded.
The possibility that firefighters touched something they shouldn't have notwithstanding, I don't see where they did anything wrong.
Any locomotive fire should raise suspicion unless an engineer or other competent railroad person can explain to the Fire Chief exactly how the fire started. But apparently the train crew were not present.
News today indicates that the Nantes fire department was called to put out a fire on one of the units of the train after the train crew left the train in proper fashion to be "tied down" and secured. The fire department "switched off" the lcomotive to prevent a flow of fuel to the apparent fire but the train crew was not aware. Shutting locomotive down also shut down the air pumps keeping air brakes applied. The murky stuff ensues from here: one report says the MMA dispatcher was notified and he summoned a nearby track worker to the scene to observe the fire department activities but had no knowledge of the operations of a train or locomotive, his value to the scene virtually useless. Other reports indicate the railroad did not know about the fire department's activities and procedures. So....there is definitely an official line or chain of communications in a hazardous situation, that has to be examined for rewriting; there is a lot of gray area as to who is to blame....gentlemen of the railroad, gentlemen of the politic, gentlemen of the press! sharpen you fingers and get ready to do a lot of pointing and counterpointing! It is going to be loud, long, and dirty from here on out.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
But aside from that: On my dream railroad and possibly on your real railroad, the whole scenareo would have been different. 1. An oil tank train would never be left unattended. Who knows, possibly a truck could swerve off a nearby highway and run into the side? 2. Any train left unattended in above freezing weather would have the necessary number of handbrakes set and the engine shut down. And on your railroad?
This would not have prevented deliberate mayhem, but would have ruled out anything else.
Here is a question for all you hand brake experts: If a hand brake had been applied on a tank car prior to the runaway, would the brake wheel and rachet still indicate an applied brake if the trucks were separated from the car during the wreck?
blownout cylinderThe death toll now is at 14.
I think there is one fact all of us have a responsibility for, it is to get the number of fatalities right. At this point I see nothing that has raised the number above 13. If and when more bad news does arrive, I would hope whoever sees it would provide a link to the source of the information.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The idea of posting a security guard at the location of the stopped train was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about this runaway. But there are just so many different versions coming out right now, that it is hard to understand exactly what happened. Bottom line: The railroad is the source of the disaster, if not the cause, and will get blamed for any damage done to life and property.
Bucyrus Here is a question for all you hand brake experts: If a hand brake had been applied on a tank car prior to the runaway, would the brake wheel and rachet still indicate an applied brake if the trucks were separated from the car during the wreck?
If the hand brake is applied, there will be evidence of the actuating chain being pulled to the brake actuation device - either the hand wheel or ratchet lever mechanism, even when the trucks have become deatached from the car..
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The head C/O of the railway said no more trains will be left unattended, you may see the resurgence of cabooses in the near future on certain trains.
mistertrainsEven with the "fire on the locomotive" scenario that seems to be emerging, it appears that somebody had to have uncoupled the tank cars from the locomotives. If so, and at that point, an appropriate number of cars' handbrakes should have been set.
The fire seems to be adequately confirmed. Also confirmed is the fact that the handbrakes did not prevent the train from rolling.
I am doubting the fleeting reports that the engines were uncoupled from the train. I suspet that this is distorted information referring to the fact that the engines separated from the train as the cars piled up in the derailment. Hence the engines were found "uncoupled from the train."
It is similar to the earlier distortion that the train was operated by some sort of remote control, which apparently arose from the reports that the runaway train was un-manned, which of course it was.
daveklepper Any locomotive fire should raise suspicion unless an engineer or other competent railroad person can explain to the Fire Chief exactly how the fire started. But apparently the train crew were not present.
Suspicion of what exactly?
As noted previously, there's a lot of oil and other crap that builds up inside an old engine that is quite easily flammable, and MMA is not known for rostering brand new modern power.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Bucyrus I am doubting the fleeting reports that the engines were uncoupled from the train. I suspet that this is distorted information referring to the fact that the engines separated from the train as the cars piled up in the derailment. Hence the engines were found "uncoupled from the train."
I agree. There's really been nothing (except wild uninformed speculation) to suggest that the engines were at any point deliberately uncoupled from the rest of the train. The separation occurred during the wreck.
The news we badly didn't want to hear. The death toll has risen to 15:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dispatchers-weren-t-alerted-about-runaway-train-15-confirmed-dead-dozens-missing-1.1359434
The train line brake handle in the locomotive vents the train line to atmosphere, it allows all the air in the line to escape, which applies the brakes.
As long as that handle was in the brake application position, having the locomotive running or not makes not a bit of difference to the brakes, they will stay applied until someone moves the handle to the equalize (release)setting, or closes the anglecock on the lead car, which might allow enough air to leak from the cars reservoirs to begin equalizing the pressure and slowly releasing the brakes, but in the time frame mentioned, that would have to be a major leak and on more than one car.
Locomotives are left running for several reasons, and depending on their age, have a auto start/stop system that shuts them off to conserve fuel.
The most common reason to leave a locomotive running are to keep the batteries charged up, and to keep the main reservoir charged, which lessens the time required to release the brakes once the train is ready to move….other reasons are most locomotives have a gravity fed cooling system, they have no thermostat or antifreeze, and diesel engines shut off in cold weather are often very hard to start, in fact, the block may freeze and crack if the water temp drops below freezing.
As for the “shut off locomotive” theory, it would be more dangerous to leave them running, because all it would take is someone moving the brake handle to the wrong position to recharge the brake line and release the brakes, cut away, the train would go into emergency braking, and unless someone closed the leading or open anglecock, it would stay that way unless someone bleeds off the brakes.
My bet is the FD tried to move the locomotives, (burning locomotive, tank cars full of oil, sounds like an idea!) and pulled the pin, (maybe, maybe not)while someone in the lead unit tried to move handles around to make the locomotives move, and they ended up releasing the trainsbrakes instead.
On locomotives with a standard control stand, the train brake and the independent brake handles are stacked, one above the other, and if moving one didn’t accomplish what they wanted, moving the other one to see if that worked makes sense, so it is possible for both the train brake and the independent brake to be released….once the fire was out and the FD gone, the hand brakes on the cars failed to hold the cut, the whole thing could have rolled back and taken off, the locomotives may have gone along for the ride until the cars began moving a little faster, they break away, the locomotives go into emergency and stop where they are, the train (cars) goes into emergency and slides a few thousand feet further, possible derailing because of the emergency brake application, and here you have a cut of cars derailed from and separated from the locomotives.
Not the greatest explanation, it has several variations, but it works….
23 17 46 11
cv_acrAs noted previously, there's a lot of oil and other crap that builds up inside an old engine that is quite easily flammable...
This.
If the fire was on the ground, under the locomotive, or otherwise outside the mechanical spaces, I'd tend to be suspicious.
We run vintage locomotives - most aren't known for being "tight..." You can only keep them so clean.
daveklepper But the locomotive handbrake and several cars worth of handbrakes would have prevented a runaway. If Ed Burkhardt knew that an oil tankcar train was left unmanned, what would his reaction be? If no tragedy had occured? Is it normal on YOUR railroad for an oil tankcar train to be left unmanned under any circumstance? Yes, fuel oil trains, ethanol trains, trains with some god awful chemicals that make crude oil look like a nice thing…the only cars we have to keep “under scrutiny”(the TSA;s term) are TIH cars, toxic inhalation cars, chlorine, ammonia, cyanide. We have 24 hours from the time they enter our yards/property to have these cars placed in their respective plants, and once returned to us, 24 hours to have them in an outbound train. Inbound Class 1 conductors have a receipt we must sign taking possession of these cars, we also have a receipt we make the receiver sign when we place these car in their facility, and we have a receipt the outbound conductor must sign taking possession again for the Class 1 carrier when they leave our property. They are not allowed to be left anywhere the general public can get to then. I would imagine that out in uninhabited areas, it would not be a problem to leave these cars in a train consist parked in a siding, but in urban and industrial areas where public access is possible, they are not to be left un attended, unless in a locked fenced area. Recall that two different plots against Canadian railroads have been foiled by Canadian police in the recent several months. After the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.? Depends on what type of fire…if it was a simple engine room fire, contained to the engine room, most likely no one would stick around and guard the thing afterward…keep in mind if it was a older GE, these things aren’t called toasters for no reason. How many Dash 9s have you seen with the scorch marks on the long hood, about midway, just under the exhaust stack? These had a fuel injector hose leak, sprayed diesel on the hot exhaust manifold, and poof goes the Dash 9. Very common occurrence, and unless the fire appeared deliberately set, there would be no real reason to leave someone to watch it, especially if the locomotive was turned off. If they had done so, the moment the train began to move, an alarm would have been sounded.
But the locomotive handbrake and several cars worth of handbrakes would have prevented a runaway.
If Ed Burkhardt knew that an oil tankcar train was left unmanned, what would his reaction be? If no tragedy had occured?
Is it normal on YOUR railroad for an oil tankcar train to be left unmanned under any circumstance?
Yes, fuel oil trains, ethanol trains, trains with some god awful chemicals that make crude oil look like a nice thing…the only cars we have to keep “under scrutiny”(the TSA;s term) are TIH cars, toxic inhalation cars, chlorine, ammonia, cyanide.
We have 24 hours from the time they enter our yards/property to have these cars placed in their respective plants, and once returned to us, 24 hours to have them in an outbound train.
Inbound Class 1 conductors have a receipt we must sign taking possession of these cars, we also have a receipt we make the receiver sign when we place these car in their facility, and we have a receipt the outbound conductor must sign taking possession again for the Class 1 carrier when they leave our property.
They are not allowed to be left anywhere the general public can get to then.
I would imagine that out in uninhabited areas, it would not be a problem to leave these cars in a train consist parked in a siding, but in urban and industrial areas where public access is possible, they are not to be left un attended, unless in a locked fenced area.
Recall that two different plots against Canadian railroads have been foiled by Canadian police in the recent several months.
After the fire was extinguished, did police prevent anyone from approaching, to preserve evidence, etc.?
Depends on what type of fire…if it was a simple engine room fire, contained to the engine room, most likely no one would stick around and guard the thing afterward…keep in mind if it was a older GE, these things aren’t called toasters for no reason.
How many Dash 9s have you seen with the scorch marks on the long hood, about midway, just under the exhaust stack?
These had a fuel injector hose leak, sprayed diesel on the hot exhaust manifold, and poof goes the Dash 9.
Very common occurrence, and unless the fire appeared deliberately set, there would be no real reason to leave someone to watch it, especially if the locomotive was turned off.
If they had done so, the moment the train began to move, an alarm would have been sounded.
The ratchet may still be cranked, but no guarantee it would remain that way, and with the trucks gone from under the car, there would be no way to tell if the bakes had been applied or not, unless the wheel set showed signs of sliding a long distance.
edblysard Bucyrus Here is a question for all you hand brake experts: If a hand brake had been applied on a tank car prior to the runaway, would the brake wheel and rachet still indicate an applied brake if the trucks were separated from the car during the wreck? The ratchet may still be cranked, but no guarantee it would remain that way, and with the trucks gone from under the car, there would be no way to tell if the bakes had been applied or not, unless the wheel set showed signs of sliding a long distance.
The train is now believed to have stuck the "crowded bar" after derailing and while on fire.
There is now a criminal investigation into the causes of the accident.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
If you want to see a video of the first ten minutes of the accident, just look at this link from Radio-Canada. You will be shocked.
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2013/07/09/003-video-images-francais-temoin-lac-megantic.shtml
As Ed has said, if there was still continuity in the trainline and the brakepipe pressure hadn't been drawn down a good bit below "Full Service" to begin with, anything that would have caused a rise in the brakepipe pressure of just a pound and a half over whatever the brakepipe reading was at the time could have triggered a brake release on every car in the train.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.