I don't agree with the columnist either. This is likely nothing more than a tragic accident. Someone somewhere or perhaps several mistakes by several people caused this to happen. I really don't believe there was any criminal intent by anyone. Hopefully the investigation clearly identifies what went wrong so that changes can be made and safe guards put into place. Punishing Tom Harding, the locomotive engineer, would be pointless...his life is already in ruins and I don't believe he meant for any of this to happen.
Because of Kerry's impending visit, I felt it necessary to visit the Manchester Guardian website this morning. But I was immediately distracted by the following column:
Three days after a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, the rural town resembles a scene of desolation. Its downtown is a charred sacrifice zone. 50 people are likely dead, making the train's toll one of the worst disasters in recent Canadian history.
In the explosion's aftermath, politicians and media pundits have wagged their finger about the indecency of "politicising" the event, of grappling with deeper explanations. We can mourn, but not scrutinise. In April, prime minister Stephen Harper even coined an awkward expression – "committing sociology" – to deride the search for root causes about horrifying events, in the wake of an unrelated, alleged bombing attempt.
But to simply call the Lac-Mégantic explosion a "tragedy" and to stop there, is to make it seem like an accident that occurred solely because of human error or technical oversight. It risks missing how we might assign broader culpability. And we owe it to the people who died to understand the reasons why such a disaster occurred, and how it might be prevented in the future.
So here's my bit of unwelcome sociology: the explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy. It is a corporate crime scene.
The deeper evidence about this event won't be found in the train's black box, or by questioning the one engineer who left the train before it loosened and careened unmanned into the heart of this tiny town. For that you'll have to look at how Lac-Mégantic was hit by a perfect storm of greed, deregulation and an extreme energy rush driving companies to ever greater gambles with the environment and human life.
The crude carried on the rail-line of US-based company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway – "fracked" shale oil from North Dakota – would not have passed through Lac-Mégantic five years ago. That's because it's part of a boom in dirty, unconventional energy, as fossil fuel companies seek to supplant the depletion of easy oil and gas with new sources – sources that are harder to find, nastier to extract, and more complicated to ship.
Like the Alberta tar sands, or the shale deposits of the United States, these energy sources are so destructive and carbon-intensive that leading scientists have made a straightforward judgment: to avert runaway climate change, they need to be kept in the ground. It's a sad irony that Quebec is one of the few places to currently ban the "fracking" used to extract the Dakotan oil that devastated Lac-Mégantic.
But fossil fuel companies, spurred by record profits, have deployed a full-spectrum strategy to exploit and carry this oil to market. That's one of the reasons for a massive, reckless increase in the amount of oil shipped by rail. In 2009, companies shipped a mere 500 carloads of crude oil by rail in Canada; this year, it will be 140,000.
Oil-by-rail has also proved a form of insurance against companies' worst nightmare: a burgeoning, continent-wide movement to block pipelines from the Alberta tar sands. A group of Canadian businessmen ispursuing the construction of a 2,400-kilometre rail line that could ship 5m barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to Alaska. Companies are also trucking it and entertaining the idea of barging it down waterways. This is the creed of the new energy era: by any means necessary.
The recklessness of these corporations is no accident. Under the reign of neoliberalism over the last 30 years, governments in Canada and elsewhere have freed them from environmental, labour and safety standards and oversight, while opening up increasingly more of the public sphere for private profit-seeking.
The railway in Canada has hardly been exempt. Up until the mid 1980s, the industry, publicly-run, was under serious regulation. By the time the Thatcherite Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney was finished with his reforms, it was deregulated, and companies had rewritten the safety rules. That launched an era of cost-cutting, massive lay-offs, and speed-ups on the job, and eventually, the full privatization of companies and rail-lines.
The Liberal government completed the job by turning over what regulation remained to rail companies themselves. A report issued in 2007 by a safety group spelled out the result: Canada's rail system was a disaster in the waiting.
It's little wonder, then, that today's oil and rail barons have cut corners with ease. They've been using old rail cars to ship oil, despite the fact that regulators warned the federal government they were unsafe, as far back as 20 years ago. A more recent report by a federal agencyreminded the government that the cars could be "subject to damage and catastrophic loss of hazardous materials." All were ignored. To top it off, the federal government gave the go-ahead last year to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway to operate with just one engineer aboard their trains.
All of which means it will not suffice to find out if a brake malfunctioned the night of the disaster, or limit ourselves to pointing at the failings of lax regulation. The debate should be about the need for another kind of brake, over the mad pursuit of infinite resources, and the unshackling of reckless corporations, on a finite and fragile planet.
Canada's political class will not be pleased by the lessons to be drawn. The government needs to get back into the business of heavily regulating corporations – through incentives, through taxes, and through sanctions. And this will involve not just grappling with the dangers of the transport of oil – which will remain unsafe, whether by rail or by pipeline – but starting a rapid transition away from an extreme energy economy entirely. That will not happen as the result of any government inquiry, but a noisy social movement that puts it on the public agenda.
That's why the most fitting response to Lac-Mégantic actually happened two weeks ago, by US residents 100 miles across the border in Fairfield, Maine. They were arrested blockading a train carrying the same fracked oil from the same oilfields of Northern Dakota, to the same refinery in New Brunswick, Canada. Their message was about ending our reliance on oil, not soon but now. For those who never knew the victims of Lac-Mégantic, there could be no better way to honour them.
• Follow Martin on Twitter: @Martin_Lukacs
A remote possibility :----- Let us examine the loco consist.. It is my understanding that the loco consist had 5 or 6 locos and a home built RCO caboose. ???
The RCO would have main resivoir pressure on it thru the main reservoir air hose that goes to all locos. The firemen shut down the lead (?) loco. If for some reason the RCO commanded a increase in brake pipe pressure would not the air brakes released ? That might have happened because of a mechanical failure, an electronic failure, design mistake, or even a stray radio signal ??
When an RCO is in line with the consist are there the same protocols in place for it to be considered as an in trail unit as regular locos. Does the Engineer when using RCO have to mount the caboose and throw some switch(s) ?? This RCO by my understanding is a home built unit ?
Also maybre one of the other locos units could have commanded a release.
IMHO --- the position and control settings of every unit needs close scrutiny and especially the RCO.
Bucyrus BroadwayLion Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set ( These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped. According to explanations here by our air brake experts, the pressure maintaining feature would not have played a role in this incident if the brakes were properly set. If they were properly set, the train line would be 100% exhausted and open to atmosphere. The brake cylinders would have been fully presurized and holding the brakes fully applied. Therefore, it would be impossible for the brakes to release due to a slow and unintended pressurization of the train line. Being open to atmosphere, the train line could not possibly be pressurized. So the only way the brakes could release on their own, would be for the pressuized cylinders to leak off, or for someone to walk the train and pull all the bleed rods. If the cylinders were to simply leak off, it would not have happend in just a matter of an hour or so. Most likely, it would have taken several days minimum.
BroadwayLion Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set ( These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped.
Falcon48but I believe that modern locos have a pressure maintaining feature, which would result in maintaining a reduced pressure in the train line even though the brakes are set (
These were not "modern" locomotives. They may not have been so equipped.
According to explanations here by our air brake experts, the pressure maintaining feature would not have played a role in this incident if the brakes were properly set. If they were properly set, the train line would be 100% exhausted and open to atmosphere. The brake cylinders would have been fully presurized and holding the brakes fully applied.
Therefore, it would be impossible for the brakes to release due to a slow and unintended pressurization of the train line. Being open to atmosphere, the train line could not possibly be pressurized.
So the only way the brakes could release on their own, would be for the pressuized cylinders to leak off, or for someone to walk the train and pull all the bleed rods. If the cylinders were to simply leak off, it would not have happend in just a matter of an hour or so. Most likely, it would have taken several days minimum.
On the other hand, if the runaway occured only an "hour or so" after the engine was shut down, I don't see how the loco shut down has anything to do with the accident. As you say, the air would not have bled off in such a short period. So the only way the air brakes would have come off is if they were deliberately released (by someone releasing the brake valve in the loco or pulling the bleed valves) or released by some kind of malfunction in the brake system that increased train line pressure a couple of pounds. In either case, the loco shutdown wouldn't have been the cause, and the brake release would have occurred even if the loco had beeen left running.
As I mentioned in an earler post, in the U.S., FRA regulations prohibit a railroad from depending on air brakes to hold unattended equipment on a grade (49 CFR 232.103(n)). Clearly, FRA believes there is a danger of the air brakes unintentionally releasing on an unattended train, or they wouldn't have adopted such a prohibition.
Schuylkill and Susquehanna Mr. Burkhardt, CEO of Rail World Inc. and the MM&A made a serious blunder after he arrived in Quebec. The business language of Quebec is French, and Mr. Burkhardt talked in English, and did not bring any translators. This naturally caused outrage in Quebec, and even the Prime Minister was upset about this. I would think that someone on Mr. Burkhardt's staff or one of his lawyers, etc. would have known that he should have spoken in French or had a translator with him. Perhaps he never got told, or it never made it up the chain of command. S&S
Mr. Burkhardt, CEO of Rail World Inc. and the MM&A made a serious blunder after he arrived in Quebec. The business language of Quebec is French, and Mr. Burkhardt talked in English, and did not bring any translators. This naturally caused outrage in Quebec, and even the Prime Minister was upset about this.
I would think that someone on Mr. Burkhardt's staff or one of his lawyers, etc. would have known that he should have spoken in French or had a translator with him. Perhaps he never got told, or it never made it up the chain of command.
S&S
Paul_D_North_JrWho - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ?
The cab driver who picked up the engineer noticed heavy smoke coming from the engine, and asked the engineer about it. Apparently there were oil droplets in the smoke landing on the taxicab. The engineer did not seem too concerned, but shortly after, someone noticed a small fire and called the fire department. They showed up with 12 men and put the fire out with a fire extinguisher. They also shut down that engine, which was the only one running. The shutdown was a normal procedure that the fire department were trained to do. Ed Burkhardt blamed the runaway on the fire department, saying that when the shut down that engine, it caused the train's brakes to release.
Maybe I missed it, but:
Who - or how - was the fire department notified of the 1st fire on one of the locomotives of the parked train ?
Is that location near homes or some other place where residents would or have objected to locomotives idling all night long ?
- Paul North.
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...
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...
I can see you leading the lynch mob now!
ring...ring...ring...Call Office
Mark me off sick...SLAM!!!
.
BigJimWhy don't you wait until the TSB has done its job and reported their findings before you go and make bigger fools of yourselves?
Because speculation is so much fun...
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...
Some links from CTV News:
Sadly, the death toll has now climbed to 24
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/death-toll-in-lac-megantic-train-disaster-rises-to-24-elderly-victim-id-d-1.1362568
A mostly favourable portrait of the Engineer
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/portrait-emerges-of-train-engineer-linked-to-quebec-derailment-disaster-1.1363792
Moody's is predicting increase in costs for shipping oil by rail
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/quebec-train-disaster-to-raise-costs-for-shipping-oil-by-rail-moody-s-1.1363377
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The explanation that shutting down the running engine caused the brakes to release appears to by chiseled into a granite monument as a fundamental truth of life. It must be part of over 1000 newspaper articles by now. Everybody is reciting it with faith and conviction.
Everybody, that is, except Burkhardt who originally introduced the explanation, but has now abandoned it in favor of throwing the engineer under the bus.
The following two quote sets are Burkhardt first explaining the loss of air brakes due to the engine shutdown before he started blaming the engineer for not setting hand brakes. The second quote is from an expert refuting what Burkhardt said.
QUOTE #1
Ed Burkhardt, chair of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways, has said the engineer followed proper procedures, setting the main air brake system and several hand brakes before he left. A locomotive unit was left running to maintain the brake system, said Burkhardt.
“Everything was as it should have been,” he said.
Burkhardt said the fire department turned off the engine to fight the blaze, which caused the brakes to fail about an hour later. The train began its death hurtle then downhill into town. Thirteen people are confirmed dead and as many as 50 still missing.
“It’s shutting the engine off that did this,” said Burkhardt.
QUOTE #2
Experts are baffled as to how that could have happened.
Wally Kirkpatrick, manager of rules and operations with RTC Rail Solutions, said safety rules dictate a train being left anywhere should be put in a “full service” brake.
That means decreasing the pressure in the air brake system, which applies the brakes.
“The only way these brakes are going to release is if the pressure goes up,” said Kirkpatrick, who has 38 years of experience. “This is the fail-safe thing about a train.”
“How the train got away in this situation is really beyond me.”
Ulrichrail moving more oil
Russell
Good people can make serious mistakes. No one meant for this to happen. Probably the best outcome at this point is a review of best practices and procedures to ensure this doesn't happen again. I'm all for rail moving more oil, but I'm also for improving the system to make sure that safety remains paramount. Too bad that it took an accident like this to make that happen.
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
20 people are now confirmed dead, and MMA and Rail World Inc. CEO Mr. Burkhardt said that "We think he applied some hand brakes, but the question is, did he apply enough of them? ... He said he applied 11 hand brakes. We think that's not true. Initially we believed him, but now we don't."
The article then takes a darker turn, where several MMA employees refer to several Quebec residents as a "------- frog" Here are some quotes from the article:
"In a sign of the tensions present, the Montreal Gazette reported Wednesday that an MMA employee from Illinois called a local resident a “------- frog” during a dispute over the taking of pictures. Gazette photographer John Kenney was taking pictures of parked MMA rail cars near Lac-Megantic Tuesday when an MMA employee, identifying himself only as an investigator from Illinois, “approached [Kenney] and screamed at him menacingly,” the newspaper reported."
"When a local resident, Alex Larabee, intervened in the dispute, he reportedly got an earful of abuse. “I asked him if [the rail cars] were leaking. I asked in French and he started swearing at me in English, calling me a ------- frog and all that,” Larabée said, as quoted at the Gazette. “It really shows their flagrant lack of respect for us (residents),” Larabee said."
"Quebec Premier Pauline Marois toured the devastated town Thursday, taking another opportunity to criticize MMA for its response to the crisis. Marois had earlier faulted Burkhardt for what she said was a slow response, and called the company's chief behaviour "deplorable'' and "unacceptable.'' She renewed some of the criticism Thursday."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/quebec-train-crash-brakes_n_3574564.html Link is R rated for language.
Another article said that engineer was torn up about the wreck. "An employee at the inn where Harding slept one or two nights per week says she specifically remembers the horrified expression on his face when he scrambled outside following a massive blast and saw the inferno engulfing the town." "Catherine Pomerleau-Pelletier doesn't remember hearing him utter a word amid the chaos, but she thinks she was looking into his eyes the instant he realized his unmanned, crude-oil-filled train had just slammed into the downtown core."
" "I saw him arrive, I looked at him and I didn't say a word or anything because he looked very, very, very shaken up," said Pomerleau-Pelletier, a barmaid and receptionist at the century-old l'Eau Berge inn.
"He didn't do anything, but his face was pretty descriptive."
"It said everything." "
In addition the article added this bit of information from Mr. Harding's taxi driver that night. I find it rather interesting:
"The taxi driver met Harding on Friday night at the spot where he parked the train before it roared into town. He said his regular customer seemed fine, with nothing out of the ordinary. However, Andre Turcotte did say that the idling train appeared to be belching out more smoke than usual, so much so that he recalled that oil droplets from the locomotive exhaust landed on his car. He said he asked Harding twice whether the puffs of smoke were particularly hazardous for the environment. Turcotte said his client calmly responded that he had followed company directives to deal with the issue. A short time after they left, the locomotive caught fire, a blaze that was extinguished by the local fire department."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/11/colette-roy-laroche-lac-megantic-mayor_n_3581615.html
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
BigJimjury by popular (uneducated) opinion
What was I thinking. Ok everyone, no more talking about the train related story on the train related forum until after there's nothing left to talk about.
After the TSB rules on the matter we can all just post "oh, ok."
I find it interesting that while most of the folks on this discussion thread agree that Burkhardt has mishandled things...
So, after twenty pages;
Why don't you wait until the TSB has done its job and reported their findings before you go and make bigger fools of yourselves?
zardozWhich is why it is always best to apply the handbrakes AFTER the car has been put in emergency, or at least full service.
Yep.
daveklepper Again, I have long felt that both the Canadian government and certainly the Obama administration have long underestimated the threat of terror. They go overboard on security on some matters, and then completely neglect others. Frisking boarding passengers at stations and then let combustable product loaded trains sit unmanned?
Again, I have long felt that both the Canadian government and certainly the Obama administration have long underestimated the threat of terror. They go overboard on security on some matters, and then completely neglect others. Frisking boarding passengers at stations and then let combustable product loaded trains sit unmanned?
it seems like there are a number of scenarios that could absolve the engineer.
1. he could, for example, have "applied" the hand brakes, performed a quick test by releasing the air brakes, and when the train didn't move - re applied the air, and left. anyone that has ever come back to a parking lot to find their car not in park and on the other side of the lot can imagine why the train could roll in this scenario. sometimes it just takes a bit for things to get going, esp when they have a little resistance.
2. what was the cause of the fire on the locomotive? could it have been arson? did the arsonist come back later on to finish what he started? it doesn't exactly take a scientist to release a hand brake (or bleed the air). Finding those hand brakes not set wouldn't exactly prove anything as far as the engineer is concerned.
tree68 One thing to consider about the handbrakes is that there's applied, and then there's applied. It's possible that an appropriate number of handbrakes were applied, but only in a cursory manner - perhaps just until resistance was felt. If that were the case, the brakes would have been applied, but not properly. If that were the case, then anything that compromised whatever was holding the train would allow it to begin moving.
One thing to consider about the handbrakes is that there's applied, and then there's applied.
It's possible that an appropriate number of handbrakes were applied, but only in a cursory manner - perhaps just until resistance was felt. If that were the case, the brakes would have been applied, but not properly. If that were the case, then anything that compromised whatever was holding the train would allow it to begin moving.
If trains never moved if all securing procedures were followed then focus on prevention is all that is needed. However Murphy is always around the corner and the mitigation of any runaways whatever the cause is of the upmost importance. That can be manned or unmaned trains or just a cut of cars.. Stop any runaway a quickly as possible with a sufficient PREVENTION SYSTEM ! Of course no system can be fool proof.
carnej1 I find it interesting that while most of the folks on this discussion thread agree that Burkhardt has mishandled things,some of the same posters cite some of his earlier contradictory statements as "possible proof" that this was a terrorist attack.....
I find it interesting that while most of the folks on this discussion thread agree that Burkhardt has mishandled things,some of the same posters cite some of his earlier contradictory statements as "possible proof" that this was a terrorist attack.....
I am not sure what your point is in saying that. Burkhardt has earlier claimed there was nothing to suggest it was a terrorist attack. And he has claimed that he has evidence that the train was "tampered with."
I run a late 1950's locomotive with pressure maintaining.
If the engineer made a service application, there would still be pressure in the brake pipe.
While Mr. Burkhardt's statements have made him a poster child on how not to lead in a crisis, he does seem sincere in stating that the most recent information he has indicates that the handbrakes were not properly set by the M,M & A crewman. He certainly does not have much to gain personally or professionally by making the statement (in fact he may well have made things worse for his company legally).
As far as the veracity of the engineer's story, I have no way to evaluate it based on anything I have read or watched. Even Honest, competent people sometimes make huge errors in judgement and then try to cover it up (even in situations were they know that their explanation of events will be carefully scrutinized). The investigation, I'm certain, will uncover what he actually did or didn't do.
However, DaveKlepper and others point about lax security on parked Haz-mat trains is well made and that may well be a "lesson learned" here, whatever the cause.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Would someone who can reach Burkhardt give him some good advice?
If the engineer said he set the handbrakes properly, I believe he did so. Because intense investigation of the wreckage by qualified people could verify that fact or prove otherwise.
QUOTE FROM ED BURKHARDT:
The engineer on the runaway train that leveled much of a Quebec town with a deadly blast apparently didn’t properly set the hand brakes.
“It’s very questionable whether the hand brakes were properly applied on this train,” Edward Burkhardt, head honcho of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, said Wednesday. “As a matter of fact, I’ll say they weren’t; otherwise, we wouldn’t have had this incident.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh really? If it is very questionable, how do you come to a “matter of fact” conclusion?
Burkhardt concludes that if the hand brakes were applied, the runaway would not have occurred. Sure, that is 100% true. But how do you conclude that the engineer failed to properly apply hand brakes when there is a possibility that someone else released them after the engineer applied them?
After all, it was Mr. Burkhardt that earlier, when he was trying to blame the fire department, made a point of telling us that the engineer was “NOT THE LAST PERSON TO TOUCH THAT TRAIN.”
And it was Mr. Burkhardt who has told us that he has evidence that the train was “tampered with.”
So now he says that his investigation concludes that hand brakes were not set on the cars. Yeah right. I’ll bet it does. [subtle sarcasm]
BucyrusAccording to explanations here by our air brake experts, the pressure maintaining feature would not have played a role in this incident if the brakes were properly set. If they were properly set, the train line would be 100% exhausted and open to atmosphere. The brake cylinders would have been fully presurized and holding the brakes fully applied.
Aye! But here is the rub... The train line was NOT opened to the atmosphere. Apparently they wanted to be able to get under way more quickly in the morning with out starting the brakes from zero. If that was the case, heaven help that crew and the railroad.
LION was under the impression (right or wrong) that there was no relief crew for this job. They tied up and went to a motel and to bed, in the morning they intended to come back and continue their journey. It is a job that called for a caboose, but of course they do not use those things any more. They should have had a caboose. The Engineer should have shut down his engines, set the hand brakes on the engines and on the proper number of cars and then made him self comfortable in the caboose for the night.
BTW: Do not some train crews simply tie up their trains and take a lunch break somewhere?
Newer subway trains in New York City no longer have hand brakes. (Too many kids playing with them?).
They now have parking brakes, and they are automatically set. LION is not sure of the details (details are at the other end of de cats) but anyway, they are automatic and seem like a good thing.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.