hellwarrior 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.
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.
Reposted as a link:
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2013/07/09/003-video-images-francais-temoin-lac-megantic.shtml
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
Maybe leaving an idling train on a siding with no one on board is not such a great idea? I wouldn't leave my car in idle and unlocked on a hill. Why is it safe to leave a 10 thousand ton train this way? In this day and age of cell phones, Facebook, tweeting and whatever else, can't crews coordinate more precisely so that they can meet each other without leaving the train unattended? Is it THAT hard to do? A friend of mine drives a super B tanker for Esso. I asked him if he ever leaves his fuel laden rig parked on a hill, unlocked, and idling...his response was "you f@#&*$* kidding me?"
Ulrich I wouldn't leave my car in idle and unlocked on a hill.
The difference between motor vehicles and locomotives is the reverser. A car can't idle without its key, a locomotive can idle without its reverser. The reverser, when removed, doesn't allow anyone to move the locomotive, as it can't be put "into gear". (meaning no electricity can be sent to the traction motors)
Hope this helps,
NW
Just to make sure I understand, did the train roll backward into Lac-Magentic? Had the train passed through it and then climbed a grade? Did the train stop at the top of the grade and then catch fire? I haven't seen any kind of track diagram as to where everything is. I apologize if this was covered elsewhere.
BigJim 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.Finally, somebody that understands how train brakes work! Pay attention folks!Thanks Ed 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.
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.
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.
Just to be clear, I was not disagreeing with you earlier when I posted something that was contrary to what you had explained. I was only posting what the president of the railroad had said. He said that shutdown of the engine released the brakes. But personally, I am fine with your explanation.
Although I do have one question: With the train standing like it was (with the locomotive coupled to the train), what would be the proper condition of the trainline? Would it be completely exhausted and open to atmosphere? If so, I don't understand the concern over reservoir leakage raising the trainline pressure and causing a release. How could leakage raise the trainline pressure if it were open to atmosphere?
overall Just to make sure I understand, did the train roll backward into Lac-Magentic? Had the train passed through it and then climbed a grade? Did the train stop at the top of the grade and then catch fire? I haven't seen any kind of track diagram as to where everything is. I apologize if this was covered elsewhere.
Dan
Murphy Siding If the fire department shows up at the railroad tracks to put out a fire on a locomotive, who would have the knowledge, and/or authority to shut off the locomotive? You'd sure as heck think that the fire department would contact somebody at the railroad, if they were putting out a fire on a locomotive on that railroad's tracks.
Yes, they would contact the railroad. And EVERY FIREFIGHTER and EMT *knows* how to shut down a locomotive if they went to a railroad sponsored training class. I have been to several such classes, and have shut down the locomotive using the throttle, the master switch in the cab, and the cut off switch by the fuel tank.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Bucyrus BigJim 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.Finally, somebody that understands how train brakes work! Pay attention folks!Thanks Ed 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. Just to be clear, I was not disagreeing with you earlier when I posted something that was contrary to what you had explained. I was only posting what the president of the railroad had said. He said that shutdown of the engine released the brakes. But personally, I am fine with your explanation. Although I do have one question: With the train standing like it was (with the locomotive coupled to the train), what would be the proper condition of the trainline? Would it be completely exhausted and open to atmosphere? If so, I don't understand the concern over reservoir leakage raising the trainline pressure and causing a release. How could leakage raise the trainline pressure if it were open to atmosphere?
The cars themselves each have a reservoir…equal pressure in the train line and the cars reservoir keep the brakes off.
The main reservoir on the locomotive is used to release the brakes, not apply them, it and the compressor charge the train line pressure (and in the case of a train with zero air pressure in both the train line and the cars reservoirs, it will charge the cars reservoirs first) up to that of the individual cars reservoir, equalizing the two side of the system and releasing the brakes.
Drop the train line pressure, the brakes apply, using compound leverage they apply a tremendous amount of force to the wheels.
The brake valve on each car will also use some of the air in each cars reservoir to recharge the train line, this speeds up the equalizing (release) process, once the pressure is equal in both sides the brakes release.
If, and only if both ends of the train line were closed to atmosphere, could some of the air in the cars reservoirs leak back into the train line, and as little as a 2 psi difference between the cars reservoirs and the train line can allow the brakes on that car begin to release, such a release would “travel” from car to car from the point of the leak, slowly releasing the brakes on each car.
The reason you leave the anglecock open on a standing cut of cars is to insure that if there is a leaking car reservoir, any air leaked out will vent to atmosphere…with the angle cock closed, this leak will build pressure in the train line, if you have a couple of leaks, it could easily build up enough pressure in the train line to begin releasing the brakes.
It would take time for this to happen, several hours to several days.
For this to be the cause of this accident, there would have to be a lot of leaks, and they would have to be pretty good sized leaks to cause it to happen as quickly as an hour to two hours as the time frame suggests.
Leaving the locomotives train brake handle in the application zone keeps the entire train line open to atmosphere, preventing this from happening.
What would have to happen to release the air brakes on the cars would be either someone moved the brake handle in the lead unit to the release position, thus closing the train line and allowing air from the locomotives reservoir and compressor to begin flowing into the train line, equalizing the two sides of the brake system, and releasing the brakes, or…someone closed the anglecocks on both the locomotive and the lead car, un coupled the glad hands and then opened the anglecock on the lead car, which leaves the train line vented to atmosphere, negating the chance of any leakage or flow back from the locomotive.
All that would be required after that is to walk the train, pulling the release handles on the brakes valves, causing each car’s reservoir to vent to atmosphere.
The brake valve vents the reservoir directly to the atmosphere when the handle is pulled.
Because the train line is open to atmosphere, and the reservoirs are now opening to atmosphere, both sides of the system are equalized, so the brakes on each car will release as each handle is pulled.
As each car was bled off, its brakes would release, do this far enough back down the train and gravity will eventually take over.
23 17 46 11
Schuylkill and Susquehanna 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
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.
Yes, some person or persons is probably going to do prison time for this one. They should. Even if it was just a mistake. Somebody either deliberately acted to release the brakes, negligently acted to release the brakes, or didn't set the brakes properly.
The result was that a whole lot of folks burned up. And that is unacceptable. And likely criminal.
edblysardLeaving the locomotives train brake handle in the application zone keeps the entire train line open to atmosphere, preventing this from happening.
Actually, I believe having the brake handle in the application zone brings to bear the pressure maintaining apparatus of the brake system (unless you're running a really old locomotive). If you've made a 20 pound reduction, the system will maintain 70 PSI in the trainline even in the face of any leaks that may occur.
Moving the brake handle (further) into application vents air from the train line to atmosphere, but the air brake stand/system will still maintain pressure on the train line, up to a point.
That's why one must cut out the brake stand in order to do a leakage test on the train.
Moving the brake handle to emergency does completely open the trainline to atmosphere.
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...
Thanks for that explanation Ed. I am familiar with most of those details, but I was not quite clear on the condition of the trainline with brakes applied, train standing, with engine coupled to it, with the angle cock of the engine and the one on the first car open, and engine running.
I suppose you could have some pressure in the trainline if brakes were applied in a service application. But if you are leaving a train, I assume that you would have the brakes set just as if they had dynamited into full emergency.
So the trainline would be exhausted and maximum pressure would be in the cylinders. And the trainline would be open to atmosphere at the brake valve in on the locomotive. So under those conditions, what if that train stood like that for a month or more? I know that if you set out cars, and dump the air, it will eventually leak off from the pressurized cylinders. Some may leak off in only a matter of a few hours, and some may hold for several days or weeks. When I refer to the brakes leaking off, I do not mean brakes releasing from reservoir leakage into a closed trainline.
Considering the standing train with engine running, and brakes full applied with trainline open to atmosphere, I assume there would be no way for the running engine to recharge or maintain a charge in the brake cylinders if air gradually leaked off of that pressurized portion of the circuit on each car.
If that is true, then it would have been completely irrelevant that the fire department shut off the MM&A engine that was running. The running engine would have been completely disassociated from any role in maintaining pressure in the brake cylinders. And even if that pressure leaked off over time, say three weeks, the running engine would still not be able to compensate for that loss of air pressure in the cylinders.
But being that the brakes were released in only an hour or so, we could probably 100% rule out the possibility that the cylinders leaked off as I described above. So I see your point that the only way the brakes could have been released is for somebody to have released them from the engineer’s brake valve or to have closed the lead angle cock of the first car if the engine was uncoupled, or closed that angle cock and/or the one on the engine if the engine remained coupled. And then for the brakes to have released under any of those scenarios, there would need to be some leakage from one or more reservoirs into the closed trainline, which could release all of the brakes just like an intentional release would.
So why did they even leave the engine running in the first place?
TREE68,You still don't understand the brake system. With the pressure maintaining feature cut in, that is exactly what it will do, maintain equalizing reservoir pressure. If there happens to be a leak, it will maintain that leak (up to a point), keeping the brakepipe at a constant level. If there is an excess of pressure it will exhaust it.
Let's say you couple up to a cut of cars on ground air and let's say that ground air is set at 80psi. When you couple up and before the conductor turns the air in, you draw the equalizing pressure down to 65psi. When the conductor turns the air in, it starts blowing out of the brake stand because 80psi is greater than the 65psi that you have the brake drawn down to because that maintaining feature is trying to do what you asked it to do. It will continue to blow until the ground air is taken out.
So, we have established that the maintaining feature does its job. The unit happens to get shut down while the brake handle is still in the same position where it previously gave that reduction to 65psi. The air starts to leak off of the main reservoir. As the pressure in the main reservoir starts leaking below the equalizing reservoir pressure, the maintaining feature will still try to do its job and the equalizing pressure follows the M/R right on down, taking the brakepipe pressure right along with it and applying the brakes more and more until a full service application is reached. After that, even though the brakepipe may leak down to 0 psi, no more brake can be applied to the train and the air is just wasting away. Guess what happens if the unit gets restarted!!!
Now going back to where we coupled up to the train, cut out the maintaining feature and watch what happens to the brakepipe pressure. It goes up the 80psi of the ground air. Why? Because you just cut out its only means of escape...the maintaining feature. In other words, you just bottled the air. If there happened to be any air brakes on the cars, they will release.
Bucyrus,
I assume that you would have the brakes set just as if they had dynamited into full emergency.
.
BucyrusSo why did they even leave the engine running in the first place?
Also, old, locomotives can be very hard to start when cold. So leaving one running gives you power to start the others. (If necessary)
1. I learned a lot about the ability of modern freight equipment to maintain brake cylinder pressure without recharging from the locomotive's compressor. This is different than 60 years ago! And my most recent experience has been with museum equipment., even that over 17 years ago.
2. I am still surprised that railroads allow loaded trains of any type to be left without any supervision, in a post-11-Sep.-01 envirionment. Is this a practice on the NS? Possibly excepting coal? What about pilferage?
3. If there is one action that would have averted the tragedy, it would have been for the track maintainer to awaken the crew, who would have secured the train and then gone back to bed. Hours of service law or no, if I were an engineer and the fire department doused a fire on my enngine, I would want to know about it as soon as possible and inspect it after they left. If hours of service laws prevented the dispatcher from instructing the track maintainer to wake up the crew, then the dispatcher should have insured that some other responsible person got to the scene as quickly as possible.
Or if loco fires are so routine, then something higher up is amiss.
Here is a recent quote summarizing the explanation for the runaway:
Burkhardt told the daily La Presse that Nantes firefighters "showed up and put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. To do that they also shut down the first locomotive's engines. This is what led to the disaster."
He explained that the train's brakes were powered by the locomotive and would have disengaged when it was shut down, causing the driverless train to start rolling downhill towards Lac-Megantic.
As I understand the explanation that has been given in this thread, the explanation given above by Mr. Burkhardt cannot possibly be accurate.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130710/railway-blames-firefighters-canada-train-disaster
From what I've heard, it now sounds like the dispatcher didn't notify both train crews of the fire.
I also heard that they didn't do a push-pull test after securing the cars.
There are also some problems with MM&A. Since 2003, there have been over 100 "incidents", and over 80 derailments. It sounds like some of those were due to negligence. The example I heard was that they found a cracked rail and did nothing, and a train ended up derailing because of the rail.
Yeah, someone is in BIG trouble.
Just some context. MM&A is a small railroad, owning 510 miles of track and 26 locomotives. 15 trains are operated daily, and the MM&A employs 170 people. (Found on the MM&A web site.)
On their home page, I found a link to a press release from the 7th - the day after the accident.
Bucyrus Here is a recent quote summarizing the explanation for the runaway: Burkhardt told the daily La Presse that Nantes firefighters "showed up and put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. To do that they also shut down the first locomotive's engines. This is what led to the disaster." He explained that the train's brakes were powered by the locomotive and would have disengaged when it was shut down, causing the driverless train to start rolling downhill towards Lac-Megantic. As I understand the explanation that has been given in this thread, the explanation given above by Mr. Burkhardt cannot possibly be accurate. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130710/railway-blames-firefighters-canada-train-disaster
I would have expected a more robust and intelligent response from him. Also, this happened on Saturday and he's only now arriving in Lac - Megantic. He should have been on site by Monday morning at the very latest. I also heard him state that apart from this disaster, his railroad is as safe as any other. I appreciate that he's in damage control, but his comments do nothing more than infuriate those who were affected. Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town.
Ulrich Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town.
Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town.
Yes, even if the fire chief was at fault, Burkhardt would have been better off not saying so at this point. Everybody knows that these big accidents need some time to be investigated. Burkhadt should not be expected to explain the cause the next day.
But the worse thing is that Burkhardt comes right out of the box blaming it on the fire chief, and it appears that Burkhardt's case is full of holes. And because his blaming of the fire chief is based on a technical issue involving air brakes and running locomotives, those issues will be sorted out by the experts.
So if Burkhardt is blowing smoke, it is not going to escape the technical expertise of the investigation. And if Burkhardt's excuse is proven to be false, he is going to look very bad for trying to blame the fire chief before the investigation even began.
The failure (or not) of air brakes shouldn't be an issue if the cars weren't attached to a locomotive. Rules require hand brakes to be set in sufficient number to keep the cars from moving.
CROR Rule 112(a) When equipment is left at any point a sufficient number of hand brakes must be applied to prevent it from moving. Special instructions will indicate the minimum hand brake requirements for all locations where equipment is left. If equipment is left on a siding, it must be coupled to other equipment if any on such track unless it is necessary to provide separation at a public crossing at grade or elsewhere.
112(b) and 112(c) cover making sure the hand brakes applied are effective before leaving equipment.
Still, we cannot get a clear explanation of what the locomotive did when the train ran away (quoted):
His engineer reported having deployed the hand brakes on a number of tanker cars and on the engines. The brakes on the locomotives eventually held, he said.
They stopped a quarter of a mile away from their original parking spot in Nantes, he said. They did not make it to Lac-Megantic.
I thought the locomotives were on the head end of the train, and the train was headed toward Lac Megantic prior to the runaway. And I thought that train stopped 7 miles before reaching Lac Megantic, and then ran way for those 7 miles into Lac Megantic. So how did the locomotives end up behind the runaway?
In the meantime, Burkhardt says he hopes he will not get shot when he visits Lac Megantic.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/edward-burkhardt-rail-ceo-to-visit-lac-megantic-quebec-hopes-he-doesnt-get-shot-by-residents
rcdryeif the cars weren't attached to a locomotive.
As has been noted already, the locomotives did not detach from the cars until after the derailment, and they were found 1 km. (6/10th of a mile) beyond the wreck site, east of Lac Megantic.
What I wanted to post was an amazing photo issued by NASA of the fire, about 1 hour after the wreck, as seen from a satellite.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=81581
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
AgentKidAs has been noted already, the locomotives did not detach from the cars until after the derailment, and they were found 1 km. (6/10th of a mile) beyond the wreck site, east of Lac Megantic.
Well, that would put the locomotives 7.6 miles east of where they were originally parked prior to the runaway. The article I referenced says the locomotives were found .25 miles from where they were originally parked. So that is a discrepancy of 7.35 miles.
Bucyrus, I did not see your most recent post as I was typing my reply to rcdrye.
This latest comment attributed to Mr. Burkhardt would appear to be so impossible that I believe the media must have totally misunderstood what he was saying.
One problem I have had in following this story is that often new information is added to a story and older information is overwritten. But everything I have read comes down to an EB oil train was parked at Nantes, QC. For reasons unknown, after a locomotive fire, said EB train rolled away EB from Nantes toward Lac Megantic, derailed and exploded, at which point the locomotives broke loose from that train, and came to rest east of Lac Megantic.
I think whether they were found .25 mi., or 0.6 mi. east of Lac Megantic is a matter of speculation, until the TSB gets out their tape measure and issues a finding.
Before being bought by Rail World Inc. in 2003, the Montreal, Maine, and Atlantic railway was known as the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad. The BAR was bought by Iron Road Railways in 1995, before having its assets bought by Rail World in 2003.
Mr. Burkhardt has defended MM&A's "good safety record", saying that we "never had a mainline derailment." The US FRA seems to show that MM&A does not have a "good safety record" at all. Since 2003, when it was bought by Rail World Inc. (coincidence anyone?), the MM&A has had 143 accidents! More than 4 have had damage totaling more than $100,000. My question is this: how can you have so much damage without having a "mainline accident"?
It would seem that Mr. Burkhard was either just hired, or he has a VERY short memory. I quote him again: "we've never had a significant mainline derailment." Now I would say that ANY mainline derailment is significant, unless it's on an HO layout. Also, it just to happens that MM&A has had 7 (7!!!!) derailments on the mainline between Bangor and Montreal, IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF 2013.
Obviously, Mr. Burkhard must have been hired in the last month. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but Mr. Burkhardt's repeated un-truths are getting on my nerves.)
Since the accident, Mr. Burkhardt has blamed, vandals, the fire department, and now railroad officials believe that there may have been "tampering" that caused the accident. It seems that he does not want to accept responsibility, and does not want to wait for the facts to become apparent before proposing a scenario for the accident.
Now 15 people are confirmed dead, and 60 are missing.
Here is an interesting comment by Mr. Burkhardt:
“The company has previously called the train engineer, Quebecer Tom Harding, a hero for apparently rushing to the scene and managing to stop some of the ghost cars.”
How was that possible? The end-of-train device shows on the last car of the train standing in the fire at the derailment site.
It is just one more bizarre comment by Ed Burkhardt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/10/lac-megantic-explosion_n_3571341.html#slide=2670967
NPR is reporting that the engineer on this train has been "suspended without pay" for not setting enough hand brakes. I guess when it's all said and done, the railroad will be to blame and the whole industry will suffer for one man's lapse in judgement.
NOTE: this line is the former Canadian Pacific from Montreal to New Brunswick and not the BAR....MMA does operate some parts of the BAR east of Brownsville and Millenocket.
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.
Burkhardt should be a little smarter and not comment so much until the investigation is completed. Now he's blaming the engineer. Quite likely the engineer is at fault, but he shouldn't comment on that publicly until the investigation runs its course. His comments should be restricted to an apology and to something in the way of compensating the victims and the town. The blame game he's playing makes him look stupid and does not reflect well on the railway.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.