The essence of safety is that a failure of any type leads to a more restrictive condition. Dumping the parked train into "Emergency" meets that requirement. Depending on the Brake Pipe to remain charged and the independent brakes to stay on is planning for good luck. Handbrakes are also unsafe because they depend on the operator to assure effectiveness. Avoiding the time required for a terminal test cost a lot of lives, not to mention property damage. "Normal Procedure was wrong"
Jerry Pier
Handbrakes are unsafe? How? If properly applied and tested, they are a lot better than relying on an emergency application. Ever see cars immediately bleed themselves off after being dumped? I have. Handbrakes normally don't self-release.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Because of the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the operating rules for securing a train have been changed as of July 12. I was told by a trainmaster that these changes to the operating rules came from Transport Canada and are in effect immediately.
A train tied-up online will be secured with handbrakes. The hand brakes will be tested to ensure the train will not move. If the train still moves, add more hand brakes until it does not. This part has not changed.
Previously, we would leave the automatic brake released and the isolation switch in "isolate". This was done for efficiency reasons. First, the emergency reservoirs would remain charged which would allow the train to recharge the brakes and depart quickly after the relief crew arrived, and second, putting the locomotive in "isolate" would save fuel because the auto-start/stop systems would NOT restart the locomotive if air pressure dropped below 105psi,
Today, a train tied-up online will be secured with hand brakes as I described above. Then the train's automatic brake will be placed into "emergency". The isolation switch will remain in run. The generator field will be switched off, the reverser removed from the locomotive and the doors locked of the lead locomotive.
When I was trained as an engineer, I remember my first instinct was to set the automatic brake when leaving a train tied-up online. Of course I was taught that was not the procedure as the operating instructions dictated to leave the train with the brakes released. To me it was common sense to leave the automatic brake set on a train that was to remain tied-up. Just like we are taught to set the parking brake in our cars when we leave them parked. Its the same thing. For many years this oversight in a simple safety procedure was able to continue, and in hindsight, it was only a matter of time before a disaster of this magnitude was going to happen. Its a *** shame and I feel for the people of Lac-Mégantic and the engineer of the train. For all of them it is a hell nobody ever wants to go through. Again, in my opinion, this was an accident that was completely avoidable if common sense and safety were the priority over efficiency.
Key words IF PROPERLY APPLIED. Depends upon the falibilty of man for safety. I rest my case
Gratified to see Transport Canada's response. That should end the debate.
Jerry Pier Key words IF PROPERLY APPLIED. Depends upon the falibilty of man for safety. I rest my case Jerry Pier
That's everything. Even the new procedures are worthless if not properly followed.
I rest my case.
The problem that I see with the requirement for proper application of hand brakes, when called for, is that it is a lot of work to apply them. And since they are redundant to the air brakes, I can see the possibility of rationalizing away the need to apply hand brakes to the full requirement of the circumstance.
A person might decide that, between hand brakes and air brakes together, adequate holding will surely result; rather than seeing it properly in that each system must be capable of doing the holding independently of the other.
I wonder how often that kind of rationalization has been cited as the cause of wrecks or runaways in the history of railroading. It would be an interesting statistic, but I do not know where it can be found.
I do know of one fatal runaway that occurred in Upper Michigan in the early 1950s, and was caused by ignoring the importance of hand brakes while relying only on the air brake. I posted the story here about a year ago. When nearly stalling while climbing L’Anse Hill, they cut the diesel road engine off to run ahead and break the snow and sand the rails for about 1000 feet.
Meanwhile, a steam helper on the hind end kept a push on the train with steam in his cylinders. When the diesel returned, he cut the air in, but apparently had lost most of the car reservoir charges. As soon as the brakes released, he shot backwards. The engineer of the steamer thought the road engineer was shoving back to get to a better place to start, and he worried about flattening the drivers on the steamer, so he stopped resisting. What happed next was a confusing attempt to set the air, but once they had run back a couple hundred feet, they were goners.
The rules called for hand brakes to be set when they cut the road engine off, but the crew did not see the necessity.
T&E crews complain about the 'Weed Weasels' - Company officers performing efficiency tests. tI would appear evident that the MM&A Weed Weasls were not up to snuff in having crews secure their trains. There are many aspects of rules compliance that are involved in safely and successfully operating a railroad - be that a Class I carrier or a Regional or a short line. It is up to company officials to continuously supervise and test the employees for all manner of duties that they perform - signal compliance - speed compliance - switch handling - train securement - train handling.
The reality of T&E crews is that they are always looking for a short cut in the performance of their duties (they are human after all). Short cuts and doing things RIGHT are frequently mutually exclusive. No doubt the MM&A engineer thought he was taking a 'safe' short cut - subsequent events proved, for the world to see, that that short cut was anything but safe.
Employees are paid to do their jobs properly. Company officials are charged with supervising employees to esure that they are performing the jobs properly and in conformance with all the appropriate safety and operating rules.
The territory I am responsible for has a number of mountain grades - when a train has a undesired emergency application of the air brakes - the first thing the crew starts doing as they proceed to inspect the train is to tie on hand brakes as they go - hand brakes to hold the train in place as the trainline gets recharged - train inspection and problem resolution on these territories will take 2 to 3 times longer than solving the same problem on flatland territory - because of the necessity of securing the train.
Railroading is not a easy job - it requires all employees doing their jobs properly. Saw a article about the SFO plane crash, questioning if their was too much reliance on computer operations in flying the current crop of commercial planes. You have to expect and insure your employees perform their duties properly. That is the cornerstone of any business.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD It is up to company officials to continuously supervise and test the employees for all manner of duties that they perform - signal compliance - speed compliance - switch handling - train securement - train handling. The reality of T&E crews is that they are always looking for a short cut in the performance of their duties (they are human after all). Short cuts and doing things RIGHT are frequently mutually exclusive.
It is up to company officials to continuously supervise and test the employees for all manner of duties that they perform - signal compliance - speed compliance - switch handling - train securement - train handling.
The reality of T&E crews is that they are always looking for a short cut in the performance of their duties (they are human after all). Short cuts and doing things RIGHT are frequently mutually exclusive.
Well that is not very reassuring. If it requires weed weasels to make sure employees do their job, who makes sure the weed weasels do their job?
The whole process sounds too iffy. It may be fine if all that is at stake is the train, but when whole towns are on placed at risk along with the train, it is time for a better mousetrap.
Bucyrus BaltACD It is up to company officials to continuously supervise and test the employees for all manner of duties that they perform - signal compliance - speed compliance - switch handling - train securement - train handling. The reality of T&E crews is that they are always looking for a short cut in the performance of their duties (they are human after all). Short cuts and doing things RIGHT are frequently mutually exclusive. Well that is not very reassuring. If it requires weed weasels to make sure employees do their job, who makes sure the weed weasels do their job? The whole process sounds too iffy. It may be fine if all that is at stake is the train, but when whole towns are on placed at risk along with the train, it is time for a better mousetrap.
The human reality is iffy at best! I can't trust you either.
Jerry Pier The recent Quebec disaster raised questions in my mind as to whether proper lay-up procedures were followed. If memory serves me, for lay-up, the train brakes should be placed in "Emergency" (zero brake pipe pressure) and hand brakes set on a number of cars as required by train length, and, if one or more locomotives are left running, independent brake should also be applied. Tests run by the AAR and FRA on PRR'S Horseshoe Curve in the 1930's (2% grade") showed that a fully loaded 150 car freight train with AB Brake systems in "Emergency Mode but without locomotives, would hold for a matter of days. I have been unable to locate the report on these tests. I suspect they were covered in Dave Blaine's "The Westinghouse Air brake Story" appearing in the December 1945 and January 1946 issues of TRAINS Magazine. Can anyone help on this? Jerry Pier
The recent Quebec disaster raised questions in my mind as to whether proper lay-up procedures were followed. If memory serves me, for lay-up, the train brakes should be placed in "Emergency" (zero brake pipe pressure) and hand brakes set on a number of cars as required by train length, and, if one or more locomotives are left running, independent brake should also be applied. Tests run by the AAR and FRA on PRR'S Horseshoe Curve in the 1930's (2% grade") showed that a fully loaded 150 car freight train with AB Brake systems in "Emergency Mode but without locomotives, would hold for a matter of days. I have been unable to locate the report on these tests. I suspect they were covered in Dave Blaine's "The Westinghouse Air brake Story" appearing in the December 1945 and January 1946 issues of TRAINS Magazine. Can anyone help on this?
With respect to the Altooona tests you mention, FRA did not exist in the 1930's. If a Federal agency was involved in these tests, it was probably the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). This isn't just a matter of agency acronyms. When the ICC regulated rail safety, its authority was much more limited than FRA's authority is today. ICC never had authority over train securement practices, or many other operating practices.
BaltACDThe human reality is iffy at best! I can't trust you either.
Well sure. Nothing can be infallible. But still, people do things to reduce the chance of things going wrong. There is value in managing risk. It may be all relative, but you can usually use good judgment to decide where the risk seems a little too high.
I would not, as a blanket policy, conclude that something is safe enough as long as people do their job. It depends on how much damage can occur if the one man fails to do his job.
I think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time.
BucyrusI think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time.
It would seem to me that the simplest answer would be not parking the train in such a vulnerable location.
I have no idea of what the profile of that line looks like, but it's hard to believe the whole thing is one continuous grade.
It would be a whole lot easier than re-equipping every railroad car in North America.
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...
tree68 BucyrusI think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time. It would seem to me that the simplest answer would be not parking the train in such a vulnerable location. I have no idea of what the profile of that line looks like, but it's hard to believe the whole thing is one continuous grade. It would be a whole lot easier than re-equipping every railroad car in North America.
Bucyrus I think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time.
...complex...?
Seriously?
zugmann Bucyrus I think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time. ...complex...? Seriously?
Apply this many hand brakes, but maybe more, apply so tight, check and see if the train can be moved, if it moves, apply some more, consider the grade, consider the train weight, apply brakes to the locomotives. Complex.
When I park my truck, I just move the lever to the PARK position. I don't have to go out and wind up 30 handbrakes, and then come back and see if I can move the truck or not. Not complex.
BucyrusWhen I park my truck, I just move the lever to the PARK position. I don't have to go out and wind up 30 handbrakes, and then come back and see if I can move the truck or not. Not complex.
And your truck has how many axles?
The number of axles is beside the point. The point is to compare complex to non-complex. I think the point is fairly clear.
Hi!
This is my first post.
I love to travel on the trains and have been on every train now running in Canada plus a few which are no longer active lie the connection between Senneterre Quebec and Cochrane Ontario, The Northlander on the Ontario Northland Railroad, and the service on Vancouver island from Victoria BC.
The disaster in Lac Megantic could have been avoided if the short line MMA had done more track maintenance and had ensured that 2 members of the crew were aboard the train. Even with a beltpack, it is impossible for one man to maintain his presence 24 hours a day. Parking the train on a slope is, in my humble opinion, not a safe thing to do if you are not sleeping next to the train.
Hindsight is always 20-20 but I hope that saner minds will prevail when the trains are running again.
All Aboard!!
Peter
in a Very Hot Montreal
How about some wheel chocks that can be clamped to the rail ahead (and maybe behind) one or more cars? Maybe require one for every 10 or 30 or ??? cars? Would that be enough to stop a train from rolling free? Granted, it would require a person to install it, but it appears (to me) to be easier to do than climbing on multiple cars to turn the brake wheels.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo How about some wheel chocks that can be clamped to the rail ahead (and maybe behind) one or more cars? Maybe require one for every 10 or 30 or ??? cars? Would that be enough to stop a train from rolling free? Granted, it would require a person to install it, but it appears (to me) to be easier to do than climbing on multiple cars to turn the brake wheels.
In today's' safety conscious railroads - chocking wheels by T&E employees has been discouraged as the acts required to place the chocks place employees in the foul of the equipment should it begin to move for whatever the reason. On some carriers, chocking wheels is against their Safety Rules.
Second, what is the proposed chocking material and if multiple chocks are required, how does the individual get all the required chocks to their points of use and how are they removed when it is time to move the train?
Bucyrus Apply this many hand brakes, but maybe more, apply so tight, check and see if the train can be moved, if it moves, apply some more, consider the grade, consider the train weight, apply brakes to the locomotives. Complex. When I park my truck, I just move the lever to the PARK position. I don't have to go out and wind up 30 handbrakes, and then come back and see if I can move the truck or not. Not complex.
Oh yeah, real complex. I do it dozens of times a night. It isn't rocket science.
And I hope you are using your actual parking brake on your truck and not just depending on the parking pawl.
zugmannAnd I hope you are using your actual parking brake on your truck and not just depending on the parking pawl
And suddenly the job gets a little more complex...
Hey there is no use trying to talk me out of automatic, simultaneous parking brakes on oil trains. I am not going to force them onto the industry. I am just predicting that somebody else will.
Could it be that the reason there is no "parking brake pawl" on trains is that often the train brakes apply unexpectedly during normal operations. Sometimes the quick action part of the brake system will decide that the train is going into emergency and set all the brakes. Sometimes an air hose parts and the train goes into emergency. If that were the case with a parking pawl the wheels would all stop and either all wheels would get flat spots or some would derail due to slack/buff action as the train stops.
The present braking system is designed to balance the braking force with the forces among cars on the train. If the present brakes were more effective, many wheels would slip during slow down. Actually the train can't stop much more quickly than it does now without wheel slip.
Obviously, a separate electronic control would be useful for such systems and it would put the car in "park" only if the train is stopped.
Bucyrus zugmann Bucyrus I think it is too risky to rely on one man performing a complex hand brake procedure when a failure to get it right can destroy much of a town. It is too risky to leave an oil train there even if the engineer could be relied on to set sufficient hand brakes every time. ...complex...? Seriously? Apply this many hand brakes, but maybe more, apply so tight, check and see if the train can be moved, if it moves, apply some more, consider the grade, consider the train weight, apply brakes to the locomotives. Complex. When I park my truck, I just move the lever to the PARK position. I don't have to go out and wind up 30 handbrakes, and then come back and see if I can move the truck or not. Not complex.
But if you had, say….one or two, maybe 73 trailers hitched to the truck….?
23 17 46 11
edblysardBut if you had, say….one or two, maybe 73 trailers hitched to the truck….?
If I had 73 trailers hitched to my truck, I would have a lever that would put them all into PARK when I pulled it.
tree68
You discovered the flow chart and calculations for PTC!
Yes, Congress should be apprised of the fact that their equation is incomplete, and be given an F.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.