Trains.com

Setting Handbrakes to Secure a Train

41714 views
192 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Setting Handbrakes to Secure a Train
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 21, 2013 3:46 PM

On the big thread about the Lac-Megantic runaway, there was a lot of discussion about air brakes and handbrakes.  I found an excellent article analyzing the issues surrounding the question of applying handbrakes to secure trains.  So I thought I would start a fresh thread focusing only on that element of the disaster. 

On the other thread, we discussed whether the handbrake procedure was simple or complex.  This article makes it clear that while setting a handbrake is simple, the proper procedure to secure a train on a grade is not so simple. 

The rules call for setting a certain number of handbrakes on trains depending on the grade.  An unaddressed complication enters in for trains standing on a varying grade.  For a grade as steep as the one leading to Lac-Megantic, the MM&A rules call for handbrakes to be set on 8% of the cars.  For that same amount of grade on the CN, their rules call for setting brakes on 40% of the cars.  Variation in wind conditions can also influence need for handbrakes. 

The guidelines allow an engineer to set more than the required amount at his own discretion.  But what exactly does that mean in practical terms?  Can you blame an engineer if the guidelines for the proper number of brakes were insufficient and the engineer’s discretion agreed with the guidelines?  Well apparently the answer is yes.  This is because, while the engineer is free to use his discretion, his discretion must prevent the train from rolling away.  Here is the rule:

Section 112 states: “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.”

So you have to apply the minimum, and you have to apply enough to prevent movement.  Many have mentioned the push-pull test to see if enough brakes are applied to prevent movement.  That sounds like the practical solution, however; the article mentions this:

But in a 2011 report into a runaway train incident near Sept-Îles, the TSB noted that “it is impossible to verify hand-brake effectiveness by pulling or pushing cars on high grades (so) locomotive engineers cannot accurately know that management’s expectations have been met every time cars are secured.”

So, according to the TSB, the “practical method” of testing to see if enough handbrakes are applied is “impossible.”

I conclude that even if the investigation shows that the engineer did not set enough handbrakes, or did not set them tight enough, a large part of the blame is going to be placed on the MM&A Ry, and on the Canadian regulations.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/M%C3%A9gantic+clear+rules+train+hand+brakes/8679004/story.html

  • Member since
    June 2011
  • 1,002 posts
Posted by NP Eddie on Sunday, July 21, 2013 4:09 PM

I agree with you 100%. First of all, management must give clear written instructions to an operating crew regarding the many rules they must obey. Secondly, why was the train's engineer instructed to secure (tie-down) the train on a descending grade WITHOUT placing a portable derail directly in front of the train (maybe ten or twenty feet in front of the first locomotive.

It should be also noted that one or more of the derailed cars hit a propane tank which exploded and caused a B.L.E.V.E..

 

I don't like engineer only trains for this reason. One person is expected to do too much.

The last paragraph in your letter is very good---there is plenty of blame to go around.

Ed Burns

Retired NP-BN-BNSF clerk from Minneapolis

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:02 PM

I hope we don't have to start carrying around portable derails.  My grip is heavy enough as it is.

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, July 21, 2013 5:57 PM

Portable is a relative term.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • 707 posts
Posted by tdmidget on Sunday, July 21, 2013 6:29 PM

Well, since the regs say that a train may not be left secured unattended by air brakes alone, the one crew CANNOT be legal. There is no way he can be setting handbrakes and in the cab at the same time. So, during the period while he is  (hopefully) setting handbrakes. the train is held by air alone.

Secondly the one man crew eliminates the possibility of a peer check, formal or informal. Much of my work is in the nuclear industry. The peer check is a basic human performance tool. It is simple, 2 heads are better than one.

This engineer claims to have set 11 handbrakes in less than 25 minutes. It would be hard to walk to eleven cars and just give the wheel a spin in that time. Would he have put more effort into it if there was a man in the cab who might question that?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, July 21, 2013 7:34 PM

tdmidget
This engineer claims to have set 11 handbrakes in less than 25 minutes. It would be hard to walk to eleven cars and just give the wheel a spin in that time.

I dunno - I've set a few handbrakes in my time - that doesn't sound too far off the mark.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, July 21, 2013 7:42 PM

Leave out the extra brake shoe, the extra air hose wrench, the spare main res hose, and the gallon thermos of coffee, and you'd have room for the derail.

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:08 PM

I would think a Derail would be assigned/attached as standard equipment on each engine (just like rerailers used to hang on the sides of tenders).

 

And I still think a wheel chock could be applied to the rail in front of a car or two without a man having to get near the wheels under the car.  A long handle/lever could be used to place it and a good twist to lock the chock in place.  It could be standard equipment on the engine too.

 

You don't leave on a trip without checking that the radio works, and you have fuel and FRED is in place, why not verify that the derail and wheel chocks are present, too?

 

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:26 PM

MM&A could claim that the engineer was at fault because he was supposed to set enough handbrakes to prevent the train from rolling, and the train rolled.  But that charge cannot stick because the engineer had no way of knowing how many brakes it would have taken to prevent the train from rolling.  So the company’s requirement is invalid because the means of meeting it is unknowable unless the train rolls. 

Or, the MM&A could claim that the engineer was at fault not setting 11 handbrakes per the MM&A requirement, and they could claim that this is proven by the fact that the train rolled.  However, the MM&A has no way of proving that 11 handbrakes would have held the train; especially when the MM&A has no specification as to how tightly the brakes must be applied. 

The engineer claims he set 11 handbrakes per the MM&A requirement, and there is no way anybody can prove otherwise.  Ultimately, the MM&A will be held responsible for not having a reliable method of securing unattended trains at the top of that grade.  And this, of course, is proven by the fact that one of their trains ran away and caused a disaster.   

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:27 PM

If the crew sets handbakes on just the number of cars needed to hold the train, isn't it possible that a chain could break or the linkage could relax enough that the train starts slipping?  It seems prudent to set some extra after the test.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:27 PM

zardoz

Leave out the extra brake shoe, the extra air hose wrench, the spare main res hose, and the gallon thermos of coffee, and you'd have room for the derail.

The air compressor stays. 

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Sunday, July 21, 2013 9:39 PM

At low speed, a portable derail or hop-toad may not even work.

(you expect all the stuff stored in the low nose or under the radiators to be there?)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:03 PM

Bucyrus
For a grade as steep as the one leading to Lac-Megantic, the MM&A rules call for handbrakes to be set on 8% of the cars.  For that same amount of grade on the CN, their rules call for setting brakes on 40% of the cars. 

That statement, if accurate, suggests two very different rules on CN and MM&A, the CN requiring 5 times the number of brakes be set.   So regardless if  the engineer followed MM&A rules or not, that number (11 cars?) was totally inadequate, probably should have followed CN rule and been ~28 cars.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:30 PM

    We can discuss the question of the number of brakes to set, but remember a couple of comments from railroaders on this subject:  if you spin the wheel till it stops, you have not really accomplished much unless you tug hard to get that extra couple of clicks.   It's not a simple question of set or not set.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,020 posts
Posted by BigJim on Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:35 PM

This engineer claims to have set 11 handbrakes in less than 25 minutes. It would be hard to walk to eleven cars and just give the wheel a spin in that time.


Given fair walking conditions, this would be no problem at all.

And who is this guy thinking a wheel chock is going to hold a 9,000 - 10,000 ton train on a hill? You really do have the vapors!

I haven't seen an actual track chart of the siding posted. So, who on here knows exactly what the track profile looks like to make any comments?

.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:06 PM

BigJim


Given fair walking conditions, this would be no problem at all.

Use a brakestick and you can do it in half the time.  But yeah, even by hand, it doesn't take that long to tie on a dozen good brakes (if you are in halfway decent physical shape).

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

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:21 PM

BigJim

And who is this guy thinking a wheel chock is going to hold a 9,000 - 10,000 ton train on a hill? You really do have the vapors!

 

Yeah, I've been accused of that before!  But I live alone and nobody usually notices...Dead

 

As for my suggestion... I womdered if maybe I have been using the wrong term ("Chocks"), so I did some googling of the term... yeah... most of what I found would not hold a mouse on a pimple.

 

But that is not the device I have been visualizing.  I was thinking of a much, MUCH larger device that clamps to the rail... about the height of 1/2 the wheel diameter and sans the "ramp shape"... something a rail car can't "roll up and over" (like those dinky wedges used to hold a car on level track so someone leaning on the car won't make it move).

 

Maybe the term I am intending is "Rail Car Stop"... Something more akin to these:

 

http://www.railyard-safety.com/Railyard-Safety.aspx?Type=Rail%20Car%20Stops&c=1

 

 I had assumed someone had invented a "car stop" that would grip the rail tighter as a car pressed against it, yet could be lifted from the side of the track via a long handle (so the user would not be subjected to putting their body [or parts thereof] in jeopardy while installing or removing it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I'll go take some Dr. Caldwell's to see if I can get over these here 'vapors'.  Ick!  )

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:28 PM

tdmidget

Well, since the regs say that a train may not be left secured unattended by air brakes alone, the one crew CANNOT be legal. There is no way he can be setting handbrakes and in the cab at the same time. So, during the period while he is  (hopefully) setting handbrakes. the train is held by air alone.

 

The train Is being attended while he's setting hand brakes.   unattended means not being in a position to take action. 

Our rules and instructions also say a "sufficient number" and have minimum requirements.  The minimum may not hold the train at all locations, it is the crew's responsibility to ensure that enough hand brakes are set to prevent movement.  Even if that means tying more than the listed minimum.  

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:34 PM

Semper Vaporo

 

 I had assumed someone had invented a "car stop" that would grip the rail tighter as a car pressed against it, yet could be lifted from the side of the track via a long handle (so the user would not be subjected to putting their body [or parts thereof] in jeopardy while installing or removing it).

 

Rail skate:

http://www.nolancompany.com/Main/RailSkates/RailSkates.asp

But Skates and rail stops are more for handling a few cars.  I don't think they're intended to hold back a whole train on a grade.  

I'm guessing there may be a new call for split point derails at certain spots.  (for those that aren't familiar - it's basically a "switch leading to the ditch").  Throws a train off the track.

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

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: Roanoke, VA
  • 2,020 posts
Posted by BigJim on Monday, July 22, 2013 7:51 AM

Semper Vaporo

But that is not the device I have been visualizing.  I was thinking of a much, MUCH larger device that clamps to the rail... about the height of 1/2 the wheel diameter and sans the "ramp shape"... something a rail car can't "roll up and over" (like those dinky wedges used to hold a car on level track so someone leaning on the car won't make it move).

 Maybe the term I am intending is "Rail Car Stop"... Something more akin to these:

 http://www.railyard-safety.com/Railyard-Safety.aspx?Type=Rail%20Car%20Stops&c=1

 (I'll go take some Dr. Caldwell's to see if I can get over these here 'vapors'.  Ick!  )

And who is going to handle something "much MUCH larger"?
BTW, did you read the disclaimer at the top of the page on your link? FLAT TRACK ONLY!!!

Better put away the Vick's and go see Dr. Caldwell again.


Zugman,
There was a very simple method I used to use to get a string of handbrakes off in the least amount time and it didn't involve a brake stick.
I guess brake sticks (the extendable kind) have their place, but, I never really liked them. Just too much to carry around, especially at night and with a lantern too. Besides, in the winter they would freeze your hands off in no time.

.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 22, 2013 9:58 AM

I don’t think wheel chocks or portable derails are the answer.  A switch derail would work fine, but you still have to set all the handbrakes.  But maybe opening that switch right in front of the train would drive home the point of how important it is to make sure you have enough handbrakes set. 

People have talked about setting 11 handbrakes in 25 minutes as being doable.  That is 2.27 minutes each, so it should be doable, but how do we know he had 25 minutes? 

Here is my question: 

How many handbrakes should the engineer have set?  How tight should he have set them?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, July 22, 2013 10:05 AM

Bucyrus

Here is my question: 

How many handbrakes should the engineer have set?  How tight should he have set them?

According to your post, the CN requires a much higher number than this shoestring operation shortline.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:00 AM

Bucyrus


 

How many handbrakes should the engineer have set?  How tight should he have set them?

As many as needed.

There is no magic number that anyone here can give you.

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:16 AM

zugmann

Bucyrus
How many handbrakes should the engineer have set?  How tight should he have set them?

As many as needed.

There is no magic number that anyone here can give you.

But there is indeed a magic number.  It is the number needed to prevent the train from rolling away.  Tell me how many were needed for the oil train that ran away.  You know as much about the train and grade as the engineer did. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:25 AM

Yeah, this is going nowhere. 

You need as many brakes so the train doesn't roll away.  Number varies given many variables.  Only a few places I know about have a regulated amount of brakes - but those are all places that are completely flat.

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:32 AM

Bucyrus
But there is indeed a magic number.  It is the number needed to prevent the train from rolling away.  Tell me how many were needed for the oil train that ran away.  You know as much about the train and grade as the engineer did. 

And that "magic number" can vary from day to day, season to season,  and train to train.  That's why it's a "magic number."

The appropriate number can only be found by setting brakes and testing to see if the train holds.  If it does, then you've set at least as many as were needed, and possibly more.  If it doesn't hold, you go back and set some more.

If it holds, you aren't going to start releasing brakes to find the "magic number."  You're going to say "good enough."

Like everything else in the rulebook, the suggested number of brakes to set is based on experience.  Over time, it's been found that X brakes are the appropriate number to set under normal circumstances.  The rule book is also going to address things like grades.

What works today may be overkill tomorrow, and not enough the next day.

The only truly answerable part of your question is how tight the brakes should be set, and that's as tight as you can get them.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:35 AM

zugmann
You need as many brakes so the train doesn't roll away.  Number varies given many variables. 

So, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train?  If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know?

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:42 AM

Bucyrus

So, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train?  If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know?

I never said I didn't know. I just said there is no magic number you are seeking.

I'm not taking part in your fantasy on here.

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

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, July 22, 2013 11:59 AM

Shh, if you are quiet enough, you can hear someone beating a dead horse.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, July 22, 2013 12:04 PM

Besides, everyone knows the answer is 42.

The answer is ALWAYS 42.

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

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy