zugmannBucyrusSo, 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.
BucyrusSo, 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.
I only concluded that you don’t know how many handbrakes were required because you have not answered my question as to how many handbrakes you would have set. You say the answer to the question amounts to a magic number and that it is a fantasy to search for that number.
How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
77 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives.
Norm
Bucyrus How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
Enough so that it didn't roll away.
An "expensive model collector"
Bucyrus I only concluded that you don’t know how many handbrakes were required because you have not answered my question as to how many handbrakes you would have set. You say the answer to the question amounts to a magic number and that it is a fantasy to search for that number. How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
It's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number.
Your trolling is getting old.
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
zugmannIt's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number.
I have set lots of handbrakes. But my point is to find out how the engineer was supposed to know how many hand brakes to set on his oil train. It is a pertinent question, and I don’t have the answer, so I have to wonder if people on this forum have the answer. Is that too much to ask?
I am not trying to solve the case of what caused the oil train to run away. I am only asking what one must do to follow the rules. I have never seen a rule where the proper answer as to what it means is that there are too many variables to say.
Bucyrus zugmannIt's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number. I have set lots of handbrakes. But my point is to find out how the engineer was supposed to know how many hand brakes to set on his oil train. It is a pertinent question, and I don’t have the answer, so I have to wonder if people on this forum have the answer. Is that too much to ask? I am not trying to solve the case of what caused the oil train to run away. I am only asking what one must do to follow the rules. I have never seen a rule where the proper answer as to what it means is that there are too many variables to say.
You set lots of handbrakes? In what capacity? Were you T&E? Management? Volunteer Railroad? Road service? Yard?
Norm4832777 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives.
That is how many I would have set. At least if it rolled, it would have been my fault.
But, then there is the issue of how tight to wind them. Without defining what it means for a brake to be "set," the number of brakes set would be irrelevant.
Maybe there is a rule about what is required for a handbrake to be considered set. Perhaps one of the railroaders could chime in on that topic.
zugmann Besides, everyone knows the answer is 42. The answer is ALWAYS 42.
Besides, everyone knows the answer is 42.
The answer is ALWAYS 42.
You're wrong. For the wife it may well be holding at 39.
Given that this accident occurred on a rail line that none of the professionals here work for and that it was in Canada, not the US, it is not surprising that they have no clear answers. I am surprised their railroads apparently do not have a chart like the one the CN has, as referenced in the article. At least no one has mentioned one.
He has indicated that MMA policy was that 11 hand brakes should have been set in Nantes — one on each of the five locomotives, as well as on six tank cars. That means eight per cent of tank-car brakes were to be set.
If MMA “chose not to put a mandatory amount of hand brakes for that specific location into the special instructions in its timetable then they can turn around and point at the engineer and say it’s the engineer’s fault because he didn’t put a sufficient number of hand brakes on,” said Benedict, the former locomotive engineer who is now a Calgary lawyer.
WHAT HAPPENS AT OTHER RAILWAYS?
Canadian National, for one, provides a chart in its timetables to give employees “a guide” as to the “sufficient number” of hand brakes required on what is considered “mountain grade” tracks — 0.75 per cent and higher.
That chart suggests 40 per cent of train car hand brakes should be applied on grades of between one per cent and 1.4 per cent, such as the one in Nantes.
In addition, CN timetables stipulate that hand brakes should be applied on all headend locomotives. CN employees must also advise a rail-traffic controller of the number of hand brakes applied.
If these CN guidelines had been followed in Nantes, 34 hand brakes would have been applied — 29 on the tank cars and five on the locomotives.
Do CSX, NS, UP or BNSF also have such charts?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmGiven that this accident occurred on a rail line that none of the professionals here work for and that it was in Canada, not the US, it is not surprising that they have no clear answers. I am surprised their railroads apparently do not have a chart like the one the CN has, as referenced in the article. At least no one has mentioned one.
There are charts and guidelines such as the one where CN suggests 40% of the handbrakes be applied. However, as I understand it, most railroads stipulate an overarching rule that requires enough handbrakes be set to prevent the train from rolling. That is the hard rule that counts.
I assume that MM&A has that rule because the guidelines alone are not enough to guarantee that a train won’t roll. If the MM&A has a rule stating that enough brakes must be set to prevent the train from rolling, the engineer of the runaway oil train is not off the hook just because he set the 11 handbrakes called for in the guidelines.
Regarding people on the forum knowing how many brakes he should have set, the fact that they don’t work in Canada is irrelevant. The tank cars, track, and grades behave the same way in both the U.S. and Canada.
Bucyrus Norm4832777 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives. That is how many I would have set. At least if it rolled, it would have been my fault. But, then there is the issue of how tight to wind them. Without defining what it means for a brake to be "set," the number of brakes set would be irrelevant. Maybe there is a rule about what is required for a handbrake to be considered set. Perhaps one of the railroaders could chime in on that topic.
This horse is getting deader by the minute.
I thought the answer was 47....
At least we haven't started discussing whether there was sufficient warning for drivers approaching crossings in Lac Megantic...
The answer to the question, Bucyrus, is enough brakes to hold the train. Since the engineer in question is apparently a veteran of that particular run, it's apparent that whatever he set has proved sufficient in the past. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume that he set - in completely good faith - enough brakes to hold the train, based on his experience.
And what he set was holding the train until other factors came into play.
Lest we forget, there are apparently other factors at play here.
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...
If you are doing you job properly - you don't just set X hand brakes and walk away. You set X hand brakes and TEST them with your locomotives, If the train doesn't move, then you apply the hand brakes on the locomotives and secure the operating controls as required - then you walk away. If the train moves in your test, then you apply more and retest.
IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE OR BRAIN SURGERY!
Apply then verify!
Just becuse 'the rule' says X, if you verify by testing and it isn't enough - apply more until your test is successful. This is railroading Kindergarten!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDIf you are doing you job properly - you don't just set X hand brakes and walk away. You set X hand brakes and TEST them with your locomotives, If the train doesn't move, then you apply the hand brakes on the locomotives and secure the operating controls as required - then you walk away. If the train moves in your test, then you apply more and retest. IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE OR BRAIN SURGERY! Apply then verify! Just becuse 'the rule' says X, if you verify by testing and it isn't enough - apply more until your test is successful. This is railroading Kindergarten!
That sounds like the practical solution, however; the article I linked to the first post 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.”
And how many handbrakes has the TSB set in their careers?
Still waiting on an answer from you, Mr. Bucyrus. You ask many questions of us, so it's only fair.
Bucyrus That sounds like the practical solution, however; the article I linked to the first post 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.”
TSB's statement just proves they are the victim of crainial-rectal inversion and devoid of any real world practicality or experience. Applying hand brakes and then trying to shove the train with the air brakes released verifys if the train has been secured - if you are 'testing' by shoving against the train with the air brakes applied - YOU HAVE NOT PROPERLY TESTED. This is truly the most basic of railroading acts and has been since brakes were first fitted to rail borne vehicles. Railroading is all about practicality. Trying to make more out of it than it is just highlights the ignorance of those trying to do so.
It makes sense to me. I am just wondering why the TSB says it is "impossible." I don't see why being on a grade would make it impossibe, as they say.
Charts are a useful guideline, such as the CN's. If these CN guidelines had been followed in Nantes, 34 hand brakes would have been applied — 29 on the tank cars and five on the locomotives.
Maybe some here prefer guesswork or trial and error, but if the CN rule had been followed, and verified, it seems likely the accident would not have happened.
zugmann Bucyrus zugmannIt's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number. I have set lots of handbrakes. But my point is to find out how the engineer was supposed to know how many hand brakes to set on his oil train. It is a pertinent question, and I don’t have the answer, so I have to wonder if people on this forum have the answer. Is that too much to ask? I am not trying to solve the case of what caused the oil train to run away. I am only asking what one must do to follow the rules. I have never seen a rule where the proper answer as to what it means is that there are too many variables to say. You set lots of handbrakes? In what capacity? Were you T&E? Management? Volunteer Railroad? Road service? Yard?
I too am waiting for a response. Why are you afraid to tell us Bucyrus, or are just going to ignore it and keep trolling?
schlimm Charts are a useful guideline, such as the CN's. If these CN guidelines had been followed in Nantes, 34 hand brakes would have been applied — 29 on the tank cars and five on the locomotives. Maybe some here prefer guesswork or trial and error, but if the CN rule had been followed, and verified, it seems likely the accident would not have happened.
Yes, I understand your point, and 34 handbrakes instead of 11 surely might have made a difference in whether or not the train moved. But I wonder why there are such radically different standards between CN and MM&A. I also wonder if both roads require enough handbrakes to prevent movement regardless of guidelines.
As many have said, the only way to know if you have enough brakes to prevent movement is with a push-pull test. I assume that is what you are referring to when you mention "guesswork or trial and error." The push-pull test is trial and error, but it is not guesswork. It takes the guesswork out of setting handbrakes.
But then I wonder why the TSB says such tests do not work on mountain grades. There would be a difference in resistance between the push and pull of the push-pull test on a grade because pushing is uphill and pulling is downhill. But why not just pull down grade and see if the handbrakes stop you when you stop pulling?
Bucyrus But then I wonder why the TSB says such tests do not work on mountain grades.
But then I wonder why the TSB says such tests do not work on mountain grades.
TSB like NTSB have their own internal agendas to promote, even when the facts of the incident don't fit their particular agenda.
n012944 zugmann Bucyrus zugmannIt's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number. I have set lots of handbrakes. But my point is to find out how the engineer was supposed to know how many hand brakes to set on his oil train. It is a pertinent question, and I don’t have the answer, so I have to wonder if people on this forum have the answer. Is that too much to ask? I am not trying to solve the case of what caused the oil train to run away. I am only asking what one must do to follow the rules. I have never seen a rule where the proper answer as to what it means is that there are too many variables to say. You set lots of handbrakes? In what capacity? Were you T&E? Management? Volunteer Railroad? Road service? Yard? I too am waiting for a response. Why are you afraid to tell us Bucyrus, or are just going to ignore it and keep trolling?
Making an issue of my qualifications to ask a question seems like a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you can’t answer the question.
Bucyrus n012944 zugmann Bucyrus zugmannIt's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number. I have set lots of handbrakes. But my point is to find out how the engineer was supposed to know how many hand brakes to set on his oil train. It is a pertinent question, and I don’t have the answer, so I have to wonder if people on this forum have the answer. Is that too much to ask? I am not trying to solve the case of what caused the oil train to run away. I am only asking what one must do to follow the rules. I have never seen a rule where the proper answer as to what it means is that there are too many variables to say. You set lots of handbrakes? In what capacity? Were you T&E? Management? Volunteer Railroad? Road service? Yard? I too am waiting for a response. Why are you afraid to tell us Bucyrus, or are just going to ignore it and keep trolling? Making an issue of my qualifications to ask a question seems like a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you can’t answer the question.
No smokescreens, it's obvious you can't understand the answer when it is presented to you.
I understand quite well everything that has been presented in this thread.
cleaned up
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
And avoiding answering the question about you qualifications seem like a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have no qualifications when it comes to handbrakes.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus I understand quite well everything that has been presented in this thread. Nope. You missed the part where zugman gave you the answer: "There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number. "
Bucyrus I understand quite well everything that has been presented in this thread.
The fact that he missed it, or just ignored it tells me one of two things. He/she does not understand why there are too many variables for someone not on site to give an exact number, or he/she is just trolling.
No I did not miss his answer at all. But his answer is incorrect. The engineer faces all those variables and yet he must make the decision as to how many handbrakes to apply. He is not permitted to dodge his responsibility because he thinks there are too many variables.
I expect the solution to this handbrake issue is going be a government requirement that trains carrying hazardous material shall not be left unattended. I think they will have no trouble concluding that the present system of securing trains is inadequate.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.