cleaned up
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingMaking a habit out of pretending to have qualifications, yet being adamant about not accounting for what those qualifications are, makes your opinions look kind of small in comparison to the railroaders who do this for a living.
Gee, I have not even disagreed with anybody. All I did is ask how many handbrakes were required.
Murphy SidingIf you believe his answer is incorrect, then you must know the answer-yes? Perhaps you could put away all doubts about your railroad qualifications by telling us how many hanbrakes you applied in these type situations- back in the day when you worked on a railroad?
No, I don't have the answer. That was why I asked the question. Rules say you need to know the answer. All I did is ask how you find the answer. The rules don't allow you to not have an answer because there are too many variables to determine the answer.
Maybe somebody needs to shut this dog and pony show down...four pages ago!
.
Bucyrus 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.
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.
Well lookie here. The TSB says they are not even going to wait for the Lac-Megantic crash investigation to be completed. They are immediately taking steps to prevent trains carrying dangerous goods from being left unattended on the main line.
And look at what they say here:
In its other letter, the safety board urged a revision of the Canadian Rail Operating Rule No. 112 governing the securement of parked trains.
It said Rule 112 is not specific enough because it does not spell out how many handbrakes to apply for various weights and types of cargo. It also says that the standard, so-called "push-pull test" does not always accurately show whether the brakes have been adequately applied.
I guess the TSB just does not know enough to understand the issue when it is presented to them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/19/lac-megantic-railway-safety_n_3623687.html
Bucyrus 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.
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.
You are full within your right to think my answer is incorrect. Just like you are full within your rights to not disclose what capacity you dealt with handbrakes.
And in a similar vein I am well within my rights to dodge my responsibility (although I have none to answer questions on this forum) to give you a detailed answer.
This is my last answer to ANY of your questions. I wouldn't be surprised if others followed suit.
It was a nice run. But I think this little dance has come to an end.
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
It seems pretty obvious that this has turned into a personal argument between Bucyrus and several others who seem to think the only folks in a position to make decisions about how many handbrakes to set are those who do it. And the usual game is taking place, to get the moderators to lock it.
In the case of this rail accident where 50 people lost their lives through no fault of their own except being nearby, both the railroad and the engineer failed the test.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I will take the answer provided by the TSB.
BucyrusNo 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.
To save you the trouble of going back and finding my post listing some of the variables, here's the heart of it:
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."
And don't forget this point:
And what he set was holding the train until other factors came into play.
The fact that the train remained in place until after the fire department left (after shutting down the locomotive) indicates to me that the engineer did secure the train and so met his duty to do so. Whether he did it "properly" is the point of contention.
And he no doubt secured the train as he had numerous times before. Had there been an issue with how he secured the train on previous occasions (ie, if it had not held) we'd have heard about it.
In hindsight, he should have set more handbrakes. But hindsight is almost always 20-20. Once again, what he did had always worked in the past.
The biggest variable goes back to shutting down the locomotive.
If the engineer set hand brakes on 11 cars, that's 44 axles. Setting all the handbrakes on the locomotives (5 each, and assuming all six-axle power) makes for 15 more axles, as the hand brake on locomotives (in my experience) only sets one truck. Having the independent set would provide another 15 axles, for a grand total of 74 axles. Losing the air to keep the independent set would mean a loss of 20% of the axles with brakes applied. That might well be enough to let the train roll.
It could probably be argued that setting brakes on just another four cars might have prevented the disaster.
But that would be hindsight.
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...
I notice everyone seems to be sidestepping Bucyrus' question...
Those of you who are engineers or have the responsibility of setting the brakes on a train...
Given the really limited amount of hard data about the presently discussed event...
How many brakes would YOU have set on the train in question?
Obviously, 11 were not enough, but that is "hindsight". What would YOU have done in this situation? Would YOU set 11 and then go tug on the train to see if that was enough or would YOU have set 20, or 30, or all of them?
I realize I am asking for a number that is "impossible to guess", given you may not know the weight of the whole train, or total number of cars, or the actual grade, or what undulations in grade are present under where the train was parked, or the condition of the rail, or weather factors, or any of a dozen other factors that can and do affect the ability to keep a train from moving, but give it an educated guess. You are not on trial here, nor would I expect any one (or more) of you to be called to testify before the investigating bodies, so, just give it the ol' EBWAG**.
(**Experience Based Wild Ass Guess).
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper VaporoObviously, 11 were not enough, but that is "hindsight". What would YOU have done in this situation? Would YOU set 11 and then go tug on the train to see if that was enough or would YOU have set 20, or 30, or all of them?
As noted in my previous posts, I would opine that the engineer used an EBWAG when determining how many brakes were required. We don't know that he hadn't followed the stated procedure in the past and found that 11 was the appropriate number.
He may well have been confident, based on previous experience, that he'd done everything right. If I had set 11 brakes in the past and found them to be enough on a regular basis, I'd likely go with 11. If my experience was that 11 wasn't enough on occasion, I'm sure I'd take a few more for good measure.
If he was in the habit of relying on the independent for part of his braking, I'd offer a "shame on you - you should have set more cars."
The bigger question - did he ever test the security of the 11 he claims to have set? Did he attempt to move the train down the grade against ONLY the 11 hand brakes with the air brakes released?
I suspect he did not make a legitmate test of the hand brakes he set, and thus was relying on train air brakes and engine brakes to hold the train. When the engine pumping air was shut down by the FD, his entire braking equation changed.
Just cranking the hand brake wheel does not mean one has applied a effective hand brake, unless it is tested.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm It seems pretty obvious that this has turned into a personal argument between Bucyrus and several others who seem to think the only folks in a position to make decisions about how many handbrakes to set are those who do it. And the usual game is taking place, to get the moderators to lock it. In the case of this rail accident where 50 people lost their lives through no fault of their own except being nearby, both the railroad and the engineer failed the test.
No it is not "pretty obvious". Bucyrus was given the answer, there is no magic number, and it is impossible to say sitting at a computer and not on site. That answer is not good enough for him, so if he questions that answer from people who do it for a living, he should give up the experience that permits him to question it.
An "expensive model collector"
Actually, I should not say that zugmann’s answer was incorrect. The reason I asked the question was not to put anybody on the spot for not knowing the number. I don’t know the number, so it seems to me that the rules would be impossible to follow. So questioning that rule was my point in asking how many handbrakes would be required.
And zugmann is correct in that there are too many variables to answer the question, at least in terms of a calculation based on tonnage, consist, track condition, grade, etc. When I said that zugmann’s answer (that there are too many variable to know the answer) can’t be the answer, I only meant it relative to the rule requiring a certain number of handbrakes. So I saw it as a catch-22. I am sorry that it got personal.
But just to close the loop, even with the correct answer that the number cannot be determined by just tonnage, consist, track condition, grade, etc., it still must be determined somehow. The only way I can see to make the determination is with the push-pull test. That would seem to be the practical way to find the number of hand brakes that would hold the train. Yet the TSB says it is not reliable. It would be very interesting to learn why they say that. They just ruled out securring trains carrying dangerous material with handbrakes and the push-pull test because they say the push-pull test is not reliable.
See Sections 1.14.2 - Net Braking Ratios, 1.7 - Brake Shoes and Friction Fade, 2.7 - Braking Capacity, and 4.3.1 - Safety Concern - Performance Standards for Composition Brake Shoes, of the TSB report on the 29 June 2006 CN (ex-BCR) runaway and derailment, at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/r06v0136/r06v0136.asp#1 These sections detail the various differences in the amount of retarding force required from each brake shoe, the causes of each, and how those standards has evolved.
In particular, Section 1.14.2 - Net Braking Ratios states that each car is required to provide a braking force of at least 8.5% = 0.085 (1 / 12th) of the car's weight.
For a 72-car train on a 1.2% grade, the gravity force downgrade is the equivalent of 0.864 cars (ignoring static resistance to rolling, and the weight and braking effect of the locomotives). At 0.085 of a car's weight for each car's brakes, to develop 0.87 cars' worth of resistance would require a little over 10 - say, 11 cars - to have their handbrakes applied.
Most importantly, note that there is NO Factor or Margin of Safety in these calculations or this resulting number. Even just 1 of those 11 cars without brakes fully and effectively applied would be enough to allow that train to start rolling. Practically, I would suggest a factor of safety of at least 1.5 to 2.0, which would require from 16 to 22 cars to be 'tied down'.
That goes to the result of the "test": What is a successful test ? When all of the wheels slide as the locomotive tugs downhill ? How long/ far after the locomotive stops pulling must the train have come to a halt ? A short time/ distance would correspond to a high factor of safety; a longer time/ distance - or no set standard - would be associated with a marginal number of brakes set, right on the edge of being just barely enough, or just a couple brakes too little. Even a train that has a barely adequate number of brakes applied may be deemed to have "enough", even though it is right on the edge of being uncontrollable.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr See Sections 1.14.2 - Net Braking Ratios, 1.7 - Brake Shoes and Friction Fade, 2.7 - Braking Capacity, and 4.3.1 - Safety Concern - Performance Standards for Composition Brake Shoes, of the TSB report on the 29 June 2006 CN (ex-BCR) runaway and derailment, at: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/r06v0136/r06v0136.asp#1 These sections detail the various differences in the amount of retarding force required from each brake shoe, the causes of each, and how those standards has evolved. In particular, Section 1.14.2 - Net Braking Ratios states that each car is required to provide a braking force of at least 8.5% = 0.085 (1 / 12th) of the car's weight. For a 72-car train on a 1.2% grade, the gravity force downgrade is the equivalent of 0.864 cars (ignoring static resistance to rolling, and the weight and braking effect of the locomotives). At 0.085 of a car's weight for each car's brakes, to develop 0.87 cars' worth of resistance would require a little over 10 - say, 11 cars - to have their handbrakes applied. Most importantly, note that there is NO Factor or Margin of Safety in these calculations or this resulting number. Even just 1 of those 11 cars without brakes fully and effectively applied would be enough to allow that train to start rolling. Practically, I would suggest a factor of safety of at least 1.5 to 2.0, which would require from 16 to 22 cars to be 'tied down'. That goes to the result of the "test": What is a successful test ? When all of the wheels slide as the locomotive tugs downhill ? How long/ far after the locomotive stops pulling must the train have come to a halt ? A short time/ distance would correspond to a high factor of safety; a longer time/ distance - or no set standard - would be associated with a marginal number of brakes set, right on the edge of being just barely enough, or just a couple brakes too little. Even a train that has a barely adequate number of brakes applied may be deemed to have "enough", even though it is right on the edge of being uncontrollable. - Paul North.
Paul,
You make some interesting points about the interpretation of the push-pull test. Those variables must be part of the reason why the TSB has decided that the push-pull test is unreliable. If they are correct, what does this mean in light of the fact that this has been standard routine in North American practice for so long? If the procedure is flawed, has it just been a matter of luck and good judgment that it works so often?
zugmann Bucyrus 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. You are full within your right to think my answer is incorrect. Just like you are full within your rights to not disclose what capacity you dealt with handbrakes. And in a similar vein I am well within my rights to dodge my responsibility (although I have none to answer questions on this forum) to give you a detailed answer. This is my last answer to ANY of your questions. I wouldn't be surprised if others followed suit. It was a nice run. But I think this little dance has come to an end.
Zugmann,
When I said, “He is not permitted to dodge his responsibility because he thinks there are too many variables,” I was referring to the engineer of the oil train, not to you. But I can see that it could be interpreted either way. I don’t consider you to be dodging any responsibility.
Murphy SidingIt's pretty obvious that this has turned into a thread like many we have seen before. Bucyrus asks a question. People in the know answer the question. (One of this forum's wonderful features.) Bucyrus says "no- that's not the answer. Bucyrus keeps asking the question. Bucyrus never gets the *right* answer. Bucyrus answers his own question. Bucyrus says it must be the correct answer, because he provided it. Others question Bucyrus' conclusion. Bucyrus insinuates (whether he perceives it or not) that railroad workers don't know as much about railroading as he does- because they never gave the *right* answer. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.
The only beat that goes on is you seeing a pattern that you want to see. “People in the know” gave different answers to the same question. Then when I questioned their answers, they got mad at me because they thought I did not agree with them. I suggest you go back and actually read and understand the thread before you jump to your standard conclusion about me not respecting “people in the know.”
Your idea of what I am insinuating is your own illusion because you have selected certain people that assume are correct all the time. Maybe that works for you, but I have never known anybody who I thought was correct all the time. Sorting that out is kind of what I thought this forum discussion was for. You make it seem like a clique.
I posted before on the Megantic thread, my memory is that in 1953-1953, standard proceedure for securing a train on the B&M was to set 20% of car handbrakes plus the locomotive(s) on level track but ALL the handbrakes on a grade, then release the brakes and shut down the loco No push-pull test!
Here is the TSB of Canada report on the QNS&L ore train that ran away after the engineer secured it with handbrakes. This is the runaway mentioned in the article I linked to the original post of this thread. The train ran away for 15 miles and attained 63 mph, but stopped without derailing or injuring anyone.
It discusses a lot of detail about issues with the air brakes that ultimately culminated with the engineer dynamiting the train when it got out of control. Then he had to set lots of handbrakes. As he was walking back to the engine, the train started to roll before the reservoirs had time to charge. From there, the train ran away. Many hand brakes were found to apply inadequate brake shoe force even though the wheel was wound adequately tight.
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2011/r11q0056/r11q0056.asp
It took 42 years and about a dozen job qualifications to get thru Railroading 101 from The U.ofSP&UP, but here I (and we) are taking Railroading 101.1
As as(s)uming as this is, here are some answers:
How many? Tonnage (at specified locations, or per cent of grade if knowledge of, if given or available) divided to get units of 300 tons times the percent of grade result. brakes to be set. At specified territories, specific numbers of set hand brakes, likely approved by the Legal Department, are required but no employe (SPsp) is free from empirical proof that the number was insufficient.
How hard to set them? Controlling kicked cars to a spot, a joint or just in the clear with the hand brake tells you, palm of the gloved hand and exercised biceps will tell you when the wheels lock up and____slide, like ice skates. Not good for a gradually releasing,leaking-off, air brake system unattended. Between moderate and severe grades, a lot but not all, energy on the brake's lever or wheel is best....the car's hand brakes are useless if when bumped into motion, they slide their wheels....
If there's evidence that Canada's TSB is populated with investigators that haven't or have set in their careers' handbrakes, pls bring it on. If one is found to suggest that a search for criteria judging the most likely principles of ti,,,,the causes of slaughter, accident, disaster, miss-happening, or.....they would get a ("liddl') bit off, they are justified asking about it.
Murphy Siding schlimm It seems pretty obvious that this has turned into a personal argument between Bucyrus and several others who seem to think the only folks in a position to make decisions about how many handbrakes to set are those who do it. And the usual game is taking place, to get the moderators to lock it. In the case of this rail accident where 50 people lost their lives through no fault of their own except being nearby, both the railroad and the engineer failed the test. I disagree in your assesment. It's pretty obvious that this has turned into a thread like many we have seen before. Bucyrus asks a question. People in the know answer the question. (One of this forum's wonderful features.) Bucyrus says "no- that's not the answer. Bucyrus keeps asking the question. Bucyrus never gets the *right* answer. Bucyrus answers his own question. Bucyrus says it must be the correct answer, because he provided it. Others question Bucyrus' conclusion. Bucyrus insinuates (whether he perceives it or not) that railroad workers don't know as much about railroading as he does- because they never gave the *right* answer. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.
Murphy Siding If there are this many amswers, to what is being presented as a simple questions, then perhaps the amswers are opinions. As such, wouldn't the opinions of those in the railroad business on a day to day basis seem to carry more weight than those who have simply tied down a lot of brakes in an undisclosed situation?
More to the bigger point, it is not very reassuring that the folks with lots of real experience don't have more consensus.
schlimmMore to the bigger point, it is not very reassuring that the folks with lots of real experience don't have more consensus.
I would opine that there is consensus - and that is that there is no "right" answer that can be provided by quoting a certain number of brakes to be set.
Further, the right answer (ie, specific number of brakes to set) today may be the wrong answer tomorrow.
The closest we're going to come is "enough to hold the train." Beyond that, it comes down to how to determine that number, and the procedures exist to test that.
tree68I would opine that there is consensus - and that is that there is no "right" answer that can be provided by quoting a certain number of brakes to be set.
that really begs the question. there should be a consensus as to a guideline that takes into account tonnage, grade, etc. Otherwise you have folks just guessing how many to set initially and then testing and if that doesn't hold, go back out and set more? Frankly, that sounds ridiculous. The whole point of a guideline is to give a pretty accurate number that is then subject to testing. It is not an absolute nor intended to be. but the folks on here do not agree on an approximate number nor do the railroads agree on a guideline.
My railroad does issue guidelines and minimums to set. But they are just that, guidelines and minimums. That's why they still use the phrase "a sufficient number."
At a minimum, when leaving unattended cars, detached from a train, a minimum of 10% of the cars (and a further minimum of at least 5 cars) must have hand brakes tied. If leaving a train with the engines attached, hand brakes on all the engines (lead consist only) and 5 cars is required. If the engines are removed, then the 10% instructions kick in.
Guess what. Those instructions will hold a train in some places, but not in others. Even in places where there is no question the minimums will hold a train, you still have to release the air brakes to make sure the hand brakes hold.
To muddy the waters some, up until changes were made one area on my railroad (each superintendent issues the site specific instructions for his/her area) didn't always count one hand brake as equaling one car. Never mind figuring our platforms on articulated well cars, we're talking single, four axle cars here. Some hand brakes work the brake rigging of the entire car. When you turn the wheel it sets the brakes on both trucks. Others just work one truck on the end the wheel is located. That area counted those types as half a car. You not only had to figure how many cars by percentage instructions, but then check the types of hand brakes equipment on the cars. If you had 100 cars and needed to set brakes on 10% of the cars, how many hand brakes would you apply? You can't answer that under those instructions sitting in a cab or at a computer. You could say 10, but that wouldn't always be correct. It could be as many as 20 and you wouldn't know until you started tying brakes.
On our railroad, all these numbers and percentages came about after a roll-out of equipment out west about 10 years ago. In that case a road crew fouled up because they were under the impression that a yard crew was going to immediately couple into a cut of cars they had set out. Before that, the required amount was a "sufficient number" and we didn't have to release the air to see if they held. The instructions have changed over time. The first ones issued were overkill, a knee-jerk reaction to an event and have become more realistic over time.
Jeff
jeffhergertBefore that, the required amount was a "sufficient number" and we didn't have to release the air to see if they held. The instructions have changed over time. The first ones issued were overkill, a knee-jerk reaction to an event and have become more realistic over time.
jeffhergertMy railroad does issue guidelines and minimums to set. But they are just that, guidelines and minimums. That's why they still use the phrase "a sufficient number."
Jeff,
Are you are saying that “required amount” and “sufficient number” are two different things, but they have been sometimes interpreted to mean the same thing?
jeffhergert On our railroad, all these numbers and percentages came about after a roll-out of equipment out west about 10 years ago. In that case a road crew fouled up because they were under the impression that a yard crew was going to immediately couple into a cut of cars they had set out. Before that, the required amount was a "sufficient number" and we didn't have to release the air to see if they held. The instructions have changed over time. The first ones issued were overkill, a knee-jerk reaction to an event and have become more realistic over time. Jeff
As usual, Jeff, you give a thoughtful answer to what is a serious question. The procedures have evolved on your railroad (UP) . Having a more clear guideline as to what is required than just "sufficient" would seem to take some (not all) of the trial and error approach out of the process.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.