Bucyrus oltmanndYou follow your railroad's interpretation of the rule which likely is like NS's. Release the independent and automatic and see if the train moves. Just like when you set the parking brake on your car.Why does the Canadian TSB say that is unreliable?
oltmanndYou follow your railroad's interpretation of the rule which likely is like NS's. Release the independent and automatic and see if the train moves. Just like when you set the parking brake on your car.
Maybe because it's the simplest explanation. Since the procedure was followed and it moved anyway, the test must be flawed or unreliable.
To answer (although others have pretty much done that) whether we tie more hand brakes after the release test. No. Once everything is stopped, and stays stopped, you've secured the train. That's the whole point of the test. To make sure there is no movement, of if some slight adjustment due to slack, etc, it comes to a stop and stays stopped. If you keep second guessing yourself after the test, pretty soon you'll have all the hand brakes applied, but still won't be able to leave the train unattended. Because nothing will ever be good enough.
To be honest, I don't see how once everything is properly tied down, all (slack, sloshing liquids, etc) motion stopped, the train would start moving again. Unless it had "help" in some form. I wonder if maybe a push/pull test, instead of just releasing the air/independent, could disrupt slack conditions or liquefied loads to cause enough motion to throw off a train's equilibrium where there may be a slight change in track gradient? Enough that the slight motion could push it over the edge. I wouldn't think any grade change would be so abrupt that it wouldn't be noticeable, but I know in some of our yards there's enough change between two adjacent tracks to require different minimum numbers of hand brakes. Yet the tracks look to lay exactly alike.
Jeff
Bucyrus If the rule requires a crew to set enough handbrakes to hold the train, and if they tested, but still fail to set enough, would the rule infraction be forgiven on the basis that the test they performed was unreliable and failed to give the correct information?
If the rule requires a crew to set enough handbrakes to hold the train, and if they tested, but still fail to set enough, would the rule infraction be forgiven on the basis that the test they performed was unreliable and failed to give the correct information?
If you were driving and had your car well under control to stop for traffic ahead and your foot sliped off the brake pedal and you hit the car in front of you. Would you be charged ?
The final result is the proof - pro or con.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
oltmanndBucyrusWhy does the Canadian TSB say that is unreliable? Because the test can't be done with any measure of reliability or repeatability. BTW, there is no such thing as reliable or unreliable. At the end of the day, all things will fail sometime. The only question is to what extent. Even vital relays in signalling fail and cause false clears from time to time.
BucyrusWhy does the Canadian TSB say that is unreliable?
BTW, there is no such thing as reliable or unreliable. At the end of the day, all things will fail sometime. The only question is to what extent. Even vital relays in signalling fail and cause false clears from time to time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Here is an article that gets into a lot of second guessing about handbrake practice in the wake of the oil train runaway:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/12/lac_megantic_explosion_standards_vary_for_number_of_hand_brakes_required_in_canada.html
Some points from the link:
But that investigation will, as is the case with all runaway trains, home in on the braking systems — particularly the hand brakes. There has been an average of 12 runaway trains a year over the last decade in Canada, according to TSB data.
Federal rules require a “sufficient number” of hand brakes to prevent trains from moving, should all else fail. But what is considered adequate varies widely by company and by crew and, historically, has been far from fail-safe.
In the 2011 Quebec runaway, safety investigators said 57 hand brakes were needed and only 35 were applied. The minimum required, however, was just 12.
Transport Canada’s railroad operating rules set standards, such as “a sufficient number” of hand brakes. It stipulates that crews must test to make sure the hand brakes will hold. Beyond that, railroads operate under their own subset of rules, approved by Transport Canada, that should specify how many hand brakes are required in different circumstances.
Those company-specific rules are not public.
Railway experts vary widely on what they would consider an appropriate number of handbrakes for the train parked in Nantes, on a downhill grade of 1.2 per cent, suggesting anywhere from eight to 30. The British Columbia Safety Authority railroad manual suggests nine handbrakes for 70-79 cars, with extra if the train is on a slope.
Later, he [Burkhardt] said Harding had likely not set the appropriate number of hand brakes for the train, a number Burkhardt identified as 11. The number required would be contained in MMA’s special instructions.
The number Burkhardt refers to might be in the special instructions, but we all agree that there is no “magic number.” A number in the special instructions can only be a minimum or a recommendation. How does Burhardt know that 11 handbrakes was the appropriate number? We all agree that he can’t know the appropriate number unless he does a push-pull test.
I have never tied a train down on a grade, so I have never encountered a need to know exactly how many to set. But the context of my question was to ask how it is done without the push-pull test, which the TSB says is unreliable.
oltmannd BaltACD oltmannd Zoom! You car rolls away down the hill, crashing into the elementary school at the bottom of the hill, wiping out a kindergarten class. You have a choice to park your car on a hill or on the flat - even though it would cost you a few hundred steps. Which would be safer? And the School Board had a choice and built the school where gravity endangers it. You build the school on the high ground! Duh! Yup. But they didn't ask me where to build the school. I only get to decide where to park my car.
BaltACD oltmannd Zoom! You car rolls away down the hill, crashing into the elementary school at the bottom of the hill, wiping out a kindergarten class. You have a choice to park your car on a hill or on the flat - even though it would cost you a few hundred steps. Which would be safer? And the School Board had a choice and built the school where gravity endangers it. You build the school on the high ground! Duh!
oltmannd Zoom! You car rolls away down the hill, crashing into the elementary school at the bottom of the hill, wiping out a kindergarten class. You have a choice to park your car on a hill or on the flat - even though it would cost you a few hundred steps. Which would be safer?
Zoom! You car rolls away down the hill, crashing into the elementary school at the bottom of the hill, wiping out a kindergarten class.
You have a choice to park your car on a hill or on the flat - even though it would cost you a few hundred steps. Which would be safer?
And the School Board had a choice and built the school where gravity endangers it. You build the school on the high ground! Duh!
Yup. But they didn't ask me where to build the school. I only get to decide where to park my car.
Have fun walking the several hundered feet up the hill! And then comes the earthquake and the hill being accumulated glacier debris creates a landslide covering the school in 100 feet of debris.
The biggest cause of death is conception. From the moment of conception onward, life is a risk and can end at any instant - your fault, their fault, everybodys fault, nobodys fault - the final end result of conception is death - nobody escapes.
Bucyrus jeffhergertWe just release the automatic and independent brakes after tying the hand brakes. Once the cars start to release, you know quite soon if the train is going to move or not. Jeff, When you release the air and find you have enough handbrakes to hold the train, do you just leave it at that, or do you then set a specific prescribed number of additional handbrakes as a final safety factor?
jeffhergertWe just release the automatic and independent brakes after tying the hand brakes. Once the cars start to release, you know quite soon if the train is going to move or not.
Jeff,
When you release the air and find you have enough handbrakes to hold the train, do you just leave it at that, or do you then set a specific prescribed number of additional handbrakes as a final safety factor?
After you set the parking brake on your car to you then go back and give it a few more clicks as a final safety factor?
It is obvious that setting handbrakes to hold a train on a grade is as much art as it is science. There are too many variables to make it entirely scientific. Brake winches can lack proper lubrication to the point where they require more torque to set to the same brake pressure as a well lubricated brake winch. So a person setting brakes cannot know how effective the brake will be. That variable makes the minimum guideline rather meaningless.
While this mixture of art, science, good judgment, good luck, and guesswork has been common practice, it is not sufficient in situations where a runaway train will be disastrous to population centers. In wide open spaces, some runaways will not even derail, and if they do, it is possible that no injuries will result. But in the case of this Lac-Megantic runaway, the parking oil trains uphill from a 10 mph curve through town amounts to holding a loaded gun to the heads of the residents. It should not have been hard to see that before the disaster occurred.
Based on the Lac-Megantic experience, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board has already ordered that oil trains must not be left unattended on a main track.
They have also ordered the revision of Rule 112 in a way that obsoletes the old art/science push-pull method of achieving holding force for trains parked on grades. It sounds like they are going to replace the push-pull test with a detailed specification for setting handbrakes. They will take the guesswork out of it by stipulating the number of brakes, the torque setting, the grade, the tonnage, type of cars, weather, wind, safety factor, etc.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board says that 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.
Bucyrus oltmannd Bucyrusrequires that enough brakes be set to prevent the train from rolling, but they don't say how that is to be determined. How do you know if you've applied the parking brake in your car with enough force to keep the car from rolling? What test do you perform to check? I'll answer that...you see if the car rolls after you set it. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to a train? The engineer knows he has enough handbrakes set because the train doesn't move! Don, I understand that, but the question that I am asking is about refers to Canadian practice. Transportation Safety Board of Canada has stated publicly that the push-pull test is unreliable. Since Rule 112 does not say specifically to use the push-pull test, and because the TSB says that the push-pull test is unreliable; it raises the question of how to comply with rule 112 if the push-pull test is unreliable.
oltmannd Bucyrusrequires that enough brakes be set to prevent the train from rolling, but they don't say how that is to be determined. How do you know if you've applied the parking brake in your car with enough force to keep the car from rolling? What test do you perform to check? I'll answer that...you see if the car rolls after you set it. Why wouldn't the same rule apply to a train? The engineer knows he has enough handbrakes set because the train doesn't move!
Bucyrusrequires that enough brakes be set to prevent the train from rolling, but they don't say how that is to be determined.
How do you know if you've applied the parking brake in your car with enough force to keep the car from rolling? What test do you perform to check?
I'll answer that...you see if the car rolls after you set it.
Why wouldn't the same rule apply to a train? The engineer knows he has enough handbrakes set because the train doesn't move!
Don,
I understand that, but the question that I am asking is about refers to Canadian practice.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada has stated publicly that the push-pull test is unreliable. Since Rule 112 does not say specifically to use the push-pull test, and because the TSB says that the push-pull test is unreliable; it raises the question of how to comply with rule 112 if the push-pull test is unreliable.
You follow your railroad's interpretation of the rule which likely is like NS's. Release the independent and automatic and see if the train moves. Just like when you set the parking brake on your car.
We don't use a push/pull test to check for train securement. We just release the automatic and independent brakes after tying the hand brakes. Once the cars start to release, you know quite soon if the train is going to move or not. At most, you should only have some slight movement as the slack adjusts. If you have enough hand brakes any such movement will come to a stop. If it doesn't or the movement seems to pick up some momentum, you haven't enough brakes set. Set up the air, get a red zone (three step for you Easterners) and tie some more and try again.
Since now "gravity" is now being mentioned, maybe the real answer is to repeal the law of gravity. Almost makes about as much sense as some other options.
schlimm [Perhaps the parking of unattended trains on grades needs to be prohibited.
[Perhaps the parking of unattended trains on grades needs to be prohibited.
The World is not flat - literally. Even what visually appears to be flat, when measured has some level of grade to it. Water has been flowing down hill since the creation of both gravity and water.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have never seen anybody routinely do a "push/pull" test with their automobile or ever read any recommendation anywhere that suggests people do this.
The problem isn't "how to tie a train down on a grade". The problem is that we choose to tie trains down on a grade where there is disastrous runaway potential a matter of routine when there may be better locations available. Things can - and will - fail. The trick is not setting yourself up for a huge disaster when that failure occurs.
Back to the auto analogy. You always park on a hill - it's the most convenient spot to your apartment. You put the car in park . You set the parking brake You cut the steering wheel over. Belt, suspenders and duct tape. Your car gets bumped. The parking pawl fails. The temperature has gone up 40 degrees and the parking brake cable has lost some of it's tension. Also, the bump cause the Pittman arm to fail on your steering. Zoom! You car rolls away down the hill, crashing into the elementary school at the bottom of the hill, wiping out a kindergarten class.
Yesterday, I called the TSB of Canada to ask them why they say that the push-pull test is unreliable on mountain grades. I only got a recording that asked for a detailed message, so I told them what I was interested in learning from them. As I was stating the message to them, it occurred to me that they are probably getting lots of messages inquiring about the same subject as my inquiry.
Now, I find an article that says the TSB is making no public comments about the use of handbrakes.
Apparently their rule 112 simply requires that enough brakes be set to prevent the train from rolling, but they don't say how that is to be determined. I would think that their earlier public statement saying that the push-pull test is unreliable on grades might cause a lot of trouble for them in the wake of this oil train disaster. Their statement basically admits that an engineer has no way of knowing that he has set enough brakes as the rule requires of him.
The Article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/18/transport-canada-rail-safety.html
edblysardWell, the original starting post for this thread actually didn’t contain a question at all, it simply was a platform for the poster to present his “conclusion”.
Ed,
My original post was not intended to ask a specific question. It was just to lay out a basis (a platform) for a discussion. My point was that I could see several complications that have not yet been explained in the other big thread or in any of the news articles. I did actually ask two questions, but there are several other questions implied in what I said, and they should be fairly obvious. One question is to ask why Burkhardt continually refers to a requirement to set 11 handbrakes. Apparently, that is the MM&A guideline or minimum number. He applies that number with the assurance that it would be enough without any additional proviso that the engineer must set enough handbrakes brakes to hold the train, and that number might actually be higher than the specified 11 handbrakes.
So I asked specific questions to see if someone would confirm or clarify my basic understanding that 11 handbrakes cannot just be a so-called “magic number” known in advance and applied without further question. Burkhardt has never mentioned applying handbrakes and then using the push-pull test to see if they hold.
Then I mentioned Rule 112, which does indeed require that enough handbrakes be applied to prevent the train from moving.
I mentioned the push-pull test as being the practical and accepted method of determining whether enough handbrakes are applied to prevent movement.
Next, I brought up the quote from the TSB of Canada that says: “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.”
This raises some questions: If it is impossible to obtain a useful result from the push-pull test, how are you supposed to know that you have set enough brakes to hold the train? Why hasn’t Burkhardt mentioned the push-pull test or confirmed that it is not used because it is worthless? And most of all; why does the TSB conclude that it is impossible to verify handbrake effectiveness with the push-pull test on high grades?
At the end of this first post, I did come to a conclusion:
“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.”
That conclusion still seems reasonable. It is somewhat confirmed by the fact that the TSB is moving at lightning speed to make several policy changes that go far beyond what the engineer of the oil train did. In any case, it is only my personal conclusion. Later in the thread, I was personally attacked for presenting a conclusion which I insisted was the only possible conclusion, and then challenging everybody to agree with my conclusion.
I don’t see where I did any such thing. The beauty of the forum is that threads are a running transcript of record. If there is any disagreement about who said what, all you have to do is go back and look at what was said.
It is interesting that there is such a level of distrust, bordering on contempt, for the TSB of Canada, at least by some on this thread. It is the body in Canada that investigates all transport accidents and formulates recommendations for new regulations for prevention, much the same way the NTSB does here. Few people question their professionalism in dealing with air crashes, but for some reason, unspecified except opinion that the "majority of the members of the TSB are bureaucrats with little or no real world experience in T&E service."From the TSB web page:
Investigators conduct investigations, perform research, analyze information, identify risks and prepare clear and concise reports on matters related to safety in the transportation industry. There is no other job like it in government. At the TSB, transportation means all the federally regulated air, marine, rail and pipeline systems; therefore, we need people experienced in and knowledgeable about those systems.
Our investigators include people with backgrounds in the transportation industry and regulatory sectors as well as the military. If you are, just to name a few, an air traffic controller, aircraft pilot, helicopter pilot, aircraft maintenance engineer, master mariner, naval architect, marine chief engineer, locomotive engineer, rail equipment and infrastructure specialist or have engineering certification in pipeline, you may be interested in a change of career that allows you to channel your experience into a rewarding career as a TSB investigator.
Employees who work as investigators usually belong to these occupational groups:
Here is the latest TSB report on Lac-Magentic:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/R13D0054.asp
Well, the original starting post for this thread actually didn’t contain a question at all, it simply was a platform for the poster to present his “conclusion”.
If the question that seems to be implied later is how many handbrakes should have been set by the engineer, then yes, I don’t know.
But my answer to the question how many would you have tied is…”a minimum of 11 as per rule, but enough to hold the train in place.”
Now, without having been there and performed that task, I cannot give a number as a standard answer, there are too many variables that have to be observed on site for anyone to decide on a fixed number of brakes.
So, to determine the number that equates to “How many…” I would have tested the handbrakes with the industry wide accepted method mentioned throughout this thread.
As for the TSB’s assertion that a push or pull test to determine if the applied brakes are sufficient is “impossible” I would opine that the majority of the members of the TSB are bureaucrats with little or no real world experience in T&E service.
The number to satisfy the “Enough to hold the train place” is determined by testing…you know that funny scientific process where you come up with a theory or hypothesis, and then test and test and test some more until you confirm or deny the theory.
If your answer to the “How many would you have set?” question is, “All of them” then I have a question for you….how do you know setting all of the brakes would be sufficient to hold the train?
You imply agreement with the TSB, or at least use their assertion that it’s impossible to test the holding power of handbrakes, as a basis for your argument.
So you cant test if all of them are enough.
Because you continually use the TSB’s conclusion as a pivotal point in you argument, then one must assume you agree with it.
That being the case…
Logic would lead you to the only conclusion left…if it is impossible to test, then it is impossible to ever find any answer, therefor it is impossible to ever secure a train with handbrakes, under any circumstances and under any conditions.
Of course, the TSB could be wrong.
23 17 46 11
But the guidelines do….any carrier that specifies a certain number of brakes will state that as a minimum number that must be applied, but not the only number allowed, you can add more as needed.
My carrier say any train or cut of cars left unattended must be secured with a minimum of two handbrakes, but still requires us to apply “sufficient hand brakes on cars to prevent movement”
edblysard schlimmMore to the bigger point, it is not very reassuring that the folks with lots of real experience don't have more consensus. But we do have a consensus, and our answer seems to not satisfy the questioner. The same answer has been given over and over…”Enough to hold the train in place” This answer is part of the GCOR, Norac and Canac rule books and every railroads own safety rules and operating rule book. The technique to test how many are required has also been given over and over….apply hand brakes, (if a specific number of brakes is given by that particular carrier, start with that number) remove air brakes and locomotive brakes and see if it the train moves…if so, apply more and repeat test till the train remains in place held only by the hand brakes on the cars.
schlimmMore to the bigger point, it is not very reassuring that the folks with lots of real experience don't have more consensus.
But we do have a consensus, and our answer seems to not satisfy the questioner.
The same answer has been given over and over…”Enough to hold the train in place”
This answer is part of the GCOR, Norac and Canac rule books and every railroads own safety rules and operating rule book.
The technique to test how many are required has also been given over and over….apply hand brakes, (if a specific number of brakes is given by that particular carrier, start with that number) remove air brakes and locomotive brakes and see if it the train moves…if so, apply more and repeat test till the train remains in place held only by the hand brakes on the cars.
I agree that there is a consensus here on the matter of how to set the correct number of handbrakes. Actually, I have no problem understanding what the consensus is saying, and I was not refusing to accept it.
My point in demanding a “number” was to separate the so-called “guidelines” from the “as many brakes as it takes” answer, in order to illustrate that the guidelines are not capable of generating the required number. Once we established that the only way to get the number is by the test, I wanted to ask why the TSB of Canada rejects the test as being unreliable.
edblysard schlimm 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. But we do have a consensus, and our answer seems to not satisfy the questioner. The same answer has been given over and over…”Enough to hold the train in place” This answer is part of the GCOR, Norac and Canac rule books and every railroads own safety rules and operating rule book. The technique to test how many are required has also been given over and over….apply hand brakes, (if a specific number of brakes is given by that particular carrier, start with that number) remove air brakes and locomotive brakes and see if it the train moves…if so, apply more and repeat test till the train remains in place held only by the hand brakes on the cars. The question is along the lines of the old argument of “How big is the universe?” The answer given is “Infinite” How big is infinite? “Bigger than anything you can imagine.” “How do you know it’s bigger than anything you can imagine if you can never get to the end of it?” And so on and so on and so on.
schlimm 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.
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.
The question is along the lines of the old argument of “How big is the universe?”
The answer given is “Infinite”
How big is infinite?
“Bigger than anything you can imagine.”
“How do you know it’s bigger than anything you can imagine if you can never get to the end of it?”
And so on and so on and so on.
Q. How tall are you?
A. My feet reach the ground.
Q. How much do you weigh?
A. I am not apt to be blown away.
Q. How old are you?
A. Old enough to know better.
Q. How much is your electric bill?
A. More than I want to pay, but not so much that I don't get it paid.
Q. How much do you spend on groceries?
A. I am not starving.
Q. Is your car 'silver'?
A. I drive a Buick.
Q. What is your net worth?
A. I bootleg off my neighbor's WiFi.
Q. How many hand brakes do you set?
A. Enough to hold the train.
All of those are valid questions, but none of the responses is sufficient to know the answer, (even though the answers might be appropriate in certain circumstances).
The only reason the last answer has been questioned is that it was also stated that the push/pull test is not reliable. If you cannot trust the 'test', how do you know if what you set will hold the train?
My favourite Calvin and Hobbes comic episode: They are riding in a car and going over a bridge...
Calvin: "How do they know the load limit on bridges, Dad?"
Calvin's Dad: "They drive bigger and bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks." "Then they weight the last truck and rebuild the bridge."
Calvin: "Oh, I should've guessed."
Calvin's Mom: "Dear, if you don't know the answer, just tell him!"
But in this instance, those of you that work for a RR in the capacity where you are required to set hand brakes only seem to answer the question with a "non-answer". I realize that you don't want to say, "I don't know!" because you are required to know. And I realize that there are many factors involved that vary from place to place and train to train, etc., so you have to answer that you cannot supply a pat answer.
I do see that some answers are that you set the recommended minimum and then rely on the "not reliable" push/pull test. (Ouch!) I do not envy you this aspect of your occupation... I am much too paranoid; I'd set every brake on the train, twice, and then put rocks and boulders on the rail in front and behind every wheel, and refuse to leave the train on "safety grounds"... or would I get complacent and/or "too tired" and do just the recommended minimum and go to sleep and "assume" that nothing bad will happen?
I do 'feel' for the engineer in this present train disaster. No matter what he did, it was not good enough... I have been in that position (in completely different realms) and it is no picnic and really not fair.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Cranking on a bunch of handbrakes, then seeing if the train stays put sans air, then applying automatic plus independent seems like belt, suspenders and duct tape to me. Lots of things would have to go wrong to have a failure.
Paul of Covington I have a question distantly related to this subject. If you are driving down a street at 35 MPH and at an intersection 150 feet ahead the light turns from green to yellow, how many pounds of force would you apply to the brake pedal to stop at that intersection?
I have a question distantly related to this subject. If you are driving down a street at 35 MPH and at an intersection 150 feet ahead the light turns from green to yellow, how many pounds of force would you apply to the brake pedal to stop at that intersection?
I live in Houston, Texas…the answer to your question is easy…
You don’t think about braking at all, you floor the gas pedal, brakes are for sissies!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.