Regarding the “right answer” to the question of how many handbrakes are necessary, semantics enter into the answer. Both of the following conflicting answers are true:
1) There is no “magic number” or accurate rule of thumb, guideline, chart of information, or accurate means to calculate the proper number of handbrakes required. Under those terms, it is impossible to know the number, so it is accurate to say that there is no number.
2) There is a specific minimum number of brakes necessary. One less than the minimum, is too few.
schlimmthat 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?
If the entire railroad is on the same gradient, then one "standard" will do. But railroads vary. Is it necessary to set 25-30 handbrakes if the train is sitting at the center of a "bowl?" In that case, one handbrake might well be enough, since the train can't "roll out" to anywhere - it's already at the bottom of the hills.
Considering all the variables, experience is going to provide the rationale for how many handbrakes will be set under "normal" circumstances, and that's going in the rulebook. Also going into the rulebook (or timetable) is going to be special instructions for special situations, like significant grades.
Which is pretty much what you said:
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.
What seems to be in question here is what that appropriate number is, and that's going to vary from railroad to railroad, and even division to division. Guidance for the CSX "Water Level Route" (Chicago Line) is going to be different from what is necessary in the hills of West Virginia.
Bottom line: There is not, nor can there be, an all encompassing standard that will fit all railroads all the time. Even if there is one, unless it is to set all the hand brakes on the train, there are variables that will come into play, most of which have already been mentioned 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...
In the runaway of QNS&L train number LIM-55, described in the link I posted above, the guidelines called for 12 handbrakes. The engineer, using his own discretion, applied 35 handbrakes, and the train ran away before he got back to the cab. Another guideline called for 57 handbrakes on that train.
Quote from the report (my emphasis in red):
If a train stops on the descending grade between Bybee and Tika following an emergency brake application, it must be secured in accordance with CROR Rule 112. That rule states that a sufficient number of hand brakes must be applied to ensure that the train is secured. Rule 112 special instructions specify the minimum number of hand brakes to be applied under general operating conditions, but do not give a number when specific conditions apply. It is left to the locomotive engineer's discretion to determine if additional hand brakes are required while taking into account such factors as train weight, track grade and braking force. In this occurrence, for LIM-55, consisting of 112 cars, the minimum number of hand brakes required by Rule 112 was 12 (Appendix A); however, the locomotive engineer indicated having applied 35 hand brakes on LIM-55 after taking the track profile and train specifications into consideration.
As a result of testing performed following the 1996 Edson, Alberta, accident (TSB report R96C0172), a table was established to provide the necessary number of hand brakes required to secure 100 loaded cars according to the track grade and hand-brake torque (Appendix B). When this table is used for LIM-55, according to a torque of 80 foot-pounds on an average grade of 1.3%, 57 hand brakes would be necessary to secure the train between Bybee and Tika. Similarly, in the Rockies, on such grades, Canadian Pacific Railway's special instructions require that half the hand brakes be applied on a train with similar characteristics as LIM-55.
Bucyrus Regarding the “right answer” to the question of how many handbrakes are necessary, semantics enter into the answer. Both of the following conflicting answers are true: 1) There is no “magic number” or accurate rule of thumb, guideline, chart of information, or accurate means to calculate the proper number of handbrakes required. Under those terms, it is impossible to know the number, so it is accurate to say that there is no number.
Not entirely true - the way to determine the number of handbrakes necessary is to test. I would suggest that your statement be changed to read "...it is accurate to say there is no predetermined number for a given situation." That there are guidelines in the rules/timetables says that as the result of experience/testing/scientific calculation, the number has been determined - so there is a number.
This statement is true. Once again, however, determining what that minumum number is is best done by testing.
The converse to your statement could be that one more than the minumum is too many, but I would opine that most here would agree that setting even one extra brake would be a good thing as it would provide some redundancy. If a crewmember sets an extra brake or two, this will not show up in the testing, as the train will react as desired.
This doesn't have to be a scientific study. The procedure is there - set the number of brakes specified in the rules/timetable and test. If it holds, you're good. Maybe you set 11 and only seven were actually necessary.
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?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
tree68 Bucyrus Regarding the “right answer” to the question of how many handbrakes are necessary, semantics enter into the answer. Both of the following conflicting answers are true: 1) There is no “magic number” or accurate rule of thumb, guideline, chart of information, or accurate means to calculate the proper number of handbrakes required. Under those terms, it is impossible to know the number, so it is accurate to say that there is no number. Not entirely true - the way to determine the number of handbrakes necessary is to test. I would suggest that your statement be changed to read "...it is accurate to say there is no predetermined number for a given situation." That there are guidelines in the rules/timetables says that as the result of experience/testing/scientific calculation, the number has been determined - so there is a number. 2) There is a specific minimum number of brakes necessary. One less than the minimum, is too few. This statement is true. Once again, however, determining what that minumum number is is best done by testing.
I agree that the test is intended provide the required information to know the minimum number of handbrakes needed, but my item #1 was meant to exclude the test. That is why I stipulated “Under those terms, it is impossible to know the number.”
My item #2 requires the test.
I made the distinction between item #1 and #2 because it seemed to be the basis of considerable disagreement here yesterday. My point is that two conflicting interpetations are true.
But looking only at the push-pull test:
Paul North’s previous post brings up several questions that could cause the results of the push-pull test to vary. Also, the Canadian TSB states that the test is unreliable in mountain grade conditions. And to reinforce their viewpoint on that, they are immediately making the need for the push-pull test obsolete for trains handling dangerous cargo.
They stated their finding that the push-pull test was unreliable in 2009. They said that when using the push-pull test in mountain territory, it was impossible to determine whether the amount of handbrakes set complied with the company’s requirement that the number be sufficient to prevent the train from rolling with air brakes released.
cleaned up
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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?
Many people would see the light changing to yellow as an indication to speed up, not to stop at the intersection.
Jeff
Unless, as Jeff says......
Disk or Drum Brakes? If drum, are the shoes in proper adjustment?Brakes at operating temperature or cold?What type of friction material on the brake pad or shoe?Power assisted or unassisted brake system?What is the condition of the tires on the vehicle?What is the grade where braking is taking place?What is the condition of the surface that braking is taking place on? Dry asphalt? Wet asphalt? Are there asphalt 'waves' in the braking area? Dry smooth concrete? Wet smooth concrete? Dry textured concrete? Wet textured concrete? Lose dirt? Wet lose dirt = mud? Oiled dirt? Wet oiled dirt? Lose gravel? Wet lose gravel? Is the gravel round river run or jagged multisurface aggregrate? Is there snow on the above listed surfaces? Is there ice covering the above listed surfaces?Each of the items listed have varying coefficients of friction and thus alter stopping distance.
You brake as hard or as lightly as required to effect the stop - if you are attempting to stop on a downgrade surface that is covered by glare ice, you are going too fast for the surface and most likely will not get stopped, and if the downgrade is steep enough, the vehicle 'if stopped' would slide down the ice with wheels locked stationary.
Just like applying hand brake - you do what is necessary to achieve the desired result - there is no single number.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
"hand-brake torque (Appendix B). When this table is used for LIM-55, according to a torque of 80 foot-pounds on an average grade of 1.3%, 57 hand brakes would be necessary to secure the train between Bybee and Tika."
I'd like to see the ground pounder with the torque wrench.
What, a ground pounder is not required to carry a torque wrench along with the knuckle that he carries?
Johnny
They are going to need a better brake wheel-winch machine. Controlling wheel torque will not be enough. They will have to measure brake shoe pressure. You turn the wheel until an indicator says the job is done.
Zero. Minimum yellow time for a 35 MPH road is 3.6 seconds. In 3.6 seconds, my 35 MPH vehicle travels 36 feet past the limit line. More of a risk in making the "hard stop" under those conditions.
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.
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.
23 17 46 11
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!
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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
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!
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.
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?
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.
And the School Board had a choice and built the school where gravity endangers it. You build the school on the high ground! Duh!
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!
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.