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.
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.
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"
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!
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."
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.
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.
I will take the answer provided by the TSB.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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
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
Maybe somebody needs to shut this dog and pony show down...four pages ago!
.
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.
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.
cleaned up
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
No smokescreens, it's obvious you can't understand the answer when it is presented to you.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.