BaltACDIf you are doing you job properly - you don't just set X hand brakes and walk away. You set X hand brakes and TEST them with your locomotives, If the train doesn't move, then you apply the hand brakes on the locomotives and secure the operating controls as required - then you walk away. If the train moves in your test, then you apply more and retest. IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE OR BRAIN SURGERY! Apply then verify! Just becuse 'the rule' says X, if you verify by testing and it isn't enough - apply more until your test is successful. This is railroading Kindergarten!
IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE OR BRAIN SURGERY!
Apply then verify!
Just becuse 'the rule' says X, if you verify by testing and it isn't enough - apply more until your test is successful. This is railroading Kindergarten!
That sounds like the practical solution, however; the article I linked to the first post mentions this:
But in a 2011 report into a runaway train incident near Sept-Îles, the TSB noted that “it is impossible to verify hand-brake effectiveness by pulling or pushing cars on high grades (so) locomotive engineers cannot accurately know that management’s expectations have been met every time cars are secured.”
So, according to the TSB, the “practical method” of testing to see if enough handbrakes are applied is “impossible.”
If you are doing you job properly - you don't just set X hand brakes and walk away. You set X hand brakes and TEST them with your locomotives, If the train doesn't move, then you apply the hand brakes on the locomotives and secure the operating controls as required - then you walk away. If the train moves in your test, then you apply more and retest.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I thought the answer was 47....
At least we haven't started discussing whether there was sufficient warning for drivers approaching crossings in Lac Megantic...
The answer to the question, Bucyrus, is enough brakes to hold the train. Since the engineer in question is apparently a veteran of that particular run, it's apparent that whatever he set has proved sufficient in the past. Therefore, it is probably safe to assume that he set - in completely good faith - enough brakes to hold the train, based on his experience.
And what he set was holding the train until other factors came into play.
Lest we forget, there are apparently other factors at play here.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Bucyrus Norm4832777 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives. That is how many I would have set. At least if it rolled, it would have been my fault. But, then there is the issue of how tight to wind them. Without defining what it means for a brake to be "set," the number of brakes set would be irrelevant. Maybe there is a rule about what is required for a handbrake to be considered set. Perhaps one of the railroaders could chime in on that topic.
Norm4832777 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives.
That is how many I would have set. At least if it rolled, it would have been my fault.
But, then there is the issue of how tight to wind them. Without defining what it means for a brake to be "set," the number of brakes set would be irrelevant.
Maybe there is a rule about what is required for a handbrake to be considered set. Perhaps one of the railroaders could chime in on that topic.
This horse is getting deader by the minute.
Norm
schlimmGiven that this accident occurred on a rail line that none of the professionals here work for and that it was in Canada, not the US, it is not surprising that they have no clear answers. I am surprised their railroads apparently do not have a chart like the one the CN has, as referenced in the article. At least no one has mentioned one.
There are charts and guidelines such as the one where CN suggests 40% of the handbrakes be applied. However, as I understand it, most railroads stipulate an overarching rule that requires enough handbrakes be set to prevent the train from rolling. That is the hard rule that counts.
I assume that MM&A has that rule because the guidelines alone are not enough to guarantee that a train won’t roll. If the MM&A has a rule stating that enough brakes must be set to prevent the train from rolling, the engineer of the runaway oil train is not off the hook just because he set the 11 handbrakes called for in the guidelines.
Regarding people on the forum knowing how many brakes he should have set, the fact that they don’t work in Canada is irrelevant. The tank cars, track, and grades behave the same way in both the U.S. and Canada.
Given that this accident occurred on a rail line that none of the professionals here work for and that it was in Canada, not the US, it is not surprising that they have no clear answers. I am surprised their railroads apparently do not have a chart like the one the CN has, as referenced in the article. At least no one has mentioned one.
He has indicated that MMA policy was that 11 hand brakes should have been set in Nantes — one on each of the five locomotives, as well as on six tank cars. That means eight per cent of tank-car brakes were to be set.
If MMA “chose not to put a mandatory amount of hand brakes for that specific location into the special instructions in its timetable then they can turn around and point at the engineer and say it’s the engineer’s fault because he didn’t put a sufficient number of hand brakes on,” said Benedict, the former locomotive engineer who is now a Calgary lawyer.
WHAT HAPPENS AT OTHER RAILWAYS?
Canadian National, for one, provides a chart in its timetables to give employees “a guide” as to the “sufficient number” of hand brakes required on what is considered “mountain grade” tracks — 0.75 per cent and higher.
That chart suggests 40 per cent of train car hand brakes should be applied on grades of between one per cent and 1.4 per cent, such as the one in Nantes.
In addition, CN timetables stipulate that hand brakes should be applied on all headend locomotives. CN employees must also advise a rail-traffic controller of the number of hand brakes applied.
If these CN guidelines had been followed in Nantes, 34 hand brakes would have been applied — 29 on the tank cars and five on the locomotives.
Do CSX, NS, UP or BNSF also have such charts?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann Besides, everyone knows the answer is 42. The answer is ALWAYS 42.
Besides, everyone knows the answer is 42.
The answer is ALWAYS 42.
You're wrong. For the wife it may well be holding at 39.
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?
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 only concluded that you don’t know how many handbrakes were required because you have not answered my question as to how many handbrakes you would have set. You say the answer to the question amounts to a magic number and that it is a fantasy to search for that number. How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
I only concluded that you don’t know how many handbrakes were required because you have not answered my question as to how many handbrakes you would have set. You say the answer to the question amounts to a magic number and that it is a fantasy to search for that number.
How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
It's painfully obvious you have never set a handbrake, Bucyrus. So stop acting like you are going to solve this case by yourself on this very forum. There are too many variables in question for any railroader to give you an exact number.
Your trolling is getting old.
Bucyrus How about you, n012944? How many handbrakes would you have set on that oil train?
Enough so that it didn't roll away.
An "expensive model collector"
77 Might have worked. 72 cars + 5 locomotives.
zugmannBucyrusSo, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train? If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know? I never said I didn't know. I just said there is no magic number you are seeking. I'm not taking part in your fantasy on here.
BucyrusSo, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train? If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know?
I never said I didn't know. I just said there is no magic number you are seeking. I'm not taking part in your fantasy on here.
Shh, if you are quiet enough, you can hear someone beating a dead horse.
Bucyrus So, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train? If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know?
So, you have lots of experience with handbrakes, and you have no idea how many you would have set on that oil train? If you don’t know, how was the engineer supposed to know?
I never said I didn't know. I just said there is no magic number you are seeking.
I'm not taking part in your fantasy on here.
zugmannYou need as many brakes so the train doesn't roll away. Number varies given many variables.
BucyrusBut there is indeed a magic number. It is the number needed to prevent the train from rolling away. Tell me how many were needed for the oil train that ran away. You know as much about the train and grade as the engineer did.
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."
The appropriate number can only be found by setting brakes and testing to see if the train holds. If it does, then you've set at least as many as were needed, and possibly more. If it doesn't hold, you go back and set some more.
If it holds, you aren't going to start releasing brakes to find the "magic number." You're going to say "good enough."
Like everything else in the rulebook, the suggested number of brakes to set is based on experience. Over time, it's been found that X brakes are the appropriate number to set under normal circumstances. The rule book is also going to address things like grades.
What works today may be overkill tomorrow, and not enough the next day.
The only truly answerable part of your question is how tight the brakes should be set, and that's as tight as you can get them.
Yeah, this is going nowhere.
You need as many brakes so the train doesn't roll away. Number varies given many variables. Only a few places I know about have a regulated amount of brakes - but those are all places that are completely flat.
zugmann BucyrusHow many handbrakes should the engineer have set? How tight should he have set them? As many as needed. There is no magic number that anyone here can give you.
BucyrusHow many handbrakes should the engineer have set? How tight should he have set them?
There is no magic number that anyone here can give you.
But there is indeed a magic number. It is the number needed to prevent the train from rolling away. Tell me how many were needed for the oil train that ran away. You know as much about the train and grade as the engineer did.
Bucyrus How many handbrakes should the engineer have set? How tight should he have set them?
How many handbrakes should the engineer have set? How tight should he have set them?
As many as needed.
Bucyrus Here is my question: How many handbrakes should the engineer have set? How tight should he have set them?
Here is my question:
According to your post, the CN requires a much higher number than this shoestring operation shortline.
I don’t think wheel chocks or portable derails are the answer. A switch derail would work fine, but you still have to set all the handbrakes. But maybe opening that switch right in front of the train would drive home the point of how important it is to make sure you have enough handbrakes set.
People have talked about setting 11 handbrakes in 25 minutes as being doable. That is 2.27 minutes each, so it should be doable, but how do we know he had 25 minutes?
Semper VaporoBut that is not the device I have been visualizing. I was thinking of a much, MUCH larger device that clamps to the rail... about the height of 1/2 the wheel diameter and sans the "ramp shape"... something a rail car can't "roll up and over" (like those dinky wedges used to hold a car on level track so someone leaning on the car won't make it move). Maybe the term I am intending is "Rail Car Stop"... Something more akin to these: http://www.railyard-safety.com/Railyard-Safety.aspx?Type=Rail%20Car%20Stops&c=1 (I'll go take some Dr. Caldwell's to see if I can get over these here 'vapors'. )
Maybe the term I am intending is "Rail Car Stop"... Something more akin to these:
http://www.railyard-safety.com/Railyard-Safety.aspx?Type=Rail%20Car%20Stops&c=1
(I'll go take some Dr. Caldwell's to see if I can get over these here 'vapors'. )
Better put away the Vick's and go see Dr. Caldwell again.
Zugman,There was a very simple method I used to use to get a string of handbrakes off in the least amount time and it didn't involve a brake stick. I guess brake sticks (the extendable kind) have their place, but, I never really liked them. Just too much to carry around, especially at night and with a lantern too. Besides, in the winter they would freeze your hands off in no time.
.
Semper Vaporo I had assumed someone had invented a "car stop" that would grip the rail tighter as a car pressed against it, yet could be lifted from the side of the track via a long handle (so the user would not be subjected to putting their body [or parts thereof] in jeopardy while installing or removing it).
I had assumed someone had invented a "car stop" that would grip the rail tighter as a car pressed against it, yet could be lifted from the side of the track via a long handle (so the user would not be subjected to putting their body [or parts thereof] in jeopardy while installing or removing it).
Rail skate:
http://www.nolancompany.com/Main/RailSkates/RailSkates.asp
But Skates and rail stops are more for handling a few cars. I don't think they're intended to hold back a whole train on a grade.
I'm guessing there may be a new call for split point derails at certain spots. (for those that aren't familiar - it's basically a "switch leading to the ditch"). Throws a train off the track.
tdmidget Well, since the regs say that a train may not be left secured unattended by air brakes alone, the one crew CANNOT be legal. There is no way he can be setting handbrakes and in the cab at the same time. So, during the period while he is (hopefully) setting handbrakes. the train is held by air alone.
Well, since the regs say that a train may not be left secured unattended by air brakes alone, the one crew CANNOT be legal. There is no way he can be setting handbrakes and in the cab at the same time. So, during the period while he is (hopefully) setting handbrakes. the train is held by air alone.
The train Is being attended while he's setting hand brakes. unattended means not being in a position to take action.
Our rules and instructions also say a "sufficient number" and have minimum requirements. The minimum may not hold the train at all locations, it is the crew's responsibility to ensure that enough hand brakes are set to prevent movement. Even if that means tying more than the listed minimum.
Jeff
BigJim And who is this guy thinking a wheel chock is going to hold a 9,000 - 10,000 ton train on a hill? You really do have the vapors!
And who is this guy thinking a wheel chock is going to hold a 9,000 - 10,000 ton train on a hill? You really do have the vapors!
Yeah, I've been accused of that before! But I live alone and nobody usually notices...
As for my suggestion... I womdered if maybe I have been using the wrong term ("Chocks"), so I did some googling of the term... yeah... most of what I found would not hold a mouse on a pimple.
But that is not the device I have been visualizing. I was thinking of a much, MUCH larger device that clamps to the rail... about the height of 1/2 the wheel diameter and sans the "ramp shape"... something a rail car can't "roll up and over" (like those dinky wedges used to hold a car on level track so someone leaning on the car won't make it move).
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
BigJim Given fair walking conditions, this would be no problem at all.
Given fair walking conditions, this would be no problem at all.
Use a brakestick and you can do it in half the time. But yeah, even by hand, it doesn't take that long to tie on a dozen good brakes (if you are in halfway decent physical shape).
This engineer claims to have set 11 handbrakes in less than 25 minutes. It would be hard to walk to eleven cars and just give the wheel a spin in that time.
I haven't seen an actual track chart of the siding posted. So, who on here knows exactly what the track profile looks like to make any comments?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.