Bucyrus cp8905 oltmanndRidiculous. GCOR 32.1 is enough. Everything else is irrelevant. No it isn't if it were we wouldn't be talking about it and the families of the people burned alive wouldn't be mourning the loss of their loved ones. As I have said, this was an accident waiting to happen. I think it was an accident waiting to happen.
cp8905 oltmanndRidiculous. GCOR 32.1 is enough. Everything else is irrelevant. No it isn't if it were we wouldn't be talking about it and the families of the people burned alive wouldn't be mourning the loss of their loved ones. As I have said, this was an accident waiting to happen.
oltmanndRidiculous. GCOR 32.1 is enough. Everything else is irrelevant.
No it isn't if it were we wouldn't be talking about it and the families of the people burned alive wouldn't be mourning the loss of their loved ones. As I have said, this was an accident waiting to happen.
I think it was an accident waiting to happen.
I somewhat agree with you. But not in your narrow sense. The crude behaved in a way the experts found abnormal, and a derailment at speed could have occurred anywhere on the entire railroad network. In fact, fire as a result of a derailment is more likely to happen on a Class 1 since they are the ones with allowable fast track speeds. Broken rails, collisions, grade crossing accidents have all left trains piled up in a big mess.
While the immediate regulatory changes in the wake of Lac-Megantic have been directed at simple train operation, I expect to see more regulation based on the commodity. For example, use of the older design of tank car might be banned. As an interim measure until enough new tank cars become available, mandating slow speeds would reduce the risk. Maybe the tank cars require a special lining to resist the chemical mix.
In brief, changes resulting from what the investigators learn from Lac-Megantic may prevent a similar inferno happening in a town near you. But for the immediate future that accident is still waiting to happen, just in a new location on another railroad.
Thank you Ed for telling it like it really is.
Norm
Something I haven't seen mentioned, but which I'm sure the investigators are looking at, is whether there might have been a propane gas distribution facility or tanks near the derailment site that caused the explosion and fire, and not just the crude.
In the end, they will likely find that it was aliens who escaped from Area 51 that caused it all. Through tele-kinetic mind control, they commanded Bigfoot to disable the hand brakes and give the train a push. It was all a diversion to take attention away from impending news release about Paula Deen's love child with Bigfoot's alien offspring. The story will surely break soon in The National Enquirer.
"I could never belong to any club that would have me as a member."
edblysardThe contention that an officer of the railroad ordered Harding to cease tying down the train is beyond ludicrous, while we have some pretty dense officials here, I know of none who are that stupid.
Ed,
Nobody has contended that action as a fact. I simply contend that it is, in fact, an open possibility, nothing more and nothing less. Also, it does not have to be so clear cut as an official ordering Harding to cease tying down brakes. When you cite it as being that clear cut, it does make it the least likely. But, as you point out, things go wrong as a result of a series of less than perfect decisions where the final outcome is not so clear cut.
I see the possibility of this factor most likely being combined with other factors such as routinely compromising Rule 112. It would not be hard to rationalize that air and hand brakes together will do the job.
When Burkhardt said the train ran away because the firemen shut down the engine and that released the air brakes, he is saying that they were relying on those air brakes to hold the train. That has to be what he means. He stated it as the reason why the train ran away. So not only is this scenario of relying on a combination of air and handbrakes a possibility, there is clear evidence that it was done, in violation of CROR Rule 112.
Also, it would not be hard to rationalize that it is okay to send a man home if you intend to get somebody else out there in a “few minutes” to check things over, including the smoking engine. They did get somebody out there in a very short time when the fire department was called.
Nobody is hysterically trying to crucify anybody here. I am keeping an open mind and have not accused anybody of anything. My words are black and white. I am not trying to solve the mystery. I only want to show possibilities. That is lacking in the media as a total summation. I think it is useful to summarize it. You too have offered several possibilities above. I agree that they are all possibilities, and they are all detailed breakdowns of my five points of possible causes listed above.
I think it is important to look at the full range of possibilities because Mr. Burkhardt has limited that range in order to openly and publically accuse Tom Harding of being the sole cause of this enormous loss of property and the deaths of 47 people. He says that because the train rolled away, it has to be Harding’s fault. I disagree with that. So does the director of the accident investigation, Robert Johnston. I don’t think that pointing out these details in any way amounts to crucifying Burkhardt.
Well said, Ed! Makes me wish you were heading up the investigation!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Norm48327 Thank you Ed for telling it like it really is.
Dan
CNW 6000 Norm48327 Thank you Ed for telling it like it really is. Ed's was the best post in any of these Lac Megantic threads. By far.
Agree! He nailed it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BucyrusWhen Burkhardt said the train ran away because the firemen shut down the engine and that released the air brakes, he is saying that they were relying on those air brakes to hold the train. That has to be what he means. He stated it as the reason why the train ran away.
So, you don't think it's possible, in the heat of the moment, that he didn't know what he was talking about? Or, was confused? Or, since he's not been on "on the ground guy" for quite a few years, might be slow to remember what he knows? If he said red was blue, would that make it true?
Did he throw Harding "under the bus"? Maybe. But that's completely difference from your arguments.
oltmanndSo, you don't think it's possible, in the heat of the moment, that he didn't know what he was talking about? Or, was confused? Or, since he's not been on "on the ground guy" for quite a few years, might be slow to remember what he knows? If he said red was blue, would that make it true?
Sure, Burkhardt could have said something in the heat of the moment. Anything is possible, but he said what he said; and not just as a couple of words, but rather a line of reasoning. And he said it on more than one occasion. He got it on record. It is all over the news. He has had full opportunity to retract it if is not what he meant.
I have not said that it proves anything except for what his words mean. If he did not intend them to mean that, then he should correct them.
Again you are reducing it to a technical issue, when the point was about staffing levels and the ultimate cause of this accident.
Some of the responses in this post remind me of George C. Scott's character in Dr. Strangelove: the world is 18 minutes from ending because of a massive failure and he is saying things such as "We should hold off judgement until all the facts are in" or "I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of single slip-up." These are weasel words, the words of people who don't want oversight, transparency, democracy, or more importantly, responsibility. Regulation = confirmation.
Luckily, the TSB has banned one-person crews in Canada, so this point is moot. We aren't required to defer to the superior technical knowledge of companies when those same companies potentially gain financially by cutting corners. I am done here.
It was all over the news media. But the news media quickly move on. Perhaps he did retract them later, but by then it was less newsworthy than updating the body count. Your speculation and theorizing in a knowledge vacuum is tedious. Give it a rest until the TSB report comes out.
All we know comes from the media reports, and they have a well-earned reputation for being unreliable, especially where the reporters know little about the subject. And a reporter who knows anything about the railways is an exceedingly rare character. The pictures on TV are (usually) truthful, but that doesn't automatically make the accompanying commentary reliable. We never know what was edited out of a long interview to fit a short time slot.
over and OUT
John
Bucyrus oltmanndSo, you don't think it's possible, in the heat of the moment, that he didn't know what he was talking about? Or, was confused? Or, since he's not been on "on the ground guy" for quite a few years, might be slow to remember what he knows? If he said red was blue, would that make it true? Sure, Burkhardt could have said something in the heat of the moment. Anything is possible, but he said what he said; and not just as a couple of words, but rather a line of reasoning. And he said it on more than one occasion. He got it on record. It is all over the news. He has had full opportunity to retract it if is not what he meant. I have not said that it proves anything except for what his words mean. If he did not intend them to mean that, then he should correct them.
BucyrusI have not said that it proves anything except for what his words mean. If he did not intend them to mean that, then he should correct them.
Okay. That's your whole point?
schlimm My word! 103 posts on this thread on whether or not Ed Burkhardt was in error. Numerous other threads on the tragedy, but mostly on how to set a handbrake. And it just goes on and on.
My word! 103 posts on this thread on whether or not Ed Burkhardt was in error. Numerous other threads on the tragedy, but mostly on how to set a handbrake. And it just goes on and on.
The dead horses enjoy their beatings!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PROBLEMS WITH CROR RULE 112
As I understand it, train securement in Canada is governed by CROR Rule 112, which was produced by the TSB of Canada and/or Transport Canada. The rule includes a requirement for a push-pull test as a means of confirming whether the securement called for in the rule has been accomplished. And yet the TSB has also stated that such confirmation is “impossible” by the use of a push-pull test. That seems like a classic Catch-22 to me.
So I find it interesting that the Lac-Megantic accident investigator is asking the Transport Canada to check their Rule 112 to see if the push-pull test is an adequate indicator of proper securement, while the TSB has already answered that question by saying that it is not. Moreover, the accident investigator says, “It has been demonstrated” that the push-pull test is unreliable. If it has been demonstrated, what is there to review?
What I sense that the accident investigator is asking the TSB is for an explanation of why the TSB has concluded that it is impossible to confirm train securement by the use of the push-pull test.
Clearly, the accident investigator is shifting a burden onto the TSB/TC in the sense that their Rule 112 may be defective, and therefore part of the cause of the runaway oil train. That is huge. The basic national railroad rule that is supposed to prevent runaways may not always do the job.
Note that as a private observer, I am not asserting this alleged problem with Rule 112 to be a fact. I have only offered it as a possibility as item #5 in my FIVE POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR THE RUNAWAY posted above. And also note that other private observers here in the forum insist that the rule is 100% sufficient as is the similar rule governing U.S. rail operations. Nevertheless, the preeminent rail safety regulation authorities in Canada have said that the rule leaves employees with no way of knowing how many handbrakes to apply in order to secure a train.
Here is what the accident investigator, Robert Johnston has said in a letter to Luc Bourdon, Transport Canada’s director general, rail safety:
CROR Rule 112 ensures that hand brakes are applied to prevent unwanted movement of the train while providing flexibility for a railway’s operational needs. However, CROR Rule 112 is not specific enough in that it does not indicate the number of hand brakes necessary to hold a given train tonnage on various grades and it continues to be left up to the operating employee to determine the number of hand brakes to apply. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated the push-pull test is not always a good indicator of whether an adequate number of hand brakes have been applied and not handbrakes are effective even when properly applied. Considering all these risks, Transport Canada may wish to review CROR Rule 112 and all related railway special instructions to ensure that equipment and trains left unattended are properly secured in order to prevent unintended movements.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Robert Johnston
Acting Director
Investigation Operations Rail/Pipeline
Refer to this link for full article:
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/transport-canada-may-wish-to-review-rail-rules-agency-investigating-lac-megantic-derailment/1002482141/
BaltACD schlimm My word! 103 posts on this thread on whether or not Ed Burkhardt was in error. Numerous other threads on the tragedy, but mostly on how to set a handbrake. And it just goes on and on. The dead horses enjoy their beatings!
X 10.
Robert JohnsonHowever, CROR Rule 112 is not specific enough in that it does not indicate the number of hand brakes necessary to hold a given train tonnage on various grades and it continues to be left up to the operating employee to determine the number of hand brakes to apply.
So now the crews will have to carry the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Brittanica so they can find out the specific number of brakes to set for their specific train for their specific location because it needs to be spelled out exactly in the rule.
Yeah, right.
RIP, horse.
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...
hello my friend. this former rrand b. I am always pleased and impreessed with the insight a not only working engineer can bring to the table, but a man many here respect. keep up the good work and some day i hope to have time to get down your way. richard mayo robinson.
Bucyrus: The accident investigator is simply following various possible causes and Rule 112 is involved in one of those investigative pathways. He has expressed a need to understand the purpose of the rule and how the TSB intended it to be applied, with a caveat that they seem to have a contradiction in their own findings. Maybe just found a nice way to say, "HEY! Getcher act together!".
Since the investigative committee has not issued a final finding in this accident, I can't help but believe they are still researching all the possible causes, and there may be many that we here have not even thought of to harp about.
Someone may, at any point, say they have eliminated one or another cause, but that does not mean the investigative committee will not follow all leads, even if it is one that has been said to have been eliminated.
Rule 112 may very well be defective, but it may just as well have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this particular accident. Rule 112 may also be found to be sound in its intent, yet be the primary cause of this accident.
It is futile to grasp at any one media sound bite and run with it. The investigation is not complete and any speculation as to cause and effect on such incomplete information is just a path to frustration.
As someone that I hope is your friend in this forum, as someone that is just as curious as you as to the cause of this accident and to have an understanding of the rules and regulations and how they are applied and how they affect the operation of the railroad, I have to ask that you let this ride for a while until more information is available. Let the little sound bites float a week or two and let some official replies appear before leaping to conclusions.
Reporting the sound bites is one thing, jumping to conclusions is futile.
I have learned a lot in these discussions and some of the replies to your queries have been so excellent as to have blown my socks off. (And, yes, some of the replies have made me want to retrieve my socks and stuff them in a mouth or two!)
Since we are reading not just between the lines, but parsing the letters of the spoken word, lets do this one:
Bucyrus Robert Johnston wrote: "Considering all these risks, Transport Canada may wish to review CROR Rule 112"
"May wish". Not "should", "is highly recommended to" or even "is strongly urged". Just plain'ol "may".
tree68 Robert JohnsonHowever, CROR Rule 112 is not specific enough in that it does not indicate the number of hand brakes necessary to hold a given train tonnage on various grades and it continues to be left up to the operating employee to determine the number of hand brakes to apply. So now the crews will have to carry the equivalent of the Encyclopedia Brittanica so they can find out the specific number of brakes to set for their specific train for their specific location because it needs to be spelled out exactly in the rule. Yeah, right. RIP, horse.
Yes, a complete instruction set would ridiculous. Imagine if the rule "stop at a stop sign" was an instruction instead....
"If you are going 50 mph or more, but less than 60 mph, depress the brake pedal with your right foot starting at a point no less than 300 feet from the sign as measured by your dashboard range finder. Deceleration must be 2 mph per second or greater no later than 3 seconds after the brake pedal is first depressed as measured by your dashboard accelerometer. Do not operate the accelerator with either foot during braking. Be alert for uneven braking and make sure that vehicle is steered in a path parallel to the roadway during braking (see instruction 10.0.12 (a) for "steering while braking"). If vehicle is descending a grade, increase distance for initial brake application by 10% for every degree of gradient as posted on roadside signage. If vehicle is ascending a grade, reduce braking force, such that deceleration does not exceed 3 mph per second. If speed exceeds 40 mph at 150 feet from stop sign, increase braking to 3 mph per second.... blah blah blah.
Or, next trip, just take the train.
oltmanndSince we are reading not just between the lines, but parsing the letters of the spoken word,...
No need to parse words or read between the lines. He said this:
"CROR Rule 112 is not specific enough…
…it has been demonstrated the push-pull test is not always a good indicator of whether an adequate number of hand brakes have been applied and not handbrakes are effective even when properly applied.
Considering all these risks…"
Hey Don,
You're wasting your breath.
Norm48327 Hey Don, You're wasting your breath.
No wonder I'm tired...
Bucyrus oltmanndSince we are reading not just between the lines, but parsing the letters of the spoken word,... No need to parse words or read between the lines. He said this: "CROR Rule 112 is not specific enough… …it has been demonstrated the push-pull test is not always a good indicator of whether an adequate number of hand brakes have been applied and not handbrakes are effective even when properly applied. Considering all these risks…"
They why did he say "may" instead of "should"? Maybe he doesn't know what he really means? Has he been taking English lessons from Burkhardt?
As much as we would like to think politics is not a consideration in governmental accident investigations - it is. It is in no way as overt as an official campaign for office - but there are always political agendas that get pushed by the politically appointed board members to organizations such as the TSB and NTSB.
Next we will see parsing letters in words....oy.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I am not convinced that there is a problem with Rule 112. Nobody has explained why the push-pull test is unreliable in Canada while it seems to be reliable in the U.S. But in any case, the problem has been publically identified by TC/TSB and they own it. Why they went public with it without a solution to the problem is beyond me. But, what makes it really prickly is the fact that Rule 112 played a central role in the MM&A runaway four years after the TC/TSB announced their knowledge of a defect with the rule that could lead to a runaway.
To my perception, the fact that Mr. Johnston, in his letter to TC/TSB, uses the phrase “may wish to review Rule 112” rather than “must review” is simply an indicator that the ball is in their court. It is a hot potato of their own making, and it belongs to them. So there is no point or need to order them to deal with the problem. In light of the gravity of the matter, Mr. Johnston telling them that they “may wish to review CROR Rule 112” almost sounds like a bit of sarcasm in the form of understating the obvious.
Bucyrus I am not convinced that there is a problem with Rule 112. Nobody has explained why the push-pull test is unreliable in Canada while it seems to be reliable in the U.S. <snip>
I am not convinced that there is a problem with Rule 112. Nobody has explained why the push-pull test is unreliable in Canada while it seems to be reliable in the U.S. <snip>
Could someone explain what exactly is a push-pull test is? Are there any standards for which a push-pull test must comply? Or do you put the locos in run 8 and note that all you are getting is massive wheel slip from the engines, or perhaps something more precise involved?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.