In a Global News exclusive, it is revealed that upon further inspection more than one train on the MM&A was left unattended with insufficient handbrakes set at the time of the wreck at Lac-Mégantic. Story with video:
http://globalnews.ca/news/811131/another-mma-train-accident-waiting-to-happen/
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
This is confusing. They inspected the second train and found insufficient handbrakes. But what were they looking for with the search warrant of MM&A offices? What does finding insufficient handbrakes set on the second train have to do with the train that ran away? And why on earth would this information have been released to the public at this time?
Is it true that a handbrake is incapable of holding a locomotive parked on a grade, as the CN engineer says?
It is merely empirical evidence that the RR habitually neglects to set sufficient handbrakes. Doesn't prove that the Lak Magantic wreck was caused by too few handbrakes but it sure shows a precedent for it.
Releasing this info to the public at this time may be a mistake on someone's part, or possibly because someone has an agenda to fulfill. It is interesting info anyway.
I am not sure about that bit of a handbrake not holding a locomotive. I think something got lost in the transcription from what was said and what got printed. Until someone can expound on what was said and what may have been meant, I will basically not let it color my perspective of all of this. Incomplete information is evident in the statement.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
I am getting the message that there is and has been a long time war against MM&A and they are looking for everything and anything to throw at the railroad even if it is conjecture and innuendo to incite emotions of the public.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Semper VaporoI am not sure about that bit of a handbrake not holding a locomotive. I think something got lost in the transcription from what was said and what got printed. Until someone can expound on what was said and what may have been meant
I don't claim to know either, but this issue did come up in several threads here back in the first decade of the 21st Century. The threads also involved discussions of the differences between brakewheel versus ratchet type actuators, if that would help in anyone's searches.
henry6I am getting the message that there is and has been a long time war against MM&A
Not a long time war. MM&A, like RR's everywhere, are an "out of sight out of mind" type of thing until something goes wrong. Then there is a natural overreaction and everyone wants to know how such a thing could have happened and who to blame.
From my observations in the field Handbrake setting was done as needed or what the conducter or carmen felt should be done. After this accedent first 3 cars are now set in every swithing move slowing everything down big time.
I am still confused about the purpose of the search warrant. I have not downloaded it and tried to read it. Maybe it says something interesting, but if the article cannot make the effort to explain anything about this story, I hesitate to make an effort to read the warrant.
I too sense that there are some bad relations between MM&A and others. Perhaps it is a labor issue. In any case, the finding of insufficient handbrakes is interesting. However, the prospect of someone tampering with the train that ran away would apply tenfold to the second train.
The motivation to release handbrakes on that second train in order to demonstrate something about the MM&A would have been enormous; considering that the prospect of insufficient handbrakes causing the runaway. With that train sitting there for a few days, the opportunity to secretly release some its handbrakes would have been sufficient.
Funny how both the news report, and Transport Canada failed to mention there were vandals who did a Youtube video of themselves after breaking in to the lead locomotive and playing around on the cars.
In fact, that video is what prompted Transport Canada to go “inspect” the train in the first place.
Guess they forgot to tell the reporter that part.
Also note the siding at Vachon is the bottom of a bowl, even with no brakes at all, the train couldn’t run away, all that can happen is the rear end will bunch up against the front end which is bunched up against the rear end….there is no place for it to run away too!
True, it is “on a slope”, both ends in fact are “on a slope” they just happen to slope towards each other…the front end is on a upward slope, the rear is also on a upward slope…real honest reporting there.
Look at it this way, since July 5th, it hasn’t moved, at all, not one bit.
And last but not least, remember the MMA has one man crews, something the Canadian government/unions didn’t want….love the retired engineer saying handbrakes can’t hold a locomotive…if that is so, why do locomotive have hand brakes?
True, under power, a locomotive can move with handbrakes applied, and wear the shoes away, the CSX locomotive runaway showed that, but not under power, handbrakes hold locomotives in place every day.
I dragged a SD40 that was on the rear of a switch cut all the way through our yard, it had handbrakes applied but was dead in tow, going to Brazil…left huge flat spots on the wheels of it, dang near didn’t get the track moving, figured out why when the rear end showed up!
Wonder if Transport Canada tried a push/pull test on the train at Vachon?
Canadian rail unions have a pretty good amount of political clout…check the background of most of Transport Canada’s senior guys….you will be surprised.
Funny how the same “retired engineer” has constantly commented in all of the reports about the down side of one man crews, how it is impossible for a one man crew to secure a train, blah blah blah…and the outright lie of how long it takes to tie a handbrake…try 45 seconds to about a minute and a half…this is from someone who ties handbrakes for a living every working day…brakes I am going to kick cars against.
What you are really hearing and seeing isn’t honest news reporting, but the Canadian Labor Unions and the Canadian Government working together, making sure MM&A, if it survives, never has one man crews again, and making sure every other short line and regional that operates in Canada gets that message.
23 17 46 11
That news report does seem really squirrely. It seems to jump right to a conclusion that the MM&A is at fault for insufficient handbrakes on the second train, whereas the media have not jumped to that conclusion with the train that ran away. For that one, they are generally repeating what Burkhardt said about the engineer being at fault. Yet there was no specific mention of the crew having any responsibility in the case of the second train not being tied down properly.
The article seems to be saying that the search warrant found evidence in the MM&A office that MM&A has a policy of inadequate trains securement. But it is just not clear what they are really saying. For all I know, the search warrant was served at the MM&A office for the purpose of searching the tied up second train.
In much of the reporting, I have sensed the animosity toward MM&A for using one-man crews. There have been many allegations that the one-man crews are unsafe with at least the implication that the use of a one-man crew was responsible for the runaway. With that backdrop of disgruntlement, I would be highly suspicious of any evidence showing anything about the securement of that second train.
For one thing, all of the engines were presumably shut off. I wonder if there were any air brakes applied when they checked the handbrakes some days later. If there was no air holding the train, then it was properly secured according to Rule 112, unless MM&A special instructions call for a minimum number of handbrakes. I mean properly secured in the sense that it was being held in place.
They keep throwing out numbers of the minimum required number of handbrakes that must be applied, yet it is not clear whether these numbers are actually part of MM&A special instructions or if they are simply estimates from outsiders such as that CN engineer. It seems like the latter because they often refer to their sources for the number of handbrakes needed as “experts.”
I do recall seeing that video of some people climbing around on that engine. I don’t recall how I encountered that, and did not realize what train it was showing.
edblysard What you are really hearing and seeing isn’t honest news reporting, but the Canadian Labor Unions and the Canadian Government working together, making sure MM&A, if it survives, never has one man crews again, and making sure every other short line and regional that operates in Canada gets that message.
Link to a recent story about another train - an "outfit" of ancient cars work train in 1969 - with insufficient handbrakes set, and the efforts that the crew had to go to in order to pass the "doesn't move" test:
http://caboosecoffee.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-many-hand-brakes-are-enough.html
Semper Vaporo It is merely empirical evidence that the RR habitually neglects to set sufficient handbrakes. Doesn't prove that the Lak Magantic wreck was caused by too few handbrakes but it sure shows a precedent for it.
Not empirical but circumstantial. As Bucyrus pointed out, that train sat for several days, and anyone could have accessed it and released some brakes during that time.
Norm
The article linked to the first post, in my opinion, is 100% propaganda. However I do not believe the media source realizes this. I conclude that the propaganda is pro-labor, anti-management, anti-deregulation; and the media source is simply being duped into conveying the message.
Upon seeing this backdrop of conflict, I would not at all be surprised if the same entity that is advancing the propaganda secretly released handbrakes on the MM&A train before it ran away. NOTE: I am not accusing or blaming anyone for such an act. I simply see a strong enough motive for it.
That same motive exists for the possible tampering with the second train in order to make the case that disobeying the train securement rule was part of MM&A business culture.
There is a second article linked to the article which is linked to the first post. Together, they form the core of the story. The search warrant is lined to the second article. I downloaded it, but it is written in French, so I cannot read it.
As I suspected, it appears that the article is receiving its information on how many handbrakes were required, not from the actual special instructions of MM&A, but rather from their so-called “experts.” It could not be more obvious that those “experts” have a large axe to grind.
Article linked to first post:
Quotes from article:
Experts we spoke to say 20 handbrakes should have been applied on those trains, but given that it would take 3 to 5 minutes per brake it would be unrealistic to have only one person do that job.
“20 handbrakes is too much to ask one person to do,” said Dan Christie, a retired CN Engineer.
“Especially at the end of a shift. Five handbrakes can’t hold a locomotive weighing 225 tonnes.”
Article linked to above article:
http://globalnews.ca/news/809729/warrant-reveals-concerns-about-second-train-near-lac-megantic/
Investigators have been tight-lipped since the Lac-Megantic derailment, but the warrant confirms they believe the MMA engineer in charge of that train didn’t apply enough hand brakes before leaving the train unmanned overnight.
It’s a finding former railway engineer Dan Christie called “disappointing,” but “not surprising” since the engineer of the Lac-Megantic train likely would have had to apply 20 brakes, which would take three to five minutes per car.
“That’s just too much to ask of that one person arriving at the end of their tour of duty and just looking for a bed to lay his head in,” said the 30-year rail veteran, who has worked at CN Rail, Ontario’s Metrolinx and VIA Rail.
I have always featured that 1 hand brake would hold a 225 ton locomotive - the hand brake it is equipped with. Otherwise, why equip it with a hand brake. (as info CSX's 'Heavy' AC's weigh in at 432K - 18K short of 225 tons.)
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Of particular interest to me is the quote form the second article that says this in the article linked to first post:
“…but the warrant confirms they believe the MMA engineer in charge of that train [the one that ran away] didn’t apply enough hand brakes before leaving the train unmanned overnight.”
I will bet money that the warrant confirms no such thing. What has been widely reported is that investigators have concluded that the train ran away due to insufficient handbrakes being applied. That information is obviously true as far as it goes, but it has always stopped short of concluding that the reason there were insufficient handbrakes is because the engineer failed to apply them.
I will bet that the search warrant does not say that the engineer of the runaway train failed to apply sufficient handbrakes. But it is an easy conclusion to jump to based on the basic truth than the train had to have insufficient handbrakes set in order to roll away.
Somebody who can read French please tell us what the warrant says about this point.
Bucyrus Their expert said: "Five handbrakes can’t hold a locomotive weighing 225 tonnes.” Is he referring to the five handbrakes on the five locomotives of the oil train? If so, the locomotive group weighs a lot more than 225 tons. Or does he mean that one locomotive has five handbrakes?
Their expert said:
"Five handbrakes can’t hold a locomotive weighing 225 tonnes.”
Is he referring to the five handbrakes on the five locomotives of the oil train? If so, the locomotive group weighs a lot more than 225 tons. Or does he mean that one locomotive has five handbrakes?
Ok, now you guys are looking for actual facts….you really should know better by now.
Bucyrus Article linked to first post: http://globalnews.ca/news/811131/another-mma-train-accident-waiting-to-happen/ Quotes from article: Experts we spoke to say 20 handbrakes should have been applied on those trains, but given that it would take 3 to 5 minutes per brake it would be unrealistic to have only one person do that job. “20 handbrakes is too much to ask one person to do,” said Dan Christie, a retired CN Engineer. “Especially at the end of a shift. Five handbrakes can’t hold a locomotive weighing 225 tonnes.”
Applying 20 handbrakes is too much? Then quit and get another job. I worked plenty of yard jobs and locals where i had to put on dozens of handbrakes a night. Every night.
5 handbrakes can't hold an engine? What kind of wussy, girl scout brakes are these people putting on? I take that back. I bet even the girl scouts could put on 5 handbrakes that could hold an engine.
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
If I took 5 minutes to tie one handbrake, my engineer would come looking for me to see if I had croaked….
edblysard If I took 5 minutes to tie one handbrake, my engineer would come looking for me to see if I had croaked….
Yeah, that too. Unless you took a break with each crank or something?
It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
I've never heard the union tell anyone not to securely tie a train down, though.
I don't know what the heck kind of agenda he is pushing.
I think he is pushing the agenda of doing away with one man crews…the hoodwink here is that on crews with a conductor and an engineer, the engineer ties down the locomotive(s), and the conductor ties down the cars, so it is still one man tying down the “experts” 20 cars.
I think he is pushing back against one-person crews. It is not that he is saying it is okay to not secure a train. He is saying that it is too big of a job for one person. I seem to recall seeing that theme in other news articles that quoted experts about how hard is is for one man to set all those handbrakes. It might have been the same expert, Dan Christie.
Thanks, Ed:
It seems yu supplied more facts and common sense than the various articles linked and not linked. It certainly seems that there is a slightly, hidden agenda at work here. Would be that the " Retired CN Engineer" is either a 'hired witness' or an officer in a Union. Whom it was mentioned is working hard to created an illusion that there must be more members of Train Crews on Trains in Canada.
It seems that MM&A is fast becoming the Regulator's, and Lawyers " Pinata de jure" where Canadian Railroads are concerned.
edblysard I think he is pushing the agenda of doing away with one man crews…the hoodwink here is that on crews with a conductor and an engineer, the engineer ties down the locomotive(s), and the conductor ties down the cars, so it is still one man tying down the “experts” 20 cars.
If it is taking him 3-5 minutes per hand brake, perhaps the expert needs to return to brakeman's school, as his time in the engineers seat has stunted his physical abilities.
In the other thread, I said that the only person blaming anyone was Burkhardt. Actually that is not true. Half of Canada is blaming deregulation for the MM&A wreck.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor. Can't be. It already been proven on this forum that the words mean exactly what they say. So, unless he said he was pushing an agenda, he wasn't pushing an agenda
Yes but....what if he was pushing an agenda?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.