daveklepper Let us be fair. Organized or unorganized or disorganized labor isn't the issue. What I condlue is that MM&A lacked a Safety-First Culture. That shortcuts that would not have been tolerated on any Class I and almost all other regionals and short lines were tolerated on MM&A. A late report on the Tortous Tattler, which I read as recommended by Fred Frailey, states that: Another MM&A oil train was found parked on a main line elsewhere, unattended, and with only the locamotive handbrakes applied an zero handbrakes on the tankcars themselves. Three units, six handbrakes! Unltimately it is management. As far as I am concerned, finding the second train proves it to me.
Let us be fair. Organized or unorganized or disorganized labor isn't the issue.
What I condlue is that MM&A lacked a Safety-First Culture. That shortcuts that would not have been tolerated on any Class I and almost all other regionals and short lines were tolerated on MM&A.
A late report on the Tortous Tattler, which I read as recommended by Fred Frailey, states that:
Another MM&A oil train was found parked on a main line elsewhere, unattended, and with only the locamotive handbrakes applied an zero handbrakes on the tankcars themselves. Three units, six handbrakes!
Unltimately it is management. As far as I am concerned, finding the second train proves it to me.
You say that organized labor [versus management] is not the issue, and then you immediately conclude that managaement is at fault for the unsecured, second oil train.
All we know about the second oil train is that no handbrakes were set on the tank cars when it was inspected several days after the runaway of the first oil train. We do not know that handbrakes were not set on the second train when it tied up. We do know that the second train was accessible to the general public because a video was posted that showed apparently unauthorized people tampering with the locomotive.
And regardless of what happened with the second oil train, it proves nothing about the first oil train.
I am surprised that some see no organized labor issue in this MM&A wreck. Maybe it is because I have read every shred of news on it, but to me the labor versus management element could not be more obvious. It centers on the issue of using one-man crews on MM&A, but in general, MM&A and Burkhardt alone seem to have become symbols of corporate greed that will cut every safety corner possible to make the bottom line better. Note for you shades of gray types: I am not saying that I feel that way about the MM&A or Burkhardt. I do not know if MM&A lacks a safety culture, but organized labor is seizing the opportunity to say that they do.
In the largest perspective of the news, at least half the general public believes that the political philosophy of deregulation is wrong because it cuts corners in safety; and they believe that the MM&A wreck proves it. Happy Labor Day.
daveklepper A late report on the Tortous Tattler, which I read as recommended by Fred Frailey, states that: Another MM&A oil train was found parked on a main line elsewhere, unattended, and with only the locamotive handbrakes applied an zero handbrakes on the tankcars themselves. Three units, six handbrakes!
And what was the source of that report? If it was the press. it's value is dubious. Questions regarding that need to be answered. Was the train left in a secure location? Was anyone watching it to be certain it wasn't tampered with? It's very likely those questions will never be answered, but the media always assumes rather than garner factual information. Labor strife hasn't been mentioned in any report I've read, but I'd bet there is an underlying factor here that hasn't surfaced.
Norm
You may consider me unfair, but that is how i see things. Have a track mainainer as the eyes for a locomotive fire? Having him go home aftter the fire is put out? Too many decisions were made by others in this case to solely blame the engineer. Again, the higher the rank the greater the responsibility.
Murray Yes but...even by acknowledging that rules are rules, except in Wisconsin where it is void where prohibited by law, can one in fact push an agenda?
Yes but...even by acknowledging that rules are rules, except in Wisconsin where it is void where prohibited by law, can one in fact push an agenda?
Actually one should push an agenda only in opinionated speculation. One should never "in fact" push an agenda - it rarely works!
Sorry - couldn't resist.
John
Silly wabbits. Trix are for kids. Or for people who can only indulge in inanity to get a thread locked to silence Bucyrus. Why not try acting like adults? Ignore him.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding Murray 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? I'm sorry. You know the rules. The words only mean what they mean. They are prohibited from meaning anything they don't mean. That's clearly the way it is, unless it's a different way.
Murray 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?
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
Bucyrus It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
It is obvious to me that quoted expert, Dan Christie, is pushing an agenda on behalf of organized labor.
Yes but....what if he was pushing an agenda?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
edblysard If I took 5 minutes to tie one handbrake, my engineer would come looking for me to see if I had croaked….
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?
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.”
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.
Ok, now you guys are looking for actual facts….you really should know better by now.
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?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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.
http://globalnews.ca/news/809729/warrant-reveals-concerns-about-second-train-near-lac-megantic/
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.)
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 above article:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.