how to keep a stopped train from rolling

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

 

Euclid

The new rules call for the railroads to develop a process for verifying that the hand brakes applied are sufficient to hold the train.  I thought we already had a process. 

 

 

 

Once again, requiring a process does not mean that it has to be  "new" process or that an existing process has to be thrown out, all it means is that the railroad has to document a process that covers the steps required in the law.

 

The majority of current railroad rules for class 1 carriers already cover the points required in the law or their rules have already been changed to reflect the proposed rules.

 

The FRA rules are not issued in a vacuum.  There are public hearing and commentary, etc, etc. that the railroads are part of.  They pretty much know 95% + of what the rules will be before they are finally issued.  It takes months for Federal ruelmaking, while railroads can issue new General orders and change training in a matter of weeks.

 

 

Here is a quote mentioning the application of handbrakes being applied to locomotives as part of the securement. 

 

 

  

 

And that is consistent with most railroad's rules, that the handbrakes must be applied on the engines when the train is secured.

 

To your last sentence:  Do you mean that handbrakes must be applied to locomotives after the train has been secured and tested with the proper number of handbrakes; or do you mean that handbrakes on locomotives may be counted as part of the total number of airbrakes needed for securement?

Others here seem to have said that counting the locomotive handbrakes as part of the total brakes required for securement is uncommon practice.

 

To your first point:

When I referred to a "new" rule, I meant the rule calling for verification of securment above and beyond setting the handbrakes and doing a pull test.  I was not referring to that securement procedure being a new rule.

My question wondered how this "verification" was to be done.  Appparently, it is just a matter of telling someone else that you have secured the train.  

[dehusman]

Euclid

The new rules call for the railroads to develop a process for verifying that the hand brakes applied are sufficient to hold the train.  I thought we already had a process. 

Once again, requiring a process does not mean that it has to be  "new" process or that an existing process has to be thrown out, all it means is that the railroad has to document a process that covers the steps required in the law.

 

The majority of current railroad rules for class 1 carriers already cover the points required in the law or their rules have already been changed to reflect the proposed rules.

 

The FRA rules are not issued in a vacuum.  There are public hearing and commentary, etc, etc. that the railroads are part of.  They pretty much know 95% + of what the rules will be before they are finally issued.  It takes months for Federal ruelmaking, while railroads can issue new General orders and change training in a matter of weeks.

Here is a quote mentioning the application of handbrakes being applied to locomotives as part of the securement. 

  

And that is consistent with most railroad's rules, that the handbrakes must be applied on the engines when the train is secured.

[Overmod]

gardendance

I was tempted to title the thread "How to keep a rolling train from stopping".

That's its own new thread, and you should start it.

[gardendance]

I was tempted to title the thread "How to keep a rolling train from stopping".

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I've been meaning to say this for a while, and now's my opportunity to put on my "John G. Kneiling, Professional Iconoclast" hat and 'channel' him once again, by pointing out that:

This problem really wouldn't occur much if the trains were kept moving consistently, as they're supposed to be !  It's when they're stopped so often and for so long that all kinds of mayhem - some operational, some financial, some safety, etc. - starts to ensue.  Keep them moving, and the problem goes away (or occurs much less often and becomes much less in magnitude).

- Paul North.    

[BaltACD]

Old tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Forums, however, often try other strategies. These include...


Buying a stronger whip.

Changing riders.

Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse"

Appointing a committee to study the horse.

Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.

Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.

Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.

Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.

Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead".

Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.

Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.

Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."

Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.

Do a CA Study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.

Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.

Declare the horse is now "better, faster and cheaper."

Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.

Revisit the performance requirements for horses.

Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.

Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

I disagree.

Bucky - aside from the fact that we both said about the same thing....

Euclid

1)       The engineer did not set enough handbrakes.

Tree68

If the train had been secured by setting the necessary number of handbrakes on the consist,

And...

Euclid

2)       The engineer did not properly test the handbrake effectiveness because he tested with the independent brakes set;...

Tree68

...without relying on the handbrakes on the locomotives, and the securement test did not include any brakes on the locomotives (hand or independent)

Which means you're disagreeing with yourself...

We have NOT said the same thing.  I am not disagreeing with myself.  You have added qualifications in your comments which would change the meaning of what I said if you added them to what I said.  I have highlighted your qualifications in red. 

 

When you add the qualifier, on the consist, your point in your your original context was that the engineer should have set the entire securement of tested handbrakes on the cars and none on the locomotive.  You said that including the locomotive handbrakes in the tested securment contributed to the cause of the runaway.  I disagree with you on that point.  Including the locomotive handbrakes in the securement was NOT a part of the engineer's failure to properly secure the train.   

 

When you add the qualifer, hand or, your point in your original context was that the engineer should not have included locomotive handbrakes or independent brakes in the tested securement.  I disagree with you on that point.  It was only the independent brakes that the engineer should not have included in the securement.  His inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes was perfectly within the MM&A rules. 

[tree68]

Euclid

I disagree.

Bucky - aside from the fact that we both said about the same thing....

Euclid

1)       The engineer did not set enough handbrakes.

Tree68

If the train had been secured by setting the necessary number of handbrakes on the consist,

And...

Euclid

2)       The engineer did not properly test the handbrake effectiveness because he tested with the independent brakes set;...

Tree68

...without relying on the handbrakes on the locomotives, and the securement test did not include any brakes on the locomotives (hand or independent)

Which means you're disagreeing with yourself...

[tree68]

OM - I see what you're saying, and agree fully.

[Overmod]

tree68

Overmod

I leave it up to the railroaders to describe what methods would be used to release a tight manual brake; presumably a brief application of power to release a bound ratchet, with some positive way to pop the pawl arrangement out when released, would be one approach. 

Brake club.  Tighten the brake wheel just enough to release the pawl, then let 'er rip.  Been there.

Sorry, I was busy this morning and then gone all day, and didn't have a chance to comment further -- sorry if this looks like a 'yes, but...'

What I meant was that using a power 'securement' might wind the brakes so tight that the usual brake club application might not be able to pull enough slack to release the pawl.  A proper 'power system' for cars would therefore have some design that facilitates positive release.  I won't speculate on what forms of mechanism might accomplish that (and perhaps hope that no one else does...)

[dehusman]

99.99999999999999999999% of the time if you follow the rules the cars or train stays put.

Very simple.

JUST FOLLOW THE RULES.

 

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

What to you mean by your last sentence?  The runaway had nothing to do with the inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes in the securement, if that is what you are referring to. 

Actually, the inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes in the securement had everything to do with the runaway.  If the train had been secured by setting the necessary number of handbrakes on the consist, without relying on the handbrakes on the locomotives, and the securement test did not include any brakes on the locomotives (hand or independent), the train would not have moved, regardless of what happened to the locomotives.

I disagree.

The train rolled away because:

1)       The engineer did not set enough handbrakes.

2)       The engineer did not properly test the handbrake effectiveness because he tested with the independent brakes set; and he did not pull during the test.   

 

He did not set the minimum number of handbrakes, and it has also been subsequently shown that the minimum number was not enough.  But he never learned this because he tested with the independent brakes set.

However, the fact that he included the locomotive handbrakes as part of the securement had absolutely nothing to do with causing the runaway.  Nowhere in the report does it say that part of the cause was including the locomotive handbrakes as part of the securement.

The issue with the locomotive brakes was that the engineer relied on the independent brakes; not that he relied on the handbrakes.  

[tree68]

Euclid

What to you mean by your last sentence?  The runaway had nothing to do with the inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes in the securement, if that is what you are referring to. 

Actually, the inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes in the securement had everything to do with the runaway.  If the train had been secured by setting the necessary number of handbrakes on the consist, without relying on the handbrakes on the locomotives, and the securement test did not include any brakes on the locomotives (hand or independent), the train would not have moved, regardless of what happened to the locomotives.

Setting the handbrakes on the locomotives after determining that the train will not roll when all air brakes were released simply adds a layer of security to the mix.

[Euclid]

tree68

Euclid

I would say that it if is “permitted,” it is “truly appropriate.” [I was referring only to the MM&A]

For MMA, including the locomotives in the car count of brakes required to be set was permitted, and therefore it was appropriate for the LE to do so under the circumstances.

As we've seen in numerous discussions on the topic, however, said solution was not "truly appropriate."  If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

What to you mean by your last sentence?  The runaway had nothing to do with the inclusion of the locomotive handbrakes in the securement, if that is what you are referring to. 

[tree68]

Euclid

I would say that it if is “permitted,” it is “truly appropriate.”

Actually, I see the two as mutually exclusive.  Just because something is "permitted" does not mean it is "truly appropriate" except under the appropriate circumstances.  For MMA, including the locomotives in the car count of brakes required to be set was permitted, and therefore it was appropriate for the LE to do so under the circumstances.

As we've seen in numerous discussions on the topic, however, said solution was not "truly appropriate."  If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

And other railroads are of the opinion that such a procedure is not appropriate, thus do not permit it.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

I would say that it if is “permitted,” it is “truly appropriate.”  If you set enough brakes to pass the test, the train is secured, period.  I understand your point that if the locomotives are later cut off for some reason, the train would lose securement.  I guess they would have to deal with that by another rule that required adding car handbrakes and testing again without locomotive handbrakes before cutting off the power.

I can see the advantage and disadvantages of including the locomotive handbrakes as part of the securement.  I do not know why all railroads do not agree on whether or not to permit the locomotive handbrakes to be part of the securement, but on the MM&A they did.  That was the only point I was making in response to the earlier comment by Overmod.

Euc and the 1040 page securement rule that requires a Pilot Lawyer to instruct the train crew.

[Euclid]

I would say that it if is “permitted,” it is “truly appropriate.”  If you set enough brakes to pass the test, the train is secured, period.  I understand your point that if the locomotives are later cut off for some reason, the train would lose securement.  I guess they would have to deal with that by another rule that required adding car handbrakes and testing again without locomotive handbrakes before cutting off the power.

I can see the advantage and disadvantages of including the locomotive handbrakes as part of the securement.  I do not know why all railroads do not agree on whether or not to permit the locomotive handbrakes to be part of the securement, but on the MM&A they did.  That was the only point I was making in response to the earlier comment by Overmod.

[tree68]

Euclid

According to this, including the handbrakes in the securement is indeed right on the MM&A:

Just because it's acceptable on MMA doesn't necessarily mean it's truly appropriate.  Like Randy, I don't test with the handbrake on the locomotive set.  That is for two reasons:  first, when it is set after the roll test, the handbrake on the locomotive is simply more insurance against unintended movement.

Second, there is every possibility that the cars will be left standing alone at some point, sans locomotive,  ie, if the loco is removed for servicing or other duties.  Relying on the handbrake on the locomotive as part of the total securement means the cars are possibly no longer adequately secured. 

This point has already been made previously in the thread.

[Euclid]

Overmod, Randy, and Tree:

First of all, let’s set aside the issue of independent brakes being applied during the test or being used as part of the securement.  I think we all agree that this is not permitted.  The only issue here is locomotive hand brakes.

This is from the TSB accident report.  According to this, including the handbrakes in the securement is indeed "right" on the MM&A:

 

“Special instructions of some Canadian railway companies, including MMA, permitted the hand brakes on the locomotive consist to be included in the minimum required number of hand brakes. For example, if a company’s special instructions required at least 10 hand brakes to be applied, and the train were operating with 4 locomotives, then only 6 hand brakes were required to be applied on the cars in addition to those on the locomotives. During an effectiveness test performed with hand brakes applied on the locomotive consist, the LE has to overcome the braking force on the locomotives before moving the rest of the train.”

[tree68]

Randy Stahl

Of course you don't do the test with the locomotive independent or handbrakes applied. I never have , never will. That's simple foolishness.

IF one is going to count the locomotives as "cars" for the purpose of determining how many handbrakes to set as an initial figure, then I can see setting the handbrakes before doing a roll test, however it is done.

That doesn't mean it's right, only that it makes a certain amount of sense.  I think we're all agreed that the locomotives should not be included as such.

[Randy Stahl]

Of course you don't do the test with the locomotive independent or handbrakes applied. I never have , never will. That's simple foolishness

 

[Overmod]

Euclid

However, in the case of the MM&A, I interpret the accident report to say that, on the MM&A, locomotive handbrakes are applied prior to the test, and then tested as a direct and essential part of the securement.

I would call on Randy Stahl to answer this definitively, since he has distinctive knowledge of MM&A procedure as well as good common sense.  As I've noted already, I can't imagine any way of performing a legitimate pull test with the handbrakes applied on the locomotives, but I'll cheerfully defer to his knowledge.

Ditto for the far more ... should I say unlikely? ... idea that a pull test can be properly conducted with the independent brake fully applied on the locomotives.

[Euclid]

Overmod

Euclid

All hand brakes must be fully applied on all locomotives in the lead consist of an unattended train.

I've been proceeding on the assumption that a 'safe' procedure for securement involves:

1) Apply the 'sufficient number' of handbrakes to the cars to pass a proper shove test

2) Perform proper shove test to assure train (locomotives and all) will not move.  Apply more handbrakes if the test fails.  Do not keep the independent brake applied when doing this test!

3) Apply handbrakes on locomotives (both as additional 'insurance' and in case the locomotives become separated from the train under some circumstance).

I don't see anything substantial changing this. 

Overmod,

Regarding the application of handbrakes on locomotives, you suggest that the locomotive handbrakes are to be left released until after the test, thus not be a direct, essential part of the securement; and only be applied as an extra measure to supplement the successfully tested securement after it is completed.  That is certainly an option.

However, in the case of the MM&A, I interpret the accident report to say that, on the MM&A, locomotive handbrakes are applied prior to the test, and then tested as a direct and essential part of the securement.

[tree68]

Overmod

I leave it up to the railroaders to describe what methods would be used to release a tight manual brake; presumably a brief application of power to release a bound ratchet, with some positive way to pop the pawl arrangement out when released, would be one approach. 

Brake club.  Tighten the brake wheel just enough to release the pawl, then let 'er rip.  Been there.

[zugmann]

Overmod

But yeesh, the idea that power is used to keep a manual brake applied...  !

Powered locomotive handbrakes don't release when power is knocked off to them.  They also can be cranked on or off manually - usually by handbrake wheel or ratchet handle.  Never mind some of the big Macs that have the little lever you have to take off and turn - what a pain.

They also have indicator lights (or gauges) to show when they are applied.  No need to reinvent the (handbrake?) wheel.  It's been in use for years.  Just need a power source throughout the train.

[Euclid]

I have a parking brake system all worked out with the parts all modeled in 3D cad right down to a manufacturable design.  It is just more of the same basic stuff that is associated with freight car brake systems.  There is nothing exotic, nothing electric.  There is no risk of unwanted application, and no way for it to release accidentally. 

But I suspect that this idea and ten-thousand other train parking brake concepts have been invented already.  The reason they are not used is the cost of universal application and interchangeability throughout the entire North American rolling freight car fleet.  I see this parking brake idea being just for oil trains along with other changes. 

But what I am wondering about is if anybody can post a list of freight train parking brake inventions.  I do not readily find them, and am not sure where to look.  Surely there must be thousands of them just as there are many inventions pertaining to couplers.  I just want to see how others conceived of the practical concept.  

[Overmod]

zugmann

Falcon48

And how would the power parking brake be powered and applied?  If it's done by air pressure, the air will eventually leak off if the apparatus for maintining air pressure fails or the air source is shut down.  Also, train air brakes can be relased (by malfunction or by mistake) even if the air hasn't leaked out of the system.  There are good reasons why FRA regulations don't permit air brakes to be used to secure an unattended train

You could probably do it with ECP.  There's a couple locomotive handbrake models that could be adapted for car use, I'm sure.   But then you have to have ECP-equipped trains and engines.  Not a cheap endeavor, for sure.

Doesn't seem to me -- never seemed to me -- that any kind of ECP was necessary, or that a power-ASSISTED parking brake system needed a two-pipe air supply to be operated.

All the 'power' system needs to be is an air motor or ratcheting cylinder device that applies 'servo' power in the direction a brake is normally applied.  Naturally when the air power to such a device is interrupted, the brakes will not slack off any more than they would if the same torque had been applied with a brake club, or any other device amplifying the power used to apply a manual brake.

The 'assurance' system is some kind of torquemeter system that reads the tension in the parts of the foundation going to the brake beams, or at the joint between the beam and the shoes (thereby giving a reasonable assurance that it's reading the pressure exerted between shoes and wheels).  This signal goes to the RFID transponder on the particular truck (there would be two, one per end, on a tank car with separate foundation for each truck) which displays the light or flag that confirms to the front end (or person walking the train, etc.) that the brake is satisfactorily 'on'. 

If a couple of the motors fail -- either actuate a couple more, or get out the club or cheater pipe or whatever.  Likewise, you can always crank a given brake a little tighter after the motor has shut off. 

I leave it up to the railroaders to describe what methods would be used to release a tight manual brake; presumably a brief application of power to release a bound ratchet, with some positive way to pop the pawl arrangement out when released, would be one approach.  I do envision the RELEASE being individual, and requiring crew attendance at each brake to confirm, even if the APPLICATION is automatic and ganged by some number of cars or sections of the train.   I suspect that if you wanted to avoid triggering a release, only a few of the motors would engage at a particular time, perhaps no more than one at a time, and under such conditions making the fancy 'automatic' brake nothing more than a power assist for manual application might be the best approach.

But yeesh, the idea that power is used to keep a manual brake applied...  !

[edblysard]

dehusman

Euclid

To a person who does not understand the handbrake securement test, a chart calling for a minimum number of handbrakes could easily be interpreted to mean that the minimum number is adequate.

If you don't understand the securement procedures you probably shouldn't be securing a train.

If they don't understand the securement process what makes you think they will even know there is a chart or check it?

So true, plus, if you are an engineer and are so unskilled you get a knuckle while testing handbrakes, then you need to find another job.

[dehusman]

Euclid

To a person who does not understand the handbrake securement test, a chart calling for a minimum number of handbrakes could easily be interpreted to mean that the minimum number is adequate.

If you don't understand the securement procedures you probably shouldn't be securing a train.

If they don't understand the securement process what makes you think they will even know there is a chart or check it?