News Wire: Fire and derailment in southern Pennsylvania

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

Euclid

Are saying that all trains that stop on such a down grade normally rely on a certain number of set hand brakes to add holding power as the train resumes and completes the descent? 

BaltACD

 

Euclid

I was wondering about that train handling too.  I wonder if it violated any rules or would be considered to be an acceptable option.  I wonder what the best option would have been.  I guess the second crew must have felt exceptionally wary of taking over with a train that was just previously having air brake problems coming down a steep, long grade; and then had not re-started to prove everything was okay. 

In the territory where the 58 hand brakes were applied you are coming down at grade that approaches 2%.  Once the trainline is charged and the air brakes released only the hand brakes and engine brake are holding the train.  If you release too many hand brakes the weight of the train can overpower the remaing braking power of the train.

Any relative idiot can power a train up a grade.  It takes a real engineer to bring big trains down the grade - SAFELY.  Trains that stop on down grades are particularly tricky to get started and operate under control.  The use of air brake retainers is no longer a practice that is taught. 

 

 

 

TTSI require at least 50% hand brakes to be applied before attempting to recharge the trainline.  Personally, I am surprised that the Helper (that I hope was used) to get the train UP Sand Patch didn't stay attached to assist in gettng the train down Sand Patch, with only two engines providing Dynamic Braking on the head end.

 

Okay, I see.  But once the train line is recharged, wouldn't the hand brakes typically be released before starting down grade?  If so, why did this crew decide to go down the hill with hand brakes dragging? And if that is what they did, would that be acceptable practice?  Or would it be something that could be done as an approved precaution in the face of some question of what was wrong with the brakes, and whether it had been corrected?

[Deggesty]

Quoting Balt:

In the territory where the 58 hand brakes were applied you are coming down at grade that approaches 2%.  Once the trainline is charged and the air brakes released only the hand brakes and engine brake are holding the train.  If you release too many hand brakes the weight of the train can overpower the remaining braking power of the train.

Any relative idiot can power a train up a grade.  It takes a real engineer to bring big trains down the grade - SAFELY.  Trains that stop on down grades are particularly tricky to get started and operate under control.  The use of air brake retainers is no longer a practice that is taught.

[Euclid]

Deggesty

In the territory where the 58 hand brakes were applied you are coming down at grade that approaches 2%.  Once the trainline is charged and the air brakes released only the hand brakes and engine brake are holding the train.  If you release too many hand brakes the weight of the train can overpower the remaining braking power of the train.

Any relative idiot can power a train up a grade.  It takes a real engineer to bring big trains down the grade - SAFELY.  Trains that stop on down grades are particularly tricky to get started and operate under control.  The use of air brake retainers is no longer a practice that is taught.

 

The comment that you have quoted in bold suggests that the "remaining braking power of the train" is not enough to hold the train without the help of handbrakes.

That comment and its reference to "remaining braking power" suggests that less than the normal amount of braking power is available.  Why would that be the case? Normally they descend the grade without needing handbrakes to provide extra braking performance.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

Deggesty

In the territory where the 58 hand brakes were applied you are coming down at grade that approaches 2%.  Once the trainline is charged and the air brakes released only the hand brakes and engine brake are holding the train.  If you release too many hand brakes the weight of the train can overpower the remaining braking power of the train.

Any relative idiot can power a train up a grade.  It takes a real engineer to bring big trains down the grade - SAFELY.  Trains that stop on down grades are particularly tricky to get started and operate under control.  The use of air brake retainers is no longer a practice that is taught. 

The comment that you have quoted in bold suggests that the "remaining braking power of the train" is not enough to hold the train without the help of handbrakes.

That comment and its reference to "remaining braking power" suggests that less than the normal amount of braking power is available.  Why would that be the case? Normally they descend the grade without needing handbrakes to provide extra braking performance.

Don't overlook that the report states once the train started moving it's speed varied between 20-30 MPH and Dynamics were used 3 times - and that is with the 33 hand brakes applied.  Secondly the report states that there was tread build up wheel bluing as well as some flat spots on the cars that had the hand brakes applied.  When tonnage comes downhill, IT COMES DOWNHILL with all the force that gravity can apply.  The report also states that the car that initially derailed was a empty car that was in a block of 27 empty cars and nearer the head end of the train than the rear end.  CSX Train Handling Rules permit no more than 30 empties to be together in a mixed freight train.  I am of the belief that this train was put together in Willard, OH - in the FLAT LANDS.  Flat land Yardmasters can't comprehend what happens when the trains they build get into mountainous territory nor can they envision the dynamics of those trains operating through mountainous territory.   It is harder than it ought to be just to get them to bury HAZMAT cars on the rear end of trains requiring manned helpers.

The NTSB investigation of a runaway down 17 Mile Grade on the Mountain Sub a number of years ago stated that 12 MPH was the maximum speed air braked ONLY trains could descend that grade.  At higher speeds 'brake fade' happened and the braking force decreased, ultimately to zero.  Sand Patch is not quite as steel as 17 Mile, however the same principles apply.

With speed reaching 30 MPH I suspect the engineer felt that he was not far away from losing his ability to control the train's descent.

This is the preliminary report.  The Final Report will present more factual data than my 'suppositions' and will give further insight into the decisions the crew made and their reasons (right or wrong) for making those decisions.

[BaltACD]

Upon reviewing Keystone Sub TTSI - 30% is the minimum amount of hand brakes to be used to secure a train on the grade - more if necessary to hold it.

[Euclid]

From the NTSB report:

“The second crew, thinking the train may still have air brake problems, kept all 58 hand brakes applied and unsuccessfully tried to pull the train down the hill. The conductor of the second crew then released the first 25 hand brakes, leaving 33 hand brakes still applied. The engineer applied a minimum air brake application and started the train with locomotive power down the grade. The train speed varied from 20 to 30 mph. The engineer switched from locomotive power to dynamic braking three times before the train derailed.”

 

I could be wrong, but this is how I interpret that statement:  The handbrakes were applied to secure the train while it was stopped.  Normally, they would be released before proceeding, and from that point, the train would be sufficiently braked by air brakes and/or dynamic brakes to varying extent. 

However, in this case, the crew believed the air brakes were not reliable due to the problem the train had just experienced.  So they worried about what might happen if they released all the hand brakes and relied on the full, normal performance of the air brakes when it might not be available due to still having “air brake problems.” 

Therefore, not wanting to take that chance, they decided to make a minimum air brake application, but save the rest of it in case of a loss of control.  To compensate for the insufficient air brake application, they relied on dynamic brakes and on the 33 hand brakes constantly applied and adding braking like a dead anchor being dragged by the train. 

Apparently, the light air brake application and the 33 handbrakes were enough to hold the train on the grade.  So instead of rolling down the grade at first, they had to add power and pull the train. 

Once they got moving, they added the use of dynamic braking when necessary. 

However, with the brake fade on the hand brakes and the under-use of the air brakes, they relied too much on the dynamic brakes and that jackknifed the train from excess buff force. 

[BaltACD]

[quote user="Euclid"]

However, with the brake fade on the hand brakes and the under-use of the air brakes, they relied too much on the dynamic brakes and that jackknifed the train from excess buff force. [/quote]

The report does not indicate, at this time, the relationship between braking activity either air or dynamic, and the buff force that 'popped' the empty car up to climb the rail.  I suspect the final report will shed more light on the timing of events and the actions that caused them.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Euclid read the report for once fully instead of jumping to conclusions. The car that derailed first was the 27th car back an empty gondola. Ahead of it was 1600 tons approximately. Behind it 16500 tons while it had its hand brakes applied. Which weight was going to win on moving that out of the way. The railroad limit for tonnage behind an empty was about 5000 tons Iirc. 

[Euclid]

Shadow the Cats owner

Euclid read the report for once fully instead of jumping to conclusions. The car that derailed first was the 27th car back an empty gondola. Ahead of it was 1600 tons approximately. Behind it 16500 tons while it had its hand brakes applied. Which weight was going to win on moving that out of the way. The railroad limit for tonnage behind an empty was about 5000 tons Iirc. 

 

 

Yes I understand why that empty would have been the most likely car to derail with the train shoving ahead against the dynamic braking.  I just wondered why they went down the grade with a bunch of hand brakes set.

 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

Shadow the Cats owner

Euclid read the report for once fully instead of jumping to conclusions. The car that derailed first was the 27th car back an empty gondola. Ahead of it was 1600 tons approximately. Behind it 16500 tons while it had its hand brakes applied. Which weight was going to win on moving that out of the way. The railroad limit for tonnage behind an empty was about 5000 tons Iirc.  

Yes I understand why that empty would have been the most likely car to derail with the train shoving ahead against the dynamic braking.  I just wondered why they went down the grade with a bunch of hand brakes set.

If they released ALL the hand brakes the tonnage would shove the engines with brakes applied down the grade, additionally it is unlikely the Conductor would have been able to release brakes toward the engine and be able to mount the engines before they were shoved beyond his ability to catch up with them.

[tree68]

Euclid

I just wondered why they went down the grade with a bunch of hand brakes set.

Before the advent of air brakes, that's how it was done...

And given enough downgrade pressure, the wheels on the cars on which brakes are set will either turn or slide.  It appears they did both.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

I just wondered why they went down the grade with a bunch of hand brakes set.

 Before the advent of air brakes, that's how it was done...

 

I realize that, but this is over a century after the advent of air brakes, so why do it that way today?

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

tree68

 

Euclid

I just wondered why they went down the grade with a bunch of hand brakes set.

 Before the advent of air brakes, that's how it was done... 

I realize that, but this is over a century after the advent of air brakes, so why do it that way today?

Do you want your train to runaway upon starting or not.  Air brakes are not an on/off switch - not on application or release.

[RME]

Euclid

I realize that, but this is over a century after the advent of air brakes, so why do it that way today?

Apparently, because over a century after the advent of air brakes there are still problems that cause the air brake to stop working properly, but it is still deemed necessary to move the train, at least off the active main.

Sitting in my comfortable chair, I can see no reason to move a heavy train with that many handbrakes applied, let alone to apparently random cars in the consist, without regard to whether some wheels were heating or sliding.  But it does little good at this point to speculate what 'they' might have been thinking, or who might have been giving them orders to do or try things.  I think we have to wait for more reports before engaging in the usual round of premature concluding.

[SD70M-2Dude]

According to the report the second conductor had released the first 25 handbrakes, and the car which initiated the derailment was the 35th, an empty.  So it had a handbrake applied, and being an empty it was most likely skidding.  Perhaps wheel damage played a role in the derailment too, in addition to train makeup.

As for moving trains with handbrakes applied, I have worked in mountain-grade territory before and moving trains with handbrakes applied was never an option.  It is indeed normal to set handbrakes to hold a train while recharging after going into emergency, but once recharged the normal procedure is for the engineer to set the automatic brake to hold the train while the conductor releases the handbrakes.

Balt mentioned that CSX no longer teaches the use of retainers, CN still does.  It is rare to see them used today but this sort of situation is when they would be needed.  I haven't looked at that section of the operating manual for some time, but I believe 3 or 4 retainers (HP postion) are considered to be the equivalent of one handbrake (will check next time I'm at work). 

Again, I am not familiar with the area or CSX's operating rules but deliberately moving a train with handbrakes applied goes against everything I have ever been taught.  I too am very curious to see what the final report contains.

[Euclid]

RME

 

Euclid

I realize that, but this is over a century after the advent of air brakes, so why do it that way today?

 

 

Apparently, because over a century after the advent of air brakes there are still problems that cause the air brake to stop working properly, but it is still deemed necessary to move the train, at least off the active main.

Sitting in my comfortable chair, I can see no reason to move a heavy train with that many handbrakes applied, let alone to apparently random cars in the consist, without regard to whether some wheels were heating or sliding.  But it does little good at this point to speculate what 'they' might have been thinking, or who might have been giving them orders to do or try things.  I think we have to wait for more reports before engaging in the usual round of premature concluding.

 

I am only asking what normal practice is since it is being suggested here that taking the train down the hill with hand brakes set is normal every time a train like this one stops on the grade.  I don’t believe it is normal practice at all.  So I would like to confirm that.  I am not asking for speculation as to what is normal practice. 

As I speculated earlier, the only explanation for this that I can see is that they did not trust that the air brake problem had been fixed.  So dragging the train down the mountain with hand brakes set was intended to protect against the possibility that the automatic brakes would fail to work. 

Indeed, something did go very wrong on the way down the hill, but it may not have had anything to do with the handbrakes dragging or trying to run with limited use of the automatic brakes. 

[Deggesty]

Will someone please take this horse out before it is beaten to death?

[Euclid]

Deggesty

Will someone please take this horse out before it is beaten to death?

 

Beating the horse?  You have got to be kidding!  A thousand posts about hating EHH, and no worry about the horse there. 

Here nobody has even touched the horse yet.  This horse ought be quite pleased with so many people tip-toeing around it.

[RME]

Euclid

I am only asking what normal practice is since it is being suggested here that taking the train down the hill with hand brakes set is normal every time a train like this one stops on the grade. I don’t believe it is normal practice at all.

I think that's a fair question.  I do not think it is normal practice; in fact, I don't think it is sensible practice.  The real problem here is that, until we have much more 'hard' information, we can't know why the railroaders involved made and approved what seems such a dumb choice, and then executed the move in what evidently was such a dumb way.

The more information I hear about this, in fact, the dumber it seems.  This is not a relatively simple miscalculation like letting a train with insufficient dynamics get up to brake-fade velocity.  It required a Plan.

[schlimm]

RME

 

 

Euclid

I am only asking what normal practice is since it is being suggested here that taking the train down the hill with hand brakes set is normal every time a train like this one stops on the grade. I don’t believe it is normal practice at all.

 

 

I think that's a fair question.  I do not think it is normal practice; in fact, I don't think it is sensible practice.  The real problem here is that, until we have much more 'hard' information, we can't know why the railroaders involved made and approved what seems such a dumb choice, and then executed the move in what evidently was such a dumb way.

The more information I hear about this, in fact, the dumber it seems.  This is not a relatively simple miscalculation like letting a train with insufficient dynamics get up to brake-fade velocity.  It required a Plan.

 

I don't know the answers as I have no knowledge beyond the report. However, I do have a question: would electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP - not electro-pneumatic) work better? 

[tree68]

schlimm

However, I do have a question: would electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP - not electro-pneumatic) work better? 

I'm no expert on ECP - but I would opine that if they allowed the train to recharge while the brakes were applied, then yes, they would work better.  I suspect conventional graduated release would also have helped.  

[Euclid]

tree68

I suspect conventional graduated release would also have helped.

What is that?

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

tree68

I suspect conventional graduated release would also have helped. 

What is that?

A feature that exists on passenger car braking systems, not freight.  Freight brakes can be applied in increasing pressures.  When they are released - it is a full release.

Passenger braking can 'reduce the pressure' of the application and thereby have a partial release.

[RME]

schlimm

However, I do have a question: would electronically controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP - not electro-pneumatic) work better?

With the very limited amount of information we have: I suspect that if there was a significant problem with one-pipe Westinghouse, there would have been a problem with the air line supplying any current system of ECP (and added to that, the possibility that the integrity of the signals or power on the electric trainline would be impaired).

The usual sort of "damage accommodation" I have seen with ECP involves the ability to isolate or cut out brake operation on deflicted individual cars.  The point to remember here is that ECP still depends on reasonable air pressure and volume in its trainline to work, and I suspect that if its trainline were unreliable, exactly the same kind of those-shoes-aren't-hell-and-a-half-to-change power handbrake 'retaining' might have been tried.

As a note to Euclid, graduated release is a specific feature of modern ECP systems, one of the touted advantages of that system.  Since the air trainline is used only for air supply in all service braking, it is comparatively simple to command reduction of a given degree in some or all brake cylinders, and by extension to proportion the degree of a running release; if individual cars are addressable logically, it becomes possible to apply or release the actual 'set' with some precision and relatively little lag.

One of the things I think is going to come out of the investigation: was power braking on the front part of the train actually achieved at some point in the manipulations (it almost would have to be in order for even buffoons to think about moving a train that size downgrade) and the "number of handbrakes" adjusted to provide some semblance of equivalent braking for the rear of the train?  If that is so, then I wonder if the crew would be able to 'modulate' graduated release to match the effect of the fun happening on the back of the train ... seems clear to me they were ignorant of the heating and sliding going on there in spite of buff force on the empties building up.

Of course it's also possible that the ECP system would flatly refuse to be kludged to that degree, and not allow its feet to be moved.  In that case the train would be sitting there for a considerable time ... but that doesn't seem to be too unusual in recent 'precision railroading' operations

[Euclid]

Okay, I see.  (regarding Balt's comment on conventional graduated release)

[Shadow the Cats owner]

This is where I think the OTR industry airbrake system would be a huge advantage.  Now before you scream hear me out.  We relay also on pressure changes to apply the brakes also.  Now here is where our system is different.  We have a second system with its own air supply from the air compressor that applies and releases all the parking brakes on the system.  However our parking brake system uses a spring that requires air pressure to even be released.  To maybe make it possible for it to work on the railroads have the handbrake wheel act as a manual override for when the air system in removed.  Think about it below a certain pressure all brakes come on and it could prevent accidents like this from ever happening again.  With our brakes on a loss of pressure situation the parking brakes apply they are normally 60 percent of the brakes of the vehicle. Now after the loss of pressure is fixed. Before releasing the parking brakes we can apply the service brakes to hold then release the parking brakes since we have that second air line feeding it. 

 

It would take another brake valve in the cab 1 extra valve a car one extra spring loaded cylinder a car and locomotive and that's it for the air side. Then a system to override it for moving the car or being without air in it. 

[RME]

Shadow the Cats owner

It would take another brake valve in the cab 1 extra valve a car one extra spring loaded cylinder a car and locomotive and that's it for the air side. Then a system to override it for moving the car or being without air in it.

The problem is (and has been) that for such a system to work, it would have to be consistently applied across the range of interchange equipment, and on all operating locomotives.  Figure out the rough cost of the changes you propose per car and per locomotive, and simple multiplication will tell you why it hasn't been done in the rail industry.

This is completely aside from the safety questions inherent in any kind of locking 'safety brake' that applies itself automagically when there is some nominal failure condition.  The spring that is required to put the equivalent of 15psi of retarding force on a loaded railroad car is very strong compared to what is needed for rubber-tired OTR vehicles, and additional indicators would need to be supplied so that rail people could determine whether the spring brake was applied AND producing full effect through the brake foundation rigging -- that's neither simple nor trivial.  Then you need a reliable way to pull the spring brake off without compromising the wind-on handbrake that's also required.  (See the discussion of the locomotive brake application in the Lac Megantic wreck threads to get some idea of what would likely be involved in getting that to work; again, it would have to be standardized across a very large number of interchange cars to mean much operationally.)

Personally, I don't think there's a lot more capital involved in doing one of the 'adapter plate' conversions to ECP functionality, which gives fairly simple switch convertability between ECP and regular one-pipe operation, and of course there are vastly more advantages from ECP than from a spring.

[schlimm]

RME

This is completely aside from the safety questions inherent in any kind of locking 'safety brake' that applies itself automagically when there is some nominal failure condition. 

Think about the bigger picture.  It's 2017 and we're talking about applying and releasing manually 50 or more sets of handbrakes as though it were ~1920! But now there is a crew of two as opposed to many more able bodies back then at the front and rear of a much shorter train. 

[RME]

schlimm

Think about the bigger picture. It's 2017 and we're talking about applying and releasing manually 50 or more sets of handbrakes as though it were ~1920! But now there is a crew of two as opposed to many more able bodies back then at the front and rear of a much shorter train.

That does not change either the mechanical consequences of equipment failure, or the required cost per car/locomotive to provide 'automatic' "parking-brake" application.

As an aside: a proper ECP system ought to allow addressable 'retainer' operation, which can quite easily integrate with other equipment on a car (such as continuously-reading load cells) to produce better than just an approximation of maximum safe braking on an individual-car basis, with knowledge of the characteristics of the overall consist.

There's no formal reason why this facility couldn't be used as a 'parking brake'.  Or, by extension, why an ECP-equipped car with reasonable on-board reserve power couldn't have its brakes modulated, within limits, from an addressable system on a RCO panel in a yard.

That beats all heck -- in my opinion -- out of anything kludged to handbrake wheels, at likely comparable cost.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Over here RME up until 1980 we only had tractor parking brakes. The trailers relied on the same system as the railroad. If you look at some really old equipment you will see the dolly legs had wheels on them. That was incase the brakes bled off their air and well they rolled the next time they got hooked up. Then the FMCSA stepped up and mandated spring parking brakes on all equipment. Even dollies have them and they have a system that allows them to be moved no air pressure with no problem. So yes it would require some more plumbing on the cars and locomotives however if it saves 1 life from a runaway or prevents one major chemical spill is it worth it.