cx500Modern practice parachutes in university grads who know the rules and the theory, but often lack the specific detailed and hard earned experience.
SD70Dude Euclid zugmann I've never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was "held" by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie? I was wondering about that too. As I understand, when the emergency application is holding, the air in the brake cylinders is equalized with the air remaining in the emergency reservoirs. I don't really understand what the retainers do, but I would assume they prevent a portion of the air stored in both the emergency reserviors and the brake cylinders combined, from venting through the car brake valves during the recharge. However, that retained air is bottled up in a leaking brake cylinder (if cylinders were leaking due to the packing not sealing in the cold weather), so I don't see how the retainers could retain any pressure at all. It seems like it all would leak out through the cylinder packing leaks. Euclid is correct, if the brake cylinder or reservoir air pressure is leaking directly to the atmosphere setting retainers will do nothing to hold the brake application. If the triple valve itself is leaking, and air is escaping out the exhaust pipe then setting the retainer will keep the brake applied on that car, but in HP position the retainer only holds 20 PSI in the brake cylinder, it allows everything else to exhaust to the atmosphere. 20 PSI is about what you would get from a minimum application of the automatic brake, and is nowhere near the braking effort that an emergency application should give. This of course assumes that the retainer is functioning properly, as they are only rarely used anymore they are very low on the priority list for maintenance and tests, it is likely that most retainers have never been tested since they were built.
Euclid zugmann I've never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was "held" by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie? I was wondering about that too. As I understand, when the emergency application is holding, the air in the brake cylinders is equalized with the air remaining in the emergency reservoirs. I don't really understand what the retainers do, but I would assume they prevent a portion of the air stored in both the emergency reserviors and the brake cylinders combined, from venting through the car brake valves during the recharge. However, that retained air is bottled up in a leaking brake cylinder (if cylinders were leaking due to the packing not sealing in the cold weather), so I don't see how the retainers could retain any pressure at all. It seems like it all would leak out through the cylinder packing leaks.
zugmann I've never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was "held" by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie?
I've never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was "held" by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie?
I was wondering about that too. As I understand, when the emergency application is holding, the air in the brake cylinders is equalized with the air remaining in the emergency reservoirs. I don't really understand what the retainers do, but I would assume they prevent a portion of the air stored in both the emergency reserviors and the brake cylinders combined, from venting through the car brake valves during the recharge.
However, that retained air is bottled up in a leaking brake cylinder (if cylinders were leaking due to the packing not sealing in the cold weather), so I don't see how the retainers could retain any pressure at all. It seems like it all would leak out through the cylinder packing leaks.
Euclid is correct, if the brake cylinder or reservoir air pressure is leaking directly to the atmosphere setting retainers will do nothing to hold the brake application.
If the triple valve itself is leaking, and air is escaping out the exhaust pipe then setting the retainer will keep the brake applied on that car, but in HP position the retainer only holds 20 PSI in the brake cylinder, it allows everything else to exhaust to the atmosphere. 20 PSI is about what you would get from a minimum application of the automatic brake, and is nowhere near the braking effort that an emergency application should give.
This of course assumes that the retainer is functioning properly, as they are only rarely used anymore they are very low on the priority list for maintenance and tests, it is likely that most retainers have never been tested since they were built.
SD70Dude,
Thanks for clarifying that. I have another question. On a grade such as the one in this accident scenario, if there are no handbrakes set, and the only thing holding the train is an emergency application; how do you recharge the trainline without having the train start running away as the recharging process causes the emergency application to release? Is it possible to accomplish this by only setting a large number of retainers and not setting any handbrakes?
You can only recharge the air system by setting hand brakes. You could do a partial charge by setting some hand brakes and raising the brake pipe pressure until some air can get get into the aux and emergency reserviors. No train should be held on a grade with air brakes. Why this became a common practice was negated by the Lac Megantic disaster.
Euclid SD70Dude, Thanks for clarifying that. I have another question. On a grade such as the one in this accident scenario, if there are no handbrakes set, and the only thing holding the train is an emergency application; how do you recharge the trainline without having the train start running away as the recharging process causes the emergency application to release? Is it possible to accomplish this by only setting a large number of retainers and not setting any handbrakes?
As I have said - Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes - a train that has had a Emergency Application cannot have the braking system recharged on a grade unless the train has been secured. The only way to secure the train on a grade is with Hand Brakes - enough Hand Brakes that the train will not move as the air is restored to the braking system.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD As I have said - Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes - a train that has had a Emergency Application cannot have the braking system recharged on a grade unless the train has been secured. The only way to secure the train on a grade is with Hand Brakes - enough Hand Brakes that the train will not move as the air is restored to the braking system.
I understand your point, and it agrees with what I understand about the process. So what then are we missing with this runaway wreck incident? They must not have set handbrakes because when the emergency application released, the train ran away. As a consequence, the TSB ordered the company to set handbrakes in future circumstances such as those surrounding the runaway wreck. Therefore, I must assume that setting handbrakes was not required before the TSB ordered them to be required after the wreck.
So prior to the wreck, if it was not required, why would anyone do it? It makes no sense. How did they run the railroad without setting handbrakes in order to recover from emergency applications on steep grades????? How did they defy gravity?
There is only one possible explanation that I can think of, and it is this: The need to recover from an emergency application on a steep grade was rare. When it happened, setting handbrakes was not required, but it also was not prohibited. So when the need arose, the crew always set handbrakes because they knew the laws of physics left them no choice.
However, in this case, the crew or the supervisors did not know that handbrakes were absolutely necessary, and since they were not required, they did not set them.
Euclid BaltACD As I have said - Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes - a train that has had a Emergency Application cannot have the braking system recharged on a grade unless the train has been secured. The only way to secure the train on a grade is with Hand Brakes - enough Hand Brakes that the train will not move as the air is restored to the braking system. I understand your point, and it agrees with what I understand about the process. So what then are we missing with this runaway wreck incident? They must not have set handbrakes because when the emergency application released, the train ran away. As a consequence, the TSB ordered the company to set handbrakes in future circumstances such as those surrounding the runaway wreck. Therefore, I must assume that setting handbrakes was not required before the TSB ordered them to be required after the wreck. So prior to the wreck, if it was not required, why would anyone do it? It makes no sense. How did they run the railroad without setting handbrakes in order to recover from emergency applications on steep grades????? How did they defy gravity? There is only one possible explanation that I can think of, and it is this: The need to recover from an emergency application on a steep grade was rare. When it happened, setting handbrakes was not required, but it also was not prohibited. So when the need arose, the crew always set handbrakes because they knew the laws of physics left them no choice. However, in this case, the crew or the supervisors did not know that handbrakes were absolutely necessary, and since they were not required, they did not set them.
The 'professional' railroaders on each crew, were not as professional as the duties and responsibilities of their jobs required. Once the train was placed in Emergency, Crew #1 should have automatically started applying hand brakes.
I don't know how Canada administrates their Hours of Service law. I have been educated that in the USA there are two 'permissible' reasons to exceed the Hours of Service - both are in the realm of Public Safety - #1 cutting highway crossings to permit highway traffic to pass. #2 securing the train to prevent a runaway situation should the train be left unattended. The Carriers may still be cited for the violations, however the fines, as specified in the law, will not be enforced. Public Safety is the paramount concern.
The Laws of Physics are still undefeated.
We have grades on our territory, although not classified as "severe", if you have a heavy train and it dumps, you better put handbrakes on to recharge. RRing 101 stuff.
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
BaltACDThe 'professional' railroaders on each crew, were not as professional as the duties and responsibilities of their jobs required. Once the train was placed in Emergency, Crew #1 should have automatically started applying hand brakes.
I agree that handbrakes should have been applied immediately. But I can't see holding the crew responsible for not doing that if the company says it was optional. The crew works for the company. The company says it is optional. But the laws of physics say it is not optional, it is mandatory. Fortunately most crews have taken the company option of complying with the laws of physics.
Obviously the blame lies with the company and not the first crew who merely accepted the option they preferred. I doubt the TSB will blame the first crew.
You had the same laws of physics on the CSX. Do they make hanbrake securement optional in a case like this?
Electroliner 1935 I have two questions about the problems in this accident. 1) Would use of retainers helped with the control of the train? 2) If locomotives assigned to operate a train over a significant grade such as Kicking Horse can start a train up the grade, could they not hold that train stopped on the grade? Said another way how can you start a train if you can not overcome gravities pull on the train. I know that DC motors are not designed to handle the currents that would be incurred if a locomotive is run in reverse to the trains travel but can AC motors create torque when reversed? I am not clear on the issues here. In dynamic braking the electric motors are operated as generators and the braking force drops to zero as the speed drops but if the motor was reversed ( as if it going to push the train backwards) can an AC motor create a force that could stop a train?
I have two questions about the problems in this accident.
1) Would use of retainers helped with the control of the train?
2) If locomotives assigned to operate a train over a significant grade such as Kicking Horse can start a train up the grade, could they not hold that train stopped on the grade? Said another way how can you start a train if you can not overcome gravities pull on the train. I know that DC motors are not designed to handle the currents that would be incurred if a locomotive is run in reverse to the trains travel but can AC motors create torque when reversed? I am not clear on the issues here. In dynamic braking the electric motors are operated as generators and the braking force drops to zero as the speed drops but if the motor was reversed ( as if it going to push the train backwards) can an AC motor create a force that could stop a train?
I don't see that anyone has addressed Electroliner's question on page one. I had been thinking along similar lines.
If the locomotives are capable of pulling the train up a grade such as this, shouldn't they be capable of holding the train with the independent brake alone? If the adhesion of the locomotive wheels is sufficient in one case, it seems to me that it would be so in the other.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Follow-up to my previous post. I am assuming that even though the air was down to zero in the train line, the main tanks in the locomotives were still fully charged; i.e. everything isn't bled down to zero. I don't know the details about how things work.
Unless CP has turned them up in the past several years AC4400's and ES44's put out a max of 100k in dynamics. They put out a max of 180K tractive effort.
They'll pull more than they will stop.
The independant brakes will hold less than they will in dynamics. Train brakes are required to hold the loaded train on this grade.
Would the dynamic brakes have held that train to a speed at least low enough to get around the curves without derailing? I am guessing that that critical tip over or rail climbing speed on curves may have been as high as 30 mph.
Would independent brakes also have been available during the runaway?
Paul of Covington If the locomotives are capable of pulling the train up a grade such as this, shouldn't they be capable of holding the train with the independent brake alone?
.
Euclid BaltACD The 'professional' railroaders on each crew, were not as professional as the duties and responsibilities of their jobs required. Once the train was placed in Emergency, Crew #1 should have automatically started applying hand brakes. I agree that handbrakes should have been applied immediately. But I can't see holding the crew responsible for not doing that if the company says it was optional. The crew works for the company. The company says it is optional. But the laws of physics say it is not optional, it is mandatory. Fortunately most crews have taken the company option of complying with the laws of physics. Obviously the blame lies with the company and not the first crew who merely accepted the option they preferred. I doubt the TSB will blame the first crew. You had the same laws of physics on the CSX. Do they make hanbrake securement optional in a case like this?
BaltACD The 'professional' railroaders on each crew, were not as professional as the duties and responsibilities of their jobs required. Once the train was placed in Emergency, Crew #1 should have automatically started applying hand brakes.
CSX Mountain Sub - Special Instructions
CSX Timetable April 2015 - Mountain Sub 2. All Trains – If speed cannot be maintained at or below the authorized speed for the train descending the grades listed above: A. The train must be stopped immediately by making an emergency brake application of the air brakes including the operation of the two-way EOT emergency toggle switch. B. The train dispatcher must be contacted. C. After stopping a minimum of 50% of train hand brakes must be applied before the recharging procedure is initiated. D. The brake pipe must be recharged for a minimum of 20 minutes. The rear car air pressure must be within 5 PSI of the pressure shown on the HTD when the head end of the train began the descent. E. After recharging the air brake system to the required rear car air pressure, a 6 to 8 pounds brake pipe reduction must be made. After the brake pipe exhaust ceases, each car will be visually inspected to determine the brakes are applied, piston travel is within standards and brake shoes are against each wheel. F. The train may proceed only after being authorized by the Road Foreman of Engines or the Trainmaster. If needed, hand brakes may be left on the train to supplement train air brakes descending the remainder of the grade. To prevent sliding of wheels, avoid leaving hand brakes on any empty cars. Note: Should the train separate, hand brakes must be applied to each portion of the train to hold each section on the grade. G. Stopped on Grades – When recharging the train air brake system on descending grades of 1% or more, recharge the brake system for a minimum of 20 minutes. Note: During temperatures less than 32 degrees or inclement weather, additional charging time may be required. Trains must not proceed until the brake pipe is properly charged.
2. All Trains – If speed cannot be maintained at or below the authorized speed for the train descending the grades listed above:
A. The train must be stopped immediately by making an emergency brake application of the air brakes including the operation of the two-way EOT emergency toggle switch.
B. The train dispatcher must be contacted.
C. After stopping a minimum of 50% of train hand brakes must be applied before the recharging procedure is initiated.
D. The brake pipe must be recharged for a minimum of 20 minutes. The rear car air pressure must be within 5 PSI of the pressure shown on the HTD when the head end of the train began the descent.
E. After recharging the air brake system to the required rear car air pressure, a 6 to 8 pounds brake pipe reduction must be made. After the brake pipe exhaust ceases, each car will be visually inspected to determine the brakes are applied, piston travel is within standards and brake shoes are against each wheel.
F. The train may proceed only after being authorized by the Road Foreman of Engines or the Trainmaster. If needed, hand brakes may be left on the train to supplement train air brakes descending the remainder of the grade. To prevent sliding of wheels, avoid leaving hand brakes on any empty cars.
Note: Should the train separate, hand brakes must be applied to each portion of the train to hold each section on the grade.
G. Stopped on Grades – When recharging the train air brake system on descending grades of 1% or more, recharge the brake system for a minimum of 20 minutes.
Note: During temperatures less than 32 degrees or inclement weather, additional charging time may be required.
Trains must not proceed until the brake pipe is properly charged.
There are other TTSI that apply to brake operation in mountainous territory.
Euclid Would the dynamic brakes have held that train to a speed at least low enough to get around the curves without derailing? Probably not. The dynamic brake will only hold back so much tonnage and that depends a lot on how steep the grade is. Around here operating rules only allowed for so many axles of dynamic braking power to be on line to avoid jack-knifing the train. Would independent brakes also have been available during the runaway? Operating rules forbid the use of the independent brake while in dynamic to avoid sliding the wheels. The units of today will not even let the dynamic brake load up if the independent brake is applied.
Would the dynamic brakes have held that train to a speed at least low enough to get around the curves without derailing? Probably not. The dynamic brake will only hold back so much tonnage and that depends a lot on how steep the grade is. Around here operating rules only allowed for so many axles of dynamic braking power to be on line to avoid jack-knifing the train.
Operating rules forbid the use of the independent brake while in dynamic to avoid sliding the wheels. The units of today will not even let the dynamic brake load up if the independent brake is applied.
zugmann We have grades on our territory, although not classified as "severe", if you have a heavy train and it dumps, you better put handbrakes on to recharge. RRing 101 stuff.
As I have commented before, the ignorant instruct the unlearned.
Johnny
Paul of Covington If the locomotives are capable of pulling the train up a grade such as this, shouldn't they be capable of holding the train with the independent brake alone? If the adhesion of the locomotive wheels is sufficient in one case, it seems to me that it would be so in the other.
The answer is that the locomotives were not capable of actually pulling the train up this particular grade. They were capable of pulling it up a 1% grade (the maximum westbound), but here they were descending a 2.2% grade. On the return trip with empties, of course then they were capable of pulling the much lighter train up the same steeper grade.
EuclidObviously the blame lies with the company and not the first crew who merely accepted the option they preferred. I doubt the TSB will blame the first crew. You had the same laws of physics on the CSX. Do they make hanbrake securement optional in a case like this?
Yes, I understand that it was well below zero and very early in the morning, and after 12+ hours on duty in such wonderful conditions, I'm sure that going out and setting handbrakes for an hour or more was fairly far down the list of things the first crew wanted to do at that time, but still....a 2.2% grade!!
---------------------------------
A somber article regarding the wreck, with some dramatic photos of both the wreck and the guys that were killed.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/three-cp-rail-workers-killed-in-massive-derailment-near-field-b-c
From the CP rules/instructions, this sentence is goofy:
If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train dictate that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train…
I believe this sentence in the rule language does not say what was intended for it to say. I think what it was intended to say and mean is this:
If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking of train exist, that dictates that that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train…
Or it could be stated this way which would mean the same:
Abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking of train dictate that that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train…
The way the sentence is worded, it means that abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train may or may not dictate the application of hand brakes to secure the train. The may or may not are two conditions that come from the word “If” at the beginning of the sentence. The word “if” leaves the requirement for setting handbrakes up to the judgement of the operator reading the rule.
It is a small point, but it is a point that makes the application of handbrakes optional no matter what the conditions are; because it leaves the choice of action up to the judgment of the person reading the rule. It is very poor writing considering what is at stake in understanding the text. It is a writing flaw as serious as writing a lapped train order.
Rules exist to protect the company.
Even though there are lots of rules, there will never be enough to cover every situation. That's where training and experience need to be in place. Unfortunately, those things can get in the way of shareholder profits.
zugmann Rules exist to protect the company. Even though there are lots of rules, there will never be enough to cover every situation. That's where training and experience need to be in place. Unfortunately, those things can get in the way of shareholder profits.
Well sure, there are things that are not governed by specific rules. Many of those things are only governed by general rules. Some things are just left to common sense. However, the operation of trains though the Spiral Tunnel district is the one of the most dangerous and demanding operations in the world. And CP seems to have it covered with every rule imaginable because it is so critical. So I don’t think one can just dismiss the fact that the rules in this case seem to contain an incredible lapse that makes one of the most critical operating requirements optional, and just hopes that crews have common sense and adequate life experience to do the right thing.
Euclid and just hopes that crews have common sense and adequate life experience to do the right thing.
The word you are looking for is training.
Does anyone have the rules in effect at the time of the accident? I believe EHH had changed them.
zugmann Euclid and just hopes that crews have common sense and adequate life experience to do the right thing. The word you are looking for is training.
The company did not have the rules. As far as training, the company either did not do the training or the employees did not learn from it. Usually testing is part of training in order to make sure the employees learn what they have been trained. Making a key rule optional was done by the company, not the by the employees. Obviously, either the company never trained the employees or they trained them, but never tested them. So why be so quick to blame the employees in this case?
EuclidSo why be so quick to blame the employees in this case?
I'm not blaming the employees.
zugmann Euclid So why be so quick to blame the employees in this case? I'm not blaming the employees.
Euclid So why be so quick to blame the employees in this case?
Oh I see. I thought you were blaming the employees. I do not blame the employees because the rule they needed to follow to avoid the disaster is optional according to the company. When I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster.
Others here are blaming the employees.
Euclid zugmann Euclid So why be so quick to blame the employees in this case? I'm not blaming the employees. Oh I see. I thought you were blaming the employees. I do not blame the employees because the rule they needed to follow to avoid the disaster is optional according to the company. When I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster. Others here are blaming the employees.
Between the two crews the Cardinal Rule of the human experience was violated - SELF PRESERVATION. Appears the first crew set the trap that killed the second crew.
Company rules are a pittance compared to the Cardinal Rule.
EuclidWhen I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster.
If they got crap training, then it isn't their fault. Nobody is born a RRer, we only know what we learn.
EuclidI do not blame the employees because the rule they needed to follow to avoid the disaster is optional according to the company. When I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster. Others here are blaming the employees.
Euclid, consider: if you're driving the Interstate in a snowstorm, and the sign on the side of the highway says "70mph limit", are you going to drive that fast? If not, why not? The sign does not say "but only on dry roads", because there is an assumption of some amount of rational thinking. Perhaps because you feel as though it would be safer for you and those around you if you did not "follow the rules", even though during a snowstorm the likelyhood of getting caught speeding is minimal. And after you crashed, a cop could say that you were "driving too fast for conditions", but that assumes you have the sense to know that the situation required special operating practices.
zardoz Euclid I do not blame the employees because the rule they needed to follow to avoid the disaster is optional according to the company. When I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster. Others here are blaming the employees. Who else? All rules are optional--whether it be on the railroad or on the highway. Each person decides to either do exactly what the rules (or boss) says, or to violate said rule and accept the consequences if caught. Euclid, consider: if you're driving the Interstate in a snowstorm, and the sign on the side of the highway says "70mph limit", are you going to drive that fast? If not, why not? The sign does not say "but only on dry roads", because there is an assumption of some amount of rational thinking. Perhaps because you feel as though it would be safer for you and those around you if you did not "follow the rules", even though during a snowstorm the likelyhood of getting caught speeding is minimal. And after you crashed, a cop could say that you were "driving too fast for conditions", but that assumes you have the sense to know that the situation required special operating practices.
Euclid I do not blame the employees because the rule they needed to follow to avoid the disaster is optional according to the company. When I said that, I thought you were making the point that the rule being optional did not excuse the employees because they should have relied on their training to do what it took to avoid the disaster. Others here are blaming the employees.
Who else? All rules are optional--whether it be on the railroad or on the highway. Each person decides to either do exactly what the rules (or boss) says, or to violate said rule and accept the consequences if caught.
When I say the rule to secure the train with hand brakes is optional, I don’t mean optional as in the sense that a person has the right to adhere to the rule or violate it. That too is an option. But with that option, a person has violated a rule and should pay the price. That is just the option of free will.
But what I mean by the CP hand brake rule in the case of this accident is that a person has the option to decide whether to abide by the rule or not. And if he chooses not to, he is not breaking the rule. In other words, if he chooses not to abide by the rule, there is no rule. There is no way to violate such a rule. There is no blame for not abiding for such a rule.
I agree that it is nonsensical because why make a rule and then make compliance optional? I can’t think of another example of such a rule.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.