Also interesting is the fact that when the TSB tested the 12 cars that did not derail, none of them would hold more than 60% of the emergency airbrake application pressure after two hours at a similar temperature.
EuclidThey were also at the end of their work shift, so after making the emergency application to safely stop their out of control train, they probably figured it was someone else’s problem to deal with it.
That is the thinking that gets people killed - and in this incident it did.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Is it really that clear that the first crew should have stood firm and spend a couple hours setting handbrakes to secure their train after they had stopped it with an emergency application? If they lacked experience maybe they did not realize they had made the wrong choice by thinking that because the emergency application was holding firm as expected, that was all that was needed to hold the train. Maybe they never considered an emergency application to be unreliable.
They were also at the end of their work shift, so after making the emergency application to safely stop their out of control train, they probably figured it was someone else’s problem to deal with it.
And also, obviously others, perhaps many others in the chain of command, knew what was going on. Maybe none of them individually thought it was his/her problem because they were all playing a part collectively. After all, the rules called for having a meeting to discuss handbrakes, retainers, and other matters. They all knew that setting handbrakes would take a lot of time and tie up the railroad; and that was never popular.
The first thing the TSB did was revise the rules. Apparently they thought them a little too lax and uncertain with all the ambiguity and need to call a meeting to figure out what to do. The engineer and conductor that stopped the train probably became involved with at least twenty others as the plot thickened and the air leaked out.
To reiterate from the 2012 ETT:
"If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train dictate that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train while re-charging, then apply a hand brake on at least 75 percent of the cars and set retaining valves to the HP position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars."
Have I missed the post in this thread where someone managed to clarify that this instruction was no longer present in the ETT that was in effect on Feb 2019?
The arriving crew experienced braking difficulties resulting in overspeed before going into emergency.
Ambient temperature was reported as sub-zero.
While hardly "abnormal" for the Canadian Rockies at 0100 in February, sub-zero temps combined with a demonstrated braking abnormality placed that train in a condition which called for the use of hand brakes to secure it against the mountain grade until a full re-charge of the air could be done.
williamsbYes but probably looking for another job.
Better to be looking for a job than either feeding vegitation or be responsible for someone else feeding vegitation.
After the initial 'firing', there are various appeal processes that take place in 'arenas' that are more fair than the Kangaroo Court that is conducted in field level company investigations. In situations such as this one, the employees would likely be reinstated with full back pay for time lost. In the appeals process, safety trumps shareholder value.
Umm.. fair trade?
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
Yes but probably looking for another job.
williamsbIf CP says not to apply handbrakes after an emergency application and the crews spent 4 or 5 hrs putting on and taking off handbrakes how much trouble do you think they be in with management?
A crew would be alive!
If CP says not to apply handbrakes after an emergency application and the crews spent 4 or 5 hrs putting on and taking off handbrakes how much trouble do you think they be in with management?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
EuclidSo why be so quick to blame the employees in this case?
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.
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?
Does anyone have the rules in effect at the time of the accident? I believe EHH had changed them.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.