https://www.tnonline.com/20201019/train-cars-derailed-in-tamaqua/
A few photos on some of the regional Facebook pages and that's it. Not a peep on what happened. Sounds like the RBMN didn't even know about it until someone found it? Conspiracy theories abound....
Regards - Steve
I'm sure the R&N knew about it.
steve-in-kvilleit was a string of empties parked on a side rail
They were bored. Clearly, this is a ploy to get attention.
Lithonia Operator steve-in-kville it was a string of empties parked on a side rail They were bored. Clearly, this is a ploy to get attention.
steve-in-kville it was a string of empties parked on a side rail
Right! I obviously missed that angle.
Better watch it - if that derailment gets too much attention - they'll be charged an amusement tax!
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
Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Something like that can lead to fatal consequences. (Saw that here in CO. Shortline was the unfortunate victim of that [Kyle RR near Arriba, CO 1986])
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/08/27/A-freight-train-collided-head-on-with-14-railroad-cars/4594525499200/
BaltACD Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s)..
Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s)..
Like a certain 13 year old in Utica, NY...
OTOH, I looked at the topo for that area, and it doesn't appear there's much of a grade, not that it takes much...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Sounds like a boring ol' derailment that someone (non-RR) stumbled upon and made a big deal about.
tree68 BaltACD Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s).. Like a certain 13 year old in Utica, NY... OTOH, I looked at the topo for that area, and it doesn't appear there's much of a grade, not that it takes much...
The way they are derailed - motion was involved - where the were when they started and where they derailed are two different locations. Today's roller bearing cars can move on lesser grades than the plain bearing cars of yesteryear.
BaltACD...motion was involved...
Agreed. This wasn't the result of a rail rolling over while they sat there.
Like I said, it doesn't look like there's much of a grade, but it doesn't take much.
BaltACD Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s).
Would that cut have likely been left there with air in the train line?
If there was NO air in the train line, the brakes would be applied, right? Because the reservoirs' air would apply them, right?
The reason I ask is because you said someone must have released the handbrakes. But I'd think they still wouldn't roll, because of the reservoirs.
Are handbrakes used because the pressure in the reservoirs will inevitably leak out over time?
When I see a cut of cars sitting somewhere, is there air in the brake pipe? Or has all the air, both in the brake pipe and the reservoirs, been released?
When the train that had those cars set them out there, what was the routine regarding brakes? (assuming it was done by the book)
Help me out here, guys.
Am I hopelessly confused about railroad brakes?
Lithonia Operator BaltACD Sounds like someone got tired of seeing them where they were parked and released the handbrake(s). Would that cut have likely been left there with air in the train line? If there was NO air in the train line, the brakes would be applied, right? Because the reservoirs' air would apply them, right? The reason I ask is because you said someone must have released the handbrakes. But I'd think they still wouldn't roll, because of the reservoirs. Are handbrakes used because the pressure in the reservoirs will inevitably leak out over time? When I see a cut of cars sitting somewhere, is there air in the brake pipe? Or has all the air, both in the brake pipe and the reservoirs, been released? When the train that had those cars set them out there, what was the routine regarding brakes? (assuming it was done by the book) Help me out here, guys. Am I hopelessly confused about railroad brakes?
When cutting away they should, and probably did, allow the brake pipe to "dynamite" putting the air brakes at their highest braking force. However, the brake cylinders can leak off over time. Some may hold for weeks, maybe months. Others may only hold for minutes or hours. That's why hand brakes are applied.
If someone had malicious intent and knew enough to release the hand brake, there's a good chance they would know about bleeding off the brake cylinders.
Jeff
jeffhergertIf someone had malicious intent and knew enough to release the hand brake, there's a good chance they would know about bleeding off the brake cylinders.
Even if the stunt wasn't malicious as such (ie, they didn't intend to cause damage, but just wanted to see the cars roll), the brakes may well eventually bleed off and away we go. Those cars are probably on their last legs, used for ballast, etc.
The young man who cut the car loose in Utica probably didn't know any better. As an aside, I think the Suzy-Q uses a skate there now.
Thanks, guys.
In the Lac Megantic tragedy, did the engineer leave air in the train? Isn't that called "bottling air," and against rules?
With like 80 sets of brakes on those tank cars, if the engines had uncoupled and dynamited the train, wouldn't that have prevented the disaster?
IIRC, that train only sat there for 8-10 hours. If the train been dynamited, would enough leakage from the cylinders have occurred during that time to let the train get away? I know it was cold, and that hastens leakage.
Didn't the tank cars push or pull the engines down the hill?
Did he leave air on the train because he wanted to avoid having to pump up the train when he went back on duty? So just set a handful af hand brakes? And probably the independent brakes on the units?
I can't remember now if he was convicted of a crime, but I think not. Seems like he should have been, but maybe I'm overlooking something. I know there was a fire on one unit, but I don't see how that would play into this?
During the runaway, were the units continuing to supply air?
Lithonia Operator Thanks, guys. In the Lac Megantic tragedy, did the engineer leave air in the train? Isn't that called "bottling air," and against rules? With like 80 sets of brakes on those tank cars, if the engines had uncoupled and dynamited the train, wouldn't that have prevented the disaster? IIRC, that train only sat there for 8-10 hours. If the train been dynamited, would enough leakage from the cylinders have occurred during that time to let the train get away? I know it was cold, and that hastens leakage. Didn't the tank cars push or pull the engines down the hill? Did he leave air on the train because he wanted to avoid having to pump up the train when he went back on duty? So just set a handful af hand brakes? And probably the independent brakes on the units? I can't remember now if he was convicted of a crime, but I think not. Seems like he should have been, but maybe I'm overlooking something. I know there was a fire on one unit, but I don't see how that would play into this? During the runaway, were the units continuing to supply air?
The net conclusion was that the engineer did not set enough handbrakes, but relied on air to make up for the shortage of handbrakes. So not setting enough handbrakes was the charge against him, and he was found guility, but only lightly senteneced, as I recall.
There was no bottled air. As I recall, the automatic brake was left released, so no dynamiting of the brakes. The trainline was left charged and brakes released. But the independent brakes were set to supplement the insufficient number of handbrakes.
Thanks, Euclid.
I read the report a few years ago, but memory is not my long suit these days.
I wonder if cutting the engines off would have on its own, even with no handbrakes, prevented the runaway. I have no idea how long the average reservoir/cylinder can hold adequate air, much less in bitter cold.
Maybe the loco fire caused the independent brake to fail. Isn't an independent brake "straight air," and braking is achieved by applying, not releasing, air?
Lithonia Operator Thanks, guys. In the Lac Megantic tragedy, did the engineer leave air in the train? Isn't that called "bottling air," and against rules? With like 80 sets of brakes on those tank cars, if the engines had uncoupled and dynamited the train, wouldn't that have prevented the disaster? During the runaway, were the units continuing to supply air?
Not sure of Canadian air brake rules. In the US when at cut of cars is 'off air' for more than 4 hours then a Class 1 brake test is required when the cars are again put on air for movement. A Class 1 brake test is applying the brakes and observing all brakes are appled, then releasing the brakes and observing all brakes are released. The observation, in the wild, is normally done by the Conductor walking the entire cut.
At Lac Magentic, the engineer left one unit running, with the Independent Brake applied on the engine consist. That unit caught fire, the Fire Department in extinguishing the fire used the 'Emergency Fuel Shut Off' to shut the engine down. Over time the brakes that had been applied to the engines released and in concert with the lack of the required number of hand brakes on the train - the train rolled away. (note - hand brakes on engines only apply on one truck).
Lithonia OperatorI wonder if cutting the engines off would have on its own, even with no handbrakes, prevented the runaway.
I am not sure I understand what you mean. His securement was a combination of independent brakes and handbrakes, but the number of handbrakes he applied was insufficient to hold the train on its own. So he supplemented with the independent brakes. This method was not legal, as there must be no reliance on air brakes for the securement.
I gather when you refer to cutting off the engine, your point is that it would have dynamited the automatic brake. I believe there is almost a 100% chance that had the automatic been left in Emergency by an Emergency application, or even by cutting off the engine, the application would have held the train overnight easily. It might have held the train for much longer, such as two months. It would have depended on the condtion of the brake cylinder packing on each tank car. But in any case, such reliance on air was prohibited. And the enginner did not leave the brakes applied in Emergency. He left them fully released with the trainline fully charged.
One role played by the fire was that it resulted in no engines running to pump air. This would not have mattered if there was not reliance on air to secure the train. And there should not have been such reliance.
However, perhaps the most perplexing question was how the trainline could have leaked down to zero without causing a full service application. This was eventually explained as being the result of there needing to be a minimum rate of trainline pressure reduction to cause a corresponding service application to develop. This is due to an intentional physical feature of the brake valve under each car. But I don't off hand recall the details. Suffice it to say the trainline leaked down to zero too slowly to cause any application of air to the brake cylinders.
In any case, the train ran away with all car brake reservoirs fully charged and ready and able to fully set the brakes, but no controlling feature to bring that about. So the train ran away with all brakes released except for an inadequate number of handbrakes.
I think that reviewing the old Megantic threads -- painful as that might be at times! -- will help you re-connect with all the things that went wrong.
The train was left 'hanging on the independent brake' because a full application of the automatic would have required walking the consist after it was set -- by the one man present, after he had set the requisite number of handbrakes -- followed by a similar excursion by the American relief engineer in the morning. Obviously Harding didn't have two more duty hours at 1:00 in the morning to be walking the consist. Yes, if the Westinghouse had been applied there would probably have been no accident.
Yes, had "enough" handbrakes been applied, the train would not have run away. It was obvious to me that even the Ellis-recommended 'number of brakes' would be insufficient to hold a train at the head of a 2% grade, but that doesn't matter now. What does is that a near-sufficient number of handbrake sets might have kept the peak speed of the train low enough to preclude derailing at just the wrong place.
The locomotive was delivered from GE with circuitry that activated the Westinghouse brake when independent air fell below a certain level -- I believe that was 14psi set; Randy Stahl will probably know exactly. This device had been disabled on the locomotive in question. If it had not been, there likely would have been no accident.
The truly idiot move was something not MM&A developed, but as silly in hindsight as putting a fast-acting block valve on the main steam exit of a BWR. The type of FRED used on the train used a little parasitic air turbine to keep the power for the rear-end brake valve (which would never be actuated with no one in the cab) and the little red blinking light charged up -- the CFM for this being intentionally below what the pressure-maintaining feature of the Westinghouse brake would supply with the air compressors running. There does not seem to be any active provision in the devices to suppress this operation should the trainline pressure decrease below ... well, safe pressure for a service set, which would still have held significant pressure on the locomotive independent brake.
The crowning touch of idiocy was leaving only a known sick locomotive running as the only 'pumping' locomotive in a consist. It would have taken Harding a few more minutes to set up the consist so that the leader was not the 'running' locomotive; as I recall (to his credit) he did ask those buffoons in the RTC if he should do that and they told him no. Had even one of the other locomotives been running there would likely have been no accident; had the only running locomotive have been shut down a different way, there would likely have been no accident; had the firemen taken the lever off the seat and confirmed that the train brakes were on, there would likely have been no accident.
As things developed, had it not been over the Fourth of July holiday, there might not have been an accident, as MM&A support forces would have recognized nearly immediately the problem involved in leaving a standing train under their procedures with no running locomotives, and given appropriate instruction. I don't blame them for this, but I think they blame themselves.
By the time a derailment would have 'dynamited the air' there wasn't sufficient trainline pressure to move the valves to emergency. I think the runaway started with the train air sagging throught about 14psi (the exact number was reported in the telemetry, I think in one of the TSB reports) and of course ran progressively lower as the independent leaked off more and the train gathered speed.
Had any unit been supplying air, there would likely have been no accident; had any unit been active to recognize falling independent pressure and set the main air, there "might" have been enough left to provide a service set from the (full) car reservoirs. Were the independent on the locomotives applied from reservoirs rather than as proportional straight air brake, the loss of trainline pressure would not have resulted in proportional release ... shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Man, a giant train of oil cars, left on a 2% grade, uphill from a town on the outside of a curve. IMO, it should have been mandatory (period, full stop) to dynamite the train. Meaning if they have to call crew to assist in the brake test, so be it; for crying out loud.
So ... how did that cost-savings work out?
Lithonia Operator Man, a giant train of oil cars, left on a 2% grade, uphill from a town on the outside of a curve. IMO, it should have been mandatory (period, full stop) to dynamite the train. Meaning if they have to call crew to assist in the brake test, so be it; for crying out loud. So ... how did that cost-savings work out?
The reason the engineer did not leave the automatic brakes applied in Emergency or with a Full Service application, but rather fully released, was that MM&A had a rule requiring them to be left released.
But neither type of application is considered adequate for train securement where securement is necessary due to being on a grade. Only handbrakes are acceptable for such securement. The engineer failed to set enough handbrakes. That is the sole cause of the runnaway.
Lithonia OperatorMan, a giant train of oil cars, left on a 2% grade, uphill from a town on the outside of a curve. IMO, it should have been mandatory (period, full stop) to dynamite the train.
The real 'cost-economizing' issue was in having single-man crews on undegassed oil trains with all but one poorly-functioning engine shut down in the first place. Once that decision had been made, a very good argument could be made that repeated full application and release of the train brakes with only single manning present at a time would cause far more risk of sticking, dragging, derailment and other issues to those consists than even the pathetic excuse for handbrake application that Canadian law required would create.
... if they have to call crew to assist in the brake test, so be it; for crying out loud.
Randy among others noted that simply restoring the relays on some of the engines involved would have prevented the accident completely. As would, as I recall, a simple rewire to supply battery power to said relays on units isolated for 'fuel saving' on this type of train. A very simple GPS-based device in that FRED which detected 'uncommanded' absolute position change, let alone motion, to toggle the air valve there would have likewise prevented this. With almost none of the cost and risk associated with full sets (or emergency!) every time.
As I recall, the issue of using derails, which was the sane thing regardless of anything to do with train brakes at all, was in fact considered, and as I dimly recall it was illegal under Canadian law (as it would put physical point derails in what was considered a main track, although as I recall there was siding track available at that point) rather than constituting a potential 'loss of running hours' in having the trainman (or some contract employee) go to the rear or front of a standing consist as appropriated to throw the derail appropriately. (It was never clear to me at the time whether both ends of the consist were accessible from a road down into Megantic.)
In retrospect what I asked myself is whether, were I in Ed Ellis' position, would have worked these consists single-manned; the answer was "yes I would" but with nowhere near the number of corners cut as MM&A did. One of the biggest changes involved something out of Ed's control, the subsequent PHMSA mandatory degassing of Bakken crude for rail transport, and I think that one-main crewing could be made workable at very close to the cost Ed was incurring were that one change to have been made when it should have been -- before any major traffic in crude-oil trains actually ran.
OvermodIn retrospect what I asked myself is whether, were I in Ed Ellis' position, would have worked these consists single-manned; the answer was "yes I would" but with nowhere near the number of corners cut as MM&A did. One of the biggest changes involved something out of Ed's control, the subsequent PHMSA mandatory degassing of Bakken crude for rail transport, and I think that one-main crewing could be made workable at very close to the cost Ed was incurring were that one change to have been made when it should have been -- before any major traffic in crude-oil trains actually ran.
Ed Ellis was not in charge of the MM&A for the Lac Magentic incident, Edward Burkhardt was.
BaltACDEd Ellis was not in charge of the MM&A for the Lac Megantic incident, Edward Burkhardt was.
Lithonia OperatorMan, a giant train of oil cars, left on a 2% grade, uphill from a town on the outside of a curve. IMO, it should have been mandatory (period, full stop) to dynamite the train. Meaning if they have to call crew to assist in the brake test, so be it; for crying out loud.
The problem with this: If you dump the train, and you are on a grade, you still need to apply sufficient handbrakes in order to recharge the train. If you apply sufficent handbrakes to begin with (and test their effectiveness), then there is no need to dump the train.
Euclid That is the sole cause of the runnaway.
I would use "primary" instead of sole. There were a lot of contriubuting factors.
The aviation people who discuss their accidents over at Professional Pilots' Rumor Network have an expression "The holes in the Swiss cheese lined up."
The Swiss cheese analogy is that you can have "holes", a shortcut here, a design deficiency there, and ill-thought out rule somewhere else and deficiencies in training to top it all off. Each of those holes by itself is not enought to cause an accident because as in a Swiss cheese, the holes are not connected. In rare instances, however, the "holes line up", and all of the above mentioned circumstances break the wrong way to cause an accident.
I mean who anticipated that the locomotive preventing the cars from rolling would catch fire, the fire fighters would press the emergency fuel cutoff, and this action would "take the locomotive offline" from preventing the cars from rolling.
All of the history books about railroading discuss the fail-safe property of the Westinghouse automatic air brake, but upon thinking about it, sometimes the holes in that particular piece of engineered Swiss cheese line up?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.