Join the discussion on the following article:
Crew-size debate heats up
You have to wait and wonder “HOW THE FRA WILL WORD” The proposed new requirement (Regulation). You can bet the involved parties will argue long and hard how that is finally adopted. Will they included the word " qualified" in part of the job description?
Will they(FRA or Union or Employer) require TWO qualified Engineers ?
Would they require that a Conductor be qualified as an Engineer?
Without the use of the word ‘qualified’ as part of a job description? Would an employer be able to place virtually any person in a cab as a ‘rider’ to meet the proposed ‘Two Person’ regulation as required?
How well-trained in ‘train handling’ would the second cab occupant be required to be, in case of emergency?
You can bet this new requirement will be argued long and hard by the Employers, and by the Unions.
It is not only the immediate costs of wages that is in play, but the expenses of long-term ‘benefits’ that will have to be settled before this ‘rulemaking’ takes hold.
The single engineer on the MM&A train was not the problem or cause of deaths.
It was the MM&A rules that were defective because they let the crew count the locomotive as one unit of the 10% plus two cars rule. The locomotive unit only applies 2 brake shoes per hand brake, not 8 brake shoes as are on all cars. It is a misunderstanding that the MM&A only had one engineer and no other person to check what was being done on parking a train at Nantic. There were two people who knew how the work was done in tying down each train at Nantic, because every crew which took over a parked train knew how many hand brakes he had to release when he got on a train for continuing its travel. Mr. Harding had for over a year failed to apply more than 24 brake shoes to the wheels and depended on the engine brakes to hold the trains. He got away with that for over a year until the power was shut off and the engine air brakes leaked off and were no longer applies. The 24 brakes shoes will not hold 10,000 ton on a grade. Only one relieving crew called the dispatcher office and reported insufficient hand brakes on the train he was about to take further. No correction happened. All the rest of the so called second man was of no benefit for safe operation. The fear of questing the other brother’s work comes into play and the second man may be of no benefit.
If Mr. Harting applied brake shoes on the next two cars he would have added 16 brake shoes to the 24 hold the train. If he did not count the locomotives and applied hand brakes only to the cars in the train he would have applied 72 brake shoes and not the 24 that cannot hold any train of that size.
Mr. Cook, wouldn’t the initial application of hand brakes on the 7 cars be equal to 28 brake shoes and not 24? Not that 4 more brake shoes is a big deal, but it does make a slight difference.
Correction appreciated as there were 32 brake shoes applied, not my count of 24.
Mr. Harding applied handbrakes to first two locomotives for total 4 shoes
Next he applied the hand brakes on the radio caboose which the FRA classes as a locomotive total 8 shoes.
Next he applied the hand brakes on two trailing locomotives which applied 4 shoes.
then he applied the hand brakes on the one spacer car which had 8 brake shoes .
Mr. Harding then only applied hand brakes to one of the oil tank cars. for 8 shoes. Grand total of 32 shoes.
Mr. Harding then released all the train air brakes and made a tug test of the train but he had the engine brakes applied at the time of the tug test to see if the train was secure. In this case the air brakes on the engines meant that 64 shoes were applied by hand cable plus air piston.
As my post noted, if he applied hand brakes to 9 cars as required, it would have tightened 72 brake shoes and not the 32 that he applied which were on after the air drained out of the locomotive air brakes. The rules should not permit the counting of any locomotives for the 10% plus two units. All the engine and train brakes must be in release when the tug test is made on the train to test if the hand brakes will hold the train alone.
The railroad rules at the time required all train brakes to be in release with no pressure in the train line when the train was parked. I believe they immediately changed that rule following this accident,
The FRA is in ERROR in the following line in this report–the FRA determined it was possible that a second person could have prevented the wreck had the task of securing the train been shared.
As I posted below a second person shared the knowledge for every train in a year about the number of hand brakes that were applied and nothing, but one case reported to the office, done about the failure to secure the trains. Every train is picked up by another engineer who has to release all the applied hand brakes and those crewmen did not prevent the failure to secure the next train…
The extra crewman might be quite helpful in a serious derailment as to injuries and communications ect. It’s not all about efficiencies in technology for moving trains. That why airlines have a co-pilot
I wish my name t