Join the discussion on the following article:
Despite accident, Burkhardt still believes in one-person crews
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
We don’t yet have sufficient information to come to any intelligent conclusions. What are the details concerning the “engine fire”, and how and by whom was it extinguished? Was the engineer present, or was he summoned to the scene? Did he really set 11, or 6, or 2, or no, handbrakes? In the absence of a derail, why was a chain or a skate not used to prevent the train from moving at all? What caused the horrific explosion? I don’t believe that crude oil by itself is volatile enough to create the conflagration that resulted from the crash. While I believe that the use of one-person crews might be justified under some well-controlled circumstances, this was not one, and I think Mr. Burkhart’s rationalization of doing so here was faulty. A long, heavy train, parked in a remote location, on a “dark” railroad is far too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgment, without the backup of another crew member’ input. “CRM” is more than a fancy catch-phrase; it is an important safety tool, used with great success by other industries, especially the airlines.
It is obvious that not enough hand brakes were set on the train. You can’t’ blame that on only having one crew member but can blame the roll away on that crew member if the rules called for a sufficient number of hand brakes to be set that would have prevented movement of the train. Air brakes will leak off over time and if the locomotive was shut down hand brakes would be the only backup. It was a tragedy.
The revenue produced by a long oil train is so high that the cost of one conductor is trivial. With the abandoned train and with automated yard jobs, Burkhardt’s main goal seems to be no=-person crews. This guy will go down as the 21st century William H. Vanderbilt.
The revenue produced by a long oil train is so high that the cost of one conductor is trivial. With the abandoned train and with automated yard jobs, Burkhardt’s main goal seems to be no=-person crews. This guy will go down as the 21st century William H. Vanderbilt.
How many conductors’ salaries could have been paid by this disaster alone? One man crews are a complete joke and complete insult to the skill and work load required to safely operate a train. Too far with cut backs. I mean, when do you stop? 5 person crews years ago. Two person crews normal today. Down to one. What’s next?
I think we will see this engineer was right out of hours when he stopped the train. He was probably exhausted, overworked and simply too tired to set the 20+ hand brakes that train should have had. No excuse, but this situation is created by penny pinching companies only interested in the bottom line over safety protocols and push reduced numbers of employees to the limit!
Sounds like Burkhart is jumping the gun saying the engineer did not set the number of hand brakes required. I don’t think the investigators have determined how many hand brakes were set yet. Sounds to me like his railroads might be more focused on profits than safety.
The fact that this was a “haz-mat” train should prompt any thinking rail manager to ensure any such train is tied of or set off on tracks protected with locked derails on both ends of the track. Let’s say for argument’s purpose that the hogger did set the required number of handbrakes, there is nothing to prevent someone else from releasing them.
As far as single person train crews goes- again, special rules (or barring that, government regulations) requiring trains carrying haz-mat to be manned by at least 2 crew members. As a retired hostler-helper, we learned by first hand experience that having “two brains and four eyes” on the job will prevent a lot of mistakes.
If the hogger is the only crew member and has a stroke or heart attack, the train will go into emergency because of the “dead man” feature. This is no guarantee that the consist will stay on the tracks and not produce the same results as we have just seen. Furthermore there is nobody to summon medical help and make sure the train is brought to a crossing where first responders can get the ailing crew member to a hospital.
This whole thing (one man crews) brings us back to the days when the railroad president had a “public be damned” mentality, the superintendent sending a ham to the widow and children of a train man who was killed on the job and then tells the trainmaster to hire some more “fresh meat”.
But hey! There’s MONEY to be made!!
I bet the one man crew, at least in Canada is over. They never should have allowed it in the first place.
Good article - this issue was not really dealt with (well) in either of the feature articles in the two newspapers I read this morning (NY Times and Washington Post, Wed, July 11). It might be a good issue area for Trains mag, or Don Phillips to do an “in depth” piece on. As a “lay-man” railfan, I’ve been concerned about the shrinkage of freight train crews and the possible negative impact of eventually getting to the point of putting sole responsibility in the hands of the engineer - as if long and complex trains can be considered equivalent to single highway trucks. My grandfather, whom I never knew personally, spent most of his life-long RR career as a conductor - I was always curious about what exactly a conductor did, especially a freight train conductor (although, my impression was that my grandfather had been mainly a passenger conductor). The answer from my father, grandmother and others who knew him was always something like “He’s in charge of the train, the captain of the ship, and responsible for everything except actually driving the train - which is the sole job of the engineer.” With the conductor the last additional freight train member to go, how much “operational creep” has shifted over to the engineer? And has the role and the psychology of the person(s) in it (the engineer) been sufficiently re-programmed to reliably handle that change. Is the proper “staging” of freight cars “off the road at night” a responsibility one should realistically expect to be fully on the top of an engineer’s mental check list after spending perhaps more than an eight hour day in the cab? It doesn’t seem so long ago when the engineer had a whole platoon of co-workers, both on board and on the ground, to handle almost “everything else” (except, maybe, oiling the engine!!!).
AS A RAILROADER OF 40 YEARS,I AM SURE LEARNING ALOT FROM THOSE ’ ARMCHAIR RAILROADERS ’ == WHAT BUNK ! NO TIME IN MY LIFE AT 79 YEARS TO READ TO MUCH JUNK…
I SUPPOSE IF YOU PUT 10 PILOTS ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRYING 200 PEOPLE WOULD WOULD NOT HAVE CRASHED…
IN THE CASE OF THIS OF A RUN A WAY TRAIN - WAIT UNTIL THE FACTS COME OUT…
I once had a car with bad brakes, so my Dad suggested that I always park the car at the bottom of the hill, not the top. Made sense to me, makes sense for railroad trains!
Actually one person crews ARE allowed in the US and Mexico for that matter. The Indiana Railroad uses them regularly, as an example. They use a roving utility person to follow the train in a vehicle if needed. Amtrak uses one person in the cab of trains everyday.
Answers, possibly to too many ???'s.
the engine fire: highly likely the fire fighters, one of 'em on arrival saw a red button near the frame labelled “Emergency Fuel Cut-off.” After the button being depressed unless you have been there, you’re not going to get an engine restart, won’t have done that!
Not Expecting any consequences (enough train hand brakes should hold), track guy reported to Farnham RTC, who cluellesly did not, but legitamately expected, know that properly set hand brakes adequate to hold the train, were applied.
This leads to this: the RTCs may have transferred (relieved) during the last hour of the day when the “crew” was tying down the crude oil train; if either didn’t know enough about requisite time to tie down, test and adjust if needed and allowed 25 minutes as plausible time
RTCs, DS’s and Dispr’s have to be able know from the ground-up and top-down lineearally everywhere, grades and brake’s capabilities…likewise the duration to accomplish tasks.
Chains may have locally derailed a wheel, might have caused the pile-up to happen outside of Nantes and Lac Megantic.
Let’s consider the terrorist, conspiracy of pipeline profiteers, and plain provacateurs.
Are they skilled, to the extent that they may do…I’ve no idea.
The fire from the derailment… crude needs a vaporizing inspiration…that propane tanks tied to home heating and cooking systems might have been adjacent to the railroad ain’t unlikely…major pile-up severing a gas pipeline feeding fuel to heat to combust crude?
Dark territory…too much responsibility to be left to one person’s judgement; I can’t take that!
Procedures, parameters, policy, possibilities…are you saying this engineer’s thinking was only his/