Shortly before the MM&A runaway, the fuel leak that led to the fire on the one running locomotive was evident before the fire started, and the engineer explained that he had dismissed it because he was following company instructions.
According to news reports, this is what occurred when the engineer parked the oil train at the next town west of Lac-Megantic:
He shut down all of the running locomotives except for one. The purpose of leaving that one engine running was to keep the air pumped up. That one running engine had developed a fuel leak that was putting fuel onto a surface that was hot enough to vaporize the fuel. I assume that it was the fuel leak that was the basis of the fire. I also conclude that this leak must have developed very close to the time that the train had been tied up because the leak was in a state of active progression that shortly evolved to the point where the leaking fuel ignited into flames.
Before the fire began, the vaporizing fuel was noticed by at least one passerby who later commented that it was very obvious with an unusually strong smell of diesel fuel. The cab driver who picked up the engineer also noticed the heavy fuel vapor smoke and even asked the engineer about it. The cab driver later commented that there was so much fuel in the smoke that it was precipitating onto the taxi.
According to the cab driver, the engineer dismissed the concern of the cab driver by saying something to the effect that he was following the instructions of the company. Therefore, the engineer was so unconcerned about the fuel leak on the running engine that he was comfortable in s
In the early days of the investigation the local news broadast here in Maine on Channel 6 out of Portland reported that the possibility of tampering was being explored. A couple days later the same news broadcast reported that the investigation had determined that tampering was not a factor.
I guess for some, it is better to blame the accident on a phantom tamperer or terrorist than blame the negligence of the engineer or “rules” . From the timeline, “working to rule” and getting his sleep was more important than checking out his heavily smoking locomotive.
Exactly, No argument with *Norm48327’*s statement.
My questions:
1.) Why, if there was a problem with one unit in a multi-unit set of locomotives; would the responsible party not shut down the problematic unit, in favor of running another unit with no apparent issue (ie: a Fuel leak that was atomizing fuel into vapor) ?
2.) What would be a reason to not shut down the problematic unit? Why would that decision be in the hands of a remote manager-type, and not the qualified Engineer , on the locomotive, observing the problem ?
My point is this: If the engineer did not set sufficient handbrakes, it would not be his fault if he was ordered to take a shortcut.
I have not ruled out tampering, but the news indicates that the authorities have. I only mention it to frame my main point, which is the possible role that the engineer’s supervisor may have had in influencing the engineer’s train securement procedures, if the engineer was at the end of his shift time; and if another 15 minutes were needed to complete the securement procedure according to the rules.
We do know that the engineer surrendered his own discretion over an imminent fire hazard to a higher authority within the MM&A. Might he have also surrendered to a higher authority, his own discretion over conducting a thorough securement procedure?
It depends on the exact conversation that was had between the engineer and dispatch.
Two scenarios
Yea, this is Engineer Bob, I have a fuel leak. Dispatch: So what else in new? Tie her down. the pickup is on the way/
Yes, this is engineer Bob, I have a fuel leak in unit one, it is leaking onto a hot surface and vaporizing the fuel, the fumes could eventually ignite, should I shut unit one down?
At face value, I emphatically disagree with this statement. In another context, suppose an airline pilot were ordered to take a shortcut. Would those investigating find fault with the pilot of the downed aircraft, assuming his actions/shortcut were attributable, or would they blame an official at the airline who ‘ordered’ him to take the shortcut? Were Nazi general officers tried at Nuremburg for disobeying odious and unethical/illegal commands or for actually accepting them and acting on them?
This case, with each passing day, begins to sound to me to be more and more astounding.
I understand your point. Obeying an order that was against the rules might make you as guilty as the one who gave the improper order. I can see that. So disobeying an improper order might be the legally and morally right thing to do.
But what if the engineer told the supervisor that he would need another hour to finish testing the securement, shutting down the engine with the fuel leak, and starting up another one? And then what if this extra hour would have put him into overtime, or gone beyond his hours of service legal limit? And then what if the supervisor told the engineer simply to stop working, and that he (the supervisor) would send somebody out to finish up?
If that happened, I don’t see why an engineer would feel that he was in a moral dilema or that he was duty-bound to finish tying down the train.
I realize that this is speculative, but how feasible would the scenario be?
To me, this incident shows the need for regulations that are carefully enforced. I am referring not just to the engineer and orders or end of shift, # of handbrakes, etc. I refer also to another thread on which it is pointed out that the tank cars were of a type not approved for carrying this type of crude oil because of the higher volatility. I realize some folks would prefer fewer or no regulations, but this is clearly one situation where the market forces are inadequate.
But what if, but what if…wow these are getting old.
If, and this is a big if, the engineer was ordered to ignore a rule and leave, he better have time and initials from someone on a recorded line. If not, sorry buddy.
I have posted elsewhere that the Desk Dispatcher or whoever the supervisor was is clearly the person most at fault for not having insisted the employee that reported the fire put out stay with the train and not let it be unmanned. A locomotive fire itself is clearly evidence somethig is wrong. Until the matter is investigated thoroughly, a train in that condition should not be left even on a level main line, let alone one on a grade. If the conversation suggested above did take place, then he is doubly at fault. I say most at fault. Not only should he have not left it unmanned, but he should have dispatched a realy compenent person to the site as soon as possible.