Here is a bit of detail from Wikipedia that changes everything. Certainly one might question the accuracy, but it is the most detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the fuel leak and so-called fire that I have seen. From this information, I conclude that there never was a fuel leak or a fire.
The news says there was a fire, and the public reported a strong fuel odor and heavy smoke. That would be a symptom of fuel leaking onto a hot manifold, but the smoke would be white. The smoke would also probably not contain droplets of liquid fuel as has been reported.
This new information says that the smoke was black, and that it was coming out of the exhaust stack. Black smoke comes out of an engine due to incomplete combustion. The description of black smoke and spitting oil coming from the exhaust stack sounds like a failed turbocharger. A failed turbo does not deliver enough combustion air, so the normal engine fuel delivery is excessive for the amount of air available. So the engine runs “fuel rich.”
The excess fuel makes heavy black smoke, which is also likely to contain droplets of unburned fuel. Both the droplets and the black smoke are combustible. So with this combustible trail of fuel and smoke leaving the cylinders, the cylinder combustion process carries right into the exhaust manifold and up the stack. This typically causes flames to blow several feet out of the exhaust stack along with extremely thick black smoke. The flames are called “torching.” Here is an example of torching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG0N58_dUuY
We just knew there was a better explanation for the “fire” than those from the “eye witnesses”. This makes far more sense than the locomotive being on fire. Still one wonders why not use another locomotive in the consist? Interesting how the eye witnesses reported a fire and a spray of fuel. Especially since there was a train left there nearly every day.
Since all five MM&A engines were running when the train arrived at Nantes, any one of the five could have been left running when the other four were shut down. The engine with the failed turbo was the lead and controlling unit, and that is the one they left running to keep the air pumped up.
Here is my question: If they had shut down that controlling engine plus three others, and left the second engine running, would that be all the change required to have that second engine assume the role of pumping air? Or, would control changes be necessary in order to switch the air pumping function from the first engine to the second? If so, what would those control changes be, and how much time would they take?
GE makes good Alco imitators also. On a truck most of the time a turbo fails with a bang, followed by a nice big cloud of white smoke. Rgds IGN PS Before I forget wasn’t the unit in question a GE Dash 7?
Unless the lead engine is wired up weird, such that it dumps things when the breakers are dropped, or has all electric control of the air brakes, you shouldn’t have to do all that.
Just leave the second (or whichever) unit running to supply the air, and the head unit can be left set up for lead. Air still runs through the piping and valves when an engine is shut down. This works on 26 air, not sure what is in use on MMA.
I’ve had a lead engine fail en route, made it into the terminal. Headlights and control circuits are run off the batteries and MU cable. Got cold, though, as the heaters won’t work if the engine is shut down.
Thanks Ed and WSOR 3801 for that information. It sounds like there was no good reason to let that damaged locomotive idle all night when they could have just shut it down and let another one run.
My first thought was that the MM&A took a risk by ignoring a substantial fire hazard, but, as I explained in my first post, I think that is an incorrect assumption because it appears that there was no fire hazard. But nevertheless, the MM&A did choose to let a distressed, excessively smoking locomotive run all night, posing a considerable nuisance to the residents and a visibility danger to drivers on the highway.
There appears to be no obvious reason why they chose this problematic course of action when it would have been just as easy to shut down the troubled locomotive and use another one. Again, this suggests an arbitrary decision to abruptly end the day’s work at Nantes; as does the apparent failure to complete the job of setting sufficient handbrakes.
Furthermore, we know that the decision to let the smoking locomotive run, to the detriment of the surroundings, was a decision made by MM&A management, and disagreed with by the locomotive engineer. Was the decision to not set sufficient handbrakes also a decision made by MM&A management?
I know this is just speculation and that the actual facts will probably come out in the investigation. Some say it is wrong to speculate. But in the meantime, a mighty burden has been placed on engineer, Tom Harding by the unproven accusation by MM&A President Burkhardt, that Mr. Harding’s negligence is the sole cause of this massive disaster. And while that too is just speculation, it matters because the burden that it places on Mr. Harding is real.
If it turns out that Mr. Harding is blameless, it will have been a great injustice to have accused him in a reckless and self-serving rush to judgment without any proof. I hope that anyone who believes that speculation is wrong will look at the speculation by Mr. Burkhardt. So I would like to offer a few thoughts as to reasons why the guilt of Mr. Harding may not be a forgone conclusion as Mr. Burkhardt contends.
Ed Burkhardt has expressed concern that the one running locomotive was shut down and that caused the air brakes to release. This is insightful because there should be no such concern. A running locomotive can shut down on its own at any time for any of a number of different reasons. Therefore, a running locomotive cannot be relied on the hold a train by its air brakes, and there is no safety rule that is predicated on a running locomotive to secure a train by keeping air brakes applied.
Yet, Burkhardt’s concern clearly shows that he believes that a running locomotive was essential to keeping the train from rolling away. He even reaffirms that belief by saying that he thinks that a second locomotive should be kept running as a backup in case one happens to shut down. This is completely wrong hea
You must remember that anything said by anybody in the early hours of such a calamity is to be taken with a grain of salt. Most people will be speaking from 2nd hand knowledge or speculation and cannot be relied upon to be speaking facts about the present situation.
Consider Mr. Burkhardt’s comments… I do not know his level of proficiency in practical day-to-day/rule-book railroading, but I suspect his expertise is in the managerial aspect of running the RR from a dollars and cents perspective. He knows there are rules, but he has never been responsible to apply them. (or maybe he has, I don’t know)… but assuming that he only knows of the existence of the rules, then when this accident occurred and he read (or was told) about the initial reports of what was done and what should have been done, he defended his RR by referring to what he was told… 11 handbrakes were set and that is by the rules… did he KNOW that for sure? meh… probably not, but that is what he was told so that is what he repeated. Later, people began to question the “known facts” as they became more clear (or more muddled, your choice) he has had to alter his defense of his RR to put the blame where it will do the least damage to his RR. i.e.: blame the engineer for not following the rules.
EVERYTHING that we get to read in the press is CYA junk at this point. Some might be facts, but most is speculation mashed over by people that have no idea what the words mean.
I suspect that the Engineer has a lawyer and that lawyer told him to make NO public comments about anything… PERIOD… it is too bad that all the other people involved (including Mr. Burkhardt) didn’t get the exact same advice and then follow it.
What was that silly comment made by the politician several years ago about “known unknowns and unknown unknowns”.
There are aspects to all accidents that must be investigated by expe
I still have yet to hear how the Full Service brake application was released. Even with no compressor operating the auxiliary reservoir on each car should have maintained an effective brake for more than 12 hours. i suspect that whoever shut the engine down also be accident or otherwise released the brakes.
No, no, a thousand times no! Not on a GE locomotive. At idle the turbo is doing next to nothing. The engine is operating like a naturally aspirated engine. If there was black smoke, something was burning.
I think we are refraining from convicting or blaming anyone. I don’t recall one single comment on this forum where someone blamed anyone for the Lac-Megantic runaway. The only person I am aware of who has blamed anyone is Ed Burkhardt, president of the MM&A, blaming the engineer. I have not seen any news coverage or opinion pieces that blame anybody except for the news reporting on Burkhardt blaming the engineer.
According to Mr. Burkhardt, the train rolled because handbrakes were not sufficiently applied, and this can only mean that engineer, Tom Harding failed to apply handbrakes sufficiently.
I just wanted to point out the fact that the MM&A’s train securement rules might be insufficient, and that may be the reason why the train rolled away. I am not saying that the rules are insufficient. I am just saying that they could be unless it is proved otherwise.
Since Mr. Burhardt is confident enough to publicly place blame for violating his rules, it would only be fair for him to tell us what those rules are.
“I think we are refraining from convicting or blaming anyone. I don’t recall one single comment on this forum where someone blamed anyone for the Lac-Megantic runaway.”
How can you possibly have the cajones to say that when in other threads on the topic you have all nut nailed the engineer to the cross? I suggest you go back and reread some of your earlier posts. My[2c].
[quote Bucyrus]
“I think we are refraining from convicting or blaming anyone. I don’t recall one single comment on this forum where someone blamed anyone for the Lac-Megantic runaway.”
As I said, I don’t recall anyone blaming anyone for the wreck. I have not blamed the engineer or anyone else for the wreck. I have actually gone out of my way to defend the engineer against a rush to judgment. I have been critical of Burkhardt, but not for causing the wreck.
But since you say that I have blamed the engineer for the wreck, please show me what I said.
