With all of the rules they have governing braking and train handling through that area, I don’t see how there could be any doubt. But then again, the rules seem to include a requirement to meet with others to discuss the situation and then make a group decision. So that would seem to be an avenue to input one’s feeling of doubt.
And then also, the rule about “when in doubt” does not specify if it is okay to doubt the advisability of rules and instructions, and therefore take action that goes against them. That rule about “when in doubt” seems to imply that it only refers to situations that appear to be not covered in the rules or instructions. Why else would there be doubt?
The relevant part of the rules That Bruce Kelly posted read as follows:
"First Emergency Brake Application:
"Before the emergency PCS is recovered, all crew members (ie: locomotive engineer and conductor and Trainmaster) must perform a job briefing to discuss with each other the use of retainer valves. In the application GOI section 15, item 14.3 and 29.3, set retaining valves to the HP (high pressure) position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars.
"When discussing the use of retainers and/orhand brakes, consider train location, amount oftrain on the mountain grade, weather and rail conditions and any other conditionspresent that may affect the braking of that train. If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train dictate that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train while re-charging, then apply a hand brake on at least 75 percent of the cars and set retaining valves to the HP position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars."
The use of handbrakes was not required but optional if this was the first use of the emergency brake application. Given the prevailing weather and other conditions, the discussion should have concluded the handbrakes were required in this situation, but that is hindsight and armchair quarterbacking. The rules prevailing at the time did not “require” them.
Somebody’s judgement was faulty but until we see a transcript, if any, of the radio discussion we cannot start pointing fingers and accusing any one party of negligence.<
Euclid
I have read Bruce Kelly’s post several times, but with layer upon layer of provisions and conditions, and not knowing the locations listed, the answer to my very simple question does not exactly pop out at me. I realize that it is required now. But I have been told that the first crew should have securred the train with
The relevant part of the rules That Bruce Kelly posted read as follows:
"First Emergency Brake Application:
"Before the emergency PCS is recovered, all crew members (ie: locomotive engineer and conductor and Trainmaster) must perform a job briefing to discuss with each other the use of retainer valves. In the application GOI section 15, item 14.3 and 29.3, set retaining valves to the HP (high pressure) position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars.
"When discussing the use of retainers and/orhand brakes, consider train location, amount oftrain on the mountain grade, weather and rail conditions and any other conditionspresent that may affect the braking of that train. If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train dictate that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train while re-charging, then apply a hand brake on at least 75 percent of the cars and set retaining valves to the HP position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars."
The use of handbrakes was not required but optional if this was the first use of the emergency brake application. Given the prevailing weather and other conditions, the discussion should have concluded the handbrakes were required in this situation, but that is hindsight and armchair quarterbacking. The rules prevailing at the time did not "r
Are we talking the original crew or relief crew? I mean, someone would have had to set handbrakes. How else were they planning on recharging the trainline?
Euclid
I have read Bruce Kelly’s post several times, but with layer upon layer of provisions and conditions, and not knowing the locations listed, the answer to my very simple question does not exactly pop out at me. I realize that it is required now. But I have been told that the first crew should have securred the train with
The relevant part of the rules That Bruce Kelly posted read as follows:
"First Emergency Brake Application:
"Before the emergency PCS is recovered, all crew members (ie: locomotive engineer and conductor and Trainmaster) must perform a job briefing to discuss with each other the use of retainer valves. In the application GOI section 15, item 14.3 and 29.3, set retaining valves to the HP (high pressure) position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars.
"When discussing the use of retainers and/orhand brakes, consider train location, amount oftrain on the mountain grade, weather and rail conditions and any other conditionspresent that may affect the braking of that train. If abnormal conditions such as weather or poor braking train dictate that the application of hand brakes is necessary to secure the train while re-charging, then apply a hand brake on at least 75 percent of the cars and set retaining valves to the HP position on at least 75 percent of the loaded cars."
The use of handbrakes was not required but optional if this was the first use of the emergency brake application. Given the prevailing weather and other conditions, the discussion should have concluded the handbrakes were required in this situation, but that is hin
I’ve never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was “held” by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie?
I was wondering about that too. As I understand, when the emergency application is holding, the air in the brake cylinders is equalized with the air remaining in the emergency reservoirs. I don’t really understand what the retainers do, but I would assume they prevent a portion of the air stored in both the emergency reserviors and the brake cylinders combined, from venting through the car brake valves during the recharge.
However, that retained air is bottled up in a leaking brake cylinder (if cylinders were leaking due to the packing not sealing in the cold weather), so I don’t see how the retainers could retain any pressure at all. It seems like it all would leak out through the cylinder packing leaks.
Euclid is correct, if the brake cylinder or reservoir air pressure is leaking directly to the atmosphere setting retainers will do nothing to hold the brake application.
If the triple valve itself is leaking, and air is escaping out the exhaust pipe then setting the retainer will keep the brake applied on that car, but in HP position the retainer only holds 20 PSI in the brake cylinder, it allows everything else to exhaust to the atmosphere. 20 PSI is about what you would get from a minimum application of the automatic brake, and is nowhere near the braking effort that an emergency application should give.
This of course assumes that the retainer is functioning properly, as they are only rarely used anymore they are very low on the priority list for maintenance
Yet what was CP’s reaction to the TSB’s request to the application of handbrakes if something like this happens again. They sued the TSB in court for meddling in how they run the railroad.
Unfortunately bailing off quickly became virtually impossible, since the start of the upper Spiral Tunnel is just beyond the west switch. Trying to jump into a confined space in the dark (on a 10 degree curve) is not easily done. I imagine by the time they emerged from the lower portal speed would be a problem.
I have seen nothing about the experience of the original crew. The relief crew did have an engineer with considerable experience, but by the time he arrived the trap had been set. Perhaps relevant might be the (unknown) experience of the managers involved. Old style railroading usually promoted men from the field whoe demonstrated the necessary knowledge and smarts. Modern practice parachutes in university grads who know the rules and the theory, but often lack the specific detailed and hard earned experience.
I’ve never worked with retainers, and am not a car knocker, so I have a question: If the emergency application leaked off due to the seals, would an application that was “held” by the retainers also leak off? Or is that another part of the valve thingie?
I was wondering about that too. As I understand, when the emergency application is holding, the air in the brake cylinders is equalized with the air remaining in the emergency reservoirs. I don’t really understand what the retainers do, but I would assume they prevent a portion of the air stored in both the emergency reserviors and the brake cylinders combined, from venting through the car brake valves during the recharge.
However, that retained air is bottled up in a leaking brake cylinder (if cylinders were leaking due to the packing not sealing in the cold weather), so I don’t see how the retainers could retain any pressure at all. It seems like it all would leak out through the cylinder packing leaks.
Euclid is correct, if the brake cylinder or reservoir air pressure is leaking directly to the atmosphere setting retainers will do nothing to hold the brake application.
If the triple valve itself is leaking, and air is escaping out the exhaust pipe then setting the retainer will keep the brake applied on that car, but in HP position the retainer only holds 20 PSI in the brake cylinder, it allows everything else to exhaust to the atmosphere. 20 PSI is about what you would get from a minimum application of the automatic brake, and is nowhere near the braking eff
You can only recharge the air system by setting hand brakes. You could do a partial charge by setting some hand brakes and raising the brake pipe pressure until some air can get get into the aux and emergency reserviors. No train should be held on a grade with air brakes. Why this became a common practice was negated by the Lac Megantic disaster.
As I have said - Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes - a train that has had a Emergency Application cannot have the braking system recharged on a grade unless the train has been secured. The only way to secure the train on a grade is with Hand Brakes - enough Hand Brakes that the train will not move as the air is restored to the braking system.
I understand your point, and it agrees with what I understand about the process. So what then are we missing with this runaway wreck incident? They must not have set handbrakes because when the emergency application released, the train ran away. As a consequence, the TSB ordered the company to set handbrakes in future circumstances such as those surrounding the runaway wreck. Therefore, I must assume that setting handbrakes was not required before the TSB ordered them to be required after the wreck.
So prior to the wreck, if it was not required, why would anyone do it? It makes no sense. How did they run the railroad without setting handbrakes in order to recover from emergency applications on steep grades??? How did they defy gravity?
There is only one possible explanation that I can think of, and it is this: The need to recover from an emergency application on a steep grade was rare. When it happened, setting handbrakes was not required, but it also was not prohibited. So when the need arose, the crew always set handbrakes because they knew the laws of physics left them no choice.
As I have said - Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes, Hand Brakes - a train that has had a Emergency Application cannot have the braking system recharged on a grade unless the train has been secured. The only way to secure the train on a grade is with Hand Brakes - enough Hand Brakes that the train will not move as the air is restored to the braking system.
I understand your point, and it agrees with what I understand about the process. So what then are we missing with this runaway wreck incident? They must not have set handbrakes because when the emergency application released, the train ran away. As a consequence, the TSB ordered the company to set handbrakes in future circumstances such as those surrounding the runaway wreck. Therefore, I must assume that setting handbrakes was not required before the TSB ordered them to be required after the wreck.
So prior to the wreck, if it was not required, why would anyone do it? It makes no sense. How did they run the railroad without setting handbrakes in order to recover from emergency applications on steep grades??? How did they defy gravity?
There is only one possible explanation that I can think of, and it is this: The need to recover from an emergency application on a steep grade was rare. When it happened, setting handbrakes was not required, but it also was not prohibited. So when the need arose, the crew always set handbrakes because they knew the laws of physics left them no choice.
We have grades on our territory, although not classified as “severe”, if you have a heavy train and it dumps, you better put handbrakes on to recharge. RRing 101 stuff.
I agree that handbrakes should have been applied immediately. But I can’t see holding the crew responsible for not doing that if the company says it was optional. The crew works for the company. The company says it is optional. But the laws of physics say it is not optional, it is mandatory. Fortunately most crews have taken the company option of complying with the laws of physics.
Obviously the blame lies with the company and not the first crew who merely accepted the option they preferred. I doubt the TSB will blame the first crew.
You had the same laws of physics on the CSX. Do they make hanbrake securement optional in a case like this?
I don’t see that anyone has addressed Electroliner’s question on page one. I had been thinking along similar lines.
If the locomotives are capable of pulling the train up a grade such as this, shouldn’t they be capable of holding the train with the independent brake alone? If the adhesion of the locomotive wheels is sufficient in one case, it seems to me that it would be so in the other.
Follow-up to my previous post. I am assuming that even though the air was down to zero in the train line, the main tanks in the locomotives were still fully charged; i.e. everything isn’t bled down to zero. I don’t know the details about how things work.