Was MM&A required to take extra safety measures beyond what the Canadian rules and regulations required? Were new safety regulations imposed on MM&A as a condition of allowing them to run single-man crews? If so, did MM&A violate those new regulations. Did leaving the train parked unattended as they did violate any rules or regulations? I don’t know the answers to thse questions. I am just asking.
Rules or no rules, leaving a train unattended and idling at the top of a grade like that was negligent and stupid. As the engineer was likely following orders, he can’t be blamed for that part of it.
I understand. Relatively speaking, it would be safer not to tie up at the top of a grade on the mainline, and leave the train unattended. Canadian rules advise to pick a safer place if possible, but they don’t forbid it. It is done all the time. That is why they place such emphasis on setting the proper number of handbrakes.
There is some more news coming out today after an apparent lull for a couple weeks or so. It says here that the defendents are charged with criminal negligence. I thought I read somewhere that Harding faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mma-megantic-trial-busque-labrie-1.4400775
Well, here’s Jean-Noel on the stand and no word on whether he was asked about the firefighters shutting down the sole running engine, who he contacted about that, and what specific response on that point he received other than ‘go to bed’.
Does not bode well how the news workers appear to have successfully spun the ‘little Bo-Peep moment’ into a presumption of near-witless incompetence. Read the story details and I think a different picture emerges.
Commonsense 101: Do not leave a fully loaded oil train unattended at any time.
And where do we find these “story details” ?
[quote user=“Overmod”]
Well, here’s Jean-Noel on the stand and no word on whether he was asked about the firefighters shutting down the sole running engine, who he contacted about that, and what specific response on that point he received other than ‘go to bed’.
Does not bode well how the news workers appear to have successfully spun the ‘little Bo-Peep moment’ into a presumption of near-witless incompetence. Read the story details and I think a different picture emerges./quote]
Overmod,
Your post reflects my thoughts about the press and media in general. “If it bleeds it leads” has been their motto for a long time and while it may sell newspapers it isn’t always fair. At this point we have only news reports to garner information from. I don’t know if TSB Canada has released their final report.
The information we get from the media is questional at best.
In the CBC story that Euclid provided the link for, a few posts earlier today.
Problem was that it wasn’t idling. As long as a train is properly tied down, you can leave it wherever and it won’t move. Note the word properly.
TSB’s Investigation Report
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054.asp
I do agree with that in the case of the oil train that ran away and caused the Lac Megantic fire. There were several details that combined to make it way too large of a risk.
It was a large train of oil that happened to be as combustible as gasoline. A high speed derailment was bound to breach many cars and provide instant ignition, creating a massive fire that would spread freely with the flowing fuel.
It was left on a grade that was long enough and steep enough to allow a runaway train to reach 65 mph. There was a curve in Lac Megantic that was too sharp to handle a train at that speed without derailing.
The train was left on the mainline without any securement supplements such as derails or oth
I noticed that the handbrake rules called for a certain number of handbrakes applied, and that number varies according to whether they are applied when a service application of the automatic brake is in effect. And if a service application is in effect, the number of handbrakes required varies according to the amount of reduction made in the service application. Assuming that the service application will not be part of the securement, why should it influence the number of handbrakes required to secure the train?
The only reason I can think of is that there may be an expectation that you get a tighter handbrake if you apply it with the automatic brake set, even though the automatic is later released during the securement period. If that is the reason, it raises some questions in my mind. But that reason is just a guess on my part.
When we set hand brakes in order to secure our trains, we make a full service application. Why rely on muscle power when the air can do most of the job for you?
What would that have to do with how many handbrakes are required?
Thought you said you had experience with this.
The braking to ‘all wheels‘ under A freight car is done with an equalizing network of rods, levers and beams sometimes called the ‘foundation’. There is a certain amount of slack in this (which grows greater over time and is addressed with automatic slack adjuster mechanisms) and of course there needs to be enough play when released that any given brakeshoe won’t contact or drag on its tread. All this has to be wound out through the force-multiplying mechanism in a handbrake unless you have pulled it out already by air application.
Likewise when winding on after the shoes are all seated on treads requires lots of elbow grease… unless the air has already set the brakes to engagement, in which case just spinning the wheel or pumping the lever to resistance gets you where you need to be.
Works a bit different on locomotives but that is covered for you in the TSB report better than I could do.
When the brakes are applied by air, you can spin the handbrake wheel or lever easily, since the air has already done the job of compressing the spirngs, and when suddenly a far greater force is required, you know you have applied maximum braking power or very close to it. When you do the work by hand, you have to use a great deal of force for the entire appliation, and as you apply the brake, the force required keeps getting larger and larger, so there is no specific point to know the brake has been applied thoroughly. Logically then, using air and then applying hand-brakes results in stronger brake application.
I fully understand the mechanical principle involved. My question boils down to this: If it requires airbrakes being applied to get an adequate handbrake set, why do the rules not simply require having a certain level of air brake application during the manual setting of handbrakes?
With air assistance, why would people not be inclined to reduce their handbrake effort below what is acually needed because they feel that air has already done the work? That would get into the exact same area of relying of air brakes being set to supplement securement by handbrakes, although it would arrive at that risky result by a slightly different route.
Esssentially, with both preceding posts, your guess was correct. Should have
added this to my post. My comment above is in addition to, not a replacement for the previous onw.