Join the discussion on the following article:
Railroads, tank car builders react to Canada’s DOT-111 ban
The railroad will have to build a wall around the curve to contain any potential runaway trains.
But you have to wonder…Would any tank car design overcome the effects of a 50 mph runaway?
Ssssshhhhhh! Don’t spoil their beautiful theory with a brutal gang of facts.
Tank car construction no matter how strong would not have prevented this horrible accident. Having enough handbrakes to prevent movement would have. We do what’s called a securement check when ever we leave a train no matter what kind it is untended. We do this to make sure if for any reason the air brakes fail the hand brakes will hold the train. A 2 man crew might have also prevented this from happening.
The problem wasn’t the tank car construction, no car will withstand the 70 mph runaway. The cause was failure of proper management. Most have not read my prior post:
At Nantes, QU, the single engineer/conductor has had a practice of failing to apply sufficient numbers of hand brakes to the cars for quite an extended period of time. If the criminal investigator had asked the other crew members who picked up those trains, (under oath) they would learn that this was a common failure day after day, month after month. They would learn that one crew called the headquarter office and said: “I don’t want to name, names or dates but someone is not applying hand brakes to these trains at Nantes, I just found a oil train with only one hand brake applied.” The call was ignored at the office and since there was no Trainmaster in Canada for 300 miles of railroad, the crews were unsupervised. There was the failure of management. Where was the Asst. Superintendent of this Canadian portion? A Trainmaster based in USA was on vacation and job was not filled by a replacement officer.
FACT : The engine motor shut down was account the trackman pushing the off button per the request of the fire department. That again is the railroad management responsibility that the trackman should have understood why that one unit in the engine consist was left running to supply air brakes and if he could not start a replacement unit should have let the fire burn. The fire could burn all night and cause no damage as only a one cylinder feed line was burning. They could have pinched the line. The railroad should have obtained management to get to Nantes. Engine hand brakes only apply one brake shoe against the wheels. The fire department saw the trackman as a railroad representative in error.
FACT: Mr. Harding heard about the engine fire while at the hotel and he called his office and offered to return to the train and was informed to stay and get his rest. Another failure of management was if they did not have
The source of the facts would be nice. Howevet I still maintain that derail protection at both ends of a standing unoccupied train would prevent runaways from gaining speed.
Edmond,
You are correct!
SP, my employer, no stranger to heavy and severe grades, in THE rules said that stuff (cars, engine, trains) left unattended had to have the rails ahead (down grade side) separated to derail a roll-out; this on specified grade territories, if no de-railer was where the “stuff” was spotted.
Then, loosening bolts on angle bars is different than cutting continuous welded rail, right?
Well stated Mr. Cook
W. Cook: What is the source of your facts?
W. Cook: What is the source of your facts?
The true cause of the Megantic accident was not the engineer. The true cause was bad public policy from Ottawa, permitting greedy MM&A to operate such dangerous trains with one-person crews. Note, too, Hunter Harrison chooses to blame the problem on his workers, not on his greed.
W. Cook, you stated the true cause of the accident. It was the engineer who did not set sufficient handbrakes to keep the train from rolling down grade. Shutting down the engine due to the fire would not have caused the runaway IF the engineer had set the bvrakes properly. The fact there was no derail would not have mattered IF the engineer had set sufficient brakes to hold the train. The number of crew members is irrelevant because IF the engineer had set the correct number of brakes the accident would not have happened. The true cause is therefore the engineer. The rest of the things you site are simply additional information. IF you sited the source of your “facts” maybe they would have more credibility.