Join the discussion on the following article:
TSB wrapping up on-site operations at Lac-Mégantic
In all, generally laudable points of inquiry…
But, how many brakes to set on a 1.2 per cent grade…if it’s not known in 2013, how did they railroad since 1893? Dumb luck?
But, verify the properties…petroleum product…fierce fire. What ignited the crude? One could snub out a cigar in a diesel fuel puddle; crude needs some source to raise it to ignition…lineside propane or natural gas, maybe even a truck stop/gas station.
But, create simulations and…reconstruct events leading to…Find out what happened subsequent to the fire department’s arrival at Nantes; that is where the key is hidden. The train had not moved since the engr left it to rest, but it did after the FD left.
Responsibility oozes and simmers in a quagmire.
In all, generally laudable points of inquiry…
But, how many brakes to set on a 1.2 per cent grade…if it’s not known in 2013, how did they railroad since 1893? Dumb luck?
But, verify the properties…petroleum product…fierce fire. What ignited the crude? One could snub out a cigar in a diesel fuel puddle; crude needs some source to raise it to ignition…lineside propane or natural gas, maybe even a truck stop/gas station.
But, create simulations and…reconstruct events leading to…Find out what happened subsequent to the fire department’s arrival at Nantes; that is where the key is hidden. The train had not moved since the engr left it to rest, but it did after the FD left.
Responsibility oozes and simmers in a quagmire.
“Completing these tests, verifying the results, and conducting thorough analyses will allow the TSB to piece together exactly what happened, and why”.
Don’t believe that “exactly what happened” will ever be known.
The fire department has been notably quiet on activity at engine fire site, or not reported.
If 11 hand brakes were indeed set, those wheels and brakes would have been hot enough to set the crude on fire.
Fredric and Francis, both great points. How in heck did all the brakes either bleed off or release on the train. Me thinks that someone kicked the brakes off that power.
I’ve seen cuts of cars on an inbound train that got stored in our yard over winter that still had air on it months later.
Someone released that train…we shall see…or maybe not.
My other point here is why in heck did they NOT have a releife crew to take the train over upon the engineers HOS expiration? Gotta hold MM&A to the fire over that IMHO. That train alone had to be a major money maker for them and they took shortcuts like that? Amazing, just amazing.
Daniel,
In one report I read, the overnight stop due to HOS expiration was normal operating procedure to this train. It did it all the time. So, that means that many nights, the train as spent the night alone and never ran away. That is, until the firemen were involved.
Firemen don’t know trains. RR’s do. The key is what happened in the way of communications between the fire department and the dispatcher, what the dispatcher did with the information and finally, what other RR employees were involved in any(?) follow-up by the RR.
As a B__F conductor and engineer myself, I believe the fire dept kicked off the air when they “turned the power” off to stop the flow of diesel. With that said, we never rely on the air to hold an unmanned train tied down. You have to set the proper amount of hand brakes to hold the train and test them by releasing the automatic (train brakes) and the independent (engine’s brakes). Once you’ve finished testing the hand brakes, you must pump up the air and rest it. Short of someone deliberately releasing the engine’s and car’s handbrakes, this train if properly tied down, should never have rolled away even if the firemen mistakenly kicked off the air. I bet this guy brought this same train in, day after day, month after month, and secured it in the same exact fashion, most likely relying on the air to help hold, or entirely hold the train. Unfortunately this day wasn’t like every other day. I feel terrible for all parties involved. This easily could’ve been avoided.
As a long time firefighter I have to respond to the statement that
there was no problem until the fire dept. got involved. The fire
dept got involved because there was a fire. It is true that we , in
general, don’t know locomotives. We do know how to fight fires.
You have to shut the locomotive off because of the electrical
hazard involved. At least we think we do. If there is a fire on a train,we have to notify the dispatcher of the railroad right away.
What did the dispatcher do with the info?
A fire truck’s brakes lock up when you lose power.The firemen
probably thought the same thing about the train.
My main question is what caused the fire? Poor maintenance?
It’s my understanding that the train was manned solely by the engineer? How can one person be expected to adequately set the required minimum of car brakes, month after month, year after year, on such a grade? i realize it’s his responsibility to do so, but sooner or later human limitations kick in…
Also, why wasn’t it possible to incorporate some sort of derailler, either permanently track-mounted or carried on the rear car, as a safety, knowing the potential hazard of the situation? How much would a siding switch with a runaway have cost to install, and have it lined to derail whenever someone was parked there?
Nothing will be determined here nor else where by speculation. That does everyone a disservice. As a retired accident investigator, law enf., I’ve seen things proven to be much different than they appeared at first. The cleaner the slate the better the outcome when trying to determine determine the facts with so much information to sort through. A entity’s ‘silence’ about something should have no bearing on any one’s opinions. I hope for all involved that the facts as well as they can be assertained will be found and that rational procedures put in place to prevent such a catastrophy in the future.
There is nothing wrong with anything the firefighters did. They were required to turn off the engine so it wouldn’t continue to circulate any fuel that might be feeding the fire, and they did so with the full knowledge of the MM&A, which:
- Had an employee on the ground with the firefighters
- Who declared the train safe after the fire was extinguished
- Who were required, in any case, to hold the train with more than air brakes which are not intended to be used as a way to keep an unattended train stopped.
I’m surprised this keeps coming up, especially with the snide inference that there’s been some kind of cover-up, that the information isn’t public domain, and so on. It’s all public knowledge, and seems to be solely being mentioned to feed into the “Ed is a heroic job creator and can’t be held responsible for an accident on his own railroad!” theme that so many in the rail establishment seem to be determined to stick to.