Great reading Jeff thank you.
It isn’t so much suspending the 12 hour rule as it is authorizing exceptions as circumstances warrant. The motivating reason is so-called force majeure where extreme events present a hazard - and certainly to the crews who would otherwise be unable to reach their destination because of impassable roads or rails - a lack of transportation - and a further snowballing of events as this situation would become more critical if traffic does not move. It is not a casual decision. Crew busses have been utilized with a caboose or passenger coach between a double-ended set of power with which to haul dogcatch crews and distribute them, and provided they can reach stranded train(s). As I recall, documentation must be provided for each crew that violated specifying the circumstances, times and locations.
Jeff - Awesome writing and story. I cannot fathom having to do what you guys have to do out there in those kinds of conditions. Makes me glad I work on the Revenue Accounting side of things.
During the final years I was working - the Contract Crew Hauling company(s) when a Winter storm approached would notify the carrier they WOULD NOT HAUL crew at or between specific terminals.
Jeff
You have shades of Ed Blysard in your writing. Look forward to more from you…
Charlie
Chilliwack BC
Thanks for all the good thoughts. Especially being compared to Ed. I can’t hold a candle to his writings. I miss him, and all the others we’ve lost.
I believe the HOS authorization is from the Corridor Manager, even if the ultimate decision is made higher up. All we get are initials of the authorizing officer and time. I believe the fine is $25000.00 for both the railroad and employee. Being authorized absolves the employee and the railroad pays both. However, the FRA can reduce or waive the fines if the reason truly is an emergency situation.
I believe this extreme weather falls into the true emergency definition.
Jeff
I wonder how autonomous railcars would do in this situation, since this is the area that some proposed to use them in?
Same laws of physics would apply… likely they too would slide, although the emotive radio chatter would be absent…
Would a third locomotive on the back have helped? Sounds to me (and I’m no expert) like a failure to plan for conditions. not the crew’s fault, but someone somewhere along the line could have predicted this and added a unit… or wait for conditions to improve.
.
After stalling, if you don’t apply the ‘train brake’; GRAVITY for the WIN!
I have not seen any information as to what actually caused this runaway. Was it ice on the rails, or ice on the brake shoes? I would guess it was ice on the brake shoes. The train was sliding back with the brakes in an Emergency application, so this was the maximum potential braking effort.
If the train started up the grade with sufficient ice/snow on the rails to cause a loss of adhesion, it would have stalled while moving forward. Apparently that is what happened.
But the ice/snow would have been cleaned off the rails quickly by the trailing cars. So when the backward runaway began, 99% of the train would have been on clean rail.
However, the water/ice thrown off the wheels may have ice-glazed the brake shoes while no brake application existed. If that was the case, the
My money is on ice on the rails/lack of sufficient adhesion to hold the train. If ice on shoes were the issue we would see alot more brake related accidents in the winter time as shoes ice up and fail… we would see wide spread failures, not just the odd one on a grade like this one.
Have never seen a condition where REPEATED wheel movement on the top of the rail didn’t end up with wheels getting down to steel.
I was speaking more towards Jeff’s “fun” day. Sorry that I wasn’t clearer.
I would opine that it was snow/ ice on the brake shoes. Air brake and train handling rules often contain provisions that the engineer must peridocally apply the brakes in snowy conditions order to clean out any snow/ ice that may have accumulated and to ensure brake effectiveness. Normally, the engineer would do this when approaching a location where the brakes will be needed, i.e. approaching a downhill section or a siding or stopping point, but it would be counterintuitive to do so on an uphill climb.
The other reason I am thinking snow on the brake shoes is that the train did eventually stop itself. As it was rolling backwards, the brake shoes eventually cleaned out the snow as they slowly heated up, and the brakes gradually began to grab. It is the same reasoning as to why you apply the brakes before you need them - to give the brakes time to clean themselves of snow and warm the shoes to where they will be effective. Of course I have no odea of the territory, so it could also be that the rear portion of the train got to a flat enough section of track where gravity was less of a factor.
The incident happened on Rutledge hill, named for the siding at the top of the hill. Rutledge was also the junction with the original main line from Marion/Cedar Rapids and the current main line from Davenport. The original line became a secondary branch and was abandoned in 1980. The hill had the only regularly assigned helper district on the MILW east of the mountain districts in the steam era.
Ottumwa is a crew change point between Nahant (Davenport) and Kansas City. The hill isn’t long, but steep and on a curve. When the rear end was in the BNSF interlocking it was on the flatter portion.
Jeff
I agree with your conclusions. I have never seen rail with ice on the running surface immediately after just an engine ran over it let alone a whole train. The video of the runaway in this case is too dark to show whether the wheels are turning or not.
If they are sliding on the rail, they are not turning. If they are turning, the Emergency brake application is not holding. If it is not holding, it is either because the brake shoes are glazed with a layer if ice; or the Emergency brake application has leaked sufficiently from the brake cylinders to release the train to movement by gravity.