Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Fruits]

Pretty soon google will be driving all the trucks so that should be safer, unless they encounter some microsoft software and get a blue screen while driving..

JR

Or if they use Apple maps!

[John Roberts {JR}]

In an odd coincidence that recent train crash in Canada where a long train of oil tankers derailed, occurred while the train engineer (operator) was off the train taking his legally mandated rest break in a nearby hotel while the train was parked.

Apparently first there was a fire on the train, that local fire services controlled, but in the course of putting out that fire, they turned off the locomotive engine, that was left running and maintaining air pressure for the brakes. When the air pressure drained off, the train rolled away.

Obviously several human mistakes contributed to this accident. 1) the train should have been secured with several back-up mechanical brakes that would have kept it from rolling away. 2) A knowledgeable operator should have been on-site to secure the train after the fire. Apparently fire department personnel spoke with an off site train dispatcher who was not aware of the exact circumstances.

I suspect there was an economic consequence if the engineer was woken up to oversee the train status disrupting his rest time, that discouraged this common sense remedy. I suspect that original engineer is ultimately responsible for not setting adequate mechanical safety brakes to back-up the active air brakes.   
   
Interesting... unintended consequence of safety regulation. I'm not disagreeing with the regulation, but it seems a little common sense flexibility in how that is applied might have avoided this accident. Next time wake up the engineer please, since humans will continue making mistakes. 

JR

PS; I think that railroad was losing money so using two engineers was apparently not an economic option. This accident will not help their situation.   

[Jeff Bankston]

In an odd coincidence that recent train crash in Canada where a long train of oil tankers derailed, occurred while the train engineer (operator) was off the train taking his legally mandated rest break in a nearby hotel while the train was parked.

Apparently first there was a fire on the train, that local fire services controlled, but in the course of putting out that fire, they turned off the locomotive engine, that was left running and maintaining air pressure for the brakes. When the air pressure drained off, the train rolled away.

Obviously several human mistakes contributed to this accident. 1) the train should have been secured with several back-up mechanical brakes that would have kept it from rolling away. 2) A knowledgeable operator should have been on-site to secure the train after the fire. Apparently fire department personnel spoke with an off site train dispatcher who was not aware of the exact circumstances.

I suspect there was an economic consequence if the engineer was woken up to oversee the train status disrupting his rest time, that discouraged this common sense remedy. I suspect that original engineer is ultimately responsible for not setting adequate mechanical safety brakes to back-up the active air brakes.   
   
Interesting... unintended consequence of safety regulation. I'm not disagreeing with the regulation, but it seems a little common sense flexibility in how that is applied might have avoided this accident. Next time wake up the engineer please, since humans will continue making mistakes. 

JR

PS; I think that railroad was losing money so using two engineers was apparently not an economic option. This accident will not help their situation.

i was talking to a friend that was an engineer for icrr and then cn out of mccomb missippi and he said the fact that the cars came loose from the locos points to either someone messing with the uncoupling lever or the coupler pin breaking. he said cars have come loose from trains.

[John Roberts {JR}]

i was talking to a friend that was an engineer for icrr and then cn out of mccomb missippi and he said the fact that the cars came loose from the locos points to either someone messing with the uncoupling lever or the coupler pin breaking. he said cars have come loose from trains.

I'm waiting for a formal accident report to reveal any additional factors. If any coupling pins were pulled, I can imagine someone considering it a good idea to separate a locomotive that is one fire from a train full of oil tankers. They may not have appreciated the significance of the slight grade they were on. 

The owner of the RR has made public statements about parking policy and required use of mechanical brakes. Further policy is to test that the mechanical brakes hold against a power test.

I still think they should have woken up the engineer and had him on the scene at the first sign of any trouble. The only reason not to wake him IMO was concern about strict enforcement of rest rules, and delaying the train.

Looks like several factors contributed to the disaster. While the crystal clarity of hind sight makes us all experts. 

  JR

 

[Andrew Broughton]

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/what-caused-train-disaster-not-brake-failure.html

[Rob Spence]

In an odd coincidence that recent train crash in Canada where a long train of oil tankers derailed, occurred while the train engineer (operator) was off the train taking his legally mandated rest break in a nearby hotel while the train was parked.

Apparently first there was a fire on the train, that local fire services controlled, but in the course of putting out that fire, they turned off the locomotive engine, that was left running and maintaining air pressure for the brakes. When the air pressure drained off, the train rolled away.

Obviously several human mistakes contributed to this accident. 1) the train should have been secured with several back-up mechanical brakes that would have kept it from rolling away. 2) A knowledgeable operator should have been on-site to secure the train after the fire. Apparently fire department personnel spoke with an off site train dispatcher who was not aware of the exact circumstances.

I suspect there was an economic consequence if the engineer was woken up to oversee the train status disrupting his rest time, that discouraged this common sense remedy. I suspect that original engineer is ultimately responsible for not setting adequate mechanical safety brakes to back-up the active air brakes.   
   
Interesting... unintended consequence of safety regulation. I'm not disagreeing with the regulation, but it seems a little common sense flexibility in how that is applied might have avoided this accident. Next time wake up the engineer please, since humans will continue making mistakes. 

JR

PS; I think that railroad was losing money so using two engineers was apparently not an economic option. This accident will not help their situation.

The report I read said that the locomotives were powered off as was usual when the crew ran out of hours and that the procedure was to set hand brakes on several (10 was mentioned) of the cars. The president of the railroad was quoted as saying he suspected that not all the brakes were set.

Shutting down the locomotives is a consequence of EPA (or Canada equivalent ) rules on engine idling. There were 5 locomotives and only one was involved in the earlier fire. One locomotive left on idle would have kept the brake line pressurized.

Two engineers would not have helped. They both would have been on duty by work rules and so both would have run out of hours. The rules require a crew change after the hours expire and at that time no new crew was available at that location.

I would guess that a delay had made them late and they were expecting to make it further to a crew change point but the hours expired before they made it. This sort of thing happens all the time. Unfortunately this time it coincided with a grade, rules to shut down the engines, and a failure to set sufficient hand brakes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[John Roberts {JR}]

The report I read said that the locomotives were powered off as was usual when the crew ran out of hours and that the procedure was to set hand brakes on several (10 was mentioned) of the cars. The president of the railroad was quoted as saying he suspected that not all the brakes were set.

Shutting down the locomotives is a consequence of EPA (or Canada equivalent ) rules on engine idling. There were 5 locomotives and only one was involved in the earlier fire. One locomotive left on idle would have kept the brake line pressurized.

Two engineers would not have helped. They both would have been on duty by work rules and so both would have run out of hours. The rules require a crew change after the hours expire and at that time no new crew was available at that location.

I would guess that a delay had made them late and they were expecting to make it further to a crew change point but the hours expired before they made it. This sort of thing happens all the time. Unfortunately this time it coincided with a grade, rules to shut down the engines, and a failure to set sufficient hand brakes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I am still waiting for formal investigation but i saw another article today where they say that the original engineer acted heroically when woken up by the explosion. He borrowed a fire suit, separated and pulled several still full oil tanker cars away from the burning wreckage.

Still no clarification about whether the mechanical brakes were properly set (it seems not), but article repeated that keeping one engine idling would support the air brakes, while that is not considered adequate for parked trains. 

Arguably another contributing error is whatever caused the locomotive engine(?) to catch fire. I would ASSume these are supposed to be capable if idling while standing still and not catch fire.   
 
JR

[Tim McCulloch]

From How Stuff Works:

Instead of using force or directed air to apply the brakes much like hydraulic fluid in our cars, the triple-valve system fills a supply tank and uses air pressure to release the brakes. In other words, the brakes in a triple-valve system remain fully engaged until air is pumped throughout the system. Pretty ingenious, considering if this type of system had a complete loss of air, the brakes would engage and stop the train. Think about that when you are zooming down the freeway and you hit the brake pedal. If your car’s brake fluid leaked out, your brakes wouldn’t work.

This is what makes folks wonder about things, John.  IF a train engineer properly applied the air brakes when he shut down, the cars *should* be immobile.  Well, shit happens, so mechanical brakes are also required and they must be manually set.  That was supposedly done; the investigation is continuing.

So knowing that air brakes will stay set with accidental pressure loss and that at least a few cars allegedly had their manual brakes engaged (and we presume, correctly), causality looks more like one of these:  negligence, deliberate human actions, or serial mechanical failures.  Time will tell.

I am still waiting for formal investigation but i saw another article today where they say that the original engineer acted heroically when woken up by the explosion. He borrowed a fire suit, separated and pulled several still full oil tanker cars away from the burning wreckage.

Still no clarification about whether the mechanical brakes were properly set (it seems not), but article repeated that keeping one engine idling would support the air brakes, while that is not considered adequate for parked trains. 

Arguably another contributing error is whatever caused the locomotive engine(?) to catch fire. I would ASSume these are supposed to be capable if idling while standing still and not catch fire.   
 
JR

[ProSoundWeb Community]