Oil train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Québec 07-06-2013

Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) 112 requires "a sufficient number of handbrakes" be applied to prevent a cut of cars or train from moving. Once the handbrakes have been set the rule requires you to try to move the cars (presumably using the available motive power) to determine whether you have actually secured the train. I would have thought setting the brakes, releasing the air and waiting to see if the train moves would be an adequate test, and while all I've ever had to secure from moving is a streetcar, that always worked well. I am not sure what the added benefit of giving the train a shove is.

A similar accident occurred in 2012 on the CN in Hanlon, Alberta where a cut of coal cars was left with inadequate hand brakes securing the cut. After 31 hours the air bled off and the cars rolled away, colliding head on with a freight train. CN subsequently installed a special derail on the siding where cars were frequently left. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 2e0004.asp It's not an exact replica of the Megantic accident, but there are some chilling similarities that should have given rise to additional precautions with laying trains or cuts of cars up at the top of a grade.

The problem, and from other discussions it's something North American railroading isn't willing to deal with, is that whether the train is being held by hand brakes or still relying on air brakes you are still relying on a single safeguard. Release the brakes. either by letting the air bleed off or by kicking off the handbrakes, and there is no extra safeguard such as a derail to prevent an unwanted movement of the train.

Clearly you can't install derails in all locations where you may be laying up a train, but it would be a relatively inexpensive precaution to install some sort of derail protection at locations on grades, regardless of whether it is a running line or a siding, where trains are regularly laid up. This doesn't cover all situations where trains have to be parked due to failure or crew hours, but you could at least make a risk assessment for the Nantes type of location and deal with it.

With the benefit of hindsight, there were things that could have been done that, while they may have increased the cost of doing business and thus annoyed the Ed Burkhardts of the world, would have prevented 47 deaths and, in a supremely ironic twist, avoided the bankruptcy of Ed's business.

The SOP on a "sufficient number of hand brakes" is the rail carriers out if your train runs away after you tied it down. You must realize that in this instance a "one man crew", regardless of fatigue or anti-company animus,is solely responsible for the safe operation and securement of the train at the end of his tour of duty. Being a locomotive engineer you quickly learn you have a no excuses job, period! Management expects you to go above and beyond the call of duty and is quite ready to fire you if the rules have been violated. One must remember you are working unsupervised in the middle of the night in the north woods and you must exercise clear headed judgment as we see the.... " What If's "....came to pass for Lac Megantic . Im not in a position to place any blame on the MMA engineer as things are to muddled after he left the train and hopped in the taxi. When the preliminary report comes out we will get a better idea of who, in terms of the F.D. and trackmen, did what and when.

First, allow me to note and commend the maturity and respect with which this discussion has moved forth. It appears that many of the participants have a 'stake' in the MM&A, whether such arises from employment with either the road itself or with a shipper dependent on the road's success, or one of the two hundred or so named creditors within the Petition.

Now with that having been said, allow me to ask a question; under either US or Canadian Hours of Service laws, is tying down a train an activity that is done by Operating employees within or outside the HOS, i.e. can a dead crew still tie down a train before they are released?

If the tie down must be accomplished within Hours of Service, it appears that Canadian Rules give too much latitude to management to have a crew run until maybe a half hour before you die, spend twenty nine minutes tying down the train, then get in the taxicab and be gone.

From a review of the Consolidated Code Of Operating Rules that somehow went with me when I left the industry at end of 1981 (and in violation of Rule 706), it appears Rule 814 is quite vague regarding how many cars must be tied down with handbrakes. Possibly, later revisions of these Rules are more explicit, but if not, one can fully expect that there will be stronger rules, anywhere in North America, regarding how many cars must be tied down considering determinable factors such as number of cars in the train and the ruling gradient.

Finally to close, if it appears that this posting is an indictment of the train's crew, i.e. Mr. Harding, it is more on an indictment of a 'cost cutting' culture, where safety is subordinated to the short term bottom line. However, as is seen at Megantic (so far as I know that is the station name, as distinct from the municipality's name of Lac Megantic), the 'big picture' was ignored, and now a situation exists where there are more potential claims having foundation than, absent a 'little help' from Je'an Q Contribuable'. there are resources to satisfy.

nomis wrote:Does anyone here actually know the SOP for determining a "sufficent number of handbrakes" that is required?

I think the "sufficient number of handbrakes" would vary from train to train, and even on the same train, at different times, due to differences between personnel who actually set the handbrakes. In my opinion this is clearly the reason for performing the "brake test" before leaving the train parked. It seems to be simply that, once having performed the test, one would indeed know if "sufficient handbrakes" had indeed been applied.

But, as I pointed out earlier, one would not know just how much more than "sufficient" those handbrakes actually were. I suspect the answers to all of this are in the "black box data" already examined by the authorities I am sure. This should point out if indeed a "brake test" was actually done, and if done, did the train stay in position without moving.

I believe the engineers fate, to a great extent, will depend upon what that black box data shows, or at least what the public will be allowed to see of it.

SRM

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Now with that having been said, allow me to ask a question; under either US or Canadian Hours of Service laws, is tying down a train an activity that is done by Operating employees within or outside the HOS, i.e. can a dead crew still tie down a train before they are released?

According to the 49 USC 21103 Paragraph 1, no work may be performed once a crews 12 hours is up. However, Paragraph 2 lists several exemptions to this rule, including and limited to,a casualty, accident, act of god, wreck, major equipment failure, or other catastrophic event that was unforeseeable when the train left the terminal. Therefore, tying down handbrakes at the end of an uneventful shift is not an acceptable cause to exceed 12 hours of on-duty time.

Here is the actual law, for everyone's reading pleasure!

Anybody know if the engines were moved from the location where they were found after the derailment or how soon they were moved and what is their location now?

What bothers me is the vagueness (and the variance) in the rules governing testing the brakes. Mind you I don't work freight...all I need is the engine and one, maybe two cars tied down and I'm good. Norfolk Southern has a comprehensive procedure mapped out in their ABTH book for testing, while the "sufficient number of handbrakes" clause remains in the Operating Rules. CSX only states "apply train brakes with a full service application.....make sure the equipment is secured as required by Operating Rules" in their ABTH book. While the rule book requires sufficient brakes with a test, there are no details on what the test entails. My guess is that other carriers have the same issues. I'm just curious why the FRA never mandated a specific testing procedure for all railroads to follow.

cobra30689 wrote:CSX only states "apply train brakes with a full service application.....

Interesting, as I've noticed that I can apply hand more effectively when the air brakes are also applied and then released later. To really anger the vandals, apply the hand brakes after an Emergency brake application, then release the air brakes when done applying the hand brakes. The kids may not get them all unwound even with a brake club!

Regarding Messrs Cobra's and Riverman's immediate thought, I would consider it certainty that explicit Rules will be written for any Book that governs train handling anywhere in North America - that includes Mexico. Why Mexico? Lest we forget that much of the main line mileage is owned by 'deep pocketed Norte's' - the UP and the KCS. Why risk standing behind an apparently quite pierceable Mexican subsidiary's corporate shield?

Delineated Rules regarding tie downs will only make the practice more costly, and will cause reviews of continuing such. Unfortunately, the public has now learned that the plot of the movie 'Runaway Train' is plausible.

JimBoylan wrote:

cobra30689 wrote:CSX only states "apply train brakes with a full service application.....

Interesting, as I've noticed that I can apply hand more effectively when the air brakes are also applied and then released later. To really anger the vandals, apply the hand brakes after an Emergency brake application, then release the air brakes when done applying the hand brakes. The kids may not get them all unwound even with a brake club!

Thank you Jim ... I just saw the light. . . in that by applying a full service (or emergency) application you have also taken the slack out of the brake rigging and "all" you need to do is to use the hand brake (and taking up its slack) to keep holding the brake shoes up tight in place rather than the brake cylinder, which may lose air in time. I also see that the hand brake attaches directly to the cylinder lever opposite the push rod (in foundation brake systems). This means, I suppose, as the air did the work, applying hand brakes without a previous service application can make for a lot of work for the crew.

butts260 wrote:

JimBoylan wrote:

cobra30689 wrote:CSX only states "apply train brakes with a full service application.....

Interesting, as I've noticed that I can apply hand more effectively when the air brakes are also applied and then released later. To really anger the vandals, apply the hand brakes after an Emergency brake application, then release the air brakes when done applying the hand brakes. The kids may not get them all unwound even with a brake club!

Thank you Jim ... I just saw the light. . . in that by applying a full service (or emergency) application you have also taken the slack out of the brake rigging and "all" you need to do is to use the hand brake (and taking up its slack) to keep holding the brake shoes up tight in place rather than the brake cylinder, which may lose air in time. I also see that the hand brake attaches directly to the cylinder lever opposite the push rod (in foundation brake systems). This means, I suppose, as the air did the work, applying hand brakes without a previous service application can make for a lot of work for the crew.

I second (third?? lol) that. I usually drain the brake pipe to zero and throw the independent down on the engine when I cut out in the yard...BEFORE putting on the hand brake. Seems like forever cranking a slack chain, then I give it a good yank at the end. Now try popping the brake with it all released.....you need three hands to pull the release lever LOL

cobra30689 wrote:What bothers me is the vagueness (and the variance) in the rules governing testing the brakes. Mind you I don't work freight...all I need is the engine and one, maybe two cars tied down and I'm good. Norfolk Southern has a comprehensive procedure mapped out in their ABTH book for testing, while the "sufficient number of handbrakes" clause remains in the Operating Rules. CSX only states "apply train brakes with a full service application.....make sure the equipment is secured as required by Operating Rules" in their ABTH book. While the rule book requires sufficient brakes with a test, there are no details on what the test entails. My guess is that other carriers have the same issues. I'm just curious why the FRA never mandated a specific testing procedure for all railroads to follow.

NS does have a specific procedure, depending on the grade (ascending/descending) you either bunch the slack up or draw the slack out, the automatic fully released and after applying "a sufficient amount of handbrakes" a C102 securement test must be done by watching the drawbar of the leading car for no less than 1 minute time, if no slack movement in the cars occurs it is said that enough handbrakes have been applied to hold the cut of cars and the power may then be cut away

More sad news for the people of Lac-Mégantic...

From CTV News:

CTV News wrote:High pollution at Lac-Megantic: one carcinogen 394,444 times above limit, study says

Tests conducted by an environmental group suggest last month's Lac-Megantic, Que., train disaster had a devastating impact on water quality and soil in the affected area.

Extremely high concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and arsenic, detected in surface water, have "confirmed the fears" of the Societe pour vaincre la pollution, the group said.

The analysis, which was obtained by The Canadian Press, suggests the rate of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is 394,444 times the standard acceptable for surface waters mandated by the provincial government.

As well, the concentration of arsenic detected on the water's surface is said to exceed the government's acceptable standard by 28 times. There was also "an extremely high level of petroleum hydrocarbons" following the explosive derailment and oil spill, said the environmental group.

Read more at: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/high-pollu ... -1.1409486" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would take this pollution report with a very large grain of salt, since the news report also states that it was done in collaboration with Greenpeace, and also quotes Canadian experts as questioning the validity of the findings and labeling the report as "alarmist."

PBM

wintower wrote:Anybody know if the engines were moved from the location where they were found after the derailment or how soon they were moved and what is their location now?

The engines are at NB Southerns shops in Saint John, NB. The CTSB needed a place where they would be able to work on them and be out of the elements or so the story goes.

Don't know how long they've been there but, from the amount of railfans that watch the NBSR, they must have traveled in the middle of the night. Even the press doesn't know they're here which, isn't really isn't a surprise.
Carroll