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

JimBoylan wrote:Can someone pleased post the Bills of Lading or other Shipping Instructions, the Waybill(s), Contracts, Tariffs, Agreements, or other applicable documents? I'm sure that the lawyers are already interested in these, to see if they lead into any deep pockets. Without that information, and a knowledge of Canadian and Quebec laws, we are guessing at what the real situation might be.
Has anyone besides the Province of Quebec officially tried to drag the Canadien Pacific into the legal liability?

Anyone who has access to those sort of documents is not going to offer them up publicly, not without some sort of court order and heavy redaction's. At least if they value their career in the RR industry! Those sort of documents are probably some of the most guarded info on a railroad, it is a cut-throat business and any advantage one can gain will be used to grab traffic.

If MMA was acting as a haulage carrier for CP, and depending on the wording of the haulage agreement, then the CP could be on the hook for some or all of the derailment. But if the trains were moving as straight bridge traffic, then MMA holds sole responsibility.

jaymac- i posted the angle cocks 'air dumping' as the fail-safe method of holding a consist because it is true. no one has refuted that. those who believe the air will bleed off do not understand that bleed-off might take years- like the stored cars in 2008 that still had air. please do not conjecture about 'gaskets' when you don't know the reality. again i state- this disaster would have been avoided by dumping the air. someone try to refute that. the larger issue is why no air dumping? i'm of the opinion that the avoidance of this simple and effective method was a time issue. could it be so silly as mangment not permitting the relieving person to spend the time waiting to recharge the system? can this be an example of my experience that railroads are penny-wise? i'd like a so-called 'expert' to post on the real reason this stupid 'tie-down' process was used. i'll bet it was time-related. what madness. with the resumption of this haul, will mm&a return to this flawed procedure? ken patrick

KEN-
Thank you, but it was not necessary that you validate my observations about your approach to posts and posters in opposition to your view of things. You -- thanks to newpylong -- have online access to PAR airbrake rules. You are also aware -- thanks again to newpylong -- of the 10-and-10 approach to handbrakes instituted by PAR for uncrewed oil trains on its tracks. I made no conjecture about gaskets, but if you have any doubts the ability of any pneumatic system to lose pressure, I suggest you consult any reasonably competent mechanical engineer. The potential for brake-cylinder pressure-loss informs the practice of using handbrakes. As far as cause goes, the finder of facts is Transport/s Canada, and that department's report will be the definite statement of causation. If you wish to give witness to your stated objection to conjecture, it might be good if you not offer conjecture yourself, as you seem to do when you state

i'm of the opinion that the avoidance of this simple and effective method was a time issue. could it be so silly as mangment not permitting the relieving person to spend the time waiting to recharge the system?

You have stated that your professional background is that of a CPA. If you have contacts within the legal community, you may wish to get guidance on the matter of libel. Some of your characterizations of those with both deep pockets and access to lawyers seem less than risk-aversive.

Mr. Patrick, while I have disagreed with you regarding such issues as the potential liability of parties beyond the MM&A and MM&AC, I wholly agree with you regarding the weakness of existing Canadian Rules for tying down a train, and the penny pinch culture apparently prevalent on the MM&AC.

It seems like my Consolidated Code of Operating Rules that 'just somehow' slipped into the carton when I was clearing out my desk during December 1981, gives wide discretion to crews in tying down a train. So does discussion here give same to Canadian crews, and not all that direction to US crews today. We have also established here that tie downs are done within Hours of Service.

Likely, if not certain, both US and Canadian Rule Books, will delineate how trains will be tied down, but on point so far as Megantic (that's the Timetable name for that station, or at least was with CP), the 'horses are out of the barn'. But regardless, tying down trains will become a far more costly process - especially on an outfit like MM&A/C.

Finally, within a penny pinching culture (I've been there along the way), too many are all worried about being on the carpet for even a trivial expense, such as $50 for the taxicab needed to recall the Engineer to the scene, and ensure after the fire was out, the train was properly tied down, i.e. one engine running. Additional costs would have incurred since the Engineer's rest would have been broken and the train delayed.

But 'uh, nevermind' the costs incurred with regards to this incident.

While I am not attempting to refute anything said here, I will give examples from my career on the ground as to why I do not agree "dumping the train" is the ultimate way to secure a train.

1. Chatham, NY on Conrail's Boston and Albany Line. We stalled eastbound on train SELA (Selkirk to Lawrence). We were ordered to leave our rear 60 cars, and take our head 50 cars 24 miles east to Pittsfield, Ma. The STO lived nearby and came to give my a hand. After I made the cut on the cars to be left, he asked how many hand brakes I was going to apply. I told him at least 30. He looked surprised. I told him at least 30 of the cars were loaded with grain for Prince Spaghetti. I explained in my experience, any time you had a block of cars associated with unit trains (coal, aggregate, grain, etc), the control valves would get gummed up and that cars would bleed off after an emergency application. He still looked surprised, but I quoted the "need to apply a sufficient amount" verse, and said I didn't want to hear about cars that rolled westward and stopped in Chatham Center blocking the crossings.

Off we went to Pittsfield, made our drop, and followed Amtrak 449 back to Chatham. In the hour and a half it took, 18 of the grain cars had bled off, and 5 cars of the other block had bled off.

2. Tompkins Cove NY on Conrail's River Line. Dropped 101 coal hoppers at the plant. Took the engines south to Kearny, NJ for servicing. Got out on our rest out of the hotel for a northbound trip up the River Line. Followed a train at restricted speed and was able to look at the train we left there 15 hours earlier. At least 20 of the hoppers had bled off.

3. Trap Rock, Ma, (west of Springfield, Ma.) Dropped 40 Conrail ballast hoppers on tracks 3 and 5. I wound on 25 handbrakes, as there is a grade. I spoke to the operator who loaded the cars a few weeks later. To reposition the cars for loading he said all he had to do was take off about 5 handbrakes and the cars began to roll. Usually he had to bleed them off and use his front end loader to push the cars.

I'm sure others who have worked T & E can cite other examples. I can easily think of more. However, from a technical / operational side, I can say why I didn't want a train to be dumped as a means of securement if I was going to recrew it.

First of all, it takes on average 1.25 minutes per car to fully recharge the air system and reservoirs following an emergency application. So for a 100 car train, that's roughly 2 hours. If I'm the conductor responsible for putting the air back to the train, I'm concerned. As the trainline charges, the brakes will release. I'm concerned whether or not the handbrakes that were applied will hold the train, especially if parked on a grade. Because at this point, the handbrakes and/or the tractive effort of the locomotives will have to hold the train in place. You can't apply the air brakes, because there are none at this point. Not a comfortable feeling.

Secondly, I'm concerned with how long the train has been left off air. When I swung a lantern, if a train was off air for more than 4 hours, a new Class 1 brake test had to be performed. For those not familiar with a class 1 air test, it is basically the following: charge train to within 15 lbs of setting on locomotive air brakes. (Most freights works on 90 lbs of pressure) So when the gauge on the rear reads 75 lbs or above, someone makes a 20 lbs reduction in the air line. Someone walks the train (both sides) to verify brakes apply on every car. (I'm leaving out the leakage test) Once determined brakes apply on every car, you have to verify the release. This can be done by walking the train again, or by means of a "rollby" inspection...you remain stationary while the train is pulled by you.

In other words, it is a time consuming process. And on a railroad one person crews, I'm not even sure how it would be done.

As I stated before, I am not attempting to refute anything. My sole point was to provide a perspective from someone who has had to secure, recrew, and inspect trains. I am grateful for the economic and tactical insights that have been provided. I merely hoped to add some more of the operational aspect to the discussion.

Thank you for your time.

One of the oldest railroad safety maxims is this, from the rule book, to train and engine service employees........ "One must never rely on air to hold equipment." This is why all freight and passenger cars in North America are equipped with a hand brake. You could liken it to when you place your automobile in park you can double down on unwanted movement by also tightly applying the parking brake. I'm guessing when the Nantes F.D. shut down the oil trains only source of air,the lead unit, the air was now bottled, air pressure dropped, equalization occurred and some of the tank cars went into release. It didn't have to be the whole train, just enough cars to get the damn thing moving, and gravity took over.

I'm wondering if this train was RCO capable could the engineer do a HB test while he was 11 cars back in the train ? Belt packs sound like nothing but trouble to me so I have no idea how they work.

good discussions. good info. synopsis- dumping the air would hold the train for some time, would make setting handbrakes easier since the shoes are against the wheels to start, would take hours to bring the air up and required visuals not doable by one person and it is a cost issue. what i don't believe is the gradual release arising from recharge. my limited experience is that once you reset the control valve ( i think it's the 1a2 under the cab) the brakes remain applied until you release them. i could never get rolling during recharge. bottom line- dumping the air gives one a window of safety. ken patrick

KEN-
In partial agreement with your post time-dated 1121/08-26, dumping the air would hold the train for an undefined period of time and would make setting handbrakes easier because shoes would be on wheels, but shoes would be on wheels anyways from the trainline reduction that would have brought the train to a stop. Like other mechanical devices, pressure-maintaining features can and do fail. If you've never experienced it, congratulations. I've never experienced it either, but then, I've not had the experience of being an engineer. However, I do have the second-hand experience of listening to PAR/S engineers discuss over the radio such on-road failures with their dispatchers.
Those with T&E experience seem to have questioned the utility of releasing trainline pressure as a means of holding standing cars. Bottom line? When you become a railroad owner or NTSB chair, perhaps then your proposed protocol will go in effect.

I am not a railroader . . . but this business of dumping the air to park the train reminds me of Russian roulette. OK, if more cars hold their brake cylinder air, for the duration of the parking, than the number required to have hand brakes applied, and if you don't mind at all doing the brake test, and if you are an optimist, you also must believe there will not be a bullet in the chamber when you pull the trigger. Be my guest!

Moderator Note:

Let's move on from the "dumping the air" discussion. I believe that all sides have had a chance to make their points, and we're now going beyond the scope of the Lac-Mégantic Disaster discussion.

I do think this is a very interesting topic, however, so if anyone would like to continue discussing air brakes, dumping the air, hand brakes, etc., you are welcome and encouraged to start a new thread in the Locomotives, Rolling Stock, and Equipment forum.

Thanks.

mwhite wrote:

Carroll wrote: Just after this all started it was reported that the brakes were set at 20% of full brake power.

I don't recall ever hearing this. Can you cite your source please? A 20lb reduction is much more than 20% of full braking power.

Just so you know mwhite, I am not avoiding you. I've been searching through the reams of articles trying to find the information on the 20% of full brake power I mentioned.

Carroll

Carroll wrote:

mwhite wrote:

Carroll wrote: Just after this all started it was reported that the brakes were set at 20% of full brake power.

I don't recall ever hearing this. Can you cite your source please? A 20lb reduction is much more than 20% of full braking power.

Just so you know mwhite, I am not avoiding you. I've been searching through the reams of articles trying to find the information on the 20% of full brake power I mentioned.

Carroll

Probably an erroneous news report. There's been lots of misinformation spread by reporters unfamiliar with railroads.

FRA meeting on new operating rules for haz-mat trains.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04748" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FRA says MM&A rail lines within the state of Maine are safe.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/23/b ... hazardous/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparently the lack of a sufficient number of handbrakes on the Lac-Mégantic consist was not an isolated incident.

From GlobalNews:

GlobalNews wrote:Just east of Lac-Mégantic, another train run by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic railway has been sitting on the tracks at the Vachon station – around five kilometers away for the devastated town.

This second train, also owned by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic, was also at risk of rolling away.

Global News has received these new exclusive and shocking details related to the train explosion that destroyed Lac-Mégantic through the search warrant Transport Canada used to raid MMA’s head office.

This second train had been stationed since July 5th waiting for a crew change.

On the 8th of July, just a few days after the Lac Mégantic disaster, the Sûreté du Québec asked Transport Canada to inspect the train because they were concerned about it.

Information in the warrant shows the locomotives on that second train only had 5 handbrakes on – and there were none on the rail cars.

The rules ask for a minimum of nine brakes for trains parked on a flat land.

This train was parked on a slope.

That means there should have been even more than just those nine brakes applied.

Read more at: http://globalnews.ca/news/811131/anothe ... to-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;