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

For reference, it's about 125 rail miles between Farnham and Nantes.

Dick H wrote:For reference, it's about 125 rail miles between Farnham and Nantes.

IIRC speed on that stretch was limited to 10 mph also.

UTUconductor1 wrote:Speed was 10 MPH? Are you crazy???

It was 40 mph with a few slow orders. And he bwas on duty for less than 10 hours!

I gots a few questions for ya lad. Railroad pedigree or buff. Are ye PC/ rules qualified on said section of railroad or does ya gots and old ETT and rule book that ya picked up at a show. Judging from some of the pics Ive seen of the condition of the RR its self I wouldnt want to be going 40mph with a loaded oil train. In one of your other postings you stated the engineer was on duty for 9 hours now its less than 10??? The investigators will want to know for sure. Unless you have been privy to information ie time slips, offical Transport Canada investigation findings, ect Don't go off making statements you may not be able to back up.

The engineer has stated that he tied on hand brakes and tested the ability of said hand brakes to hold the train. Did you or do you have to access to the event recorder proving this was never done?? Once again I ask please don't go blindly making accusations that rules were ignored.

Me thinks your just a troll looking for some late night amusement.

Exactly my point lets wait. Im no expert but I do run em for a living. If you have tied down a train and followed the rules and the train still rolls out guess whos on the carpet. All the rule books Ive dealt with state a "sufficient amount" to hold the train. So in theory even if you tied a hand brake on every car, tested the train for movement and it got away your still swinging. Along with 5 book o rules here in the US Im also CROR qualified. So guess Ive got a good sampling of rules when dealing with handbrakes.

Sorry you got laid off but don't hold a grudge. IT COULD HAVE BEEN YOU THAT DAY!!!

KEN PATRICK wrote:redacted: I have enough problems with lawyers

Every single item in your post is speculation at best. Worse you imply the engineer was going for beer after duty. You can't possibly know that. If you have a source for such an outrageous allegation, please reference it. How would you like it if I stated in this forum that the reason you make such ridiculous claims is that you are smoking a crack pipe?

As for the cars going in to emergency and sliding, what's your source? ..... Thought so. You just make stuff up.

Before we start dumping on the engineer AGAIN. If he did indeed go off duty after 9 hours that would have left him 3 hours to work. He could have easily been recalled to the scene and taken care of any and all problems after the Nantes VFD did there thing. NO ONE NOTIFIED HIM OF THE PROBLEM. He secured the train following the procedures set forth in the book, and when he left the property in his mind the train was secure. What happened after he left is not on him but the Company for the way they handled the situation

While at work today I had the chance to talk to a fellow engineer who knew and worked with Mr Harding. 99% of the industry that has responded to the defence fund have contributed money or are standing behind him with moral support. This has come from all over the US and Canada.

Here is material from the Toronto Star that, while it does not establish how much 'legal' time Mr. Harding had to work, there is a synopsis of events that within such that could give some clue as to how much time he had remaining upon arrival at Nantes:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/ ... ictim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brief passage:

• On July 5, just after 11 p.m., Harding was  finishing his shift when he parked the MMA train — five locomotives and 72 cars carrying crude oil — in Nantes, Que. MMA engineers regularly park trains in the small community, about 10 kilometres west of Lac-Mégantic.
  
  According to Burkhardt, Harding said that he placed 11 handbrakes. Then, as is common practice, he called a cab to take him to Lac-Mégantic.
  
  The Transportation Safety Board says at 11:50 p.m., a rail traffic controller received a report of a fire on the locomotive. A local fire crew arrived shortly and extinguished the blaze within 10 minutes.
  
  The Nantes fire chief told the media shortly after the derailment that his crew then shut off the engine, which MMA later blamed for releasing the brakes holding the train in place. Whether the small fire was a factor in the derailment is being investigated.
  
  Just over an hour later, the train began its driverless descent down a gradual decline, quickly gaining momentum. The speeding train cutting through the darkness — the absence of lights the first alarming sight for witnesses — plowed into Lac-Mégantic’s downtown at 1:14 a.m.

Whew its getting hot in here. Jim B.I assumed all the previous posts seemed to point to the engineers time was up. If not I stand corrected. Mr. UTU appears quite embittered and I cant blame him. I have some friends in the FRA and an acquaintance in the NTSB and from what I'm hearing if true there will be some surprising revelations when the reports come out.I do think due to the rumors and controversy swirling about we take a wait and see approach and not try the case in this forum. I still believe this accident will have far reaching consequences for the industry and will take many years to play out re; the Amtrak wreck at Chase,MD.

Yup you boys in the woods need a proper edumication read my post on "sufficient" handbrake application. Remember reading is fundamental. Every rules examiner Ive ever talked to has an opinion on "sufficient" and it boils down to if it don't roll your good but if it does your screwed. An example the book says a minimum of 18 you tie on 20-25 and it goes bye bye guess what...

You are correct I wasn't there neither were you and unless you can prove he didn't tie on a sufficient amount of hand brakes, release all the train and locomotive brakes, and took a little power to see if the train moved then your point of negligence on his part is a moot point. The event recorder would have two of these three steps "on the tape". I have yet to see that report.

If there was a fire on the locomotive after it was extinguished did anyone think to fire up another unit to get air back on the train? Any good railroader knows you should never trust just the hand brakes/parking brakes(on some locomotives) to keep equipment secure especially on a grade.

So he would have had to order a cab, I don't think a RFE or a TM is going to get upset especially because they would have been the ones ordering it to happen. Me thinks this would constitute an emergency situation. If he did indeed have time left to work, which you stated he did. Nine hours total on duty? If you don't outlaw (12) you need 8 hours rest. No?? Adjust your time slip accordingly and go back to work when rested.

How would you feel if this had happened to you? Are you the perfect railroader who dosent make mistakes? Id be curious to know.

As has been said here before, numerous times, NONE of us were there so the best we can do is a lot of speculation. Though having a life long interest in railroads I freely admit to not being a professional, therefore have come to rely, a lot, upon statements made here, and other places, by those who are professionals.

I think a lot of the answers might likely be in the data recorder. When the train was stopped, engineer Harding did one of two things. Maybe he did NOT wind down ANY handbrakes on the cars (or not enough) and maybe he did NOT do the required test of the set handbrakes. If so the proof should be in the recorder and he would be very grossly negligent, in anyone's book.

The only other option is that he DID apply the handbrakes on a number of cars......and then did the required "brake test".......and that was satisfactory (it has been stated that this would be indicated by the data recording device), then secured the engine and left, in which case, as far as I can see he had done everything required of him. If it had failed the brake test, that would be indicated also, in which case he either would have gone and set some more handbrakes, and done the brake test again, or perhaps he had just left the scene anyway, (or maybe he left after the failed brake test) again this would be gross negligence on his part if that is what happened. All of this should be indicated in the event recorder, so we have been told. I think, based upon what other rail professionals have said, that if the engineer did a brake test, and the train did NOT move, that would indicated in the recorder.....and he would have done all that was required of him, wouldn't he?

I would think the story of what happened here, to a great extent, is available in the recording device.....and is already known to the authorities. I would think that if the engineer had failed to set handbrakes, and test them, or any other obvious failure to follow the rules, and that was shown by the evidence in the recorder.....that he would have been already arrested and charged with crimes for his failure to act properly as required. After all we have seen repeated claims, for 3 months or more, that "an arrest is imminent"! Keep in mind that this is a feeding frenzy for lawyers who are eager to find somebody to blame for this, that they can extract lots of money from, more than a little of it for themselves of course. Many millions of dollars are at stake here, based upon the results of that final report.

The fact that he has NOT been arrested may possibly mean that it is not quite as simple as all of that!

One thing we know almost nothing about......is what happened after the alarm was called in for the fire in the locomotive, and what happened on scene during the suppression of that fire, and what happened after that event, by the time the first responders left the scene. Almost NO detailed accounting of those events has surfaced anyplace that I can see. I think it is well within the realm of possibility that something may have happened during those few minutes, that might have contributed to the cause of the wreck. All of the responders who have commented publicly have stated that "they did nothing wrong". If none of them were qualified to run an engine......how would they know rather they had done anything wrong or not? How do we, or they, know how much water/foam/spilled lubricant oil/diesel fuel was spilled at the scene of that event, if any, and did this contribute in some way to the accident?

I don't know, but strongly suspect that there is not a SIMPLE explanation for what happened here. I have spent a lot of time researching major airline disasters and almost always a major disaster is caused by a whole series of seemingly minor events, that by themselves might NOT have caused the event, but taken together did indeed bring on disaster. I suspect that may well be the case here.

SRM

I'd be real curious to know if he used anything to chock the wheels on the first couple of trucks. There's been dang few times where I've come upon a cut set off in a siding that didn't
have some sort of chock against the wheel, be it a piece of wood, tree branch or what have you, something was there. That being said I've also never seen a standing cut jump over
a 2 by 4.

Sandyriverman,

Very well put. Thank you. We can all form opinions about what happened but we know what opinions are like. I am waiting for the official word.

Let's play "just suppose" for a few minutes.

Suppose that engineer Harding parked the train at Nantes, got out and set some handbrakes, then did the required brake test, and the brakes held (presumably proof of this would be in the event recorder) then left the train, how could he be faulted in that case? A point of fact here would be that if indeed handbrakes were set, and tested, and held during the test, NOBODY, including the engineer, any of us, or any of the investigators, would have any way of knowing if the handbrakes that had been set were "way more than necessary" or "just barely enough at that moment in time". Any number of professionals have stated that there is no way to specify a certain number of handbrakes need to be set as there is such a great variation between those who set them, and different every single time they are applied.

So lets suppose that the handbrakes were set.......and just barely adequate to hold the weight of the train......at that moment they were tested. Lets suppose that engineer Harding applied handbrakes on at least the first few cars, as that would make sense, and maybe he walked along the train and applied handbrakes to cars further into the consist.

My understanding here, from the professionals again in this thread previously, is that one engine was left running in order to keep the airline charged so that time would not be needed, in the near future, when the new crew came by to take the train on into Maine, as would have to be done if all he engines had been fully shut down.

Then a report is called in regarding a fire in one of the locomotives and the first responders show up to fight the fire. We have absolutely NO IDEA of what this entailed as almost nothing of this event has been made publicly.

A ruptured fuel line, one of the few things that HAS been reported, would likely spew diesel fuel under the engine, and foam/water combination, or maybe other things,were probably used to extinguish the fire. So lets suppose that some, or a lot, of diesel fuel and fire fighting materials end up on the ground under the engines, and on the rails, and maybe even inadvertantly under some of those cars with handbrakes set, in the front of the consist, not to mention that handbrakes were set on the engines also.

Newton's first law of physics basically says that: "An object at rest, tends to stay at rest, while an object in motion, tends to stay in motion. What this means, in terms of the train as it was parked at Nantes, is that there was a whole lot of weight here......10,287 tons according to Wikipedia......that is resisting movement as it is "at rest" as Newton states. Keep in mind that, because the train is sitting on a grade, gravity is applying a force to the train, all the time it is sitting there! If anything compromises the braking, as it had presumably previously been set, and that 10,000 tons just starts to move, even if it only has moved just one foot, all of a sudden it is "an object in motion (Newton)" and the brakes that previously may well have held the train are suddenly not even close to adequate to stop that tonnage now in motion!

Suppose that engineer Harding did everything the rules required him to do, and the people who responded to the fire did everything THEY were required to do to suppress the fire, but even so, an unforseen set of circumstances, in combination, caused the train to roll on into the disaster.....who will be responsible for the wreck then?

SRM

m white: i believe i'm correct in stating that the de-coupling of the power from the consist would have activated the emergency portion of the brake valves on each car. since this was a long consist, the application would have taken some time to reach the 73rd car. i think this is supported by the decreasing pile-up of the cars. what i find hard to believe is that the 'crew' pulled the rearmost cars with a trackmobile. to do that would have required dumping the air in each car to be pulled. did he undertake this time-consuming process as a failed effort to assert responsibility? it would have no practical effect on the outcome .
as for the posts opining that he did nothing wrong? impossible to correlate with the facts. to me, he did everything wrong. starting with his decision to quit early, leave a smoking engine as the sole air supply and park on a hill for starters. criminal? 'reckless endangerment' ? i don't think 'equipment malfunction' can cover up his actions. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:m white: i believe i'm correct in stating that the de-coupling of the power from the consist would have activated the emergency portion of the brake valves on each car. since this was a long consist, the application would have taken some time to reach the 73rd car. i think this is supported by the decreasing pile-up of the cars. what i find hard to believe is that the 'crew' pulled the rearmost cars with a trackmobile. to do that would have required dumping the air in each car to be pulled. did he undertake this time-consuming process as a failed effort to assert responsibility? it would have no practical effect on the outcome .
as for the posts opining that he did nothing wrong? impossible to correlate with the facts. to me, he did everything wrong. starting with his decision to quit early, leave a smoking engine as the sole air supply and park on a hill for starters. criminal? 'reckless endangerment' ? i don't think 'equipment malfunction' can cover up his actions. ken patrick

We don't know the "facts" so I think it's impossible for you or anyone else to rule anything out. Exact timelines aren't clear, all actions taken are unknown and obviously the outcome of the forensic analysis of the event recorder is also unknown.

Sounds like too many unknowns to be making conclusions about "facts" to me.

I think your analysis lacks honesty about the ambiguities of publicly available knowledge regarding this event.