Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

albertstrains posted:

  Very tragic

 Some Calgary  news reporting train was going twice the speed restriction 

  Perhaps loss of brake pressure while decending the “Big Hill” 

  Al

A horrible situation, Albert - starting to see unconfirmed reports of a runaway situation and a recent crew change. There will be some hard-to-hear stuff coming up I think.

 Not uncommon to see UP NS units on CP lines around Calgary 

 For some reason there was a crew change at the top of the Hill, which is unusual as Field is the normal crew change point, located at the bottom of the Hill

  Locomotives left the rails at what appears to be the Kicking Horse river bridge between the two spiral tunnels 

 Al

CB05BDB9-B86D-44B3-9DC0-CBDAC8A787B9Here is a map showing the area in question.

  The bridge(elevation 4675m) is where the units fell approx 300 feet into the Kicking Horse river. This is just westbound of Yoho

 Grain cars are piled up on the ground before the #1 Highway overpass from the pics I have seen on the news

  The grade is approximately 2.2% 

   Here are a couple vintage pics showing the bridge in question. There is a second bridge across the same river but it’s right after the lower entrance to the lower spiral tunnel 

Al

Attachments

Images (3)
  • CB05BDB9-B86D-44B3-9DC0-CBDAC8A787B9
  • 2F51388C-03F0-4CE6-B6D2-87B614CC0C66
  • E22A2984-3581-462B-84B3-134F985CCFB0

 Correction, the elevation on the map of the bridge is in feet not metres

   Reports say the locomotives fell 160m into the river but I don’t believe the bridge is that high at this location?

  At any rate the “Big Hill”is still an incredibly dangerous stretch of mainline to this day and I have nothing but respect for the Railroaders who have worked it

  The 3 crew members were from Calgary 

Praying for the Families of the crew

Al

    

Mountain grade railroading is always dicey.  On most trips it's uneventful, but, when one little thing goes wrong, you can have coupler failures and derailments going upgrade, or a runaway going downgrade.  Going downgrade, you're always about one minute away from having a runaway, if speed unexpectedly begins to increase.  Weird things can happen.  This train obviously got away from the crew, and, from the look of the terrain, there may not have been a good place to jump off.  May God grant them eternal rest.

More from Railway Age, with a prelimiary report from the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, and corrections to the map in the previous link showing the location and diagram of the derailment site. 

A couple of eyebrow-raising quotes :

--The train had been stopped with the air brakes applied in emergency at Partridge, the last station prior to the entrance to the Upper Spiral Tunnel. (the train had been stopped this way for two hours--on the grade)

--A change-off between crews had occurred at this location as the previous crew were closing in on their maximum hours of service.

--There were no hand brakes applied on the train. The train then accelerated to a speed well in excess of maximum track speed of 20 mph for the tight curves and steep mountain grade. and the(n) derailed.

There is more in the link--I didn't quote the entire article.

 

---PCJ

 

RailRide posted:

More from Railway Age, with a prelimiary report from the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, . . .

A couple of eyebrow-raising quotes :

--The train had been stopped with the air brakes applied in emergency at Partridge, the last station prior to the entrance to the Upper Spiral Tunnel. (the train had been stopped this way for two hours--on the grade)--There were no hand brakes applied on the train. The train then accelerated to a speed well in excess of maximum track speed of 20 mph for the tight curves and steep mountain grade. . .

---PCJ

I have highlighted the key information discovered thus far.  Focus on that and follow the investigation into

  • why the first crew stopped in emergency
  • why they did not apply any hand brakes, to safeguard against the possibility of air pressure leaking down, or against an unintended release of all air brakes,  when it became apparent that the train would be sitting on a 2% descending grade for an extended period
  • why the second crew did not apply hand brakes sufficient to hold the train at rest while they recharged the brake pipe from the emergency brake application made by the first crew
  • what caused the train to begin to move on its own after the second crew boarded the train (i.e., leakage? or unintended release?) and how much time elapsed between the time the second crew boarded the train and it began to move on its own
  • Why the second crew remained aboard the train after it began to move on its own, instead of stepping or jumping off
  • whether or not the Engineer mis-handled what remaining air brake capability he had available, after proceeding
  • the actual amount of mountain grade, heavy train, experience of every crew member on both crews.  (Their years of experience do not tell whether most of it was spent in yard or local freight service, or whether it was on a non-mountainous territory)
  • whether CP has had in place a program of randomly reviewing, by a competent reviewer, event recorder data from several trains each week which were operated eastward as well as westward, over this territory, and including each regularly assigned Engineer at least once quarterly
  • whether CP has had in place a program to review and analyze the event recorder data from every train which stopped from a heavy or an emergency brake application on any main track, and especially on mountain grades

The findings on these yet-unpublished queries will be the path to determining the  contributing cause(s).  From the information that has so far been released, the root cause has already been found:  failure to secure the train with hand brakes to prevent movement of the train before the air brake system had been recharged, on a 2% descending grade.  But why?  That is the question.  Nobody on the second crew remains alive to testify, so -- in addition to the first crew -- investigation into CP's process for monitoring the compliance of its crews may tell us whether improper practices were or were not commonly engaged in.

Last edited by Number 90

Tom,

I'm no air brake "expert" by any means, but one thing I do remember; when the brake valve is place in the emergency position, the Pressure Maintaining feature is disabled. Thus, why in the world would the pervious crew have placed the train in emergency, approximately 2 hours prior to the replacement crew's arrival? Without any pressure maintaining, sooner or later, the brakes will release, and with no hand brakes applied,,,,,,,,,,,away goes the train on the down grade!

The subsequent investigation and interviews of personnel involved it this disaster will surely be very interesting. 

That's a good question, "why did the previous crew put the train into emergency rather than a full brake application?

 I'm assuming the dynamic brakes could not hold the train and as soon as the air was recovered the brakes released, with  not enough time to fully charge the train line and the train moved out on it's own.

However a train left in emergency should not Bleed off in a few hours.  There must be  something  else going on..

Question ....what happens to DPU units inside a tunnel?   Do they stop loading, What happens to the dynamic brake on these units with loss of radio communications.

 

 

Oh my. This one is going to be involved. I agree with Tom and Hot:

* The previous crew did not properly secure the train.

* The replacing crew did not properly secure the train and properly charge the brake line before proceeding downgrade.

Having railroaded routinely on 2.69% grades, often times with nothing but air (no dynamics), and this includes having to double the grade, etc, such grades are very demanding and you simply cannot run the risk of not having your head cut-in at all times. Make one "small" mental mistake (or series of small mistakes) can lead to disaster, such as this.

I would often run passenger turns to the summit town, run around, re-couple, and head back down the grade for the return trip. I ALWAYS gave adequate time for my brake system to recover from the run-around move BEFORE I started down the mountain. I also EXPLAINED IN DETAIL what I was doing to new Conductors (that didn't understand why I didn't whistle off and get on with the show) as well as any new Engineer/Conductors I had with me. Steep grades are serious business.

Andre

Gregg posted:

That's a good question, "why did the previous crew put the train into emergency rather than a full brake application?

 I'm assuming the dynamic brakes could not hold the train and as soon as the air was recovered the brakes released, with  not enough time to fully charge the train line and the train moved out on it's own.

Reportedly, the new out-bound crew had not yet attempted to "recover the air brakes", as the train moved out on its own.

However a train left in emergency should not Bleed off in a few hours.  There must be  something  else going on..

Maybe the outside temperature being below zero degrees F may have had something to do with it.

Question ....what happens to DPU units inside a tunnel? 

Generally, nothing as there are "repeaters" for the radio signals inside the tunnels.

  Do they stop loading,

No.

What happens to the dynamic brake on these units with loss of radio communications.

As stated above, there is normally no loss of radio communications for the DPU. However, if there is a "loss of radio signal", the DPUs are usually programed to operate at their last received radio communication, or until brake pipe pressure is reduced, then they drop to idle (when in DP, they may continue to provide braking effort).

 

 

 

The preliminary report also said:  "Sixteen cars of a CP train derailed on Jan. 3 in the same area. No one was hurt in that derailment."

I took the Rocky Mountaineer through this area about six years ago.  The Mountaineer passed about 10 wrecked freight cars alongside the track near the upper tunnel.  It is obvious that this is a dangerous grade that requires special attention and train handling from crews to prevent accidents.  It will be interesting to learn what CP's procedures/rules are for trains in this area and if they are being followed.

Of course, the other explanation may be that there was a catastrophic equipment failure that no crew could have overcome.  It appears that the UP locomotive was leading.  Do UP and CP locomotives have the exact same controls in the same location?  Could a difference in control and or control location affect train handling?  I know that whenever I rent a car I need to locate the headlight and windshield wiper switches before I leave the parking lot.  I had a scary experience in a rental car many years ago  when I got into a sudden rain shower and I couldn't find the wiper switch for several seconds.  I was driving blind for what seemed like forever.  NH Joe

Last edited by New Haven Joe
New Haven Joe posted:

The preliminary report also said:  "Sixteen cars of a CP train derailed on Jan. 3 in the same area. No one was hurt in that derailment."

I took the Rocky Mountaineer through this area about six years ago.  The Mountaineer passed about 10 wrecked freight cars alongside the track near the upper tunnel.  It is obvious that this is a dangerous grade that requires special attention and train handling from crews to prevent accidents.  It will be interesting to learn what CP's procedures/rules are for trains in this area and if they are being followed.

Of course, the other explanation may be that there was a catastrophic equipment failure that no crew could have overcome.

That is why there are specific rules requiring the application of sufficient, or ALL, hand brakes, prior to trying to recover the air when stopped on a grade.

 It appears that the UP locomotive was leading.  Do UP and CP locomotives have the exact same controls in the same location?

Pretty much, yes.

 Could a difference in control and or control location affect train handling?

No.

 I know that whenever I rent a car I need to locate the headlight and windshield wiper switches before I leave the parking lot.  I had a scary experience in a rental car many years ago  when I got into a sudden rain shower and I couldn't find the wiper switch for several seconds.  I was driving blind for what seemed life forever.  

Comparing RR locomotive cab controls is like comparing apples & oranges. 

NH Joe

 

From what I read and from the pictures, it would appear the UP locomotive was in the middle of the train. The lead locomotive ended up on its side in a creek, and the mid locomotive was in a jumble with cars (the UP locomotive is upright). The lead locomotive was too badly damaged for access to the event recorders, so far.

I'd like to ask a couple (one of them possibly dumb) general questions about the hand brakes on grades:

  • Can the DPU locomotive hand brakes be set from the lead locomotive? Of course, I picture the wheel being turned to set them, but perhaps there's a motorized control of them, as well.
  • Hot Water mentioned rules about setting hand brakes on a sufficient number of cars. Is it a percentage of the number of cars? If so - I assume that tonnage of the train (or, perhaps more accurately, average weight per car - empties vs loaded) and the grade are factors - are there others? Temperature? Is the crew expected to know how many to set, based on their training, knowledge of the territory, and the weight of the train? Is there a handbook in the cab with procedures for such an event (not the runaway, just being stopped on the grade)?

Thanks in advance,

David

Last edited by NKP Muncie

When I first posted the link, there was some info given to Railway Age by an anonymous CP employee, that was not retained in the update, which was apparently placed on the same URL. Luckily, the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" had saved a snapshot of the page as it existed yesterday, from which I extracted the following:

"“One CP Rail employee — who asked not to be named as he was not permitted to speak on the matter publicly — said the speed limit heading into the tunnels is a maximum of about 20 mph. He said the final radio dispatch from the train as it was heading into the Upper Spiral Tunnel reported a speed of about 47 mph. ‘That’s one of the steepest grades on CP, coming down from the top of the hill,’ said the employee. ‘There’s actually instructions in our timetable about how to come down that hill, like where you should be setting the brakes here and here. It’s very specific and if you do one wrong move, you’re done for.’ The employee said that protocol dictates an emergency brake be applied if a train reaches 3 mph over the limit on that stretch of track, suggesting that cold weather or a mechanical failure may have been a factor. A second CP Rail source confirmed the train’s speed when exiting the tunnel was well beyond the mandated limits. [Teamsters Canada Rail Conference] representative Greg Edwards said he doesn’t know if frigid temperatures played a role in the crash: ‘Cold isn’t good for train brakes and things, but we’ve been operating in the winter for years and years and years.’”"

I leave it to the experienced engineers here to make of the above what they will.

---PCJ

NKP Muncie posted:

From what I read and from the pictures, it would appear the UP locomotive was in the middle of the train. The lead locomotive ended up on its side in a creek, and the mid locomotive was in a jumble with cars (the UP locomotive is upright). The lead locomotive was too badly damaged for access to the event recorders, so far.

I'd like to ask a couple (one of them possibly dumb) general questions about the hand brakes on grades:

  • Can the DPU locomotive hand brakes be set from the lead locomotive?
  • No.
  • Of course, I picture the wheel being turned to set them, but perhaps there's a motorized control of them, as well.
  • Many modern units do have motor assisted  handbrake, however it can only be operated from within the cab of THAT specific unit.
  • Hot Water mentioned rules about setting hand brakes on a sufficient number of cars. Is it a percentage of the number of cars?
  • A lot depends on each individual railroads operating rules, for SPECIFIC grades. In this particular case, the CP rule book for THAT territory does indeed state "ALL HANDBRAKES".
  • If so - I assume that tonnage of the train (or, perhaps more accurately, average weight per car - empties vs loaded) and the grade are factors - are there others? Temperature? Is the crew expected to know how many to set, based on their training, knowledge of the territory, and the weight of the train? Is there a handbook in the cab with procedures for such an event (not the runaway, just being stopped on the grade)?

Thanks in advance,

David

 

Gregg posted:

That's a good question, "why did the previous crew put the train into emergency rather than a full brake application?

 

The emergency brake application may not have been initiated by the Engineer nor by anyone else on the crew.  

It could have occurred as a result of an air hose separation or a condition that Distributed Power was designed not to tolerate.  If a "no communication" condition exists between any pair of Lead or Remote consists, Distributed Power will tolerate it for a predetermined amount of time, after which it is programmed to stop the train with an emergency brake application.  One of the conditions it monitors is air flow, which can indicate excessive brake pipe leakage.  Sometimes in curvy territory, air leaks open up and then close if air hoses are defective.  Distributed Power knows the position of the controlling brake valve as well as the brake pipe pressure.  If a brake pipe rise is detected without the brake valve being released, DP will stop the train.  Unintentional brake pipe increases can occur from the air hose problems described above.  If the cars were equipped with Load/Empty sensors which measure truck spring compression, an unintentional release could have begun and DP would have used Emergency braking as soon as the release was detected.  Lots of possibilities exist.

They will be able to determine whether the emergency brake application was initiated by use of the automatic brake valve, by the Conductor's emergency brake valve on the left side of the cab, by Distributed Power detecting an unsafe condition, or by another condition somewhere in the air brake system.  They can determine this by expert analysis of the event recorder data from each controlling unit in the train, i.e., the unit in each Lead and Remote consist which was controlling other units coupled to it in the same multiple unit consist.

The focus, though, is on why the first crew did not secure the train with hand brakes (every car on the train if it was loaded on a 2% grade).  They are Canadian.  Surely they have heard of the Lac Megantic disaster, and surely their rules require securing the train with hand brakes under the conditions present when they stopped with an emergency application.  That is the root cause:  Failure to properly secure the train after experiencing an emergency brake application on a heavy descending grade.  The report indicates that the first crew likely had time to do this, while the second crew may not have been present long enough to do it.  The reason for the emergency brake application is important, but regardless, the root cause is what I highlighted in bold.

Last edited by Number 90

I was never in this situation of changing crews between terminals, so it raises a question in my mind (and it may be an eye-roller) .  Before proceeding, should the fresh crew build air---make the prescribed reduction---cut out the air and do a leakage test before proceeding?  If I was taking over a train about which I knew nothing, then take it down Kicking Horse Pass, I would want some information first.

Albert, the crew change may not have been planned for that location.  That's where the train stopped from an emergency brake application and the process -- if done correctly -- for securing the train, recharging and reapplying the air brakes, releasing hand brakes, and then proceeding may have been too time consuming for the remainder of the first crew's remaining hours of service time.

And the crew may have placed the train in emergency because speed was increasing in spite of a heavy reduction.  You can't ride a heavy reduction down a mountain at speeds above 15-18 MPH without causing damaging heat to brake shoes and wheels.  Your brakes may not last all the way to the bottom of the grade.  Or perhaps the crew put the train into emergency because they were approaching a red signal too fast to stop before passing it any other way.  Or, maybe one of the conditions I mentioned in my previous post caused an undesired emergency brake application.  Regardless, a train cannot sit indefinitely on a heavy grade with air brakes in emergency, and the cold temperature was surely a factor in the time it took for the train to begin rolling on its own if leakage was the factor.  

There's not enough information in the preliminary report to determine why the emergency brake application occurred, but, if the train had been fully secured with hand brakes it would have remained stationary, even if the brake cylinders on the cars leaked down.  That is a given.  Period.

Last edited by Number 90
Number 90 posted:

Mountain grade railroading is always dicey.  On most trips it's uneventful, but, when one little thing goes wrong, you can have coupler failures and derailments going upgrade, or a runaway going downgrade.  Going downgrade, you're always about one minute away from having a runaway, if speed unexpectedly begins to increase.  Weird things can happen.  This train obviously got away from the crew, and, from the look of the terrain, there may not have been a good place to jump off.  May God grant them eternal rest.

Well stated. I was involved in the investigation of 2 different runaways, both heavy tonnage unit trains (loaded coal) both in the month of February (2010 and 2013), both in heavy grade territory, 1.5 to 2.57 grades (one on Sand Patch, one on 17 Mile Grade) .....One derailed 108 out of their 130 loads, the other 73 of their 77 loads. In both instances, February weather in the Alleghenies was a key factor. Interesting to note that in both these instances above, the loaded cars rolled out and derailed while traversing curves, while the locomotive consist stayed on the rail as the locomotives have a lower center of gravity. No crew injuries/fatalities involved in either of these incidents.

As Number 90 stated in an earlier post, a detailed report of both crew's activity before, during and after the emergency brake application and crew change would be most informative. Mechanical post accident inspection findings are also going to be critical to discovery of the primary cause.

I watched an NS trainman  set handbrakes on a loaded coal train in good weather, on the level and it took at least a minute per car so it takes awhile. The one that wrecked had 113 cars in bitter cold temps so it would have been a chore. But that should be part of the drill. I would think management would send help out to a train like that but we all know how that goes.

wb47 posted:

Assuming a 70 car train, about how long would it take to set the hand brakes on all of the cars?

Assuming a minute a car and every car  ,  1 hour and 10 minutes.  The crew would then have to recover the air, let the train-line charge, make  enough of a brake application  to hold the train, go back and release the hand brake, and eventually get authority to continue on.    

Total time.... I'm only guessing   , somewhere between 2 1/2 and 3 hours.  I don't think you'd need a brake on every car so with out knowing any special instructions that may apply  the time may be less.

I guess what's bothering me, why did the train move as soon as the  outgoing crew were aboard the engine,, Did they try to recover the air ?? without the hand brakes?    We'll eventually find out.

Number 90 posted: 

The focus, though, is on why the first crew did not secure the train with hand brakes (every car on the train if it was loaded on a 2% grade).  They are Canadian.  Surely they have heard of the Lac Megantic disaster, and surely their rules require securing the train with hand brakes under the conditions present when they stopped with an emergency application.  That is the root cause:  Failure to properly secure the train after experiencing an emergency brake application on a heavy descending grade.  The report indicates that the first crew likely had time to do this, while the second crew may not have been present long enough to do it.  The reason for the emergency brake application is important, but regardless, the root cause is what I highlighted in bold.

Sadly many times we overlook something or are distracted and the result is far worse than we imagined

wb47 posted:

Assuming a 70 car train, about how long would it take to set the hand brakes on all of the cars?

Excellent question. Just being out in -30 air temp weather for a few minutes is brutal, do they have equipment on the train for the employees to complete this task?

 
Gregg posted:
wb47 posted:

Assuming a 70 car train, about how long would it take to set the hand brakes on all of the cars?

Assuming a minute a car and every car  ,  1 hour and 10 minutes.  The crew would then have to recover the air, let the train-line charge, make  enough of a brake application  to hold the train, go back and release the hand brake, and eventually get authority to continue on.   

The rule book for THAT territory states "all handbrakes", i.e. EVERY CAR. 

Total time.... I'm only guessing   , somewhere between 2 1/2 and 3 hours.  I don't think you'd need a brake on every car so with out knowing any special instructions that may apply  the time may be less.

I guess what's bothering me, why did the train move as soon as the  outgoing crew were aboard the engine,, Did they try to recover the air ?? without the hand brakes?    We'll eventually find out.

 

jim pastorius posted:

I watched an NS trainman  set handbrakes on a loaded coal train in good weather, on the level and it took at least a minute per car so it takes awhile. The one that wrecked had 113 cars in bitter cold temps so it would have been a chore. But that should be part of the drill. I would think management would send help out to a train like that but we all know how that goes.

Jim,

A very sad tragedy for the individuals and their families. Hopefully as information becomes more available we won't find issues learned from previous derailments not being implemented. Access to the brake wheels with snow, ice, wind, frostbite, etc. You hope management would have contingency plans for situations like this.

The following "emergency fix" will not work in today's digital/electronic tattle-tale railroad environment, further, today's "state of the art" computer controlled engines may forbid it. This emergency contingency absolutely goes against everything any CMO would teach on the proper handling and care of his precious engines, and the FRA agent would have an absolute cat's fit over it, but, I'm retired and thus the statute of limitations has been reached (   ), so if one of you DOES make like a playground school girl and tattle... they can't do anything about it now. 

The above DISCLAIMER said... here's an experience I had a loooong time ago:

I had a short (30-40 loaded sand cars?) train and a pair of GP38's.

As I was topping a rise at track speed leading to a long decent (1% or better) I had an IDE as soon as I made my first set. (Caused by a "dynamiter" car.) After getting stopped, I still had a lot of grade left to safely descend (I was in 10 MPH territory now), AND there was an Absolute signal at the bottom of the grade that WOULD be against me, for the line I was on crossed over a busy BNSF line in order to access our yard. We had to get BNSF Dispatcher authority in order to cross the diamond, so I KNEW the signal would be against me. Basically, I had zero margin for error if I tried to recover, finish the descent, and HOPE I would have sufficient air in the pipe to get stopped PRECISELY where I needed to get stopped.

Not an option.

I also KNEW the engine brakes would be insufficient to hold the train should I try to recover my air "as is". Oh, and it was raining.

So, there we sat as I pondered my situation. Of course, the Conductor whined and moaned about what he SHOULD do. (Tie a bunch of hand brakes before I could start the recovery process.)

Well, I ended up doing what old head's taught me when in a bad way like this, and provided it could be done safely, albeit against the rules. Here's what I did:

I set the engine brakes, recovered, and once the PCS reset, I placed the motors in reverse, and leaned into the loads with just enough amps to hold the train in place... and I charged my air line until I had sufficient air to proceed. We continued on our way and I had ample air to make a controlled descent with a precise stop at the Absolute signal, and proceeded calling for the Dispatcher to get a signal.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree: That was a despicable move, intolerable by those smarter and more professional than I displayed at the time. It was a move that is NOT approved or condoned by ANY rule or operational book, etc. BUT, it was a technique I'd learned from SEVERAL old heads from "way back when". AND by doing so it helped get us to the yard within our hours that night.

Go ahead. Chastise me. I've got big shoulders, I can take it.

Railroading was a different world "back then".

Andre "retired so you can't touch me" Ming

Last edited by laming

Sounds like you came up with your own Dynamic braking.....

Caused by a "dynamiter" car   Also know as a kicker, Sometimes but not always would cause a  emergency brake  application of the whole train .  and also hard to find.

OK I've never  worked a job with dynamic braking and never with out a caboose but what happens to the dynamic brakes in an emergency brake application. Do they cut out?  Engine drops it's reverse  load?  and of course the engines brakes apply.

Here is a question about a detail I have not yet seen addressed. In the Calgary Herald article linked above, their "source" says this:

Retainers — devices meant to ensure the train’s brakes don’t lose pressure — would have been activated by the original crew and should have held, said the source.

Whatever are these? Something to keep the brakes from releasing while the train line is being pumped back up? Or what?

And while I'm here, let me say that I much appreciate the contributions from real railroaders here. It's a blessing to have access to so much expertise.

nickaix posted:

Here is a question about a detail I have not yet seen addressed. In the Calgary Herald article linked above, their "source" says this:

Retainers — devices meant to ensure the train’s brakes don’t lose pressure — would have been activated by the original crew and should have held, said the source.

Whatever are these? Something to keep the brakes from releasing while the train line is being pumped back up? Or what?

You are pretty much correct. Retaining valves (Retainers) are devices which allow the ability to control the air in an individual railcar's brake cylinder.  It may allow the air in the cylinder, which is applying the brakes shoes to the wheel, to exhaust from the brake cylinder completely (normal position) or be manually set to hold a predetermined amount of air (10 -20 p.s.i. depending on setting) in each cylinder after the Automatic Brake Valve handle in the controlling locomotive has been moved to the release position. When their use is desired, they must be manually set and released on each piece of equipment. This allows for a variable percentage of cars to "retain" their air brake application. Used mostly in heavy grade territory to assist in controlling speed downgrade or hold cars in place  while air brakes are being recharged. With the advances and refinement of dynamic braking, their use has waned.

And while I'm here, let me say that I much appreciate the contributions from real railroaders here. It's a blessing to have access to so much expertise.

 

I read a story a few years ago that the Boston & Maine had a derailment in the Hoosac Tunnel in western Massachusetts when they were in the process of changing from steam engines to diesel electric engines. The diesel pulling the train through the tunnel had dynamic braking but the engineer did not know how to use it and he lost quite a few freight cars within the tunnel. It was a rather difficult job to pull the derailed cars out of the tunnel and not scrape the walls in the process.

Number 90 posted:

  but, if the train had been fully secured with hand brakes it would remained stationary, even if the brake cylinders on the cars leaked down.  That is a given.  Period.

Tom,
Yes, one would think that and normally that would be true. However, such is not the case. If, I repeat, if snow had built up between the the brake shoes and the wheels a train will not be able to stay stopped on a grade, even with the train in "emergency" and 100% handbrakes set!

I know this because I was involved in a situation where this happened!

As you correctly said: "There's not enough information in the preliminary report to determine why the emergency brake application occurred"

Last edited by Big Jim

Now here is a scary thought. Imagine for a moment what would have happened if that had of been a unit crude oil tank train instead of a grain train. Envision most of 100 tank cars mangled and split open with huge fires raging and crude oil washing downhill into the Kootenay river, free to flow downstream for hundreds of kilometers. 

Sound far-fetched? Revisit the Lac Megantic oil train disaster of 2013 where an oil train slowly lost brake pressure in the early AM hours and rolled unattended downgrade into town, where it derailed and piled up. 47 killed and most of downtown destroyed in the inferno.

And so tell me again how pipelines are hazardous and not environmentally friendly, because I think I may have missed the point somehow, though I guess our government believes it. Oh for sure the newer double-wall tank cars are safer and all that nice sounding stuff. But we are kidding ourselves if we think for a moment that they will make rail transportation of flammable goods perfectly safe, because they won't. Just IMO.

Rod

Lastly, this is for the Number 90, HW, and the other people in this group who ran trains.  In your honest opinion, are the people who are now running trains have that "innate" knowledge of railroading?  A railroad version of Scully.  Is the training good enough?  Did the railroad industry loose a training base by having fewer switch jobs and locals.  What about a Top Gun program where some of the best in the field teach, if they have the later skill.

Not to knock the newer railroaders, bit it might be good to hear from them.  In a way of course their employs would not know.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Lastly, this is for the Number 90, HW, and the other people in this group who ran trains.  In your honest opinion, are the people who are now running trains have that "innate" knowledge of railroading?  A railroad version of Scully.  Is the training good enough?  Did the railroad industry loose a training base by having fewer switch jobs and locals.  What about a Top Gun program where some of the best in the field teach, if they have the later skill.

Not to knock the newer railroaders, bit it might be good to hear from them.  In a way of course their employs would not know.

The training in my company has been sped up (shortened/they call optimized) in order to keep with up big profits. When I was a training coordinator my director said "I don't care about safety, if I cannot run a trains in the fourth quarter."  I was retaliated against for turning him in. The Hunter Harrison model is destroying our railroads for big profits.

Last edited by RLHarner
Rob Leese posted:

I was never in this situation of changing crews between terminals, so it raises a question in my mind (and it may be an eye-roller) .  Before proceeding, should the fresh crew build air---make the prescribed reduction---cut out the air and do a leakage test before proceeding?  If I was taking over a train about which I knew nothing, then take it down Kicking Horse Pass, I would want some information first.

I just read the update in Railway Age.  Rather than delete my irrelevant post, I would just say the relief crew never had a chance unless their first move was to set all the handbrakes and build air. 

Horrific stuff no matter what the cause. Its easy to be a driver in a car sitting at a crossing and think, "that must be a nice job, sit in the cab and watch the scenery go by".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

These train wreck threads have given me much more respect for the real railroaders on this forum and everywhere else.

Setting the handbrakes on a mile long train is a task in itself ,and it sounds difficult enough getting these trains safely through the mountains when there are no "issues". I can't imagine starting my day on a runaway train.

God bless those who lost their lives and their families.

Last edited by RickO
Dominic Mazoch posted:

Lastly, this is for the Number 90, HW, and the other people in this group who ran trains.  In your honest opinion, are the people who are now running trains have that "innate" knowledge of railroading?   NO!

A railroad version of Scully.  Is the training good enough?   NO!

Did the railroad industry loose a training base by having fewer switch jobs and locals.   Not really. The trouble started long before!

What about a Top Gun program where some of the best in the field teach, if they have the later skill.   Ha!  The RR's have no idea what that is! Even with the tools that they developed, they fumbled the ball from the get-go! With "Safety is of first importance in the discharge of duty" is the motto of the day, the RR's turned their back on proper training! It is sinful in the way that the RR's would not let the knowledgeable engineers instruct their trainee's correctly!

 

 

wb47 posted:

Assuming a 70 car train, about how long would it take to set the hand brakes on all of the cars?

If the terrain along the right of way was flat and clear of obstructions, at least three minutes per car.  It would take longer if the crew member applying the hand brakes had to contend with:

  • deep snow
  • bad footing from ice, or uneven terrain
  • accumulated ice on the equipment
  • ice within the hand brake mechanism of individual cars
  • the physical condition of the employee
  • any of the cars having stopped inside of a tunnel with a locomotive also in the tunnel

If another employee with a vehicle could have assisted by driving alongside the train with the crew member who was to apply the hand brakes, it would have been faster than walking the entire length of the train.  But, apparently, nobody even began this, and that "why" is puzzling.  

At some point the air brakes were going to have to be released and the brake system recharged fully.  It was absolutely unavoidable.  So the train was going to have to remain stationary with hand brakes holding it on the grade, while the required recharge was accomplished.  Then, a service brake application would need to have been made, and then the hand brakes would have been released,  The crew member would need to return to the head end, and only then would the train be able to proceed safely.  

It is not unknown for a crew waiting to be relieved to avoid any further undesirable tasks, letting the relief crew do the work.  I'm not saying that was the case here, but there really does need to be an explanation of why nobody on the first crew at least began to apply hand brakes.  There could be more to this, and we should not rush to judgment. 

When the second crew arrived and found that the train was in emergency (and we still do not know why)  and not secured with hand brakes, they realized the obvious fact that they were the "goats".  They were going to have to tie the train down themselves, before recharging it.  So, then, here are more as-yet unanswered questions:  How much time did they have to begin applying hand brakes, after boarding the train before it began moving on its own?  Were they hoping to get some help from others?  Was there a parallel service road in good enough condition that a crew member could have been driven from car to car to speed up the process, and, if so, were they waiting for the vehicle to arrive?

We know that the train moved on its own after sitting on a heavy descending grade for a period of time, likely from air brake leakage, but we cannot assume anything about what happened prior to the emergency brake application.  Was the first crew having air brake trouble prior to the emergency application?  Was there a buildup of ice on the brake shoes that caused the speed to build up while it was eliminated by friction from the initial application as the train started down the grade, and, if so, did that result in the first crew making a very heavy brake application in trying to get the speed back down to where it could be controllable?  Did they use emergency braking to stop short of a location where a stop was required and, if so, why?  Had they mishandled the air brakes?  Or, was the emergency brake application not initiated by the crew?  And, a very important factor, had the brake system been depleted by a prior release and reapplication, or by an over-reduction, prior to the occurrence of the emergency brake application?  All of those are possibilities.  

Something does not add up, so we will have to wait for the investigators to report more findings.

Last edited by Number 90

Earlier posts had mentioned the possibility of reversing the engines and applying power to hold the train while recharging.  That's an old trick that sometimes worked and other times did not.  I have used it, but that was before there were sophisticated event recorders on locomotives.

However, you cannot do it with AC locomotives.  If the train moved forward at all, then the AC locomotives would unload.  Not sure if there were AC locomotives in use in this instance.

Number 90 posted:
wb47 posted:

Assuming a 70 car train, about how long would it take to set the hand brakes on all of the cars?

If the terrain along the right of way was flat and clear of obstructions, at least three minutes per car.  It would take longer if the crew member applying the hand brakes had to contend with:

  • deep snow
  • bad footing from ice, or uneven terrain
  • accumulated ice on the equipment
  • ice within the hand brake mechanism of individual cars
  • the physical condition of the employee
  • any of the cars having stopped inside of a tunnel with a locomotive also in the tunnel

If another employee with a vehicle could have assisted by driving alongside the train with the crew member who was to apply the hand brakes, it would have been faster than walking the entire length of the train.  But, apparently, nobody even began this, and that "why" is puzzling.  

Something does not add up, so we will have to wait for the investigators to report more findings.

This was a 112 car train.  At a rate of 3 minutes per car in good conditions it would take 336 minutes or just over 5 hours to set the hand brakes for the entire train unless the crew had some help.  Add another 5 hours to release the hand brakes following the air brake tests, this train would be sitting for 10 plus hours before it could start down the hill.  It is interesting to learn how slowly everything moves in real railroading.  NH Joe

Big Jim posted

What about a Top Gun program where some of the best in the field teach, if they have the later skill.   Ha!  The RR's have no idea what that is! Even with the tools that they developed, they fumbled the ball from the get-go! With "Safety is of first importance in the discharge of duty" is the motto of the day, the RR's turned their back on proper training! It is sinful in the way that the RR's would not let the knowledgeable engineers instruct their trainee's correctly!

 

 

Jim; without getting into specifics; one shortcoming I see with the way things are done now is the tendency for some officer’s to use every infraction - however minor, as an excuse to terminate rather than coach.  Tom (Number 90) has noted different times over the years in his posts how he always tried to turn minor issues into a “coaching opportunity” rather than a “gotcha”.  (I’ll add this is one of the reasons I have come to have so much respect for the opinions he articulates on this forum.)

I am also aware that there are times during the on the job training period where a CT is told by a more experienced conductor or engineer to do something differently than what is laid out in the book of rules and this goes to your point about railroads not allowing knowledgeable people to instruct their trainees properly.

The problem is the “gotcha” mentality displayed by many officers, serves as an impediment to a trainee actually being able absorb the guidance provided by the old heads.  I don’t see where having men and women constantly in fear of being the target of some arbitrary disciplinary action does anything to improve the safety culture within the operating environment.  In fact; I believe it has the exact opposite affect.

Curt

Last edited by juniata guy

I think 3 minutes is a little on the long side, I'm now 75 and still could tie on a hand brake is about a minute or so .   Crews don't have to climb to the top of the car anymore.    Engine hand brakes may take a little longer.

However how would like to show up for work in really COLD WEATHER  and the first thing you have to do is tie on a hundred hand brakes. After the train line is charged ,  a brake application   applied,   release the 100 hand brakes  you just tied on.. .  

I don't know what the answer is..... More engines for braking power?, retainers.?  I wonder how many engines it would take to hold this train  with either the independent or dynamic   with the train  brakes released.

 I believe CN & CP  do not use the metric system for mileage or speed.  There was some reference to  excessive speed  at 32  kilometres  per hour, That is  only  about 18 miles per hour.

From the Lac Megantic fiasco if the train is stopped on the level or slight grade all the hand brakes don't have to be applied only on steep grades.  Why did the train stop at the top of a 2% grade?   Emergency ?? I read the train sat there for 2 hrs before the relief showed up. Today the operating Ratio is more important than common sense safety

Gregg posted:

I think 3 minutes is a little on the long side, I'm now 75 and still could tie on a hand brake is about a minute or so .   Crews don't have to climb to the top of the car anymore.    Engine hand brakes may take a little longer.

However how would like to show up for work in really COLD WEATHER  and the first thing you have to do is tie on a hundred hand brakes. After the train line is charged ,  a brake application   applied,   release the 100 hand brakes  you just tied on.. .  

I don't know what the answer is..... More engines for braking power?, retainers.?  I wonder how many engines it would take to hold this train  with either the independent or dynamic   with the train  brakes released.

 I believe CN & CP  do not use the metric system for mileage or speed.  There was some reference to  excessive speed  at 32  kilometres  per hour, That is  only  about 18 miles per hour.

The train had 112 loaded grain cars and 3 engines.   Another post said it is CP policy to set the hand brakes on all the cars when a train is stopped on the hill for any length of time.  At 1 minute per car plus the engines to set the hand brakes, it would take 115 minutes or 1 hour 55 minutes.

This accident happened at 1 am in the morning and an earlier post said the temperature was -36 C which converts to -33 F.  That is cold even if there is no snow and the wind isn't blowing.  Working continually for 2 hours plus under these conditions would be very difficult.  It seems as if the new crew was faced with an almost impossible task to set all the hand brakes, do the required brake tests, and then release the hand brakes to get the train going.

Another post said the train was going at 47 mph when it derailed and that the speed limit for freight trains is 20 mph on this section of track.

NH Joe

I have some questions for the forum railroaders.  Is it a usual practice for a crew that is going out of service between terminals to leave the train before the relief crew arrives?  If so, do trains usually sit for several hours before the relief crew arrives?  I have never understood why a railroad would leave a train unattended with the engines running.  This happened with the Quebec accident.  

How does the off-going crew communicate the train's status to the relief crew - by radio, log left in the cab, leave information about the train with the dispatcher, etc.?  I think the relief crew would want to know about any mechanical or electrical problems with the train, whether or not the hand brakes have been set and on how many cars, fuel status, are there any quirks with running the train, train weight, number of cars in the train, etc.?

NH Joe

All speculation of course, but imagine if the new crew had arrived say 15 minutes later. By then the train may have already started to move on its own and all they would have been able to do is watch. 3 lives would have been spared which is good. Possibly though the train would have gained a higher speed earlier (due to no dynamic braking) and mostly derailed in the upper spiral tunnel. This would likely have posed a much more difficult extraction and cleanup operation than CP now has, with the wrecked cars out in the open and right beside the Trans Canada highway. Just theorizing.

Lac Megantic was a chain of several contributing events as I recall. The previous crew had left the train running and a faulty turbo caught fire. Someone called 911 and the fire department arrived, shut off the engine, put out the fire and left. Without the engine running the air pressure slowly bled off and the train started moving downgrade.

Rod

New Haven Joe posted:

I have some questions for the forum railroaders.  Is it a usual practice for a crew that is going out of service between terminals to leave the train before the relief crew arrives?

Yes, when properly secured.

 If so, do trains usually sit for several hours before the relief crew arrives?

It can indeed happen, maybe even more than "several hours" for a coal or grain train, since their commodity is not considered perishable.

 I have never understood why a railroad would leave a train unattended with the engines running.  This happened with the Quebec accident.

Not all that uncommon, but then once the train is PROPERLY tied down, many times the units are shut down if long sit times are anticipated. 

How does the off-going crew communicate the train's status to the relief crew - by radio, log left in the cab, leave information about the train with the dispatcher, etc.?

That may well be the sixty four thousand dollar question in this mess!

 I think the relief crew would want to know about any mechanical or electrical problems with the train, whether or not the hand brakes have been set and on how many cars, fuel status, are there any quirks with running the train, train weight, number of cars in the train, etc.?

One would certainly think so!

NH Joe

 

This is an excerpt from CBC News.  I wasn't able to get the link to work.

"Transport Canada has ordered new safety measures following Monday's fatal Canadian Pacific derailment near Field, B.C.

Trains must now apply handbrakes during emergency stops on all grades over 1.8 per cent, according to an order issued Friday afternoon from Transport Minister Marc Garneau.

The train went off the track at Mile 130.6 of the Laggan Subdivision, between the Upper and the Lower Spiral Tunnel, at about 1 a.m.

The temperature was around –20 C. 

The Transportation Safety Board said the train gained speed well in excess of the 32 km/h maximum for the tight curves on the route.  The TSB is the lead federal agency responsible for investigating rail accidents. 

The Spiral Tunnels, built in 1909 to reduce track grade, are still one of the steepest sections of track in North America with a grade of 2.2 per cent.

Dockrell, Paradis and Waldenberger-Bulmer were all members of TCRC. They had just boarded the train, which was parked with its emergency brakes activated for two hours above the steep descent to the spiral tunnels. They were preparing to take over when it started moving on its own.

"It was not anything the crew did. The train started to move on its own," TSB senior investigator James Carmichael said earlier this week. "We're going to try to determine why the brakes didn't stay in place.""

NH Joe

Gregg posted:

I think 3 minutes is a little on the long side, I'm now 75 and still could tie on a hand brake is about a minute or so .   Crews don't have to climb to the top of the car anymore.    Engine hand brakes may take a little longer.

I think I over-estimated the time for each car, Gregg, you're right.  I was thinking about a man in Arctic clothing that impaired movement somewhat.  Probably, if there were no intervening bridges and the footing was good, and the brake wheels could have been reached from the ground, it would have taken between an hour and an hour and a half.

Dynamic braking after the runaway began was mentioned.  Here's a little more uncertainty to those of us speculating from the warmth of our homes and not directly involved in the investigation.

When an emergency air brake application occurs, the pneumatic control switch (PC Switch) opens a circuit and interrupts the ability of the locomotive to produce power.  Virtually all large locomotives are equipped with the PC Switch feature.

Here's where the uncertainty enters:  It is entirely up to the individual railroad's Mechanical Department whether or not the opening of the PC Switch will also interrupt dynamic braking if the emergency air brake application occurs while the locomotive is in dynamic braking rather than pulling.  There are two trains of thought.

The reason for the open PC Switch to interrupt dynamic braking is to avoid slid flat wheels if the Engineer does not quickly bail off (using the independent brake handle) any buildup of locomotive air braking that would -- when combined with dynamic braking -- exceed the ability of the wheels to maintain traction.  Then the locomotives have no braking at all, when being pushed by a train.  To further complicate things, some railroads also equip their locomotives with dynamic brake interlock, which prevents any locomotive brake buildup from train brake applications, including emergency braking.  Again, some have it, and some don't.

The reason for not having the PC Switch interrupt dynamic braking is that dynamic braking is much more powerful than locomotive air brakes, and is more useful in stopping a heavy train.  If the couplers are compressed by dynamic braking throughout the train, and an emergency brake application occurs, you do not want slack to run out while the train is stopping, as other problems can result.

So, you can see that there are two valid ways to do it, and railroads are divided as to their choices.

So, we do not know whether dynamic braking was available to the second crew.  If the PC Switch had to be re-set in order to get dynamic braking working, then the only way to do it is to move the automatic brake valve to Release*, and that would also release whatever brake cylinder pressure remained on the cars.  That would have been a suicidal decision, but sometimes it's difficult to clearly think out the best decision, and this would have been a bell that could not be un-rung.

*  Older, non-electronic, 26-C automatic brake valves could re-set the PC Switch by being placed in the Suppression or Handle-Off positions on some railroads' locomotives, but, on others Release was required.  This whole thing about whether dynamic braking was available to the second crew comes down to this:

Maybe they had available dynamic braking, and maybe they did not.  But, either way, without adequate air braking, they were not going to make it to the bottom of the grade without a derailment or collision.

Last edited by Number 90

Tom,
A recovery from an emergency induced "PC" on 26L brake equipment can be reset simply by moving the brake handle from "Emergency" back past the "Handle Off" detent (provided that the throttle handle was moved to "Idle). I am going to guess that the units involved didn't have this type of brake valve.
One thing that I taught my trainees was that if the train did go into emergency, never move the brake handle to the "Emergency" position until the train came to a complete stop. This was done so as not to lose the use of the Power/DB as the case may warrant.

Last edited by Big Jim

Concerning Dynamic Brakes and this incident. It is important to understand that, assuming these are 3 modern AC locomotives, each equipped with Extended Range Dynamic Brake, they should be capable of generating around 115,000 - 120,000 Lbs. of retarding effort apiece. Total of all 3, under the best of adhesion conditions, would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 340,000 to 360,000 lbs. Dynamic Brake retarding effort (in their most effective speed range of 6-23 mph).

A 112 car loaded grain train  would weigh somewhere around 14,500 -15,000 TONS (30 million lbs.). Bottom line is that this consist would not have been capable of maintaining any speed descending this type of grade using Dynamic Brakes alone. It would be necessary to supplement the Dynamic Brake with an air brake application in order to keep the retarding forces sufficient to control the train at the desired speed. Blending an air brake application along with the locomotive Dynamic Braking effort would be absolutely necessary to slow or stop the train on this heavy of a downhill grade. 

Severe sub-zero (F) temperatures can do strange things to the air brake train line. 

 Employee statements from all active participants, (crew, any local managers, and control station), any recordings from radio conversations, position of the controls on the controlling locomotive, event recorder downloads (from all 3 locomotives) and post accident mechanical inspection of the equipment, should provide all the information needed to understand what events occurred resulting in this accident. 

The $64 question is "What will be done to prevent it from re-occurring?"

Number 90 posted:
Gregg posted:

I think 3 minutes is a little on the long side, I'm now 75 and still could tie on a hand brake is about a minute or so .   Crews don't have to climb to the top of the car anymore.    Engine hand brakes may take a little longer.

I think I over-estimated the time for each car, Gregg, you're right.  I was thinking about a man in Arctic clothing that impaired movement somewhat.  Probably, if there were no intervening bridges and the footing was good, and the brake wheels could have been reached from the ground, it would have taken between an hour and an hour and a half.

That time seems to generous to me:  maybe the clothes weren't arctic, but they would have been thick.  You're not going to be able to move at a brisk pace that entire time, and there is the length of the cars to traverse.  I suspect two hours is nearer the mark, and maybe more, depending on the footing you mention.

I have to say all the input from our technical experts on this forum is impressive - thank you all.

Here's a CBC News article referencing a CP white paper on winter train operation. The thing that jumped out at me was the recommended reduction in speed during frigid temps.  If the reduction amount is close to a downgrade speed limit, the suggestion seems to be no running trains below -35C  (-31 F) in that area. I assume that wouldn't happen.

"The white paper also said train speeds must be reduced in frigid temperatures — by at least 16 km/h below –25 C and by at least 32 km/h at –35 C." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...ment-fatal-1.5011096

palallin posted:
Number 90 posted:
Gregg posted:

I think 3 minutes is a little on the long side, I'm now 75 and still could tie on a hand brake is about a minute or so .   Crews don't have to climb to the top of the car anymore.    Engine hand brakes may take a little longer.

I think I over-estimated the time for each car, Gregg, you're right.  I was thinking about a man in Arctic clothing that impaired movement somewhat.  Probably, if there were no intervening bridges and the footing was good, and the brake wheels could have been reached from the ground, it would have taken between an hour and an hour and a half.

That time seems to generous to me:  maybe the clothes weren't arctic, but they would have been thick.  You're not going to be able to move at a brisk pace that entire time, and there is the length of the cars to traverse.  I suspect two hours is nearer the mark, and maybe more, depending on the footing you mention.

Hmmm!!!  A good pair of wool socks, insulated long johns . Work pants with a watch pocket, Over-alls optional  . Work boots , ( I never wore the ones with steel toes).  Warm cow hide mitts with another pair of wool mitts inside,     a decent parka with hood  and  lastly Touque .One might also to have to carry a pipe wrench , radio, hose bag & hand lamp. Definitely a young man.s  game. It's not so much the cold but the wind that makes things miserable.

 

Big Jim posted:

One thing that I taught my trainees was that if the train did go into emergency, never move the brake handle to the "Emergency" position until the train came to a complete stop. This was done so as not to lose the use of the Power/DB as the case may warrant.

It sounds as though that equipment is set up differently than equipment that I've had. Once the train goes into emergency, the PCS opens regardless of what position the automatic handle is in. At least with the "modern" GEs and EMDs, you would still have dynamic braking available. When running GP38s and GP40s, once the PCS opens, you lose everything...at least the ones I've had.

Number 90 posted:

 

However, you cannot do it with AC locomotives.  If the train moved forward at all, then the AC locomotives would unload.  Not sure if there were AC locomotives in use in this instance.

Tom, I know what you're talking about. I have held a train back with the engines in reverse while charging the brake pipe, and it was with AC power. The trick is just not to move forward.

Same thing happens when trying to start a train on an uphill...if you don't grab enough power, and she starts to roll backwards, it'll unload after 3-ish mph. One day, I had a particularly miserable freight train...both in terms of power, air, weight, weather, etc. I had to dig pretty deep before knocking off the air while pulling away from a stop on an uphill. One engine in the consist (exConrail Dash8) decided to kill itself while doing this, and the normal throttle position to get the train moving became not enough to hold it. Once we started moving backwards, everything unloaded and it felt like we were going 900 mph backwards. Luckily, the train was so long, we were still stretched through the last absolute signal, and we really only coasted back about an autorack-length...but it felt like a mile until the air I grabbed took hold. The conductor was yelling "dump it, dump it!"...I yelled back "YOU dump it, 'cuz you're walking it!".

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Lastly, this is for the Number 90, HW, and the other people in this group who ran trains.  In your honest opinion, are the people who are now running trains have that "innate" knowledge of railroading?  A railroad version of Scully.  Is the training good enough?  Did the railroad industry loose a training base by having fewer switch jobs and locals.  What about a Top Gun program where some of the best in the field teach, if they have the later skill.

Not to knock the newer railroaders, bit it might be good to hear from them.  In a way of course their employs would not know.

"Lack of proper training" has been going on a long time, long before I was a railroader. In your first question about people running trains now...I would say it depends on the engineer/employee. There are certainly people I've met and worked with out here who are clearly professional, are passionate about doing things correctly and safely, and then there are others who are simply here to collect a paycheck every two weeks and skate by.

The official rule books and railroad training I've gotten has only served a purpose that is keeping me employed, and within the guidelines the railroad expects. All the really handy "good stuff" is passed down between railroaders. This is a job where things can go bad pretty quickly, and those stories and experiences that older railroaders have can really help you out in certain situations. If only I had a dollar for every time I had to call someone up and thank them because some nugget of advice they gave me 10 years ago turned out to be the key in a problematic situation...

I think, as a whole, the employees who are very skilled in what they do are dwindling. The company really doesn't care how well you handle a train...they just don't want an accident. The next big push is taking people (engineers, conductors) out of the  equation entirely. If they didn't care about training you "outside the box" before, they really don't care now. Between Trip Optimizer, PTC, and other tech, you will lose highly skilled people in favor of base-line consistency which can be mass produced and manipulated.

Trip Optimizer for example...you currently have a group of engineers, some who never get knuckles, and a few who occasionally get them. TO gets fewer knuckles than the engineers who occasionally get them. So eventually you lose the "skill" the engineers have, and the railroad has fewer train separations...which is a higher priority than retaining "skill" because that has less of an impact on shareholder value. It's sad, but it's indisputable.

Things will change if some smart lawyer sues those who owned stock in the company at the time of the incident.  Proportioned to the type and number of shares.  When stock values go down, then peoplw will get the message.  Morals now are based on the pocketbook, not some gold standard.

Also we have now two generations of people removed from the time railroads and other transportation groups were highly regulated.  With particular feelings in this country and maybe Canada, there rumblings of a re-reg or worse movement.  What gets me is why those who run railroads and other businesses do not have that question in mind as they plan.  Yes, the stock might go up now if we do X, but, if it fails due to a safety shortcut, the stock value may drop, even to ZERO.  Are yellow jackets going to cross the pond?

Jeffrey Sessa posted:
Big Jim posted:

One thing that I taught my trainees was that if the train did go into emergency, never move the brake handle to the "Emergency" position until the train came to a complete stop. This was done so as not to lose the use of the Power/DB as the case may warrant.

It sounds as though that equipment is set up differently than equipment that I've had. Once the train goes into emergency, the PCS opens regardless of what position the automatic handle is in. At least with the "modern" GEs and EMDs, you would still have dynamic braking available. When running GP38s and GP40s, once the PCS opens, you lose everything...at least the ones I've had.

Jeffrey,
Yes, units can be different from road to road and usually more from what year they were made. If you remember what Tom noted earlier about the "interlock", even though the trainline is in emergency the units will continue to load in power or DB for a certain length of time before powering down. However, once the trainline goes down and you move the brake handle to the emergency position it will quit loading right then and there and you have lost control. Leave the brake handle alone and you can still pull or hold back as much as you feel the need to do until it completely drops out on its own.

NS wanted the handle immediately placed in emergency. Now a days this will send a signal to the EOT to dump the air on the rear. Despite what the NS fools wanted, I chose not to move the brake handle and keep control of my train. I would keep an eye on the air pressure on the rear and if it wasn't already at zero or soon went to zero, I would hit the button on the EOT. This I never had to do. Usually you would hear the beep from the EOT, look up and see the pressure at zero on the rear before the air ever went down on the head end!

Finding out that the PC could be recovered on 26L equipment without releasing the automatic brake was something that the railroad didn't tell anyone (they probably didn't know themselves). I found that out on my own and stored it into my book of experience.

 

palallin posted:
Jeffrey Sessa posted:

 The next big push is taking people (engineers, conductors) out of the  equation entirely.

Who's gonna walk the train and set the handbrakes if there is no crew?

Good point.

One idea I heard floated was a traveling “utility man” who would go to the train and change knuckles, replace hoses, see if anything was on the ground, etc.

How this is supposed to work in mountainous territory like British Columbia or the Rockies is beyond me.  Maybe they’ll have a chopper on standby... 🙄

Utility man... Another name is the Conductor or head end  Brakeman,  

  Most Railroad already have road repair trucks manned by the car department  that  can handle serious repairs, Changing wheels, broken air pipes etc providing they can drive to location where the car has been set off. CN even had road repair railway cars that the car dept could live in and the cars also  would have all their equipment, wheels, trucks, whatever repairs  needed  to get the car on the move at least to the next large terminal.

It would be impossible for a utility  vehicle to reach some of these locations, (no roads) Now you also run into the qualification of the utility man. Is he a trained trainman(conductor/brakeman)   car dept employee or a little of both,

Has to be a better way. You could be sitting there for hours and hours waiting for a so called expert utility man, Dumb idea.

 There is a campground located at the bottom of the valley which in the summer is a great place to be to railfan

   You can hike to various locations along the mainline including a site where an abandoned narrow gauge steam locomotive wreck is from the original construction of the tunnels back in 1908

   In visiting this area you can see the challenges of running the mainline through this pass and operation 

  Im afraid to say but this will certainly not be the last derailment/loss of life on this strech of track for it has a long history of Railway Fatalities.

  It must be respected with the utmost care in operations regardless of the technology and current safety protocols in place 

  Experience from Vetran hoggers is vital to equipping the next generations of Railroaders

Al

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×