# Canadian train disaster



## bf2468 (Jun 24, 2013)

I just read that officials are blaming the shutdown of an engine causing the air brakes to fail allowing the train to roll out of control. I Thought you needed air to release the brakes and that they automatically were engaged when no air pressure pressure was present. Any thoughts?


----------



## wgn4884 (May 23, 2013)

bf2468, my understanding of train brake operation must be the same as yours. So there is something about this whole thing that goes beyond normal brake operation. It seems strange that shutting down an (the?) engine would cause brake release. One account said that the engineer who parked the train left it running to keep air pressure up to keep the brakes on. The local fire department shut the engine down because of an engine fire. I hope an explanation of what happened will come out.


----------



## riffer (May 13, 2013)

It appears that the fire department took off before railway workers arrived to secure the train. Definitely a problem there, but I'm not sure what the policy/regulation is. Unfortunately, journalists are journalism majors, so very little understanding of the situation or inquiry into this critical sequence of events. Even the "experts" they have employed don't seem to have a clue. One suggesting that Positive Train Control would have prevented the accident!

As for the brake question, I have had the same question in the past; unfortunately, the reason is beyond my technical ability to explain; I believe it has something to do with the difference in the various air pressures in the reservoirs causing the air brakes to release one at a time on the train.


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

From what I gather is that these employees violated a number of standard railroad rules. They left a train unsecured, that is with the hand brakes unapplied, on a grade, with the engine running with no relief crew in site. When fire broke out on the engine, the fire dept put it out and then shut down the locomotive. Again with no train crews there to supervise. With the engine no longer running to pump up the air, the brakes leaked off and the train ran away down the hill......or the firemen, not knowing what they were doing may have released the brakes when they shut down the engine. In any case, it shouldn't have happened at all. It's a tragic mistake by a small short line railroad with inexperienced small town crews that has been somehow now entrusted with these huge oil trains carrying oil to 'whatever' from the oil fields in western Canada. The railroads have been entrusted with hauling millions of gallons of oil because of the shortage of pipeline capacity and now they have a huge black eye because of this little railroad's mistakes.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

There is a very extensive discussion thread, with all the known details and the latest news as it becomes available, here:

Discussion thread on railroad.net 

Looks like the main series of events, in a nutshell, as it is understood so far, is this:

One man crew on the train (legal in Canada), tied down the train for the night, and went off to bed in a local hotel.
He shut down four of the five locomotives, leaving one loco idling to keep the air pressure up for the brakes. (standard procedure)
the next crewman was due in the morning.

(so far this is all standard procedure..even leaving the train unattended for the night..
whether or not it is *smart* procedure is open to debate!)

At some point in the night, a fire broke out on the idling locomotive..(cause still unknown)
Fire department showed up, and shut down the locomotive while dealing with the fire. (also standard procedure)
Fire is out, firemen leave the train in the care of two railroad employees and a police officer.
At this point, the train begins rolling..fireball ensues..

The act of putting out the fire, and shutting down the one idling locomotive, is probably what led directly to the runaway.
It is not yet clear if the single crewman who initially tied down the train did anything wrong..
There is a theory that He might have "rushed" the job, and not have set the required amount of hand brakes..
but this is still pure speculation at this point..the investigation is not yet complete..

Scot


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bf2468 on 08 Jul 2013 07:36 PM 
I just read that officials are blaming the shutdown of an engine causing the air brakes to fail allowing the train to roll out of control. I Thought you needed air to release the brakes and that they automatically were engaged when no air pressure pressure was present. Any thoughts? There is also a good explanation of how modern day railroad brakes over on LSC.

Runaway freight train explodes, levels center of Canada town[/b]


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

There is also an extensive discussion on 'Train Orders' about this subject. There has even been a criminal investigation opened up on this disaster. But speculation is still that the one trainman on the train just did not set enough hand brakes to hold the train in lieu of the air brakes leaking off. The engines apparently made it through Megantic upright and they had their hand brakes set which stopped them once the rest of the train uncoupled when it wrecked. It's just a terrible disaster that should never have happened.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Something doesn't sound right to me.. An eyewitness near the bar said the train was on fire before derailing ...'moving faster than seen before and was on fire' when the cars derailed a fireball erupted.... 
Why were the cars on fire before derailing? 

Sabatoge? 

What ever the cause, sure is a sad accident for those folks. 

John


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Another witness said he saw the brakes smoking just before the train derailed..which would make sense from some brakes still being semi-applied as the cars moved.. 
all the brakes wouldn't have been 100% open and clear..
So the person who said the train "was on fire" probably just saw smoke, but not literal flames, and that got translated as "the train was on fire".. 

Reports now say there is no evidence of sabatoge or deliberate tampering..
The original employee will probably end up at fault for not properly setting all the hand brakes..
that is probably the root cause..
but the fire is also a factor, and the fire department shutting down the loco is also a factor..

If all the hand-brakes had been properly applied by the initial employee, it probably wouldnt have happened.
If the loco hadnt caught on fire, it probably wouldnt have happened.
If the fire department hadnt shut down the loco, it probably wouldnt have happened..

We know the 2nd two things definately happened..fire and fire department..
but they cant really be blamed..its always procedure to shut down a diesel locomotive if it is on fire!
the fire department cant really be held to blame at all..IMO.

that just leaves the original employee..its looking more and more like he is the primary culprit..
the words "criminal negligence" are being used..

Scot


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh well, So much for my career as a Rumor Monger..... I'm going back to my corner.


----------



## Bill Swindell (Jan 2, 2008)

The real mistake was that sufficient hand brakes should have been tied to keep the train from moving if the air was lost (which it was). The train won't go into emergency unless the train pipe is opened, either by a hose coming loose or the the brake valve setting.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

There are sill are questions, one being how does a fireman know how to shut down a loco. From what I have read and heard so far non is really factual yet juust a lot of speculation. Also they are still looking into possible vandalism. The main folks that own the RR don't even know much about RRing with the statement given out to the news media. Kind of pathetic. Later RJD


----------



## White Deer RR (May 15, 2009)

If all the hand-brakes had been properly applied by the initial employee, it probably wouldnt have happened. If the loco hadnt caught on fire, it probably wouldnt have happened. If the fire department hadnt shut down the loco, it probably wouldnt have happened..

Most disasters of this sort are the result of multiple things that either should not have happened, or the people in charge thought they could not possibly happen. Think Titanic, Hindenburg, Challenger, Hyatt Regency walkway in Kansas City, etc. So I think you may be on to something, although of course nobody knows for sure as the investigation will take a long time.

There's been virtually no debate about the vast quantities of petroleum that will be shipped by rail around North America as a result of the fracking fields. Clearly greater safeguards are required, I can't even imagine what it would be like to have that happen in my town, which is on the list of ports to be used by Tesoro. While I like my toy trains, hazardous cargo is a real concern living close to a main line in the real world. 

Anyone know much about the type of tank cars used? One news article seemed to indicate they are kind of antiquated and there is room for improvement in terms of making them safer in an accident.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 10 Jul 2013 11:02 AM 
how does a fireman know how to shut down a loco. 
All locomotives have a emergency shut off button. Normally two are located near the fuel tanks, and the third is in the cab. It wouldn't be too hard for a fireman or any person to walk up to a locomotive hit the emergency stop button and shut the locomotive down. 
















Craig 

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...gencies-locomotive-systems-and-operation.html


----------



## riffer (May 13, 2013)

Does anyone have a condensed profile? I wouldn't mind knowing what the grade is there.


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

I believe the grade stated was 1.2%


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I have some mapping software that lets me define a route (in this case a railroad track) and get elevations along that route. I chose center of town (Lac Meg.) and followed the tracks west for 7 miles. The elevation in town is 1319' and 7 miles down the line it is 1657'. This calculates to an average gradient of about 0.5%.


I am assuming that the train was going from west to the coast. There is another line that goes north out of town, I didn't measure that one.

Does anyone know if the engines were part of the runaway? If the engines were part then my measurements are probably OK. If the cars separated from the engine, I will have to try again.

Chuck

Following the track east there are ups and downs for the first 7 miles, not a relatively steady downgrade like coming in from the west.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By bf2468 on 08 Jul 2013 07:36 PM 
I just read that officials are blaming the shutdown of an engine causing the air brakes to fail allowing the train to roll out of control. I Thought you needed air to release the brakes and that they automatically were engaged when no air pressure pressure was present. Any thoughts? 
My understanding of air brakes is the same as yours...when they're working right...but there is a flaw in the Westinghouse brake design. It occurs when the reservoir tank pressure on a car decreases. Air brakes are activated mechanically from a brake cylinder on the car that pushes on the brake rods to apply the brake pads. The cylinder is fed by the air reservoir on the car. When the engineer applies the brakes, the air pressure in the train line that goes car to car is reduced...and that pressure reduction tells a valve on the car to allow air out of the reservoir tank into the brake cylinder on the car...applying the brakes.

That means the reservoir tanks on each car have to be pressurized for the brakes to work. If for some reason, the reservoir tanks are low on pressure, then there's no pressure to activate the brake cylinders...and the car will roll. I believe that is why unattended cars not only have the train line vented to atmosphere...but also have their hand brakes set.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Mike, 
Your correct. Here's a GIF to help visualize what happens.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is a map of the area around Lac Megantic. The route of the track goes west of town for 7.5 miles. The profile is the elevation of that route. The high point on the right side is 7.5 miles out of town, 0 miles is the center of town.













Chuck


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Do you actually believe that a firemen knows about an emergency cut off. I just love all you arm chair railroaders. Lets get some better facts out of what has happened first before you all start speculating. Later RJD


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 10 Jul 2013 06:11 PM 
Do you actually believe that a firemen knows about an emergency cut off. I just love all you arm chair railroaders. Lets get some better facts out of what has happened first before you all start speculating. Later RJD 
RJD,

I'm no arm chair railroader... And yes I would suspect that part of fireman's training is to learn how to fight locomotive fires. The emergency shut off on the outside of the locomotives are very visible. 
I haven't speculated on anything, or trying to make any assumptions. 

Craig


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 10 Jul 2013 06:11 PM 
Do you actually believe that a firemen knows about an emergency cut off. I just love all you arm chair railroaders. Lets get some better facts out of what has happened first before you all start speculating. Later RJD 



yes, they absolutely do know about it..
and it has been a confirmed fact from early on that yes, in this particular story, the firemen shut down the locomotive with the emergency shutoff.
there has been zero speculation on this particular issue..only well known facts.

Perhaps you should actually read all the info that has been provided, before you start speculating about speculation..

Scot


----------



## bf2468 (Jun 24, 2013)

I am glag that I started this thred. I am learning a lot and the discussion is very informative. Its always sad when so many lives are lost when it all could have been prevented. I hope lessons learned can prevent future tragities.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

RJD, if I have interpreted Craig's posts correctly over the past few years, I would say that he is a professional RRer on the 1:1s. Whether he is a conductor or an engineer, or something else, I don't know. I respect his comments on how the big boys work. Chuck


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By chuck n on 10 Jul 2013 07:10 PM 
RJD, if I have interpreted Craig's posts correctly over the past few years, I would say that he is a professional RRer on the 1:1s. Whether he is a conductor or an engineer, or something else, I don't know. I respect his comments on how the big boys work. Chuck 
When I signed up I was a conductor, but then went into the engineer program. I should have picked a different sig, but doesn't matter anymore. Would RJD like to see my RR retirement statements to prove that I'm a rail?


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

RJD 

BNSF is an "arm chair railroader"... it's just that the "arm chair" is the engineer's seat in the cab of a locomotive.


----------



## Joe Mascitti (Oct 30, 2008)

My take on this: 

1. Of course blame the engineer, it's always the poor guys fault that is actually doing work. 

2. The engineer was jealous of the American 4th of July fireworks, so he threw the train in reverse and went to the hotel hoping to see fireworks. 

3. Blame it on George Bush....he had to be involved.... 

4. Could not ever be the RR's fault for lack of maintenance on the loco's or braking system...nah.... 

I'm surprised of the lack of information being provided. It is a shame to see so many people killed in a preventable accident. 

On another note, if the firemen had knowledge of shutting down a loco, one would think they would have had a RR employee come down and check to be sure the train was properly tied down knowing the air would bleed off....or at least have the RR contact the engineer to come back to the train to be sure it had enough hand brakes applied since the loco was being shut off.... 


Just my .02 cents 

Joe


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Joe Mascitti on 11 Jul 2013 02:01 PM 
My take on this: 

1. Of course blame the engineer, it's always the poor guys fault that is actually doing work. 



Well..in this case, it looks like it genuinely is his fault.
he probably didnt apply enough hand brakes..
I dont think the actual amount of brakes applied is known yet, compared to regulations, but im sure it will be..

On another note, if the firemen had knowledge of shutting down a loco, one would think they would have had a RR employee come down and check to be sure the train was properly tied down knowing the air would bleed off....or at least have the RR contact the engineer to come back to the train to be sure it had enough hand brakes applied since the loco was being shut off.... 


Just my .02 cents 

Joe 



The fire department did call the railroad, and when the fire department left the scene, 
two railroad employees and one policeman were with the train..
(not that the policeman is relevant at all, to the accident..but he was reported as being there, so im just passing on that info..)
but once the railroad employees realized the train might roll, it was too late..

Railroad management attempted to blame the fire department, early on, saying the runaway happened because they shut down the loco..
but they quickly back-pedaled on that, once it was determined the fire department followed proper procedures, and they left the train in the care of railroad employees,
and the original employee most likely didnt set enough hand brakes, which should have held the train in place no matter what happened..
Later press briefings had the railroad saying the fire department had no blame..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Today, police in Lac-Mégantic have said the missing persons are officially being presumed dead, which brings the death toll to 50. 
wow.. 

Scot


----------



## Joe Mascitti (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks Scot for in info..... If they left the train in the hands of RR employees, no one thought to start another engine to charge the air brakes? Also heard the grade was anywhere from .5 to 1.5 grade.... So it dragged 3 engines down hill also?? Many things do not add up. If the engineer set the proper amount of hand brakes, and they did not work well due to poor brake shoes, etc.... It's not his fault. After the RR company got egg on their face about blaming the fire dept... The next easiest target would be the engineer.... Time will tell.... The company will never admit poor maintance.... Too many people died.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

With 20/20 hindsight, there's a lot to be said for 2 man crews. 

John


----------



## SailorDon (Jan 6, 2008)

It seems as though some of the tank cars were pulled out of the fire before they exploded. I wonder if these tank cars were included in the count of 72 that crashed and burned.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...6678252087

Whatever the count and whatever the reason, it is a case of too little too late. Very sad.
.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Joe Mascitti on 11 Jul 2013 07:28 PM 
Thanks Scot for in info..... If they left the train in the hands of RR employees, no one thought to start another engine to charge the air brakes? Also heard the grade was anywhere from .5 to 1.5 grade.... So it dragged 3 engines down hill also?? Many things do not add up. If the engineer set the proper amount of hand brakes, and they did not work well due to poor brake shoes, etc.... It's not his fault. After the RR company got egg on their face about blaming the fire dept... The next easiest target would be the engineer.... Time will tell.... The company will never admit poor maintance.... Too many people died. 



IMO, everything adds up just fine..

after the fire was out, and the railroad employees were deciding what to do next, its not like they were standing around for several hours *not* starting the engines back up..
I think it started rolling soon after the fire was out..within 30 minutes or so..
the employees probably didnt even have time to think about it before the train started moving.

Original employee didnt apply enough hand brakes. (most likely he didn't...still not 100% proven though, but assuming that is true for now)
+
fire breaks out.
+
fire departments fights fire, and standard procedure when a diesel locomotive is on fire is to turn off the loco..
+
Which reduces braking power..but hand brakes should hold, if they are set properly.
+
Fire department leaves.
+
Train guys have no reason to think anything else is amiss, (and we have no idea what they were doing, or not doing, but its clear they didn't have a lot of time until, soon after fire department leaves:
+
train starts rolling.

= Disaster.

No math problems I can see! 

Sure, its still possible there could be maintenance issues with the brakes, which the railroad would be responsible for..
and its still possible the original employee did in fact do everything by the book, and will be exonerated in the end..but Im tending to doubt it..
the most plausible explanation is: If enough hand brakes were set, and set correctly, the train wouldn't have rolled..

Scot


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Several timelines posted online say: 

12:15 AM - Fire department left the scene. 
12:56 AM - train started rolling. 
1:14 AM - train derailed and fire began. 

So the train crew was there for 40 minutes before the train started moving. 
(its doubtful they could do anything with the locos or train before the fire was out) 

actually..we *dont* know that the 2 guys from the railroad even hung around after the fire department left.. 
Some reports say *one* employee of the railroad was there with the firemen, and he left the train after the fire was out, and the train was unattended, again, when it began to roll.. 
Other reports say *two* employees of the railroad were there with the firemen, and both railroad employees, and a policeman, 
remained on-site after the firemen left.. 

IMO, the main story, and cause, is pretty well understood at this point (the hand brakes).. 
but there are a still a lot of specific details unknown, or unclear.. 

Scot


----------



## riffer (May 13, 2013)

At this point, I'm waiting for the report. There are too many inconsistencies in the reported timeline and unknown facts. 

Also, remember that application of the handbrakes is only a fail-safe if a bunch of other stuff happens. It should have been done ( and, at this point, it is only an allegation that it wasn't), but it didn't "cause" the accident. What caused the accident was whatever caused the fire. That is what set the chain of events in motion. 

P.S. Media and politicians up here are in a "never let a good crisis go to waste" mode. With the poor victims not even in their graves yet.


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Per the rules trainman are not to rely on the air brakes for holding the train. So if the engineer had correctly tied the train down in the first place, the only news we would be hearing about would have been a locomotive fire. I would like to read the report as well, but I can clearly say that one of the contributing factors is/was the result of not properly securing the train. The rules state that you must apply a sufficient number of hand brakes to prevent movement. Is 11 enough for that type of train and the grade? I would have tied at least double that if it was my train... 

Craig


----------



## jfrank (Jan 2, 2008)

http://www.trainorders.com/discussi...15,3125354 
I have read and re-read the many accounts of this accident and the excuses put forth by the unions, RR employees, RR management, etc. And it all boils down to just one man. Engineer Harding just did not secure the train. In the discussion above in Train Orders the news article portrays a person horrified at the events taking place, as I am sure he realized his life was basically over. Yes he heroically donned a fire resistant suit(it doesn't say where he got it) and pulled nine of the cars away from the fire.. But that left 63 to burn and explode burning to death 60 people and destroying the town. He has reportedly been taken into police custody pending charges of criminal negligence. This will go down in history as one of the worst train wrecks in modern railroad history and the repercussions are just starting and will last for decades. It may become almost impossible to transport hazardous materials by rail or truck or certainly much more expensive. Engineer Harding's RR career is most certainly over and one wonders if he will ever recover from these events. The saddest part is he was probably just doing what most all of the MMA's engineers do every day. They just tie down the locomotives and a few cars and head to beans and a rest without performing all the brake tests etc. It just finally caught up with him and probably countless others across the industry. The railroads were reaping the harvest of the oil boom and the ethanol craze......now they will reap the whirlwind.


----------

