Rail cars and locomotives do have a manual brake like cars and trucks.
Train - hazardous cargo "accident"
- Thread starter 3930dave
- Start date
- Views: 54680
Rail cars and locomotives do have a manual brake like cars and trucks.
Thank you for those details, and the history too ! As precise as engineering should be, there are always tradeoffs that have to be made, and you have confirmed some things I suspected, and enlightened me about some other issues.
With large and old systems like trains, there can be quite of a bit inertia in place, in regards to technical changes. Sometimes that opposition is for good reasons.... sometimes not.
Blue sky for-instance... revamp the air system on a car, to accept some smarts, and put a watchdog system on the main compressor. Default the on-car smarts so that if it doesn't get the watchdog signal from the main compressor, after a certain delay it slowly applies, then sets the brakes on. Perhaps sets a latch that needs to be manually reset before the brake will release.
Watchdog signal at the compressor is basically "Compressor healthy, output pressure within spec" and any other relevant supervisory smarts. I don't know trains, perhaps there is a valid situation where you want to proceed without a functioning compressor, but this scenario might prevent roll-aways.
Today, the control technology to implement the basic scheme I described is trivial, and cars could be RF linked, to avoid re-wiring.
One of the reasons air is used on transport systems is it cheap to implement over long distances. The electronics to build in some useful Fail Safe smarts into these legacy air systems are readily available, and basically cost almost nothing (relative to the cost of a rail system, and its rolling stock).
Thanks, and Rgds, D.
The impression I got was that manual brakes were available on the train cars and locomotives, but too few were set (or at least in terms of functional ones). The business reality I'm hearing on here is that the few (ONE in the case of the title accident) personnel on the train are pressured to keep a tight schedule, and the manual setting and release of brakes is frowned upon as a time-waster. Is what it is.
Another impression I have is that there are no agreed-upon federal standards for the # of parking brakes to be set - it's up to the train crew, perhaps effectively what I called in another world "tribal knowledge". I don't actually mean that in a negative sense - over time I've found that some scarily important stuff is not written down anywhere, but rather passed along as oral history !
My first hope is that trained staff are in place that fully know what they are doing. Unfortunately, many corporations don't like the cost implications of that hope.... but I digress, a bit.
I actually often prefer simple,hands-on operator controlled actions for many things, but this application nearly screams out for a computerized baseline control. Once you have some "smarts" in place at the car brake level, based on grade slope and train weight, a computer could recommend setting XY # of parking brakes.
Press a few buttons in the cab, and XY brakes are set to Park, on the train. Return to the train, and so long as the main air compressor is running, the Parking brake latches can be reset in the cab, with a few keystrokes. If the air compressor has failed and can't recover, then the Parking brakes need to be Released manually.
Adequate brakes get set, and the employee time to Set/Release them is minimal. I'd have trouble believing that a graduate MechEng would have trouble coming up with the datatable of GradeSlope vs. Train Weight vs. Minimum Brakes to Set.
While you are at it..... putting a bit more telemetry on the car brakes would be pretty easy - Brake temperature, movement of key actuators, air leakage rates per car...... tells you about sticking and overheating brakes automatically.
Any system like this today would report anywhere on the globe, so the data could be reviewed by people other than just the over-worked/tired crew on the train. Extra eyes can be really useful.
As always, any of these "smart" systems should be designed for manual override, under the control of an appropriately authorized person - confirmation sign-off by a Yardmaster, Eng specialist.....
I don't put blind faith into "smart" tech solutions, but IMO, train technology in regards to what we are discussing in this thread needs a significant amount of attention and updating.
Rgds, D.
Where that runaway happened there was no Yardmaster etc to sign off to maybe a dispatcher but who knows where he is located
And that Shortline equipment was borderline maintained at best and they would never purchase the equipment(Loco's) with that technology they run on a shoestring.
The new Locomotives have push button handbrakes on them now that wind on but they still have the manual override
And as you said a one man crew can be overworked it's nonsense that it's allowed
And that Shortline equipment was borderline maintained at best and they would never purchase the equipment(Loco's) with that technology they run on a shoestring.
The new Locomotives have push button handbrakes on them now that wind on but they still have the manual override
And as you said a one man crew can be overworked it's nonsense that it's allowed
mjym
Silver Member
the same train who derail in plaster rock nb go by about 1000 feet down hill from my house in st basile nb canada
What I still don't get - why do we have to tolerate having these 3'rd World shortline tracks in place ?
The major rail companies and the refineries get to profit HUGELY from handling and processing the oil, while mjym and many other people have to assume the risk of being in proximity to these poorly maintained lines.
How can we continue to consider Canada as a first world country ? This is banana republic thinking, at best.
Rgds, D.
The one bright spot in this rather depressing article was the following:
Similar crashes in recent years spurred the U.S. government to legally require all companies by 2015 to implement so-called positive train control, an automatic anti-crash system that can halt a train that is speeding or at risk of a crash.
Jeanes said Canada has decided to take a wait-and-see approach, watching the U.S. for signs that the costly systems prove worthwhile, though most industrialized countries have introduced the automatic train control systems.
Rail safety: Train operators breaking more rules in recent years - Canada - CBC News
While the canadian stance is pretty sad, it is good to see some initiative from Washington. While Business as Usual has been good for CorporateGovernment, it is getting too many people injured/killed.
Rgds, D.
Similar crashes in recent years spurred the U.S. government to legally require all companies by 2015 to implement so-called positive train control, an automatic anti-crash system that can halt a train that is speeding or at risk of a crash.
Jeanes said Canada has decided to take a wait-and-see approach, watching the U.S. for signs that the costly systems prove worthwhile, though most industrialized countries have introduced the automatic train control systems.
Rail safety: Train operators breaking more rules in recent years - Canada - CBC News
While the canadian stance is pretty sad, it is good to see some initiative from Washington. While Business as Usual has been good for CorporateGovernment, it is getting too many people injured/killed.
Rgds, D.
The big problems began when the RR's were allowed to privatize and make money for shareholders
Everything that could be cut was and still is under the guise of safety 1st
Short Lines were created because the shareholders would not agree to maintaining lines that the Big Boys sad didnt handle enough freight to keep them happy.
They told shippers to bad and their only choice was to allow the Shortlines and they dont have enough staff to keep up when they inherit new business (crude oil) and things disintegrate.
The same guy who inspects the Engines could also be required to inspect the tracks and repair them also
Everything that could be cut was and still is under the guise of safety 1st
Short Lines were created because the shareholders would not agree to maintaining lines that the Big Boys sad didnt handle enough freight to keep them happy.
They told shippers to bad and their only choice was to allow the Shortlines and they dont have enough staff to keep up when they inherit new business (crude oil) and things disintegrate.
The same guy who inspects the Engines could also be required to inspect the tracks and repair them also
If you can make your problem somebody else's problem, it's not a problem. Triple bonus marks if you insulate yourself from a problem while still continuing to benefit from the major revenue stream that those risks entail.
Calling our (Canadian) govt watchdogs toothless belittles canine dental problems.
If they had any teeth, these 3rd World Short Lines would be shut down, and they'd also take a meaningful run at hammering on Big Rail, instead of just writing reports with obvious conclusions, a year and half after an accident. Writing reports w/o any significant enforcement and penalities is not much better than doing nothing - it just becomes window dressing for pretend oversight.
If the Short Lines were shut down. I think you'd find Big Oil and Big Rail would pretty quickly take some of their profits and get these tracks up to spec soon enough.
Barring that happening, realistically, the only real way to correct this behaviour is with major lawsuits. It gets real simple - Pain, or No Pain. Until the cost of legal settlements exceed the cost of Business as Usual, things aren't going to change much.
Rgds, D.
Dutch445
Elite Member
It looks like NTSB is starting to realize how many lives are at risk every day with these trains. they are considering updating
standards for the cars hauling this high test oil:
Rail cars used to ship oil called 'unacceptable'
a small excerpt:
"The NTSB has been urging replacing or retrofitting the tank cars since 1991, but the most recent federal effort to write tougher regulations for new cars didn't get underway until 2011. An initial public comment period closed in December, and regulators are currently at work writing proposed new standards, Cynthia Quarterman, head of the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told the panel. She said she expects her agency to propose new tank car standards before the end of this year, but refused to be pinned down under questioning by lawmakers on when those rules might become final.
"Right now, there is so much uncertainty that people aren't going to make investments in safer cars and they're going to keep running these crummy cars and killing people," Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., complained. "
standards for the cars hauling this high test oil:
Rail cars used to ship oil called 'unacceptable'
a small excerpt:
"The NTSB has been urging replacing or retrofitting the tank cars since 1991, but the most recent federal effort to write tougher regulations for new cars didn't get underway until 2011. An initial public comment period closed in December, and regulators are currently at work writing proposed new standards, Cynthia Quarterman, head of the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told the panel. She said she expects her agency to propose new tank car standards before the end of this year, but refused to be pinned down under questioning by lawmakers on when those rules might become final.
"Right now, there is so much uncertainty that people aren't going to make investments in safer cars and they're going to keep running these crummy cars and killing people," Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., complained. "