Train - hazardous cargo "accident"

[DieselnHooters]

Take a look at Energy East proposed route, through major population centers and dug under the St-Lawrence river near QuebecCity !!?? What could go wrong ?

You are free to make all the environmental disasters you like in your backyard...not ours

We still expect equalization payments in the billions until we bleed you dry, when the $$$ stop flowing our way then Canada is done.

Maybe you will like being an American, you are already fixated on US politics

 

[3930dave]

Updated today....

Lac-Megantic: The runaway train that destroyed a town - BBC News

Rgds, D.

 

[buickanddeere]

Updated today....

Lac-Megantic: The runaway train that destroyed a town - BBC News

Rgds, D.

3930Dave. Best answer I have seen yet.

 

[crazyal]

The problem was that it wasn't just one mistake. They couldn't prove that the engineer didn't set the brakes. He says he did and the fire was set by someone who also released the brakes. The fire department didn't have the engineer come back to inspect the train after the fire. The locomotive's engines were shut down shutting off the air compressor that released the brakes by, I believe, the firemen who never told the engineer. Trying to charge the other two men was pretty much a joke. Neither of them had any control over the brakes being set on the train. Even going after Canadian Pacific is also a joke. They played no role in this accident. They weren't the company hauling the tankers at the time of the accident, they didn't have any control over the company or it's guidelines, and the they didn't hire the engineer.

 

[4570Man]

The problem was that it wasn't just one mistake. They couldn't prove that the engineer didn't set the brakes. He says he did and the fire was set by someone who also released the brakes. The fire department didn't have the engineer come back to inspect the train after the fire. The locomotive's engines were shut down shutting off the air compressor that released the brakes by, I believe, the firemen who never told the engineer. Trying to charge the other two men was pretty much a joke. Neither of them had any control over the brakes being set on the train. Even going after Canadian Pacific is also a joke. They played no role in this accident. They weren't the company hauling the tankers at the time of the accident, they didn't have any control over the company or it's guidelines, and the they didn't hire the engineer.

He probably believes that rather it’s true or not. How else could you sleep at night?

 

[3930dave]

The problem was that it wasn't just one mistake. They couldn't prove that the engineer didn't set the brakes. He says he did and the fire was set by someone who also released the brakes. The fire department didn't have the engineer come back to inspect the train after the fire. The locomotive's engines were shut down shutting off the air compressor that released the brakes by, I believe, the firemen who never told the engineer. Trying to charge the other two men was pretty much a joke. Neither of them had any control over the brakes being set on the train. Even going after Canadian Pacific is also a joke. They played no role in this accident. They weren't the company hauling the tankers at the time of the accident, they didn't have any control over the company or it's guidelines, and the they didn't hire the engineer.

I'll leave my personal views on Accountability at the individual level aside, in the Blame Game.

For me, this really only comes down to 3 major aspects:

1) From a design standpoint, Trains have an historic Free-Pass when come to Safety. Blow ONE air line on transport truck, and the brakes automatically apply.

2) MAJOR companies at both ends of these rail lines are making billions on the risks they externalize, to us. Shuffling the "responsibility" off to some fly-by-night operation that conveniently disappears is just another symptom of how effectively corporations control government "oversight".

3) If nothing significantly changes, then we don't function much differently than a third-world country.

Rgds, D.

 

[ch1ch2]

I do not see any reason the engineer should have been charged. If my limited understanding of how the brake system works, if the engine is not sending compressed air down the air line to all the cars, then the cars will not have the air pressure to release the brakes. Someone would have manually released car brakes in order for the train to roll away.

What am I missing?

 

[aczlan]

Re: Train - hazardous cargo "accident"

I do not see any reason the engineer should have been charged. If my limited understanding of how the brake system works, if the engine is not sending compressed air down the air line to all the cars, then the cars will not have the air pressure to release the brakes. Someone would have manually released car brakes in order for the train to roll away.

What am I missing?

Trains do not have spring applied, air released brakes like on a truck. They have air applied, air released brakes.
If they lose air from the engine, the brakes apply and hold until the air in the tanks on each car runs out. At that point if no one has applied the manual brakes the train can roll. Depending on the number of cars in the train and weight in the cars, there are a certain number of cars that need to have their brakes manually applied when parking.
The question here was if the engineer applied manual brakes in enough cars to hold the train on the slope that it was parked on in the event of a loss of air (such as when the firemen shut down the locomotive and it's air compressor).
He says that he did and I would tend to believe him because of the way he was asking the dispatcher to call him back out to go check on the train. If he hadn't set enough brakes, I suspect that he would have just gone anyways to set them to cover himself. To his dying day he will probably rue the fact that he did not go and check the train even though the dispatcher wouldn't call him back to check it on the clock.

Aaron Z

 

[3930dave]

Re: Train - hazardous cargo "accident"

Trains do not have spring applied, air released brakes like on a truck. They have air applied, air released brakes.
If they lose air from the engine, the brakes apply and hold until the air in the tanks on each car runs out. At that point if no one has applied the manual brakes the train can roll. Depending on the number of cars in the train and weight in the cars, there are a certain number of cars that need to have their brakes manually applied when parking.
The question here was if the engineer applied manual brakes in enough cars to hold the train on the slope that it was parked on in the event of a loss of air (such as when the firemen shut down the locomotive and it's air compressor).
He says that he did and I would tend to believe him because of the way he was asking the dispatcher to call him back out to go check on the train. If he hadn't set enough brakes, I suspect that he would have just gone anyways to set them to cover himself. To his dying day he will probably rue the fact that he did not go and check the train even though the dispatcher wouldn't call him back to check it on the clock.

Aaron Z

Well said.

Rgds, D.

 

[cqaigy2]

I'll leave my personal views on Accountability at the individual level aside, in the Blame Game.

For me, this really only comes down to 3 major aspects:

1) From a design standpoint, Trains have an historic Free-Pass when come to Safety. Blow ONE air line on transport truck, and the brakes automatically apply.

2) MAJOR companies at both ends of these rail lines are making billions on the risks they externalize, to us. Shuffling the "responsibility" off to some fly-by-night operation that conveniently disappears is just another symptom of how effectively corporations control government "oversight".

3) If nothing significantly changes, then we don't function much differently than a third-world country.

Rgds, D.

Here we go, and probably not going to change anytime soon. Even when a train falls off the track onto the freeway, you hear that it would cost too much to fix it.