Railway Says Firefighters Cut Power To Brakes; Death Toll In Quebec Train Disaster Rise
Source: REUTERS
By Richard Valdmanis and P.J. Huffstutter, Reuters
Posted July 08, 2013, at 4:51 p.m.
Last modified July 08, 2013, at 6:30 p.m.
LAC-MEGANTIC, Quebec — Air brakes that would have prevented the Quebec train disaster failed because they were powered by an engine that was shut down by firefighters as they dealt with a fire shortly before the calamity occurred, the head of the railway that operated the train said on Monday.
The runaway oil tanker train derailed in Lac-Megantic shortly after 1 a.m. Saturday, exploding in a deadly ball of flames and killing at least 13 people, with dozens still missing and feared dead.
Police said they estimated a total of around 50 people were either dead or missing after the gigantic blast destroyed dozens of buildings in the center of Lac-Megantic.
The train had been parked at a siding on a slope near the town of Nantes, which is 8 miles west of Lac-Megantic. The volunteer Nantes fire service was called out late Friday night to deal with an engine fire on one of the train’s locomotives.
Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/08/news/nation/quebec-firemen-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes-railway-says/?ref=latest
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Quebec train crash aftermath ‘like a war zone’ says Canadian prime minister - video
See link for video: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/quebec-train-crash-aftermath-reaction-video
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)The firefighters duty is to put out the fire. The railroads duty is to make sure all systems are in order after the fire.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)indicated that after the conductor secured the train, the crew went and checked into a motel for their mandatory rest period.
I can't imagine the conductor knew the engines had been shutdown but, indeed, major mistakes were made here.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Proper procedure is after their rest period to inspect the train (and to conduct an air test to make sure the brakes were supplied with air). The air pumps the brakes OFF, and a loss of air pressure applies them. The engineer is supposed to inspect all of his locomotives and also conduct an air test. Furthermore, if one engine is "cut out", the other engines in the hook-up supply air to the train brakes. An engine in the middle of a 3-4 engine multi can be shut down, without any adverse effect on the rest. It's a simple 1 switch operation. Like turning off a light.
The conductor "secured" the train by winding hand brakes on the cars. When he unsecured the train, he would have heard a noticable hissing sound in between the cars.
This crew was running without air. So, there was no way to control and stop the train efficiently, having only the engine brake.
I was an Engineer for 31 years. And a union rep and safety officer for many years.
No way firefighters caused this.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
I was a maintainer of the track machines, both in the Toronto Shop, and the Gangs.
Never worked on rolling stock.
I also was the Health and Safety Coordinator for most of my employment there.
Carried the Union Book in my back pocket of my coveralls at all times.
Management stressed many times during my employment, that in the event of an "incident" - it was a violation of employment rules to speak with ANYONE about "incidents" without having spoken with a CP Rail Official beforehand - being thoroughly debriefed.
And CP Rail's definition of "emergencies" ??? - That was when a track maintenance machine was broken down on the track, unable to get out of the way of an approaching freight train - even if the train had plenty of track to safely stop.
If the machine was small enough, and most of them were - they'd get another machine or two - like tie cranes, to just throw them off to the side - so the gang could "clear" into a siding, and let the train through without losing a minute.
I suspect some of them lay there for quite a while, until a scrap machine could pick them up.
I am an Inter Provincially licensed auto and heavy equipment mechanic in Ontario, and very fussy about the quality of my work.
More than once I had fellow maintainers (not licensed nor trained) complain about how well I repaired the machines in the off-season - "don't fix that - we'll miss out on a road trip during the summer!"
Pretty sure it hasn't changed much
(sigh)
CC
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)Are firefighters trained to enter locomotives, fight locomotive fires and turn off locomotive powerplants? I ask this question as a volunteer firefighter in PA, one that is certified national pro-board in FF and state certified as a rescue tech and EMT.
When we are called out (in PA) for a utility pole fire, we are only allowed to stand-by to make sure that the exposures are protected. We must wait for PPL (the utility) to dispatch crews to put out the actual fire. Why you ask? Because a utility fire is a class C fire with 1000s of volts of electricity and firefighters using water generally don't do well fighting class C with water.
When there are RR track fires, we are also not allowed to put them out, NS (Norfolk Southern) rail has their own crews that do that work, again we are only dispatched to protect exposures outside of RR property. My understanding is (correct me if i'm wrong) that it is the same with (diesel/electric) locomotive fires, which is the case being discussed. Not only are they class C fires, they are on RR property. We have NS in our township and in my 15 years of being in fire service have never been offered a class or any training in locomotive fires. I have heard no stories of anyone in any local fire department extinguishing any such blaze or attending any class on just how to do such as task. It is my understanding that in the event of a locomotive fire, we would asked to stand-by to protect exposures and wait for the railroad to dispatch a fire and hazmat crew. Am I misinformed?
Amonester
(11,541 posts)That's exactly what happened: Railroad train corporation's execs followed the UNREGULATED CAPITALIST playbook which is 'To Maximze Profits By Minimizing Costs' so they just hire crews of ONE engineer per train now.
No more multiple-engineer crews = more bucks on the bottom line. 
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)In the world of cheaper, you get 1 guy driving an 80-car hazmat train instead of 3 (or 4) and this shit ends up happening.
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)and trains had cabooses...now it is all about profit...one man runs a train.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)We had a full crew law in most states. Then the railroads started their propaganda campaign. I remember one talk show in Cleveland. A couple of railroad execs brought a guy in to be the "Fireman". All he did was sit in a locomotive seat. And, the host said, "Surely he does more than that all day", and they replied "Of course he does! At night he sleeps"!
wordpix
(18,652 posts) "The free market" will deal with itTrogL
(32,822 posts)They interviewed the fire chief who said (paraphrase) "We put out fires. We don't know anything about engines. That's why we got the company inspectors in. They said they were fine and left."
marble falls
(57,162 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The best way to produce surplus is by using cheap surplus energy to fuel production. Prosperity is simply the abundance of surplus and growth from the production.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)About 100,000 litres (26,385 gallons) of oil spilled into the Chaudiere River after a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic, said Eric Cardinal, a spokesman for the province’s environment ministry today.
The Chaudiere River runs between Lac-Megantic and the St. Lawrence River, meeting the major shipping channel near Quebec City.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-08/100-000-litres-of-oil-spilled-in-river-from-quebec-train-wreck
CBS Evening News mentions that this spill took place at the mouth of this river with at least 10 towns down river concerned over their water supplies.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...."Authorities have found no link to terrorism."....
(Wolf Blitzer would have reported it like there was anyway.)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The river impacts its industries and way of life, particularly during spring run-off, when it frequently overflows into populated areas, in spite of the 160 dams and levees. The river flows through several cities and villages of the area such as Sainte-Marie, Saint-Georges, Beauceville, and Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce.
From its source Lake Megantic in the Estrie region, it runs northwards to flow into the St. Lawrence River opposite Quebec City. The river's drainage area is 6682 square kilometres, initially in the Appalachian Mountains, then in the low-lands of the St. Lawrence, and include 236 lakes covering 62 square kilometres and approximately 180,000 inhabitants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaudi%C3%A8re_River
This heavy crude will sink into the river, killing aquatic life, and being churned up and spread downstream during the spring run-off. British Columbia voted against letting a pipeline be built through to the Pacific Coast, noting that the oil company was nowhere near prepared to deal with accidents/spills in remote areas.
"Basically, the British Columbia government said 'no' to moving half a million barrels a day across 600 miles across rugged and pristine areas of British Columbia," she said. "And they did that because of the risk of spills to that pristine environment, the risk to the commercial salmon fishery and the risk to human health."
According to Droitsch, the B.C. government drew a distinction between oil sands oil and conventional oil, with oil sands oil solid in its traditional state and relying on chemicals to force it through a pipeline. "So this actually poses much greater threats to water," Droitsch said.
To be sure, approving the pipeline is the province of the federal government, so the B.C. decision could be largely symbolic. But it would be very unusual. "The federal government could go ahead and ignore what the province has said and approve the pipeline, but there are a number of risks in doing that," Droitsch explained. "Sixty percent of British Colombians are opposed to the tar sands pipeline that has just been rejected."
Canada's First Nations communities also play a role in the decision. Some 70 of them are along the pipeline's proposed route — and all of them oppose the pipeline. And that's even more significant than the province's rejection, because, while the federal government can overrule the province, it doesn't have the authority to overrules the First Nations.
http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/british-columbia-rejects-oil-pipeline-casting-keystone-in-new-light-14056.html
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)Air brakes are applied when there is no air pressure. It takes power to let off the brakes.
Has been that way for 100 years or more.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)trucks.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)He also invented the punch card tabulating machine for the US Census and was a founder of what eventually became IBM.
Genius was the air safety brake. Pressure opens the brake, lose pressure and they lock up. A parked car won't go anywhere.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Reducing, stopping, or venting the air pressure from the locomotive APPLIES the brakes. This is probably still a Westinghouse brake system used by most freight trains. Passenger trains are different. The Westinghouse system has been used for about 150 years. It is simple, reliable, and fail-safe. Each individual car has a compressed air tank that applies the brakes on that car. A central compressed air system supplies the whole train, that overrides each car's brakes to keep them RELEASED. When that central compressed air is reduced or stopped, the compressed air tanks under each car applies the brakes to all eight wheels of each individual car. If the central compressed air system were to vent to the atmospere, such as a connection being broken or a car breaking loose, all the nrakes on the train are automatically applied. Unless the firefighters released the air from the tanks on each and every car, they didn't release the brakes on that train. Either the train crew never reduced pressure in the central system to apply the brakes...or the cars were so poorly maintained that many of them lost pressure in their individual tanks.
It sounds very much to me like the RR is lying to deflect liability. BTW, my knowledge comes from model trains as a youth. Spent many hours building brake parts and glueing them under cars for exact realism. The system hasn't changed much in the past 150 years.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)They probably had a leak, and couldn't release the brakes to start with, so the conductor probably bled the brakes off manually. Probably after being bitched at by a trainmaster or yardmaster, under threat of discipline, if they waited around for a repair crew.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)the brakes on each and every car would be applied. Thats why its called "fail-safe" ...which I believe Westinghouse used as a motto in the early days.
The two possible explanations...after reducing central pressure to stop the train, the crew then increased central pressure releasing the brakes on the stopped train, and left it that way. That would be a serious blunder unlikely to occur. The more probable explanation (imo) is that the cars were poorly maintained, and the pressure in the tank on each car bled down, releasing the brakes when each cars individual air pressure became lower than the central pressure.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Which you have to hold open manually for several seconds to release the air brakes (only if no pressure is flowing through it, say, with the angle cock closed on the engine). This is used when crews are "humping" or "kicking" cars in switching operations.
Poor maintenance is probable, causing the original leaks, and not being able to pump off the brakes, and someone ordering the crew to cut out the air, and bleed the brakes. I've seen it happen 10,000 times. A crew would refuse to handle cars with air leaks, and the company send some suck-ass over to move them without air.
The scenario you're talking about is plausible, but where I worked the "passenger" selection on the air brake was locked out to prevent that scenario. Different brakes on passenger and freight cars.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And I'm not familiar with modern diesel locomotives...I think they have a combination compressed air and regenerative braking?
I familiar with freight car brakes from modelling them as a kid. And in my 20s I used to fool around on a steam locomotive a friend owned. So I know how the old-school stuff works. I don't think freight car brakes have changed much over the years though.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)That's the usual scenario, even as the repukelicons and their brethern in Canada call for ending regulations and inspections.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)... this is normal procedure in a switching yard, where the cars are allowed to "glide" away from the locomotive into the switching area to form various outbound trains. Nothing magical about that. The "magical" part is that some cars "just detached themselves" from the stopped train.
This from a Bozo who once worked in a switching yard.
DWinNJ
(261 posts)If the railway is saying that any train, let alone an oil tanker train, can roll of on it's own by a single point of failure, than they should not be allowed to be in that business.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Its a "fail-safe" system. Either the train crew made an epic blunder, or the train as a whole was poorly maintained. Normally, a reduction of central air pressure applies the brakes in every car. If the train became uncoupled in the middle, all the brakes in both segments would be applied. Its a pretty simple and reliable system.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)There was a fire reported. They could have started it.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Possible. Nobody has mentioned where the crew was yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/08/19354278-death-toll-rises-to-13-in-canadian-derailment-railways-chief-alleges-train-was-tampered-with?lite
By M. Alex Johnson, Staff Writer, NBC News
The runaway train carrying crude oil that derailed in a Quebec town, killing at least 13 people and leaving dozens of others unaccounted for, was tampered with in some way, the company's chairman claimed in an interview published Monday.
Two days after the train derailed on a curve at 1 a.m. ET Saturday in the small town of Lac-Mégantic, creating an enormous fireball that all but incinerated six city blocks, police said at a news conference Monday that they had found eight more bodies, bringing the known number of deaths to 13. About 40 people remain unaccounted for, they said.
Police gave few details at the news conference. Earlier, authorities confirmed that the 72-car train's black box data recorder has been recovered and could give some clues as to why it began to roll seven miles downhill and crash into the town.
Canadian Transport Minister Denis Lebel said the locomotive suspected of breaking loose and causing the derailment had been inspected just the day before, on Friday, and was found to have "no defects."
"If somebody violated regulations, after the investigation is completed we will take all measures allowed by the law," Lebel said.
Ed Burkhardt, chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic, the railway that operated the train, said he was certain someone tampered with the locomotive, The Montreal Gazette reported in an article it published Monday afternoon. The newspaper said it interviewed Burkhardt by phone from Chicago.
(snip)
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)MONTREAL - The train that careened into the centre of town in Lac Megantic early Saturday morning was unmanned when it derailed and exploded in a huge ball of flame, says a spokesperson for the company that owned the locomotive.
Joseph R. McGonigle confirmed to The Gazette early Saturday afternoon that shortly before midnight, the train's conductor locked the brakes and checked to ensure that the rail cars carrying thousands of litres of crude oil were all securely attached. He then checked into a nearby Lac Megantic hotel for the night.
"Sometime after, the train got loose," said McGonigle, who is vice president of marketing for The Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway. "It traveled under its own inertia to the centre of the town."
The locomotive portion of the 73-car train actually detached half a mile outside of the small town, he added, but the cars carrying the oil kept right on rolling. McGonigle said there are security mechanisms in place to prevent anyone from tampering with the train, and the proper checks were done by the conductor before he left the vehicle. No one except him should have been able to set it in motion.
More: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Train+carrying+crude+rolls+then+derails+explodes+Megantic/8625250/story.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=528895
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)have to be some major cover-up to NOT get to the bottom of this.
Some may very well be criminally negligent here...
wordpix
(18,652 posts)The cause of this disaster probably won't be clear for months yet this guy is "certain."
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)CHIMO
(9,223 posts)By Reuters. At least that is the source that is claimed for this article!
CTV Montreal
"Firefighters put out the fire with foam. We cut the engine off. It's a fuel line that broke on the motor which was making the fire,” explained Nantes fire chief Patrick Lambert
"I checked everything that the officers did, what the firefighters did. I can say that the firefighters followed protocols from one end to the other, and those are MMA protocols," said Lambert, describing the protocols set out by railway company Montreal, Maine and Atlantic.
Firefighters from Nantes put out the flames and left the train in the care of the crew at 12:15 a.m. Saturday. The train's crew has said they made sure everything was secure before leaving again.
"We are now aware the firefighters shut down the locomotive. By the time MMA people found out, it was too late," he said in an email to CTV Montreal.
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/how-did-it-happen-questions-remain-1.1357964
The last sentence is that of a person that does not know what his company is doing or does not care what they do. In addition the report from Reuters clearly puts them in the dog house. Are they in the pocket of the railway company, simply lazy, negligent or is CTV the one that is out of this world?
This whole issue is screwed up. It is also reported that ethanol was part of the 73 cars. Ethanol is not crude oil! It would be more representative of what appeared to be a boiling liquid expanding volume explosion!
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)the crude up to temp to burn as it did.
Have lost the reference to ethanol. I believe it was contained in words from the refinery. It seems to have disappeared for the time being. So for the presence it is up to MMA to provide the material. Have not seen that list yet.
Lac Mégantic explosion: Train derailment a local risk due to old technology
The 73-car train left from North Dakota before passing through Toronto on CP Rail’s tracks and being handed over to the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway. Gormick said Toronto is a main artery for freight trains carrying crude and ethanol from the U.S. and Western Canada.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/08/lac_mgantic_explosion_train_derailment_a_local_risk_due_to_old_technology.html
cali
(114,904 posts)half of all oil moved in Canada and the U.S. is moved by rail- much of it in tanker cars like the ones in Lac Megantic, that were deemed unsafe 20 years ago. These trains increasingly have only one person aboard. They travel through densely populated towns and cities. In the Northeast and South, the rail infrastructure is horrendous.
This is bigger than the brake failure.
There are now expectations that the death toll in Lac Megantic will be over 67. In a town of 6,000. And as has been noted in this thread the environmental devastation is huge.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Where I used to work we used to switch out the Cleveland Sun Oil distribution center. The gasoline would arrive by barge, and be pumped up into the huge storage tanks. Then my railroad would switch in a bunch of ADMX (Archer-Daniels-Midland) tank cars, and they would blend it for distribution.
We brought in a lot back then, and that was before ethanol was mandated.
