Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF Hettinger Sub Roll-Away incident

If this was posted already I missed it.

Good thing it wasn't an oil train.

Love to see the charge letter addressed to god about the cold weather...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/14 22:32 by PumpkinHogger.

---

I don't have any idea exactly where this incident
happened, or when. The print in the photo is so
faint that I cannot read it. I was barely able to
read "Montana" in the headline.

Please put the state in the thread title. Thanks!

How far did the train roll?

TIA!

Says the train rolled 8.4 miles, and reached 38 mph

How often do they run loaded coal trains over the jointed rail of the ex-Milw Rd Hettinger Sub? Good thing they didn't get the knuckle on the Hill out of Marmarth, it would have got rolling a lot faster!

TIA,

Rob L.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How often do they run loaded coal trains over the
> jointed rail of the ex-Milw Rd Hettinger Sub? Good
> thing they didn't get the knuckle on the Hill out
> of Marmarth, it would have got rolling a lot
> faster!

I imagine with all the new oil traffic and the congestion it has caused, the BNSF is running specific train types on lines it didn't before the congestion. Yes, if it happened on the hill at Marmarth, the rear end would have rolled a lot faster and would probably would have ended in a giant pile of hoppers and coal.

Margaret_SP_fan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have any idea exactly where this incident
> happened, or when. The print in the photo is so
> faint that I cannot read it. I was barely able to
>
> read "Montana" in the headline.
>
> Please put the state in the thread title.
> Thanks!
>
> How far did the train roll?
>
> TIA!


Alert issued Nov 15 ... incident was Nov 14 ... according to the document.

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

A good case for calling a Brakeman to ride the remotes on long trains.

ddg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A good case for calling a Brakeman to ride the
> remotes on long trains.


And the Railroad wants one man trains? Just presented enough evidence here to kill that Idea.

Gave this a quick and dirty trip through Photoshop. Hopefully now everyone can read it OK.

NZ

---

westernking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the Railroad wants one man trains? Just
> presented enough evidence here to kill that Idea.

I'm sure a "Master Conductor" would have taken more than a hour to respond to the scene as well, particularly if there was any depth to the snow. Funny how as the railroads try to run more and more trains, they keep cutting back on the man power that used to make them a all weather transportation service. They keep pushing that ability to cope with weather events closer to the edge, where any time ma natures lets loose a little, the railroad becomes a undignified mess.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/14 09:40 by funnelfan.

Can you set the independent brakes on DPUs from the head end? Could doing so have prevented the runaway or at least limited its speed even more quickly than hand brakes could have been set on the rear portion of the train? I don't know enough about "modern" railroading and DPUs to know whether the independent on\ DPUs can be set and released form the head end. Whether the DPUs would have been able to hold the rear portion of the train on a .98% grade is, of course, another matter.

D F W

westernking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ddg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A good case for calling a Brakeman to ride the
> > remotes on long trains.
>
>
> And the Railroad wants one man trains? Just
> presented enough evidence here to kill that Idea.


Of course this was a three man crew and failed to stop the runaway.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> westernking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ddg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A good case for calling a Brakeman to ride
> the
> > > remotes on long trains.
> >
> >
> > And the Railroad wants one man trains? Just
> > presented enough evidence here to kill that
> Idea.
>
>
> Of course this was a three man crew and failed to
> stop the runaway.

But he could have whistled for the two grade crossings they rolled through.

"...experienced an undesired emergency..."

...as opposed to a DESIRED emergency?????????



EDIT: Sorry, guys, bad attempt at a joke... trying to make a play on the word "emergency" to mean 'an emergency (situation)', not 'emergency brake application.' Obviously, judging by a couple of responses, it didn't fly... well, there goes my future as a comedy writer. :)

Cheers, Joe P.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/14 09:06 by TheApostleGreen.

TheApostleGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...experienced an undesired emergency..."
>
> ...as opposed to a DESIRED emergency?????????


If I'm about to plow into a lumber truck (appropriate for Oregon) I GUARANTEE an emergency application will be DESIRED!!!!

The DP probably has flatspots due to trying to hold the train. They hold independent brake pressure. But it may only be half of the normal 72psi. Think it's 45psi.

Curious why they tied every other car......Makes for some double thinking when walking back and untying it. Wait, did I miss that one??

SD45X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The DP probably has flatspots due to trying to
> hold the train. They hold independent brake
> pressure. But it may only be half of the normal
> 72psi. Think it's 45psi.
>
> Curious why they tied every other car......Makes
> for some double thinking when walking back and
> untying it. Wait, did I miss that one??


I kind of assumed (you know what they say about assuming) that each employee tied every other brake. Therefore all brakes were tied.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> westernking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ddg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A good case for calling a Brakeman to ride
> the
> > > remotes on long trains.
> >
> >
> > And the Railroad wants one man trains? Just
> > presented enough evidence here to kill that
> Idea.
>
>
> Of course this was a three man crew and failed to
> stop the runaway.

I'm curious about how much experience was involved here.

Let's see, we're going uphill (assuming uphill since the rear end ran away) and the air goes. Off we go, looking for it, and tieing down the head end as we go, the part attached to the engine, in case the air bleeds off. OK, good. Now we get to the [first] broken knuckle. We don't tie down the part that's NOT attached to the engine? We decide to bag it there and go back to the engine to get warm...when there is a unit on the other end of the train, probably complete with heater (even if it isn't currently on)?

Sounds like there are guys with more vacation time than there is experience on this crew.

3x not knowing anything = not knowing anything.

TAW

Maybe the cold impaired their cognitive function. But, I would think the need for handbrakes on the loose portion of the train would be fairly obvious had they given it a few seconds of thought.

radar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the cold impaired their cognitive function.

I spent years railroading in Chicago in some very cold weather (sometimes -20 or so) and never experienced a crew blowing basic railroading like that. I spent a year in Havre MT, handling Havre-Whitefish (through the Rockies) where some nights it was -20 or so and never experienced a crew blowing basic railroading like that. I worked in Bakersfield, where the extreme was opposite - +120...and no air conditioned engines or cabooses), and never experienced a crew blowing basic railroading like that. Good railroading is second nature by necessity. The only way to second nature is thorough learning and practice. That is inconsistent with the current training, which is a lot like the fundamental training in Olden Tymes, except the new and inexperienced guy is not part of an experienced crew. He IS the crew...and he's in charge of the train.


> But, I would think the need for handbrakes on the
> loose portion of the train would be fairly obvious
> had they given it a few seconds of thought.

It shouldn't have taken that.

TAW