Canadian Railroads > Gov't to issue new handbrake rules

An item in today's Globe & Mail ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-issue-hand-brake-requirements-for-unattended-trains/article21360810/

First two paras:

The federal government will issue detailed requirements specifying the number of hand brakes that must be set on unattended trains in its latest response to last year’s devastating accident in Lac-Mégantic, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Ottawa will also conduct a review of shortline railways’ employee training plans, after the Transportation Safety Board uncovered glaring gaps in the way Montreal, Maine & Atlantic staff were trained and tested, and take additional steps to deal with crude oil testing and classification. Transport Minister Lisa Raitt will announce the changes in Ottawa on Wednesday.

see link above for more ....

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

A paragraph from a Canadian Press item about the new rules that have now been announced:

"They include tougher hand brake requirements, more Transport Canada staff to do audits, more research on crude oil properties and a requirement that rail companies submit training plans for review."

The move is a response to a TSB report earlier this week that said CN, CP and MMA had failed to file mandatory accident information.

Full item:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4950051-new-set-of-rail-safety-rules-unveiled-in-wake-of-lac-megantic-report/

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

From Transport Canada News Release:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=897699

Click on the links listed under Related Products for details.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/14 10:11 by RayLGrinder.

The new rules are only designed to make the politicians look like they've done something. Public safety has next to nothing to do with it.

In plain language existing rule says apply handbrakes and test to make sure they work without the aid of any other brake systems, pretty straight forward. If it was followed properly the Quebec derailment would not have happened.

I'm surprised the new handbrake rules didn't say this: Apply handbrakes, all of them.
That might take out the "grey" area.

Ummm, so on my last 144 platform train you wanted me to apply all the handbrakes on 13,000ft of train? You can come help then, let me know when you're finished.

Posted from iPhone

Classic gummitt CYA. What a total waste of money....as usual.

Ross Rowland

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ummm, so on my last 144 platform train you wanted
> me to apply all the handbrakes on 13,000ft of
> train? You can come help then, let me know when
> you're finished.

Holy crap, sounds like an exercise plan from hell. I wouldn't want to do that in a good weather let alone freezing rain, 3 foot deep snow or hurricane force winds. Maybe they can find a why to have the PTC system apply the hand brakes too.

On the upside, this might put a nail in the coffin on some of the single-employee crew ideas floating around.

They may be issuing new handbrake rules, but CN and CP(I believe) have already changed their handbrake requirements. Like stated above, it's just to make it seem like the feds are actually doing something.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the upside, this might put a nail in the coffin
> on some of the single-employee crew ideas floating
> around.


It will take a very long time but PTC will eliminate trainmen from freight trains.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

Here's another take on the how and why of the new rules.

The better run railroads in Canada already had adequate handbrake practices in place, and by and large the operating employees followed them. These company regulations came about through experiences with unsecured equipment. The Federal Government rules are more like closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

I'm holding off assigning the blame regarding Lac Megantic , but the evidence speaks for itself. The Quebec Superior Court reconvenes in December in Lac Megantic, still in the evidence gathering phase of the trial.

The new Federal Rules were issued under the signature of Federal Transport Minister Lisa Rait, a Conservative from Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, whose father was a union leader in the coal mining industry. She is politically ambitious.

Under the several Federal Governments lead by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, there has been a steady erosion in the numbers of civil servants employed by Canadian Government, including the number of safety inspectors overseeing the railways.

The new rules will see those safety inspectors return, and we can expect to see some senior civil servant have to "fall on his sword" for letting the previous batch go.

Next year is a Federal Election year in Canada. The Conservative Party has to hold a leadership convention prior to the election.
Although loyal to the Conservative Party, and a social conservative herself, Lisa has shown herself to be independent of the Harper loyalists in the Conservative Party.

Could the new rules be used against Stephen to show that under his watch, rail safety was allowed to deteriorate?

The Teamsters Union safety ads appearing during the CFL playoffs are speaking to this issue. They imply that rail safety has deteriorated under the current Federal Government, and that the railway operating staff have been working hard to operate the railways safely, despite corporate and Government indifference. They comply with Government regulations in that they do not directly accuse any political party, but working Canadians are not usually supporters of the Stephen Harper Conservatives.

Note the subtle title change introduced by the print and television media. Nowadays, when referring to the ruling political party,
it is the "Stephen Harper" Conservatives, in order to distance the current brand of Conservative from previous ruling Conservative Governments, some of which are seen as having been to the benefit of the Nation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/14 09:29 by eminence_grise.

CP's handbrake policy used to be 10% + 2, so a 100 car train would be secured with 12 handbrakes (applied and tested). Recently that was dropped and now just reads "a sufficient number" which is pretty non specific.

Posted from iPhone

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CP's handbrake policy used to be 10% + 2, so a 100
> car train would be secured with 12 handbrakes
> (applied and tested). Recently that was dropped
> and now just reads "a sufficient number" which is
> pretty non specific.
>
> Posted from iPhone


Even the 10% plus 2 should be adjusted for gradient, I'd think. Tying down a train on a 1.6% grade at Nantes is different than tying down a train on a pool table flat stretch of the prairies.

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CP's handbrake policy used to be 10% + 2, so a 100
> car train would be secured with 12 handbrakes
> (applied and tested). Recently that was dropped
> and now just reads "a sufficient number" which is
> pretty non specific.

Are you sure that's true? About 1 year ago, I posted the following information from the CP GOI (General Operating Instructions), where Paragraph 1.1 of Section 14 has this table:

This is the MINIMAL number, and must be added to depending on conditions (like a grade)

No. of Cars____No. of Handbrakes
1-2__________1
3-9__________2
10-19________3
20-29________4
30-39________5
40-49________6
50-59________7
60-69________8
70-79________9

etc. etc.

So, has the CP really revised their GOI?

Ray

The number really isn't the key here, that can be anything, as long as they have been tested for effectiveness, that sounds plenty specific to me. Apply a bunch of handbrakes and test to see if they work. If they don't work, well, apply more and test again.

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finderskeepers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CP's handbrake policy used to be 10% + 2, so a
> 100
> > car train would be secured with 12 handbrakes
> > (applied and tested). Recently that was dropped
> > and now just reads "a sufficient number" which
> is
> > pretty non specific.
>
> Are you sure that's true? About 1 year ago, I
> posted the following information from the CP GOI
> (General Operating Instructions), where Paragraph
> 1.1 of Section 14 has this table:
>
> This is the MINIMAL number, and must be added to
> depending on conditions (like a grade)
>
> No. of Cars____No. of Handbrakes
> 1-2__________1
> 3-9__________2
> 10-19________3
> 20-29________4
> 30-39________5
> 40-49________6
> 50-59________7
> 60-69________8
> 70-79________9
>
> etc. etc.
>
> So, has the CP really revised their GOI?
>
> Ray

Yes Ray, the GOI is not static, it changes periodically with changes reflected in the quarterly bulletin (which used to be the monthly bulletin). In fact we are getting new CROR now too.



Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finderskeepers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CP's handbrake policy used to be 10% + 2, so a
> 100
> > car train would be secured with 12 handbrakes
> > (applied and tested). Recently that was dropped
> > and now just reads "a sufficient number" which
> is
> > pretty non specific.
>
> Are you sure that's true? About 1 year ago, I
> posted the following information from the CP GOI
> (General Operating Instructions), where Paragraph
> 1.1 of Section 14 has this table:
>
> This is the MINIMAL number, and must be added to
> depending on conditions (like a grade)
>
> No. of Cars____No. of Handbrakes
> 1-2__________1
> 3-9__________2
> 10-19________3
> 20-29________4
> 30-39________5
> 40-49________6
> 50-59________7
> 60-69________8
> 70-79________9
>
> etc. etc.
>
> So, has the CP really revised their GOI?
>
> Ray

Posted from iPhone

Yes there are the handbrakes charts, but they are not set in stone. As a lot of yards have special instructions. The rules in place now are set up that if anything goes wrong, the crew can be blamed. Such as the wording "sufficient amount of handbrakes". That's just the way it is and we have to live with it.

cpcnguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes there are the handbrakes charts, but they are
> not set in stone. As a lot of yards have special
> instructions. The rules in place now are set up
> that if anything goes wrong, the crew can be
> blamed. Such as the wording "sufficient amount of
> handbrakes". That's just the way it is and we have
> to live with it.


The fact that something bad happens means, by definition, there weren't enough brakes tied down.

That's why I'm very curious to see what comes out of the boxes of data that Surete de Quebec extracted from MM&A. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if management discussed guys "milking the clock" by turning an "unnecessary" number of brakes. And determined about how long the job should take, etc. Like a "suggested" plan that's one step short of a direct order.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cpcnguy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes there are the handbrakes charts, but they
> are
> > not set in stone. As a lot of yards have
> special
> > instructions. The rules in place now are set up
> > that if anything goes wrong, the crew can be
> > blamed. Such as the wording "sufficient amount
> of
> > handbrakes". That's just the way it is and we
> have
> > to live with it.
>
>
> The fact that something bad happens means, by
> definition, there weren't enough brakes tied
> down.
>
> That's why I'm very curious to see what comes out
> of the boxes of data that Surete de Quebec
> extracted from MM&A. It wouldn't surprise me in
> the slightest if management discussed guys
> "milking the clock" by turning an "unnecessary"
> number of brakes. And determined about how long
> the job should take, etc. Like a "suggested" plan
> that's one step short of a direct order.


Lackawana484...That does happen. While I don't think it is a widespread problem it did happen to me a couple of times before I became an engineer.

An example: While on overtime I was securing a train in a siding while an official was present. It was on a slight grade and I felt a couple more handbrakes should be applied just for my own peace of mind due to the tonnage of the train. I wasn't flat out accused of "stealing time," but was questioned as to why I secured more handbrakes than what was called for in the Special Instructions section of the Timetable. I explained why. The official didn't say anything. That's a tactic they use...thinking you would become uncomfortable with the silence and keep talking.

Another example but not quite in the spirit of this post. While setting out bad order cars was told to not apply a handbrake on the car set out because we were not leaving it unattended. We were just switching it to the next track over and had to put other bad order cars on top of it. The official said it didn't require being secured and tested because we really weren't leaving it unattended. It was on air when being set out. If we had done things the way we understood the intent of the rule it would have caused a delay in the train leaving its initial terminal and management would have to account for it. Seems the middle management expected no delays and no excuses. Seriously. Fine. A few days afterwards a train was changing out crews and the inbound crew was standing right beside the engine, on the ground, waiting for the outbound crew when an official "wrote them up" for leaving a train unsecured. Granted, this was on a different subdivision, but was the same railroad.