Canadian Railroads > Megantic: Transcripts

The Globe and Mail has published a transcript of key conversations between Locomotive Engineer Tom Harding and MMA RTC's on the night of the accident.

The report is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dispatches-from-a-disaster/article20148699/#dashboard/follows/

The things that struck me after a quick read
- Harding was quite forthcoming to the RTC when asked about how many hand brakes he had applied - he gave the truthful answer, without any hesitation or equivocation
- After the locomotive fire, Harding was called and informed that the 5017 had caught fire and had been shut down, leaving the consist dead. The implication, ie that the independent brake was compromised, apparently never came to mind. (It was, after all, a call in the middle of the night...pretty hard to be on one's game in that situaton)
- It's apparent that he was shocked to find the train had rolled away - by all appearances, he genuinely believed it was parked securely.

It paints a very different picture of the engineer - certainly it's hard to conclude that he had been shirking his responsibility or acting as if he had anything to hide.

one thing that seems to be lacking in the operation, in the transcript, and from the account in the report itself, is the concept of "questioning attitude" - which is a safety culture trait, and one that the EHH style management clearly does not want employees displaying.

- Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/14 06:06 by crs1026.

I don't think (At least I hope not) that anybody thinks this guy is some kind of monster who went around with reckless intent. He just did what probably ALL of us have done at one time or another, and taken a few short cuts that wouldn't have caused any harm as long as another unforseen thing didn't happen, in this case the locomotive catching fire. He just got caught out when the margin for error closed up unexpectedly. I am not giving the railroad a pass for their lax standards, but at the same time, Mr. Harding failed to follow a rule that he been subjected to for over 30 years, as the MM&A rules about securing the train were taken pretty much word for word from the CP rulebook that he had worked under for years before. I can't excuse the MM&A for not driving home compliance to that and other rules, BUT when you hire somebody with that much experience, I think you have certain expectations that they understand rules of that importace, and it's not like he was NEVER tested on the rule book, just not as often and in as timely manner as should have happened. Leaving the locomotive running with the independent set just covers up an unsafe practice and this time it bit them. You COULD theoretically leave your car parked on a hill in gear with a cement block propped against the brake pedal. Totally unsafe, BUT it WILL work, at least until cement block falls off.

One thing I've learned is that there is a surprising number of rails who don't understand hand brakes as well as one would think.

I used to work with one engineer a lot who wouldn't put a set under a cut I was securing unless I asked for it. We had arguments about it and he was always of the opinion that tying a brake is tying a brake, whether the piston is out or not. So one day I decided to show him the difference by telling him I was going to tie four brakes on a heavy cut that was fully released. He told me there was no way four brakes would hold that cut. But I tied them and then asked him to release and test them. The train brakes were already released so once the locomotive brakes released, of course, everything started to roll away. So then I asked him to put a 20 lb. set under them then I went in and tightened up those same four hand brakes. I asked for a release and test again. No movement. Those same four brakes held it just fine. He was perplexed. Interestingly, there is a chart at the end of the TSB report demonstrating this. I think there are a surprising number of railroaders who don't understand this at all.

Another thing many don't seem to realize is that locomotive hand brakes are not as effective as car hand brakes. Locomotive hand brakes apply only one or two sets of brake shoes against the wheels (depending on the locomotive model), nowhere near the amount of friction a freight car hand brake has with all shoes clamped against the wheels (on most cars).

Considering Mr. Harding failed to perform a proper hand brake test (releasing both the train and independent brakes), I can't help but wonder if he was just lacking in some fundamental understanding of how some of these systems worked. I'd be hesitant to trust locomotive hand brakes as the main source of securement for a 10K ton train even if it was a much lesser grade than it was.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I've learned is that...

Excellent points, trainjunkie.

Ray

trainjunkie, can you explain piston in vs. out more please? Does that mean setting brakes immediately after a small service application to get the pneumatic brake system to apply some force too?

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't excuse the MM&A for not
> driving home compliance to that and other rules,
> BUT when you hire somebody with that much
> experience, I think you have certain expectations
> that they understand rules of that importace

Vince Lombardi used to start training camp every year with a speech that began, "This, gentlemen, is a football".....the point being that even the most experienced veteran needs to regularly be brought back to fundamentals and made to re-learn the things that they may have developed habits or misunderstanding of over the years. It doesn't sound like the periodic rewrites of the rules exam met this standard.

- Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/14 09:49 by crs1026.

Part of trainjunkie explanation is correct. Locomotive hand brakes are designed to hold the loco at rest, generally will not stop a rolling locomotive except at very slow speed. Part of our GOI instructions regarding hand brakes on equipment was that the air was to be released before applying the hand brake, theory is that if the air was applied and then the hand brake applied, if the air in the brake cylinder bled off it could very well break the chain, then you got no brakes. Ever tried to release a hand brake after the air is dumped ??, damn near impossible. Doug



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/14 09:55 by hoggerdoug.

Actually leaving locomotives with the independent brake set is standard operating practice, but only after releasing all the air brakes to test the effectiveness. Nothing wrong with leaving the independent set, just wouldn't rely on that being the only thing keeping the train in place.

Posted from iPhone

crs1026 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The implication, ie that the independent brake was
> compromised, apparently never came to mind. (It
> was, after all, a call in the middle of the
> night...pretty hard to be on one's game in that
> situation) (emphasis added)

Oh no. Let's not open up THAT can of worms. If we imply that crew fatigue might have played a role in this disaster, we'll start hearing from all sorts of bean counters, stock holders and self-appointed efficiency experts who will argue that there's nothing wrong with working a lone man over and above his maximum degree of productivity and to a point where he's exhausted.

To these people, crew fatigue is impossible and is just a myth. The belief is that if anyone at the railroad is tired and overworked, they need to go find another job where they won't be tired and overworked.

Finderskeepers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually leaving locomotives with the independent
> brake set is standard operating practice, but only
> after releasing all the air brakes to test the
> effectiveness. Nothing wrong with leaving the
> independent set, just wouldn't rely on that being
> the only thing keeping the train in place.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Nothing wrong EXCEPT, it can mask the fact that the train was not tied down properly. I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a technique that time has passed by?

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I've learned is that there is a
> surprising number of rails who don't understand
> hand brakes as well as one would think.
>
> I used to work with one engineer a lot who
> wouldn't put a set under a cut I was securing
> unless I asked for it. We had arguments about it
> and he was always of the opinion that tying a
> brake is tying a brake, whether the piston is out
> or not. So one day I decided to show him the
> difference by telling him I was going to tie four
> brakes on a heavy cut that was fully released. He
> told me there was no way four brakes would hold
> that cut. But I tied them and then asked him to
> release and test them. The train brakes were
> already released so once the locomotive brakes
> released, of course, everything started to roll
> away. So then I asked him to put a 20 lb. set
> under them then I went in and tightened up those
> same four hand brakes. I asked for a release and
> test again. No movement. Those same four brakes
> held it just fine. He was perplexed.
> Interestingly, there is a chart at the end of the
> TSB report demonstrating this. I think there are a
> surprising number of railroaders who don't
> understand this at all.
>
> Another thing many don't seem to realize is that
> locomotive hand brakes are not as effective as car
> hand brakes. Locomotive hand brakes apply only one
> or two sets of brake shoes against the wheels
> (depending on the locomotive model), nowhere near
> the amount of friction a freight car hand brake
> has with all shoes clamped against the wheels (on
> most cars).
>
> Considering Mr. Harding failed to perform a proper
> hand brake test (releasing both the train and
> independent brakes), I can't help but wonder if he
> was just lacking in some fundamental understanding
> of how some of these systems worked. I'd be
> hesitant to trust locomotive hand brakes as the
> main source of securement for a 10K ton train even
> if it was a much lesser grade than it was.

Doesn't your railroad have a rule that before leaving a cut of cars an automatic brake pipe reduction is called for? It makes one heck of a difference in just the way you described it. Just like if you have a handbrake that is tied tight enough that you can't loosen it a good brake pipe reduction helps.

hoggerdoug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Part of our
> GOI instructions regarding hand brakes on
> equipment was that the air was to be released
> before applying the hand brake, theory is that if
> the air was applied and then the hand brake
> applied, if the air in the brake cylinder bled off
> it could very well break the chain, then you got
> no brakes. Ever tried to release a hand brake
> after the air is dumped ??, damn near impossible.

Doug, AFAIK, that is a throwback going as far back as the 1800s before brake cylinders had a hollow piston/push rod arrangement and the hand brake chain was mounted directly to the end of the actual piston. I've never heard that in practice today and I haven't seen a HB chain break in decades.

Also, a set (20 lbs. or less) is different than a piston under emergency application. I don't tie super tight brakes on a plugged car. Again, another judgement call based on experience. But a good set with a tight HB will provide a significantly higher coefficient of friction than a HB tied on a fully released piston. I've never heard of a chain breaking on a HB tied with less than 20 lbs. set.

Attached is the chart from the TSB report showing the effectiveness of handbrakes under different scenarios. As you can see a 13 psi set increased the coefficient of friction by 40%.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/14 19:14 by trainjunkie.

---

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crs1026 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The implication, ie that the independent brake
> was
> > compromised, apparently never came to mind. (It
> > was, after all, a call in the middle of the
> > night...pretty hard to be on one's game in that
> > situation) (emphasis added)
>
> Oh no. Let's not open up THAT can of worms. If
> we imply that crew fatigue might have played a
> role in this disaster, we'll start hearing from
> all sorts of bean counters, stock holders and
> self-appointed efficiency experts who will argue
> that there's nothing wrong with working a lone man
> over and above his maximum degree of productivity
> and to a point where he's exhausted.
>
> To these people, crew fatigue is impossible and is
> just a myth. The belief is that if anyone at the
> railroad is tired and overworked, they need to go
> find another job where they won't be tired and
> overworked.

Crew fatigue is an issue concerning on-duty employees. The employee was off-duty taking rest when he was phoned by the railroad. He is supposed to be getting rest then and it not expected to be "on one's game" at that time. So the post does not "open the can of worms concerning crew fatigue." Quite the opposite: The railroad interrupted his rest with a phone call and a query about his service, which could contribute to crew fatigue!

Best regards,

Rob L.

RS11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't your railroad have a rule that before
> leaving a cut of cars an automatic brake pipe
> reduction is called for?

Yes. A 20 psi set is required before cutting away. But, the rule does not state whether the hand brakes must be tied before or after that set is made. I tie them after the set is made but before I cut away. Some people tie them before the set is made. I've never had a car, cut, or train roll away from me following this procedure.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So then I asked him to put a 20 lb. set
> under them then I went in and tightened up those
> same four hand brakes. I asked for a release and
> test again. No movement. Those same four brakes
> held it just fine.

But, over time, as the air bleeds off in the cars, wouldn't the effectiveness of those four handbrakes be reduced -- to a point where they might not hold the cars?

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RS11 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doesn't your railroad have a rule that before
> > leaving a cut of cars an automatic brake pipe
> > reduction is called for?
>
> Yes. A 20 psi set is required before cutting away.
> But, the rule does not state whether the hand
> brakes must be tied before or after that set is
> made. I tie them after the set is made but before
> I cut away. Some people tie them before the set is
> made. I've never had a car, cut, or train roll
> away from me following this procedure.

Very good advice, I think the rule should be changed. You should recommend it to management.

Best regards,

Rob L.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crew fatigue is an issue concerning on-duty
> employees. The employee was off-duty taking rest
> when he was phoned by the railroad. He is supposed
> to be getting rest then and it not expected to be
> "on one's game" at that time. So the post does not
> "open the can of worms concerning crew fatigue."
> Quite the opposite: The railroad interrupted his
> rest with a phone call and a query about his
> service, which could contribute to crew fatigue!

If the company does they they are supposed to "reset" his rest. In other words, start the required rest period over after disturbing him. I've had my rest broken. As long as they don't make a habit out of it, no biggie. It just starts over from that point.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, over time, as the air bleeds off in the cars,
> wouldn't the effectiveness of those four
> handbrakes be reduced -- to a point where they
> might not hold the cars?

No. As the air bleeds off and the piston retracts the HB chain gets tighter, holding the tension on the piston mechanically (the push rod technically). The object of the HB is to hold that tension in a fixed place. In the beginning, that may be being accomplished through a combination of air and mechanical force. But if the air bleeds off, the mechanical part of it (the hand brake) holds the tension in that same place. Kind of difficult to explain in words, for me anyway, but I don't have anything to illustrate it with.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very good advice, I think the rule should be
> changed. You should recommend it to management.

Everyone does things differently. Without a set you just have to tie more hand brakes to get the same coefficient of friction. I try to limit the amount of walking I have to do on a shift so my goal is often to use the fewest number of good brakes I can and still be legal. This is especially true with 3-unit articulated cars which only count as one brake per three car-lengths. If you want to tie 6 hand brakes, for example, and they are all articulated cars, that may require walking up to 36 car lengths (18 back and 18 up). If I can do it with 4 hand brakes simply by getting a set first, that saves me up to 12 car lengths of walking. That may not seem like much but after you've done this several times a night, or in cold weather, rain, or snow, all those extra car lengths start to add up. You can save a mile of walking at the end of a shift if you do things one way versus another.

At the end of the day we are required to release and test the hand brakes. As long as you pass the test, regardless of whether you tied fewer brakes with a set, or more without, you are good to go.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rob_l Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Very good advice, I think the rule should be
> > changed. You should recommend it to management.
>
> Everyone does things differently. Without a set
> you just have to tie more hand brakes to get the
> same coefficient of friction. I try to limit the
> amount of walking I have to do on a shift so my
> goal is often to use the fewest number of good
> brakes I can and still be legal. This is
> especially true with 3-unit articulated cars which
> only count as one brake per three car-lengths. If
> you want to tie 6 hand brakes, for example, and
> they are all articulated cars, that may require
> walking up to 36 car lengths (18 back and 18 up).
> If I can do it with 4 hand brakes simply by
> getting a set first, that saves me up to 12 car
> lengths of walking. That may not seem like much
> but after you've done this several times a night,
> or in cold weather, rain, or snow, all those extra
> car lengths start to add up. You can save a mile
> of walking at the end of a shift if you do things
> one way versus another.
>
> At the end of the day we are required to release
> and test the hand brakes. As long as you pass the
> test, regardless of whether you tied fewer brakes
> with a set, or more without, you are good to go.

Railroad rules are meant to enhance safety. You gave a very good argument for why you SHOULD recommend this rule change to management.

Best regards,

Rob L.