No it's not normal in my opinion... why in heaven's name would the crew leave  anywhere with a faulty train line.

It just doesn't make sense to me.  

   It happens  but not that common to set a  number of retainer valves ( not handbrakes)  on  steep descending grades .

bbunge posted:

It is normal procedure to have hand brakes set running down grade in mountains if you think the brake line is not working?  

http://trn.trains.com/news/new...tId=MTEwMjg0NTM4OAS2

Thanks in advance.

Bob

Absolutely NOT! Hand brakes are set after a train is stopped on a grade then "tied down" in the event of some failure, such as locomotive break-down, air brake system trouble, or setting out a defective car. The number of hand brakes needed to be set, is dependent on the steepness of the grade, the number of cars in the train, and the tonnage of the  train. Each railroad has specifics on how many hand brakes to be set on specific steep grades, plus how to test/insure that the required number of hand brakes does indeed "hold the train" in place. The Engineer releases the train air brakes and then also releases the locomotive independent brakes, and waits to see if the train moves at all. If the train does move, then more hand brakes MUST be applied.

If there are "air problems" with ANY train on a grade, then the train is stopped and sufficient hand brakes must be immediately applied to insure that the train does not, and can not, move.

Wyhog posted:

Good grief! ...what was said was done was nuts...

Ain't that the truth! There is NO REASON to EVER do this!

I have wonder about the level of training and experience of this crew. They clearly have no understanding of train dynamics. As Wyhog just said, with 33 hand brakes tied down on the head end, some of them tight enough to slide the wheels, this derailment could have been predicted. You cannot apply that much braking to just the head end of the train without jackknifing, especially on a curve.

Hand brakes are designed to HOLD a train stopped, not control a train's speed down a grade.

The other question that is yet to be answered is why did the crew attempt to move the train if the knew it had air problems?

I completely agree with Wyhog...totally nuts.

Wyhog posted:

. Anybody know the train tonnage and the % grade?

it was 178 cars total- approx. 18000 tons.  if i remember correctly  , a tower op at hyndman told me it was 1% to 1 1/2% just west of the tower. near the summit at sandpatch it was just under 2% 

Some BAD railroading there!  Some disciplinary action needed! :-(

When the Crew Consist Agreement of May 1981 was put into effect and trains under 131 car lengths were often run by 3 person crews, the implied thinking was that it takes more brains and experience to get longer, heavier trains over the road, so a 4th crew member was called for duty for a train over 131 car lengths.  It has been evident (to me) that as management takes away people from the crew they are also removing accountability, brain power, and the ability to make informed decisions.

It makes me ill when I see this constant stream of news and/or video of derailments and mishaps, of which most every one could have been prevented.  But my mind always says, "what do you expect to happen when you turn a team into tattered remnant?"

CBC Investigates

New CP Rail CEO tackles rift with railroaders after years of cuts

But showdown looms as Keith Creel vows managers and office workers will drive trains in event of strike

This definitely shows what hh and now creel think of their experienced train crews.... not much.....

 Quote from 645   ...First of all, a 178 car train on Sand Patch! 128 loads and 50 empties. My low ball estimate based on past experience is that that train weighed AT LEAST 17,000 TONS, and probably more. That is just insane for that steep and curvy of a grade.'

645..... how long is the downhill grade before leveling off??? 

Gregg posted:

CBC Investigates

New CP Rail CEO tackles rift with railroaders after years of cuts

But showdown looms as Keith Creel vows managers and office workers will drive trains in event of strike

I think N&W did something like that in the late 70's?

Who ran the trains on the FEC during the 60's strike?

"....vows managers and office workers will "drive" trains in event of strike"....

Time to move out of Hyndman!

Buy the way, and as far as I can remember, the crew of the 178 car train would have passed thru one detector, maybe two, depending on how far up toward Sand Patch they were.

Boy, is the next year going to be interesting!

Ed

Up until I believe the mid '90's it was not unusual for U.S. Class 1 railroads to require non-agreement personnel to undergo training in train operations in the event of a strike.  I recollect two salesman friends of mine were pressed into duty as conductors during a Soo Line strike in I think 1993 or '94. I'm not real sure why this practice was discontinued (perhaps Tom aka No. 90 can weigh in) but it remained in effect on the CN and CP through EHH's tenure at both.

Interestingly; when CN was threatened with a strike several months ago; they advised customers they no longer had sufficient trained personnel to attempt to keep trains running in the event of a strike.

Curt

My guess is that back in the day, more of the managers were up from the ranks railroaders with real experience handling trains.  Even if current managers, who may well not have ever been in engine service received all the proper training and certification, they would STILL lack the practical experience that comes from running these lines every day.  I have also heard some mention that many times you are teaming up a conductor with little to no experience with an engineer with maybe only 3-4 years experience.  Just from where I'm sitting, it seems like you should have to be a conductor for at least five years before moving to the right side of the cab. 

"Precision Railroading"  

Was the circus in town?  Sounds like a couple of clowns were on that crew.

Larry

Obviously they didn't learn anything from the Lac Megantic fiasco in Canada. One night I was at the top of Sand Patch, I had been videoing trains and a CSX freight had gone in to emergency. They were working on it and the engineer told the dispatcher they had been having air brake problems since Pittsburgh. He was very nervous about heading down that mountain, in the dark with a funky air brake system. Didn't blame him.

jim pastorius posted:

Obviously they didn't learn anything from the Lac Megantic fiasco in Canada. One night I was at the top of Sand Patch, I had been videoing trains and a CSX freight had gone in to emergency. They were working on it and the engineer told the dispatcher they had been having air brake problems since Pittsburgh. He was very nervous about heading down that mountain, in the dark with a funky air brake system. Didn't blame him.

For what it's worth, the Lac Magnetic fiasco was a COMPLETELY different situation, i.e. one many crew (Engineer), who did NOT tie down enough handbrakes, nor did he perform a release of train & independent air in order to test if the train would roll. Thus, when the only idling GE diesel unit in the consist caught fire, and the local fire department showed up to shut the unit down and extinguish the fire, there was no more air for the brakes, and the whole train rolled down the grade.

The common thread was that neither crew really knew what or cared what they were doing on a  steep grade.

jim pastorius posted:

The common thread was that neither crew really knew what or cared what they were doing on a  steep grade.

That is an oversimplification of the CSX event, since there was a crew change involved, as the first crew went dead on the hours of service law, and it is just possible that the second crew were never give complete information about was previously done.

Yes,  crew training, communications and being aware of the situation all come in to play.  Hyndman was lucky. I have followed that track from Sand  Patch to Hyndman by car except one  stretch where a car can't go. I tried but ran out of dirt road on the side of a big hill.

jim pastorius posted:

 I have followed that track from Sand  Patch to Hyndman by car except one  stretch where a car can't go. I tried but ran out of dirt road on the side of a big hill.

Well, I don't know what THAT has to do with anything. I spent about 4 months riding B&O trains over Sand Patch, between Cumberland, MD and Connelsville, PA, and it is a pretty treacherous piece of railroad, especially with an EXTREMELY long train, with many empty cars on the headend. 

bbunge posted:

It is normal procedure to have hand brakes set running down grade in mountains if you think the brake line is not working?  

 

Only after all else has failed and just before praying a good Act of Contrition in readiness for the end of life.

NTSB investigators write that two CSX crews touched the train immediately before the crash. The first crew stopped the train on a descending grade because of brake air line problems. That crew applied 58 hand brakes to secure the train and ran out of service hours while a railroad carman repaired the line.

Okay.  Good for them.  This crew did the right thing.  Stop the train and secure it by applying enough hand brakes to prevent further movement, until the air brakes can be repaired and tested to see that they operate as intended.

A second crew relieved the first and kept the handbrakes on believing that the train might still have problems with the brake air line. When the second crew could not pull the train, they released 25 hand brakes and began moving with 33 hand brakes set.

This  crew did the wrong thing  Wrong, wrong, wrong, way wrong.  Either the air brakes were working properly or they weren't.  

• After field repairs were made, an initial terminal air brake test should have been made.  If the brakes applied and released in response to the locomotive air brake valve, and brake pipe leakage was within authorized limits, then there was no need for hand brakes.  The train should have proceed normally, using dynamic and air braking. 
• If the locomotive dynamic brake was inoperable, then a sufficient number of retaining valves should have been turned to the High Pressure position.  This would have prevented the train from becoming a runaway if the brakes had to be released and then reapplied during the descent of the grade.
• If the brake pipe was deficient, then it was either leaking or blocked.
• If leaking, the train brake application would have increased and the train would have stalled, and stopped.
• If blocked, an Emergency application from the locomotive's brake valve would have caused emergency braking to begin from the front of the train to the blockage, and would have sent a radio signal to the end-of-train device (or the radio controlled helper at the rear) to cause emergency braking from the rear of the train to the blockage, and the train would have stopped.  Emergency braking would have been propagated from the front and the rear up to the blockage.

If they got as far as the last two bullet points, the entire train should have been secured with hand brakes, and moved off of the descending grade in manageable cuts of cars with retaining valves in use, reassembled in an auxiliary track, and thoroughly tested to determine the cause of blockage or leakage.  The culprit car(s) should have been set out and not moved further until a competent Mechanical Department supervisor approved.

Moving down the hill with hand brakes applied as the second crew did, was wrong in EVERY way.  If the hand brakes were very tightly applied, the wheels affected would have slid from the moment the cars moved.  If the hand brakes were loose enough to permit wheel rotation initially, they would have built up friction heat, and the affected axles would likely soon have stopped turning.  Nothing is gained when wheels are sliding, because they have lost most of their braking effort due to loss of traction.  Much is lost, because wheel damage is occurring and will cause the wheel to fail eventually (possibly very soon) or to be scrapped before failure has time to occur.  See next paragraph.

The absolutely guaranteed result of sliding wheels for significant distances is that they will become flat on the bottom from the metal of the wheel being worn away.  As the flat spots increase in length, the radius of the wheel (from the bottom of the wheel tread) is reduced, causing the flange to protrude down lower and lower, until it finally finds something that it cannot pass over -- usually at a turnout or a road crossing -- at which time it is forced upward, lifts its wheel off the rail, and can be laterally diverted, returning downward off the rail.  Then there is real danger of a serious derailment.  It might bounce along for a while, but will eventually engage something that will move it in the wrong direction and that's when the pileup will begin.

This is such basic railroading knowledge that I am I am at a total loss to explain how a crew could do such a stupid thing as the second crew did.  In my opinion, that crew needs to be dismissed because of their bad judgment, regardless of how much experience they had.  If the railroad feels like the crew was just too inexperienced for this type of a situation, consideration might be given to reinstating them after at least 4 months of unemployment and with person-to-person re-training on mountain grade braking (NOT videos or computer training).  I'm actually not a Nazi.  I favor changing behaviors rather than punishing, but this crew, no matter how poorly trained or inexperienced they were, should have been able to apply enough common sense to see that this was a bad, bad, bad, bad idea.  And for that, they need to be dismissed and have time to think about their serious failure of judgment.  Then, maybe they might be reinstated as described above, because they do not appear to have been trying to do something bad through laziness or intentional disregard of rules, but they make a lot of money for their knowledge and good judgment.  The physical and ergonomic work is easy.  It is the knowledge and good judgment that warrant the high pay.

"This  crew was composed of morons. "

Tom,
I'm not going to go quite that far, however, INEXPERIENCE and proper training indeed seem to be drastically lacking. This is what can happen when you promote people before their time.

NTSB preliminary report

https://www.ntsb.gov/investiga...1-prelim-report.aspx

read paragraph 3 - ????

Ok thanks. I sometimes wonder if letting a crew work an extra hour or so over the limit  would prevent a train from being tied down on a severe mountain grade... Yes it wouldn't have  make any difference in this case.

Big Jim posted:

"...This is what can happen when you promote people before their time."

BINGO! Give that man a cigar. This is the real problem in the railroad industry today.

When inexperienced people are promoted to engineers or conductors before they have the experience to deal with out of the ordinary situations, this is the inevitable result! If everything is going OK, they can handle the job just fine. But as soon as something unusual happens, as in this case, things fall apart fast.

I have seen this with various co-pilots I have flown with over the years. One fella in particular was as smooth and professional as could be on the radios, as long as everything was going as expected. But let one thing change - a routing change, a runway change late in an approach, a minor issue with the aircraft, a weather diversion, anything that changed our plans - and he would completely fall apart. He became utterly useless as a co-pilot because he did not have the experience to deal with unanticipated changes in a flight plan. When this happened, I may as well have been in the aircraft by myself because I had to take over the radios and fly the airplane. Needless to say, I don't use this guy as a co-pilot any more.

The fact that the engineer changed from power to dynamic three times coming down the grade tells me that he never achieved the proper "feel" for the train. He was hunting back and forth between power and dynamic braking, trying to find the proper point of equilibrium that would bring the train down the grade in a steady-state condition. He obviously never found it.

As I remember, it is a pretty decent grade down the hill before it levels off at Hyndman.  Why anyone would try to go down the grade not knowing if the brakes were working  boggles the mind.

After field repairs were made, an initial terminal air brake test should have been made.  If the brakes applied and released in response to the locomotive air brake valve, and brake pipe leakage was within authorized limits, then there was no need for hand brakes.  The train should have proceed normally, using dynamic and air braking. 

Tom has pointed out  what should have happened.

An initial air brake test means.. someone( Conductor or car dept )walks the train to make sure the brakes  have applied on each car and then walks the train again to make sure the brakes release. It's going to take a little time to do with 178 cars.  

OGR Webmaster posted:

Big Jim posted:

"...This is what can happen when you promote people before their time."

BINGO! Give that man a cigar. This is the real problem in the railroad industry today.

 Err, in most industry today!

Hot Water posted:

jim pastorius posted:

Obviously they didn't learn anything from the Lac Megantic fiasco in Canada. One night I was at the top of Sand Patch, I had been videoing trains and a CSX freight had gone in to emergency. They were working on it and the engineer told the dispatcher they had been having air brake problems since Pittsburgh. He was very nervous about heading down that mountain, in the dark with a funky air brake system. Didn't blame him.

For what it's worth, the Lac Magnetic fiasco was a COMPLETELY different situation, i.e. one many crew (Engineer), who did NOT tie down enough handbrakes, nor did he perform a release of train & independent air in order to test if the train would roll. Thus, when the only idling GE diesel unit in the consist caught fire, and the local fire department showed up to shut the unit down and extinguish the fire, there was no more air for the brakes, and the whole train rolled down the grade.

Apparently  the engineman   had the train  brake set along with a few hand brakes, Hand brake on  each engine and  2 or 3 on the cars. Who knows what really happened after that? Fire, engines switched around, unintentional release?.

Let me run this by you guys.....What's  wrong with  applying a full brake application to the train. After the brake is fully set,   both  angle cocks between the last engine and first car are  closed & hose bag  connection broken by hand The angle cock on the train side is slowly opened and left open  letting any remaining air escape . 

One now ties on the required number of hand brakes from experience.... The whole train now has a full  set brake on all the cars with zero chance of a unintentional release.   (hose bag disconnected between cars and engines).

Yes the  brakes  still  could leak off but certainly not over night. it might even take a few days or even a week. Besides the handbrakes are still applied.

If you want to blame someone and I do , about Transport Canada letting one man crews operate , period.  I don't believe it's an engineman job   to leave the engine unattended,   going back to tie on hand brakes on rail cars. (engines yes)

Gregg, what you have suggested is against the rules and a recipe for disaster. Here's why...

In your scenario, the train is being held in position by a full set of the train brakes and some hand brakes. However, when the air leaks off (yes, I said WHEN...it will happen) and the air brakes release, you don't know if the hand brakes by themselves will hold the train.

In a scenario where a train must be tied down, the rules require that the hand brakes be set, and then the train brakes and independent brake must be released. If the train stays put, then you know the hand brakes ALONE are holding the train. If the train moves when the air brakes are released, then more hand brakes must be set.

I'm familiar with Rule 112, and  I  mentioned  the required number of hand brakes from experience not" some" .   I   understand the rule and   your point though.    

With my scenario,,,, you can't test to see if enough hand brakes have been applied..... 

On the other side of the coin...With a full set train  brake( even with no hand brakes & against the rules) do you think the train would bled off over night?a day 2 days a week.  We just don't know but I suspect there would have been no runaway . A crew was ordered for the next day.

Thanks for the reply.

It wasn't that cold in the Lac Megantic episode but we've had entire trains leak off at temps 10 F degs and colder. And yes I've seen a lot of trains that still had air in their cylinders several days after the power was cut off.

But we had two episodes in Sheridan WY in the same year. The first one was when a loaded coal train broke a drawbar 5 cars behind the power on the 1.6% grade leaving town. The head end crew took the B/O car 4 miles to Wakely to set it out. They told the engineer on the 2 SD40-2s helper on the rear to "watch the train while we are gone"! Now I don't know about you but I don't know what that means? Anyway, in less than 30 minutes the air leaked out of the brake cylinders and the loaded coal train was shoving those helpers back down the hill with the engineer hollering on the radio to anybody listening. He had a front row seat "watching the train"! Luckily another light helper set was waiting to leave town behind the busted coal train so its engineer backed up into the clear, got off his power, and lined the runaway coalie down a clear yard track. The little air that remained in some cars' cylinders, the helper's independents and a small rise at the west end of the yard, finally brought the runway train to halt.

The second one was when a crew 'tied down' a loaded coal train in the Sheridan CTC siding. They had to cut the train at 2 road crossings and take the power to the house so the train would fit in the siding with crossings cut. About an hour later I came along on 3 light units, we had set out 58 grain empties enroute for loading. With my light engines I had caught up to and was following 2 other trains. Each of those 2 trains passed the tied down coal train, changed crews and departed. I was approaching a double red at the west siding switch on a curve. I called the dispatcher for the signal so I could take my power to the house and tie up. She got huffy and said that I had ran the red absolute at the siding. I said I had not. She repeated that I had. Again I said that I had not and I told her (on the radio) that it looks like that coal train in the siding might be fouling the mainline ahead of me. She gruffly said that that train was in the clear because she had just ran 2 trains past it. At that point I said "listen to this" and I bigholed my locos. I then told her to get a trainmaster down here to see where I am stopped and to pull the recorder to prove that I had not backed up nor moved my locos from where they stood, well back of the red signal. She then said "Well my CTC board shows you on the switch". By now I could see the switch and the coal train tied down in the siding was sitting on it! I told her that and I told her to get an officer down here. It turned out that the air had leaked out of the brake cylinders on the middle cut of the coal train which then rolled down at the crossing cut and slammed into the head cut of the coal train, ramming it out onto the CTC switch and fouling the main. The crew that tied it down had not tied enough hand brakes on that middle section.

But the point is that the air brakes did leak off in only a matter of 50-60 minutes on the tied down coal train and they leaked off in less than 30 minutes on the train that broke in two on the hill and rolled back into the yard shoving the hapless helper engineer with it. In both instances the air temperature was about minus 20 degrees F.

One more. We had a private owner unit coal train that had air problems. It was summer yet the brakes were weak and didn't hold very long. The empty train was finally tied down out on the road and carmen sent to inspect it. It was found that well over half the 110 cars had cracked welds where the pipe to the brake cylinder on these cars was welded.
I never trusted cars' air brakes to hold a train for any length of time. When in a siding for a meet I'd sometimes get off to take a photo. If the location was on a grade and if I crossed over the main to take the shot I always told the head brakeman (later the conductor) to stay with the train and not cross over for the roll-by. Even with the train air set and the independents set I did not want the other moving train to cut both of us off from our parked train. To do so just gave me a queasy feeling.

Great, well written, and relevant info from brother Krug. Thank you.

"This is such basic railroading knowledge that I am I am at a total loss to explain how a crew could do such a stupid thing as the second crew did."

There is a pervasive joke currently floating through the ranks of trainmen that depicts trainmasters as people who would say to a crewman, "I've never done your job but I know you're doing it wrong."

In large part, good humor is funny because it is true.  Is this "joke" true ??

The Frisco trainmaster who hired me was a true railroader, and the man who followed him was an absolute "razor" who went swiftly from the yards in Sherman, TX to Clyde yard in Chicago (after BN acquisition).

So are their any people like that remaining to teach the upcoming train service people?  If not, then my poor attitude once again says, "hey, what do you expect to happen out there?"

As usual, Wyhog has written an EXCELLENT account of a couple of pertinent incidents from his long railroading career. Thanks again, Al!

Did the snippy dispatcher ever apologize to you?

Okay, I toned down the rhetoric in my post.  No need to call them names.  But -- no matter how inexperienced -- the CSX crew did not use good judgment and they need some time at home to reflect on that.

Wyhog, we can always expect good railroading information from you, and you did not disappoint us with your posts.

I have a question.  Did the BNSF helper crew connect the brake line manually or monitor brake pressure using electronic equipment?

No, Rich, the huffy dispatcherette did not apologize. I had thought about filing a complaint against her but I decided that I did not want to sit in the sidings for the next several years :-)

Did the BNSF helper crew connect the brake line manually or monitor brake pressure using electronic equipment?

I am not sure what you are asking here, Dominic? If you are asking about the coal train that had its brake cylinders air leak off and shoved the helpers back down thru the yard... that was before the Helper-Link devices came into use so yes, the air brake hoses had been manually coupled between the rear end helper units and the last car of the train. However in that scenario there was NO brake pipe pressure to be monitored by anyone since the train had gone into emergency when it initially broke in two.
If you are asking about how Helper-Link works... There is no physical air hose connections between the helper loco(s) and the train cars. The 'air connection' is entirely by radio and electronics. It works fine. The Helper-Link receiver/transmitter is only about 5 feet away from the train's FRED receiver/transmitter, so there are no radio link problems. The helper engineer can monitor the train's brake pipe air pressure by looking at his regular FRED Head End Device (Mary), or by looking at his helper loco's brake pipe air brake gauge. The Helper-Link device itself (it is on the helper locos) is connected by air hoses to the helper's brake pipe hose and to the helper's Main Reservoir MU hose. Those air hose connections to the Helper-Link remained coupled as long as the loco was assigned to Sheridan helper service, which was usually 90 days at a time. Pictures here on my page...
http://krugtales.50megs.com/rrpictale/helperhttp://krugtales.50megs.com/rrpictale/helperlink/helperlink.htmlink/helperlink.htm

But we had two episodes in Sheridan WY in the same year. The first one was when a loaded coal train broke a drawbar 5 cars behind the power on the 1.6% grade leaving town. The head end crew took the B/O car 4 miles to Wakely to set it out. They told the engineer on the 2 SD40-2s helper on the rear to "watch the train while we are gone"! Now I don't know about you but I don't know what that means? Anyway, in less than 30 minutes the air leaked out of the brake cylinders and the loaded coal train was shoving those helpers back down the hill with the engineer hollering on the radio to anybody listening. He had a front row seat "watching the train"! Luckily another light helper set was waiting to leave town behind the busted coal train so its engineer backed up into the clear, got off his power, and lined the runaway coalie down a clear yard track. The little air that remained in some cars' cylinders, the helper's independents and a small rise at the west end of the yard, finally brought the runway train to halt.

What if??? the head end  crew had turned both angle cocks at the cut  before departing to set off the bad order car (draw bar).

Could the  crew on the helpers  cut in  control of the train (I'm  assuming the air was cut in).  or were they  going for a ride anyway like it or not.... I suppose by the time the train line was charged enough they were long gone on their way.??