Lac Mégantic: will or should there be a Public Inquiry?

[armchair]

The tragic events in Lac Mégantic are to the rail mode what a major airline crash would be for the air mode. There were signs as well, with several less grave rail occurrences in the days, weeks and months prior. Despite a new Bill S-4 recently passed to increased Rail Safety, clearly that was not enough, or not in time, or simply put, not. The two most influential events that brought aviation safety to the levels we know today (well, save for air taxi but we'll get to that...) were the Dubin Inquiry in the 80's, and the Moshansky Commission in the 90's. The Cranbrook and Dryden accidents that spurned those commissions on inquiry were pivotal in making government realize the system was broken and not in sign with the times. Sweeping and positive changes in aviation oversight were made as a result, (which by the way have been largely reversed in the past 10 years... while the 705 can deal with SMS, 702 and 703 are still on the table as to will or will not. Air Taxi has not fared well since the National Audit Program was canned... and that is what I meant by the earlier comment on air taxi). The Lac Mégantic train tragedy has to be the one that shakes the rail mode to its core, and in fact, the rumblings should spill into the aviation mode in regards to "systemic" management. A TSB investigation alone aint enough IMHO. I say the government has no choice but to call a Public Inquiry into Transportation Safety, focusing on rail and transportation of dangerous goods, but also looking at "systemic" (or for a lack of better term - SMS) management in both rail and air modes. We knew this was coming and needed, but from our perspective, we thought it would be as a result of an airline crash. Sad to say but First Air was not deadly enough to make that happen. Lac Mégantic is plenty deadly and must lead to it. Prime Minister Harper, do the right thing and call for a Public or Commission of Inquiry into Transportation Safety, before the inevitable next major accident.

[floatpilot]

There will be changes to hand brake policys. Cp used to have a policy that for the number of cars you had there was a minimum number of hand brakes to crank on then you would test the track by pulling or pushing with the locomotive. Now to save time they have put in a policy that it's up to the conductor to put any number of brakes and test effectiveness no minimum number per cars. Formula was whatever number of cars you were leaving /10+2.

An oil train like that with 75 loads on flat ground with our old policy, 75/10+2=9.5. The conductor would have had to put on 10 hand brakes ( always round up) cranked on as tight as he could crank and test for effectiveness. If on any sort of grade you can expect to double them. I've tied oil and grain trains down on ver little grades and have had to crank on 30 to hold it!

I'll bet after the investigations they'll find insufficient number of brakes were put on, mabe the engineer just left it with a full set and independent, which is not legal.

Or mabe someone came along and took the brakes off! Doubt it though.

[Donald]

Or mabe someone came along and took the brakes off! Doubt it though.

Apparently there was a fire on the locomotive that night, and the rail company is blaming the fire department for powering it down which released the brakes, but the fire department says they left the train in the care of a rail maintenance employee. Rail company claims it was the responsibility of the FD to wake the engineer/conductor and have them assume control of the train.

[floatpilot]

Hand brakes are on the cars not the unit, shouldn't matter if it was on fire or not. The train was not tied down when left unattended. Hand brakes are a mechanical brake and have nothing to do with air system.

[2.5milefinal]

SMS at its best.

[shitdisturber]

I've never been particularly convinced that public inquiries do anything other than to put money in the pockets of lawyers and to make it look like the government is doing something. Absolutely it should be investigated by the TSB and if negligence is found, then pursue it through the criminal courts; naturally there will be civil suits as well but that's a side issue. I'm just not convinced that a public inquiry is anything more than grandstanding.

[Driving Rain]

Firemen moved the controls inadvertantly fighting the locomotive fire. Rail company said ...after the fire was out....thanks we'll take from here!
Finger pointing now to continue...

[Edo]

Ok so the engine was shut off the air supply to the brakes was gradually depleted and they released. Why are the brakes designed like that, why not require air to RELEASE the brakes?

Semis do this, loose the air and the brakes come on. Its a "fail safe" in that an air failure results in a safer mode.

Floatpilot any idea why the airbrakes on the locomotive are not the "fail safe" type. Do the cars have air brakes as well?

[CFR]

Ok so the engine was shut off the air supply to the brakes was gradually depleted and they released. Why are the brakes designed like that, why not require air to RELEASE the brakes?

Semis do this, loose the air and the brakes come on. Its a "fail safe" in that an air failure results in a safer mode.

Floatpilot any idea why the airbrakes on the locomotive are not the "fail safe" type. Do the cars have air brakes as well?

On semi's air is not used to release the brakes directly. When the system is charged, air compresses a very large spring on the back of some of the brakes pots and is held that way by air pressure. Air is used to apply the brakes as well. If the line ruptures (it depends which line), the spring brake portion comes on and applies the brakes they are attached too bringing the unit to a halt (assuming they have been properly adjusted). The spring piggy back units are costly and have their own dangers (people have been killed by a spring brake chamber bursting and have the huge spring come flying out - if you are following an older truck or trailer, you may be staring right at the spring, new trailers mount the brakes differently so that if the spring chamber ruptures it will bounce of the road). I doubt such a system would be economical or reliable enough for train use, and besides they have a manual parking system on the cars that would have prevented this had enough of them been set.

[Edo]

I can see not having air to release type brakes on the cars it would be impossible to keep 50+ sets operating in slushy conditions, not to mention how would you ever know if one failed 30 cars up the line.

My question is for the locomotive, it seems entirely reasonable (to me) to have the air spring system on those, no need to keep an engine running, no air = brakes on.

[armchair]

I've never been particularly convinced that public inquiries do anything other than to put money in the pockets of lawyers and to make it look like the government is doing something. Absolutely it should be investigated by the TSB and if negligence is found, then pursue it through the criminal courts; nais turally there will be civil suits as well but that's a side issue. I'm just not convinced that a public inquiry is anything more than grandstanding.

I understand your skepticism, and it is a valid one to debate. The difference I see between a TSB investigation and a Public Inquiry is significant in that a Public Inquiry puts the debate , findings and recommendations in the court of Public Opinion, while a TSB investigation becomes invisible past the first two weeks of an event, and little attention is paid to their findings and recommendations. Case in point, the TSB draft report on First Air was released to interested parties about a month ago - nobody cares or even knows about it. Curiosity about the consequences of the First Air crash is non-existant and the final report will be released and forgotten within a week.. The Aeropro crash in Quebec City raised hell for month, then totally forgotten. How about Lyall Harbour, Sandy Bay, Cougar S92, or even as recent as ORNGE? I bet you 99.9% of the population would have no clue what those terms mean to them. All those air accidents were MAJOR, but given no teeth or consequences save for a routine Class 3 investigation (Class 2 for First Air in case nobody knew... duh what's a class 2 most say?).

So yes Public Inquiries cost more, lawyers get hired and paid, but the PUBLIC knows more about it. The PUBLIC expects POLITICIANS to protect their interests, as long as they know about it. POLITICIANS will act if their JOB is on the line. I bet you people know more about the OJ trial than the Swissair crash and recommendations, even though Swissair was the most complex and most expensive investigation into TSB history (although Megantic will come to a pretty penny, but no ocean recovery costs as per Swissair... massive costs in air and sea recovery, as well as pathology costs and investigators overtime costs - some made out like bandits out of Swissair, granted they were away from home for months, but I digress). I say Megantic compares adequately to the Dryden accident, and the Moshansky commission was able to get the ear and action of the government because it was public.

So you say grandstanding? No question, I agree. But is it worth the effort? I say yes. If we can put to the public the ugly side of SMS, government cutbacks, operators scrimping on costs due to unscrupulous competition, pilots who work for nothing or even pay to fly, then we may see a return to boots in the field making sure our interests are protected.

[CFR]

I can see not having air to release type brakes on the cars it would be impossible to keep 50+ sets operating in slushy conditions, not to mention how would you ever know if one failed 30 cars up the line.

My question is for the locomotive, it seems entirely reasonable (to me) to have the air spring system on those, no need to keep an engine running, no air = brakes on.

It seems that railway braking systems are different from the semi trailer ones I am familiar with. Here is a link to some interesting info on train brakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake

[frozen solid]

Guys, the Westinghouse brake system is different than trucks. The air reservoir is separated into two halves, one for regular use and one for emergency. When the engineer applies the brakes, he is reducing the pressure in the "pipe", or the line that travels between the cars. The brake valves on the cars will then respond by sending air to the car's brake cylinder from one half of the reservoir. When the pressure in the pipe returns to normal, the valve vents the air from the brake cylinder. If the pressure in the pipe reduces below a certain minimum value, or if it drops very quickly, say if a hose breaks or something throws the train brakes into emergency, the valve will send the full pressure from the other half of the reservoir to the car's brake cylinder, locking the brakes down with full pressure.

If a train was parked with its brakes on, and someone shut down the locomotive, the brakes would stay on until the pressure in the pipe dropped below the minimum value, then the train would go into emergency and the brakes would go on even harder. Then, if enough time passed, each car's brakes would slowly bleed off and the train would not have any brakes at all other than the hand brakes.

I'm not sure how long that would take but I consider it unlikely that this was the case here. I think something else happened. Perhaps the brakes were released somehow, and perhaps there weren't sufficient hand brakes tied on. It's like an aviation accident: We will have to wait and see.

[pelmet]

I've never been particularly convinced that public inquiries do anything other than to put money in the pockets of lawyers and to make it look like the government is doing something. Absolutely it should be investigated by the TSB and if negligence is found, then pursue it through the criminal courts; nais turally there will be civil suits as well but that's a side issue. I'm just not convinced that a public inquiry is anything more than grandstanding.

So yes Public Inquiries cost more, lawyers get hired and paid, but the PUBLIC knows more about it. The PUBLIC expects POLITICIANS to protect their interests, as long as they know about it. POLITICIANS will act if their JOB is on the line. I bet you people know more about the OJ trial than the Swissair crash and recommendations, even though Swissair was the most complex and most expensive investigation into TSB history (although Megantic will come to a pretty penny, but no ocean recovery costs as per Swissair... massive costs in air and sea recovery, as well as pathology costs and investigators overtime costs - some made out like bandits out of Swissair, granted they were away from home for months, but I digress). I say Megantic compares adequately to the Dryden accident, and the Moshansky commission was able to get the ear and action of the government because it was public.

So you say grandstanding? No question, I agree. But is it worth the effort? I say yes. If we can put to the public the ugly side of SMS, government cutbacks, operators scrimping on costs due to unscrupulous competition, pilots who work for nothing or even pay to fly, then we may see a return to boots in the field making sure our interests are protected.

In other words, it will become politicized with the opposition yelling and screaming when tidbits of information become available when they have no knowledge of the rail system. The whole truth gets put in the shadows by parasite politicians trying to gain an advantage on the deaths of a bunch of people.

The information on Swissair is out there and set in a professional and purposeful manner. The OJ trial is a classic example of the clownshow we want to avoid. No grandstanding, less cost, etc. You have already shown your agenda in the last sentence. Trust me, the TSB has no interest in your agenda. Only the cold, hard, unbiased facts. Something we should all rationally want.

[CFR]

Apparently the police have started a criminal investigation into the crash. I was wondering when that would occur. There is more than meets the eye in this one.

[bobcaygeon]

Something more than TSB needs to be involved as TC continues to ignore their recommendations due by caving to industry pressures.
Rail had a form of "SMS" before aviation did. Rail accidents/incidents have changed significantly since Hunter Harrison became the CEO at CN (look at their accident/incident rates) and they are considered one of the most efficient railways in N. America. This was achieved by manpower longer trains, etc.

I would be interested to see how CP's safety record performs now that Hunter Harrison is there "cutting the fat" from N. America's least efficent railway.

[floatpilot]

Cp has only had 3 oil trains hit the bush 1 head on and a few bridges since "the new sheriff" has been in town. Has absolutely nothing to do with all the jobs he's cut or mabe its just the work with fear mentality he's created that makes railways run so effectively ( not efficiently). But he's our fearless leader and well do as he say!american business.

[Solaris]

Interesting read:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/story.ht ... 391985148c

[shitdisturber]

Interesting read:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/story.ht ... 391985148c

Good article... Someone has to hang over this, and the first casualty should be minister Lebel, as he is Minister of Transport, who is responsible for all rail safety matters. Then more must be done to overhaul TC.

Should someone from the government swing over this? Absolutely, and I agree with you on the candidate. That being said, I have a better chance of being elected "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" than there is that a politician will take responsibility for this.

[Siddley Hawker]

Interesting read:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/story.ht ... 391985148c

And an interesting counterpoint.
http://o.canada.com/2013/07/12/despite- ... not-worse/