Derailment and fire in Quebec

[Adrian Wintle]

Without knowing whether there was a locomotive attached to the train in Lac Mégantic, it seems very plausible to me that this was a runaway with no locomotive, though based on the map at the bottom of the BBC story and the direction of the train it would seems that head of the train entered Lac Mégantic.

 

A big question to cause might be "exactly what caught fire in Nantes?" Could something hot and/or smoldering have rolled down the hill? (Not that it's necessary. 73 full tankers colliding with each other are perfectly capable of self-immolation.)

 

The problem I have with this idea is that it was an eastbound, so in Nantes the locomotive(s) would have been on the end of the train nearest to Lac-Megantic. This means that they would have had to have run away at the head of the train. It could only have been a loose train if it was a westbound (which all reports say it wasn't).

 

Adrian

[Glorious NSE]

If the locos were cut off due to the earlier fire they could have been moved to another track letting the cars roll forwards....but again that should then be pretty obvious.

 

Have to say I'm coming round to the idea that it was the whole train and the BBC have the wrong end of the stick.

[Ozexpatriate]

The problem I have with this idea is that it was an eastbound, so in Nantes the locomotive(s) would have been on the end of the train nearest to Lac-Megantic. This means that they would have had to have run away at the head of the train. It could only have been a loose train if it was a westbound (which all reports say it wasn't).

If the locos were cut off due to the earlier fire they could have been moved to another track letting the cars roll forwards....but again that should then be pretty obvious.

Google maps shows a long passing loop at Nantes. It's clear that more needs to be understood about exactly what happened in Nantes. Doubtless we will hear in time.

[The Stationmaster]

Google maps shows a long passing loop at Nantes. It's clear that more needs to be understood about exactly what happened in Nantes. Doubtless we will hear in time.

I quite agree - all we know at present is what we have been fed by the media and if they're anything like the British media their accuracy of reporting should be treated with suspicion.  We don't really know what happened in respect of a 'fire' at Nantes (it might not even have been this train?) - all we do know - according to statements on the media is that a train ran away (cause unclear) and it (presumably) subsequently became derailed.  Once we start to hear from investigators we might have a clearer idea of what happened but we might never know why it happened.

 

In the meanwhile condolences to all of those who suffered loss in the terrible aftermath of the derailment.

[pH]

Picture of what is said to be the engine fire at Nantes at about 2:15 in this broadcast http://globalnews.ca/news/700988/5-dead-40-missing-in-quebec-train-explosion-residents-demand-answers-from-railway/ with discussion of MMAs statement after, till about 3:30. Seem to be implying the fire crews shut down the engine, causing the brakes to leak off.

[Edwin_m]

If the engine was running that would provide air on the loco(s), but if the train air brakes were applied the pressure in the single train pipe would be low.  Hence there would be no air to recharge the wagon brake reservoirs and the wagon brakes would leak off regardless of what the loco was doing.  If all was in order the locos would provide enough air braking to hold the train, but this would be lost some time after the engine shut down. 

 

But surely it's one of the first rules of railway operating never to leave a train unattended on the air brake?  There are all sorts of reasons why it might leak off if not monitored by the crew.  The train should have been secured by means of loco parking brakes and/or wagon hand brakes. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Edwin_m

[Glorious NSE]

Picture of what is said to be the engine fire at Nantes at about 2:15 in this broadcast http://globalnews.ca/news/700988/5-dead-40-missing-in-quebec-train-explosion-residents-demand-answers-from-railway/ with discussion of MMAs statement after, till about 3:30. Seem to be implying the fire crews shut down the engine, causing the brakes to leak off.

 

Possibly - a bit odd that the loco (supposedly part of a multi-unit consist) was coupled only to a caboose at the time though if that pic is to be believed!

 

Maybe throwing more light on it is the Ed Burkhart phone interview further down.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Glorious NSE

[Gerald Henriksen]

Here is the timeline as best as I can figure.

 

The oil cars originated in North Dakota, at point point moved into Canada and passed through Toronto on its way to Montreal.

 

At Montreal, the cars were handed over to MMA.  The MMA train left Montreal and and stopped for the night in Nantes.  All reports are that at Nantes the crew shut down all but 1 of the engines, leaving one engine running to maintain the air brakes.  No mention has been made of whether any handbrakes were set, though from the beginning MMA has been insisting that the crew followed all procedures.  This occurred at about 11:25pm.

 

Around 11:30pm the Nantes fire department responds to a report of an engine on fire.  They do find the running engine on fire, and as per their procedures they use the external emergency shut off to turn the engine off before putting the fire out.  When the fire is out, they leave and inform MMA of what has happened and what they have done.

 

Some time after the fire department leaves a nearby resident who was outside witnessed a train with no lights go past, and some time later he heard the explosions in Lac Megantic.

 

At some point after the start of the fire an engine is brought in from the Nantes side to pull some tank cars clear of the fire from the rear of the train.  It is unkown if these are the original engines (somehow left behind, seems unlikely), or if this was another engine from another train.

[Gerald Henriksen]

The Quebec Provincial Police just held a press conference.

 

8 more bodies have been found, bring the total to 13.

 

The number of missing is "around" 50.

[dibber25]

 Locos coupled to a single caboose would not seem to be unusual. They use a caboose as some sort of radio-car within the locomotive consist. If you check MMAR pictures on the Rail photo websites there are several pictures of the oil trains with multiple locos and a caboose up front.  If emergency services shut down the engine because of fire and failed to screw down any, or sufficient, handbrakes (according to Burkhardt the lead loco handbrake was on) that would be enough to cause the runaway but it still seems strange that the locomotives held the road but the freightcars didn't - unless, of course, the speed and weight displaced a rail after the locos had passed. From the Ed Burkhardt phone recording it is quite clear that the locos DID pass right through the town and that the lead locomotive had been left idling to maintain the brakes. Someone - not a railway employee - had shut down the locomotive and the brakes leaked off, he says.

Edited July 8, 2013 by dibber25

[Ozexpatriate]

Clearly we'll have to wait for competent transportation inspectors to understand what happened but it's not even clear to me where the five locomotives of this train currently are, or were at the time of the accident. They don't show up obviously in the photographs.

Also the tanker pile up is clustered at a point where tracks diverge and mostly on the line to the north-east. If I understand the route map correctly the train's intended direction was to the south-east.

The pattern of tankers in a concertina derailment is complex but when I first saw it illustrated, the dispersal pattern gave me the impression that the tankers were moving westbound. (Of course that impression is probably wrong.) Details like track layout and point/switch setting at the time of the accident will be important in the investigation but will not likely be communicated in the press.
 

Some time after the fire department leaves a nearby resident who was outside witnessed a train with no lights go past, and some time later he heard the explosions in Lac Megantic.

An interesting detail there. The lights are clearly on while the lead locomotive was on fire in Nantes.

EDIT - Does the partially yellow object in the middle of this photograph look like it might be a locomotive?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Ozexpatriate

[Gerald Henriksen]

 They use a caboose as some sort of radio-car within the locomotive consist. 

 

The caboose is mentioned on the MMA website.  The caboose contains equipment inside it that allows for remote operation of any locomotive that it is attached to, presumably for switching purposes where the crew is on the ground.  This is I would guess more flexible for a smaller railroad that can't afford to have dedicated locomotives for this task.

[Gerald Henriksen]

According to this report - http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Nantes+fire+chief+confirms+late+night+fire+before/8631340/story.html - the fire in Nantes was out and the fire crew left 12:13 am, and when the fire crew left 2 MMA employees had arrived and were at the train.  This would seem to remove the Nantes fire crew from the cause of the runaway.

[The Stationmaster]

Clearly we'll have to wait for competent transportation inspectors to understand what happened but it's not even clear to me where the five locomotives of this train currently are, or were at the time of the accident. They don't show up obviously in the photographs.

 

Also the tanker pile up is clustered at a point where tracks diverge and mostly on the line to the north-east. If I understand the route map correctly the train's intended direction was to the south-east.

 

The pattern of tankers in a concertina derailment is complex but when I first saw it illustrated, the dispersal pattern gave me the impression that the tankers were moving westbound. (Of course that impression is probably wrong.) Details like track layout and point/switch setting at the time of the accident will be important in the investigation but will not likely be communicated in the press.

 

An interesting detail there. The lights are clearly on while the lead locomotive was on fire in Nantes.

 

EDIT - Does the partially yellow object in the middle of this photograph look like it might be a locomotive?

I haven't got a clue about the direction - no road knowledge.  

 

However to me that object looks like a tank car, the 'yellow' is rust and the end further from viewpoint looks to have either collapsed or been blown outwards.  Incidentally what I do find worrying about this incident is the apparent ease with which a fire started (presumably a relatively light oil?) and the fact that a number of cars would appear to have exploded instead of being ruptured.  One can't but hope that this appalling tragedy will cast some light on the design of tank cars and the ways in which their safety could be improved as derailments of such vehicles in North America all too often appears to lead to fires and explosions.

 

Also if teh information about the fire at Nantes is correct (i.e. there was a fire on a loco) why on earth wasn't that loco immediately removed from traffic for proper technical investigation - seems a very slapdash of running a railway if that wasn't the case although we are of course again relying on media reports which can be both inaccurate and misleading.

[Adrian Wintle]

The pattern of tankers in a concertina derailment is complex but when I first saw it illustrated, the dispersal pattern gave me the impression that the tankers were moving westbound. (Of course that impression is probably wrong.) Details like track layout and point/switch setting at the time of the accident will be important in the investigation but will not likely be communicated in the press.

 

 

It does look that way at first glance, but if you look at a wide overview of the scene* there are four or five cars to the east of the main pile-up, as well as the two cars lying on their side on the NE arm of the triangle (wye). There are also train cars on the track to the north. It would appear that the point of derailment was at the wye.

 

*second photo here http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2013/R13D0054/R13D0054.asp

 

Adrian

Edited July 9, 2013 by Adrian Wintle

[Gerald Henriksen]

Somewhat more detailed story of what happened to the train in this story, including the detail that the engineer used something other than a locomotive to remove the rear tank cars from the fire.  http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/09/lacmgantic_engineer_rushed_to_haul_tankers_away_from_crash_railway_chair_says.html

[dvdlcs]

Hello.

 

I would say that the yellow object is a tank car too. There is a similar yellow colour visible on the tank car to the right of the picture.

 

Two things that strike me as odd:

 

With a five loco consist, why only leave one idling to maintain brake pressure? Would be an obvious single point of failure.

 

If I'm told that a train is "tied down" to me that means that hand brakes have been applied to sufficient(*), if not all, vehicles to hold the train in position should the train brake fail or not be applied.

 

(*) there are formulas to calculate the number of handbrakes depending on train weight, gradient etc.

 

 

 

David.

[Gerald Henriksen]

2 more stories that may be of interest.

 

This story sort of covers the procedures that should have been followed to secure the train for the night - though the location of the brake wheel in the diagram is incorrect, I believe the brake wheel is actually located at the end of each car.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/M%C3%A9gantic+What+causes+runaway+train/8631894/story.html

 

Second story is how many railways are moving to single person crew, which appears to have been the case with this train as (at least so far) only 1 crew member has been mentioned.  This would also explain the need for the modified caboose often seen in the oil train consists.  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Railway+companies+scaling+down+single+crew+member+some/8632006/story.html

[Talltim]

In this sort of situation I don't see that a one person crew is any less safe than the two person crew, with the proviso that the second person may remember part of the procedure that the first person has forgotten. While the train is moving (in the way it is supposed to) is a different matter, but that's not the issue here.

 

I'm puzzled by the modified caboose, is it for remote control from a belt pack or for mid train helpers?

[Gerald Henriksen]

With a five loco consist, why only leave one idling to maintain brake pressure? Would be an obvious single point of failure.

 

 

I would guess cost.  The indications are that the train was to resume its journey the following morning with a new engineer, so leaving what someone viewed as unnecessary engines running would have an impact on the fuel bill.

[Gerald Henriksen]

In this sort of situation I don't see that a one person crew is any less safe than the two person crew, with the proviso that the second person may remember part of the procedure that the first person has forgotten. While the train is moving (in the way it is supposed to) is a different matter, but that's not the issue here.

 

I'm puzzled by the modified caboose, is it for remote control from a belt pack or for mid train helpers?

 

Belt pack operation.  Kind of hard to couple/uncouple/switch cars with a one person crew unless the locomotives could be remotely controlled I would think.

[Glorious NSE]

Also if teh information about the fire at Nantes is correct (i.e. there was a fire on a loco) why on earth wasn't that loco immediately removed from traffic for proper technical investigation - seems a very slapdash of running a railway if that wasn't the case although we are of course again relying on media reports which can be both inaccurate and misleading.

 

 

Not sure there was chance for the railroad to do much about it assuming there was only an hour or so between the fire being put out and the runaway arriving at the bottom of the hill - I presume had the train stayed where it was then when the relief engineer had turned up he would have had the fun job of checking the unit was safe to move, and/or shuffling the units around to get a working one on the front...

 

I guess the bottom line is that even shut down it should have been held by the set handbrakes. Burkhard says (see interview referred to earlier) he is confident they were applied. If the loco's went through town unscathed as seems to be the case then it's likely the state of the wheels will confirm whether their handbrakes were working, and with the first cars of the train seemingly having got past the site of the main pileup of cars then it's possible that whether they had handbrakes applied can be checked also.

 

Simple physics would suggest though that if enough were applied it would have stayed where it was, unless there's more to the story. 

 

Another fun thing - why does the supposed loco fire show a GE, whilst the blue unit with the event recorder being investigated by the TSB is an EMD - or was the blue EMD the trailing unit of the set?

 

 

 

I'm puzzled by the modified caboose, is it for remote control from a belt pack or for mid train helpers?

 

I was as well, it appears to be 'belt pack' remote control, so when the single crewperson is switching they can do so from ground level.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Glorious NSE

[Edwin_m]

How long does it take to pressurise all the reservoirs on a long train?  I wonder if the reason to leave the engine running was just to avoid having to do this in the morning, but in my view it still doesn't remove the need to apply enough other brakes. 

Edited July 9, 2013 by Edwin_m

[BG John]

As a non railwayman, it seems odd to me that a train would be left unattended on a gradient, with nothing to stop it in the, however unlikely, event of a brake failure, Surely there should be a catch point, a siding into a sand drag, or something to stop it.

 

I parked my van on a slope this morning, with the handbrake on, and in reverse gear, but I also turned the front wheels so if it did run away it would run into a wall after a short distance, and not go all the way into the river!

[trisonic]

Unless Official explanations are quoted we are relying on Press speculation and supposition. Canadian railroads are just as professional as any in the World.

Just bear that in mind, please.

 

Thanks, Pete.