Phantom train explosion in Lac Mégantic

[Grallon]

...

Trying to shift the blame on a small team of volunteer firefighters... that's so classy.  Dumbass company.

What can you expect from a private corporation on its financial death throes?  Capitalist scumbags...  Unless heavily supervised and regulated - private companies will *always* try to cut corners in orders to increase the profit margin. 



G.

[garbon]

...

Trying to shift the blame on a small team of volunteer firefighters... that's so classy.  Dumbass company.

What can you expect from a private corporation on its financial death throes?  Capitalist scumbags...  Unless heavily supervised and regulated - private companies will *always* try to cut corners in orders to increase the profit margin. 



G.

Meanwhile governmental agencies will always run things smoothly and efficiently.

[viper37]

Didn't we have 2 or 3 overpass collapsing in the last few years?  Didn't the government try to put the blame on the private company doing the repairs in one case, while they were simply following the directives given?

[jimmy olsen]

20 confirmed dead, another 30 presumed so.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/10/19396092-death-toll-at-50-as-30-missing-now-presumed-dead-in-quebec-train-crash-engineer-suspended?lite

[Malthus]

The latest from the company is that their guy did not set the required number of hand-brakes like he was supposed to.

[viper37]

The latest from the company is that their guy did not set the required number of hand-brakes like he was supposed to.

First, it was the firefighters fault.  Then it's the driver's fault.

the driver was experienced, and he was driving this run many times a week.  I don't buy it.  Someone that experienced doesn't make that kind of mistake.

In the minutes following the explosion, the driver rushed to the scene, borrowed a tractor from a local shop and towed a few of the unexploded wagons away from the fire.

I think it's premature to blame him.

[Malthus]

The latest from the company is that their guy did not set the required number of hand-brakes like he was supposed to.

First, it was the firefighters fault.  Then it's the driver's fault.

the driver was experienced, and he was driving this run many times a week.  I don't buy it.  Someone that experienced doesn't make that kind of mistake.

In the minutes following the explosion, the driver rushed to the scene, borrowed a tractor from a local shop and towed a few of the unexploded wagons away from the fire.

I think it's premature to blame him.

Not saying I believe it, either.

However, seems logical it has to be either: (1) the people who last handled the train (the driver, the firefighters) doing something wrong; (2) deliberate sabotage; or (3) equipment failure.

(3) seems unlikely to me, because if the handbrakes were set, there ought to be redundancy (that is, several of them have to fail at the same time).

(2) is of course possible, but there is no evidence I've heard so far. Presumably, it could be as simple as someone going around and undoing all the hand brakes. Are they locked in some way? I don't know. Given the near-total incineration of the cars carrying the oil, it may be very difficult to determine what happened.   

[DGuller]

Does it have to be one thing?  The driver could've been fucking up for years, reducing the redundancy in the train's safety systems.  Add an unusual element to the mix (like fire, or just a part failure), and those redundancies became saturated, and off went the train.

[Malthus]

Does it have to be one thing?  The driver could've been fucking up for years, reducing the redundancy in the train's safety systems.  Add an unusual element to the mix (like fire, or just a part failure), and those redundancies became saturated, and off went the train.

That's true, and in fact I'm betting it is a combination of factors like you say, but it assumes as a condition that the driver in fact didn't set the required number of hand brakes.

[jimmy olsen]

Does it have to be one thing?  The driver could've been fucking up for years, reducing the redundancy in the train's safety systems.  Add an unusual element to the mix (like fire, or just a part failure), and those redundancies became saturated, and off went the train.

Yeah, a subpar number of handbreaks is likely good enough when the airbreaks are engaged. However, in this case you had the unusual circumstances of the firefighters shutting down the train, which meant the airbreaks would eventually give out. So years of half-assing it finally caught up with him. 

[viper37]

The latest from the company is that their guy did not set the required number of hand-brakes like he was supposed to.

First, it was the firefighters fault.  Then it's the driver's fault.

the driver was experienced, and he was driving this run many times a week.  I don't buy it.  Someone that experienced doesn't make that kind of mistake.

In the minutes following the explosion, the driver rushed to the scene, borrowed a tractor from a local shop and towed a few of the unexploded wagons away from the fire.

I think it's premature to blame him.

Not saying I believe it, either.

However, seems logical it has to be either: (1) the people who last handled the train (the driver, the firefighters) doing something wrong; (2) deliberate sabotage; or (3) equipment failure.

(3) seems unlikely to me, because if the handbrakes were set, there ought to be redundancy (that is, several of them have to fail at the same time).

(2) is of course possible, but there is no evidence I've heard so far. Presumably, it could be as simple as someone going around and undoing all the hand brakes. Are they locked in some way? I don't know. Given the near-total incineration of the cars carrying the oil, it may be very difficult to determine what happened.   

Here is a good chronology about what happenned. It's in French, but use Google translate for the short texts in the animation and you should get the jist of it:
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/lacmegantic

One thing to note is that the driver was never told his locomotive was on fire.  The CEO of Railword (owner of MMA) claims it was the firefighters responsibility to find him and bring him on site.

We know that someone from MMA was there, we know they were informed of the fire.  The employee present was not an engineer, it was not the train's driver.

I believe older trains needed the engine running for the air brakes to work, contrary to what we have now (engine stops, breaks are applied).  It does seem strange to me, however.  I don't know much about trains, but on our big trucks, the air brakes system haven't changed since the 70s at least.  Now, on trains, I don't know...

What could have happened is that company procedures might require one brake/10 wagons, wich is sufficient when combined with the locomotive's air breaks.  If the driver followed the standard procedure and the breaks on the locomotive stopped working, then the other manual train brakes were insufficient.

These manual breaks aren't locked in anyway, anyone could remove them.  So sabotage could still be on the table.

[viper37]

Yeah, a subpar number of handbreaks is likely good enough when the airbreaks are engaged. However, in this case you had the unusual circumstances of the firefighters shutting down the train, which meant the airbreaks would eventually give out. So years of half-assing it finally caught up with him. 

But if it's years of half-assing by the driver, it's the company's responsibility.
One fluke, you can't predict it.  But regular "half-assing", the company should have procedures to identify this and to correct it.

[KRonn]

One thing to note is that the driver was never told his locomotive was on fire.  The CEO of Railword (owner of MMA) claims it was the firefighters responsibility to find him and bring him on site.
We know that someone from MMA was there, we know they were informed of the fire.  The employee present was not an engineer, it was not the train's driver. 

This sounds to me like the driver wasn't likely responsible, if this is as reported, then he had nothing to do with securing the train after the fire. Why wouldn't the company find him? How would the fire fighters know who to contact? I would think the company can call or page the engineer.

[KRonn]

Seeing those pics of the town, I'm shocked at the before and after pics of the town center! Huge destruction of buildings for two or three streets into the center of town!   

[Malthus]

The latest from the company is that their guy did not set the required number of hand-brakes like he was supposed to.

First, it was the firefighters fault.  Then it's the driver's fault.

the driver was experienced, and he was driving this run many times a week.  I don't buy it.  Someone that experienced doesn't make that kind of mistake.

In the minutes following the explosion, the driver rushed to the scene, borrowed a tractor from a local shop and towed a few of the unexploded wagons away from the fire.

I think it's premature to blame him.

Not saying I believe it, either.

However, seems logical it has to be either: (1) the people who last handled the train (the driver, the firefighters) doing something wrong; (2) deliberate sabotage; or (3) equipment failure.

(3) seems unlikely to me, because if the handbrakes were set, there ought to be redundancy (that is, several of them have to fail at the same time).

(2) is of course possible, but there is no evidence I've heard so far. Presumably, it could be as simple as someone going around and undoing all the hand brakes. Are they locked in some way? I don't know. Given the near-total incineration of the cars carrying the oil, it may be very difficult to determine what happened.   

Here is a good chronology about what happenned. It's in French, but use Google translate for the short texts in the animation and you should get the jist of it:
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/lacmegantic

One thing to note is that the driver was never told his locomotive was on fire.  The CEO of Railword (owner of MMA) claims it was the firefighters responsibility to find him and bring him on site.

We know that someone from MMA was there, we know they were informed of the fire.  The employee present was not an engineer, it was not the train's driver.

I believe older trains needed the engine running for the air brakes to work, contrary to what we have now (engine stops, breaks are applied).  It does seem strange to me, however.  I don't know much about trains, but on our big trucks, the air brakes system haven't changed since the 70s at least.  Now, on trains, I don't know...

What could have happened is that company procedures might require one brake/10 wagons, wich is sufficient when combined with the locomotive's air breaks.  If the driver followed the standard procedure and the breaks on the locomotive stopped working, then the other manual train brakes were insufficient.

These manual breaks aren't locked in anyway, anyone could remove them.  So sabotage could still be on the table.

It makes no sense to me to have two completely independant systems (air brakes and hand brakes) and have it as standard procedure that, if one of those systems fails, the other one isn't set strongly enough to work. If the company set that up as standard procedure, seems clearly negligent on their part to me.