An alert reader
caught me in an apparent mistake in my description of the brake failure
involved in the Lac-Megantic train derailment. Anonymous wrote:
“I understand rail air brakes are
fail-safe, in that you must have air pressure to release the brakes. No air,
the brakes are applied. If this concept is true, you might want to revisit the
brake failure cause.”
First off, I am not a train engineer, so I am not completely
familiar with the design of air brakes. My description of the problem was based
upon reports from the railroad and local fire responders.
But, I have been a train buff at various times in my life
and have spent considerable time around freight trains in the Army and the
chemical business, observing their loading and local movement up close and
personal. In general, Anonymous is correct, each car in a train is typically
equipped with a Westinghouse style brake that fails closed (brakes applied) if
the air supply from the locomotive is lost during movement. That obviously
would not match with the description of the break problem in this case.
So, I went back to the Wikipedia entry on ‘Railway
Air Brake’. It seems that while the rolling stock is equipped with
Westinghouse brakes the locomotives are still equipped with the old-style
straight air brake. I’m guessing that the brake systems on each of the five
locomotives on the doomed train were interconnected and being supplied air from
the locomotive that was left idling.
The interesting question that comes to mind is why did the
engineer choose the locomotive brake system, which has a single fail point that
would (and did) lead to catastrophic consequences rather than using the full-train
brakes system that would fail in the safe mode (stopping the train) rather than
allowing the train to roll into town?
An interesting comment from
Marcy
Barnett over at the Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Professionals group on LinkedIn. Commenting on my post she said “I thought
there was only one engineer on this train”, noting that had a potential impact
on train safety controls.
If that is true, that might provide an explanation for the
poor brake choice. In the event that one or more of the car brakes locked up
during their prolonged engagement (a not uncommon occurrence) that would mean that
a lone operator would have to walk the train to unstick those brakes. With a 70
car train that is a lengthy hike carrying to tools of the trade.
I’m betting that the use of the locomotive brakes looked
like the easier choice. That is supposition on my part and not intended as a
slur on the operator’s reputation. Absent specific instructions to the
contrary, most people take the easy way out.
Again, this is just one more point that needs to be
clarified in the investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment