News Crude Oil train derailment in a small Quebec town

Cairan

Donator
Donator
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
601
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Amqui, QC
Last edited:
I saw that. I lived 4 months in Sherbrooke, not far away, and I visited Lac-Megantic. A peaceful and beautiful place, with forests all around. A real tragedy, 60 people missing is a terrific accident. 74 tanks of crude oil, must have been a real hell. I can't even imagine that place ravaged by flames. According to "Le journal de Montréal", it seems that the downtown is burning. :(

1626482532_b793154cf7.jpg


Looks like a nuclear war :(

1310827357964_ORIGINAL.jpg


1310827351825_ORIGINAL.jpg


1310827351794_ORIGINAL.jpg


1310827347894_ORIGINAL.jpg


1372991906411_ORIGINAL.jpg


1372991901332_ORIGINAL.jpg


Seems that heroïc firefighters have saved several tanks from the disaster, preventing making it worse :salute:

1372991903257_ORIGINAL.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ouch. Why the heck was the train unattended? Tragic event to occur on the memorial of Piper Alpha.

It's not uncommon to leave locomotives idling to keep the engines warmed up. That's not sufficient to cause a runaway train.

Some video:



---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

 
Do trains in the US not have any sort of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Train_Protection"]ATP[/ame] or dead mans handle like they do in the UK?
 
Do trains in the US not have any sort of ATP or dead mans handle like they do in the UK?

Canada, not US. But similar rail equipment. Can't answer your question precisely, though. It's not the first runaway train I've seen. That stupid Denzel Washington movie a couple of years back was based on a 2001 incident in which a freight train in Ohio got away from its crew and went on a 66-mile ghost ride until a guy managed to jump on the ladder, climb into the cab, and close the throttle. I remember seeing it on the news:

http://articles.philly.com/2010-11-12/news/24955089_1_rail-crossings-rail-yard-runaway-train
 
Last edited:
Do trains in the US not have any sort of ATP or dead mans handle like they do in the UK?

Remember that such technologies are even rare on sidetracks in better developed countries than Canada or the USA. We had a crash in Germany some years ago, where a regional train collided with a cargo train after passing a red signal. There was also no ATP equivalent there, it is only mandatory on main lines here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Saxony-Anhalt_train_collision
 
Apologies - Canada.

Over here such equipment has been mandatory for the past 10 years ever since a string of crashes but then the UK rail network is much smaller than the Canadas
 
Still, it should be mandatory on trains that carry hazardous materials or passengers. :facepalm:

but then the UK rail network is much smaller than the Canadas

And basically the father of all rail networks, train was invented there.
 
Still, it should be mandatory on trains that carry hazardous materials or passengers. :facepalm:

It is not the trains, that would be easy. It is the tracks. You need to install a lot of equipment on the tracks and that can get expensive, if you have many ten thousand km of rails in a country.
 
The problem is that such a setup requires a lot of track side changes. in the UK, ATP will send a message to the train essentially saying 'stop now'. It's an unpleasant experience as the stop is very sudden but better than the alternatives.
 
Yes, yes. That's the problem with countries like USA, Canada or Russia, infrastructures are a hell to upgrade. And they must have similar problems in China.
 
The problem is that such a setup requires a lot of track side changes. in the UK, ATP will send a message to the train essentially saying 'stop now'. It's an unpleasant experience as the stop is very sudden but better than the alternatives.

Doesn't ATP also handle smooth reductions of the velocity for the faster trains? I felt like it was not only used for emergencies.
 
Actually, I don't see a need for all that. Seems to me that on a diesel-electric locomotive the easiest thing to do is to have a deadman switch on the traction motor power. You can let the diesel idle all you want, but you can't engage the electric motors without a person in the cab.

Of course, you'd still need to stop a train from free-rolling down a hill, a way to engage the brakes when nobody is aboard, but that's not too difficult to figure out.

And putting changes into locomotives seems a whole lot easier than changing hundreds of thousands of miles of infrastructure.

But I'm not an expert.
 
Automatic train stop systems are very rare here in the U.S. Outside of isolated transit lines, the only places you'll see them are the Northeast Corridor (Washington D.C. to Boston) and some of its branches, one or two lines across the west, and some parts of Southern California. However, these systems would not have prevented this accident. The systems in the U.S. and most everywhere else, would simply apply the brakes, usually by some form of electromagnetic transmission. The NYC subway does use tripcocks which physically activate a brake valve to apply the brakes and such a system might have worked here, assuming each of the cars were equipped with the vehicle-side of the system, and the track was equipped with it. Something called Positive Train Control is mandated on all lines carrying passengers, and hazardous materials by 2015. This takes ATP to a whole new level and unfortunately, will likely reduce capacity on railroads.

However, I have three theories on how this happened. It was said that the cars got away from the locomotives they were coupled to. Normally, when a train separates, the brakes apply due to how the Westinghouse air brake system only relies on detecting a drop in pressure to apply, the train line doesn't apply the brakes directly. However, this means that in order to release the brakes, the locomotive air compressor(s) have to completely pressurize each reservoir on each car.
So based of this, I have three unofficial, personal theories neither of which may be accurate, but are certainly plausible.

Theory 1 is that the reservoirs were only partially pressurized if the engineer had made a lot of brake applications, without keeping the brakes released enough to recharge the system. The weight of the train cars, meant that the partial brake application wasn't enough to hold them.

Theory 2 is that the anglecock between the cars and locomotives was engaged, meaning the trainline wasn't intact, and the cars would not react at all to any pressure loss. This situation would be like the 1953 crash of the Pennsylvania Railroad's Federal into Washington Union Station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Pennsylvania_Railroad_train_wreck

Theory 3 is that the reservoirs were bled off. This is a normal procedure in "hump" classification yards so the cars can roll freely into the yard tracks after being uncoupled from the train. There are only a few situations outside of classification yards where this is supposed to be used, and it's hard to imagine why it would be needed on a long, line of the same type of train car (unit train).
 
Last edited:
Doesn't ATP also handle smooth reductions of the velocity for the faster trains? I felt like it was not only used for emergencies.

No idea to be honest. I was on the UK's HS1 train when it get tripped by ATP. We did 145MPH to 0 in about 20 seconds. Pretty sharp deceleration but not enough to cause people standing to fall over or anything.
 
Back
Top