> But it's not a matter of making excuses. The
> question is, are the rules set up so as to make it
> easy for the employees to do it right? I still
> wonder about some things.

You have it backwards. Railroad's operating department rules are not based on what might be "easy" for employees to follow. They primarily exist to be sure that the railroad operates in a safe manner to protect the employee, fellow employees, the employer and the public at large. There is some secondary consideration to efficient operation.

Admittedly, railroads aren't always the best on making common sense improvements to support their employees. I do have some concern at times as to the basis of some of the newer rules and regulations as they seem to be written more by lawyers, accountants, union leaders and bureaucrats to support their own agendas and justify their positions. For smaller railroads, this creates an absolute nightmare to implement, maintain and somehow pay for onerous regulations that don't reasonably apply.



> (1) In the first place, what were they doing tying
> up, anyway? Didn't the train have to go to New
> Brunswick? Shouldn't they keep it going through
> the night so it would get to New Brunswick sooner?
> Is there some rule that trains can't run after
> midnight? Or did the railroad not have another
> rested engineer ready to go?

The train had to cross the border into Maine. In isolated areas, it is not uncommon to have customs officers only available at certain times. In addition, a US based engineer had to be available to continue the train's trip across Maine. Stopping a train for a time window or crew availability is common operating practice on any railroad.

> (2) Did they really run this with a crew of one?
> Sounds really risky, especially with a train of
> flammable liquids. Someone suggested that the
> conductor had reached the end of his hours and
> went home. But it was also suggested that the HOS
> rules don't apply to setting the brakes. So why
> didn't the conductor stick around to help the
> engineer set the brakes?

Canada has different hours of service rules than the US, so I can't really speak to them. I do know on the US side you are required to have ALL your duties completed before your hours are up, but under NO circumstances are you to leave a train unsecured. There is a provision in US law that does allow a train crew to work up to 16 hours in an actual emergency, and failing to plan your time to properly secure your train is not an emergency and can be considered a violation.

There was no conductor assigned. The railroad had gone to engineer only and the engine consist included a RC caboose mued to the rest of the power to allow the engineer to do their own switching, set out a bad order, repair a broken knuckle, etc.

Again, one person train crews are not uncommon. I believe much of New Zealand has been engineer only for many years, possibly some places in Australia. There is one iron ore line in Australia that is so isolated that I have heard they have a helicopter on standby to ferry extra help to deal with issues the engineer can't handle. I believe Amtrak still uses only an engineer in the cab on runs with less than 6 hours scheduled running time, as does most commuter operations. While there may be a conductor back in the passenger train, that does little to double check the engineer running at 90 mph. And it is not unusual to find one-person RC jobs working in major railroad yards.

I have worked engineer only on several shortlines, sometimes with an alertor, sometimes with a conductor running ahead or behind in a hyrail or following by road. I will admit to not always be comfortable doing so and would prefer another person, but then again it doesn't do any good if they sleep through most of the shift.


> (3) It has long been the practice to let diesel
> locomotives idle all night, spewing pollution,
> annoying the neighbors with their noise, and
> consuming petroleum. The argument is that it is a
> lot of trouble to start up a diesel loco from
> cold. Is it time to review this? Did the engineer
> perhaps subconsciously say, "Well, I'll set a few
> brakes, but really, the loco will run all night
> and keep air in the system." The flaw in the
> reasoning is obvious: Loco caught on fire and the
> fireman switched it off. If the rule were that any
> loco that is not expected to be used within the
> next, say three hours, must be switched off, the
> engineer would understand that, difficult and
> fatiguing though the job may be, he would have to
> set the brakes.

You are obviously not familiar with locomotives or the railroad industry. The diesel engines in locomotives are BIG, and they aren't ready to run under load right after a cold start. Only some engines are equipped with anti-freeze, so most engines must be protected from freezing by either idling or an auxiliary system. In reality, the cost of diesel fuel has become such a major part of railroad operating expenses that they do have specific rules on letting engines idle if they do not expect them to be used with a certain amount of time. Most locomotives are now equipped with a combination of low idle systems, automatic stop-start systems (AESS) or either electric or APU/DDHS standby systems.

Your prejudice towards trains makes me wonder why you even are posting here. Consider that 99% of homeowners bought their homes a century or so after the railroad existed near them. Also consider that other then ships and barges, railroads are far more fuel efficient than either road or air. I have moved 8,000-10,000 ton trains with 6,000-7,000 horsepower. Even if a railroad assigned 2 hp per ton, that is still far less than the average truck. Assuming 3-4 truckloads per railroad car, the trucks would need 900-1200 hp to move it, while a train would only assign 100-400 hp to the same load. I'll put a train's "pollution" against any truck, traffic jam or a neighborhood full of leaf blowers and weed whackers. Not to mention - railroads pay property taxes and maintain their own right of way, not to mention most grade crossing signal systems that exist for the public's safety and convenience.

The basic operating concept and rules for railroad air brakes have existed for the last 100 years. Before a train can depart its initial terminal, its brakes must be tested and inspected to be sure that they are in proper working order. I'm not sure exactly what Canada requires, but the train in question was going into the US so it would have to meet FRA rules anyway. If all the engines had been shut off overnight, the LAW requires that the entire train would have to be retested and inspected. This means starting the engines, allowing enough time for the air to build up, and performing the brake test on the entire train. This not only creates a substantial delay, but probably creates the same amount of idle hours compared to just leaving one run overnight.

Ever since railroads have existed, undesired movement of unattended railroad equipment must be provided for usually by applying enough handbrakes. Ever since air brakes have existed, they have NEVER been depended on to leave unattended equipment secured. It is a violation of the basic safety tenants of air brakes If any part of the reason for leaving an engine idle to provide air brake pressure to prevent undesired movement instead of applying hand brakes.

Applying and releasing railroad hand brakes is in no way what I would ever describe as "fun" or "easy". It is a necessary part of the job. The optimum situation is for every unattended train to be left in a sag with easy road access, lighting at night, a stationary air supply to keep the train charged and a clear walking path on both sides for the length of the train. Let's not forget that it shouldn't be anywhere near occupied buildings, so there will need to be at least a 1/4 mile buffer along each side of the tracks where no one is allowed to build anything. Good luck finding one.

The basic fact remains - unattended rail equipment was not properly secured and it broke free, rolled downgrade and created an unimaginable horror. Did someone tamper with the handbrakes? Where the brakes properly designed and maintained? Was the engineer following the rules? Were the rules, training and supervision appropriate? These are the questions to be answered. The engine fire, loss of air, firemen's actions, lack of derail, etc. did not change the reason the equipment could begin rolling - gravity and a lack of friction were responsible for that.

The engineer was a union employee. In my experience, the majority of small railroads that are union don't come close to the pay scale enjoyed by their "brothers and sisters" on the Class 1s. I actually think that after union dues are deducted, many union shoreline rails don't much more than if they were non-union. I would also argue that an unintended consequence of unionization is that it can be harder to dismiss an employee that does not follow the rules. Get used to one person train crews on all but the most inaccessible mainlines. With "Big Brother" PTC in control, Class 1 railroads will be able to justify engineer only on most through trains with the government's blessing.

One thing for sure, we will not recognize railroading 10 years from now. PTC, digital brakes, a ton more regulations, one person train crews, DPU, remote control, greener engines, a shift in container traffic due to the Panama Canal changes, a change in coal traffic to primarily export, a continuing increase in crude oil movement by rail because a pipeline cannot get permitted or is economically justified - not to mention whatever the politicians and bureaucrats do.