I have a Yahoo list that serves as a weekly newsletter for The South Carolina Railoroad Museum. I'm posting this week's message here because it contains a good safety reminder.

--------------------------------------------------

If we hadn't gotten so much accomplished this weekend, I'd say it was one of THOSE days. We should have known what we were in for when we learned that Vice President Bill White fell down his stairs at home this week, breaking his toe and ripping the nail off (best wishes to Bill for a speedy recovery, BTW).

The first project of the day was switching to set up for the Santa Trains. The goal was to get the train set up with the 2015 on the west end, followed by SCL caboose 01063 and all four passenger coaches. The first move was to get the Switchmaster out of the way. We quickly decided that it would go to Greenbrier and get tied down in the east end of the siding. I was to operate it, and the day's "footboard yardmaster," John Parker, would send #1276 out behind me to bring me back. Some switching had to be done between my departure and the 1276 following me, so John told me to take my time. Of course, it's impossible to do otherwise with the Switchmaster, which will go either slow, slower, or crawl.

The Switchmaster had been tied down on Track 2, right in front of #1276. Because the yard is so over-full, it's SOP to pull the switchmaster right up against whatever it's parked in front of to get maximum clearance. This meant that the locomotive's brake hose was dangling over the back of the Switchmaster's frame. When I pulled away (looking forward, of course, since that's the way I was going), the gladhand snagged in the frame. The brake hose, angle cock, and a couple elbows got ripped right off the front of the locomotive. Why the steel pipes gave before the rubber hose still puzzles me.

When everyone calmed down enough to start thinking about solutions instead of creative language, we got the air line temporarily plugged so the engine could operate for the switching. We weren't going to need air on that end of the loco anyway. Clif will make permanent repairs during the week.

Once we'd completed the temporary fix and done a bit more cussing for good measure, I took the Switchmaster to Greenbrier and the switching proceeded without further incident. The 1276 and B&O 903878 came out to Greenbrier to give me a ride back after I got the Switchmaster tied down. We finished up the switching and went to lunch.

Just as we were leaving for lunch, Jack Woerlhe announced that he wanted to paint the "back" side of caboose #5246. He asked if it would be possible to move the car about a car-length away from the Norfolk so he could put his ladders on level ground, and also so he wouldn't get overspray on the Norfolk. No problem, we said, we'll do it after lunch.

Upon our return from beans, the 2015 was once again fired up. Knowing that the hand brake on the 5246 is a bit fussy, John decided to get it released before moving the train, since he figured it'd take a while to get the brake off. There was a skate under the wheels, so he THOUGHT the car wouldn't go anywhere.

Uh-huh.

Remember that the track this car is usually parked on is on a 4% grade. While the caboose was right up against the back of the business car Norfolk, it wasn't coupled.

I got a steel bar out of the tool car to use as a brake club. John got on the platform of the Norfolk, and I got on the platform of the caboose. With me pushing and John pulling, we got the brake wheel turned enough to release the dog from the ratchet gear.

Note that this car has an old-style vertical brake staff, which has no gearing. The brake wheel is attached to a vertical square steel shaft, which is in turn connected directly to the drum that the brake chain winds up on. The only mechanical advantage you get is from the wheel. That's why we needed a club to get the brakes off.

We managed to get the brakes released without either of us getting beaned by the club. That was when things started going downhill. Literally.

John later remarked that it was a good thing he'd gone to the bathroom in the restaurant.

As soon as I saw the railing of the Norfolk start to slip away from the caboose, I started winding the brakes back up. I'd already removed the club from the wheel and didn't want to take the time to get it back in. I knew there was a train behind me, and a switch set against my unexpected and unauthorized movement. So I did everything I could to try to get that caboose to stop ASAP. The brake was having an effect, but not enough of one to prevent the inevitable collision.

I will note here that while Jack was on the ground next to the car, he was never in a spot where he could be in danger. Neither were John or I. The train was fouling the #3 switch about two car-lengths away. The only danger, therefore, was tearing up some equipment when the caboose hit the train. Naturally we wanted to avoid this.

Out of the corner of my eye, I saw John run past on the ground in the same direction the caboose was moving. I didn't pay any attention to what he was doing, because I was too busy trying to get that hand brake back on. I was also too busy to wonder what had happened to the skate that was supposed to be preventing the car from doing exactly what it was doing. I later found out that it popped out when the car's full weight got on it. The rail is a bit rounded on the outside, and apparently the skate had just enough slop to simply roll out of the way.

What John was doing was trying to find something to get under the car's wheels. He first tried one of the stanchions that supports the chain fence along the platform. It wouldn't fit, so he grabbed another stanchion. This was an older one with a rotted base. The base broke in half, so John pitched it under the wheel. Mercifully, it landed perfectly and the car stopped about fifteen feet short of a collision with the last car of the excursion train.

"Perfect, that's right where I wanted it," Jack told us.

I could have killed him. John almost did. I think that most of the reason he didn't was because he was shaking in his boots and trying to catch his breath. I wasn't in much better shape at that point.

These two incidents this weekend are a good reminder that rail cars don't care if we're seasoned professionals who work with them every day or volunteers who only "play railroad" on the weekends. As I've said many times, this stuff will bite you in a second if you give it a chance. As the Santa Trains start next weekend, we all need to keep this in mind. Fortunately the only danger in both cases was equipment damage -- no volunteers were in any position to get hurt. However, that was pure luck. If there had been air on the 1276 when the brake hose snagged, the sudden exhaust of air pressure could have had disastrous results. Likewise, had someone been in the wrong spot when the caboose got away from us, there could have been injuries. In this respect, incidents like these are actually good -- they remind us to stay on our toes and not get complacent.

--------------------------------------------------

Ordinarily, I wouldn't place such detail of such a screw-up on a public forum. I'm doing so in the hope that my experience today prevents someone else from doing something similar.

scrmcurator@netzero.com

Matt, I at least thank you for reiterating what must have been a harrowing experience for you and your crew. YES, we can learn from your mistakes. It's only when people become numbed to the true hazards of their jobs and become somewhat complacent that mistakes (or, in your case, freak occurences at the wrong time) happen. It's not for nothing that the railroads constantly pound the "Safety First" message into their employees' heads. I, too, have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, watching as a train backing down a steep grade came upon another movement on a blind curve that had somehow come to an emergency stop ahead of it--the train I was on knew of the second train but believed it was continuing down the track. Three brake valves were opened simultaneously (one at least by at least three hands simultaneously colliding to open that valve), and the couplers stopped about three feet apart. (Now, about that underwear change....)

Now, an interesting question: If Mr. Conrad had related this little cautionary tale about an identical experience on the operation/museum I described in an earlier post ("Philosophical Q"), I have no doubt that, unless Mr. Conrad himself was the operation's president or founder and "sugar daddy" (not an option in this actual case), he would have been reprimanded or dismissed from the operation for spreading negative PR. He made the Museum's operation look slipshod, haphazard, and unsafe, after all.

In a case like this, what's better--spreading the word to help educate others, or protecting the operation's image?

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> In a case like this, what's
> better--spreading the word to help educate
> others, or protecting the operation's image?

Why does it have to be one size fits all? Reasonable institutions can still adopt very different policies about when, where, how, and to whom they release information.

eledbetter@rypn.org

In the good (?) old daze at the steel plant this would be classified as an "Incident without Injury" and publicized thruout the departments as a safety contact. Two major points are (1) involved personnel followed approved safety practices ...aware of the hazards of moving equipment, staying in the clear etc. (2) failure of safety equipment namely skate placement and problem hand brake ...so your next safety meeting reinforces proper skate setting, car blocking and hand brake operation (the mechanical department is handed the job of correcting hand brake problems).
Upper management is handed the job of reviewing procedures and developing or changing these procedures to correct problems.

Some folks will look at Matts post as the airing of dirty laundry and some will look at it as a chance to compare it to their operation and a useful way to do some positive safety work. Your choice.



lamontdc@adelphia.net

What you said, Dennis.

Anybody reading this list who doesn't have any similar old war stories just hasn't worked around this stuff long enough. New equipment is bad enough, but our old stuff - like people, I suppose the older it gets the more crochety and perverse.

The important thing is we define and solve the problem and learn as a result. This gives us the chance to find a new and better way to have more troubles next time.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Why does it have to be one size fits all?

Because that's exactly how certain institutions have apparently chosen to treat information--as in, "All information disseminated about our place is to be disseminated only by approved public-relations personnel. The rest of staff are hereby directed to refer any questions about our operation to said officials, not attempt to answer said queries themselves." And, in my opinion, it works as well as "zero-tolerance" policies in school and law enforcement, which is to say not at all--it attempts to weasel out of having to think about an issue by stifling all possibility of reasoned judgement being applied.

Just as a method of playing devil's advocate, I could ask: Was it necessary for Matt to name names, identify where it happened, etc.? It could be construed to make the SCRM look bad. The railroads routinely issue safety bulletins that describe, in often-gory detail, incidents that occur that result in injury or death--without giving enough details to finger the individual or yard/facility in question, but enough to drive the message home ("... a 56-year-old electrical worker with 36 years' seniority and three children..."). (Usually. If the accident involved dropping a locomotive from a crane, for example, and CSX had only one shop with a loco crane........) Even if it's completely obvious to everyone here that Matt's incident occurred on the SCRM, he doesn't have to say so directly.

Mind you, I'm on Matt's side here. I'm just trying to keep him (and others) from getting called on the carpet by those in position to can his posterior.



LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> In a case like this, what's
> better--spreading the word to help educate
> others, or protecting the operation's image?

I considered long and hard before including the incident in my report, and even longer before copying that report here. While the mailing list it was originally sent to does have open membership, it's primarily for the Museum's members. It is also not an official Museum project, and has many disclaimers to that effect. In the end, I decided that the potential benefit to safety outweighed the potential PR damage. I wouldn't dream of publishing such a story in the Museum's paper newsletter, or writing a story about it for the local newspaper, which I work for as a graphic artist and reporter.

It was a bit easier decision to post here. This forum is read primarily by people who are in the same industry/hobby. I felt that everyone here would understand the safety message and that it might help prevent a similar incident from occurring somewhere else.

We THOUGHT we were doing something that would be relatively safe. After all, the car was on a skate which appeared to be properly set under the wheel. Nobody was more surprised than John and me when that car started down the hill. It's not like we blatantly violated a rule or anything. The skate should have held the thing, the story was about how we salvaged the situation when it didn't.

I'm not going to weigh in on "negative PR." Often the most interesting stories are those that include such screw-ups and unexpected failures. That's why people read them and listen to them.

scrmcurator@netzero.com

> Even if it's
> completely obvious to everyone here that
> Matt's incident occurred on the SCRM, he
> doesn't have to say so directly.

> Mind you, I'm on Matt's side here. I'm just
> trying to keep him (and others) from getting
> called on the carpet by those in position to
> can his posterior.

Point taken. I didn't think about that. My purpose in posting was to hopefully alert others that you shouldn't trust skates and chocks, even if they appear to be properly placed. I didn't think about leaving out names and places, mostly because I was one of the names. That's the writer in me -- I thought the story would be more powerful with all of the names included.

BTW, the hand brake on the caboose actually works the way it's supposed to. If you wind it when the car is stopped, it will hold the car. If the train hadn't been in the way we would have gotten the car stopped, although we probably still would have run at least the lead truck through the switch -- the brake WAS having an effect and the car WAS slowing down. It just wasn't stopping fast enough to prevent a collision, and I didn't have time to get the club back in to get more leverage on it.

scrmcurator@netzero.com

> Because that's exactly how certain
> institutions have apparently chosen to treat
> information--as in, "All information
> disseminated about our place is to be
> disseminated only by approved
> public-relations personnel.

Let me rephrase the question--why do you feel that only one information policy (presumably an open one like Matt's) is right for the entire museum/rail heritage tourism industry? Let a thousand flowers bloom. I applaud Matt's openness but I undertand and don't criticise other organizations' circumspection.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> Let me rephrase the question--why do you
> feel that only one information policy
> (presumably an open one like Matt's) is
> right for the entire museum/rail heritage
> tourism industry?

I don't say it's right. Mind you, I can actually see several types of instances where staying quiet or referring someone around an endless chain of "you'll have to talk to...." might be an appropriate response. For example, if litigation is or might realistically become involved, that's a no-brainer. The state bureaucracies involved with the state rail museums of California, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, as well as the Federal bureaucracy of the NPS and Steamtown, as another set of examples, will also presumably complicate matters for Messrs. Gray, Wrinn, and Bell, et al; I wouldn't be eager to strangle a goose laying golden eggs for my profession no matter how wrong-headed I might perceive certain situations. (On the other hand, I would *like* to think that people are intelligent enough to distinguish the private individual from the employee.)

On the other hand, as discussed on this board, a constant level of "you'll have to ask the PR boss" repeated ad nauseaum, as we have seen here, does two things:
1) it makes the institution look like it has something to hide--something embarrassing at best and dangerous/illegal at worst;
2) it makes everyone below the decision-makers or PR mouthpiece feel unempowered, as if they're not allowed to have an opinion or discuss certain matters.

In retrospect, I will grant a bit more leeway than I should to certain circumstances. I will fully admit that there is a big difference between asking "when do you hope to have that car restored to service?", "what ever happened to that proposed handicapped-accessible car with lifts I read about you guys working on a while back?", and "so when the %#*^! is that [RR and number deleted to protect the guilty] ever going to get finished, and will it go back to its owner in one piece or not?!?" And yes, a private shop or privately-owned operation has no obligation whatsoever to answer me; ditto its paid employees. (But we respect Linn and Kelly, and their employers, all the more for their willingness to join discussions on this board!)

But for goodness' sake, the place I visited that sparked my original query last week or so...... You'd think that at LEAST *some* of the people I talked to could have at least politely feigned ignorance of the specifics, instead of everyone spitting out almost the exact same phrase verbatim every time.

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

All other items aside, I'd say that the lesson here is not to assume anything. I've worked with new trainmen and had situations where they did something (usually unconsiously) that was either a rules violation or generally poor practice (all of us who work in train or engine service have experianced this at one time or another). I cannot remember the number of times that I asked them why they did what they did and got the reply "well, I just assumed" or "well, I thought." I try to communicate to them that either of those can get you or others hurt or killed or cause damage to equipment. There is indeed a specific event that I use to illustrate the dangers associated with "I assumed" or "I thought."

One Sunday afternoon, I was working with our engine crew and our last remaining chore was to pick up a diesel electric locomotive from the servicing track and set it out on another yard track near the fuel pad before tying the steam locomotive up for the night. We backed onto the diesel and pulled it out of the servicing track. I threw the switch and the enginemen shoved the diesel back towards the fuel pad. The fireman set the hand brake on the diesel tightly (or so he thought) and made the cut. They then moved the steamer past the service track switch and I lined them back towards the pit. At that moment, I heard something, glanced towards the diesel and noticed it rolling towards us slowly. I shouted a warning to the others and threw the switch to prevent the diesel from trailing it. The engineer attempted to get the steamer in forward motion to lessen the blow of the impending hard coupling but before he could get moving, the diesel coupled to the steamer at about eight miles an hour, shoving the steamer ahead about fifty feet.

Once we determined that everyone was ok and the equipment was not damaged, we examined the diesel's handbrake to see if it had been fully applied. What we found was that the brake would not hold the locomotive, even when the mechanism was wound so tightly that the brake wheel could be turned no further. Thus while the fireman had felt the usual amount of tension when operating the hand brake wheel, the hand brake was not fully applied. We then proceeded to re-spot the diesel in the same location, this time seeing that the locomotive was well chocked.

In this case, the fireman initially assumed that the hand brake would hold the locomotive (as would most of us in that situation) but that shows how even the most experianced of us can fall into that trap. The two lessons that I try to ingrain in the work habits of the newer trainmen I work with are never assume anything when working on the railroad, be absolutely certain in your work and be aware of what is going on around you. We don't have to name names or go into minute identifying details to get the safety message across or make it any more effective.

awalker2002@comcast.net

Perhaps, to paraphrase another comment Sandy, some people have much to be circumspect about?

I think this horse died a few comments back.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net