http://www.dailytownsman.com/breaking_news/219979141.html
This is all about what is really going on; as CP keeps on professing “Safety is our top priority”. Well at least that’s what Ed Greenberg keeps telling the press. While Hunter Harrison gets things “streamlined” for maximum shareholder returns?
HJ,
That article needs a little explaining and background. Carman are considered in a different class of ‘qualified’ air brake inspectors. A conductor and/or engineer is also considered a qualified inspector. What changes between the type of air brake inspection is the leave of detail, but both inspections insure that the air brakes apply and release. A carman is considered a “qualified mechanical inspector” while a train crew member is simply a “qualified person”. A class I test (initial terminal test) can be done by either a carman or a train crew member. A class I test is a 20lb set on the train line, along with a leakage test.
In the Seattle Terminal complex, there was only two yards that had carman on duty. If you picked up a car outside where the carman worked, the train crew did a class I test. Granted most outbound trains got a class I test from the carman. I’m not sure on the specific rules up in Canada, but if they are similar to the FRA rules, a carman test will ‘qualify’ the train to run more miles than if a qualified person did the test. So a class I test by a carman would allow the train to travel 3000 miles before the next inspection, where as a train crew class I test would only allow the train to travel 1000 miles before the next inspection.
And than there’s intermediate terminal brake tests, etc.
I’m not sure if this terminal is an outlying terminal or a major yard, but from the article (and my perspective) it sounds like an outlying terminal. Yes trains may originate from this yard, but it’s likely that they will get a class I inspection again within a certain number of miles.
Craig
Now why would they have a separate designation of “carman”, if the train crew could do the inspection?
Why would they have assigned x number of “carman” to a specific location?
When they had that “sudden failure” of a set of wheels on that Intermodal back East (near Sudbury), did that train originate from a yard where they “needed” fewer carmen to inspect trains?
Whichever way one slices this, fewer bodies who do safety inspections certainly doesn’t mean more safety.
My prediction is: One day (in the not too distant future) there will be a real disaster on CP Rail and Hunter Harrison will re-retire right after!
HJ,
I have no idea why the sudden failure happens, and it relates to a specific yard, but I can give you the Air Brake and Train Handling definition of Qualified Person, verses Qualified Mechanical Inspector.
BNSF ABTH Rule 100.1 - Basically says this ABTH is written to cover FRA rules…
100.2 "Inspect and test brake equipment on locomotives and cars according to hte Federal Railroad Administration regulations contained within these rules…
Inspections and air brake tests may be preformed by either a “Qualified Person” or a “Qualified Mechanical Inspector”.
A “Qualified Person” refers to a trainman given fundamental training on freight car inspections and air brake tests and a “Qualified Mechanical Inspector” refers to a person such a (sic) carman who has been given more extensive training that provides for a more detailed inspection. All trainman are “Qualified Persons” in the application of the following rules.
Inspection and air brake tests by a “Qualified Mechanical Inspector” provide a greater distance that a train may travel before additional inspections and tests are required. Inspection of equipment, when required, must be preformed on both sides at some point during the inspection and air brake test to be able to examine and observe the functions of all moving parts of the brake system on each car as necessary, as well as to comply with all parts of GCOR Rule 1.33. Roll-by inspections may only be utilized to determine that all brakes have been released and may not be used to perform all other inspection requirements for either side of the train."
Rule 100.10 Initial Terminal and Road Air Brake Test (Class I Air Brake Test)
"A qualified employee must conduct and initial terminal air brake test to inspect air brake and safety appliances and to test brake pipe integrity.
A. Requirement for test
Test must be conducted
Where train ins original assembled…
Where a unit or cycle train has traveled 3,000 miles since it’s last Class I Air Brake Test…
Trains designated as “Extended Haul” must be given a air brake inspection and tests preformed by a Qualified Mechanical Inspector and train may be operated greater than 1,000 miles but not toe exceed 1,500 miles before an additional Intermediate or Initial Terminal Inspection and Air Brake Test is required. To apply the extended distance for this type of inspection and air brake test: …
An set out in route must be given an inbound inspection by a Qualified Mechanical Inspector.
Any cars of solid block of cars added en route must be pretested by a Qualified Mechanical Inspector…
Train must be given inbound inspection by a Qualified Mechanical Inspector at 1,500 mile intermediate inspection points."
I hope this explains the difference in the types of inspections by carman, verses trainman.
From the article it sounds like one of the shifts of carman got cut. So instead of having a 3 shift carman, CN went to 2 shifts or 1 shift at that location.
Craig
Craig,
I’ll have to dig it up, but there was a report recently that CP failed x number of brake inspections out of x total inspections.
OK here we go
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130726-115405.html
In my former life (two back) I was a QC man (those guys are never popular if they do their job). 5% failure rate (aka scrap) would have raised the roof where I worked.
HJ,
The railroad industry mandates a certain ‘failure’ rate! No I’m serious! Some of the train masters I talked with had a 5-10% mandatory ops test failure rate that they were required to meet monthly. Explain that one. Basically the railroad says “100% safety and rules compliance” but on the other hand says to management that 5-10% of rules will be broken… So a 5.9% failure rate on the CP for Ops tests seems about right to me.
I had a few BS failures… Walking out of the yard office without my safety glasses on, while I was walking 5’ to the locomotive. Meanwhile a smoker could sit outside, 2’ away from the rail and not have his safety glasses on.
Craig