Derailment and fire in Quebec

[Gary H]

If folk stuck to the rules, and those rules were well thought out, things should be OK (most of the time)

 

Here is an interesting video, how to take a 10 thousand ton train down a 5% (1 in 20) grade. It's a training video by the Southern Railway, (now Norfolk Southern). A lot in it about air brakes etc.

 

Brit15

That sorts the men from the boys!

I can remember reading an accident report a while back that I think took place on Cajon Pass. A similar train to the above went over the top with less than required operable DB's. Air was alone was not enough to hold the train back, the friction brakes burnt away and the train became out of control and derailed. Sobering stuff.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Gary H

[dibber25]

Good to see action taken and particularly the one-man crew arrangements withdrawn for dangerous goods. Puzzled by the one-hour stipulation re parking on a main track but I'm presuming that, technically, the likelihood of brakes leaking off in under an hour is unlikely? Still think even five minutes is too long but I guess, otherwise, the stipulations cover all the bases pretty well.

As far as trap points are concerned, the most recent one was surely a piece of movie on Facebook that was doing the rounds in Canada, too. Wasn't a runaway, it's true, it was a suspected SPAD (by a steam loco on the GCR) but the trap point did what it was intended to do and prevented an unwanted movement onto the main line. Safety measures such as trap points are like smoke detectors in your own home. They are a basic safety feature that you provide in the hope that it will never be necessary, but if it ever does prove necessary, then it's really worth the money.

Edited July 23, 2013 by dibber25

[Gerald Henriksen]

Town forced to pay $4 million in unpaid bills to companies hired by MMA:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/23/lacmegantic_residents_allowed_brief_visit_home.html

 

Edit:

[i guess it should be pointed out that it is likely the insurance company(s) that are being slow with the payments]

Edited July 23, 2013 by Gerald Henriksen

[highpeak]

Meanwhile Ed Burkhardt is pondering whether to hire a fat lady with vocal talent: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-19/railway-weighing-viability-after-quebec-crash-chairman-says-1-.html

An observer notes he passed an empty PAR oil train in Wachusett, MA. On his way to work, and on his return home he noted that there was a company employee loafing around in the cab of the lead engine.

PAR has also apparently instructed employees to make sure handbrakes are set on the first 10 cars and the last 10.
Source: various posts on railroad.net, accuracy cannot be vouched for.

[dave1905]

It will be interesting if the rules are issued with the wording exactly as reported in the article.  If they are, they have holes in them large enough to drive a train through.

[Gerald Henriksen]

Headline for a columnists article:

 

"Lac Megantic no safety crisis on Canada's rails, the only 'emergency' is runaway regulation"

 

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/24/andrew-coyne-lac-megantic-no-safety-crisis-on-canadas-rails-the-only-emergency-is-runaway-regulation/

Edited July 25, 2013 by Gerald Henriksen

[The Stationmaster]

Headline for a columnists article:

 

"Lac Megantic no safety crisis on Canada's rails, the only 'emergency' is runaway regulation"

 

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/24/andrew-coyne-lac-megantic-no-safety-crisis-on-canadas-rails-the-only-emergency-is-runaway-regulation/

Seems they have ostriches in Canada.

[highpeak]

 

Headline for a columnists article:

 

"Lac Megantic no safety crisis on Canada's rails, the only 'emergency' is runaway regulation"

 

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/24/andrew-coyne-lac-megantic-no-safety-crisis-on-canadas-rails-the-only-emergency-is-runaway-regulation/

 "Nothing like it is ever likely to happen again."

Well, that's all right then, nothing to see here, move along, no need to do anything. Tant pis pour les habitants de Lac-Megantic, c'est la vie.

[dave1905]

 

 "Nothing like it is ever likely to happen again."

Well, that's all right then, nothing to see here, move along, no need to do anything. Tant pis pour les habitants de Lac-Megantic, c'est la vie.

 

There is a middle ground between building barbed wire enclosures with armed guards every place a train stops and doing nothing.

 

Putting out regulations that drive up the costs and are easily circumvented, yet don't solve the real problem  isn't effective.  Putting derail in at the lower switch at Nates is a great solution, unless you own a house next to the south switch at Nantes.  Telling me that the solution to a runaway train is to kill my family in order to save the town really wouldn't sit well with me.  The solution is not to have the runaway train in the first place.  Derails don't stop trains from running away, they just keep them from running as far and make a smaller pile.

[Gerald Henriksen]

Quebec Provincial Police raid MMA offices:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/25/lac_megantic_train_explosion_police_raid_mma_rail_company_office.html

[Adrian Wintle]

There is a middle ground between building barbed wire enclosures with armed guards every place a train stops and doing nothing.

 

Putting out regulations that drive up the costs and are easily circumvented, yet don't solve the real problem  isn't effective.  Putting derail in at the lower switch at Nates is a great solution, unless you own a house next to the south switch at Nantes.  Telling me that the solution to a runaway train is to kill my family in order to save the town really wouldn't sit well with me.  The solution is not to have the runaway train in the first place.  Derails don't stop trains from running away, they just keep them from running as far and make a smaller pile.

 

Although in the case of Nantes, the nearest house is about 250m from the south switch, so the only thing likely to be affected by a derailment there are moose (although it could potentially have blocked the highway if it was on the main).

https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=45.621707,-70.98787&spn=0.006108,0.010353&t=h&z=17

 

 

 

Adrian

Edited July 25, 2013 by Adrian Wintle

[pH]

Putting out regulations that drive up the costs and are easily circumvented, yet don't solve the real problem  isn't effective. 

 

Dave, to me that's a major problem right there. (I'm not accusing you of anything, it's just that your statement illustrates a pervasive attitude in North American industry, if not life, which we all accept to some extent at least and internalise.) Why should anyone want to try to deliberately circumvent regulations (however imperfect) intended to increase safety? The answer, of course, is cost, as you say.

 

And that gets back to a point that was discussed much earlier in this topic - the cost of preventing accidents versus the cost of paying for them after they've happened. North American railroads are commercial operations intended to make profits and, as such, will do everything (legal) to that end. Unless and until the costs of not avoiding accidents are more than the costs of avoiding them, the railroads will do their best to (legally) "circumvent" regulations of all kinds. IMO, they can only be constrained from outside - by governments with the will and commitment to constrain them, or customers with the financial power to do so.  

 

With regard to the Andrew Coyne article Gerald linked to above, he is (again IMO) a libertarian and, as a first position, is against any government regulation. He has an ability to stand back from the emotion surrounding an issue and be coldly logical about the issue and the surrounding emotion, which can be disturbing. I'm against much of what he says there about the need for revised railroad safety regulation. Unfortunately I agree with his view, which he has been putting forward in many articles since it happened, that this disaster is being used by the opposition parties in Canada to attack the current government in an attempt to score cheap political points.

[Ozexpatriate]

... the railroads will do their best to (legally) "circumvent" regulations of all kinds.

Not always, but I know what you mean. The railroads do have a self-interest in operating safely. They won't be keen to spend a lot of money to comply with new regulations beyond current practices.

 

... this disaster is being used by the opposition parties in Canada to attack the current government in an attempt to score cheap political points.

As always happens anywhere. The fact that this tragic accident happened in Quebec can't have helped the political side of this either. Edited July 25, 2013 by Ozexpatriate

[highpeak]

Although in the case of Nantes, the nearest house is about 250m from the south switch, so the only thing likely to be affected by a derailment there are moose (although it could potentially have blocked the highway if it was on the main).

https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=45.621707,-70.98787&spn=0.006108,0.010353&t=h&z=17

 

 

 

Adrian

And the train would surely not have built up any great speed at that point.

[dibber25]

It's really all about a gamble. Should you spend money on a trap point or is it OK to gamble that nothing will happen? Much like, do I really need home insurance to cover that eventuality - flood, fire, theft or whatever? How much of the risk am I willing to take? Views are sure to vary. Some of us are more cautious than others. There are those who would take the gamble, particularly now that lightning has already struck once and it couldn't possibly happen again. The gamble is fine all the time that someone else  is paying when you lose. These changes requested by Transport Canada are OK. They don't go far enough, in my view, but they seem like a reasonable interim measure. Of course, there are requirements in the UK that such things are observed in the spirit as well as the letter. In other words, you don't go looking for ways to drive a train through holes in the regulations. The next thing should be a Railway Inspectorate appointed by Government to examine operations BEFORE new flows start up, to ensure that they can't start until procedures and infrastructure are in place to ensure the job is done properly.

[dave1905]

Dave, to me that's a major problem right there. (I'm not accusing you of anything, it's just that your statement illustrates a pervasive attitude in North American industry, if not life, which we all accept to some extent at least and internalise.) Why should anyone want to try to deliberately circumvent regulations (however imperfect) intended to increase safety? The answer, of course, is cost, as you say.

 

 

Circumvent was probably the wrong word.  You are misunderstanding the concept.  I'm saying if you write a poor law that fails to properly address situation then it won't protect you.  Its not even that the people are trying to game the law, its that its full of holes.

 

Purely hypothetical situation.  MMA has a train that runs from the southwest to the northeast and another train that runs from the northwest to the southeast.  Nantic is somewhere in the middle where both trains share a route.  I want to move cars from the NW to the NE, so I put it on the NW--SE train and set it out at Nantic, then have the SW-NE train pick it up.  Is that wrong?  No.  Normal business, railroads have employed connections and junctions from the dawn of time.  Its done a thousand times a day all over the world.

 

Today that move has 40 loads of hazmat in it.  Am I breaking the law?  No.  Am I scamming anything?  No.  I'm doing normal business, same thing I've done yesterday and the day before and the day before that.  Will the regulations proposed protect this situation?  NO.  All of the regulations discuss engines with hazmat cars connected.  They don't touch a case of hazmat cars just sitting in a siding.   There's a hole in the law.

 

(This ignores the obvious that this would be a dumb place to make this move.)

 

Would those holes allow somebody to actually "circumvent" the restrictions, sure, lots of different ways.  I'm not suggesting any of them are good ideas.  Would they be legal?  They would comply with the letter of the law (as reported in the news).  Yes. 

 

Nature abhors a vaccuum.  If you give somebody a door, they will try to use it sometime.  If the law has a lot of doors in it, it won't accomplish its purpose.

[dave1905]

And the train would surely not have built up any great speed at that point.

A national law applies nationwide.  Nantes is one example.  Sidings on a major carrier can be over 10,000 feet long.  A 1/2 mile long train in a 2 mile long siding can build up enough speed to have a bad outcome.

[dibber25]

If railways are going to deliberately circumvent regulations then you either have to write those regulations so that the railways are REALLY tied up in red tape, (as to some extent they are in the UK) or you have to develop a culture where regulation is observed in the spirit as well as in the letter. A railway inspectorate should decide what level of protection is required for a train standing unattended in a siding. If there's a danger of a trap point deflecting vehicles into adjacent property, you either shorten the siding, redirect the trap point to derail the train away from the property, or instal a sand drag.

Mike might recognise this one. It is in Britain and protected vehicles which might contain munitions from a runaway coming off a line operated by Americans.

[highpeak]

A national law applies nationwide.  Nantes is one example.  Sidings on a major carrier can be over 10,000 feet long.  A 1/2 mile long train in a 2 mile long siding can build up enough speed to have a bad outcome.

So clearly you would have to use a bit of intelligence when you design your infrastructure and your operating rules. I would have thought that was not beyond the wit of the railroads.

[Fat Controller]

If railways are going to deliberately circumvent regulations then you either have to write those regulations so that the railways are REALLY tied up in red tape, (as to some extent they are in the UK) or you have to develop a culture where regulation is observed in the spirit as well as in the letter. A railway inspectorate should decide what level of protection is required for a train standing unattended in a siding. If there's a danger of a trap point deflecting vehicles into adjacent property, you either shorten the siding, redirect the trap point to derail the train away from the property, or instal a sand drag.

Mike might recognise this one. It is in Britain and protected vehicles which might contain munitions from a runaway coming off a line operated by Americans.

It's the top end of the Lambourn branch, isn't it? I believe it's now accessed from a curiously- signposted motorway junction instead..

[Jonboy]

Its funny - I always thought that junction was odd, but never twigged what it was for.

[dibber25]

It's the top end of the Lambourn branch, isn't it? I believe it's now accessed from a curiously- signposted motorway junction instead..

Yes. Hadn't realised they still used it. The base is RAF Welford and it was a USAF stores depot - everything from toilet rolls to bombs, I believe. The exchange yard was at Welford Park on the Newbury-Lambourn branch and the MOD and USAF at various times operated the railway from Welford Park to the base. An incline joined the two lines, with a downhill run into the yard, hence the sand drag. A very effective way of slowing a runaway and having a good chance that it won't end up in a heap.

[The Stationmaster]

Yes. Hadn't realised they still used it. The base is RAF Welford and it was a USAF stores depot - everything from toilet rolls to bombs, I believe. The exchange yard was at Welford Park on the Newbury-Lambourn branch and the MOD and USAF at various times operated the railway from Welford Park to the base. An incline joined the two lines, with a downhill run into the yard, hence the sand drag. A very effective way of slowing a runaway and having a good chance that it won't end up in a heap.

I think they only use it in times of 'emergency' such as the Gulf War (when it was very busy and even acquired an elevated guard post visible from the motorway) and the Iraq invasion although it might since have been rundown.  The railway of course is long gone although I can recall it being very busy in teh late 1960s when the US military were turfed out of France and moved large quantities of munitions to Welford.

[Gerald Henriksen]

Journalist followed the MMA from one end to the other, talking to people along the way:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/journey-to-the-end-of-the-line/article13467471/?page=1

[highpeak]

I got through a couple of pages of that before deciding it added little to the discussion of the accident. It does perhaps inform where things might go after this.

 

The impact of deteriorated right of way is relevant to the accident being discussed mostly in the way it affects the reliability of crew change points and the progression of trains across the route. If a train can safely travel at 10 mph and the operator can stay alert at such a pedestrian speed, then it really has no relevance to the problem at hand. Sure, we'd all be happier if the tracks were good for 79mph, but that isn't directly relevant.

The fact that the tracks might be only class 1 is irrelevant (and nobody has determined what class the track in question was, an accident report at Jackman suggests that stretch was good for 40 mph, if I remember correctly, it was certainly better than class 1 or 2). The paint job is irrelevant except so far as it's poor PR and doesn't support the idea that MM&A was right on top of keeping everything in good shape (compare the way BAR locos looked back in the day, or Irving's locos look today, beauty isn't always just skin deep and you at least can start to form some opinions from it).

 

The accident happened because there was no redundancy in the safety layers. You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether that's feasible in the context of North American railroading or not, but that's the truth. You rely on brakes alone (and whether that's hand brakes or air brakes and how those air or hand brakes were applied, whether Joe Hooligan came along and released them, whether Fred Fireman accidentally released them, it's all of interest to the report but not much else) and you have only one layer of safety. I am sick of hearing about the difficulties of doing anything else because of the size of the network, the number of trains, the length of passing tracks, the need to lay trains up on running lines etc etc, if you're just relying on the brakes, then pray to your god that when the crew don't secure the train properly that your next accident is in the middle of nowhere, not the middle of town.

 

Looking ahead to the MM&A, they are almost certainly done. Ed, enjoy the rest of your retirement. Megantic, do you need a railroad? Overhead traffic can travel to St John several other ways. If you have enough need (and it sounds like there's one shipper needs a westbound connection) then the province may need to step in and do something. There's nothing much for traffic between Megantic and Brownsville, so the scrap value of the Moosehead subdivsion probably exceeds its value as a going concern. Unless Irving (the rail people, not the oil Irvings) decide they can turn a dime on that piece of road. How it all works out (unless a private concern is willing to put its money on the line) will depend on whether Maine and Quebec can see enough common interests to make it all work.

 

But so far I haven't seen anything to suggest the regulatory or investigating bodies (and I'll cut TSB some slack because it's early days for them to be writing anything worthwhile) are looking at redundancy. Transport Canada strikes me as useful and captured as the FAA.