Glorious NSE Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 It would have to be shipped in cars that met the rules in both countries, that hasn't been a big issue though (although there's a waiting list for newbuilds at the mo)...if it came to it that the rules changed in either one then whichever company was organising the lease of the freightcars (Irving? Or whoever operated the wells?) would have to lease some slightly different freightcars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Actually I can't really imagine Canada banning those cars anytime soon because there are too many of them in the fleet with nothing to immediately replace them. If you ban them you shut down the chemical industry and therefore, industry. If Canada bans hauling flammable liquids in those cars, they will have basically shut off the country's supply of flammable liquids (gasoline, kerosene, light oils, feedstock liquids, etc.) Any ban would take years to do and would involve the AAR changing the interchange rules. That's been done before on certain types of wheels, trucks and underframes on cars. Any ban (and I haven't read of any proposal to do so) would take years to take effect to allow the car leasing companies (the railroads don't own those tank cars) to replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 There has been an online petition going about to ask for a ban on the particular tank cars that were involved at Lac Megantic but I suspect it will be ignored for the reasons Dave stated above. That said, there is an awareness of the shortcomings of this model so there will be pressure to upgrade. Cheers, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 MMA has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US, with a similar move under Canadian law for the Canadian part of MMA. For those not familiar with US bankruptcy law, chapter 11 protects you from creditors while you try to save the business. Chapter 7 is when you end the business. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/07/lac_megantic_us_rail_company_files_for_bankruptcy.html And the press release from MMA: http://mmarail.com/sections/news/files/MMA%20Press%20Release%208-7-2013%20English.pdf The key issues apparently are the clean up costs and lawsuits, and a hint that insurance will not be sufficient to cover those costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 This article details the (currently known) creditors and amounts from the documents filed with the courts: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rail-company-involved-in-megantic-disaster-files-for-bankruptcy/article13644535/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The Canadian part of MM&A has been granted bankruptcy protection by the Canadian court, the US company will have its petition considered in federal court in Bangor this afternoon. An interesting piece of information to emerge is the limit of their insurance protection ($25 million).http://http://www.pressherald.com/news/Montreal-Maine--Atlantic-Railway-granted-bankruptcy-protection.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Actually I can't really imagine Canada banning those cars anytime soon because there are too many of them in the fleet with nothing to immediately replace them. If you ban them you shut down the chemical industry and therefore, industry. If Canada bans hauling flammable liquids in those cars, they will have basically shut off the country's supply of flammable liquids (gasoline, kerosene, light oils, feedstock liquids, etc.) Any ban would take years to do and would involve the AAR changing the interchange rules. That's been done before on certain types of wheels, trucks and underframes on cars. Any ban (and I haven't read of any proposal to do so) would take years to take effect to allow the car leasing companies (the railroads don't own those tank cars) to replace them. The bottom line is, any tank wagon will split if given a hard enough clout. We had an incident in this country in 1984 at Eccles in Greater Manchester. 45147 ran past a signal at danger on a passenger train from Liverpool and rear ended a tanker train carrying petrol at about 50mph. The loco pushed rear two TEA's up and over it and one ruptured igniting its contents when they splashed over the loco's hot exhaust. A massive explosion and fire occurred, and three people sadly lost their lives, but the same diagram TEA's are still in traffic. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Eccles1984.pdf Also, Summit Tunnel derailment and fire which also happened in December 1984: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Summit1984.pdf Edited August 10, 2013 by Baby Deltic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 And similar 1960s tanks over here have been involved in spectacular 'high speed' derailment / fire / explosions of their own relatively recently too... (Not due to any fault with the train or it's operation though) I think you're right, with a circa 60mph derailment with such large amounts of mass, I think you would have seen ruptured tanks whatever version they were, you may have had fewer tanks rupture with the current spec tanks, but it will be interesting to see whether the investigators think that will have made any difference to the outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 As I was told once in a hazmat class, hazmat is safe as long as it's in its container. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderHead Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 An interesting piece of information to emerge is the limit of their insurance protection ($25 million). Wow ... that is massively underinsured. To put it in context, if I was a self-employed contractor (plumber/sparky/roofer etc) and wanted to do work for a local council in the UK, many of them require £5m ($8m) cover ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The Canadian part of MM&A has been granted bankruptcy protection by the Canadian court, the US company will have its petition considered in federal court in Bangor this afternoon. An interesting piece of information to emerge is the limit of their insurance protection ($25 million). http://www.pressherald.com/news/Montreal-Maine--Atlantic-Railway-granted-bankruptcy-protection.html It isn't clear from the article which court documents state that amount - that may be the insurance cover for MM&A Canada, rather than that of MM&A. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 It isn't completely clear but since the main theme of the article is about the petition filed by the US company I would imagine "the company" in the statement about the insurance would refer to the US entity. Even if you assume both entities had equal coverage, the insurance cover still falls well short of the company's own estimate of the cost to settle the affair and likely also exceeds the value of the assets even before you begin to figure in the company's other liabilities. The debt to Uncle Sam is the amount outstanding on an FRA loan used for track rehab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 MMA is apparently for sale: http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-296711/ No one comes out and says it, but it does appear that the $25 million of insurance is for MMA as a whole and not just the Canadian side of the border - the amount is in US$ and is also mentioned in the US proceedings by MMA's US lawyer. Canadian law requires a railway to have insurance, but the amount is not specified. Instead the railways must apply to the CTA and if the CTA is satisfied the railway is issued a certificate of fitness. http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/lac-megantic-railway-operator-files-for-bankruptcy-protection/1002521341/ At least one lawyer is predicting the the court proceedings could take 15 years: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/montreal/unsure+insurance+coverage+will+adequate+M%C3%A9gantic+disaster/8679398/story.html The cleanup is estimated to cost $200 million, with the $25 million of coverage clearly being inadequate. Add to the $200 million any judgements the victims get, rebuilding, lawyers fees, etc. and it becomes apparent as to why the insurance company is unwilling to pay out anything until the courts decide who gets what. According to the MMA US lawyer under US law the victims get special treatment and get placed after the secured creditors, but before the unsecured creditors. Quebec has indicated that it has managed to insert itself in as a secured creditor, time will tell on this. One of the US lawyers acting for victims has said none of what has happened with the court filings matters because RailWorld is a "huge, huge conglomerate" with properties around the US and the world. That assumes of course that the courts allow them to drag RailWorld into this, but anyone want to guess how much these properties are actually worth? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/08/07/business-megantic-mma.html The total assets of MMA are estimated at between $68 and $118 million, though I would guess those are very optimistic amounts given the financial results MMA apparently has had over the last 5 years. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Montreal-Maine--Atlantic-Railway-granted-bankruptcy-protection.html The $6 million secured debt owed to the Wheeling & Lake Erie is a line of credit that will allow the MMA to pay employee salaries and benefits during the bankruptcy. The state of Maine has already approached the 4 railways the currently operate in Maine about taking over operations of the MMA lines, 3 of the 4 have apparently expressed interest: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/08/business/canadian-judge-oks-railway-bankruptcy-in-wake-of-quebec-explosion-company-due-in-us-court-thursday/ The Quebec bankruptcy case will be moving to a court closer to Lac-Megantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted August 9, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 9, 2013 As one with absolutely no legal training, I would like to point out that Quebec law goes back to the Code Napoleon rather than English common law. This could also have interesting effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Some info about an Emergency Order put out by the FRA regarding Hazmat Trains - non members should be able to read it http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3149976 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 For clarity, the phrase, "The FRA does not intend to grant approval to any plan." means that the railroads have to develop the plans but they do not have to be submitted to the FRA for approval or that the FRA will endorse any of the plans. That puts all the leagl liability on the railroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 The state of Maine has already approached the 4 railways the currently operate in Maine about taking over operations of the MMA lines, 3 of the 4 have apparently expressed interest: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/08/business/canadian-judge-oks-railway-bankruptcy-in-wake-of-quebec-explosion-company-due-in-us-court-thursday/ I wonder which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I wonder which ones? The four talked to are the Eastern Maine Railway-Northern Maine Railway, Maine Eastern Railroad, Pan Am Railways, and St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad (from the article) Of those, I'd guess that the Maine Eastern would be the least likely to want to take over, although the St. Lawrence and Atlantic does already have a Montreal-Portland route. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold CHAZ D Posted August 13, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2013 Seems as though CTA's has suspended the license for both Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMAR) and its Canadian subsidiary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23686321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 More info in this article: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/13/railway-at-centre-of-lac-megantic-tragedy-ordered-to-cease-operating-in-canada/ The CTA has ordered MMA's Canadian subsidiary to cease operations by August 20th as they have been unable to provide proof that they have acquired sufficient liability insurance since the derailment to meet their existing license. The CTA will also this fall review the insurance requirements for railways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Article in the Portland Press Herald did have a statement from Ed Burkhardt (on page 2 of the article) acknowledging that the decision would probably complicate the process of finding a buyer for the railroad: http://http://www.pressherald.com/news/Montreal-Maine--Atlantic-Railway-loses-Canadian-license-.html?pagenum=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I'm only half way through reading it, but I thought that this thread was interesting in light of the accident http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=79252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Pan Am came away with nothing the last time Maine was looking for operators for the lines that MM&A sold off. Pan Am wasn't flavour of the month, and JD Irving got the nod. This is a bit different as at least for now MM&A is presumably looking for the highest bidder so the state may not end up doing anything more than keeping an eye on it. I can't see Pan Am being interested in anything beyond the Searsport branch and maybe Northern Maine Jct to Brownville, especially if they could go to Millinocket too. If they got that, I would expect the line to Mattawamkeag to go as they don't need two interchanges with NBSR/EMRY. I don't think the Moosehead Sub's chances are very good unless JD Irving gets involved and runs the whole line from St John through to Montreal. Irving Oil would like that as it would continue to give CN some competition out of St John. The other possibility is for an operation from Megantic west and abandonment east to Brownville Jct. Interesting, and in light of CTA's move, likely to happen sooner rather than later I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted August 14, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2013 I don't think the Moosehead Sub's chances are very good unless JD Irving gets involved and runs the whole line from St John through to Montreal. Irving Oil would like that as it would continue to give CN some competition out of St John.Competition implies trying to drive prices down, which could arguably result in corners being cut, and another accident. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted August 15, 2013 Share Posted August 15, 2013 The Quebec government is widening the net in the search for clean-up money http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/08/14/quebec-lac-megantic-cleanup-cpr-canadian-pacific-railway.html Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now