General railway discussions

[micheal_can]

How do you define "that bad"? Obviously, no one would knowingly allow a bridge, etc. to be unsafe, but non-destructive testing and visual inspections have their limits. If they pick some arbitrary line, like 'every bridge must be replaced after 50 years', you hasten a line to potentially become unprofitable faster and an unprofitable line is an abandoned line. It's a lot more common in aviation when certain components are replaced at 'x' hours, period, and that is baked into the cost of flying.

Risk management in this sense is a constant balance between good public policy and economic viability.

A bridge collapsing is "that bad" to me. I am certain Transport Canada has a threshold for what they would classify as "that bad". Remember, this is not a normal bridge. It is a movable bridge. Maybe TC puts an age limit on moving bridges. That might be an option. The issue is, before a knee jerk response from us, we need to know why it failed.

I was obviously not making a direct comparison.

You will never see a return to a system of redundant inspections. The entire point of the SMS was to drive responsibility back to the operators under guise of a 'partnership'. The regulator (government) got to have a lot few inspectors. So-called 'independent' inspectors would essentially be government contract workers because they would have to operate under the authority of legislation and probably be twice as expensive.

If the partnership on one end has failed the public, what then? Is this a one off, or is it a sign of an underlying systemic problem? Since we know that these days CN and CP as well as many short lines try to do the least amount of work to maintain their lines to allow higher profits, this could be a 'tip of the iceberg' moment, or it could be a one off fluke incident. We do not know.

 

[lenaitch]

A bridge collapsing is "that bad" to me. I am certain Transport Canada has a threshold for what they would classify as "that bad". Remember, this is not a normal bridge. It is a movable bridge. Maybe TC puts an age limit on moving bridges. That might be an option. The issue is, before a knee jerk response from us, we need to know why it failed.


If the partnership on one end has failed the public, what then? Is this a one off, or is it a sign of an underlying systemic problem? Since we know that these days CN and CP as well as many short lines try to do the least amount of work to maintain their lines to allow higher profits, this could be a 'tip of the iceberg' moment, or it could be a one off fluke incident. We do not know.

It' big, and visible and dramatic, but there are all sorts of TSB reports that cite an incident that was caused by roadbed failure. A couple almost back-to-back in northeastern Ontario that both dumped a lot petroleum come to mind. TC tut-tuts, but CN and CPKC still carry on. No hazardous goods were lost, no one died; I'm not even sure it made anything beyond rail or local news.

CN will pay to fix it and bear the lost revenue.

 

[micheal_can]

It' big, and visible and dramatic, but there are all sorts of TSB reports that cite an incident that was caused by roadbed failure. A couple almost back-to-back in northeastern Ontario that both dumped a lot petroleum come to mind. TC tut-tuts, but CN and CPKC still carry on. No hazardous goods were lost, no one died; I'm not even sure it made anything beyond rail or local news.

CN will pay to fix it and bear the lost revenue.

After those incidents, they outlawed a certain type of tanker car.
Like I say, it could cause no changes, or there could be some sort of changes.

 

[micheal_can]

Ottawa phases out unsafe rail tank cars, pulls 5,000 cars immediately: Raitt

The federal government is pulling 5,000 older tank cars off the rails immediately as it adopts the major rail safety recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board.

windsor.ctvnews.ca

That is the change I remember.

So, we will need to wait to see what happens, if anything happens.

 

[lenaitch]

After those incidents, they outlawed a certain type of tanker car.
Like I say, it could cause no changes, or there could be some sort of changes.

It wasn't the tank cars that put the trains on the ground.

Keep hoping.

 

[micheal_can]

It wasn't the tank cars that put the trains on the ground.

Keep hoping.

I know it wasn't the tank cars that put them on the ground.

Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifically to that incident,many changes happened, including the outlawing of 1 person operation with tank cars. Had this involved tank cars, or caused a massive environmental disaster, or had a loss of life, etc, then we could expect changes. With it not being much of anything except for an inconvenience for boaters and the rail line, nothing may come out of this. What may come from this is a news report that "a news agency has found x number of bridges are near the point of collapse" or something along those lines.Certain news agencies like to do those kings of pieces. Which could mean a political push. At this point,who knows.

 

[lenaitch]

I know it wasn't the tank cars that put them on the ground.

Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifically to that incident,many changes happened, including the outlawing of 1 person operation with tank cars. Had this involved tank cars, or caused a massive environmental disaster, or had a loss of life, etc, then we could expect changes. With it not being much of anything except for an inconvenience for boaters and the rail line, nothing may come out of this. What may come from this is a news report that "a news agency has found x number of bridges are near the point of collapse" or something along those lines.Certain news agencies like to do those kings of pieces. Which could mean a political push. At this point,who knows.

I was thinking closer to home.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/cn-rail-fine-oil-spill-1.7271517

Good to see that they got hit with a hefty fine. But it was left to the courts to decide after the fact. Nine years later and we still have the same SMS.

 

[micheal_can]

I was thinking closer to home.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/cn-rail-fine-oil-spill-1.7271517

Good to see that they got hit with a hefty fine. But it was left to the courts to decide after the fact. Nine years later and we still have the same SMS.

I completely forgot about that one.

So, a fine might be expected, but not much else? And we won't know for about a decade?

Sounds like business as usual.

 

[lenaitch]

I completely forgot about that one.

So, a fine might be expected, but not much else? And we won't know for about a decade?

Sounds like business as usual.

Two, actually.

Keep in mind these were violations of the federal Fisheries Act (laid by either DFO or Environment Canada, I don't know which). Courts can only adjudicate within the legislation; they can order CN to fix their infrastructure. I don't even know if the Canada Transportation Act, Railway Safety Act or any other related statute even create offences in this regard, or is regulatory enforcement simply the power to make orders against a railway.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm a little unclear regarding the impact of the potential strike. Media are reporting that GO Milton as well as Montreal and Vancouver heavy rail commuter service, along with the VIA Sudbury-White River service - all of which use CPKC trackage - would be shut down.

Do the unions threatening strike represent different trades with CPKC than with CN?

 

[crs1026]

Do the unions threatening strike represent different trades with CPKC than with CN?

Yes, in that the RTC's at CPKC are part of the bargaining unit and part of the work stoppage whereas CN's are not.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Two, actually.

Keep in mind these were violations of the federal Fisheries Act (laid by either DFO or Environment Canada, I don't know which). Courts can only adjudicate within the legislation; they can order CN to fix their infrastructure. I don't even know if the Canada Transportation Act, Railway Safety Act or any other related statute even create offences in this regard, or is regulatory enforcement simply the power to make orders against a railway.

This is why I have been saying Transport Canada. I know they are one that can.

 

[turbanplanner]

This is why I have been saying Transport Canada. I know they are one that can.

LOL the same organization that took an investigator off a case for daring to point out CP was stonewalling an investigation!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cp-railway-tsb-lawsuit-threat-investigator-field-fatal-derailment-1.6070183

 

[Admiral Beez]

How come Ontario has never developed a shipping port out of Moosonee? We have a rail terminal there, and could compete with Churchill, MB.

 

[lenaitch]

How come Ontario has never developed a shipping port out of Moosonee? We have a rail terminal there, and could compete with Churchill, MB.

This was discussed not that long ago. Moosonee is about 20km upriver from James Bay on a very shallow delta. The entire western side of James, as well as a large portion of the western side of Hudson's Bay is an extension of the Hudson's Bay lowlands and is all very shallow. The shoreline largely consists of salt marshes, sand dunes and peat bogs. Because the rivers flow through the lowlands, they carry a lot of silt and organic material. Trying to dredge and maintain a deep channel to open water for such a short shipping season wouldn't be economically sustainable. Churchill is at the edge of the lowlands and, as a deep water port, a bit of a rarity. The rail line was originally intended to go to the mouth of the Nelson River but that idea was abandoned for the same reason.