News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 873     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 781     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 327     0 

General railway discussions

Northern Light said:
CP apparently left a very large freight train unattended, without hand brakes applied, on a mountain, much to the dismay of Transport Canada.

Click to expand...

We obviously don't know the finer details, and I'm not conversant with the operating rules, but I've never been a fan of the self-regulating Safety Management Systems that the government implemented. Private, for profit, divestiture of public activity doesn't have a stellar history, even in such mundane areas like when the Ontario government off-loaded winter highway maintenance.
 
lenaitch said:
We obviously don't know the finer details, and I'm not conversant with the operating rules, but I've never been a fan of the self-regulating Safety Management Systems that the government implemented. Private, for profit, divestiture of public activity doesn't have a stellar history, even in such mundane areas like when the Ontario government off-loaded winter highway maintenance.
Click to expand...
There are so many layers to this issue.
To my mind, the air based braking technology that dates from the 1880s needs to be seen as obsolete and replaced altogether. The reaction I get when I say this to rail pro’s ranges from disbelief to fervent rebuttal.... and that’s what is so distressing. The railroad industry is so afraid of the financial and logistical challenge of moving to newer brake technology that they are brainwashing themselves into a belief that the technology is infallible and can be relied on. It’s a cultural thing. (To digress, if you want an interesting read, find the book “Hostages of Each Other” which documented how the pre-Three Mile Island nuclear industry brainwashed itself into a similar complacency). The industry simply does not see the fallibilities of its braking technology and does not see any need to protect itself from its risks. Fiddling with the fine points of handbrakes on mountain grade vs lesser grade is truly a deck chair rearrangement.
I don’t dispute the size or economic impact of this change.... but in a world where an entire production run of airliners is grounded indefinitely to fix a problem..... it’s not unspeakable. Sooner or later government will be motivated to step in. Better that the railways get ahead of this one.
There is also the “production over safety” layer. It’s very clear that raiilways, especially CP, have a mentality that a risky action that is prohibited by the rulebook can be made safe simply by a senior official authorizing the infraction. The premise that air brakes are prone to bleeding off in short order seems to be something that can be worked around when it suits the company.
Without speculating further, but taking the CBC article at face, it states that the crew were directed to park their train (without setting handbrakes) and proceed downhill to do other work. Think about that for a moment.....if the parked cars had rolled, the crew was directly in the path of the runaway. I would love to know the “back story” on that... did they object, were they too intimidated to speak up, or did they themselves fail to sense any danger?
And then there’s the “where was the regulator?” issue. Transport Canada was pretty assertive on this specific incident, but when there has been a string of such events, the higher ups need to get moving.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
And then there’s the “where was the regulator?” issue. Transport Canada was pretty assertive on this specific incident, but when there has been a string of such events, the higher ups need to get moving.

- Paul
Click to expand...
And this is my whole problem with the SMS. They, and other industries, have been moved from direct (government) regulatory oversight to government oversight of just The Plan. I assume that the original theory was to to have a fair degree of physical in-the-field compliance auditing but successive governments, seeing areas they can walk away from without risking votes, and industries happy to see them gone, has resulted in cubicle-bound report readers.

The way I read the media article, it sounds like the crew was instructed to take tail-end power down the line and leave the head-end power on the train? Regardless, would an Air Canada crew leave an idling plane, or a GO crew walk away from an running consist? It just seems like so much asking for trouble. Unless the system is infallible - and what one is - human watch-keeping seems simple common sense.

You are right about the cost. Unless whatever new system had a level of compatibility, at least transitional, imagine the number of rolling stock around North America, sitting on some random siding in the prairies, etc.
 
lenaitch said:
The way I read the media article, it sounds like the crew was instructed to take tail-end power down the line and leave the head-end power on the train? Regardless, would an Air Canada crew leave an idling plane, or a GO crew walk away from an running consist? It just seems like so much asking for trouble. Unless the system is infallible - and what one is - human watch-keeping seems simple common sense.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to know given how imprecisely the media translates these events. I had taken the article to say that they took their head end locomotive away, possibly leaving a DPU to maintain brake power . Either way, if the train was left with a running locomotive feeding the brakes, and few or no handbrakes, that is a dead repeat of the scenario that led to the Lac Megantic incident. ( For the non-technical, it’s about the same as walking away from your car sitting on a hill, motor running, with a cement block on the brake pedal to keep the brakes applied - what could go wrong?).
CP is reported as disputing that the train was on a “mountain grade” (which is the steepest category of gradients, and has the most restrictive rules), but to this layman everything west of Calgary is ”hill” and an abundance of caution is required.
A Safety Management System is supposed to retain and analyze trends in incidents and near misses, looking for precursor events and adverse situations and potential for high-impact events . If the railways haven’t noticed the trend in runaways, and past management lapses around these, I wonder how rigourous these are.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
https://www.facebook.com/139381346199651/posts/1937385903065844
Click to expand...

I read that article and followed a link to an earlier one that mentioned Genesee & Wyoming, which would explain a lot of the line's appearance after just six years of mothballs. It was probably suffering from massive neglect since long before then.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the idea of a container port in Sydney. Containers are moved more efficiently by ship than by rail, so unless there's a huge local demand for containerized cargo on the island of Cape Breton itself, then Halifax with its better proximity to the rest of the mainland Maritimes would seem to be the more sensible port of call. As much as I like trains...
 
KevinT said:
I read that article and followed a link to an earlier one that mentioned Genesee & Wyoming, which would explain a lot of the line's appearance after just six years of mothballs. It was probably suffering from massive neglect since long before then.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the idea of a container port in Sydney. Containers are moved more efficiently by ship than by rail, so unless there's a huge local demand for containerized cargo on the island of Cape Breton itself, then Halifax with its better proximity to the rest of the mainland Maritimes would seem to be the more sensible port of call. As much as I like trains...
Click to expand...

You aren't the only one who is skeptical.

www.halifaxexaminer.ca

Fantasizing about a Sydney container terminal

Your subscriptions make this possible.
www.halifaxexaminer.ca www.halifaxexaminer.ca

www.thechronicleherald.ca

Sydney harbour port marketers say Cape Breton rail line is final stumbling block to project development | SaltWire

SYDNEY, N.S. — There is just one remaining obstacle before work can begin on Sydney harbour’s proposed container port, says one of the powerbrokers behind ...
www.thechronicleherald.ca www.thechronicleherald.ca

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
You aren't the only one who is skeptical.

www.halifaxexaminer.ca

Fantasizing about a Sydney container terminal

Your subscriptions make this possible.
www.halifaxexaminer.ca www.halifaxexaminer.ca

www.thechronicleherald.ca

Sydney harbour port marketers say Cape Breton rail line is final stumbling block to project development | SaltWire

SYDNEY, N.S. — There is just one remaining obstacle before work can begin on Sydney harbour’s proposed container port, says one of the powerbrokers behind ...
www.thechronicleherald.ca www.thechronicleherald.ca

- Paul
Click to expand...

I agree but I suppose local politicians and development agencies gotta do what they gotta do. I haven't read on it extensively, but part of the issue is capacity at Halifax and St. John's, both of which are hemmed in. It's a potentially lucrative market if you can attract traffic and get containers on the ground and moving sooner than the next place.
 
KevinT said:
That said, I'm not sure I understand the idea of a container port in Sydney. Containers are moved more efficiently by ship than by rail, so unless there's a huge local demand for containerized cargo on the island of Cape Breton itself, then Halifax with its better proximity to the rest of the mainland Maritimes would seem to be the more sensible port of call. As much as I like trains...
Click to expand...
Yes, ships are far more efficient at moving containers in bulk quantities.

What they are not so good at, however, is moving them quickly. Trains are far better for that.

CN has managed to capture a not-so-inconsequential portion of the huge Mediterranean-to-Midwest shipping market simply by virtue of having the furthest eastern container port in North America. Depending on the other ports-of-call, CN can save shippers up to 2 days of transit time. They even have a service that allows shippers to ship from China to Europe, using the CN system as a land bridge. While not as fast as shipping through the Suez, it is faster than shipping via the Panama Canal.

All that being said, Sydney does not make a whole lot of sense to me as a container port. It wouldn't offer much of a substantial time savings over sailing to Halifax. Neither of the Halifax container terminals are operating at over capacity, and thus are not suffering from the huge delays seen elsewhere. And there's only one rail line in-and-out, who's connection is to CN - and thus the shipping companies would (still) be beholden to just the one railway for their service.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Yes, ships are far more efficient at moving containers in bulk quantities.

What they are not so good at, however, is moving them quickly. Trains are far better for that.

CN has managed to capture a not-so-inconsequential portion of the huge Mediterranean-to-Midwest shipping market simply by virtue of having the furthest eastern container port in North America. Depending on the other ports-of-call, CN can save shippers up to 2 days of transit time. They even have a service that allows shippers to ship from China to Europe, using the CN system as a land bridge. While not as fast as shipping through the Suez, it is faster than shipping via the Panama Canal.

All that being said, Sydney does not make a whole lot of sense to me as a container port. It wouldn't offer much of a substantial time savings over sailing to Halifax. Neither of the Halifax container terminals are operating at over capacity, and thus are not suffering from the huge delays seen elsewhere. And there's only one rail line in-and-out, who's connection is to CN - and thus the shipping companies would (still) be beholden to just the one railway for their service.

Dan
Click to expand...

Any delay at a port has huge cost consequences for the carrier. A ship sitting at anchor waiting for dock space earns no money. But you are right, Sydney only saves a couple of hours sailing compared to Halifax; although the container sites might not be at capacity, harbour traffic capacity might be tighter. Dunno.

CP has re-acquired their former line through main which gives them access to the container terminal at the Port of Saint John (and a connection to CN if the Sussex Sub is still in service).

www.progressiverailroading.com

Rail News - CP launches first train of international containers from Port of Saint John. For Railroad Career Professionals

www.progressiverailroading.com www.progressiverailroading.com
 
lenaitch said:
Any delay at a port has huge cost consequences for the carrier. A ship sitting at anchor waiting for dock space earns no money. But you are right, Sydney only saves a couple of hours sailing compared to Halifax; although the container sites might not be at capacity, harbour traffic capacity might be tighter. Dunno.
Click to expand...
Believe me, I'm very aware of this. This is the reason why the company I work for stopped routing our shipments via Vancouver - where the average wait from ship-to-train is 7 days - and has been using Prince Rupert for the past several years. Average times to change between modes there is 36 hours. The only negative to this change is that we are now at CN's mercy, rather than being able to choose at the last minute between CN or CP at Vancouver.

My understanding is that the ground times in Halifax are pretty similar to Prince Rupert, with the only delays being getting the ships docked.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top