# Lac Mégantic Rail Disaster



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Surprised this hasn't come up as a thread... two days' old now...*

*Lac-Mégantic's tragedy is a most unnatural disaster*










_On a beautiful summer night, we are to believe, 73 driverless cars of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway somehow came broke loose on a siding near Nantes, 12 kilometres to the west of town, and began rolling quietly, unnoticed, down the hilly incline, gathering speed in their “inertia’’ — no power other than gravity — aiming right at the heart of an unsuspecting community at the bottom.

The brakes and safety system were apparently functional, nothing to worry about, when the engineer had departed just before midnight for a comfortable bed at a local hotel. A replacement was slated to come aboard later during the night.

If there were anti-derail safety devices on the track — designed to guide cars off the rails at selected spots, as protection against collisions — they clearly did not work. Heedless, that bulk of metal and — most ruinously, crude oil tankers — escalated towards Lac-Megantic, hurtling into the downtown district, its locomotive breaking free at some point before the crash, a mere 9 metres from the Musi-Café, a popular and Saturday-night crowded bar.

Those fortunate to escape the resulting inferno fled on foot, some even jumping into boats that roared off into the waters offshore, beyond the explosions and flames and eye-singing heat. The sky, said residents, turned from black to vivid orange and red — the colours of warning-label danger, still so hellfire hot late Sunday afternoon that firefighters who’d rushed to the scene from as far away as Sherbrooke and Maine, across the border, could approach no closer than 150 metres distant of two fuel cars that remained burning.

The guts of Lac-Megantic have been spilled, reduced to ashes. All those suburban commercial totems — the Dollarama store, the Metro supermarket — businesses and restaurants razed, on the scorched earth of a 5-square-kilometre central district. Worst of all, besides the five bodies that had been recovered by last night, upwards of 40 people still missing, perhaps “vaporized’’ in the fireball — many of them, it seems, Musi-Café patrons who never saw death coming.

If a loved one in Lac-Megantic hasn’t come home yet, they may never be coming home._​
(Toronto Star)

Related: Devastated Lac-Mégantic waits for word of its missing - Montreal - CBC News


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Here is a recording of a heavily loaded (ore) train Brunswick Mines in New Brunswick circa 1987. The train had the engines on it and shunting loaded zinck and lead ore. The brakes (air brakes) were not hooked up there for there were effectively no brakes on the train. 

The engines pulled too far ahead and the cars started to roll with inertia like the the cars in the Lac Mégantic Rail Disaster. The only person on the train was CN engineer Wesley MacDonald. The following is the conversations that followed.

The audio is as dramatic as a radio play 

PART 1
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w1yp3qq21A]Runaway Train on the Nepisiguit Sub Part 1/5 - YouTube[/ame]



PART 2
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYy5llU03tk]Runaway Train on the Nepisiguit Sub Part 2/5 - YouTube[/ame]



PART 3
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpsjtgjSHEI]Runaway Train on the Nepisiguit Sub Part 3/5 - YouTube[/ame] 



PART 4
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSbh4q40kGo]Runaway Train on the Nepisiguit Sub Part 4/5 - YouTube[/ame]



PART 5
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim-iG4Yz0U]Runaway Train on the Nepisiguit Sub Part 5/5 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*BigDL:* _Riveting_. Edge-of-the-seat stuff - thanks for posting. :yikes:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lac-Mégantic Disaster Now a Criminal Investigation as Deaths Mount*

_Five people are dead and at least 40 are still missing a day after a runaway train derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, igniting explosions and fires that destroyed a busy downtown district. Lac-Megantic, a lakeside town of 6,000 circled by forests of pine and birch, is in the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec, about 160 miles east of Montreal and close to the border with Maine and Vermont. About 2,000 people, a third of the population, were evacuated. The flames were finally extinguished by firefighters on Sunday evening, more than 40 hours after the disaster struck.

(SNIP)

"Ed Burkhardt, chairman of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, said Sunday night that the train’s sole engineer shut down four of the five locomotive units on the train, as is standard procedure, in the neighbouring community of Nantes before heading to Lac Mégantic to sleep. Burkhardt said the next engineer was probably due to arrive at daybreak.

But someone managed to shut down the fifth locomotive unit, he said. That’s the one that maintained brake pressure to keep the train in place.

“If the operating locomotive is shut down, there’s nothing left to keep the brakes charged up, and the brake pressure will drop finally to the point where they can’t be held in place any longer,” Burkhardt said.

There are two ways to shut down the fifth unit: There’s an emergency lever on the outside of the locomotive that anyone wandering by could access. Or, there are a number of levers and buttons inside the unlocked cabin.

Both means were used, said Burkhardt."_​
(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Holy crap. 

Has this dullard ever heard about Westinghouse brakes?

When air pressure is lost the breaks come ON.

There is a pressure tank on every car that does this job.

I doubt the pressure was lost at all, which makes you ask "why not".

Pressure supplied by the locomotive should drop when it's switch-off"?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The crew were shunting cars at the mine site. The air brake cocks on the locomotive were cut out (off position) to the hopper cars. 

The only brakes were the brakes on the locomotive. The brakes on the locomotive were not sufficient to stop the mass of the ore hopper cars pushing the engine down the grade. The brakes on the locomotive were applied initially then overcome by the forces of gravity, mass and inertia.

The grade of the hill (gravity,) the mass of the train and inertia forced the locomotive engine up to speeds up to 70 Mph. What stopped the train was friction, when the train derailed of the tracks onto its side into the ground. Inertia was overcome by the force of friction.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*8 more bodies found in Lac-Mégantic, raising death toll to 13*

Eight more bodies have been found in Lac-Mégantic, bringing the official body count up to 13 people after a runaway train carrying crude oil set off a series of explosions and flattened the town's busy downtown.

Some 50 people are said to be missing, including the 13 bodies that have been recovered since the train derailed at about 1 a.m. ET Saturday.

Police are asking family members to provide DNA samples, from things like toothbrushes and combs, from their missing relatives in order to help investigators identify bodies.

About 2,000 residents were forced to leave their homes on Saturday, but 1,500 of those evacuees may be able to return home as soon as Tuesday.​
(CBC)


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

BigDL said:


> The crew were shunting cars at the mine site. The air brake cocks on the locomotive were cut out (off position) to the hopper cars.
> 
> The only brakes were the brakes on the locomotive. The brakes on the locomotive were not sufficient to stop the mass of the ore hopper cars pushing the engine down the grade. The brakes on the locomotive were applied initially then overcome by the forces of gravity, mass and inertia.
> 
> The grade of the hill (gravity,) the mass of the train and inertia forced the locomotive engine up to speeds up to 70 Mph. What stopped the train was friction, when the train derailed of the tracks onto its side into the ground. Inertia was overcome by the force of friction.


Thanks for that explanation.  

Another question then. 

Are the cocks cut off out of necessity, or expediency, to eliminate any delay in getting the air lines back up to operating pressure?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Thanks for that explanation.
> 
> Another question then.
> 
> Are the cocks cut off out of necessity, or expediency, to eliminate any delay in getting the air lines back up to operating pressure?


While the crew were shunting if every car that was added to the train if the cars would then have to be "pumped up" with air to the operating "brake pipe" pressure and tested before moving again, it would be very time consumming.

Normally the train would be "picked up" (put together) as cars are attached, air hose (glad hands) attached to each other when new cars are added. After the train was put together then air brakes would be "pumped up" once, and tested before the train would go anywhere.

This was the common practice at the mine. An error was made (not calculating the distance/cars) when too many cars were added to the train, and then the Locomotives went beyond the "fail safe point" in the switching yard.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

In summation, it normally works, but Human error intervened.

Could some sort of stress gauge could be put on the coupling from the locomotive to the first car, to give some warning that the load was reaching the fail-safe point?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The short answer is no. 

Maybe having sections of the train's air brakes "pumped up" and tested before adding additional sections. Might prove less time consuming. That would provide more breaking power vs. mass (weight) than just relying on the brakes of the locomotives as a safety measure.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Just heard on the news that there had been an engine fire in the lead locomotive a couple of hours before the runaway. Engine was shut down, fire out and Railway personnel on the scene before the firefighters left.

May turn into a criminal investigation.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> May turn into a criminal investigation.


Reports I read on the web would indicate a criminal investigation is already under way.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Incredible video... these folks are 'way too close to the remaining rail cars... things really start popping at about 3:30 into the video... Quite a lot of expletives... in English and French...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Just heard on the news that there had been an engine fire in the lead locomotive a couple of hours before the runaway. Engine was shut down, fire out and Railway personnel on the scene before the firefighters left.
> 
> May turn into a criminal investigation.


I don't know the operating rules for this railway company (MM&A) but as matter of practical practice, when I worked around railway equipment and the "Rules" for operating employees, was you manually apply sufficient (mechanical) hand brakes to hold the equipment in place. Chains might also be required to be placed in front of and behind the wheel to hold the equipment in place (Locomotive, tank, flat or box car) a couple examples of the types of hand brakes.

























The above brakes should hold whether the Locomotives were shut down or running. The proper chains would also do the job. Sounds to me as if the CEO is protecting his ass...ets.

With unattended equipment in an unprotected yard there should have been portable or permanent mechanical derail devices on either end of the train/yard locked in the operating (derail) position just to prevent an accident such as this one in Lac Mégantic. The rail cars at a very slow speed would fall of the track. A "derail" is a railcar wheel on the ground. Having this happen a a slow speed would not cause the cars to fall over.

















Derail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

But all of these precautions are time-consuming, right? 

BTW, he has now stated that an MM&A train will never again be left unattended.

Yep, close that there barn door.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

iMouse said:


> But all of these precautions are time-consuming, right?
> 
> BTW, he has now stated that an MM&A train will never again be left unattended.
> 
> Yep, close that there barn door.


Depending on how many brakes it could be 10 to 30 seconds per brake and a little walking. The derail if available would be a minute(s) to apply plus the walk.

The securing of the train would minimal cost. Even if the cost were slightly more substantial the cost of paying for this accident could run into how many dollars?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

No ones knows, yet.

And the actual cost in human lives can *never* be repaid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and of course Herr Harper had his hand in the mess as well



> *Ottawa okayed having only one engineer on ill-fated train*
> 
> The rail company whose 73-car train devastated parts of Lac-Mégantic had been granted rare permission by the federal government last year to operate the train with only one engineer on board,


Ottawa okayed having only one engineer on ill-fated train | Toronto Star


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yeah...almost like he pushed the train down the hill himself. Jeezuz...

The decision to approve single engineers was made by _Transport Canada_, not PMSH's Office.

As usual, you never let facts get in the way of a good rant, do you? Here, GHG thread or anywhere else, for that matter.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The buck stops with the guy at the head of the government that okayed the dismantling of the regulation....not the first time with the Cons....likely not the last.
idiotic Ideology has consequences - 60 people dead likely is a pretty severe one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The buck stops with the guy at the head of the government that okayed the dismantling of the regulation....not the first time with the Cons....likely not the last.
> idiotic Ideology has consequences - 60 people dead likely is a pretty severe one.


The regulation is not being dismantled. A bureaucrat gave the company permission to run the railroad under those conditions. The decision has nothing to do with who happens to be PM at the time.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> The buck stops with the guy at the head of the government that okayed the dismantling of the regulation....not the first time with the Cons....likely not the last.
> idiotic Ideology has consequences - 60 people dead likely is a pretty severe one.


it was before his time.. Try with the liberals first.. amazing how people love to hate ..
It is one of the Chretien government's least talked about policy successes.
maybe we should find him and tar and feather him.. for what he caused.


Doug Young, then Liberal Transport Minister, decided enough was enough and put the CNR on the block. He scrapped the 100-year-old Railway Act and replaced it with the Canada Transportation Act, legislation that deregulated our railways, airlines and ports. It allowed rail companies to rationalize their activities, to play to their strengths and trim their weaknesses. At the same time, it opened the market on abandoned track to short-line companies, which have much lower operating costs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Harper, and even the best of minds can be ill-informed at times.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

SINC said:


> Harper, and even the best of minds can be ill-informed at times.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> A bureaucrat gave the company permission to run the railroad under those conditions. The decision has nothing to do with who happens to be PM at the time.


Can you imagine the hue & cry from the left if everything negative that happened under a Liberal watch was immediately elevated to "the PM dunnit"? This place would go ballistic...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Yeah...almost like he pushed the train down the hill himself. Jeezuz...
> 
> The decision to approve single engineers was made by _Transport Canada_, not PMSH's Office.
> 
> As usual, you never let facts get in the way of a good rant, do you? Here, GHG thread or anywhere else, for that matter.


Well, well! Seems to me the decision to approve "single crew" on trains might fall to these cats at the Canadian Transportation Agency. All of whom were appointed (if you'll note) by *OGL*  one Stephen Harper since becoming Prime Minister in 2006.



CTA said:


> What we do
> 
> The Canadian Transportation Agency is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and economic regulator. It makes decisions and determinations on a wide range of matters involving air, rail and marine modes of transportation under the authority of Parliament, as set out in the Canada Transportation Act and other legislation.
> 
> ...


CTA | What we do



CTA said:


> Members
> Geoffrey C. Hare, Chair and CEO
> Sam Barone, Vice-Chair and Member
> Raymon J. Kaduck, Member
> ...


CTA | Members



CTA said:


> Geoffrey C. Hare became Chair and CEO of the Canadian Transportation Agency on February 12, 2007.










https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/geoffrey-c-hare-chair-and-ceo



CTA said:


> Mr. Sam Barone became a Member and Vice-Chair of the Canadian Transportation Agency on March 18, 2013.










https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/sam-barone-vice-chair-and-member



CTA said:


> Mr. Raymon J. Kaduck became a Member of the Canadian Transportation Agency on January 8, 2007.










https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/raymon-j-kaduck-member



CTA said:


> Mr. J. Mark MacKeigan became a Member of the Canadian Transportation Agency on June 18, 2007.










https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/j-mark-mackeigan-member



CTA said:


> Jean Denis Pelletier, engineer, became a Member of the Canadian Transportation Agency on November 3, 2008.










https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/jean-denis-pelletier-p-eng-member

Now are these people a bunch of party hacks, being rewarded or are they truly independent decision makers, I don't know.

With a mandate such as:

"Economic regulation, to provide approvals, issue licences, permits and certificates of fitness, and make decisions on a wide range of matters involving federal air, rail and marine transportation."; 
these fine gentlemen might be the go to guys to approve one person crew on trains, rather than Transport Canada whose mandate is more regulatory administration.

Just cause someone, throws a bone, to the faithful does not make it so. 

Just pointing out in consideration of your all too familiar theme back at you: 
"As usual, you never let facts get in the way of a good rant, do you? Here, GHG thread or anywhere else, for that matter."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Well, well! Seems to me the decision to approve "single crew" on trains might fall to these cats at the Canadian Transportation Agency. All of whom were appointed (if you'll note) by *OGL*  one Stephen Harper since becoming Prime Minister in 2006.
> 
> 
> CTA | What we do
> ...


It seems the right has a very short memory. When the liberals were in the outrage and screams for the liberal MPs and Pm to be put in jail, were constant. The names of lieberals, criminals, on and on were a regular thing. The moral outrage when anyone dares have certain names for a conservative party is just rich.

Somehow, now that one of their 'own' is PM, he can do no wrong. Anytime something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault.

WHy is it that conservatives have so much trouble taking responsibilities for their actions? :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Well, well! Seems to me the decision to approve "single crew" on trains might fall to these cats at the Canadian Transportation Agency. All of whom were appointed (if you'll note) by *OGL*  one Stephen Harper since becoming Prime Minister in 2006.


It doesn't matter who appointed them or who was at the helm at the time of the incident. What matters is that they were hired to fill a position with commensurate duties & responsibilities. The PM, whether Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, doesn't personally approve, nor take responsibility for, every decision of every underling that's ever been hired. It's their job to take care of business.

What would happen if this incident occurred under a Liberal watch? Would it be the Liberal PM's fault because he didn't replace the positions appointed by PMSH? Would it still be PMSH's fault, even though he was no longer in power? 

The answer is neither. Wanna point a finger? Go ahead, at the people who made the decision to allow single engineers _with no one left at the engine_. No argument. However, the buck stops there.

Apparently this is exceeding difficult for some to understand. Let me draw you a pitcher...

If a Liberal page heads home for the weekend, leaves his car in neutral on the driveway which, later on, rolls back onto the street and kills someone, is it the Liberal leader's fault? By your numbers, it is. By any reasonable standard, the responsibility lies entirely with the page.

Let me put it another way. Years ago I ran a materials handling crew for a local trailer factory. If one of my guys was slow to the production line with materials or tardy for a line move, it sure as hell wasn't the owners fault...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> Let me put it another way. Years ago I ran a materials handling crew for a local trailer factory. If one of my guys was slow to the production line with materials or tardy for a line move, it sure as hell wasn't the owners fault...


no but the unions will blame the owners for not paying him enough to work faster and more responsibly, or he had to much responsibility LOL


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The buck doesn't stop at the PM, (or MP) because, well they're conservative.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> The buck doesn't stop at the PM, (or MP) because, well they're conservative.


In my world, the 'boss' takes ultimate responsibility for the actions of their 'employees'. 

Especially when the employees are busy remaking 'the company' into the boss's image...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> no but the unions will blame the owners for not paying him enough to work faster and more responsibly, or he had to much responsibility LOL


Yuck yuck yuck.

Take a potshot at the union! Good one!

Yuck yuck yuck.

Oh, btw, it's _too_ much responsibility, not to.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> In my world, the 'boss' takes ultimate responsibility for the actions of their 'employees'.
> 
> Especially when the employees are busy remaking 'the company' into the bosses image...


The excuse and blame machine has been in full power for some time now. But I think Canadians are beginning to get wise to this.

You can only blame staffers for so long before people don't want to be taken for a ride anymore.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Yuck yuck yuck.
> 
> Take a potshot at the union! Good one!
> 
> ...


was it somehow missed that Transport Canada allowed only one engineer?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> was it somehow missed that Transport Canada allowed only one engineer?


The issue isn't that a single engineer was approved by TC. The issue is that there was no one on board the train in the absence of the single engineer.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> The buck doesn't stop at the PM, (or MP) because, well they're conservative.





groovetube said:


> The excuse and blame machine has been in full power for some time now. But I think Canadians are beginning to get wise to this.
> 
> You can only blame staffers for so long before people don't want to be taken for a ride anymore.


Do you have something salient to add to the conversation or are you content to just troll all day?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> The issue isn't that a single engineer was approved by TC. The issue is that there was no one on board the train in the absence of the single engineer.


More specifically the engineer failed to properly set and test handbrakes. Since the train was seemingly parked on the mainline I doubt there were any derails nearby, but even a single layer of redundancy would have prevented this tragedy. 

A second engineer would have made a big difference in the time required to set enough handbrakes to hold the train secure on what must of been a fairly long continuous grade.

What I have found most disturbing is that corporate management spent nearly a week trying to shift/dodge the blame before placing it right where it belonged all along.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> More specifically the engineer failed to properly set and test handbrakes. Since the train was seemingly parked on the mainline I doubt there were any derails nearby, but even a single layer of redundancy would have prevented this tragedy.
> 
> A second engineer would have made a big difference in the time required to set enough handbrakes to hold the train secure on what must of been a fairly long continuous grade.
> 
> What I have found most disturbing is that corporate management spent nearly a week trying to shift/dodge the blame before and placing it right where it belonged all along.


A second engineer could very well have made a huge difference, certainly to the poor souls (and their families) who were burned alive or vaporized.

Horrible.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lac Megantic: Railway's history of cost-cutting | Toronto Star

There's an interesting read. It makes one wonder about this whole idea of less regulation, corporations doing the right thing, blah blah.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> In my world, the 'boss' takes ultimate responsibility for the actions of their 'employees'.
> 
> Especially when the employees are busy remaking 'the company' into the boss's image...


An old saw that rings true in this situation. The Boss to the locomotive engineer; "my locomotive, my rail cars, my radio, my tracks, my station, my rules, and it's your fault."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> More specifically the engineer failed to properly set and test handbrakes. Since the train was seemingly parked on the mainline I doubt there were any derails nearby, but even a single layer of redundancy would have prevented this tragedy.
> 
> A second engineer would have made a big difference in the time required to set enough handbrakes to hold the train secure on what must of been a fairly long continuous grade.
> 
> What I have found most disturbing is that corporate management spent nearly a week trying to shift/dodge the blame before placing it right where it belonged all along.


How do you know any of the information you posted?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BigDL said:


> How do you know any of the information you posted?


The train reached 65 MPH, not possible without the long grade. With the engines shut down had the grade leveled or reversed the train would have slowed or stopped.

I am guessing it was on a mainline as otherwise the switch should have been thrown to favour the main and the train would have derailed as it tried to leave the siding. 

Unless things have changed from the distant past when I did some mapping for CP rail, derails were not placed on the main line as it was far too easy for someone to maliciously drop one across the track. Possible there are portable versions now but they would still most likely be made of cast iron and very heavy to tote around.

A second engineer would have made the job of securing hand brakes faster as he could have walked back up the track aways and worked on a second group of cars.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> The train reached 65 MPH, not possible without the long grade. With the engines shut down had the grade leveled or reversed the train would have slowed or stopped.
> 
> I am guessing it was on a mainline as otherwise the switch should have been thrown to favour the main and the train would have derailed as it tried to leave the siding.
> 
> ...


Conjecture only. The TSB who are investigating do not know what happened...yet but they will report the facts...be patient.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Conjecture only.


^

Opinion only.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think dl's point, was opinion only was being expressed until more facts come out.

Why turn it into an "I know ya are" game?

Carry on


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry, my apologies, I didn't read the announcement about a new mod. When was the appointment?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I think dl's point, was opinion only was being expressed until more facts come out.
> 
> Why turn it into an "I know ya are" game?
> 
> Carry on


You are correct with regard to my point. We should wait for the facts.

As an aside there are those who seem have a build up of nastiness who can't wait to vent their spleens at every opportunity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, my apologies, I didn't read the announcement about a new mod. When was the appointment?


Man you need to get out a little more.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> You are correct with regard to my point. We should wait for the facts.


I agree completely, but there was NO need for the dart, "conjecture only". What's good for the goose and all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> You are correct with regard to my point. We should wait for the facts.
> 
> As an aside there are those who seem have a build up of nastiness who can't wait to vent their spleens at every opportunity.


I didn't think saying it was conjecture was nasty or a jab at all.

Paranoia willdestroya


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Paranoia willdestroya


NOT ALLOWED ON THE TWO WORD GAME SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I didn't think saying it was conjecture was nasty or a jab at all.


That is a matter of opinion and we obviously disagree. So be it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> NOT ALLOWED ON THE TWO WORD GAME SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
> 
> :lmao:


:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> NOT ALLOWED ON THE TWO WORD GAME SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
> 
> :lmao:


:lmao::lmao:

Where's that dang like button again?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

An interest view of the tragic incident with regard to the explosion and fire in Lac-Mégantic 


TheGaurdian said:


> In the explosion's aftermath, politicians and media pundits have wagged their finger about the indecency of "politicising" the event, of grappling with deeper explanations. We can mourn, but not scrutinise. In April, prime minister Stephen Harper even coined an awkward expression – "committing sociology" – to deride the search for root causes about horrifying events, in the wake of an unrelated, alleged bombing attempt.
> 
> But to simply call the Lac-Mégantic explosion a "tragedy" and to stop there, is to make it seem like an accident that occurred solely because of human error or technical oversight. It risks missing how we might assign broader culpability. And we owe it to the people who died to understand the reasons why such a disaster occurred, and how it might be prevented in the future.
> 
> So here's my bit of unwelcome sociology: the explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy. It is a corporate crime scene.





TheGaurdian said:


> The recklessness of these corporations is no accident. Under the reign of neoliberalism over the last 30 years, governments in Canada and elsewhere have freed them from environmental, labour and safety standards and oversight, while opening up increasingly more of the public sphere for private profit-seeking.
> 
> The railway in Canada has hardly been exempt. Up until the mid 1980s, the industry, publicly-run, was under serious regulation. By the time the Thatcherite Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney was finished with his reforms, it was deregulated, and companies had rewritten the safety rules. That launched an era of cost-cutting, massive lay-offs, and speed-ups on the job, and eventually, the full privatization of companies and rail-lines.
> 
> ...


Quebec's Lac-Mégantic oil train disaster not just tragedy, but corporate crime | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

It's too bad we don't have the equivalent of a Grand Jury in Canada.

Their powers are perhaps excessive, but certainly feared, and one would be perfect in this situation.

Start handing out subpoenas, and watch the excrement hit the fan,


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

iMouse said:


> It's too bad we don't have the equivalent of a Grand Jury in Canada.
> 
> Their powers are perhaps excessive, but certainly feared, and one would be perfect in this situation.
> 
> Start handing out subpoenas, and watch the excrement hit the fan,


We do. They are called Royal Commissions. Usually the cost exceeds whatever they happen to be investigating. They drag on for years and any useful conclusions are suppressed. Any valid suggestions ignored. However PM buddies do make out like bandits financially. 

Thankfully RCs seem to have fallen into disfavour but I am sure King Harpo has a few buds who would love the big financial windfall which would come their way should he appoint them to a Royal Commission to investigate this incident.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Hardly in the same class, *at all*.

One is populated by ordinary citizens culled from the tax rolls.

The other is populated by political cronies.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The National Post has published an infographic explaining what is known to date about the train derailment and explosion:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

^^^Page was pretty much unreadable.^^^

Did hear the engineer claim he had set hand brakes on the 5 engines and first 11 cars. One statement said that for that length train the brakes should have been set on about 30 cars (41%).


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> ^^^Page was pretty much unreadable.^^^


Did you click on the yellow bar at the top of the image - the one that says _click here to enlarge_?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Very informative. Thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Did you click on the yellow bar at the top of the image - the one that says _click here to enlarge_?


I did indeed, but it was much too big to bother with scrolling all over the place to read anything.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Did you click on the yellow bar at the top of the image - the one that says _click here to enlarge_?


Hey CM why be informed. Facts we don't need no stinking facts. Facts are meaningless, why facts could be used to prove anything.

It's much better just make up shi...stuff that suits our purpose and our agendas. :lmao:

CM thank you by the way for the, very informative, in capsulation of the available data up until this point in time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Speakin' of shi, er stuff, there is a perfect example.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

"^" is a perfect example?

Does that represent a pile of it.

I will trust your expertise on this matter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> Does that represent a pile of it.
> 
> I will trust your expertise on this matter.


That did require better punctuation as in (?), did it not?

At any rate the answer you seek is positive. And you can trust me on that.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Railway company has stopped paying for Lac-Mégantic disaster cleanup: mayor*



> The railway company involved in the deadly train derailment at Lac-Mégantic has stopped paying for the clean-up of the disaster site, forcing the town to pick up the tab, Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche said Tuesday.
> 
> The town has sent a lawyer’s letter to Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, giving the transport company 48 hours to repay the more than $4-million Lac-Mégantic has had to pay so far to retain the three firms initially hired by MM&A.





> MM&A chairman Ed Burkhardt could not immediately be reached for comment.
> 
> Ms. Roy-Laroche said some of the contractors had stopped working on the mop-up operations and threatened to walk off last week.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

The Feds should have got a damage deposit from these ass-holes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Railway company has stopped paying for Lac-Mégantic disaster cleanup: mayor*
> 
> 
> 
> (Globe & Mail)


Ahh! The joy of having free and unfettered Capatilists.

Does anyones else notice a similarity of MM&A chairman Ed Burkhardt and Mr. Burn of Simpsons fame?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> *Railway company has stopped paying for Lac-Mégantic disaster cleanup: mayor*
> 
> 
> 
> (Globe & Mail)


Wasn't that expected after the TSB essentially said that current rule and regulations were not adequate?

When I read the two urgent concerns TSB sent to Transport Canada I thought - Holy cow, this essentially means that MM&A might be off the hook.
Seems everything was done by the book - or at least not contrary to current rules.

- Operating with a single engineer was approved
- Parking the train on the main line ios apparently not against regulations (had the train parked on the siding, this disaster would not have happened)
- Number of handbrakes to be applied is open to interpretation and also doesn't seem to take into account the weight of the train and the incline it is parked on
- 

I can just see the MM&A lawyers saying: All the rules were followed, the railroad is not to blame. 

On top of that the one idling loco that maintained air pressure to keep the air brakes applied was turned off and was never turned on again.
That loco idling and maintaining air pressure would have prevented the disaster as well but neither the firefighters nor the MM&A employee on site that evening had sufficient knowledge to understand that. Had they woken the engineer after the loco fire was extinguished, the disaster wouldn't have happened either.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

iMouse said:


> The Feds should have got a damage deposit from these ass-holes.


The Feds should pull their operating permit until after an investigation and clean-up has been completed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

From the timelines that I have seen, and the public statements to date of all involved, I'm surprised more people aren't looking very hard at the "other MM&A employee" - the one who was left in charge of the train after the firefighters departed.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> From the timelines that I have seen, and the public statements to date of all involved, I'm surprised more people aren't looking very hard at the "other MM&A employee" - the one who was left in charge of the train after the firefighters departed.


That employee was some track track inspector or somebody along those lines - can't remember exactly what job he was trained for.
But he had no knowledge about locomotives or anything train related.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but one wonders why none of the fire fighters or even that employee had enough sense to wonder why the locomotive was idling and "shouldn't we turn it back on after the fire was extinguished?"
The loco was obviously not left idling just for the fun of it.

I have no doubt (as opposed to the MM&A chairman) that Tom Harding (?), the locomotivde engineer, applied 11 hand brakes as he claimed, but.......were 11 hand brakes enough to hold that train on the slope without the air brakes? 
Obviously not.
But it could also be that the hand brakes were not in good shape.
Those are mechanical brakes like the parking brake on a car - and that doesn't hold the car on a slope either if it's not in good shape.

It will be more than a year before the final report about that accident is issued and I can see right now that there were a number of obvious contributing factors that caused this accident to happen.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

krs said:


> ...
> Hindsight is always 20/20 but one wonders why none of the fire fighters or even that employee had enough sense to wonder why the locomotive was idling and "shouldn't we turn it back on after the fire was extinguished?"
> The loco was obviously not left idling just for the fun of it.
> 
> ...


Seems to me that shutting down the locomotive would have been done as part of extinguishing the fire. Since fuel lines may have been damaged one could hardly have expected the firefighters to restart the locomotive. 

That leaves the question; Why was the engineer not located, dragged kicking and screaming all the way, to inspect the locomotive?

The reason for setting handbrakes is CYA in the event the airbrakes fail. Because the train was on the mainline and no engineer aboard, those hand brakes were the only back-up. From my reading for that size train, with hazardous materials, parked on a grade, the number of cars with hand brakes set should have been about 30. Just walking that distance in both directions would take about 20 minutes plus the time required to set 35 hand brakes. (The brakes on the engines are also set).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Seems to me that shutting down the locomotive would have been done as part of extinguishing the fire. Since fuel lines may have been damaged one could hardly have expected the firefighters to restart the locomotive.
> 
> That leaves the question; Why was the engineer not located, dragged kicking and screaming all the way, to inspect the locomotive?
> 
> The reason for setting handbrakes is CYA in the event the airbrakes fail. Because the train was on the mainline and no engineer aboard, those hand brakes were the only back-up. From my reading for that size train, with hazardous materials, parked on a grade, the number of cars with hand brakes set should have been about 30. Just walking that distance in both directions would take about 20 minutes plus the time required to set 35 hand brakes. (The brakes on the engines are also set).


There are federally mandated mandatory rest rules in place. The rest rules arose as a result of another rail disaster at Hinton Ab. If the engineer worked to the allowable hours of service or the maximum hours of service he can not be called to service for any reason until the end of the rest period. 

The other MMA employee, a track foreman I believe, should have called a Rail traffic control office, where train dispatchers who are responsible for all trains on tracks on their territory. The call should be made either by radio or cell phone. The "other employee" should have reported the situation on the train as a result of the fire. 

The other employee should have been advised with regard with what to do. Restart engines, apply brakes whatever was required. The other employee either didn't call or he did or did not follow any instructions given. 

Third thing the engineer could have applied every brake on the train and if brakes are worn out or more likely out of adjustment the train could still roll away. According to the rules, as written, if applied every brake on the train and the train rolled away, it would be the employees fault.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Seems to me that shutting down the locomotive would have been done as part of extinguishing the fire. Since fuel lines may have been damaged one could hardly have expected the firefighters to restart the locomotive.


Agree.
My comment wasn't as clear as it should have been.
I'm not suggesting they should have turned that particular engine back on, just that nobody gave any thought why the engine was running in the first place.



> That leaves the question; Why was the engineer not located, dragged kicking and screaming all the way, to inspect the locomotive?


I don't think the engineer needed to be "dragged, kicking and screaming". From what I have read he was very conscientious, a phone call would have been enough.



> The reason for setting handbrakes is CYA in the event the airbrakes fail. Because the train was on the mainline and no engineer aboard, those hand brakes were the only back-up. From my reading for that size train, with hazardous materials, parked on a grade, the number of cars with hand brakes set should have been about 30. Just walking that distance in both directions would take about 20 minutes plus the time required to set 35 hand brakes. (The brakes on the engines are also set).


Where did you see the suggestion that 30 or 35 handbrakes should have been set?
All I have read so far is that the engineer said he set 11 handbrakes (plus the 5 handbrakes on the locos) and then the TSB sent this urgent message to Transport Canada that the requirement as to the number of handbrakes to be set was not clear and needs to urgently be clarified.
The engineer stated right at the beginning of the investigation that he set 11 handbrakes on the first 11 cars - nobody so far has stated that this was not adequate according to the current regulations. I would also assume that the number "11" didn't just pop into the engineer's head, he got that from some regulation.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Third thing the engineer could have applied every brake on the train and if brakes are worn out or more likely out of adjustment the train could still roll away. According to the rules, as written, if applied every brake on the train and the train rolled away, it would be the employees fault.


The other interesting thing is that the engineer applied the push-pull test (at least he said he did)....and then TSB comes out and states that the push-pull test is not always adequate.

From what I have read so far, the engineer seems to have done everything "right" - at least followed all the regulations.
The regulations seem to be lacking in a number of areas.

And worn and/or misadjusted handbrakes could well be a major contributing factor - this was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read the original articles about this disaster.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> The other interesting thing is that the engineer applied the push-pull test (at least he said he did)....and then TSB comes out and states that the push-pull test is not always adequate.
> 
> From what I have read so far, the engineer seems to have done everything "right" - at least followed all the regulations.
> The regulations seem to be lacking in a number of areas.
> ...


Seems to me that Mr. Ed Burkhardt, MMA's Head Honchos, is looking for a scapegoat or at least a shinny ball to draw the public's attention away from him.

I checked the Transport Canada, Work/Rest for Operating Employees Rules which I shall link here. Work/Rest Rules for Railway Operating Employees - Transport Canada

As far as an emergency the definition portion of the rules (Section 4) I have quoted the reference here



Transport Canada said:


> "Emergency" means a sudden or unforeseen situation where injury or harm has been sustained, or could reasonably be sustained to employee(s), passenger(s), the public or the environment such as those involving a casualty or unavoidable accident, an Act of God, severe storms, major earthquakes, washouts, derailments or where there has been a delay resulting from a cause not known to the railway company at the time employees leave the terminal and which could not have been foreseen.
> 
> Except as outlined above, normal operating problems that are inherent in railway operations that do not constitute an "Emergency", include but are not limited to:
> 
> ...


Now I realize this may open up discussion here with regard to interpretation, but let's be clear this is a "guide line" and the regulations attached to these rules further define this document. The "Regs" are not attached here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The problem here is that the regulations are _too _detailed. The regulations should start by holding the company to blame for any damage it causes, then go on to explain what goals the company needs to achieve to operate safely. 

If you have 50 rules for parking a loco, then that is all the company needs to follow.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL....
Why do you think work/rest rules played any part in this?

To my knowledge that has never been brought up as a potential contributing cause by anybody.

And when the engineer was awakened by the explosions, he ran to the site (questions have arisen if and where he helped), but from what people have stated who know him, is that he would have made sure the train was secure after the loco fire was extinguished if someone had contacted him.

Burkhardt and Co. is in trouble in many respects not the least being the company's insurers.
Their rates are going to skyrocket especially if any blame for this is assigned to MM&A.
The TSB doesn't assign blame so I assume this will end up in the courts eventually.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so much for less regulations and assuming corporations will' do the right thing'.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> BigDL....
> Why do you think work/rest rules played any part in this?
> 
> To my knowledge that has never been brought up as a potential contributing cause by anybody.
> ...


The short answer is I don't know this as a fact.

I worked for CN as a "Crew Dispatcher" and was responsible for scheduling Operating Employees to crew various assignments. I have over 12 experience at this job.

MMA's is an old CPR line and may have been part of the old Dominion Atlantic Railway. That's what is was called at it's terminus in Nova Scotia. I have no idea of the terminals along this line.

I would assume the MMA line would have a series of terminals (crew change points) alone its line. A locomotive engineer would go to work at his home terminal, operate the train to an objective terminal, he would pick another train heading back to his home terminal, returning home on it.

The news reports indicated that the train was left on the main line "in the woods" not a siding, not a terminal. It was likely left where it would not block driveways, streets or roads. 

News reports say the Engine that was belching smoke or having problems before the engineer "parked it." Perhaps these engine problems slowed the progress and speed of the train to cause the Mandatory Rules to come into play. Which I suspect but I do not know as I never saw or heard this from any media reports. 

When I heard the train was tied up on line and the Engineer taxied to a motel, I said "mando" or mandatory rest.

The engineer according to news reports was due to go back to this train, to operate it (to its objective terminal?) again.

A taxi picked him up in Nantes (probably next or close to the road) to drive him to a motel in Lac Mégantic "a place of rest" (* a place of rest* as mentioned in the rules) a phrase I heard or read in media reports.

So based on that information I strongly suspect that the Mandatory work/rest rules come into play here. 

Now what I have seen of Mr Burkhardt, I am also thinking the Mandatory maximums might be the minimum protection for workers and the public but again I don't know that.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

OPK, I understand your reasoning.

I read in the media that there was a crew change planned and a different crew was supposed to continue with that train in the morning.
Actually made me wonder why a new crew wouldn't pick up the train immediately and continue the journey - after all, "time is money"
But then again - the media reports are often wrong or misleading.

And, again from the media, the train was parked on the main line, not the siding where it would normally be parked, because there was another train parked on the siding already. Had it been parked on the siding and started to roll, it would probably have derailed at the turnout which would normally be set for the main line.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

So it turns out my idea of mandatory rest may not be correct. After some searching, of all places, I found this information on a web site concerning Christian Life. 

The author says he(?) is railway buff.

So it turns out that Nantes was the "crew change terminal" and this was the plan of the MM&A.



> Until last weekend, few Canadians outside La Belle Province had probably ever heard of the town of Lac-Mégantic. Now, in the aftermath of a huge disaster, we all have.
> 
> Lac-Mégantic is best known among Quebeckers as part of their picturesque cottage country, in the Québecois version of Ontario’s Muskoka. As a railway buff, I’ve known about the town because it had traditionally been a crew change point – once for the Canadian Pacific’s International of Maine Division; now the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway uses a spot a few miles to the northwest to change from Canadian crews to American crews (and vice-versa) for the cross-border journey.





> After all, trains of all sorts have been rolling through the town for a very long time. Many trains have tied down at Nantes (the spot where crew changes now take place) without incident. Whatever or whoever caused this catastrophe, one lesson we all can take from it is that one simple error in judgment, or one seemingly small prank, can have a ripple effect that has the potential to alter many people’s lives.


A lesson from Lac-Mégantic « Passionately His

So my hypothesis is blown apart for a "parked in the woods" scenario. 

It did struck my ear when I heard the phrase "a place of rest" it seemed odd to hear those words in a news story and I associated those words with the Mandatory Rest Rules.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*In Lac-Megantic: Hundreds of Millions in Damages as Rail Company Pleads Poverty
Critics: Who is accountable to towns, families and ecosystems following 'unnatural fossil fuel disasters'?*

_..the private rail company responsible for the disaster has an insurance policy that will only cover a small fraction of the cost of cleanup.

In another example of an industry privatizing the profit yet socializing the cost, this revelation follows the news that the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MM&A) company filed for bankruptcy Wednesday, leaving the town, the victims' families, and the local ecosystem shouldered with the burden of this 'unnatural disaster.'

* * * 

Edward Jazlowiecki, a U.S. lawyer representing a number of Lac-Mégantic families, optimistically points out that MM&A's parent company Rail World Group—which is ironically headed by the same man who chairs MM&A, Edward Burkhardt—"has assets all over the country."

Though, as LaSala notes, "Thanks to the power of lobbying, parent companies are usually protected. Companies are often able to act as judge and jury regarding who is eligible to receive damages, as in the case of Enbridge and the Kalamazoo spill."
_​
(CommonDreams)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Blame the government for its crony capitalism here. These arrangements, including limited damages for businesses, have their blessing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Inside the oil-shipping free-for-all that brought disaster to Lac-Mégantic*



> An investigation into the disaster and its causes.
> 
> 
> Part 1: Last moments of Musi-Café (ebook free for subscribers)
> ...


(Read the full story at the Globe & Mail)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Runaway trains almost triple the reported rate, CBC investigation finds*



> Two Decembers ago, a train rolled uncontrolled for 24 kilometres, reaching a speed of 100 kilometres an hour before eventually coming to a stop near the eastern Quebec town of Sept-Iles.
> 
> Five months earlier, 33 CN cars escaped from a yard near Edmonton and travelled more than five kilometres onto a line carrying residues of gasoline, diesel fuel and sulphuric acid in their tanks.
> 
> Cases like these — referred to technically as runaway rolling stock — happen on average 35 times a year, far more often than previously thought, CBC News has learned after examining a railway database kept by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB).





> the majority of runaway train cases remain unreported publicly because they are categorized instead as derailments or collisions — without any indication that the train was rolling away uncontrolled at the time.





> Oftentimes, the cars don’t collide with other trains, derail or cause deaths, but they raise questions about the ability to secure railway cars in place.
> 
> But only nine of the 459 runaway-related occurrences — or about two per cent — have been fully investigated by the TSB, the independent agency charged with finding ways to make the rail industry safer.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In the case of rail, I don't even see the economic benefits of being so lax with rail safety. Make them achieve goal-oriented safety standards and fine the hell out of the if they fail--including the possibility of jail sentences for corporate bigwigs.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Strange that run-a-way trains are such an issue.
There are both derailers and also drag shoes specifically designed to prevent just that - easy to use, relatively inexpensive and take just seconds to use.
Safetrack shop - Drag Shoe - Wheel Stop


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The train in question unfortunately was on the mainline, so I can see why a derailer would not have been available. The ones I have seen are bolted to a tie and simply flip over a rail to prevent a train or string of cars from rolling onto the main line. Obviously they do not want anyone flipping a derailer over a mainline and wrecking a train traveling at speed.

However drag shoes could easily be carried on every train and serve the same purpose as do chock blocks for big trucks.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I was thinking of *portable* derailers and mentioned those since they seem to be more common in North America.
Drag shoes seem to be more common in Europe - at least that is my take.

A drag shoe would of course be preferable.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*Seems a bit excessive, don't you think?*_

*TSB says CN Rail failed to report hundreds of derailments, collisions*



> A continuing CBC News investigation into rail safety has found that Canada’s largest freight carrier CN Rail did not report to authorities more than 1,800 derailments and accidents, including 44 on key rail arteries.
> 
> This came to light in 2005 when the Transportation Safety Board’s director of rail investigations says he became suspicious of a dramatic difference between CN’s accident numbers compared to other operators.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I guess I'm not sure what you are questioning as "excessive". The amount of accidents? The amount of accidents unreported? The amount of my tax dollars wasted in the preparation of this shoddy "news" article? Please clarify but, be sure to include my #3.

That said, in true MSM fashion, the "news" article begs more questions than it answers. How about some perspective? How many miles of track does CN operate on? As in, how many derailments per loaded mile, or whatever statistic they use? Why the massive discrepancy between non-main & main track derailments? How does this new, revised number compare to their competitors? Was this under-reporting actually due to "subjective" rules laid out by the TSB or for some other, more nefarious reason?

Nothing I love better than reading a piece of news "coverage" sponsored by my tax dollars that has holes you could drive a...train through.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Oh, cry me an f-ing river.....*

*Lac-Mégantic's Ed Burkhardt 'was also a victim,'*










_The railway executive behind the company whose train smashed into Lac-Mégantic wants people to know he's been suffering, too.

Looking back at the year as it comes to a close, Ed Burkhardt said he's still troubled by the Quebec derailment and has thought about it every day since the July 6 catastrophe killed 47 people and destroyed part of the town.

The chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. also told The Canadian Press in a recent interview that he's sustained significant personal financial losses since the disaster.

"They had every reason to be very upset with what had occurred," Burkhardt said about the anger directed toward him by the people of Lac-Mégantic.

"But what they didn't know was that I was equally upset and I was also a victim of this whole thing."

_​* * *​_...he thinks tank-car construction needs to be improved, though due to the high costs he expects any transition to a more-durable tanker to take a long time.

He also encouraged more testing of operating employees, with particular attention placed on brake management and in preventing runaway trains.

Still, he thinks it should be up to railway managers to enforce any changes, rather than a heavier-handed approach by regulators.

"I put the pressure on the management, not on the regulator," Burkhardt said.

"I don't want the regulator telling me what to do. I want to figure this out within management."_​

*Yeah, 'cause management did such a great f-ing job "figuring it out" prior to Lac Megántic, eh?*

(CBC)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Oh, cry me an f-ing river.....*
> 
> *Lac-Mégantic's Ed Burkhardt 'was also a victim,'*
> 
> ...


Poor, poor executive. Must be rough.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Well, to be fair about it - everything I have read so far has confirmed that the railroad had done things by the book.
That was confirmed by the advisories that were issued by the regulator after the fact.

Maybe I missed some new information
Last thing I read was that the idling loco which supplied brake pressure was shut off because of a small fire and was never started again to maintain brake pressure
Also, the correct number of cars had their hand brakes set

Has there been anything more updates on those two key points that eventually allowed the run-a-way train?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

krs said:


> Well, to be fair about it - everything I have read so far has confirmed that the railroad had done things by the book.
> That was confirmed by the advisories that were issued by the regulator after the fact.
> 
> Maybe I missed some new information
> ...



The crazy part of what has been broadcast about the loco engine and brake pressure and what I don't understand is the fact that just like all air-brake equipped trucks and busses etc., the engine is needed to allow the vacuum pump to release the brakes!!

No running engine or no pump = no vacuum = vacuum brakes don't release = no go with a diesel engine. Gasoline engines don't need a pump as their manifold can provide the needed vacuum.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

pm-r said:


> The crazy part of what has been broadcast about the loco engine and brake pressure and what I don't understand is the fact that just like all air-brake equipped trucks and busses etc., the engine is needed to allow the vacuum pump to release the brakes!!


Read up on how the Westinghouse air brake system works, it's not the same as an air brake on trucks or busses.
This is a reasonable explanation of what happened:
Air Brakes are supposed to be "fail-safe". So what caused the Lac-Megantic disaster? : TreeHugger

In addition, the locomotive engineer stated he set the hand brakes of ?? cars (can't remember the exact number). Don't know if that was ever refuted or confirmed, but the requirement as to how many cars need to have their hand brakes set was very vague in the regulations but it obviously wasn't enough.
Had the loco not been shut off this disaster would not have happened; ditto if enough hand brakes had been applied assuming they were all in good condition.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

krs said:


> Read up on how the Westinghouse air brake system works, it's not the same as an air brake on trucks or busses.
> This is a reasonable explanation of what happened:
> Air Brakes are supposed to be "fail-safe". So what caused the Lac-Megantic disaster? : TreeHugger
> 
> ...


No idea about that particular train, but a quick look at the rolling stock that goes by here several times a day, would have me seriously questioning if more than half of the hand brakes were in "good" condition.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> No idea about that particular train, but a quick look at the rolling stock that goes by here several times a day, would have me seriously questioning if more than half of the hand brakes were in "good" condition.


It should be relatively easy to determine if the hand brakes were in "good" condition, at least on the cars not fully destroyed.
But I have not read anything about that one way or the other.
The engineer claims he set brakes on the five locos and 11 cars which meets the Railroad's requirement, but
a. Was that actually true, and
b. Is that adequate to hold a train like that on a 1.2% grade assuming the brakes are in good condition.
The engineer also claimed he performed the required push-pull test - an examination of the 'black box' would determine if that was true.

Going back to what in a sense triggered this disastrous event, shutting off the power of the lead engine.
I can understand that the fire department had to shut the engine off to fight the fire but seriously, was there nobody involved at point, fire dept, Provincial Police and Railroad employee, smart enough to wonder why the loco was left running?
It obviously costs money to leave the engine running so it sure wasn't done just for the fun of it.

Like any disaster or even accident - there are always a whole list of issues that all come together. The ones I can think of in this case:
1. Engine shut off eventually causing air brakes to release
2. Hand brakes not holding the train on the 1.2% slope, Why is still an open issue
3. Train being parked on the main line rather than siding. Siding was already occupied, if the train had been parked on the siding, the turnout would have derailed the lead locos if the train started to move.
4. Oil being carried was more flammable than indicated on the documentation causing the explosions.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I recall, after the fire, the local fire department handed off, the care and attention of the train to a MMA track supervisor.

The dispatcher or the track supervisor should have established the safe handling of the "parked" train or I should think they should have.

I should also think that when the TSB report is issued the questions krs raised shall be addressed.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

The MMA employee was a track repair worker who is not familiar with how locomotives work and would not have known how to start the engine if it had been shut off.
He called the dispatcher after the fire was extinguished....

That's as far as it went.

Maybe the MMA employee didn't mention that the engine was shut off or perhaps it was shut off before he arrived; he wouldn't know that it should be running to keep the air pressure up.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The MMA employee(s) still remained seized with the responsibility to secure the train. The fire department (volunteer) extinguished the fire, turned over the situation of securing of the MMA train on MMA rails back over to the MMA employees.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The MMA statement attempting to shift the blame falls into the CYA category. As any insurance adjuster will tell you: Never admit blame, especially if you have taken out a sizeable chunk of a small town and killed a bunch of people.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

As far as I remember watching this unfold is that the only MMA person who tried to shift blame was Edward Burkhardt who suggested that the hand brakes were not fully set as the engineer had stated.
Don't know if TSB ever confirmed if the hand brakes were set and how many.

But if you read various reports - the engineer said he set the hand brakes on the five locos and 10 cars, the MMA chairman said their own regulations state it should have been 11 cars, not that this would make any difference because of the range of slopes the regulation covers.
What is a bit of an eye opener is this article which gives a few examples of how many hand brakes were set in other 'run-a-awy' situations vs the number that should have been set and the minimum number required.
Lac Megantic explosion: Standards vary for number of hand brakes required in Canada | Toronto Star


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*On the topic of crude oil, small towns, and train disasters....*

*North Dakota town 'dodged a bullet' in crude explosion, says mayor*












> A southeastern North Dakota town narrowly escaped tragedy when a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded nearby, the mayor said Tuesday, calling for changes in how the fuel is transported across the U.S.
> 
> No one was hurt in Monday's derailment of the mile-long train that sent a great fireball and plumes of black smoke skyward about a mile from the small town of Casselton. The fire had been so intense as darkness fell that investigators couldn't get close enough to count the number of burning cars. The National Transportation Safety Board launched an investigation.
> 
> Most residents heeded a recommendation to evacuate their homes as strong winds blew potentially hazardous, acrid smoke toward the town overnight, Mayor Ed McConnell said early Tuesday. Black soot coated parts of Casselton.


(NBC News)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A pipeline would solve this problem.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh sure, because those *never fail*


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

pm-r said:


> The crazy part of what has been broadcast about the loco engine and brake pressure and what I don't understand is the fact that just like all air-brake equipped trucks and busses etc., the engine is needed to allow the vacuum pump to release the brakes!!
> 
> No running engine or no pump = no vacuum = vacuum brakes don't release = no go with a diesel engine. Gasoline engines don't need a pump as their manifold can provide the needed vacuum.


Where are you getting this information? After 30+ years of driving air-brake equipped truck/trailer combinations and having a "Z" endorsement on my license, which I have to test for every 5years at renewal, I can tell you with undeniable certainty that the engine need not be running to release the air brakes on a truck/trailer combination. Brake systems on rail engines and cars I don't know about.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Maybe they were pulling our legs but the drivers of the tour busses that visited where I worked would say they had to run their engines to get some gauge to at least some determined point on the gauge so that the brakes would work and release so that they could drive away.

Are large public tour busses different with their air brakes - I don't know???

Regardless of design and operation, they don't seem to live up to the "fail safe" description. At least with runaway trains.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

pm-r said:


> Maybe they were pulling our legs but the drivers of the tour busses that visited where I worked would say they had to run their engines to get some gauge to at least some determined point on the gauge so that the brakes would work and release so that they could drive away.
> 
> Are large public tour busses different with their air brakes - I don't know???
> 
> Regardless of design and operation, they don't seem to live up to the "fail safe" description. At least with runaway trains.


Yes, you have to charge the system tanks (1 primary and 1 secondary) to 120psi but after that you may shut the engine off and release the brakes. We had a guy at work who at the beginning of his shift went to his truck and stared it up on a cold day and walked away. The previous driver didn't set his brakes (button on the dash) and drained his tanks as required by company policy (drain to release moisture in freezing weather) this also locks the brakes as truck brakes need air to release. As the air pressure filled the tanks the brakes released and the truck rolled into our building. Management added wheel chocks to the SOP.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The description of the fail safe design indicates it should hold for some time after the locomotive engine was shut-off with individual airtanks applying the brakes to each car. However at some point those tanks would lose some pressure releasing the brakes. 

The big question here is why the onsite RR rep did not know enough to fire up one of the other four locomotives and more specifically after the fire, when he presumably contacted a supervisor, he was not told of the need to have a locomotive running. 

Obviously as stingy as corporations are these days, the engineer would not have left any of the locomotives running at all, unless there was a very good reason to do just that.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

This discussion of air brake fail safe reminds me of the age old question; who is smarter fools or engineers? Engineers attempt to make products fool proof yet the fools always seem to win.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

It seems that with the so called "fail safe" air brakes, vacuum or pressure, not even the engineers or designers got it right.

And not even Bendix with all their years of experience at least in North America seems to have done so and especially when it comes to what they call a misnamed "emergency brake". The emergency part seems to be accurate however when they fail.

Heck, if they don't want a wheel to rotate when parked, why haven't they designed something like a big steel rod that goes through a hole in the wheel or some such. Pretty hard to get such an arrangement to allow a wheel to rotate I would think.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*....and yet again....*

*CN train carrying crude oil derailed, on fire near Wapske*









(Photos via Haligonia.ca)​
_A CN freight train carrying dangerous goods has derailed and caught fire in northwest New Brunswick, not far from the U.S. border.

Jim Feeny, director of public and government affairs for CN Rail, said the train derailment happened just after 7 p.m. AT about five kilometres outside of Plaster Rock in Wapske, N.B. He said the train was coming from central Canada and was heading to Moncton.

He said the train was carrying dangerous goods. 

“The number of derailed cars has not yet been confirmed. We do know that there are dangerous goods cars on the train and that they are in the derailment area. These include cars carrying LPG — which is propane — and crude oil but we cannot confirm if those cars are actually derailed at this point. We know they’re in the immediate area,” said Feeny. 

He also confirmed there was a fire at the site, but said it's unclear what is fuelling the fire. _

(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We need more pipelines. No two ways about it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> We need more pipelines. No two ways about it.


:lmao:


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

screature said:


> :lmao:



And your alternate suggestion would be ...???

Don't rush, and I'll wait. 

We all want it to be safe and maybe affordable as well so that the echoes of the prices are too high don't keep resounding - which includes the fuel prices at the local gas station.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pm-r said:


> And your alternate suggestion would be ...???
> 
> Don't rush, and I'll wait.
> 
> We all want it to be safe and maybe affordable as well so that the echoes of the prices are too high don't keep resounding - which includes the fuel prices at the local gas station.


I was laughing at MF's statement because there are those who want no pipelines and those who want more rail transport of oil only so long as there is no risk involved and they both seem to exist on the same side of the political fence i.e. a certain hypocrisy (that is what I thought MF was referring to)... they seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. 

Sorry I didn't make my :lmao: clear

It seems like over land there are only two viable alternatives. Which is least objectionable to you?

But BTW what's with the attitude:



> Don't rush, and I'll wait.


Pretty harsh, based on what? An :lmao: emoticon directed at someone elses post that I found humorous?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Those that oppose pipe lines, also oppose the oil sands. So any mishap with rail or truck works toward their agenda.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this is beginning to get insane. one suggests a method of delivery that has clearly shown plenty of accidents as rail has, except with pipelines they want to ramp up oil sands production massively.

Then the other says people are hypocrites if you don't support pipelines and blah blah, now, it's a conspiracy or something.

It just gets nuttier by the day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your post makes no sense groovetube. Nobody mentioned conspiracies or ramping up production. You're rambling.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Your post makes no sense groovetube. Nobody mentioned conspiracies or ramping up production. You're rambling.


Wow, that's pretty lo-fi, even for you.



kps said:


> Those that oppose pipe lines, also oppose the oil sands. *So any mishap with rail or truck works toward their agenda.*


hmmm. Sounds a little bit like a conspiracy to me.

And do some reading about the ramping up of oil sands production and the need for pipelines to move more oil.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Wow, that's pretty lo-fi, even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Groove, are you kidding me? Why does it sound like a conspiracy? That's not a conspiracy theory it goes hand in hand with everything the opponents of the pipelines are saying.

As far as ramp-up is concerned if capacity of volume increases due to pipelines it only makes sense to also increase production. Overall cost is reduced. Duh!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It is what it is kps. If all these train accidents and deaths are 'working for their agenda' that sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. Personally, I think it's total BS, as opposition to the oil sands don't like either option.

For pipelines, they have been planned -because- they want to ramp production. That's been talked about openly for some time now.

I don't think they're going to be sitting around going, well gee! We have all these pipelines now. Now what?? Maybe we should make more oil and, wait!! I have a good idea, let's get big super tankers to take it to China!

It's already planned my friend.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> It is what it is kps. If all these train accidents and deaths are 'working for their agenda' that sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. Personally, I think it's total BS, as opposition to the oil sands don't like either option.
> 
> I don't think they're going to be sitting around going, well gee! We have all these pipelines now. Now what?? Maybe we should make more oil and, wait!! I have a good idea, let's get big super tankers to take it to China!
> 
> It's already planned my friend.


So, perceived public safety is a conspiracy? Diverting of haz mat on rail tankers through towns is a conspiracy? Environmental risks of pipelines is a conspiracy? All of which plays into the hands of those wanting to eliminate the oil sands and also create FUD in the rest of us.



groovetube said:


> For pipelines, they have been planned -because- they want to ramp production. That's been talked about openly for some time now.


Stating the obvious again groove? What's wrong with increasing production while saving on transportation of the commodity while also making an investment in the local economy (i.e. Jobs)?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

This might be an interesting read for some:

Olive: North American oil abundance starts to appear illusory | Toronto Star


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

pm-r said:


> This might be an interesting read for some:
> 
> Olive: North American oil abundance starts to appear illusory | Toronto Star


Definitely an interesting read. However speculative some of it may be.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Personally my biggest argument with the oil sands is exporting the raw product, which so far seems to include incorporating a highly flammable solvent. I would much prefer at a portion of the refining to be done on sight, although that would leave some rather ugly waste to be disposed of.

It would certainly help create additional Alberta jobs and help keep capital in Canada/Alberta.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Definitely an interesting read. However speculative some of it may be.


David Olive never appears happy with energy abundance. Many of the Pennsylvania shales, for example, aren't even close to being fully exploited. The Bakken is just starting and shows no sign of stopping. 

However, the natural gas is the key here, not oil. Oil is a bonus.



eMacMan said:


> Personally my biggest argument with the oil sands is exporting the raw product, which so far seems to include incorporating a highly flammable solvent. I would much prefer at a portion of the refining to be done on sight, although that would leave some rather ugly waste to be disposed of.
> 
> It would certainly help create additional Alberta jobs and help keep capital in Canada/Alberta.


How many billions of dollars do you want to invest in a refinery? It's not cheap.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Major fights over fracking for natural gas down south, but not this week. LOL

Thanks To Fracking, Natural Gas Supplies (Barely) Withstand 'Polar Vortex' Assault - Forbes

I think we could use a refinery up there…or down here. Too much of our bitumen refined on foreign lands, if not all of it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Just before Lac-Mégantic, railways sought to reduce inspections*

_Canada’s major freight rail carriers attempted to reduce safety inspections on rail cars carrying dangerous goods exactly a month before the Lac-Mégantic, Que., tragedy, CBC News has learned.

The Railway Association of Canada, whose major members include CN and CP Rail, asked the federal transport minister at the time, on June 7, 2013, to repeal rules that require certified rail car inspectors to do detailed examinations of brakes, axles, wheels and car components before they are loaded.

The RAC argued that the examinations done at designated yards were “redundant” and “overlay,” given that train conductors and engineers walk the length of their trains, and rail lines now are equipped with “wayside inspection detectors, wheel impact detectors and cold wheel set detectors.”_

(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*MM&A railway had repeated brake violations on the books*

*A decade before the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, Transport Canada was aware of company's non-compliance*

_Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. (MM&A) had been the subject of repeated infraction notices for violations of the rules surrounding the securing of trains for years before the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, but Transport Canada never imposed any sanctions on the company. 

Those violations, documented in Transport Canada files obtained by Radio-Canada's investigative program, Enquête, were noted several times in 2004 and 2009, and again in 2011 and 2012.

Just what happened the night in early July when an MM&A train rolled down an incline, derailed and exploded in the core of Lac-Mégantic, killing 47 people, is still under investigation.

But the use of the handbrakes and how the train was secured are at the heart of the inquiry, and have been since early days.

* * *

In the days following the tragedy, Edward Burkhardt, chairman of MM&A, suspended the locomotive engineer and alleged the driver failed to apply enough handbrakes when he left his train unattended on the main track and headed into Lac-Mégantic to sleep.

“Blaming the conductor, that’s the easiest thing to do,” said Jacques Vandersleyen, a consultant and railway industry expert.

“Those primarily responsible for good management, good ethics and corporate culture are the leaders.”

Vandersleyen said the repeated violations on the books for MM&A show a systemic safety problem within in the company.

He also said Transport Canada failed in its duty by not imposing punitive measures against MM&A._

(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lac Megantic Charges: Three Employees Face Negligence Claims After Quebec Runaway Oil Train Disaster*










_Three employees and the railway company involved in last summer's massive explosion of a runaway oil train that incinerated much of a small town in Quebec, killing 47 people, will face criminal negligence charges, provincial prosecutors announced late Monday.

The charges come about 10 months after more than 60 of the tankers carrying oil from North Dakota came loose in the middle of the night, sped downhill for nearly seven miles (11 kilometres) and derailed in the town of Lac-Megantic in eastern Quebec. At least five of the tankers exploded, levelling about 30 buildings, including a popular bar that was filled with revelers last July 6.

The Quebec provincial prosecutor's office said 47 counts of criminal negligence have been filed against engineer Thomas Harding, manager of train operations Jean Demaitre, and Richard Labrie, who was in charge of rail circulation, as well as the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway Ltd., the defunct railway at the heart of the disaster. The charges represent one count for each person killed. They are the first criminal charges brought. Criminal negligence that causes death can result in a jail sentence of up to life imprisonment in Canada._

(HuffPo)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lac-Mégantic rail disaster: $200M proposed settlement reached*

_Victims of the 2013 rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Que., are one step closer to reaching a major financial settlement with the railway that was at the heart of the deadly tragedy.

A U.S. lawyer who worked on the wrongful-death lawsuits said Friday that, if the compensation package is approved, $200 million will be distributed in settlement funds to families of those who died as well as other parties involved in the legal battle.

Peter Flowers told The Canadian Press he expects the money to start flowing this summer, although the compensation package must still be approved by courts on both sides of the border.

* * *​
"This is the first step in implementing the settlement fund," said Robert Keach, court-appointed trustee in the defunct railroad's bankruptcy case in Maine.

Keach said he's received commitments of about $200 million but hopes it will grow to $500 million. Several of the largest corporations with potential legal liability have not yet agreed to participate, he said.

Three other companies — World Fuel Services, Canadian Pacific Railway and Irving Oil — have yet to contribute.

"We will turn over every stone on earth before we give up on them and intend on pursuing them in Illinois and any other state to ensure they're brought to justice and held responsible for this disaster," Flowers said.
_

(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lac Megantic Rail Disaster Victim Settlement Fund Approval Delayed By Judge*

Final approval of a $338 million US settlement for victims of the 2013 train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Que., has been delayed.

The delay is to provide time for the only party that's opposed to the fund to either join in the settlement or negotiate terms to withdraw its objection.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge on Thursday ordered the parties to reconvene Oct. 5, and the U.S. bankruptcy trustee is confident the settlement will be confirmed.

The settlement was the issue of negotiations with about two dozen companies.

The only party with potential liability that declined to participate is Canadian Pacific, which contends it wasn't treated fairly under the deal.

At a court hearing in Canada earlier this year, a lawyer for CP said the disaster did not involve the company's tracks, rail cars, products or employees.

Forty-seven people died in Lac Megantic, Quebec, when the runaway train with 72 oil tankers derailed on July 6, 2013.

A bankruptcy judge in Maine is set to rule on a $338 million US settlement fund for victims of the 2013 train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Que., that claimed 47 lives.

The U.S. bankruptcy trustee wants the judge to approve the plan today so money can begin flowing to those who were harmed by the disaster.

But several parties — including Canadian Pacific — are urging the judge to reject the deal.​
(HuffPo)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Imagine how much smaller this disaster would have been if the 72 tankers worth of oil had been in a pipeline instead of on rails.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Imagine how much smaller this disaster would have been if the 72 tankers worth of oil had been in a pipeline instead of on rails.


Yep, no explosion, no loss of life, no destroyed businesses, no huge court case. Just a bit of crude on the ground to soak up and move on. 

'Course pipelines are soooo unsafe. 

Aren't they?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Yep, no explosion, no loss of life, no destroyed businesses, no huge court case. Just a bit of crude on the ground to soak up and move on.
> 
> 'Course pipelines are soooo unsafe.
> 
> Aren't they?


Well, actually fellas, given that LAC Mégantic is, y'know, a LAKE, and from what I can tell from the Google Map of the area, the rail line runs along the shoreline for a considerable distance, a pipeline spill would likely not be a "soak up and move on" sort of situation. 










Certainly there would likely not be the loss of life that occurred with this disaster, but it may have been an immense ecological disaster.

I'm not opposed to pipelines in general; but we have decades of physical evidence that the companies who build them (a) follow the profit motive and do the least work possible to get the job done, damn the potential for failure; (b) also to avoid costs, don't give a damn about sensitive areas and will route 'em along the straightest (least costly) path; (c) implement lacklustre monitoring technologies that lead - as we have seen - to leaks that go undetected not just for hours, but for days or even weeks.

They'll also purposely distort the facts in order to convince the public that their oil transportation system isn't going to present any potential for disaster. That's lying. Fraud. And it should be punished. *Remember this beauty from Enbridge?*








_Environmentalists are crying foul after the company campaigning to build the Northern gateway pipeline released a video that apparently shows a much safer route for tankers through British Columbia’s waters than the one that actually exists.

Advocacy groups Sum Of Us and Leadnow.ca have launched a campaign to pressure Enbridge to remove a promotional video that shows open waters in British Columbia’s Douglas Channel. The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would run to Kitimat, B.C., and tankers carrying oil overseas would have to navigate what the campaign describes as “the fourth most dangerous waterway in the world.”

The missing islands were first noticed by graphic designer Lori Waters, who posted images on her Facebook page showing the discrepancy. About 1,000 square kilometres of island appear to be missing.

“I viewed the video, and as soon as I saw it, it just seemed absolutely wrong to me,” Waters told Metro Vancouver. “It seemed to have been *designed to purposefully mislead the public, which is unconscionable for a project with this level of associated risk.*”_​
(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Which is why they need to have less regulation and more money on the table. Companies need to pay a fixed price per barrel spilled and leave a large deposit with the government. No limited liability. That will take care of the pipeline problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Well, actually fellas, given that LAC Mégantic is, y'know, a LAKE, and from what I can tell from the Google Map of the area, the rail line runs along the shoreline for a considerable distance, a pipeline spill would likely not be a "soak up and move on" sort of situation.


Actually Mark, you might want to read about the huge oil spill about 40 miles from my home 10 years ago. I have many friends that have summer cottages on Wabamun lake that is much bigger than LAC Mégantic and they are back boating and swimming and the summer village is as active as before the spill. And, yup, they soaked it up and moved on with little ill effect. Kinda puts a damper on your fears, doesn't it?

Few scars from Wabamun spill


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Actually Mark, you might want to read about the huge oil spill about 40 miles from my home 10 years ago. I have many friends that have summer cottages on Wabamun lake that is much bigger than LAC Mégantic and they are back boating and swimming and the summer village is as active as before the spill. And, yup, they soaked it up and moved on with little ill effect. Kinda puts a damper on your fears, doesn't it?
> 
> Few scars from Wabamun spill


Nope- still concerned. Great that the massive mitigation effort managed to clean up the lake to that extent within only a couple of years. Note also the kind of contaminant (light fuel oil and pole treatment oil), which may have been a factor in the cleanup success. I see from the article you linked that the cottage residents' committee hadn't given their opinion, waiting for an independent review of the cleanup report. Some folks weren't happy that CN wasn't pursued more aggressively / faced only a single charge. So it's not all roses.

An article from August (2015) looking back on the Wabamun spill contains unsettling details: that the rail cars were "thundering" through the area, and narrowly missed taking out some of the cottages / homes:

_"You could see the oil just pouring in to people's properties. You could see how close the cars flew and almost took out people's cabins, with people in them."

On August 3, 2005, an early-morning CN train was thundering down the tracks that run along the north edge of the lake, on its way from Edmonton to the west coast.

At 5:40 a.m., the train hit a faulty rail — a section of worn-out track within which fractures had been slowly forming for years. Forty-three cars left the tracks, some spilling their contents into the ditch along the track.

* * *​
Many people were angered by the way CN handled the disaster. Initially, the focus was put on stopping the spread of the bunker oil, which was highly visible on the lake. The company knew about the spill of toxic PTO by the afternoon of the spill — still, it wasn't until days later that the PTO spill, and the potential for health effects, were announced.

Days after the spill, residents of Wabamum Lake formed a blockade over the tracks, accusing CN of being more concerned with restoring rail service than stopping the spread of the oil. The blockade ended after the company promised to meet with the public.

*Province unprepared for spill*

The Wabamun Lake derailment revealed just how unprepared the province was for such a disaster. Despite an economy that relied heavily on the oil-and-gas industry, Alberta did not have booms to contain oil slicks in water. Instead, they had to be brought in from other areas.

A Transportation Safety Board report into the derailment found that CN did have an emergency plan to respond to the spill...

* * *​
Workers removed the oil via vacuum trucks and by hand. Even so, the cleanup took years: while the lake was re-opened a year after the spill, the Alberta government was issuing health warnings about tar balls and oil sheen as recently as 2007.

In the end, CN estimates it spent $28 million on cleaning Wabamun Lake, on top of the $7.5 million in compensation it paid out to property owners. In 2009, the company was fined $1.4 million for its part in the disaster.

*A lake's lasting legacy*

At the time of the spill, Goss was a vocal critic of the company's "poor" response. But now, a decade later, he says Wabamun is healthy again. And he credits the company for eventually cleaning the water and providing what he sees as fair compensation.

Monitoring of the lake suggest it is doing well since the spill, but is still in need of protection. 

* * *

While the sheen is off the lake, Brenda McDonald says *Wabamun has not fully recovered from what happened a decade ago.

"We can still walk in from this beach and come out with tar balls on our feet," she said.

"So you are always very careful about your belongings, your towels, the kids, you know, are they getting oil on their feet? Because a lot of it is still buried in the sand."*

The CN tracks on the north side of Wabamun Lake are also still there, still used by trains carrying petroleum and other cargo west from Edmonton — a concern for McDonald and others on the lake who worry about the future of their lake._​


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, there is that, but how many businesses burned, homes were lost, deaths occurred? No one can argue with any success that rail is safer than pipelines and since oil will remain our main energy source for another century at least, not using pipelines seems to me to be completely irresponsible. It is by far the lesser of evils to transport a product that is not going away any damn time soon.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

What evidence do you have that a pipeline would have been built within a hunnert miles of the lake?



CubaMark said:


> Well, actually fellas, given that LAC Mégantic is, y'know, a LAKE, and from what I can tell from the Google Map of the area, the rail line runs along the shoreline for a considerable distance, a pipeline spill would likely not be a "soak up and move on" sort of situation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Imagine how much smaller this disaster would have been if the 72 tankers worth of oil had been in a pipeline instead of on rails.





FeXL said:


> What evidence do you have that a pipeline would have been built within a hunnert miles of the lake?


It is irrelevant if the oil spilled in Lac Mégantic came from rail cars or a pipe line.

The oil spilled in Lac Mégantic came form North Dakota's Bakken Field. The Bakken Field's fracked oil has high levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) and a flash point of only 23ºC. By comparison a refined product(s) Diesel fuel has a flash point 52ºC, Jet Fuel 38ºC.

23ºC temperatures during the summer and VOC's wafting to an ignition source in or near a populated area, what are the chances of a fire?

If a fire started as it did Lac Mégantic with Bakkin crude pumping from a ruptured pipeline in or near a populated centre, I should think the volumes of fuel would be greater, whether near a water course or not.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I disagree. It's entirely likely that a pipeline wouldn't have comes within miles of Lac Mégantic. Therefore, no possible chance of an explosion ripping through the town & causing the damage that the loaded railcars did. Add up all this shoulda, woulda, coulda about pipelines at Lac Mégantic & you still get sweet FA.

We can speculate as much as we want what may have happened & it means bugger all. All we can be sure of is what actually did happen.

In addition, as far as your observations about a 23° flashpoint, underground pipelines would not be exposed to the sun & therefore the oil would be transported at a lower, safer temperature. Contrast this to riding the rails in a jet black tanker in the bright, hot sun. Once again, the pipeline is superior.



BigDL said:


> It is irrelevant if the oil spilled in Lac Mégantic came from rail cars or a pipe line.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> I disagree. It's entirely likely that a pipeline wouldn't have comes within miles of Lac Mégantic. Therefore, no possible chance of an explosion ripping through the town & causing the damage that the loaded railcars did. Add up all this shoulda, woulda, coulda about pipelines at Lac Mégantic & you still get sweet FA.
> 
> We can speculate as much as we want what may have happened & it means bugger all. All we can be sure of is what actually did happen.
> 
> In addition, as far as your observations about a 23° flashpoint, underground pipelines would not be exposed to the sun & therefore the oil would be transported at a lower, safer temperature. Contrast this to riding the rails in a jet black tanker in the bright, hot sun. Once again, the pipeline is superior.


Sadly once again an over reaction totally off the scale.

You know your always correct every time you make a pronouncement. 

Why fly off the handle when some relevant information is provided regarding a hypothetical situation?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Sadly once again an over reaction totally off the scale.
> 
> You know your always correct every time you make a pronouncement.
> 
> Why fly off the handle when some relevant information is provided regarding a hypothetical situation?


That was an interesting post BigDL. I learned something about Bakken oil that I did not know before.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> I disagree. It's entirely likely that a pipeline wouldn't have comes within miles of Lac Mégantic.


Two things:

1/ rail lines are typically laid along the best, shortest route from point A to B. Pipelines generally follow the same logic.

2/ environmental concerns, as we have seen on multiple occasions (the best recent example being the Enbridge fiasco noted above), rarely come into play as these pipeline builders look to lower costs and maximize profits. In that scenario, running the pipeline right along the shore or even across the lake (as the Lake Huron / Lake Michigan pipeline - which some anticipate to be ready any day now for a catastrophic failure - runs) is business as usual.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oil that spills from pipelines and even wells themselves CAN be cleaned up. Even the Gulf of Mexico has not died due to the big spill. Rail disasters like Lac Mégantic can't be cleaned up, other than the physical mess. The dead are still dead. The memories never fade. Why is that point so lost on educated people who oppose pipelines? It is by far the safest way to move crude and once again there is no damn way we will not be using petroleum for another century at least. Any realist knows, but fails to acknowledge that in arguing against pipelines. Do they think the wind is going to push supply ships around the world, or semis along highways or even get you to work on city streets? Or power the equipment required to raise mankind's food? It is unbelievable that smart people can't seem to grasp that reality.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Even the Gulf of Mexico has not died due to the big spill.


Don, the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010 continues to be the cause of dead zones, mass die-offs of ocean life, continued contamination of coastal areas. Here are some recent studies:

_In 2012, tar balls continued to wash up along the Gulf coast[216][217][218][219] and in 2013, tar balls could still be found in on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts, along with oil sheens in marshes and signs of severe erosion of coastal islands, brought about the death of trees and marsh grass from exposure to the oil.[220] In 2013, former NASA physicist Bonny Schumaker noted a "dearth of marine life" in a radius 30 to 50 miles (48 to 80 km) around the well, after flying over the area numerous times since May 2010.[221][222]

In 2013, researchers found that oil on the bottom of the seafloor did not seem to be degrading, and observed a phenomenon called a "dirty blizzard": oil in the water column began clumping around suspended sediments, and falling to the ocean floor in an "underwater rain of oily particles." The result could have long-term effects because oil could remain in the food chain for generations.

A 2014 bluefin tuna study in Science found that oil already broken down by wave action and chemical dispersants was more toxic than fresh oil. A 2015 study of the relative toxicity of oil and dispersants to coral also found that the dispersants were more toxic than the oil.

A 2015 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published in PLOS ONE, links the sharp increase in dolphin deaths to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill._ (Wikipedia)​
Also, this article from 23 Sept 2015: *BP To Provide $134M To Help Gulf Of Mexico Recover From 2010 Oil Spill*



SINC said:


> Rail disasters like Lac Mégantic can't be cleaned up, other than the physical mess. The dead are still dead. The memories never fade. Why is that point so lost on educated people who oppose pipelines? It is by far the safest way to move crude...


Note that I am not ideologically opposed to pipelines. I'm opposed to lax government regulation, low safety standards, and companies with proven histories of lying to / misleading the public regarding their construction, monitoring and response plans.



SINC said:


> It is unbelievable that smart people can't seem to grasp that reality.


 "smart" people... (thanks, I think?) We try to grasp the whole, not the slice that manipulative corporations and compromised politicians put on show.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I have no idea what you are on about.

I gave a measured response, clearly indicating the folly of including "what if" scenarios & somehow it's off the scale?

Grow a thicker skin.



BigDL said:


> Sadly once again an over reaction totally off the scale.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

As to 1, no, railways are not. Typically they follow the most level route, with the least change in topographical relief. Railways will go miles around a hill rather than climb up & back down it. Plus, you can't climb straight over mountains. They require miles & miles of slight grade changes, often in a spiral.

In addition, you don't see many large, petroleum carrying pipelines going through major centers, unless there happens to be a refinery there. Otherwise, the builders will seek the area of least resistance, which will be around a town or city.

As to 2, environmental concerns can be dealt with if proper installation, maintenance & repair are insured. If the companies have little motivation then, yes, some will game the system. That's not a fault of the physical pipeline.

As to your idle speculation about imminent catastrophe, that's all it is: idle speculation



CubaMark said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1/ rail lines are typically laid along the best, shortest route from point A to B. Pipelines generally follow the same logic.
> 
> 2/ environmental concerns,


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Maybe where you live, tain't like that everywhere. 

But again everything you say, at least in your mind, is golden. So we all shall endure.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> As to 1, no, railways are not. Typically they follow the most level route, with the least change in topographical relief. Railways will go miles around a hill rather than climb up & back down it. Plus, you can't climb straight over mountains. They require miles & miles of slight grade changes, often in a spiral.


Oh, FFS! Captain Obvious. You could, had you given it a wee bit of thought, interpreted my statement *"laid along the best, shortest route" * as including "level" and "not going over bloody mountains".

It often appears that you simply _argue for the sake of arguing. _


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I accept posts at face value & interpret nothing. It leads to idle speculation & a whole ton of grief. Look around you, it happens on a regular basis here.. 

If you can't be clear in your statement in the first place, don't waste your time.



CubaMark said:


> You could, had you given it a wee bit of thought, interpreted my statement [


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

Flail away...



BigDL said:


> But again everything you say, at least in your mind, is golden.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

FeXL said:


> I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
> 
> Flail away...


Yet another gem...in your mind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Yet another gem...in your mind.


Yet another gem...from the SD.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yet another gem...from the SD.


Good buddy pleased to hear from you again. Is there a disturbance in the force to rouse you so early, causing you to use truncated terms, good friend?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

BigDL said:


> Yet another gem...in your mind.


Lessee, I know I can find it somewhere... Ah, yes, here it is!



BigDL said:


> Well there goes the neighbourhood, any hope for a reasonable discussion...


Hypocrite.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Sadly once again an over reaction totally off the scale.
> 
> You know your always correct every time you make a pronouncement.
> 
> Why fly off the handle when some relevant information is provided regarding a hypothetical situation?


You mean like we know you're always incorrect? Not knowing basic grammar and the difference between 'your' and 'you're'? Kind of turns me away from any opinion you spout.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

Who needs Muslim terrorists? Harpers safety regulation cutbacks were responsible for this disaster.

Glad we got rid of him for a multitude of reasons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nope. You are wrong.



MazterCBlazter said:


> Harpers safety regulation cutbacks were responsible for this disaster.
> 
> Glad we got rid of him for a multitude of reasons.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Driver, owner of train in Lac-Megantic disaster added to class action lawsuit | The Chronicle Herald


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't really understand how CP could in any way be held responsible for this disaster.

They had handed off the train to MMA, they don't own MMA or any part of it, as far as I know the disaster was caused by:
a. The firemen turning off a loco to extinguish a small blaze thus reducing the air presure on the brakes to hold the train
b. Not enough mechanical brakes being applied to hold the train with the loco air pressure off
c. The MMA employee who was called when the loco fire was being extinguished not knowing that the loco had to be idling to maintain the pressure to hold the train.

CP is the only company still involved that have any money so lawyers are going after them - but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

krs said:


> CP is the only company still involved that have any money so lawyers are going after them - but that doesn't make it right.


This.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Evil pricks.* 

*Quebec Bar ignored warning Lac-Mégantic victims were being 'harassed' by lawyers*










The body that oversees Quebec's legal profession admits it could have done a better job protecting victims of the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster from a notorious ambulance chaser who descended on the Quebec town to sign up bereaved clients with American lawyers after the deadly derailment.

There were no red flags," says Claudia Prémont, who headed Quebec's bar association until recently. "No one — not the mayor, not the evacuees nor the relatives of those who were killed — picked up the phone to call us and say, 'We need your help.'"

However, the bar association didn't intervene after it was made aware of allegations of solicitation and "disturbing" tactics used by lawyers in the days after a runaway train exploded in Lac-Mégantic, incinerating the town centre and killing 47.

Radio-Canada's investigative program Enquête has obtained a copy of the 2014 letter, sent to the bar association by a witness to the events, which describes locals "in tears" and "at wit's end" after being "harassed" by lawyers.

Those lawyers promised the families of the dead payouts of millions of dollars if they signed on to file lawsuits in U.S. courts.

The bar association could not explain why it did not follow up on the 2014 letter.

Enquête reported in March that one questionable Texas law firm may have pocketed between $10 and $15 million in fees without having done any significant legal work in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Willie Garcia, the man behind the Garcia Law Group, is widely seen as one of the biggest ambulance chasers — also known as a case runner — in the U.S.

(Read more at: CBC)​
*Related:* Tears, exemptions as jury selection gets underway in Lac-Mégantic rail disaster trial - Montreal - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's true that filing suit in the US can net big payouts. But how can the Quebec bar regulate US ambulance chasers?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Irving Oil fined after pleading guilty in 2013 Lac Megantic disaster*

Irving Oil has been ordered to pay $4 million after pleading guilty to 34 counts stemming from the 2013 rail disaster in Lac Megantic, Que.
The offences were committed over eight months, from November 2012 to July 2013 involving transportation of approximately 14,000 rail cars of crude oil for Irving Oil.

On July 6, 2013, a train carrying 7.7 million litres of crude oil sped toward the small Quebec town at 104 km/h before derailing, killing 47 people in the resulting fire and explosions.

The federal Public Prosecution Service said Thursday that a provincial court judge in Saint John, N.B., ordered Irving Oil to pay fines totalling $400,320.

It will also pay a contribution of nearly $3.6 million for the implementation of research programs in the field of safety standards under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and its regulations.

Following the train derailment in Lac Megantic, an investigation by Transport Canada and the RCMP revealed that Irving Oil had not complied with all applicable safety requirements by not classifying the crude oil being carried by train as a dangerous good.

In addition, the shipping documents on board the trains were incorrect.

The statement also says Irving Oil did not adequately train its employees in the transportation of dangerous goods, thereby committing an offence under the Act.
(CTV)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the offenses were committed deliberately, that's not a high enough fine.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

What triggered this whole disaster was the local firemen shutting off one of the locomotives because of a small fire (which was standard procedure) but then the railway sent some employee who was a track worker I believe - the point is that he didn't know that the idling engine (that was shut off) was required to maintain brake pressure.
So after a while, after everyone had left the parked train, the pressure in the brake lines dropped enough to allow the train to start to roll down the hill towards the town.
I never read the conclusion about how many mechanical brakes were set on the cars and if that should have been enough to hold the train.
One key element that caused the disaster was that nobody woke the train engineer when the fire occurred or had someone qualified from the railroad to secure the train after the loco was turned off.

I was actually surprised that there was no requirement by Transport Canada to place a brake block on the rails - that would have been a two minute exercise and woyuld have prevented this disaster. I don't think one should ever depend on an idling loco to keep a train like that parked over night.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*'It broke their lives': Lac-Mégantic residents support acquittals of MMA rail workers* - CBC News

Residents in Lac-Mégantic say they support the decision of the jury to acquit three former Montreal, Maine and Atlantic (MMA) railway employees charged with criminal negligence causing death in the 2013 rail disaster.

Many in the town say they believe it's not the three accused who deserved to be on trial for their part in the tragedy that killed 47 people, instead pointing the blame at those much higher up the corporate ladder.​
*Lac-Megantic residents say wrong people accused, company responsible for disaster* | National Post

A Quebec man whose kid sister was one of 47 people killed in the Lac-Megantic tragedy says the three men acquitted Friday should have never been put on trial.

“I think, very sincerely, that since the day of the accident, these people have been living in purgatory and it must have been extremely difficult,” Bernard Boulet told The Canadian Press. “I’m happy these three people are free.”

A jury found Tom Harding, Richard Labrie and Jean Demaitre not guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people in connection with the July 2013 train derailment and subsequent explosion.

Boulet says he agrees with the verdicts.

“It was an unfortunate accident,” said Boulet, himself a former railway traffic controller. “It was caused by nonchalance and an accumulation of events — by the nonchalance of the (rail company) owner, Edward Burkhardt.”

Before and during the trial, defence lawyers and Lac-Megantic residents often brought up Burkhardt’s name.

They insinuated it was he who was primarily responsible for the tragedy in his role as chairman of the now-defunct, Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, which owned the train and the tracks on which it derailed.​


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

In my view, the jury reached the correct verdict.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> In my view, the jury reached the correct verdict.


 I agree completely.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Rail line bypass for Lac Mégantic announced:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4203768/lac-megantic-railway-tracks-protest/


----------

