Oil train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Québec 07-06-2013

Perhaps what he means......Even if the brakes were accidentally released in the cab, it might never have moved if the train was then dumped and re-secured after the fire?

Hopefully,the TSB has interviewed all the Fire Dept members on what was done by each member at that engine fire scene.
Along with the MM+A employees that responded to that engine fire.
May there be a prelim report soon??

Gilbert B Norman wrote:What if MM&AC was properly insured. What if the insurer or their broker simply said this is the level you must have, in view of the volume of HAZMAT you are now handling, or we will not be party to writing you.

From my experience with trying to obtain increased limits for Railroad Liability insurance, the insurer may have simply said "this is the maximum level you can have, in view of the volume of HAZMAT you are now handling, or we will not be party to writing you." Various other insurers, like at Lloyd's of London, might offer more coverage, but at a high price.

m white are you stating that dumping the air would not hold the train? isn't this the same as doing an emergency application? aren't all brakes held against the wheels by the air in the brake cyclinders when the emergency portion of the brake valve is activated? also makes the application of manual brakes easier. so dump the air and crank on some mechanicals . fail-safe & quick. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote: isn't this the same as doing an emergency application? aren't all brakes held against the wheels by the air in the brake cyclinders when the emergency portion of the brake valve is activated? also makes the application of manual brakes easier. so dump the air and crank on some mechanicals . fail-safe & quick.

Opening an angle cock will cause an emergency application, also called "dumping the air". It is true that the air in the brake cylinders holds the shoes against the wheels but ONLY until the air in the car's reservoir is depleted to the point that an equilibrium is reached. The loss of air in the reservoir is typically caused by leakage around gaskets, fittings etc. This leakage occurs regardless of whether the brakes are in "full set" or "emergency". Thus, had these cars been dumped, they still could have released and rolled away. While it may be "quick", it is most definitely NOT "fail-safe".

Here is an Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) report on an accident caused in part by unintentional release of brakes left in emergency:

In addition to the 1 hand brake, the 13 cars were being secured by an emergency application of the train brake. However, over the next 31 hours, the air in the cars' brake cylinders bled off, reducing the effective braking force of those cars. When the braking force from the train brakes was sufficiently reduced, the retarding force of the 1 applied hand brake could not resist the gravitational force of the 13 loaded coal cars. The cut of cars then began to roll uncontrolled northward down the 1% grade.

The full report can be read here:
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 2e0004.asp

This should leave no doubt that dumping a train or cut of cars is nota fail-safe method to prevent runaways.

Here's a shocker. Betcha nobody saw this coming.

From CBC News
J.D. Irving eyeing railway involved in Lac-Mégantic crash

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... -sale.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... and to that you can add

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/08/19/b ... e-60-jobs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The mill in question is located in Ashland, which is served by ...

PBM

KEN PATRICK wrote:carroll; contractor/subcontractor cp & mm&a. third party and fob origin is the web that will draw cp into the clean-up and deaths. cp was responsible for mm&a actions. there's a few items to be checked but i'm guessing irving paid the third party who, in turn paid for the oil and cp.cp paid mm&a thereby establishing a liability link. this is why i opined that cp should quickly effect the clean-up. miminize the lost business exposure. sadly, this could have been avoided by opening an angle cock. ken patrick

Ken it doesn't matter who paid who for what. CP isn't on the hook for what happened on the MMAC that night. That liability link is bogus. It doesn't work as has been proven time and time again in the railroad world when 2nd, 3rd and more parties involved in derailments that were doing the same thing as MMAC was are the only ones that are held responsible. They and they alone pay-up. Pan Am paid for the clean up and transferring of product in the derailment along the Penobscot river back in I believe it was March, not BNSF the originating RR.

Anyway Ken, there is no way we are going to agree on this so, I can't see any point in us beating this around anymore. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that, okay?

Carroll

Once again, Mr. Patrick, I must concur with Mr. Carroll. Despite whatever the '1-800-INJURED' and 'Glen Lerner is the lawyer for you, call two, two, two, twenty two, twenty two' segment of the legal profession may banter about, the only parties on tap are the MM&AC and its insurer as well as MM&A (US) and their insurer. Absent fraud, such as the lading represented to be one thing but actually was something else, the shipper is not on tap, nor is the consignee, and whatever party (likely a commodity futures contract holder) actually owned the lading at the time of the incident. When a road has delivered a car or train of cars to another road in interchange, that delivering road is simply 'off the hook'. The reason that MM&A (US) is on the hook is because it is not a separate billing road from MM&AC. MM&AC exists only because of a bilateral treaty between the US and Canada stating that there must be a domestic corporation in each country to operate railroads belonging to each. Possibly with hindsight, Mr. Burkhardt should have established Boundary ME as an interchange between the two carriers to limit liability to one or the other, but it certainly appears that the 'horses are out of the barn' on that point.

Neither Mr. Burkhardt, the Engineer, Mr. Harding, Rail World, or their two overseas properties, have exposure to civil liability (all would have petitioned by now under US, Lithuanian, and Estonian law). Are they safe from criminal prosecution, well that's beyond my pay grade.

Mr. Carroll has set forth a wise thought; time to let this one go.

After reviewing this entire thread (and I take exception to a few of your I-35W comments, Mr. Patrick), I am interested to know whether we have any members admitted to the Quebec bar who would be willing to comment on Engineer Harding's exposure to personal liability. While several of our members are qualified lawyers, the Canadian bar is a different beast than the American, and the Québécois bar is doubly so. Also, for our Canadian railroaders, does the union cover some part of an agreement employee's liability in work-related lawsuits? I obviously don't know whether Mr. Harding is criminally liable (Guilty or a plea of Nolo Contendere) but this could have very major ramifications financially.

cp will bear the burden of this disaster. their july action to 'strengthen' operating practices just adds fuel. one must appreciate the fact that cp was the hauler of record. cp engaged mm&a on a sub-contract basis. cp was obligated to ensure sub-contractor performance met cp 'standards'. cp was obligated to ensure that mm&a had adequate insurance, proper equipment and suitable trackage. i recognize that many posts attempt to refute this with some mis-construed examples that attempt to equate a 'service' relationahip with a sub-contract relationahip. the cp contract will govern and assess the damages. ken patrick

Haven't we already established that CP handed off responsibility for this load when it interchanged the unit train with MM&A? A hefty donation to the people of Lac-Megantic would be a gracious gesture, but CP bears the same responsibility as does a dealer that sells a car to a future drunk driver with no knowledge of that person's habits - absolutely none.

For those who already have some experience with KEN PATRICK'S mode of posting, the maintenance of approach may seem unfortunate. For those with no prior experience, the pattern has already emerged: Make a statement in fully authoritative mode, then be countered by other posters and/or actual events, next reiterate the original thesis, then be again countered by other posters and/or actual events, and eventually go onto a completely different subject without the acknowledgement of other posters' more knowledge-based theses. The exchange about angle-cocks going back to 08-18 is illustrative.
My apologies for going OT and engaging in what might seem a personal attack. I live in the hope that railroad.net does not devolve into a troll site and that we all treat the site and each other as a means to exchange information instead of a means to seemingly to force information -- accurate and well-founded or otherwise -- into others' brains.

My reason for engaging in seemingly Sisyphean debate about angle cocks and dumping air as a means to hold a train is that there are others who are newer to the industry and less knowledgeable about the intricate workings of railroad technology. God forbid someone read such patently false claims and then perform such an action. This is not just another academic debate but truly a safety issue where, as we have seen in Lac Megantic, people's lives are at stake. Such misinformation can have devastating consequences.

I enjoy this site for its healthy debates, late breaking news, and the tremendous knowledge base of the participants. I come here to learn, and, hopefully, teach on occasion. I trust others do as well.

Can someone pleased post the Bills of Lading or other Shipping Instructions, the Waybill(s), Contracts, Tariffs, Agreements, or other applicable documents? I'm sure that the lawyers are already interested in these, to see if they lead into any deep pockets. Without that information, and a knowledge of Canadian and Quebec laws, we are guessing at what the real situation might be.
Has anyone besides the Province of Quebec officially tried to drag the Canadien Pacific into the legal liability?