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

july 5th? pity the shippers and railcar owners 'tied down' . is not it reasonable to think that mm&a could have pulled this train to some interchange, regardless of costs? i'm sure posters herein can suggest a move that would have freed this traffic. now that bankruptcy is in vogue, how do the affected parties get relief? the more i learn about mm&a the more i'm convinced that penny-wise was not their singular affliction. ken patrick

From The Portland Press Herald:

The Portland Press Herald wrote:Families of people who were killed in a fiery train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, last month likely are entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, according to a motion filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The motion argues that plaintiffs in a wrongful-death lawsuit against the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway have a right to participate in the Maine-based company's bankruptcy case, since they are expected to receive most of its remaining assets.
. . .
Federal law gives claimants in any wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuits against a railroad priority over other creditors in that railroad's bankruptcy reorganization. That does not include creditors on loans backed by specific collateral such as property or equipment.

According to the motion, filed on behalf of 33 of the 47 people who died in the derailment, explosion and fire on July 6, victims' claims likely will far exceed the railroad company's net worth.

"Given the horrific circumstances of the disaster and the debtor's role in it, wrongful death verdicts in the hundreds of millions of dollars can be expected," says the motion, filed by a Bangor attorney, George Kurr Jr.

Read more at: http://www.pressherald.com/news/victims ... 08-31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Possibly this link has been previously posted at the topic:

http://globalnews.ca/news/780822/money- ... p-railway/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brief passage:

• MONTREAL – The Quebec government added the Canadian Pacific Railway to its list of legal targets Wednesday, casting a wider net to recover millions of dollars in cleanup costs from the Lac-Megantic disaster.
  
  The big railway is now among several companies listed on a legal notice first issued last month by the provincial government, a document demanding that firms pay for the massive mop-up after millions of litres of crude oil gushed into the environment.
  
  CPR was included as one of the defendants because, the government said Wednesday, it was the main contractor responsible for the fateful shipment that was supposed to send the cargo from North Dakota to a New Brunswick oil refinery.

While I cannot hold the media outlet for acting in bad faith as they were only reporting news, I believe such reports are only 'fanning fires' and are only going to have the 1-800-INJURED segment of the legal profession giving ill informed plantiffs mis-information regarding indemnity on the part of a road that had interchanged cars to another. The government of Quebec should know better, but what else is new in the world of civil litigation.

CP has already stated that it holds no responsibility for the incident.

PBM

folks; as i posted earlier, this was a contractual deal between cpr & mma. not interchange. as such the government is correct in adding cpr to the clean-up list. and of course cpr will state that it is not liable. what else could they say? i thought that irving would also be included because they owned the oil. i guess they had an acceptance window and they hadn't accepted before the accident.
as for the train stuck in the east since 7/5 i posted that they should turn the cars over to an interchange railroad. i suspect that this train was largely empties so there is no billing revenue left for the interchanged railroad. all billing includes a empty free return. mma took all the revenue on the loaded move and obviousy accrued nothing for the costs of the return. now their bankrupt so the car owners are in limbo. the car owners need to deal with another railroad directly to go get the train and their cars. the mma was a messy operation. ken patrick

The only way I can see where the CP would be in any way held liable would be if the MMA was a haulage agent for them on these oil moves (i.e. not a line-haul carrier and not shown in the route) and said haulage agreement specifically stated that MMA would not be liable for any loss, regardless of responsibility/negligence. I highly doubt CP would enter into such an agreement.

"folks; as i posted earlier, this was a contractual deal between cpr & mma. not interchange...i thought that irving would also be included because they owned the oil."

C'mon, this is bunk at worst, conjecture at best. Mr. Patrick, when did you see (a) the freight contract governing the movement in question, (b) the bills of lading, (c) a supposed contract between CP and MMA... and NBSR? and (d) contract of sale between World Fuel and Irving in order to draw such conclusions?

Apparently you're assuming that CP's on the hook as they, as the origin road, established the freight rate and issued the freight bill. That they did so may be a safe assumption, but that doesn't establish a contractor-subcontractor relationship among the railroads in question. That's standard practice on prepaid interline moves, given railroads are compelled to standardized billing, collections and revenue disbursement procedures under AAR's Mandatory Railway Accounting and Interline System Settlement rules.

MEC407 wrote:Apparently the lack of a sufficient number of handbrakes on the Lac-Mégantic consist was not an isolated incident.

From GlobalNews:

GlobalNews wrote:Just east of Lac-Mégantic, another train run by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic railway has been sitting on the tracks at the Vachon station – around five kilometers away for the devastated town.

This second train, also owned by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic, was also at risk of rolling away.

Global News has received these new exclusive and shocking details related to the train explosion that destroyed Lac-Mégantic through the search warrant Transport Canada used to raid MMA’s head office.

This second train had been stationed since July 5th waiting for a crew change.

On the 8th of July, just a few days after the Lac Mégantic disaster, the Sûreté du Québec asked Transport Canada to inspect the train because they were concerned about it.

Information in the warrant shows the locomotives on that second train only had 5 handbrakes on – and there were none on the rail cars.

The rules ask for a minimum of nine brakes for trains parked on a flat land.

This train was parked on a slope.

That means there should have been even more than just those nine brakes applied.

Read more at: http://globalnews.ca/news/811131/anothe ... to-happen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Information that I read elsewhere was that the head end of the train was on a downward slope to the West, the rear of the train was on a downward slope to the East - the middle of the train was in the low spot of the two slopes - ie. the train was parked in a bowl with gravity working to keep the train stationary. Obviously this was not the case a Lac-Megantic, however, it does point up just how misleading such reports can be. Geography is a big factor in railroad operations in ALL aspects of movement or the ability to secure equipment.

"Information that I read elsewhere..."

Could you point out where you read that?

"...the head end of the train was on a downward slope to the West, the rear of the train was on a downward slope to the East..."

That describes a train sitting on the crest of a grade.

To reiterate and maybe recap, any of us here who have worked with Interline Settlements know that, absent some kind of fraud, only the hauling road is on tap for indemnity and that both the originating and intermediate roads are 'off the hook'. As such, I hold that originator (SOO) and intermediate (CP) are not looking at any exposure.

However, any here know of the deep pockets theory that injury lawyers play upon, parties not liable have been known to pony up to an injured one simply because the cost of defense would be greater than the damages being sought.

But here this hypothesis is hardly on the table, as what can be brought to the table, i.e. value of MMA/C properties - scrap or going concern as the case may be - plus insurance proceeds, is simply a drop in the pail for what is needed to satisfy all legitimate claimants.

Government and other injured parties suing CP? of course; those are some deep pockets. But deep pockets do not establish civil liability. No doubt government's action is based on hue and cry from the electorate to 'sue CP' and further brought about that guess who will be on tap if the legitimate claimants have a prayer of being satisfied? Uh, UNOHOO; 'Jean Q. Contribuable' and maybe even John Q Taxpayer.

Found this great video of CP Rail back in the 80's in Lac Megantic, Quebec. At 9:45 min. into the video you'll see an eastbound entering town on that steep grade where the crude oil train gained momentum before the wreck. Also, note the area in front of the railroad station what ended up being ground zero. Thanks to fmnut for the clip.
view in full screen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQyni_XD4E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cowford, norman et al i saw no paper but the various statements allude to a contractual relationahip. not the usual interline stuff . this was a step higher. i'm of the opinion that cp & company developed such a contract to memorialize operations. this was a unit train and, as such, cp had to contractually hold mma to performance standards. i know you people believe railroads operate at the highest standards but, sadly, that is far from the truth. railroads are full of people who operate in a vacuum. i tried to get the same performance standards as included in the conrail/ups contract. i failed even though we were paying more per car than ups. i think it near impossible for a small shipper- 3000 cars/year- to contract performance . cp is a party and correctly so. they should have injected their operations people into the lash-up that was mm&a. i'm confident that will be established in punitive award litigation. ken patrick

Interesting video. Looking at the topography, a rail bypass around Megantic is likely going to cost some big bucks.

As I suspected: Conjecture. Various statements "allude to" a contractual relationship? Oh man, there were also statements made assigning blam to the fire department that doused the flaming loco.

"this was a unit train and, as such, cp had to contractually hold mma to performance standards."

So by extension, all unit trains are subject to performance standards, and all such interline moves are made on a contractor-subcontractor basis?

Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler say it best: Really?!

doublestack wrote:Found this great video of CP Rail back in the 80's in Lac Megantic, Quebec. At 9:45 min. into the video you'll see an eastbound entering town on that steep grade where the crude oil train gained momentum before the wreck. Also, note the area in front of the railroad station what ended up being ground zero. Thanks to fmnut for the clip.
view in full screen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtQyni_XD4E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That video depicts 'small' people; none driving wheels much newer than ten years, living their lives centered around their Roman Catholic church, hanging their laundry out to dry (who does that in my neighborhood?), and otherwise injured by this American railroad 'cutting every corner there is to cut'. That they take their chance by ignoring X-ing signals is a sign of people who really haven't got all that much to live for. That indeed is quite a video; and could be used by various plaintiffs to 'smoke' some 'loons' from parties not legally liable; so beyond the road, MMA/C, and its insurer, Mr. Patrick's contention that other parties, even if not legally, could find themselves on tap, and accordingly, choose to pony up in the name of expediency.

KEN PATRICK wrote:cowford, norman et al i saw no paper but the various statements allude to a contractual relationahip. not the usual interline stuff . this was a step higher. i'm of the opinion that cp & company developed such a contract to memorialize operations. this was a unit train and, as such, cp had to contractually hold mma to performance standards. i know you people believe railroads operate at the highest standards but, sadly, that is far from the truth. railroads are full of people who operate in a vacuum. i tried to get the same performance standards as included in the conrail/ups contract. i failed even though we were paying more per car than ups. i think it near impossible for a small shipper- 3000 cars/year- to contract performance . cp is a party and correctly so. they should have injected their operations people into the lash-up that was mm&a. i'm confident that will be established in punitive award litigation. ken patrick

A plaintiff attorney could really have a jury sobbing as they walk into the Jury Room.