CTV W5 report: CN's string of derailments.

[CROR410]

CTV which is one of the bigger news outlets in Canada is doing one of its W5 reports on CN tonight:

http://www.ctv.ca/wfive

On the TV advertising the report, they show two guys walking the track and with no effort at all they were pulling out bolts and spikes with their hands.

I'm gonna record this one.

[Dieter]

If you don't live where you can receive The CTV Television Network, here are the links for the two part report "OFF THE RAILS" as seen on the news program "W-FIVE";

PART 1 -
clck here

PART 2 -
click here

Canadian National management declined the opportunity to present their side of the story on camera. You can read the CN Memo sent to W-FIVE regarding the incident at this link;
CN memo

Enjoy.

Dieter/

[Ken V]

Dieter: Thank you for providing these links. I watched W-FIVE on Saturday and it's good to be able to watch the sad, sad story again.

I regret to say I agree with Hunter Harrison's decision not to have a CN representative appear in an on camera interview. W-FIVE, like 60-Minutes, has been known to spin things to fit their own point of view rather than present both sides equally.

[Dieter]

Hello Ken! My pleasure.

This story cuts to the heart of the matter of a major problem in not only Canadian Railroading but to a lot of other places "South Of The Border" as well. It's too important a story to miss, regardless what railroad your interest lies in.

Yes, W-Five's staff can be as manipulative as 60 Minutes crews, however this kind of journalism is only successful by provoking an unanticipated respose from the subject. I'm in the business and I have to say that there's a time and a place for everything - including putting a bureaucrat or their spokesman up against the wall with not just tough questions, but the questions we all ask around the table, that few journalists have the guts to ask in a Press Conference.

Harrison's decision was only based on protecting CN from likely impending lawsuits from survivor's familys. A spokesman would have only dug them into deeper trouble. When you get down to it, what could anyone say? Even a kid knows not to put a scale model W/O dynamic breaks on a mountain layout. Somebody clearly and callously did not care about what they were doing.

A question I would have asked the guy thrown clear; If you KNEW this was the wrong kind of unit for the job, WHY didn't you REFUSE to take it out on the road? Why didn't you just take one look at it, and march in the office and telephone the Union? There were THREE men on that train and they all knew the risk, and they still boarded and ran that train.

I began another thread on Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome in CN employees here, that didn't get very far. Here's a prime example that PTSS is nothing to joke about. The poor survivor of this wreck isn't even in any shape to mount a lawsuit against a mailbox, and I hope he sues CN and that they go after whomever is responsible at the decision making level.

His friend was oh so right when he asked management; "Does somebody have to be killed before something is done about it?" The problem at CN these days is, now fatalities don't have the same effect they used to.

Dieter/

[lock4244]

In Canada, lead units need to be equipped with certain provisions in order to lead... such as hotplates and microwaves. These are not safety issues but creature comforts that are the unions have bargained for in their collective agreements. The Railway agreed to this, likely in exchange for something else. Foreign power typically does not meet these agreements and therefore, can't lead in Canada if you go by the collective agreement. Yet, in southern Ontario, BNSF power leads trains on a nealy daily basis. I was in Paris, Ontario recently on CN's Dundas Sub and saw two trains in 5 hours with BNSF leaders... one was a solid set of BNSF power. From what I hear, if a crew refuses the unit as a leader, they are told "too bad, run them and file a greivence".

In that spirit, one could assume they take a similar stance on a crew complaining their power is unfit. I don't know for sure, but you have to remember the RR could take action against a crew for refusing power for any reason. There are a variety of ways they can make an employees' life difficult. It is not unreasonable to assume that they are wearing the crews down as well. Lets say the leader isn't fit to lead for whatever reason. Fine. While new power is being scrounged up the crew sits and wait, and waits, and waits for hours. They finally get on the road and die on the hours of service long before reaching the end terminal and have to wait for a taxi and end up having a very long day. Repeat this enough times and eventually that crew will say "the heck with it, lets just take this power and go, my kid is in the school play and I'm not going to miss it this time" or whatever. It happens. There was a time where an unfit leader (by union standards) did not lead in Canada... ever. Times have changed but the union agreements have not.

BTW, the GP40-2L involved in the wreck in BC wasn't being used on a road freight, it was being used in switching and local service (and the runaway involved the unit and one loaded lumber car). A crew would assume a non-dynamic equipped unit shouldn't be a problem for kicking cars in the yard. Most yard power isn't equipped with DB. I think the unit was overdue for maintenance... this has been stated before. Bad engine brakes and no train brakes (hoses usually not connected in switching operations).

There are reasons why a crew might take power that is unfit.

If any of this is incorrect, please correct me.

[nickleinonen]

In Canada, lead units need to be equipped with certain provisions in order to lead... such as hotplates and microwaves. These are not safety issues but creature comforts that are the unions have bargained for in their collective agreements. The Railway agreed to this, likely in exchange for something else. Foreign power typically does not meet these agreements and therefore, can't lead in Canada if you go by the collective agreement. Yet, in southern Ontario, BNSF power leads trains on a nealy daily basis. I was in Paris, Ontario recently on CN's Dundas Sub and saw two trains in 5 hours with BNSF leaders... one was a solid set of BNSF power. From what I hear, if a crew refuses the unit as a leader, they are told "too bad, run them and file a greivence".

when i was on nights outside testing the power on the outbound, i tested a few that had bnsf or up as leaders.. the way i was told, was we could lead a foreign out of the yard if there was no "CN" power in the consist. yeah, they don't have microwaves, hotplates or fridges, but not all of them are bad leaders [clean comfortable cabs]. they were only allowed to lead on FRA power [crossing the border into the usa] i tested a bunch of new bnsf es44's as leaders, and a few of them had fridges. while i am not a hogger, so i can't speak for them, but i would rather a newer unit [like an es44ac/dc] leading than an old beat up sd/gp/40/50/60... now i have tested the old beat up foreign power on dispatch, and was not impressed with the power at all, but the crew still did take it

BTW, the GP40-2L involved in the wreck in BC wasn't being used on a road freight, it was being used in switching and local service (and the runaway involved the unit and one loaded lumber car). A crew would assume a non-dynamic equipped unit shouldn't be a problem for kicking cars in the yard. Most yard power isn't equipped with DB. I think the unit was overdue for maintenance... this has been stated before. Bad engine brakes and no train brakes (hoses usually not connected in switching operations).

the gp40's all have poor brakes. the trucks are so worn out that the brake shoes only half touch the wheels. if the unit is an outpost engine, it probably was overdue for servicing, but that doesn't mean it has not been maintained.. my shop does outpost servicing for bit, malport, mimico, oshawa and there is a full time machinist who services oakville and the other small outposts west/south west of there.. on sunday i serviced the malport set [4114 & 7056 i believe] and they are both overdue servicing if you look at the paperwork for them. i do the usual stuff to them [check oils & water, change brake shoes and do a brake test] and do any repairs that i can do on site.. the 7000 is overdue a yearly inspection by +20 days, but everything is in good order on it to keep it working [it does have a shattered bay window glass, but that won't prevent it from being a trail unit] and the 4114 is an ok unit too.. both show them being overdue for a "444" servicing done at a shop.. but i do my best to complete my inspection on them

[Dieter]

On April 21st, CTV's W-5 program had an update segment on this tragic story.



Text from the CTV News Website;
Click here for details.

V I D E O Part 1;
Click to view.

V I D E O Part 2;
Click to view.

Part 2 includes footage from several recent wrecks on CN.

D/

[Sylvain727]

I think the Canadian National should correct his rail sections for it have fewer derailments.

The year of 2005 it is one very,very bad year for the CN with derailments from coast to coast in Canada.

CN must correct and verify its railroads to decrease the number of derailments on their network.

The CN must thinking to rail safety for his residents and industries who exist along his track and fewer spills in the nature and water streams.

The CN must thinking to rail safety before profits. In my opinion,it's more important to secure residents and industries who was installed along or near the CN railroad tracks across Canada and the United States that the profits.