Coal Train Derailment in Nashua 03-07-2013

[newpylong]

There is no risk - if they break it, they pay for it. The point of my previous reply was given the relatively slower speed of Pan Am versus other foreign railroads that NS power travels over, the risk of locomotive damage is minimized. But yes, the track conditions have improved over the past few years, still much to be desired though in places.

[neman2]

Gotta wonder if NS will continue to allow the "run-thru" of their power on these trains if Pan Am doesn't
upgrade their tracks somewhat?

Charlie

Every railroad has derailments... When they derail on the UP at 60 mph the mess is a little bit bigger than a few coal hoppers off the iron...

I would think (but I'm not 100% certain) that if another railroad's locomotive you are using is damaged as a result of track conditions on your railroad you are responsible for the damage.In the current situation where the engines are "trapped" until repairs are made Pan Am might be paying for locomotives that are idle.However they probably have agreements that cover these type of accidents that I know nothing about.If the track is bad enough to damage equipment frequently I would think money flowing out of Pan Am vs revenue coming in may be the decision maker.

[MEC407]

This photo tells two stories about what happens when locomotives are damaged or wrecked on someone else's railroad.

The CP unit was damaged (ruptured fuel tank and lots of "bumps and scrapes") when it derailed at East Deerfield. PAR (still Guilford at the time) had to haul it up to Waterville and repair it, on their own dime I assume.

The other locomotive in the photo, MEC 375, was completely destroyed a few months later while it was paying off horsepower hours to NS... so NS replaced it with an identical unit from their own roster, which became MEC 382.

[newpylong]

I was working the hump in Deerfield the night of that boo boo. EDMO corned a hazmat car at the west end of the yard. It was a big to-do.