Railroad Forums 

  • What's next for MMA?

  • Discussion of present-day CM&Q operations, as well as discussion of predecessors Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (BAR).
Discussion of present-day CM&Q operations, as well as discussion of predecessors Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) and Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (BAR).

Moderator: MEC407

 #1238584  by CN9634
 
Well for what it's worth, from what I understood of a conversation I had with someone, the problem with Irving wasn't the Moosehead not being profitable (with overhead traffic) but the town of Lac Megantic and the politics surrounding that. They want to ship crude by rail again... and a lot of it. They didn't want to deal with the politics of connecting the line back together... however if you notice, Keach and Co pushed back the date of the auction about a month. All while this was going on, they also connected the line back to the Industrial park, while veeeerrryyy quietly connecting the two halves again. When they ran the first train to Tafisa, well what do you know, they also ran a lite power move to and from Maine. The residents won't know the difference anyways... early January is the next move across Maine and from what I'm told, dry goods will return. The deal with the MMA and the Town of Lac Megantic is specifically written that it is non-binding for the next owner of the line. I think once they start running trains (MMA will run the line until March 14th, the date the transaction is scheduled to be complete), people will be less hesitant to the trains coming back.

The long and short of this is that, Irving may very well change their mind. My conversation took place before the two halves were reconnected and from what was understood, we thought that wouldn't happen for quite some time. Keach knows the value of the Moosehead is only if the two parts are connected again so I believe he made it a priority and now the line is much more marketable. Only time will tell now and we will know by Jan 21st what happens.
 #1239058  by MEC407
 
Moderator Note:

The recent posts related to the Lac-Mégantic disaster have been moved to the Lac-Mégantic thread.
 #1239064  by fogg1703
 
Thank you Mr Moderator. I think everyone has had ample opportunity to state their case.
As far as interest in the Moosehead, why would any entity show their hands? Detailing publically how viable the line could be might create more interest ie possible higher cost due to multiple bids.
 #1239431  by CN9634
 
fogg1703 wrote:Thank you Mr Moderator. I think everyone has had ample opportunity to state their case.
As far as interest in the Moosehead, why would any entity show their hands? Detailing publically how viable the line could be might create more interest ie possible higher cost due to multiple bids.
Some of the bidders are the usual suspects, as well as a few that you would not expect. I think after the deal is done, we will know exactly all the parties interested (Not that it will matter at that time)
 #1239570  by JB283
 
Who are these bidders? I have looked online and googled it but come up empty handed every time.
 #1239715  by JB283
 
Ok, thank you. So who are we speculating? Any big names? CP? CN? Or maybe another big name in railroading?
 #1240668  by Zeke
 
There are two rather damning articles on Railwayage.com today basically taking the TSB and the Canadian governments vested interest in keeping the Bakken oil flowing, to task. The other article points to the load out operators and receivers playing fast and loose with the Haz/Mat classifications with more detailed info. The MMA is saying if they knew the crude involved in the Megantic disaster was highly volatile they would have handled the movement of the oil traffic differently. Also the tank cars being used are rotting out faster due to the high concentrations of sulfide and the fact they should be using high pressure tanks used for highly flammable product instead of the 111 tanks in their fleet. Various agency's seem to be pointing fingers at the shippers and receivers. The carriers are looking like they may slip the bullet on this one. Legally the burden lies with the shippers to tell them ( RR ) the product offered for transport is classified properly. So it appears the MMA 's defense may reduce their legal culpability, not that they would have the money to pay out the final judgments, if it went against them. The lawyers have struck gold it seems. Can someone with more computer skills than I link the two articles here ?
Last edited by Zeke on Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1240748  by Cowford
 
I would imagine crude is one of the more challenging products to classify, as it's heterogeneous, i.e., it's a complex hydrocarbon mixture that varies from field-to-field (and from well-to-well?) And "overclassifying" a product to be on the safe side is technically as illegal as underclassifying it. With flammable liquids, there is no test to determine whether a product is explosive, per se. Rather, there are two tests (boiling point and flash point) that together determine which of three degrees of hazard (packing groups (PG) I, II, and III) a product should be assigned. That said, if anyone is responsible for intentionally misclassifying this product, they should certainly be punished from both criminal and civil perspectives.

From everything I've read, the initial conclusion is that the product should have be classified as a PG II rather than PG III. If it was a PG II, how would the railroad have acted differently? Asked a different way: If this was an ethanol (Class 3, PG II flammable liquid) train or mixed freight with 20 cars of propane (flammable gas, hazard division 2.1), would it have been covered under different train handling/tie-down instructions?
 #1240767  by Backshophoss
 
Figure on a new Hazard class for"Petroleum,Crude Oil-Fracked"to be created real soon,in light to what has happened at Lac-Megantic
and Casselton ND,NTSB along with the FRA will most likely require the Drillers(Shipper) to have a lab report with the B/L as part of the
shipping paperwork for Balken Crude and a updated version of the MSDS to boot.

MM&A has "Self Embargoed" itself from handling crude oil for now,that will change after the sale on the court house steps.
 #1240892  by KEN PATRICK
 
i find the posts relative to 'proper' classifications to be off-point. would any other classification have prevented these two railroad accidents? i think not. unfortunately, as i have posted earlier, railroad operations management is at fault, not lading classification. one need only look at the moribund thinking about equipment, hos and lane control to appreciate how this arcane environment can generate these instances. ken patrick
 #1241097  by Zeke
 
In one of the articles the MMA is saying they would have handled the train differently, sounds like a case of CYA. They may hope than can snow a jury of unwashed civilians with that line but I place the blame on them for the derailment. What would they have done differently ? I'd sure like to see at least a prelim or overview of the accident from the TSB. We are going on 6 months now. This case is going to make a lot of lawyers bank accounts swell to the bursting point.
 #1241418  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Inevitable:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1635384130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brief passage:

  • Currently, there is about $1.5 billion liability insurance available for a big North American railroad, Mr. Beardsley says. The worst-case accident scenario "is multiples of that," he says.

    Railroads are required by law to transport hazardous materials, which include crude oil. And when they haul it, they are liable for it.

    Recent events underscore the perils. In the past two months, there have been three fiery oil-train derailments besides that in Lac-Mégantic: one in Alabama in November, one in North Dakota at the end of December and one just Tuesday at Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, near Maine.

    Though these didn't involve injuries, they showed another peril, an unexpected volatility in crude-oil cargoes. And two of the three involved not small railroads like the one that derailed in Lac-Mégantic but major railroads.

    Says E. Hunter Harrison, chief executive of Canadian Pacific "I've been through this for 50 years. When the phone rings at 3 o'clock in the morning, I get jumpy. Even when I get calls after hours on the weekends, I say, 'Don't tell me.' "

    The recent accidents aside, rail transport is generally considered safe; more than 99% of hazardous rail shipments arrive safely. Indeed, it is this very safety that keeps railroads from being able to refuse to carry hazardous cargoes. They have a legal "common carrier" obligation to haul cargoes that barge and truck lines can turn down. Railroads haul 150 million tons of hazardous materials a year, a growing amount of it crude oil.

Got 'derailed' myself with a phone call. While Fair Use limits my quotation to that comprising a Brief Passage (actual term used within USC), this is interesting material. It even suggest that a Class I coul be 'tapped out' of insurance coverage.

note: this material is X-posted at several topics relating to handling of crude oil.
 #1242405  by MEC407
 
From The Portland Press Herald:
The Portland Press Herald wrote:Bids due this week for bankrupt Montreal, Maine & Atlantic railroad

The minimum bid for Maine-based Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways is $15.7 million, which reflects an initial “stalking horse” bid by Railroad Acquisition Holdings LLC. If additional bids are submitted by Friday’s deadline, then there will be a closed-door auction later this month in Portland.
Stay tuned!

Source: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Bids_du ... lroad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 31