Allandale25
Senior Member
Haven't seen any pics yet if the actual train carrying the minerals. I'm sure out there. Have you seen any @smallspy @crs1026 @Northern Light ?
Haven't seen any pics yet if the actual train carrying the minerals. I'm sure out there. Have you seen any @smallspy @crs1026 @Northern Light ?
View attachment 588936
Good to see. I doubt the previous condition of the line would have allowed that level of tonnage on an economic scale. Interesting that it sounds like they are going after the arctic re-supply market as well. Currently, pretty much everything that isn't flown into the eastern arctic is shipped from Montreal.Found pictures in this article:
![]()
PORT OF CHURCHILL TAKES MAJOR STEP FORWARD WITH NEW CRITICAL MINERALS EXPORT INFRASTRUCTURE — Arctic Gateway Group
AGG announced today that it has completed construction of a dedicated facility that will play a major role in the export of critical minerals through Churchill.www.arcticgateway.com
The context the bridge is just a symptom. Granted, a great big symptom, but from a safety, state-of-good-repair perspective, a component failure on a bridge is essentially no different than one on a rail connection or a coupler. It can lead to something simply becoming loose, to displaced to complete structural failure.I ask because it is not something that happens often, as apposed to the crashes that used to happen with airlines and the food poisonings.
TBH, I cannot think of the last time a bridge collapsed like this or worse. I was hoping someone might know so that this can be put into context.
Found pictures in this article:
![]()
PORT OF CHURCHILL TAKES MAJOR STEP FORWARD WITH NEW CRITICAL MINERALS EXPORT INFRASTRUCTURE — Arctic Gateway Group
AGG announced today that it has completed construction of a dedicated facility that will play a major role in the export of critical minerals through Churchill.www.arcticgateway.com
(Video)
"Significant damage in Ayr - flipped rail cars and smashed equipment."
From the above: (extracted still)
View attachment 588959
- Tornado flipped train and other major equipment.
Some location context for those going 'where'?
View attachment 588960
Good to see. I doubt the previous condition of the line would have allowed that level of tonnage on an economic scale. Interesting that it sounds like they are going after the arctic re-supply market as well. Currently, pretty much everything that isn't flown into the eastern arctic is shipped from Montreal.
The context the bridge is just a symptom. Granted, a great big symptom, but from a safety, state-of-good-repair perspective, a component failure on a bridge is essentially no different than one on a rail connection or a coupler. It can lead to something simply becoming loose, to displaced to complete structural failure.
Quite frankly, in the recent past, certainly since most health units implemented publicly posting the inspection status, I don't recall a rash of food poisonings at eateries. I assume they simply determined that inspections and posting the results were good public health policy.
It is these extreme storms that test whether we are ready for climate change. "100 year storms" are becoming more frequent. Whether it be the floods in Toronto that have been less than 20 years apart and they would be considered 100 year storms or this one, we have much to harden for them. This can be compared to the joke that if you are experiencing a higher call volume than normal all the time, it is the new normal.
There is an industrial spur in AyrFrom the above: (extracted still)
View attachment 588959
- Tornado flipped train and other major equipment.
Some location context for those going 'where'?
View attachment 588960
How do you define "that bad"? Obviously, no one would knowingly allow a bridge, etc. to be unsafe, but non-destructive testing and visual inspections have their limits. If they pick some arbitrary line, like 'every bridge must be replaced after 50 years', you hasten a line to potentially become unprofitable faster and an unprofitable line is an abandoned line. It's a lot more common in aviation when certain components are replaced at 'x' hours, period, and that is baked into the cost of flying.This goes to my thinking that we should not allow rail companies to allow the tracks to get that bad. It could mean missing the rise of an economic windfall. Railways were put in to do the heavy lifting.
I was obviously not making a direct comparison.That is what I mean, but not necessarily so obvious. We don't need inspection reports posted at each bridge. Yes the rail companies should be doing regular inspections, but there also should be an independent inspection as well that reports to the rail company and Transport Canada. I await any changes that might come from this that are made public.
This is great to see. Unlike previous proposals to use Churchill to transport oil or LNG out of Western Canada this new plan has little direct environmental risk.Good to see. I doubt the previous condition of the line would have allowed that level of tonnage on an economic scale. Interesting that it sounds like they are going after the arctic re-supply market as well. Currently, pretty much everything that isn't flown into the eastern arctic is shipped from Montreal.