News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.2K     0 

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 ?

Screenshot_2024-08-17_141132.jpg
 
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

Found pictures in this article:

 
Found pictures in this article:

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.

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.
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

True. The issue becomes whether the inspections are frequent enough to catch it before a collapse. As infrastructure ages, we need to catch these problems before they become failures.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
This was fascinating to watch. Documentary that focuses on transportation/ infrastructure in lesser developed countries. Each episode dedicated to a certain country. This episode focuses on Sumatra, Indonesia.

There is a segment of this episode that showcases a man and his motorized carriage on tracks. Later on in the episode they show how him and his crew improvise wood for missing tracks. Absolutely wild.

 
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.
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.

Risk management in this sense is a constant balance between good public policy and economic viability.

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.
I was obviously not making a direct comparison.

You will never see a return to a system of redundant inspections. The entire point of the SMS was to drive responsibility back to the operators under guise of a 'partnership'. The regulator (government) got to have a lot few inspectors. So-called 'independent' inspectors would essentially be government contract workers because they would have to operate under the authority of legislation and probably be twice as expensive.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top