[crs1026]

The issue of runaway parked trains seems more of a regulatory/compliance issue. It would seem a simple solution for shorter trains is don't park the damned things where they can roll away, setting more handbrakes or setting out derails. Very long trains in the mountains perhaps not so much. I know there is a science to handbrakes vs. weight or length but it strikes me that the interim order recently issued by TC will be a challenge to implement on very long trains, but again, not totally clear on the technology of railroading.

The Yoho incident happened pretty much at the Continental Divide. At that point, a rolling train heading for the Pacific is really just a falling object. But don’t assume that it’s only a problem in the west. The grade from Campbellville to Hamilton on CP is classed as a “mountain grade” and all the regulatory and company policies that apply out west also apply here. The Copetown and Milton grades are severe enough to represent risk to a parked train, as is the grade from Agincourt to North Toronto,, and from Staines Road down to Liverpool. I even know of a case where retainers (the thingy on the brakes that sets them for mountain conditions) were used on the Acton hill recently. The milder weather is the big advantage in the GTA, we don’t get prolonged cold at -25C, but that just encourages the railways to run longer trains.

The essence of compressed air technology is - in cold weather, the cylinders/pistons that drive the braking leak badly. Doesn’t really matter which way the spring works, the air can’t be maintained without replenishment. The traditional one-hose Westinghouse brake system has a fairly low capability to replenish, especially on a long train due to length of the brake line and all those leaky gaskets.

A system that lets the brakes bleed towards the ‘off’ position is the lesser evil for long freight trains, because there is less chance of dragging brakes on individual cars while the brakes are intentionally released and the train is moving......dragging brakes lead to hot wheels which leads to wheel failure - it’s a ‘pick your poison’ proposition.

The thing about these railway tragedies is, we know the likelihood of future events, and the probability is much greater than, say, an airliner crash on approach or takeoff from Pearson. After an event, the question that gets asked is, “did you know these vulnerabilities existed?”. The railways, the regulator, and the rest of us do know, and all that can be said is that we are applying any number of operational bandaids to the same old technology. Something more is needed.

- Paul

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

PS - re ECP - I'm told that the technology was deployed in coal service where rotary dumping was a requirement. The connections just couldn't handle this demand. As the connections wore, trains went into emergency more and more often whenever electrical continuity was broken. And there were sufficient occasions where a trainset had to be taken apart, or separated on its own, to convince the railways that the technology just wasn't workable.

The FRA-backed tests of the 1990s were primarily on unit coal trains in the east, yes. And the consensus was that while there were huge improvements in train handling and even slight increases in overall train throughput, that yes, the connectors were a problem and that technology still needed to catch up.

But that was also 30 years ago. There are now standards for CAT5 networks on board trains, along with ruggedized connectors. And there are a number of heavy-haul resource-based railways operating ECP-equipped trains around the world, including one long-term test here in Canada.

Of course, the fact that the industry has continued to push against the use of ECP is just another point towards your comment about using regulation as the stick, rather than the carrot. Witness: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/12/05-ecp-brake-rule

Dan

 

[steveintoronto]

Seeing as the decision that these shipments are happening by rail and not pipeline was made by the Liberals who were resoundingly supported by Toronto - it only seems fair that all these shipments are forced to go through Toronto.

Well, I was holding back from posting, but this comment takes the oily cake, and sets me up for what's to follow: Present Lib regime have a '$2.5B Surplus' at present. And they bought a pipeline that they never should have for approx $5B...don't get me started on the morality of a 'neutral player' doing that, let alone an absurdity as per market economy, something Alberta loves to preach, but be damned if they follow it when it doesn't go their way. Let THEM invest in a falling market, the future for the North Am market is still in easily recoverable oil, read shale, etc...but besides all of that, the "Libs" who some blame for the slanted market (the Libs are guilty of much, but to think the Cons are or have been any better on this file is pure fantasy)...the Libs should immediately earmark a good chunk of that surplus to go to the Infrastructure Bank for a Missing Link project to transform the safety and efficacy of Canada's rail infrastructure with many positive results. If the Libs are determined to slam a pipeline past the courts and prior stated terms of agreement with provinces, then they can "slam" a by-pass through York Region. "For the general advantage of Canada"!
The "Declaratory Power" in the Canadian Constitution

What's the difference? Far more are in favour than against in the GTHA. Oil politics emits some noxious vapours beyond volatile polycarbons when applied in one way to landholders in the West, compared to landholders in the East...or should I say near north of Toronto?

resoundingly supported by Toronto

swings both ways like a spring switch when going in reverse.

And speaking of "swings" and voters, it's the GTHA that makes or 'brakes' (breaks) federal elections. Getting back to that surplus...

 

[steveintoronto]

As per oil by rail, the overwhelming bulk will go south, not east, and there's politics on top of politics on this issue. US railroads have offered to ship it with rolling stock they've offered to assemble (is it any wonder Warren Buffett is deeply into this?), but 'Cdn regulators' (and provincial ones) have declined.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway takes fresh stake in Suncor Energy
Buffett's Berkshire buys more railroad shares - ABC News

Go figure. What's the cost of safety again? It's also a continuing ruse as to how "Eastern refineries should use Alberta oil instead of importing it". And that's from those who claim to 'know all about it'...like the yellow jacket yahoos...only a fraction of Eastern imports is bitumen grade oil. And all of the West's light is already spoken for.

The safety of large rail shipments aside, the actual manifest of what's being shipped and where raises a number of questions. I'll post more on that later when I have reference handy. Could refiners being playing the public on this? Nahhhh...

As a quick aside on this without reference handy: The bulk of Quebec's heavy oil refinery stock already comes from Alberta. (Via the US pipeline route)

Haven't had to time to fully reference, here's a quick one:

The shift away from overseas imports is partly due to a 2015 reversal in the direction oil is delivered through Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline, according to a new analysis by the National Bank of Canada. The analysis, first reported by Radio-Canada, also attributed the shift to increased production of U.S. shale oil.

Guess where Quebec gets its oil | National Observer

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

^you reminded me of this tweet

https://twitter.com/x/status/1002532895016345600

We have gone full on crazy if we think trains is a better/safer way to move oil than pipelines......I have no idea how a country that experienced Lac Megantic can make these decisions and feel good about it.

Wow. While over at Clarkson GO, there is a seperated area for the commuter rail ( GO ) and the freights.

 

[Kitsune]

Its pretty amazing how fast I've seen some trains on the CP mainline running through the Annex. I do wonder if one of those derail how bad it could be .

 

[crs1026]

And speaking of "swings" and voters, it's the GTHA that makes or 'brakes' (breaks) federal elections. Getting back to that surplus...

Without taking this into a full-out political debate, I think this may have been true in the past but certainly not now.

If you combine the potential for a "populist' vote in Ontario with the current malaise in Western Canada, the stage is clearly being set for a federal candidate to take a pro-Alberta, "we're all in this together" tack that emphasizes just how little the Trudeau government is doing (I think that may be objectively unfair, in that the Liberals are indeed advancing the pipeline agenda, albeit delicately.....but politics is a blood sport and a delicate voice may not prevail, especially with Trudeau looking otherwise ineffectual at the moment)

Personally, I'm not in favour of an Ontario-vs-Alberta mentality, and I have a lot of sympathy for Alberta's need to sell every last barrel of oil in the immediate term, even if the world is heading towards a no-carbon future. There is only so much time left to maximise the return on past investment in Alberta's oil patch. If the world gets down to needing only a million barrels of oil a year worldwide, I have no shame in wanting that last shipment of oil to come from Alberta. So this is not about green vs carbon, it's about the softest possible landing.

As I pointed out, if a rail pipeline does go ahead, it's a logical opportunity to make a change in brake technology. The incremental risk to the GTA is enormous, and the political benefit of saying we are making concrete improvements to rail safety is significant. But as Yoho demonstrated, there is also risk hauling things like grain. And there are already large numbers of explosive and hazardous materials crossing the GTA by train. So the oil debate highlights what ought to be happening anyways, and might be a good place to start, but it's not a new fact situation.

There are huge numbers of new grain cars being ordered at the moment. It's an equally good place to phase in a new technology. I think people along the CP line would agree.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

As I pointed out, if a rail pipeline does go ahead, it's a logical opportunity to make a change in brake technology.

Make no mistake, I thoroughly agree, but the chances of that happening within a decade even are slight. Even the newer specs for tank cars remains an ongoing issue, albeit I haven't time to research the latest on that right now.

Here's the 'here and now':

Its pretty amazing how fast I've seen some trains on the CP mainline running through the Annex. I do wonder if one of those derail how bad it could be .

It's a matter of time until a big-one in Toronto, far sooner than any new needed regime for more effective braking comes into play.

I see a Freight By-Pass long before a massive change to freight braking happening.

Must run, to be continued...but make no mistake, what I'm arguing isn't against what you are, it's supplementary to it. And the presumption that oil trains are needed through this part of land is a huge part of that. What Albertans are granted in terms of massive investment for a need that may not actually be needed has to be granted to the GTHA too. And I'll detail this more later:

Toronto the kingmaker: A handful of GTA ridings will likely decide the election

Insiders from all parties believe victory will rest far more on who can best micro-target the myriad demographics in this city and its surrounding suburbs

nationalpost.com

Addendum: "Low Carbon Future" besides...the Market is still seeing cheaper, easier to access, and cleaner sources becoming available. It's not just the US ramping up easily recoverable sources, it's a lot of abandoned wells elsewhere using newer techniques to 'scrape out the leftovers'. Even the North Sea!

This is something Alberta is going to have to face-up to. And gas, still very much a 'carbon' source, is going to be around for longer than oil. Most Hydrogen is scrubbed from natural gas, but that's another argument another time...

 

[ShonTron]

There's always routing them through Hearst, onto the ONR and NCR to Rouyn-Noranda and then the CN line back to Shawinigan or Quebec City.

Perhaps someone can convince Ford that he can tax shipments running through Ontario or something ...

What's the destination of these trains? A refinery somewhere I assume. Montreal?

(as crazy as that routing sounds, is it really any further than bringing them all the way down to Toronto and back up again? ... hmm, a very rough estimate is about 1,220 km from where the CN line to Hearst leaves the main line though Toronto to east end of Montreal. And 1,250 through Rouyn-Noranda)

That's a very convoluted route. The old NTR line (which was built between Quebec and Winnipeg back in the 1910s) has been abandoned between the CN "cut off" mainline at Longlac and Calstock, and operated by ONR from Calstock to Cochrane. It is abandoned between Cochrane and Senneterre (the VIA train between Montreal and Senneterre used to continue to Cochrane).

Theoretically, you could route a CN train via Oba, Hearst, Cochrane, Swastika, and Rouyn-Noranda over CN (ACR), ONR and back to CN at Rouyn-Noranda. But the high-quality route for CN and CP is through Toronto and Montreal, especially since the original transcontinental CP and Canadian Northern routes through central and eastern Ontario were abandoned (CN in 1997, CP in 2012).

 

[nfitz]

That's a very convoluted route. The old NTR line (which was built between Quebec and Winnipeg back in the 1910s) has been abandoned between the CN "cut off" mainline at Longlac and Calstock, and operated by ONR from Calstock to Cochrane. It is abandoned between Cochrane and Senneterre (the VIA train between Montreal and Senneterre used to continue to Cochrane).

Theoretically, you could route a CN train via Oba, Hearst, Cochrane, Swastika, and Rouyn-Noranda over CN (ACR), ONR and back to CN at Rouyn-Noranda. But the high-quality route for CN and CP is through Toronto and Montreal, especially since the original transcontinental CP and Canadian Northern routes through central and eastern Ontario were abandoned (CN in 1997, CP in 2012).

Absolutely! I 100% agree.

If though, the City of Toronto or York Region or somebody get's an injunction blocking these trains moving somehow, I bet they'd find a way quickly to go the more expensive route!

 

[steveintoronto]

Its pretty amazing how fast I've seen some trains on the CP mainline running through the Annex. I do wonder if one of those derail how bad it could be .

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-81614.pdf

To clarify an earlier comment I posted on the present "Lib surplus" federally:

Ottawa chalked up a surplus of $2.5-billion in December alone, a far better showing than the $500-million in the same month of 2017.

in gallery
Source: Department of Finance
That came as revenues surged 9.8 per cent, or $2.6-billion, on more tax money coming in, pumped up by money from employment insurance premiums and other sources. At the same time, program expenses rose $400-million, or 1.8 per cent, on transfers, while public debt costs rose 13.7 per cent or $200-million.
[...]

Ottawa now has room ‘to cut the deficit, spend on new programs, or (gasp!) cut taxes’

What the latest fiscal numbers show for the Liberal government ahead of March 19 budget

www.theglobeandmail.com

Meantime:

Lac-Mégantic rail bypass to be funded jointly by federal, Quebec governments
By MORGAN LOWRIEThe Canadian Press
Fri., May 11, 2018

LAC-MÉGANTIC, QUE. — Nearly five years after a train derailed in Lac-Mégantic and killed 47 people, the federal and provincial government confirmed a rail bypass Friday that will ensure trains leave the Quebec municipality’s downtown core for good.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard were among those on hand to announce a commitment to build the 12.8-kilometre bypass.
[...]
Transport Minister Marc Garneau said the project will encompass 80 pieces of privately owned land. The federal government will approach each of the owners and come to an agreement with them in terms of the value of their property.

Trudeau, meanwhile, was asked about people in neighbouring towns who are opposed to the bypass.

“There are strong emotions regarding what happened, obviously a lot of mourning that continues, a lot of difficult years that have passed and will continue,” he said.

“When you move a rail line, you’re moving it from somewhere to somewhere else. There are private lands all around this place and there’s no question that there’s going to be people impacted when you move a rail line.

“(But) we’ve chosen a path that we all believe is the right one to move forward on.”

Couillard said a balance had to be struck in choosing the path.

“It shouldn’t be too close because people want it to move away from the downtown part of Lac Mégantic, but it shouldn’t be too far because it’s also economically crucial for the region, for the city, that it remains close to the industrial park,” he said.
Open this photo
Just doing some cross checking to see what litany of words and yet paucity of action is swung around by the same body with two arms doing wildly different things....a nice way of stating "Hypocrisy" on the part of the Feds:

Lac-Mégantic rail bypass to be funded jointly by federal, Quebec governments

The new route that will take rail traffic away from the downtown area was selected following a feasibility study commissioned by the municipality.

www.thestar.com

Railway bypass: the Government of Canada will do its part - Canada.ca

The Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, has made the following statement

www.canada.ca

 

[lenaitch]

And another thing, isn't the Oil market going to collapse in about 20 years as Electric cars get more and more prevalent?

I don't think it would be wise to be making large infrastructure investments to support this industry. We need to move on.

I realize this mentality isn't a vote getter for Politicians though.

Soften no doubt but not collapse with current technology and economy. Data varies but best as I could find, transportation consumes about 25% of all petroleum. Passenger vehicles consume a large chunk of that but there are still commercial road transport, rail and marine.

Absolutely! I 100% agree.

If though, the City of Toronto or York Region or somebody get's an injunction blocking these trains moving somehow, I bet they'd find a way quickly to go the more expensive route!

Even if legally possible, the argument would be interesting. 'We don't want it because it's dangerous and there are lots of us but it's ok for others because there's less of them'. Perhaps they could also be forced to relocate refineries out of built-up areas as well (Sarnia, Oakville, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John) and into the boonies, but staffing might be a problem because living in rural and remote areas is apparently an unsustainable lifestyle.

 

[steveintoronto]

Soften no doubt but not collapse with current technology and economy.

And production:
Opec predicts massive rise in oil production over next five years
U.S. crude output to surpass 12 million barrels per day by mid 2019
etc...
Albertans have already blown through their 'Heritage Fund', they're gambling with everyone else's money now too, and want more, let alone bending laws to do it. Here's a hint for the so-called "Free Marketeers": If the Markets won't finance it, think about why not. And it's not the inability to export, which has become a tiresome and tedious mantra for not facing up to the truth.

Even if legally possible, the argument would be interesting.

I was reading the Fed's own review of the Railway Safety Act. Many legalities already exist, and many more suggested, as the Feds yet again admit they're asleep at the switch, and continue to do it while Rome burns from derailed dangerous cargoes. I dumped the link in disgust. I'll see if I can find it again later.

To be honest, I was researching the latest standards for the EU (which Norway and the UK both follow, Norway via the EEC), and lo and behold, the Cdn paper showed up, using the EU regs as a template...only for Transport Canada to ignore them. Yet again...

Edit to Add: I can't be bothered quoting from it, it's such a farce:

review of the railway safety act - Google Search

www.google.ca

 

[KevinT]

And another thing, isn't the Oil market going to collapse in about 20 years as Electric cars get more and more prevalent?

I don't think it would be wise to be making large infrastructure investments to support this industry. We need to move on.

Yes and no. Oil will no doubt still be used for plastics, asphalt, and to power mining equipment, freight railways, cargo ships, cruise ships, airplanes, generators in remote locations, etc. I hope electric cars go mainstream but that alone won't get us off of oil anytime soon.

 

[W. K. Lis]

And production:
Opec predicts massive rise in oil production over next five years
U.S. crude output to surpass 12 million barrels per day by mid 2019
etc...
Albertans have already blown through their 'Heritage Fund', they're gambling with everyone else's money now too, and want more, let alone bending laws to do it. Here's a hint for the so-called "Free Marketeers": If the Markets won't finance it, think about why not. And it's not the inability to export, which has become a tiresome and tedious mantra for not facing up to the truth.

I was reading the Fed's own review of the Railway Safety Act. Many legalities already exist, and many more suggested, as the Feds yet again admit they're asleep at the switch, and continue to do it while Rome burns from derailed dangerous cargoes. I dumped the link in disgust. I'll see if I can find it again later.

To be honest, I was researching the latest standards for the EU (which Norway and the UK both follow, Norway via the EEC), and lo and behold, the Cdn paper showed up, using the EU regs as a template...only for Transport Canada to ignore them. Yet again...

Edit to Add: I can't be bothered quoting from it, it's such a farce:

review of the railway safety act - Google Search

www.google.ca

Alberta should not rely on oil. That's what happened with Venezuela, who relied too much on oil. See link.