Move comes in response to Canadian government's restriction on train speeds
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/02/10-cn-issues-embargo-on-hazardous-materials
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Now watch, like a string of firecrackers, other railroads follow suit as they realize how this helps get them out of some "common-carrier" requirements that interfere with PSR planning...
Not really an embargo, an embargo would mean they're not going to move the stuff at all, which isn't the case here.
This is more like "Atlas Shrugging" just a little bit.
In the railroad world, it's still called an embargo even where a permit process is in place to permit a "metering" of shipment releases.
Overmod Now watch, like a string of firecrackers, other railroads follow suit as they realize how this helps get them out of some "common-carrier" requirements that interfere with PSR planning...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Overmod Now watch, like a string of firecrackers, other railroads follow suit as they realize how this helps get them out of some "common-carrier" requirements that interfere with PSR planning... I see this as a way for CN to say they will now need to charge more for hauling the goods, since it will take longer and require more crews and equipment. In a related note, expect higher gas prices startting tommorrow morning.
I see this as a way for CN to say they will now need to charge more for hauling the goods, since it will take longer and require more crews and equipment. In a related note, expect higher gas prices startting tommorrow morning.
Wrong - yesterday morning
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As a former TIH shipper; it would be difficult for CN or any railroad to hose this kind of business more.
When I pulled the pin; TIH rates north of $20,000/per carload were not unusual.
Juniata Man Murphy Siding Overmod Now watch, like a string of firecrackers, other railroads follow suit as they realize how this helps get them out of some "common-carrier" requirements that interfere with PSR planning... I see this as a way for CN to say they will now need to charge more for hauling the goods, since it will take longer and require more crews and equipment. In a related note, expect higher gas prices startting tommorrow morning. As a former TIH shipper; it would be difficult for CN or any railroad to hose this kind of business more. When I pulled the pin; TIH rates north of $20,000/per carload were not unusual.
I'm going to guess that the trucking rates for hauling the same amount of those commodities are higher still, or they wouldn't be moving by rail.
The new speed limits are going to cause major congestion, on top of what already exists in western Canada.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Murphy Siding In a related note, expect higher gas prices startting tommorrow morning.
Gas stations charge based on what the next load of fuel will cost them, not the last. I'd be really surprised if they waited until tomorrow. Odds are you'll see a bump today...
Katrina hadn't even cleared the coast when our prices jumped here in northern New York.
Never mind that it might take a week or better from well to pump... (I wonder how long that actually does take...)
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
That really grinds my gears.
'Embargo' means just that: no further movement. It's Brian Schmidt not properly understanding or transcribing again, compounding the felony by not providing an actual link to the CN release or content. Don't misunderstand: I'm grateful to be able to read the 'protected' content free ... just that it's ever so much better when it's accurate.
Easy enough to find it on the Railinc AAR embargo page, unless you work for Kalmbach.
https://aarembargo.railinc.com/epdb/searchEmbargoAction.do?step=viewDetails&selected=0
It is CN000820. Designated contact for further details is given as chris.macht@cn.ca; (204) 934-8109. (Incidentally, as of this morning it is scheduled to run through February 7th 2021 unless sooner amended.)
Blame CN all you want. Clearly, for CN to comply with this order would result in melting down critical segments of their network, and that would quickly spread elsewhere, even deep into the US network. This is not just because of how CN has their network setup, this would melt down just about any busy railroad, single track or double. As soon as faster trains start stacking up behind slow ones, it's hard to reverse that negative trend. This was a fairly draconian measure on the part of regulators - 25 mph on an otherwise 50+ MPH system is just not going to work. There is a reason why railroads work so hard to eliminate even short slow orders. CN not likely trying to use this to dump hazmat shippers. Their primary goal is almost certainly trying to preserve some form of service quality for all of their other shippers, which represent the majority of their traffic, revenues and profits. As to the recent string of derailments, that's another problem. But a nationwide 20-25 mph slow order is not really all that great of a solution, if it melts everything down.
Shipments of hazardous materials are a major part of CN's business. They are not trying to run off all that freight, indeed, to do so would be even worse for the bottom line than running a congested railroad at 25 mph.
Most of our unit or manifest trains are already underpowered to the point where they cannot maintain speeds above 20-25 mph while climbing even gentle grades, or while moving from siding to siding in congested single track territory.
The new speed restrictions eliminate the few opportunities these trains have to move faster on downhill parts of the line.
If CN were smart, they would shift as many dangerous trains as possible to the Prairie North Line between Edmonton and Winnipeg, which already has a top speed of only 40 mph, and is not normally used by priority intermodal trains. But that route does not have many long sidings, and has some moderate grades that would require an additional locomotive for the same tonnage (not a big deal right now, lots of stored power available, but an extra cost).
We'll just have to wait and see what happens after the 30 days. By then CP and the TSB should each have a pretty good idea of what caused this latest oil train derailment, and the news cycle will have moved on to new disasters elsewhere in the world.
What is the reduced speed intended to accomplish? Is it to prevent derailments, or to prevent tank car breaching during a derailment?
What was the cause of the December oil train derailment?
Euclid What is the reduced speed intended to accomplish? Is it to prevent derailments, or to prevent tank car breaching during a derailment?
Both
Euclid What was the cause of the December oil train derailment?
It has not been released yet, though this type of derailment is characteristic of a track defect. For some reason the locomotives often seem to make it over bad spots, only for at least one of the first few cars to derail.
Here is the TSB's current page on the investigation, with minimal information.
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2019/R19W0320/R19W0320.html
SD70Dude ... the Prairie North Line between Edmonton and Winnipeg, which ... does not have many long sidings, and has some moderate grades that would require an additional locomotive for the same tonnage (not a big deal right now, lots of stored power available, but an extra cost).
I wonder if the net fuel saving from operating at the 40km/h speed on average would equal out the additional net expense of having an additional locomotive but shutting it down/isolating it unless its additional power is needed. Bet someone could calculate it, and if positive, advocate it...
Overmod SD70Dude ... the Prairie North Line between Edmonton and Winnipeg, which ... does not have many long sidings, and has some moderate grades that would require an additional locomotive for the same tonnage (not a big deal right now, lots of stored power available, but an extra cost). I wonder if the net fuel saving from operating at the 40km/h speed on average would equal out the additional net expense of having an additional locomotive but shutting it down/isolating it unless its additional power is needed. Bet someone could calculate it, and if positive, advocate it...
That sounds like too much work.
Besides, if the numbers don't work out and additional real-world costs are created, the advocate's career here would be toast.
Better to stay silent, keep drawing one's paycheque, and let the 'superior minds' run around like headless chickens.
At one point in time CSX limited bulk commodiy trains to 40 MPH account fuel conservation. It was subsequently found that on a number of terriories that such a limit was in fact wasting fuel - as trains were having to brake on the downgrades to keep from exceeding the limit and then lost the resulting kinetic energy that would assist in climbing the next upgrade. At no time was 40 KPH suggested or tried.
It is intended to convince a gulible public that the government (a bunch of idiots who would not know what hazardous matierial is if the were walking in it) that they a protecting the public from the big bad evil railroad.
Mac
SD70Dude Euclid What was the cause of the December oil train derailment? It has not been released yet, though this type of derailment is characteristic of a track defect. For some reason the locomotives often seem to make it over bad spots, only for at least one of the first few cars to derail. Here is the TSB's current page on the investigation, with minimal information. http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2019/R19W0320/R19W0320.html
Always possible, too, that a rail or something else broke under the power. Would not be the first track failure under load.
CP has now issued a similar Embargo #420
Overmod That really grinds my gears. 'Embargo' means just that: no further movement. It's Brian Schmidt not properly understanding or transcribing again, compounding the felony by not providing an actual link to the CN release or content. Don't misunderstand: I'm grateful to be able to read the 'protected' content free ... just that it's ever so much better when it's accurate. Easy enough to find it on the Railinc AAR embargo page, unless you work for Kalmbach. https://aarembargo.railinc.com/epdb/searchEmbargoAction.do?step=viewDetails&selected=0 It is CN000820. Designated contact for further details is given as chris.macht@cn.ca; (204) 934-8109. (Incidentally, as of this morning it is scheduled to run through February 7th 2021 unless sooner amended.)
https://aarembargo.railinc.com/epdb/showTD1.do?step=viewTD1Circular
https://aarembargo.railinc.com/epdb/public.do
I stand corrected, both by appropriate knowledge and by good references.
I am just thinking about how this unfolds going forward. Suddenly a substantial speed reduction is seen as a solution to oil train derailments, based on just two such derailments with no known cause. We probably won’t know the cause for a year or more. The only point that seems to make this speed reduction relevant is the fact that the two derailments occurred within the short time frame of two months in approximately the same location.
I do not believe that 25 mph is slow enough to assure that no tank cars will breach in a derailment, although the number of breaches will be lower as the speed is lowered. But, if just one breached car ignites, there will be a fire that is likely to spread and possibly cause the bursting and ignition of other cars. I suspect that ignition of spilled oil is extremely likely in any oil train derailment, even if traveling only 25 mph. I don’t recall any oil train derailments that did not burn except the one at Doon, IA in 2018.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.