On Sept.15 Trains Newswire reported a CN derailment, all comments and blame have been on CN when in fact it was a CP train J60352.
I tried twice to post the correct info to Trains Newswire but they never went through. It was CP J60352 with CP 8526-8141 and CP 8531-UP 2718 on the end of the train with 200 loads of potash. The accident occured in the DRZ (Directional Running Zone) on CN's Yale sub. Everything goes west on CN because of more favourable grades, trains go east on CP. It was a CN crew handed over from CP per the CoProduction agreement headed to North Vancouver. The cause is speculated to be a broken wheel.
First reports called it a CN 603 which on CN would be a passenger train. CP kept mum on it and let CN take all the blame. CP seems able to avoid bad publicity like derailments. They have had several wrecks this year with 50 to 60 cars on 200 car trains that you hardly heard of.
Perhaps the size of the trains railroads are running now needs to be looked at!
williamsbOn Sept.15 Trains Newswire reported a CN derailment, all comments and blame have been on CN when in fact it was a CP train J60352. I tried twice to post the correct info to Trains Newswire but they never went through. It was CP J60352 with CP 8526-8141 and CP 8531-UP 2718 on the end of the train with 200 loads of potash. The accident occured in the DRZ (Directional Running Zone) on CN's Yale sub. Everything goes west on CN because of more favourable grades, trains go east on CP. It was a CN crew handed over from CP per the CoProduction agreement headed to North Vancouver. The cause is speculated to be a broken wheel. First reports called it a CN 603 which on CN would be a passenger train. CP kept mum on it and let CN take all the blame. CP seems able to avoid bad publicity like derailments. They have had several wrecks this year with 50 to 60 cars on 200 car trains that you hardly heard of. Perhaps the size of the trains railroads are running now needs to be looked at!
If it was on CN owned and maintained track, being operated by a CN crew - no matter if the train originated on the CP and had CP power - It was a CN Train. Especially in the eyes of the media.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'm sure CP is trying to find a way to blame this on track conditions or crew error.
I'm equally sure that CN is trying to assign blame to equipment failure on either the locomotives or cars.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I disagree to the point CP was 'mum on it'. They sent out customer adviseries of the derailment and also John Brooks, their COO, spoke to it on a market conferencing update which coincidentally was the day after.Remember -- just because you don't see it doesn't mean it its not happening! The customer alerts usually are sent through to specific emails or via their Portal.As for the cause, thats a tough one as we all can guess up until the TSB comes out with a final verdict. The rumor mill suggests it was related to that little bridge there.
How does it work from a liability stand point? Cargo Insurances held by both railroads, not the trick of the matter is, and I'm not privy to the nuances of the agreements, but the co-production agrement should include who has liability over which jurisdictions, and that both carriers hold insurances to cover issues on their own property. With two Class I's its not really a concern anyways, but for example under some of the carriage agreements with Class Is and some shortlines, there have been times where carriage has been refused due to lack of either sufficient or at all insurance of the smaller line to cover the cargo in case of derailment. Typically those cases invoice a unit train in some kind of volume or frequency.
CMQ_9017How does it work from a liability stand point?
There will be some determined percentage of liability between CN and CP if the accident wasn't solely due to CN trackwork or whatever, and that is the proportion after subrogation that each of the two would "pay" at the end of the day.
Thanks for the responses. It was reported as a CN derailment, even serious railfans had trouble figuring out if it was CN or CP. Because the news reported it as CN most thought it was.
I was a 3rd generation CN. I spent my 1st 2 years working in CP's Portage Div. & Winnipeg Terminals office, non union.
CN was a crown corporation and thus it was said it was inefficient and lazy. I learned to ignore that because I worked just as hard if not harder at CN because I was treated better. CN was the most technically advanced and progressive railroad. So all the comments coming out after this derailment about how bad CN was just got to me. Thus my post.
williamsb On Sept.15 Trains Newswire reported a CN derailment, all comments and blame have been on CN when in fact it was a CP train J60352.
J60352 is a CN train ID, not a CP one. It was a CP train running under the co prodiction agreement on CN tracks.
J and H trains on CN are Co Production and Running Rights trains.
603 is the train number. 600s are not always used for passenger. CN is running 200 series grain and oil trains, which is against the traditional use of 200 series trains.
5 is a train that originated in the Pacific district
2 means it's a second section.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.