Radio Canada, the French 'half' of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, fondly known by right wingers as Mothercorp, broadcasts radio in French. If it can broadcast entire speeches and conversations in one language, and not the other, I don't see why a written record of them have to be translated when there is no simultaneous translation offered by either of the two language components when they take place live. If you go to The Current or Ideas, two of my favourites most days, you won't see a French translation of their podcast discussions offered.
The "Willie" fire south of Red Lodge MT was started by a motorcyclist sliding on the shoulder of US-212, with the sparks igniting the dry vegetation.
Possibly of interest in discussing automobile-caused fires, here is an older reference in the literature (Bernardi's analysis of fires in California from 1962 to 1971, PSW-289, 1974) which concluded in part that automobiles were responsible for about 60% of the observed fires investigated by rangers in the studied area. Note that this predates adoption of catalytic converters on automobiles. Since Bernardi didn't specify the percentage of 'roadway and shoulder' starts that occurred on shoulders (p.4), I can't tell how the incidence might increase for cars with hot cats.
It did occur to me that there is another way fires could be started by automobiles -- if dry grass or similar material is blowing around traveling vehicles and contacts an ignition source, and then burns or smolders long enough to reach a 'burnable' area. This might not 'map' to a particular vehicle (and hence would not be included in an analysis like Bernardi's, and it might be difficult to design a test that would assess reasonable likelihood as there are so many conditions affecting the situation.
Of course Bernardi's findings will have to be adapted for Canadian forest conditions at particular times of year. I am not qualified to do that, but I do note that the incidence of fires programmed into the map does seem to drop off significantly in late fall and winter, and perhaps at other times of year. (I looked for a control on the map that would slow down the scanning speed, but could not find one, and my reflexes aren't quick enough to 'pause' the scan month-by-month; in some cases I see two 'frames' of different fire data within one indicated month, which makes me wonder how the data is encoded.)
I confess that if I were looking for a Globe & Mail headline that would get readers, I need go no further than to analyze the number of fires per week in the spring that are supposedly caused by the railroad.
That popping fire map is of the whole world + it magnifies.
https://naelshiab.cartodb.com/viz/e4ba7b30-cb49-11e4-a6aa-0e4fddd5de28/embed_map#
tomikawaTTAutomobiles with overheated catalytic converters HAVE started fires - and I've seen more than a few red-hot converters under vehicles on various highways.
We've had two brush fires in our immediate neighborhood attributed to catalytic converters in the past ten to fifteen years. Coincidentally, both fires were caused by vehicles going uphill in the same stretch of the same road and fortunately neither occured at a time when the FD was otherwise occupied with larger fires so total burns were in the 10-20 acres range. Cause was determined from eyewitness reports in both cases.
In the late '70's, when catalytic mufflers were still kind of new, I remember when someone parked on the grass alongside the road for a few minutes. The next day there was a pattern of his exhaust system in brown grass. There was also the case where my mechanic pointed to a car sitting in his shop that the catalytic muffler had set the carpet in the car on fire. Not really forest fires, though.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Wizlish schlimm Questions about fires caused by automobiles is an obfuscation. Gardendance raised this, and I trust he will explain his thinking. I expect the number of forest
schlimm Questions about fires caused by automobiles is an obfuscation.
Gardendance raised this, and I trust he will explain his thinking. I expect the number of forest
I don't agree that questions are obfuscation, but I believe statements without backing are. I did not say "automobiles cause more fires than trains". I have no idea if automobiles contribute to forest fires, hence my asking the question.
My thinking is I wanted to know if there had been any articles about how many forest fires automobiles cause, since there seems to be at least one article that studies how many forest fires trains cause. I have often heard about overheated catalytic converters igniting plastic shopping bags, and have thought they might lead to roadside fires, although I'd expect fewer shopping bags in Canada's clean forests than in the urbs and suburbs.
I also remember reading decades ago about vacationers whose recreational vehicle's dragging equipment sparked a forest fire, the RV's owners objected strenuously to the multiple hundreds of thousand dollar bill the authorities tried to collect.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Here is another article, this one in english, about a big fire that happened a few years ago in Ontario. This is probably related.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ontario-government-sues-cn-rail-for-millions-in-firefighting-costs-1.2927083
Were compairable stats given for RR caused fires in PQ. It sounds like one Province snipping at another.
Is a rail grinder working in the area?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sounds like alot of hot air from Quebec.
Anyone consider that Canada has eleven and one half months of winter and were the statistics considering how a forest covered in snow would catch on fire?
The days of cinders and hotboxes as causes of lineside fires are pretty much past - but not completely.
Roller bearings can fail, and built-up soot from the locomotive exhaust can still send smouldering blobs into the countryside.
In the early 1900's, the railroad was blamed for many forest fires in the Adirondacks - and probably rightfully so in many cases, unfortunately. Several "fire trains" were kept at the ready during high risk periods.
One "cure" was for New York State to ban coal burning locomotives in the Adirondack Park. This applied chiefly to the NYC Adirondack Division - which lives on as the Adirondack Scenic RR. The law was set to be in effect for 100 years, and only recently expired.
It's been said that the only oil burning locomotives on the Central were those used on the Adirondack Division.
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...
Automobiles with overheated catalytic converters HAVE started fires - and I've seen more than a few red-hot converters under vehicles on various highways.
I wonder how many of those 'fires' were actually sightings of blazing loco exhaust, or locos throwing black smoke. Neither poses much of a ground fire threat, but, boy, do they look impressive.
OTOH, overheated train brakes started numerous grass fires in Western South Dakota while I was living there. They typically burned from the ballast to the first road or clear ditch, but a few required serious firefighting effort (though nothing as serious as the one real forest fire that occurred during my sojurn to the Black Hills.)
One thing to consider. The sensationalist media don't exist to provide balanced, truthful news. Their mantra is, "Sell advertising."
Chuck
Stupid trees! Fires caused by automobiles? How many are caused by monorails, UFOs and werewolves? Not many, I bet. About as many as those caused by automobiles. Is there a government study about this? Steven Harper isn't giving any answers and neither is Obama. "Mum's da woid!" he said.
wanswheelI meant the headline suggested a big story. Globe & Mail, dang, fixed that too late!
It's NEVER too late to fix it in software...
Yes, I would note that a headline like that in the Globe & Mail might make you buy that issue of the paper ... but not think nearly as highly of it afterward once you learned that most of the 'fires' were very, very small. On the other hand, catchy leads are almost de rigueur for clickbait. By the time you know the rest of the story, well you've already clicked... and the trackers have loaded... etc.
I meant the headline suggested a big story. Globe & Mail, dang, fixed that too late!
wanswheelIn any case, a fire every three days would be front page Toronto Globe & Mail in English.
Why, when the author himself notes that at least 70% are very small and quickly extinguished.
It would be interesting to see what the statistical definition of a 'reportable fire' in the database is. The thing I want to find out is the correlation they're developing between fires and railroad causation. What it appears, from the map, is that the physical grid location is being related to the (known) line of the railway, and this does seem (at naive first examination of the graphic) to show some correlation.
What I am beginning to wonder is whether some number, possibly a great number, of these 'fire sightings' are in fact railroad EVENTS -- sparks or brakeshoe smoke, or excessive engine exhaust perhaps, or small tie fires --being reported as if they were actual forest fires. That might explain some of the very large number of reported fire events closely associated with the railroad line.
schlimm Wizlish Use the Google Chrome translator.
Wizlish
Use the Google Chrome translator.
Or Google Translate for the rough idea, as I did (I don't care for Chrome on any platform except Chrome OS).
The surprising thing, to me, is that the CBC can't be bothered to translate its own story for its Anglophone readers. It really isn't my responsibility to translate something produced by a government department of a country that has two nominally 'official' languages. Hopefully CBC will address this at some point, and include the data analysis behind the graph of rail-caused fire instances.
A fire every three days should be reason for concern, especially in Ontario with far more forested land than much of the US
That is one of the understatements of the year! (It does help a little to compare the fire incidence data from the graphic with the reported graph of dangerous fires, but as I noted there is little guarantee that any particular thing that starts a forest fire would not progress to a large fire given suitable conditions).
Presumably this is not being generated by correlating fire reports with something like the 'Blast Zone' map, where there's a possibility or probability of post-hoc ergo propter hoc. I see a LOT of fire incidence, and conversely I don't see ignition sources on a properly maintained railway that would successfully 'reach' across the boundary of a properly-maintained ROW. The graphic indicated where the data were derived from, so it shouldn't be too difficult to determine the quality .. for someone with the access and the time, neither of which I think I have.
Questions about fires caused by automobiles is an obfuscation.
Gardendance raised this, and I trust he will explain his thinking. I expect the number of forest fires actually caused by automobiles per se (in comparable ways to those supposedly caused by rail operations) to be very slight. Perhaps what he meant was fires caused by automobile users -- but I leave that up to him to qualify.
If there is a comparable incidence of forest fire from vehicular traffic (probably much more from loaded trucks than from automobiles, I'd suspect) then it would NOT be a red herring to introduce it in this context, imho. If there are in fact comparable numbers of fires generated by vehicles, but associating a given fire event conclusively with, say, a deep-pockets trucking line or owner cannot be done as definitively as for a railroad, then it might be disingenuous at best not to present the comparable data at the same time, and preferably in the same context and format, as the data for rail are presented.
WizlishEssentially yes; it's a Canadian context. Presumably there is more interest in Quebec than in Ontario, since the article is in French and there is (so far) no English version or even translation provided by CBC.
Use the Google Chrome translator. A fire every three days should be reason for concern, especially in Ontario with far more forested land than much of the US. Questions about fires caused by automobiles is an obfuscation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If those people think trains cause forest fires, they should have been around in the steam era. Undoubtedly the do cause an occasional fire but nothing compared to a steam locomotive without a spark arrestor.
Norm
gardendanceI assume the article talks about Ontario trains and fires, not worldwide.
Essentially yes; it's a Canadian context. Presumably there is more interest in Quebec than in Ontario, since the article is in French and there is (so far) no English version or even translation provided by CBC.
How big are the fires?
The answer, as with forest fires started by any other cause, is 'it depends', with very little having to do with the technical cause of ignition. What the story does mention, however, is that the incidence of very large fires appears to be increasing in recent years. See this graph from the article.
Timmins 9 was a particularly large fire, and aside from the risk it posed to the public it involved a loss of a significant amount of marketable timber, and about $13.5 million in determinable firefighting costs. I think that the possibility of recovering some of that for the Government is part of what's going on here.
It might be circumstantial that the French article has a link to oil-train safety standards cunningly placed halfway through, which is likely to invoke the spectre of Lac Megantic and other 'fireballs' by association for many casual readers.
I don't think there are that many forest fires started by automobiles, since there aren't many overt ignition sources provided by them directly. There seems little point in saying that fires started by discarded cigarette butts, carelessly-tossed matches, etc. are 'automobile-caused' in the sense used for train-caused fires.
I think we should bear in mind, too, that an attempt to recover significant damages from a deep-pockets entity like CN is different from going after a hiker, or an automobile driver, or even pyromaniac vandals. I thought it was a bit disingenuous to quote Pierre Bergeron as a 'spokesman' for CN when he's apparently with their police (and seems to know about as much about technical railroading details as that poor MM&A trackwalker in Nantes did about locomotives).
This may be related to the suit for damages over the Timmins 9 fire in 2012 discussed in this CBC radio story.
I found it interesting that this story dumbs down the technical cause of how trains start forest fires to an almost infuriating degree. Surely there is a TCA investigation that has a better account of the 'proximate cause' of the Timmins 9 fire, and this would be interesting to read.
What I found highly interesting, though, was the animated graph of fires 'started by trains' in the period from 1976 to 2013, about halfway down in the linked article. (I could not insert this using the tools available to me; perhaps someone here knows how.) Paraphrasing what the article says "Zoom in to see the fires that started closer to where you are."
I for one would be highly interested to see an analysis of the data used to prepare this map, showing a breakdown of the causes (e.g., various kinds of exhaust problems vs. brake issues).
Are there any articles about how many automobiles cause?
I assume the article talks about Ontario trains and fires, not worldwide.
I also assume they mean fires that someone notices, and has to put out, and has good evidence that the train caused, as opposed to ones that happen near railroads with little evidence to the cause, or ones that nature, or firebreaks, put out.
Hello! I just read an article (in french) that says that in Ontario, trains are causing a forest fire every three days.
Do you have any information on this subject? Here is the article in french.
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/ontario/2015/05/01/005-feux-forets-trains.shtml
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.