You are 100% wrong on that point. As part of the deal into Confederation Quebec was granted its own rule of law with the Napoleonic Code seperate and totally independent of Federal Law.
The legislature is called OFFICIALLY, "The National Assembly" not the provincial legislature as elsewhere. Quebec has never signed into any Constitutonal Accord. They have their own language laws and Immigation Laws as well, in addition to many others. It is too much of a hot potato to bring all that back up since the failed Meech Lake Accord under the Mulroney government which further gave Quebec far more seperate and special rights.
Not sure how it works in Louisiana but I doubt if it supercedes US Federal Law, but in Quebec it does.
Just do not get a speeding ticket in Quebec with your Alberta plates on your car and not being able to speak French!
Oui, quand en Quebec, parle comme une Quebeçois parle.
On VIA trains, announcements made in Quebec are made first in French and then in English. In the other provinces, English is used first and then French.
My high school French did avail me 20 years ago; even though I had a different accent I was understood by le Quebeçois who helped me when I had missed a turn on my way to le gare. Pardonnez moi, s'il vous plait; il a plus de soixante ans since I studied la plus belle des langues (which my wife despised).
Johnny
Miningman You are 100% wrong on that point. As part of the deal into Confederation Quebec was granted its own rule of law with the Napoleonic Code seperate and totally independent of Federal Law.
The Quebec Act of 1774 allowed the French system to be used for matters of private law. It also kept the English system for common law, which includes criminal prosecutions. The 1867 British North America Act continued that, and it remains that way today.
And even though Quebec did not endorse the 1982 Constitution Act, it is still law across the country. Our Supreme Court ruled at the time that Quebec's formal consent was never necessary for the Act to apply.
Thanks for the opportunity to brush up on our criminal law system, I was getting a bit rusty!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Is Megantic being tried under Criminal Law?
Miningman Is Megantic being tried under Criminal Law?
Yes, they are each charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death.
OK, good good! Case Closed!
DeggestyOui, quand en Quebec, parle comme une Quebeçois parle. On VIA trains, announcements made in Quebec are made first in French and then in English. In the other provinces, English is used first and then French. My high school French did avail me 20 years ago; even though I had a different accent I was understood by le Quebeçois who helped me when I had missed a turn on my way to le gare. Pardonnez moi, s'il vous plait; il a plus de soixante ans since I studied la plus belle des langues (which my wife despised).
Tried to take French one semester while I was at Purdue - the instructor Ms. Yamamoto could not chart me in her success column.
On vacation one year as a kid, our family drove US27 North from Garrett, IN over the Mackinac Bridge to Sault Saint Marie - crossed into Canada and intended to drive East to Montreal and then come South back into the US and down through the New England States to visit family in Maryland. My father in planning the trip, misread and miscalcuated the mileage from Sault Saint Marie to Montreal by a large enough factor that time would only permit us to get as far East as Ottawa and then we had to head South.
In the middle and late 1970's my wife and I went to Watkins Glen to watch the US Grand Prix. Met a group of Ontario residents that didn't have anything good to say about the 'frogs' from Quebec - of course their opinions had been loosened by copious amounts of adult beverages.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Miningman You are 100% wrong on that point. As part of the deal into Confederation Quebec was granted its own rule of law with the Napoleonic Code seperate and totally independent of Federal Law. The legislature is called OFFICIALLY, "The National Assembly" not the provincial legislature as elsewhere. Quebec has never signed into any Constitutonal Accord. They have their own language laws and Immigation Laws as well, in addition to many others. It is too much of a hot potato to bring all that back up since the failed Meech Lake Accord under the Mulroney government which further gave Quebec far more seperate and special rights. Not sure how it works in Louisiana but I doubt if it supercedes US Federal Law, but in Quebec it does. Just do not get a speeding ticket in Quebec with your Alberta plates on your car and not being able to speak French!
I'm afraid you are the one 100% wrong. Quebec is bijuridical for the purposes of civil law only. Federal statutes and the Criminal Code of Canada apply to all Canadian citizens equally. All provinces were granted a Nothwithstanding Clause exemption on the matters pertaining to the Constitution when the BNA was repatriated over 30 years ago. But our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (increasingly being gnawed at in academia these days) applies equally as well.
Yes, criminal law, already established that point. But thanks anyway.
As far as anti-American attitudes go it seems to be quite a partisan issue, with the left being so and the right loves the Americans. The MM&A is not getting a fair shake in the media and this creates a mindset, as Overmod was pointing out.
Nonetheless I have faith in the truth and the system working correctly to get to it.
I'm sticking to railroading especially as I remember it, and no more venturing out into trials, law, politics, and all that.
My parting salvo..I luv and admire the Americans and am grateful that it is they who are our 3,000+ mile long neighbour.
Will someone please post the date when the trial transcript will become available, and the URL to access or download it when it does?
There are a great many half-truths and opinions spun into the semblance of fact in much of what has been reported -- the latest one I came across saying that "MM&A" had officially disciplined Harding for excessive securement with brakes, which was spun as being about number of handbrakes when it was actually about use of the automatic. I have concluded that absent the specific language in testimony it will be impossible to gauge the extent of 'corporate' MM&A culpability in any particularly meaningful way.
On the other hand, I have to wonder whether this proceeding necessarily precludes subsequent action against other MM&A personnel based on information elicited or revealed here, should the authorities find that warranted. While there may not be anything from the 'bankrupted' company, there might still be some action not released by statutory immunity.
Was the Safety office of the MM&A notified of the locomotive fire? Woud he or she have been notified on a Class I? Would any Class I allow an OK for a shut down and fire problem resolved from a track-walker?
daveklepper Was the Safety office of the MM&A notified of the locomotive fire? Woud he or she have been notified on a Class I? Would any Class I allow an OK for a shut down and fire problem resolved from a track-walker?
I would not jump to any conclusions about the professional title, qualifications, and abilities of the person who was called to attend the scene of the locomotive fire at Nantes before the runaway. Nothing I have seen reported indicates any failure on his part. Apparently he was the person who reported the details to the dispatcher who later informed Engineer Harding.
I recall reading that this person has testified at the trial, although I can’t recall his name and it seems impossible to search out specific details in the news coverage. I do recall news of a person testifying that he notified the dispatcher, and his notification was seemingly dismissed or not easily accepted by the dispatcher. I was left with the impression that the person notifying was the person who attended the scene. The person notifying testified that his notification had been cut short by the person he was notifying. Maybe somebody else can find that detail in the news coverage. Having the person’s name would help.
Michael Horan testified that he was in charge of safety training at MM&A. His testimony is discussed in this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lac-megantic-michael-horan-1.4352606
I would have to go back and verify this, but I believe his assessment that nine handbrakes were required is incorrect. So you have this representative of the company also being mistaken about the very same detail for which Harding is on trial.
daveklepperWas the Safety office of the MM&A notified of the locomotive fire? Woud he or she have been notified on a Class I? Would any Class I allow an OK for a shut down and fire problem resolved from a track-walker?
On CSX it would not have been a priority to notify the 'safety office' of a locomotive fire. That being said the Mechanical Desk, staffed by personnel with knowledge of the locomotives and 'tricks of the trade' to make them work or pronounce the last rites on whatever the issues are. The engineer of the MM&A's crappy set of power would probably have been in contact with the Mechanical Desk a number of times concerning the issues he experienced with the power during the trip. I doubt that the Mechanical Desk would have allowed Harding to leave the 5017 running. The Mechanical Desk, Chief Dispatcher, Trainmaster and Road Foreman of Engines all would have EXPECTED the train to have been SECURED with hand brakes applied to the cars.
The Fire Dept. did what they have been trained by the railroad to do in the circumstances that they found with the engine. The Fire Dept. is not responsible to secure the train, they have to operate on the expectation that railroad personnel have SECURED the train as they are required to do.
With the notification of a unattended locomotive fire, operating Officials would have been notified - Trainmaster for the territory, Road Foreman of Engines for the territory, MofW Roadmaster for the territory - after notification it would be problematical when or if anyone would show up on the scene of the incident - those notified could be upto about 150 miles from the scene of the incident. The Roadmaster may delegate response to one of his Track Inspectors that live closest to the incident. Getting personnel to any incident in the middle of the night can be very difficult. The personnel responding are ALL expecting to find a SECURED train with locomotive issues - not a runaway that has derailed in the center of town.
So we have two issues. One is the number of handbrakes issue, which we have chewed on many times on this thread. The second is leaving the defective power running, which was discussed somewhat fewer times, but was discussed often as well. There were other issues involved, but they do seem secondary to me at this time. The use of air is possibly the third. And I agree with others that we cannot blame the firemen.
The safety director for the MM&A did testify and did seem incorrect regarding the first and most important issue (7 vs. 9 handbrakes). He did state that the engineer was informed not to use the automatic air to hold the train. But what about the independent? That is not clear regarding any prior instructions to the engineer.
Again, we will await what the Jury decides. If I am wrong in any of my tentative conclusions, please advise. It is easy to get confused.
I also had two years of highschool French . During most classes in Mssr. Elan's classroom I was transfixed by a huge map of the Paris Metro adjacent to the blackboard and wondered wheter I would ever ride a subway train to Chariton Ecols and where the track connections between the vaiorus lines really took place. I did learn enough to be understood on various vists to both France and Quebec, both work and railfanning (and music, mostly organ, appreciation), and appreciate the ability to make some sense, if not perfect, out of my monthly Passoine du Rail magazine.
Another question. Would the Roadmaster ask the trackwalker to check in any way the security of the train? If that had been done in this case, the trackwalker could have noted that the train was secured by both handbrakes and air and that the locomotive was shut down. If he had enough knowledge to see that.
daveklepperThe safety director for the MM&A did testify and did seem incorrect regarding the first and most important issue (7 vs. 9 handbrakes).
The Safety Director was incorrect when he testified that a minimum of 9 handbrakes were required by the tables. The TSB report says that a minimum of 12 handbrakes were required by the tables.
daveklepper Another question. Would the Roadmaster ask the trackwalker to check in any way the security of the train? If that had been done in this case, the trackwalker could have noted that the train was secured by both handbrakes and air and that the locomotive was shut down. If he had enough knowledge to see that.
Dave,
Interesting question. Harding was out on HOS law but it would have been in the railroad's best interests to send him to check the train since he alone knew what brakes he set. He would also be aware of the potential for the brakes to release as the air bled off. Some MOW personnel who have been around a long time may know how to make sure the train was secure but if the person called was simply a laborer I would not suspect he would be savvy enough to see which brakes were set and which were not, nor how many were actually required to keep the train from moving on the grade. He probably thought all was OK.
Norm
daveklepperAnother question. Would the Roadmaster ask the trackwalker to check in any way the security of the train? If that had been done in this case, the trackwalker could have noted that the train was secured by both handbrakes and air and that the locomotive was shut down. If he had enough knowledge to see that.
In a single word - NO! MofW personnel are not trained in how to secure trains. T&E personnel are not trained in how to replace a broken rail.
"Michael Horan testified that he was in charge of safety training at MM&A. His testimony is discussed in this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lac-megantic-michael-horan-1.4352606"
After reading the above, other factors not withstanding, I find it very unprofessional and particularly damning, to leave the train unattended without the automatic brake applied! Other parts of this testimony are also damning in regard to the management side of things. This entire railroad was nothing but an accident waiting to happen! And, what a horrific one did occur.
.
In other words, the Roadmaster simply relies on the word of the engineer that the train is secured, without any need to provide a backup. But isn't there a possibility that an engine fire and the activities of the firefighters migiht have triggered a release of handbrakes or something that should be checked? I would think that before a train is left unmanned after a fire either the engineer should recheck the train or someone else with the necessary kniowledge should do so. That is my opinion and I will stay with it.
daveklepperIn other words, the Roadmaster simply relies...
The "Roadmaster" is M-O-W!
daveklepperIn other words, the Roadmaster simply relies on the word of the engineer that the train is secured, without any need to provide a backup. But isn't there a possibility that an engine fire and the activities of the firefighters migiht have triggered a release of handbrakes or something that should be checked? I would think that before a train is left unmanned after a fire either the engineer should recheck the train or someone else with the necessary kniowledge should do so. That is my opinion and I will stay with it.
Roadmasters are MofW employees - not Operating Department employees. The know about rail, ties, tie plates, spikes and all the other knowledge and equipment that go into maintaining the track structure. The only reason the Roadmaster would even be notified is beacuse the word FIRE was mentioned. Without being on the scene to observe what actually took place - when taking a 'fire call' at a remote location the Roadmaster as the senior field MofW official of the appropriate territory would be notified to insure that the track structure is still safe to operate over.
I had the impression that the Roadmaster was sent just because he was available at the time. The one person who seemed to be giving orders was Harding's supervisor who I understand was the dispatcher. He told Harding to not go to the scene after Harding had asked if he should. Harding even asked if he should go to the scene to restart the locomotive. He may have been referring to restarting the one that burned or restarting another one. At the time of the discussion between Harding and the dispatcher, neither one knew the details of what acually caught fire. The dispatcher speculated that it might have been a traction motor.
I agree with Dave's point that the fire should have triggered a need to investigate the securement of the train. Harding offered to do that. His supervisor told Harding not to. So while Harding failed to secure the train, the supervisor failed to verify or authorize verification of the securement.
SRoadmasters may have responsibility and detailed knowledge of all track and possibly signal related technology, but all I have ever met know enough to do an engineer's job when required, and this means they have the kniowledge to insiure that a train is properly secured and that a locomotive is shut down properly or if operating is not about to cause a fire situation. In fact, I am absolutely sure this is a requirement for a roadmaster on your railroad.
daveklepper SRoadmasters may have responsibility and detailed knowledge of all track and possibly signal related technology, but all I have ever met know enough to do an engineer's job when required, and this means they have the kniowledge to insiure that a train is properly secured and that a locomotive is shut down properly or if operating is not about to cause a fire situation. In fact, I am absolutely sure this is a requirement for a roadmaster on your railroad.
Go to the Saluda thread and see a Roadmaster operating the train.
I don't know about the formal training. But the Roadmasters I met certainly knew enough about all techniques required of engineers.
Of course the roadmasters I knew worked for the NYNH&H, ACL, PRR, D&RGW, B&M, and NYCEntral, and PC later on. Have standards declined a lot since then?
Similarly, Trainmasters knew enough to spot potential washout areas on the RoW, loose railjoints, etc.
Possibly there was more interaction between Trainmaster and Roadmasters before my contacts ended when I moved to Jerusalem? And you may be right and I may be wrong about the current situation regarding the skills of supervisors.
But getting back to a main issue:
On a railroad wih a "safety culture," the employee will be expected to perform what is necessary to insure safety without guesswork. If ordered to do something that leaves him or her with "reservationls" (as Harding said he had when speaking to the cab driver) he would argue with his supervisor at least and more probably do what maximum safety requires and then discuss the situation with his or her supervisor,
If MM&A had a Class-I standard of safety culture:
Would a train be allowed be left unattatended under any cirucumstances on a downgrade without derail protection?
Would a locomotive be kept in service with the problems Harding experience with his lead locmotive?
Would such a locomotive be left in operation unattended?
After a fire, would not someone more responsible than a trackwalker visit the train and the site before a train would be left unattended?
Would not the dispatcher question the fireman with a series of questions to determine all the details of the fire and what the firemen did?
Would not a new Safety Officer, having such a resonsibity for the first time, be expected to consult with more experienced safety officers, woring at other railroads, to learn how they look at their responsibilities and work?
So, while I agree that Harding did not fulfull his resonsibility to leave the train PROPERLY secured, there are other factors involved, and IF those had been taken care of, the culture that would have insured they were taken care of, would also have affected Hardings work attitude. The train woiuld then have been left secured properly. I am not the judge or jury, and the final outcome may or may not agree with this analysis, but here are these thoughts anyway, and you are certainly welcome to agree or disagree as your experience suggests.
daveklepperSRoadmasters may have responsibility and detailed knowledge of all track and possibly signal related technology, but all I have ever met know enough to do an engineer's job when required, and this means they have the kniowledge to insiure that a train is properly secured and that a locomotive is shut down properly or if operating is not about to cause a fire situation. In fact, I am absolutely sure this is a requirement for a roadmaster on your railroad.
Roadmaster and Track Supervisor are interchangeablle titles - it depends on the carrier which one is used. In 21st Century railroading, in many cases, they barely have enough railroad knowledge to perform their own responsibilities, let alone those of other crafts.
21st Century railroading is not middle 20th Century railroading. The carriers that composed my former carrier CSX in the middle of 20th Century collectively would have had employment approaching 300,000 people. Today's CSX (pre EHH) had less than 30K. In the mid 20th Century jobs such as Conductor, Train Dispatcher, Trainmaster, Track Supervisor(Roadmaster) were all positions that required prior railroad experience with some higher level of proficiency than the norm to gain access to those positions; in the 21st Century those positions are entry level for individuals with college educations. College education and practical experience are two different things.
I don’t see the point of splitting hairs about the competency of Jean-Noel Busque, the so-called “track walker.” He reported the information he had to his supervisor and was told to go to sleep. In one of the news reports, there is detail about his testimony in which he describes be cut short by his supervisor as he tried to elaborate on the details of the fire and related issues at that scene.
If there is any culpability here about not following up to make sure the train was secured, it is clearly with Harding’s supervisor who told both Harding and Busque to not take any action with any further efforts regarding the train left at Nantes.
Here is one news report on that point:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mma-megantic-trial-busque-labrie-1.4400775
“The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic railway's track maintenance crew had to go searching for the derailed train's locomotives on the night of explosions that killed 47 people, a Sherbrooke court heard Monday.
MMA foreman Jean-Noël Busque described how he was woken up by his boss, Daniel Aubé, and dispatched to the site of the train fire in Nantes, late on the night of July 5, 2013.
When he got there, Nantes volunteer firefighters had already put out a chimney fire in one of the locomotives on the tanker train, which had been left overnight on the track.
Busque said he then called the railway traffic controller on duty in Farnham, Richard Labrie, to relay the information given to him by the firefighters about their intervention.
Labrie told him he "could go back to sleep," Busque told the court.”
daveklepper Go to the Saluda thread and see a Roadmaster operating the train. I don't know about the formal training. But the Roadmasters I met certainly knew enough about all techniques required of engineers. Of course the roadmasters I knew worked for the NYNH&H, ACL, PRR, D&RGW, B&M, and NYCEntral, and PC later on. Have standards declined a lot since then?
You're confusing roadmasters with roadforemen. At least in regards to this and the saluda video.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.