Overmod, there are types of installed derails that do not pose a safety hazard. The split rail is one. And regarding portable derails, one would be placed right in front of the locomotive in this case, and no long hike along the length of the consist would be necessary. And yes there are cases of short trains and single units of light locomotives going through portable derails and staying on the track, but the chances of a multi-locomotive consist going through, at low speed, and all not derailing, are pretty slim. Only one set of locomotive wheels would have averted the tragedy, since those that follow would also derail.
On a high-speed main line like the BNSF Transcon, obviously one would not install a derail. But a permanently installed derail on a relatively low-speed line need not in any way be a safety hazrd, with ample time for the engineer to veiw the target symbol and stopping if the derail is active. On a mountain railroad like Saluda, the derail is normally active and deactivated when the train approaches at an apporpriately low speed. On MM&A it should normally have been normally deactivated and activated only during the time when a train was parked.
Very simple to arrange and very safe.
Yes a derail might have prevented it.
A airhose pigtail would have dumped the air when the train moved maybe stopping it.
New locomotives might have prevented it.
PTC may have at least slowed it down.
Bad track might have derailed it outside of town.
Handbrakes would have prevented it.
daveklepperAnd I willing to stand by the assertion that Harding Broike the Law and that the Judge Made a Serious Error.
IIRC the trial was in a Superior Court not a Federal Court. As the Railroad crossed the border between Canada and the USA it worked under Federal law. So the court in Sherbrook might have the wrong court for the rule 112 violation.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tcss/RSA_review/chapter4-374.htm
Excerpt from the link: Some 34 Canadian railways1 have interprovincial or Canada-U.S. operations and are therefore regulated by federal law. These include the two major freight-carrying railways, CN and CP,2 the passenger rail company VIA Rail, and more than 30 short line companies. Another 62 railways3 (excluding industrial lines) operate entirely within a single province and are, therefore, regulated by provincial governments.
Someone said here that there is a Federal trial still pending.Regards, Volker
There are many things that might have prevented the wreck, but I do not conclude that the people responsible for not providing those things are guilty of causing the disaster. They were free to choose not to use a derail because none was required by law.
However, I do think that anyone with common sense and eyes open would have seen that the overall risk of parking oil trains at Nantes was way too high for amount of lives and property that were at stake. Even if handbrakes were properly applied in the correct quantities, the risk would still be way too high. This should have been obvious to everyone who saw it.
daveklepper I've done business in Canada. Saying that not obaying rule 112 "is not disobaying the law" is the same is speeding by not obeying a speed limit sign "is not disobeying the law." I'm saying the judge was wrong and I will stick by that opinion. If you were involved in a traffic accident and the perpertrator was unable to stop in time, would the judge rule that he or she did not disobey any law? There is no difference in the two cases. Rule 112 is/was an enforceable law promulgated by the Canadian Government. The judge may have not thought about it ---- because of the general irrevelence of railroads in his mind, with rail safety not as important as highway safety. But that is pure speculation. I have no way of knowing why the judge made the mistake he did, but my opinion remains that he made a mistake.
I've done business in Canada. Saying that not obaying rule 112 "is not disobaying the law" is the same is speeding by not obeying a speed limit sign "is not disobeying the law."
I'm saying the judge was wrong and I will stick by that opinion.
If you were involved in a traffic accident and the perpertrator was unable to stop in time, would the judge rule that he or she did not disobey any law?
There is no difference in the two cases. Rule 112 is/was an enforceable law promulgated by the Canadian Government. The judge may have not thought about it ---- because of the general irrevelence of railroads in his mind, with rail safety not as important as highway safety. But that is pure speculation. I have no way of knowing why the judge made the mistake he did, but my opinion remains that he made a mistake.
So while it may have been easier to convict Harding on just the basic negligence of breaking Rule 112, that charge may have been deemed insufficient to fit the crime.
So, I don't see that the judge or the Crown made a mistake by not seeking a conviction on only the violation of Rule 112.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.