overall The Railway Age article cited above says MM&A will refuse to transport crude oil now. How will it move in the time between now and when the new pipeline is built in 5 years? Can someone speculate on what route it will take now that MM&A won't move it? George
The Railway Age article cited above says MM&A will refuse to transport crude oil now. How will it move in the time between now and when the new pipeline is built in 5 years? Can someone speculate on what route it will take now that MM&A won't move it?
George
The point about MM&A refusing to haul oil is now moot with their bankruptcy filing, reorganization is highly unlikely. The most likely result is that the current shareholders will be wiped out, and somebody else will buy and operate all or part of the MM&A. Current front runner to buy the trackage is Irving LTD. Note that this is a separate company from Irving Oil. They own the connecting railroad that finishes the haul of oil from Brownville Jct, ME to St. John, NB. Their reason to buy is that it would give them a connection to CP and pricing leverage against CN.
Note that there are two large secured creditors ahead of any accident claimants. First is the FRA for an approximately $27 million RRIF loan(originally $30 million). Second the Wheeling & Lake Erie has a $6 million Line of Credit Loan to MM&A which is secured.
Burkhart & MM&QA says no more oil transport ? ?
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/short-lines/mma-ceases-crude-by-rail-haulage.html?channel=94
One of the large Canadian pipeline companies will be building a pipeline to New Brunswick, as reported in NewsWire. It will be operational in 5 years. About the time they might finish upgrading the MM&A, it will loose any crude traffic.
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/08/TransCanada%20proceeds%20with%20Energy%20East%20Pipeline.aspx
RastafarrDoes the massive growth of oil-by-rail not change that?
MN&A needed the oil by rail business to last for a number of years so they could afford to gradually upgrade their ROW and locomotives. As was suggested by others, when these shortlines suddenly find themselves with an opportunity for new business hauling dangerous commodities, they should be required to look long and hard at their existing infrastructure before accepting the risk. IMO, when the final report is released, I expect there will be a recommendation for minimum ROW standards. Something like a minimum capability of 25 mph, even if the RR chooses to not operate at that speed. This will separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of companies with the financial ability to handle these type of risks.
Unfortunately this is going to put some industries and towns in the position of either having to make their own financial investments, or pay considerably higher freight rates, which will cause inflation for everybody.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
AgentKidCP sold off the line in 1990 for very sound business reasons; it was losing money. Obviously nothing has changed since then.
Not to be contrary, I'm simply curious. Does the massive growth of oil-by-rail not change that? I understood that this new source of rail traffic headed for refineries in NB had basically saved MMA's bacon. Prior to the explosion, that is...
Stu
Streamlined steam, oh, what a dream!!
RastafarrWill CN or CP buy MMA's remnants for next to nothing and get the cars rolling again?
This has been a big topic on Canadian railway forums. The consensus is, CP sold off the line in 1990 for very sound business reasons; it was losing money. Obviously nothing has changed since then.
AgentKid Railroad files for bankruptcy after Quebec tragedy http://www.ctvnews.ca/railroad-files-for-bankruptcy-after-quebec-tragedy-1.1401613 Bruce
http://www.ctvnews.ca/railroad-files-for-bankruptcy-after-quebec-tragedy-1.1401613
Hardly shocking. What's next? Will CN or CP buy MMA's remnants for next to nothing and get the cars rolling again?
Agent kid,
In the newswire story, Burkhart said that their obligations had exceeded their assets or something to that effect. What happens now that MM&A has no way to ever pay off this debt?
Can't speak for other carriers.
My carrier has used multiple forms of highly touted scheduling software to attempt to minimize crew costs and maximize crew productivity - then reality intrudes.
Any software - any program - has to make some very basic assumptions. We all know what ASSUME means - making a ASS of U and ME. Crewmen are human beings and human beings do not always follow 'the rules'. Throw in the disruption of weather, derailments, wayside happenings that delay trains and a million and one other happenings and the best scheduling software in the world will be sucking wind. Crew bases are finite in number - happenings on the property can use up 75% of the crew base in a single time period - the remaining 25% can't sustain the demand without interruption until the 75% have obtained their rest and begin to become available again.
Increase the board and you increase your fixed cost.Decrease the board and your variable cost in the form of train delay increase.
The theory of utilization of resources is that if you don't have a little delay waiting for the resource - you have too much of that resource. Can't say that I personally agree with it - but it is the one that is used.
Every day, every week is a juggling act.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I agree. There may be unforseen emergencies, but such a system would be great improvement over the existing situation.
petitnj As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
Jeff
Regarding the MM&A employee who watched the fire, I am sure the investigators know who he is, but apparently there is information they are keeping confidential until the full investigation is concluded. Also, the exact condition of the handbrakes on the locomotives has not been released, nor that on the tank cars thus far checked.
Tlhere is a fine line between responsibility and judgement. If I see a driver going by my bus (or streetcar) stop where I am waiting, at dusk or just at daybreak, and he or she has no lights on, I wil yell LIGHTS. (or rather OR in Jerusalem). It is the driver's responsiblity to turn on his headlights before he leaves his parking place, but I show good judgement in possibly preventing an accident by yelling at him/her.
The Firechief would have shown good judgement not to leave the train unguarded, especially without a compentant rail offical or employee obviously checking its condition. By condition, I mean more than just lack of something obviously burning.
But the responsibility was clearly that of the Desk Dispatcher or Trainmaster. Whomever had been informed.
Similarly, if the bystander who is reported saw the train begin to roll without lights had been a railfan, certainly he or she would immediately have called an emergency number and somehow the main tragedy would have been averted!
daveklepper You are entitled to your opinion, but I still believe leaving a train that has had a locomotive fire unattended is bad judgement - both for the firechief and the desk dispatchder.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I still believe leaving a train that has had a locomotive fire unattended is bad judgement - both for the firechief and the desk dispatchder.
petitnj Baltacd: I appreciate all of the details of crewing a train and I am sure there are many "manpower" reasons to stop a train. I was focusing on the economic reasons (which tend to dominate business discussions these days). The train can potentially make $5000/day if it is moving and the cost of an additional engineer is maybe $400/day. As for congestion and crew availability, clearly the railroads need to start using scheduling software and eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. Scheduling software is so sophisticated these days, they could easily know not to send a train out if no crew or yard is available down the track. And for a tiny railroad like MM&A this would be a very simple process. ( I suspect the crew caller and dispatcher on MM&A do this, but if software can play chess it could clearly schedule a railroad.)
Baltacd: I appreciate all of the details of crewing a train and I am sure there are many "manpower" reasons to stop a train. I was focusing on the economic reasons (which tend to dominate business discussions these days). The train can potentially make $5000/day if it is moving and the cost of an additional engineer is maybe $400/day.
In the real world of railroading - NOTHING is as SIMPLE as you believe it is. Those on the outside can't understand the realities of real railroading until they get on the inside and become parts of the problem and also parts of the solutions.
To wreck a 'finely honed schedule' all it takes is a crew member to call in 30 minutes before his on duty time and report he has been involved in a automobile accident on his way to work and he will not be able to work his assignment - it will take a minimum of two more hours to get their replacement, if one is available - and sometimes it turns into a positive NO ONE else is available. Now that finely honed schedule has to be taken over by Plan B - what do you do with a train that isn't going to move for the foreseeable future. Just because you don't have a crew for a train doesn't make the train go away - it is now on the railroad just as immovable as if it had derailed. A problem to be worked around.
Murphy Siding daveklepper 2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended. Suppose the fire chief had left someone to *watch* the train, and it started rolling away? Then what?
daveklepper 2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended.
2. The fire chief should have insured that either the engineer return to the train, or the a watch be posted until a qualified railroad employee took charge, but should not have left the train unattended.
I don’t think it was up to the fire chief to make sure the train stayed put. Shutting down the one running unit should not have allowed the train to roll. Even if the fire spread and all five engines burned up, the train should have not moved. So when the firemen put out the small fire, they would see no need to watch the train to make sure that it did not move.
In any case, someone from the MM&A was at the scene during the time when the engine was on fire and the firemen extinguished it. The news has not been clear about this, but it is my understanding that the person on the scene from the MM&A was the person first contacted by the individual who first spotted the fire and reported it. So, in other words, the fire was first reported to the MM&A, and then the message was conveyed to the fire department.
If somebody of official capacity were at the site, and saw the train begin to move, it might have been possible for them to react quickly enough to stop it. But there are some variables, and they might not have tried the most effective measure first. So time could quickly run out as the train gained speed. The news did report that one person who lived near the track observed the train begin to move, and slowly roll away into the darkness with no lights turned on.
petitnj Why doesn't the railroad keep the train moving? Does it save them that much money to have the engineer stop the train, rest for 8 to 10 hours and then get back on the train? ... Someone explain to me why a railroad ever wants to have a train stop for the night!
Why doesn't the railroad keep the train moving? Does it save them that much money to have the engineer stop the train, rest for 8 to 10 hours and then get back on the train?
...
Someone explain to me why a railroad ever wants to have a train stop for the night!
Wanting and actually stopping are two different things.
Occasionally carriers may want a train held until the receiving terminal (railroad or customer) has space to handle the train. Congestion can be a issue with unit train style movements. When trains are being held for cause, the desire is to have it at a location where there is no crew on the train. Crews are to move trains - not just sit on them. This does not appear to be the case in the incident, although no hard facts have been published about the condition of either the final railroad terminal or the consignee's ability to handle the train.
Crews cannot be called to duty without having the legally required amount of rest. Crew bases are normally 'right sized' to cover routine operations and in covering routine operations rested crews may not be available whenever the carrier needs to call a train - the train will be 'parked' until there is a rested crew available. The 'right sized' crew base may end up 'wanting' when T&E employees mark off for various valid and in some cases invalid reasons. Some of these crew bases may be only a single crew that is qualified on the territory and one or two extra board employees that are qualified. If one of the regular crewman goes on vacation and the extra board employees are working on other jobs that the extra board covers - there is no one available to fill the vacancy until the extra board employee completes the job he is working and then gets full rest (in the US 10 hours UNDISTURBED - ie. cannot be contacted by the railroad during those 10 hours - Canadian HOS rules may be different). While the carrier would WISH to have a rested crew available to handle ANY NEED at ANYTIME - that is not the economic reality of managing carrier manpower.
As is being explained in this incident, the Canadian crew (engineer) had taken the train to the limit of his run to turn it over to the US crew. For reasons that have not been published, the US crew was not on duty to continue the movement of the train upon its arrival with the Canadian crew. Train was parked until a US crew could be obtained. Nothing has been stated as to whether the Canadian engineer knew when or if the US crew was to be on duty and expected to arrive to take charge of the train - such information COULD have had a bearing on how he secured the train.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lac-megantic-prepares-large-memorial-153006057.html
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
daveklepper .....But if a competent railroad man had been watching, he would have boarded, started the locomotive, and then pumped the air and stopped the train. There was enough time.
.....But if a competent railroad man had been watching, he would have boarded, started the locomotive, and then pumped the air and stopped the train. There was enough time.
Enough time to prepare the locomotive for starting? (And of course let's hope it starts right away the first time; old power has a tendency to be...unpredictable).
Enough time to pump air sufficiently to charge an entire trainline with adequate air to effect a standard application? (A single compressor on an old locomotive will take quite a while to fully charge an entire trainline)
Enough time for said employee to decide whether to remain on the locomotive as the entire train begins it's decent towards town?
Does he remain on the loco long enough to use the air brakes?
What if there is insufficient air at the time of the attempted application?
Did the loco have dynamics?
Does this person ride the wreck in to hell, or does he jump?
So many questions......
petitnjAnd "face legal action"? Don't you think they will already face legal action? This will be worked out in court and not paying the cleanup fee will be a small drop in the bucket!
I suspect this is just another legal maneuver, like the placeholder lawsuit preparatory to a class action lawsuit to be filed later, that was mentioned on this thread a page or so back.
This is an issue between MM&A's insurance and the clean up companies. Why has the city paid them already? Normal procedure is for someone to come in and do work and be paid from an invoice. The accident is only 3 weeks old and one would expect the insurance company and railroad to negotiate the clean up (if they are responsible) with the clean up companies.
Plus, $4M in 3 weeks? That is enough to pay 800 workers. Or 400 workers and enough for trucks and cutting torches. Clearly, these numbers will be negotiated by the insurance company.
Unlike governments, private companies look at the invoices and see they are getting their money's worth.
And "face legal action"? Don't you think they will already face legal action? This will be worked out in court and not paying the cleanup fee will be a small drop in the bucket!
If it was BAR and not CP, forgive me, but the name of the article referred is correct, I believe.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.