Trains.com

Village evacuated after Quebec train derailment

74904 views
490 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 10:38 PM

Bucyrus

The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive.  Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?

The train was staged at Nantes, about 7 miles away and 250'  higher which, if I haven't misplaced the decimal point, works out as an average 0.7% downgrade.  If someone started releasing the brakes, or the crew member did not apply sufficient, that would certainly allow a runaway train to pick up considerable speed.

Downloading the event recorder should provide some very helpful timing, brake pressure and speed data to aid the investigation.

John

  • Member since
    April 2013
  • 147 posts
Posted by hellwarrior on Saturday, July 6, 2013 10:33 PM

Here are some news about the subject.  I just translated an article that was written in french.

The article says that there was no driver in the locomotive.  Apparently, the driver had been sleeping at the hotel and with the gravity, the train has been going down the slope.  Brakes were apparently deactivated for a reason that no one knows.  4 of the 73 cars have exploded in the city and huge amount of oil have been dumped into the river.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:54 PM

I would not expect shipping oil by rail to be banned outright because of this derailment.  But I do not believe that the precedent for what is acceptable risk is guaranteed to remain unchanged.  We have never been led by people who believe what our current leaders believe about oil.  Canadian oil is a grand introduction of new supply, and the greens are quite defensive about that.  The current debate is not about oil spills, breaking pipelines, sinking ships, chemical explosions, and other industrial calamities.  Instead, it is about radically cutting CO2 emissions in order to prevent a fantastically larger catastrophe. 

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:21 PM

Despite the BP gulf spill, they still drill offshore.  Despite the Exxon Valdez, they still ship oil via tanker.  Despite the Yellowstone River pipeline spill, they still build pipelines.  People accept the fact that there are going to be some accidents in getting the oil to them.  As long as spills are kept to acceptable levels, It seems inconceivable that rail oil transport should suffer any different fate.  They will learn from their mistakes, and safety procedures will be tightened,  Some environmental activist will renew the alarm, but they will eventually be ignored as before.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:13 PM

BaltACD

Bucyrus

The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive.  Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?

Article I read stated part of the train 'ran away' - the locomotives and head end of the train were where the train had been 'parked'.  If so it sounds like vandalism coupled with air leaking off the train and the train not having been stopped 'streached' so that tension within the couplings would not permit a uncoupling lever being operated successfully.

 

That is interesting news.  Maybe they stopped with the slack bunched, which would have enabled a pin to be pulled.  If so, the brakes must have been holding in order for the slack to stay bunched.  Then, if a pin were pulled, the perpetrator would have had to have bled all those cars so they would run away. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:02 PM

Bucyrus

The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive.  Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?

Article I read stated part of the train 'ran away' - the locomotives and head end of the train were where the train had been 'parked'.  If so it sounds like vandalism coupled with air leaking off the train and the train not having been stopped 'streached' so that tension within the couplings would not permit a uncoupling lever being operated successfully.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 8:52 PM

The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive.  Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 8:24 PM

Bucyrus

That is an amazing development.  I wonder if it could have been terrorism. 

There's always that possibility. Years back a customer of mine who was a Federal agent told me there were various incidents that occurred around the country that could be classified as terrorist or saboteur attacks that officially were explained away as having other causes, reason being as to not incite panic.

Probably not this time.  I wouldn't assume terrorism, although there's always the possibility.  Trouble is, by the time this accident investigation's complete and the results published the news cycle will have more than moved on and we'll never hear about it, unless it's mentioned in "Trains."

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, July 6, 2013 7:41 PM

Looking at news sites, there is little now about this, as the plane crash in San Francisco is bigger news. So, the railroads may have gotten lucky.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 7:17 PM

I recall that we had a discussion on this forum a couple years ago about leaving trains with engines running and cabs unlocked.  As I seem to recall, it was based on a news story where a TV station sent its reporters out to prove they could get into the cabs of locomotives that had been left unattended and unlocked.  It was quite controversial, but I don’t remember the details.  Does anybody remember what that was about?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 7:09 PM

I don't know how readily the oil would ignite, but a train wreck makes a lot of molten steel, fire, and sparks as it happens. So there would be plenty of ignition available to anything that would burn. 

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, July 6, 2013 7:06 PM

cx500

I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite.  Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills.  Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.

Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source.

Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well.

- Erik

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:49 PM

Bucyrus

n012944

Bucyrus
I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting.  It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.

I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom.  Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.  

So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?

It is because ethanol is considered to be carbon neutral and petroleum is not. Ethanol is the darling of people who hate fossil fuels. 

The environmentalists hate ethanol almost as much as the oil people.  Why?  My gut feeling is that the reason is because even with it's faults it is a viable, if only partial, alternative to oil.  It's use means people won't have to change their lifestyles and that drives the extreme type nuts.  

Jeff 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 6:17 PM

Quote from the most recent news article I could find:

"The rail company that operated the train -- the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway -- said that shortly before midnight Friday, the train's conductor parked it and locked its brakes before checking into a hotel for the night."

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Saturday, July 6, 2013 5:53 PM

Well, I do know for a fact that trains are left unattended out in the middle of nowhere.

One crew was overcome by fumes and Ft. Worth told them to shut down and called the ambulance.

That is, of course, where I entered the picture. And where I entered the locomotive looking for the crew, which I found on the grass on the other side of the train. The Engines had already been shut down, and the conductor was, fumes or no fumes, just returning from setting 25 hand brakes. I guess they were all up front, eh? but that should keep them from rolling. I do not know how long it took BNSF to get a crew out there.

Trip reports really upset the insurance people. What with naming the siding as the town, where of course no town exists, and since I was transporting two patients, I split the mialge between them instead of charging each one of them for a full trip. And THEN the insurance company has the gall to try to talk me down in price, when we are already the second lowest billing service in the state. (The only service that bills lower is the Medora Ambulance which is 100% funded by oil revenues and does not charge any customer anything.

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Saturday, July 6, 2013 5:35 PM

Pure speculation on my part, but….having seen and been near a natural gas pipeline explosion, and the fact it looks like a lot more than crude is burning in the video, are there any above ground or close to surface gas pipelines, maybe even a meter regulator on a nearby building that got tagged?

 

Unattended?

On my carrier, all a locomotive engineer has to have is physical contact with the locomotive for the train to be considered attended.

Of course, we just sit in the locomotive until the relief crew shows up, and here, the engineer is the last guy off, after a brief conversation on how the train handles with the relief engineer.

While not a rules violation for us, it is frowned upon to have no one in the cab until relieved.

Was this crew actually in a crew van or cab and left the train standing with no one there, or were they standing around near the train waiting?

Either way, they are fired for certain!

Doubt this is a death knell for oil by rail, ammonia nitrate still rides the rails, and does benzene, which makes a crude oil fire look like a birthday candle next to a shuttle launch!

Without all the details, all we are doing is guessing anyway, for all we know a couple of kids unlatched a switch in front of the train for kicks…remember the Amtrak wreck where a couple of dips broke the lock, and just raised the switch handle out of the latch,?

First locomotive made it across, second one picked the switch, no real reason for their actions except they thought it would be cool to watch, (which they did

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 459 posts
Posted by jclass on Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:24 PM

Railroads need to figure out how to operate fail-safe.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 3:17 PM

zugmann

Bucyrus

Since the train derailed within the consist, I assume the head end stopped and is still on the rails.  I sure hope the police immediately secured the locomotives against anyone entering them, and possibly destroying evidence. 

And what evidence would that be...?

Any evidence that anyone was in there besides the crew; fingerprints, position of controls, event recorders--anything out of the ordinary. 

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:54 PM

Bucyrus

Since the train derailed within the consist, I assume the head end stopped and is still on the rails.  I sure hope the police immediately secured the locomotives against anyone entering them, and possibly destroying evidence. 

And what evidence would that be...?

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:44 PM

Since the train derailed within the consist, I assume the head end stopped and is still on the rails.  I sure hope the police immediately secured the locomotives against anyone entering them, and possibly destroying evidence. 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:34 PM

blue streak 1

 UH OH   The law of unintended consequences might have come to light.   The folowing media posting says that the train was a run away.  According to the following report the MM&A crew had gotten off the train waiting for a relief crew and the train left on its own.

Unintended consequence ?  Requiring a crew that has gone illegal  on haz mat train to leave any train un- attended with the possibility of just this type of incident happening.  

http://news.yahoo.com/train-carrying-petroleum-derails-catches-fire-canadas-quebec-121417580.html 

This problem needs probably addressed in very detail. in a separate thread.

To add fuel  ( Pun not intended ) to the fire of controversy unoffical comments on other threads say that this was a one man operation with an RCO pack ???  I hope that this is not the case.
 
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:17 PM

n012944

Bucyrus

n012944

Bucyrus
I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting.  It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.

I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom.  Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.  

So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?

It is because ethanol is considered to be carbon neutral and petroleum is not. Ethanol is the darling of people who hate fossil fuels. 

Your grasping at straws to prove your guess.

Well my prediction was not that an oil train would derail.  Of course one will eventually derail.  But what I am predicting is the public reaction after the derailment on the part of those who are opposed to importing Canadian oil into the U.S.  Those opponents are just now catching up with the news that rail is doing an end run around the pipeline that they killed.  And they are not amused. 

They are hard at work making the case that rail is even more dangerous than the pipeline.  They deal in symbolism with the aim of influencing public opinion, and they have just been handed the best possible symbol on a silver platter. 

So my prediction is that they will use this wreck to try to throw a monkey wrench into the suddenly booming transport of oil by rail.  They will work the public, and the public will work the regulators.  It will be interesting to hear what our Administration has to say about this.  

This was certainly not a difficult prediction to make, so I don't think I need to "grasp at straws," as you say, in order to defend it.  However, when I predicted a reaction to the first train wreck, I was not expecting one so spectacularly useful to the greens, and so soon.  That part kind of surprises me. 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:06 PM

That is an amazing development.  I wonder if it could have been terrorism. 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 2:06 PM

Bucyrus

n012944

Bucyrus
I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting.  It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.

I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom.  Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.  

So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?

It is because ethanol is considered to be carbon neutral and petroleum is not. Ethanol is the darling of people who hate fossil fuels. 

Your grasping at straws to prove your guess.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 1:55 PM

 UH OH   The law of unintended consequences might have come to light.   The folowing media posting says that the train was a run away.  According to the following report the MM&A crew had gotten off the train waiting for a relief crew and the train left on its own.

Unintended consequence ?  Requiring a crew that has gone illegal  on haz mat train to leave any train un- attended with the possibility of just this type of incident happening.  

http://news.yahoo.com/train-carrying-petroleum-derails-catches-fire-canadas-quebec-121417580.html 

This problem needs probably addressed in very detail. in a separate thread.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Burbank Junction
  • 195 posts
Posted by karldotcom on Saturday, July 6, 2013 12:47 PM

Slightly off-topic, but the "complainers" that successfully got San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant to shut down in Southern California h are now complaining (weeks later) about their higher electricity costs.  

My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 6, 2013 12:34 PM

n012944

Bucyrus
I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting.  It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.

I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom.  Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.  

So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?

It is because ethanol is considered to be carbon neutral and petroleum is not. Ethanol is the darling of people who hate fossil fuels. 

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 12:19 PM

On one of the videos the flashing "Fred" is visible, so it appears the derailed cars are towards the rear of the train. 

I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite.  Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills.  Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.

Speculation as to the cause of the derailment will have to wait until qualified investigators can approach the scene, unless evidence of track damage and/or mechanical debris is found further back.  Considering the time, there is even a possibility a drunk driver turned into the side of the train at a grade crossing.

John

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, July 6, 2013 12:11 PM

Bucyrus

I would say that this Quebec derailment is exactly the pivotal event that I was predicting.  It is amazing that it only took two days to materialize.

I would say you are trying too hard to predict doom.  Ethanol trains have derailed with some explosive results, and yet ethanol trains still roll along.  

http://www.examiner.com/video/norfolk-southern-ethanol-train-derailment-new-brighton-pa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/ohio-train-derails_n_1664505.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44814033/ns/us_news-life/t/ill-town-evacuated-after-train-carrying-ethanol-derails/#.UdhPQPk70_4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUzHyJf9Q

So, why will there be such an outcry about oil trains, but not ethanol?

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, July 6, 2013 10:50 AM

Thank you.

From this video, it doesn't seem like all cars are burning, just at the front of the train:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gl49CpPQtc

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy