I agree with Ulrich. Mr Burkhardt seems inept this time around. I remember when he was running the Wisconsin Central, they had an incident that led to an evacuation of a town up there whose name escapes me at the moment. Anyway, as best as I remember, he was very good at handling that incident. He had great success with the WC and was well respected in the industry. Contrast that with what we see today. It is very sad.
Bucyrus Ulrich Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town. Yes, even if the fire chief was at fault, Burkhardt would have been better off not saying so at this point. Everybody knows that these big accidents need some time to be investigated. Burkhadt should not be expected to explain the cause the next day. But the worse thing is that Burkhardt comes right out of the box blaming it on the fire chief, and it appears that Burkhardt's case is full of holes. And because his blaming of the fire chief is based on a technical issue involving air brakes and running locomotives, those issues will be sorted out by the experts. So if Burkhardt is blowing smoke, it is not going to escape the technical expertise of the investigation. And if Burkhardt's excuse is proven to be false, he is going to look very bad for trying to blame the fire chief before the investigation even began.
Ulrich Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town.
Blaming the Nantes fire chief doesn't help either. The best thing he could have done right after this happened is to take FULL and complete responsibility for what happened, apologize, and get the wheels rolling on what can be done for the victims and the town.
Yes, even if the fire chief was at fault, Burkhardt would have been better off not saying so at this point. Everybody knows that these big accidents need some time to be investigated. Burkhadt should not be expected to explain the cause the next day.
But the worse thing is that Burkhardt comes right out of the box blaming it on the fire chief, and it appears that Burkhardt's case is full of holes. And because his blaming of the fire chief is based on a technical issue involving air brakes and running locomotives, those issues will be sorted out by the experts.
So if Burkhardt is blowing smoke, it is not going to escape the technical expertise of the investigation. And if Burkhardt's excuse is proven to be false, he is going to look very bad for trying to blame the fire chief before the investigation even began.
It's inconceivable to me that responding firefighters would release handbrakes which, according to one story I read, where set on all 5 locomotives as well a 7 of the tank cars (although now there are reports that the engineer may not have set the proper number)...
I hate to pass judgement on someone as well respected in the Industry asMr. Burkardt but he seems to be using the same "How not to respond to a Company Emergency" playbook used by Robert Murray, former operator of the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, when a collapse at that facility killed 6 miners and later 3 rescuers trying to dig them out. Murray gave media interviews were he repeatedly insisted that the collapse was the result of a naturally occuring earthquake even as evidence mounted that it was the result of unsafe prectices at the mine.
Mr. Murray was able to continue as CEO of his group of Companies, time will tell if Ed Burkhardt will be able to do the same....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
LION thinks that much of what is being attributed to Mr. Burkhardt is a reporters misunderstanding of what he actually said or tried to say. Let's blame most of this misunderstanding on the reporters until the NTSB gets done with their investigation and make their report.
---ok, the Cannuck equivalent of the NTSB---
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion Let's blame most of this misunderstanding on the reporters until the NTSB gets done with their investigation and make their report.
Why should we blame the reporters for misunderstanding when there is no evidence that a misunderstanding exists?
Mr. Burkhardt has made many incredible comments, and many are directly quoted. If all of these comments were a misinterpretation of what he said, I should think he would make one more comment saying that he has been misinterpreted. Yet he has made no such remark.
So until proven that Mr. Burkhardt has been misunderstood, I will take his comments as they are reported.
The official M,M& A press release claims a release of the air brakes due to the shutdown of a locomotive caused the accident and makes no mention of hand brakes:
http://www.mmarail.com/sections/news/files/MMA_7.7.2013_Press%20Release_1415.EST.pdf
HOWEVER: the latest update is that Mr. Burkhardt himself stated in an interview today that the engineer did not set the proper number of hand brakes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/10/us-train-missing-idUSBRE9690HJ20130710
Schuylkill and SusquehannaIt would seem that Mr. Burkhard was either just hired, or he has a VERY short memory. I quote him again: "we've never had a significant mainline derailment." Now I would say that ANY mainline derailment is significant, unless it's on an HO layout. Also, it just to happens that MM&A has had 7 (7!!!!) derailments on the mainline between Bangor and Montreal, IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF 2013.
Drop down the stats box on this page. It is correct that the Railroad had no MAINLINE derailments and only one mainline collision in the past ten years. I think the record looks pretty good for a small rail operation. (Unless that data is restricted to Canadian operations)
To expand on my speculation of the mechanics of the derailment.
1. For whatever reason the train started down hill, picking up speed as it descended the hill.
2. Apparently at a curve in town the top heavy tank cars tipped over to the outside ( ? )
3. With the tank car equipped with a shelf coupler it tipped the safety car ( boxcar ? ) as well.
4. Without a shelf coupler the boxcar coupler disengaged from the locomotive (S)
5. With what ever braking capability left the loco(s) slowed and finally stopped about 0.6 Miles beyond first car derailment..
6. The topo map shown on other posts showed a wye looking track arrangement near the river. Whether the derailment happened there or further west is not now known.
overall NPR is reporting that the engineer on this train has been "suspended without pay" for not setting enough hand brakes. I guess when it's all said and done, the railroad will be to blame and the whole industry will suffer for one man's lapse in judgement.
NPR is reporting that the engineer on this train has been "suspended without pay" for not setting enough hand brakes. I guess when it's all said and done, the railroad will be to blame and the whole industry will suffer for one man's lapse in judgement.
EDITED 7/11/2013 1:44PM
My dad is an auditor, and had a couple good comments. I will relay them.
First, the engineer is just another scapegoat. The railroad needs to get to the "root cause" of the accident. The train derailed. Why? The brakes weren't set. Why? The engineer did not properly set the brakes. Why? Was he improperly trained or not familiar with the equipment?
If he was improperly trained (this includes simply forgetting to set the brakes), then the railroad is responsible because they need a better training plan, or they need to make sure that the train crews are properly trained.
If he was not familiar with the equipment, then the railroad should have trained him on the equipment. Hand brakes are fairly basic in terms of training, so why wasn't he adequately trained.
Secondly, this seems to be the tip of the iceberg. The problems go much deeper than they appear.
Third, Mr. Burkhardt should have gone to the scene of the accident as soon as it happened.
Fourth, Mr. Burkhardt obviously didn't listen to his PR guys, as they would have known not to give out "what really happened" before he had all the information.
Fifth, MM&A does not seem to have a business climate where safety is a primary concern., the tracks are poor, and multiple people have made multiple mistakes. The engineer should have applied more hand brakes, the engineer should have properly locked out the train before going off duty, the dispatcher should have notified both train crews, and (unconfirmed) the dispatcher should have lined the switches in case the train rolled as the engineer asked.
It seems as if the managers of the MM&A are only concerned about the end of year books. They would rather spend say $10,000,000 on accident insurance premiums, instead of $20,000,000 on the back maintenance that would prevent the accident. Their one year only approach costs them more in the long run, because the back maintenance costs go up only slowly, but they pay large insurance premiums each year. After several years, it would have cost less to do the maintenance.
It would be interesting to see how other railroads owned by Rail World Inc. are managed for comparison. Mr. Burkhardt is not just the president of MM&A. He is the president of Rail World Inc., the president of MM&A, the president of The San Luis Central Railroad Company, serves on the Board of Directors of the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of AS Baltic Rail, and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Rail Polska.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
BroadwayLion Schuylkill and SusquehannaIt would seem that Mr. Burkhard was either just hired, or he has a VERY short memory. I quote him again: "we've never had a significant mainline derailment." Now I would say that ANY mainline derailment is significant, unless it's on an HO layout. Also, it just to happens that MM&A has had 7 (7!!!!) derailments on the mainline between Bangor and Montreal, IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF 2013. Drop down the stats box on this page. It is correct that the Railroad had no MAINLINE derailments and only one mainline collision in the past ten years. I think the record looks pretty good for a small rail operation. (Unless that data is restricted to Canadian operations) ROAR
Hello "ROAR",
My information was from an article quoting information from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration’s Office of Safety Analysis. Here's the link. The data is buried in the text, but it's there. It could be that the 7 accidents occurred in the US, and it could also depend on your definition of main line. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/mmas-good-safety-record-demolished-by-runaway-train/article13103487/ The article was published this morning.
Burkhardt states that initially the Engineers statement of applying 11 hand brakes was believed - investigation of the equipment proved otherwise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23264397#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Apparently an investigator from the TSB said the train was doing about 63 MPH when it derailed.
Story (originally from the AP) link:http://www.wbay.com/story/22778911/40-still-missing-in-deadly-canada-oil-train-crash
From the story -
TSB investigator Donald Ross said Canada's TSB has gone on record saying that it would like to see improvements on these tankers, though he acknowledged it's too early to say whether a different or modified tanker would have avoided this weekend's tragedy. The DOT-111 is a staple of the American freight rail fleet. But its flaws have been noted as far back as a 1991 safety study. Among other things, its steel shell is too thin to resist puncture in accidents, which almost guarantees the car will tear open in an accident, potentially spilling cargo that could catch fire, explode or contaminate the environment. "It's too early to tell. There's a lot of factors involved," Ross said. "There's a lot of energy here. The train came down on a fairly significant grade for 6.8 miles (10.9 kilometers) before it came into the town and did all the destruction it did." He said the train was moving at 63 mph (101 kph) when it derailed.
TSB investigator Donald Ross said Canada's TSB has gone on record saying that it would like to see improvements on these tankers, though he acknowledged it's too early to say whether a different or modified tanker would have avoided this weekend's tragedy.
The DOT-111 is a staple of the American freight rail fleet. But its flaws have been noted as far back as a 1991 safety study. Among other things, its steel shell is too thin to resist puncture in accidents, which almost guarantees the car will tear open in an accident, potentially spilling cargo that could catch fire, explode or contaminate the environment.
"It's too early to tell. There's a lot of factors involved," Ross said. "There's a lot of energy here. The train came down on a fairly significant grade for 6.8 miles (10.9 kilometers) before it came into the town and did all the destruction it did." He said the train was moving at 63 mph (101 kph) when it derailed.
Blame a "faulty" design now too? One story I read indicated that the "boxcar" between the tank cars and locos "detached" because it didn't have a shelf coupler. I admit not knowing much about couplers - but would that matter here? I thought the purpose of a "shelf' on a coupler was to keep the coupler on adjacent cars from "climbing" over and puncturing the shell of a tank car.
Dan
Expanding on speculation of only of the mechanics of the derailment itself on previous posts.
7. The boxcar should not have uncoupled from the first tank car as the shelf coupler on that tank car will most times keep it coupled.
8. With no shelf couplers on boxcars the boxcar probaably came loose from the rear loco ?
9. If any train cars had hand brakes engaged rolliing down the hill would have heated them up very much.!
10 Any vehicles, propane tanks, natural gas lines that the derailment broke open would have allowed that flamable to leak out whose flash point much lowerr than the dragging brakes temperatures on any cars.
11. The hot brakes would quickly cause a fire and that fire might have boiled the oil in tank cars --- causing them to vent or burn depeding whether they leaked --- then BOOM !!! ?
12. The loco(s) only traveling 1/2 mile further maybe indicates loco brakes engaged ?
CNW 6000 TSB investigator Donald Ross said Canada's TSB has gone on record saying that it would like to see improvements on these tankers, though he acknowledged it's too early to say whether a different or modified tanker would have avoided this weekend's tragedy. The DOT-111 is a staple of the American freight rail fleet. But its flaws have been noted as far back as a 1991 safety study. Among other things, its steel shell is too thin to resist puncture in accidents, which almost guarantees the car will tear open in an accident, potentially spilling cargo that could catch fire, explode or contaminate the environment. Blame a "faulty" design now too?
Blame a "faulty" design now too?
I think there has long been a sort of tug of war between the concept of tank cars that cannot rupture and what is economical. This derailment will certainly reivive that debate; with the help of the anti-fossil fuel protesters. Just like the wreck that energized the PTC mandate, this oil train wreck is going to lead to new mandates.
The problem with making stronger tank cars is that every pound you add to the car structure is one less pound of oil that you can carry.
From another list:
"Ed Burkhardt, boss at Rail World, owner of the MM&A, says the incident is now likely at the company's insurance limits. "
It's hard to see that the railroad will keep operating if this is the case, and certainly, given that there will be numerous lawsuits that will drag on for years, it's not likely the company can remain solvent. Not that the loss of life is not the primary consideration here, but any speculation about the future of this line? CP says it is attempting to acquire regional railroads to bolster its route system. Would they be interested? (If not, they lose much of the haul on oil going to Saint John.) Or is this incident so major that no entity would even consider operating a railroad here again?
Mark Meyer
@LION, many website now host video from Bunkhardt interview, I think you'll get the first hand account you wanted to judge by yourself.
New pictures from the police. Click on image to see others. You can clearly a lot of cars burned where the yard was. Near the boxcar, it seems there's a whitish tank car. You can speculate as you want, but a least, it gives us a good idea of the general layout.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=531513136897674&set=a.531512913564363.1073741832.529692030413118&type=1&theate
About Ed Bunkhardt, whatever he was in his "previous" life, his handling of this derailment is particularly pathetic. I'm first to agree journalists were pushy and most don't know their stuff about trains, but it doesn't excuse him from his attitude. He should have refrained to judge and point culprits. I'm seriously surprised to see a CEO acting this way. His own lawyers must rage hearing his big mouth, how to defend such an individual during the aftermath. He looks like a bad villain in Columbo, trying to do a job that isn't his. It's all about first impression and he messed up real bad, just like his train. A particular case study about bad public relation. I wouldn't be surprised to see this studied in school one day.
For those who never ventured on MMA recently, let me say it's the shadow of it's former self (talking about the ex-CPR part in Quebec). I was there a month or two ago and was struck by the general disrepair of track. I'm no specialist, but track sinking in mud puddles, ties without spikes and very bad drainage where commont occurence between Megantic and Cookshire. We had the chance to see an engine which had a fire too. The line is crippled by speed restriction, they had many "minor" derailments over this year. Oil was a pringboard toward a brighter future to them, but looks like they are going under at this very moment. Bunkhardt ran this company on a tight rope and what should happen, happened, only the incident claimed too many lives. You reap what you sow, even if it was legally sown.
They cut cost and to do so they cut security layers and personnel that would have protected them and the public from errors. That the odious part of the story.
In the end, MMA splash all the industry for its own mismanagement. Accident happens, but this is going to be a case of negligence. Bunkhardt gives the railway a bad name... especially to short lines across North America. It's my opinion, it's my perception, but once again, that's what makes people move on. Journalists stresses a lot about what was wrong. But they never cared to explain what are correct industry practices. So everything MMA did wrong is interpreted by media as some loop hole in regulation. Sad, but true.
There's was a lot of talk about reviving rail in the area near Megantic. Guess he totally ruined it.
I'll stop there because, with each day, it's getting harder to keep a cool head about those events when you don't leave so far from there and know MMA a little bit.
As for the brake problem, it's great to see all your speculations and some input from real railroader. We may be far from the real thing, but at least, it's far better than reading confusing news reports!
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
Another detail that seems to have played a part in the derailment. The derailment took place near the wye (ex-Quebec Central) turnout. I suspect the locomotives were able to manage the curve and turnout because of their lower center of gravity but tank cars couldn't. The turnout was located in the curve too. You will see a few tank cars rans on the wye and fell on their side. Other cars just "accordioned" together.
I think this is the end of the MM&A. If the railroad can't afford to maintain its track and locomotives, the lawsuits will be the crippling blow to the regional. Even if they did survive, people would loudly protest the movement of crude oil through there towns.
Lone Geep
\
lone geep I think this is the end of the MM&A. If the railroad can't afford to maintain its track and locomotives, the lawsuits will be the crippling blow to the regional. Even if they did survive, people would loudly protest the movement of crude oil through there towns.
I can't think of any accident like this (and there have been a number over the years) which resulted in a railroad being abandoned....
However, if by "the end" you are referring to a change in ownership/mangement then I would agree..
Ironically that line was once upon a time the crown jewel in Canadian Pacific's network. Van Horne himself remarked that the line east of Sherbrooke to Saint John was of excellent engineering and construction. It remains the shortest rail link between central and eastern Canada. It would be a real shame to see it go down the tubes. Long live the "Short Line", whoever may come to own it.
After destroying part of a town and killing 20-50 of its residents, one would think many people in that area would take a dim view of the MM&A, period.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The latest news is about the police having evidence that has caused them to open a criminal investigation, but they won’t say what that evidence is. One recent statement was made in the context of being an example of criminal evidence, is as follows:
“Canadian federal officials said Tuesday the train in Nantes should not have moved, even it had lost air pressure to the brakes, prompting suspicion of unauthorized actions.”
Once again, this indicates a misunderstanding of railroad air brakes. The statement is half true. It is true in that the engine was not needed to be running and pumping air into the trainline to hold the brakes on as Burkhardt had falsely asserted. As others have explained, that would actually release the brakes.
However, if air pressure were lost from the brake cylinders, it would have indeed caused the train to move. And there are several possible scenarios whereby the air could have been released from the cylinders, either by mistake, legitiment intent, or by vandalism. So I don’t see the statement above leading to a certain conclusion that there had to be foul play.
But here is another air brake question. I fully understand bleeding cars that have been cut off with their brakes dynamited. But if the air brakes were properly applied on that oil train (without hand brakes applied), what would happen if somebody walked the train and bled all the cars? I assume it would totally release the brakes, just like bleeding a standing cut of cars to switch them.
Article about spectacular $27+ million WC accident which occurred when Burkhardt was CEO. Fortunately, no one was injured, but lots of press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyauwega,_Wisconsin_derailment
UlrichLong live the "Short Line", whoever may come to own it.
I see someone else has pointed out that the toll has risen to 20 dead and 30 missing.
It made me sad to remember, that once upon a time, to CPR employees across the land it wasn't just a shortline or any shortline, but the Canadian Pacific Railway - International of Maine Division was known as "The Short Line"
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Schuylkill and Susquehannathe dispatcher should have notified both train crews, and (unconfirmed) the dispatcher should have lined the switches in case the train rolled as the engineer asked.
This is a dark railroad, there are no signals, and I would not expect to find automatic switches there either.
According to Train's New Wire (http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/07/Burkhardt%20speaks%20out%20on%20Quebec%20derailment.aspx) the "The engineer is now in police custody." Did the MM&A have authority to run one man crew? Though the min was engineer and conductor?
seppburgh2Did the MM&A have authority to run one man crew? Though the min was engineer and conductor?
MMA does have authority to run with one man crews, but after this, it may be revoked...
The caboose in this train has RC equipment in it to move the train around in the yard with one person. Note the general appearance of track and locomotives: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=434730&nseq=2
NW
OK, can we please just bury Mr. Burkhardt?
I believe he didn't handle this well. I don't know if anyone could have handled this well. He's gone. Destroyed. The MM&A is also gone and destroyed. And my personal belief is that negligence was involved all the way up from the engineer who allegedly didn't set the handbrakes properly to Mr. Burkhardt who knew, or should have known, that the train consisted of out of date tank cars handling something that could kill. Normal procedures were not enough.
Do a safety audit. Identify the weak points. Reinforce them. It doesn't seem that that happened.
I'll guess that Burkhardt first went in to denial. He's human. I think that this will eventually kill him. Maybe not soon, but it will haunt him forever and he'll eventually seek solace in his own death. He's not a bad guy, but he shoulders the ultimate responsibility for this terrible event. He was in charge when this happened. Just my opinion.
You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. I think Burkhardt understands that. And, in time, this will kill him. Again, just my opinion.
So let's just quit beating a walking corpse.
Hello Greyhounds,
I agree that the MMA will likely not survive this, and that Mr. Burkhardt didn't handle it well.
greyhoundsthat the train consisted of out of date tank cars handling something that could kill.
The issue is that 69% of the North American tank car fleet are the outdated DOT-111s. And, since terminals are sprouting so fast, the backlog of tank car orders is over 2 years. So, we will likely have a retirement mandate, but some may survive another couple decades until their AAR mandated retirement (40 years IIRC).
Here is what the NTSB says: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/cherry_valley/presentations/Hazardous%20Materials%20Board%20Presentation%20508%20Completed.pdf
Probably not a bad guy. His inability to communicate properly probably makes a bad situation that much worse. Now we know why the top guys make the big bucks: they are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in their organizations. So many people bemoan the fact that the CEO makes far too much in relation to what they make, but they fail to realize that the CEO is being compensated , in large measure, for taking on the responsibility of the entire organization. That's why Burkhardt is facing the music now and not the dingaling(s) who caused the accident. Being a leader has its downside. At any moment a twit can bring you and your entire organization down around your ears.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.