Train - hazardous cargo "accident"

[3930dave]

LOL, nope, I sit is a little cubical writing computer code all day long, no connection to any railway except as an investor in one of the other big ones. I think the entire thing is tragic and I think things need to change for the entire industry given what happened, but if you look to the time before this case, with respect to insurance, how much was realistic for the railway to carry? The worst case that anybody would have considered is a spill of the entire cargo in a sensitive or populated area, possibly involving a few deaths. Was $25 million enough for that, probably not, but should they have had to carry 5 billion in case a train exploded in downtown Toronto? (OK, I know they don't run trains there, but other companies do)

People should be held accountable for regulations that were not followed and corners that were cut. Regulations will change as a result and new safety measures will be put into place. The industry will become safer as a result of this accident, just as the airline industry becomes safer with every incident. It's a terrible tragedy, I hope everybody is safer as a result, that's the very least that can come out of this. But with respect to INSURANCE, I don't think any company would be adequately covered for this incident and I don't think you could ever expect them to carry that amount of insurance.

Just checking Ken. Given how little non-government employment there is in Ottawa, you could have been in one of the transport departments.

"Tiresome" isn't the right word, but I'll stick with that to be polite. Companies are allowed to profit as they see fit, and when the brown stuff hits the fan, taxpayers are stuck paying. A big factor in CorporateGovernment is making your problem somebody elses. Why aren't the major rail lines running this short line ? - it doesn't hit their profit metrics. So our government allows a 3'rd rate company to run it, with attendant consequences.

As I've stated earlier, our federal transport departments either need to get in the game, and actually REGULATE and POLICE this industry, or they should be disbanded entirely.

Writing code, you may not have to carry professional insurance personally. Check with any consulting engineer, and they'll tell you (scaled from what they individually have to carry) that $25 MM was a farce.

To be clear, I respect that you hold a differing opinion, my issue is not with you personally.

Disgusted is not an adequate word to describe how I feel that this was ALLOWED to happen, solely in the name of profit.

Rgds, D.

 

[kiotiken]

Just checking Ken. Given how little non-government employment there is in Ottawa, you could have been in one of the transport departments.

"Tiresome" isn't the right word, but I'll stick with that to be polite. Companies are allowed to profit as they see fit, and when the brown stuff hits the fan, taxpayers are stuck paying. A big factor in CorporateGovernment is making your problem somebody elses. Why aren't the major rail lines running this short line ? - it doesn't hit their profit metrics. So our government allows a 3'rd rate company to run it, with attendant consequences.

As I've stated earlier, our federal transport departments either need to get in the game, and actually REGULATE and POLICE this industry, or they should be disbanded entirely.

Writing code, you may not have to carry professional insurance personally. Check with any consulting engineer, and they'll tell you (scaled from what they individually have to carry) that $25 MM was a farce.

To be clear, I respect that you hold a differing opinion, my issue is not with you personally.

Disgusted is not an adequate word to describe how I feel that this was ALLOWED to happen, solely in the name of profit.

Rgds, D.

Dave,
Ottawa is also know as Silicone Valley north, and although the glory days are behind us, there is still a lot of innovation and employment in the high tech sector here, not to mention many other industries. I'll give you there's a fair bit of govt. work as well.

I disagree that the govt. should mandate that one of the other large railways should be forced to run a undesirable line. I think the government is only there to provide adequate regulations and a level playing field for as many companies as possible and create as much competition as possible. If regulations are met and consistent for all players, I don't see an issue with one company subing work out to another.

As an independent consultant, I have had to carry errors & omissions insurance, but not in my current engagement, so I no longer do. At the time, it was about $2000 / yr, a cost that I immediately and directly passed on to my client by raising my per diem rate. I was covered for a million or two (it was a few years ago and I don't remember anymore), but the amount was dictated by my client. Had I made a mistake that caused my client damages, the damages would have been 1) far lower than the amount of my coverage (the most likely) or 2) Many, many, many multiples of the amount of coverage I held (highly unlikely and unimaginable, but technically possible as I deal with highly classified and confidential information). The point is, you need to carry an adequate level of insurance for all conceivable situations, but the fact is, you can never have enough for ALL situations. None of the larger railways would have enough coverage for this accident and I disagree, they wouldn't be able to just pay and keep going, business as usual.

 

[3930dave]

Ken, respectfully, I think your concept of "adequate regulation" and mine are a little different.

The point that you don't seem to understand, or at least acknowledge, is that the "regulations" don't exist.

I've requoted below some of what I posted in #131. If all that happens is "suggestions" are made, with zero consequences levied for non-compliance, this facade is nothing more than window dressing.

Human nature 101. If all that happened is that police could "suggest" that you obey the speed limit when driving your car, how many poeple would ?

Rgds, D.


MONTREAL - A report into a runaway train incident, similar to what happened in Lac-Megantic, Que., warned of unclear rules governing train braking on steep grades along Canadian freight lines.

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) report was issued seven months before a crude-oil train barrelled down a slope and exploded in Lac-Megantic, killing 50 people and flattening the centre of town.

Eighteen months earlier, in December 2011, an iron ore train had gone out of control on a slope in Doree, Que., near the Labrador border.

The 112-car freight train reached speeds of 101 km/h, coming to rest only when the track levelled out.

The TSB blamed faulty air brakes and suggested a minimum number of brakes that should be applied on each car to secure a train parked on steep inclines.

Without specific instructions that take into consideration local conditions, there is a risk of underestimating the number of hand brakes required to secure a train on a steep grade and preventing it from running away, the TSB said.

 

[kiotiken]

Ken, respectfully, I think your concept of "adequate regulation" and mine are a little different.

Dave, our concepts of adequate regulations are very similar. I don't suggest our current regulations are adequate (or even enforced) and I know there are big changes to come. I was simply picking up on the insurance angle and the comment that they never should have been able to operate with only $25 million in coverage. Again, I don't fully disagree, I'm just pointing out that you couldn't have stipulated enough coverage in the regulations to cover this accident. This company is now liquidating and dispersing the proceeds to its creditors. Unfortunately, the victims will not see as much of it as they should since they'll be near the end of the creditor line, but there's likely little anybody can do about that. They'll max out the insurance they have and sell the company and it's assets and I don't think it would have been any different if they were forced to carry 10X the amount of coverage.

 

[hogheadCTD]

Most railroads are self insured.

 

[crazyal]

At best Canada will takeover the line and search for a company to take it over. Given its profit (or lack of profit) I think it'll be difficult. But Canada has a major interest in keeping the tracks open and business flowing. At one point in time CN was a public company so anything is possible.

 

[3930dave]

Dave, our concepts of adequate regulations are very similar. I don't suggest our current regulations are adequate (or even enforced) and I know there are big changes to come. I was simply picking up on the insurance angle and the comment that they never should have been able to operate with only $25 million in coverage. Again, I don't fully disagree, I'm just pointing out that you couldn't have stipulated enough coverage in the regulations to cover this accident. This company is now liquidating and dispersing the proceeds to its creditors. Unfortunately, the victims will not see as much of it as they should since they'll be near the end of the creditor line, but there's likely little anybody can do about that. They'll max out the insurance they have and sell the company and it's assets and I don't think it would have been any different if they were forced to carry 10X the amount of coverage.

Thanks for the clarification Ken - turns out we are a bit closer in thinking styles than my earlier interpretation of your comments concluded.

It would be interesting to do a simple basic calculation - just the value of the oil itself in a typical train load of crude. I don't know the capacities involved, or I'd just calculate it - won't be surprised if that alone exceeds $25 MM.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

Most railroads are self insured.

I would have guessed that with the major RRs. Effectively, MMA was allowed to do the same - my BP is high enough today on this subject already.... 'nuff said.

I don't care who owns what, I don't want shoddy equipment transporting dangerous goods down rickety tracks in Canada. If that means shutting the line down, so be it.

Ontario spends a lot of money on Inspection and Enforcement of Commercial trucks, as we should.

Why do the railways get a free pass ?

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

The problem is they are a Shortline RR carrying cargo for the big RR's on track they dont want to maintain.
If this would have been CN or CSX or NS they would have moved in cleaned up,paid up and moved on but this Shortline got caught in the worst scenario and now are done and its affecting a lot of industry and a lot of people

Aside from the direct victims and their survivors in the town, the other people I feel sorry for are the workers at MMA, and related upstream/downstream (meaning workflow) companies.

Employess need paycheques, and most don't sign on to do shoddy work with ill-maintained equipment, in an under-staffed environment. But, the peasants like us, and the voting public for that matter, don't really have much say in how this actually plays out.

Mostly, what does or does not happen gets determined on Bay or Wall Street.

Rgds, D.

 

[dave1949]

At best Canada will takeover the line and search for a company to take it over. Given its profit (or lack of profit) I think it'll be difficult. But Canada has a major interest in keeping the tracks open and business flowing. At one point in time CN was a public company so anything is possible.

The state of Maine may also do something to support that section of rail in Maine. If that section ends up with no operator, it hurts several paper and wood products plants here too. Several years ago the state purchased a section of rail going up into Aroostook County to keep it operational.

The chipboard plant in Lac Megantic, (Tafisa, a subsidiary of a huge, global wood products company based in Portugal) is supposed to be one of the largest in North America. They have been short-haul trucking their products to other rail heads since the accident, but say they cannot be competitive that way.