Canadian Railroads > Taking another look at the Lac Megantic disaster

NY Times takes a look at lessons learned, and changes implemented, following the tragedy.

Many changes on paper, but far fewer that actually make a difference have been implemented


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/world/canada/lac-megantic-quebec-train-explosion.html

Warning, paywall.

   Ross Rowland

To me, parking a solid hazmat train at the top of a hill above a town unaccompanied overnight with old locomotives is beyond stupid. None of the other things matter if you don't do that.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/19 09:49 by P.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me, parking a solid hazmat train at the top of
> a hill above a town unaccompanied overnight is
> beyond stupid. None of the other things matter if
> you don't do that.
>
> Posted from Android

Lac Megantic had a small in town railyard , meaning most trains didn't fit. Back in CP days, it wasn't an issue because most trains did a quick crew change and kept on moving.

For some time, the operation of the MM&A from Farnham to Megantic had involved a single crew taking the train to Megantic, taking their required rest, and returning the next day.

As far as I know, the US crew based out of Brownville Jct. ME was operating in a similar manner.

The planned operation the night of the disaster was for the eastbound train to tie down at Nantes QC , some miles west of Lac Megantic and for the westbound train to tie down at Vachon QC , a few miles east.

The train from the east was not expected to arrive for some time after the westbound train was parked at Nantes. The US based crew (not mentioned whether it was engineer only or had a conductor) would have rested and picked up the eastbound at Nantes the next day.

An audit of operating practices of the previous six months showed that this procedure was not uncommon. Also, on the Canadian side, a second crew person was supplied when available, which was about half of the trips in that period.

The trip after which the runaway occurred was planned, that the train was to be secured at Nantes was known before it departed Farnham QC.  The only unplanned event was the fact that the ex-BN C30-7 leading the train would fail and subsequently catch fire. It had been noted for several previous trips that this locomotive was not operating properly.

Leaving a train unmanned at Nantes on the main line rather than the siding may have been a matter of the extra capacity between switches, but it meant that there wasn't a derail protecting against unplanned movement.

That said, leaving trains unattended on a grade is not in itself a dangerous practice, providing sufficient handbrakes are applied and tested to ensure no possibility exists of unintended movement.

Time will tell if this rail route survives. The reason for the economies of operation east of Sherbrooke QC to Brownville Jct. ME. is that there is little or no online business , a lot of track and some significant bridges in backcountry Maine.

There is talk of a rail diversion around the townsite of Lac Megantic. It is unlikely that trains could run through Megantic due to the necessity of a US/Canada customs inspection and the long service hours required to run from Farnham to Brownville Jct.  The logical solution to solve the issue of securing trains unattended on a grade would be to build a rail yard with more track capacity on flat track on the new diversion.

eminence_grise Wrote:
>
> That said, leaving trains unattended on a grade is
> not in itself a dangerous practice, providing
> sufficient handbrakes are applied and tested to
> ensure no possibility exists of unintended
> movement.
>

I understand that it is done, and in fact, I've done it - however - common sense says another option is likely preferable given the risk when you have to count on things to work as expected.  Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think you need a lot of foresight to see that parking that train there as they did was not a good option.  Lack of a derail, sufficient handbrakes, engines not catching on fire....  sure, a lot of things lined up to cause this, but that train was a serious liability, and that Railroad did not respect it and treat it as such.  They paid the consequences, but dozens of innocent people died a horrible death and a town was forever changed.  No way to account for that.  

P Wrote:

> I understand that it is done, and in fact, I've
> done it - however - common sense says another
> option is likely preferable given the risk when
> you have to count on things to work as expected. 
> Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think you need a
> lot of foresight to see that parking that train
> there as they did was not a good option.  Lack of
> a derail, sufficient handbrakes, engines not
> catching on fire....  sure, a lot of things lined
> up to cause this, but that train was a serious
> liability, and that Railroad did not respect it
> and treat it as such.  They paid the
> consequences, but dozens of innocent people died a
> horrible death and a town was forever changed. 
> No way to account for that.  

The sole crew member on the train, the locomotive engineer, admitted to not securing sufficient handbrakes to secure the train from movement under all conditions.

He was an experienced railway employee, having started with CP in 1980, and transferred to Canadian American, and later Montreal,Maine & Atlantic.
Following a series of incidents across the rail networks in Canada, CP did a thorough review of securing equipment and briefed all operating employees. He would have received such instruction from CP as part of his qualification as a conductor. 

He knew the regulations based on his past experience and chose not to follow them. When Transport Canada interviewed all the operating employees on the MM&A, several of them admitted to not following the regulations all the time. A similar pattern was observed in the US employees of MM&A.

In terms of the management of the railway, there was not enough oversight and supervision to ensure that proper procedures were followed. Some have said that the railway managers intimidated the employees into cutting corners to save time. Some have said that the oversight provided to all railways in Canada by Transport Canada was not sufficient.

A new regional operator, CM&Q is in place. Apart from irregularities in the dismissal of the engineer involved in the incident, I haven't heard details of the CM&Q operations in regard to safety.

Lac Megantic was and hopefully will be again a pleasant little town on the Quebec/Maine Border.  I feel for their loss.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/19 11:00 by eminence_grise.

eminence_grise Wrote:

>
> There is talk of a rail diversion around the
> townsite of Lac Megantic. It is unlikely that
> trains could run through Megantic due to the
> necessity of a US/Canada customs inspection and
> the long service hours required to run from
> Farnham to Brownville Jct.  The logical solution
> to solve the issue of securing trains unattended
> on a grade would be to build a rail yard with more
> track capacity on flat track on the new diversion.

I don't think crews change at Megantic any longer.  Normal operation is for the the Canadian crew to run from Farnham to Jackman, ME and take their rest there.  Meanwhile, a crew out of Brownville goes west with Job 1, switches the lumber mill in Jackman, and then returns to Brownville Jct. with the train (Job 2) that the Canadian crew brought in some time earlier.  Jackman has enough track for them to do that without tying up any crossings.  Once the Canadian crew has had their rest, they take over Job 1 and go back to Farnham.  Of course, if things don't go according to plan, crews might run out of time and have to be relieved somewhere else, but that is life on the railway.

GTD
 

cn6218 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think crews change at Megantic any
> longer.  Normal operation is for the the Canadian
> crew to run from Farnham to Jackman, ME and take
> their rest there. 

Could it be that CMQ has improved the track (25 mph maximum authorized speed, IIRC) that now a Farnham crew can make it to Jackman comfortably? I seem to recall that it was a 10 mph operation when MMA had it, or if it was nominally 25 mph it was riddled with slow orders.

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Following a series of incidents across the rail networks in Canada, CP did a thorough review of securing equipment and briefed all operating employees. 

And then they had the runaway on Field Hill on February 04 of this year.  

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eminence_grise Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Following a series of incidents across the
> rail networks in Canada, CP did a thorough review
> of securing equipment and briefed all
> operating employees. 
>
> And then they had the runaway on Field Hill on
> February 04 of this year.  

I retired from CP in 2005. During my 33 years there, the quality of safety instruction remained good.

However, I am concerned  the operating crews involved did not apply sufficient handbrakes as soon as possible after the train stopped in emergency in the Field Hill incident.

To date, Transport Canada has not released further details. Since the event, many hundreds of trains have operated safely over this portion of track.



 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/19 18:28 by eminence_grise.

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A new regional operator, CM&Q is in place...

This month's Trains Magazine has a fairly long article about them.

If you look up Lac Megantic on Google Earth and scroll through the dates, you will actually see an incredible screen shot of the disaster that was caught by a satellite.

Google Earth - July 12, 2013.

Google Earth - May 9, 2016.


Ron

---

---

The hard copy version of the NY Times had several pictures of the still devastated community.

Posted from Android

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cn6218 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't think crews change at Megantic any
> > longer.  Normal operation is for the the
> Canadian
> > crew to run from Farnham to Jackman, ME and
> take
> > their rest there. 
>
> Could it be that CMQ has improved the track (25
> mph maximum authorized speed, IIRC) that now a
> Farnham crew can make it to Jackman comfortably? I
> seem to recall that it was a 10 mph operation when
> MMA had it, or if it was nominally 25 mph it was
> riddled with slow orders.

Farham QC to Jackman ME is pushing 160 miles. I wonder if they have moved the initial terminal for Job 1 to Sherbrooke?.