Canadian Railroads > Transport Canada raises speed limit for hazardous trains

After a CP crude oil train derailed and burned in Saskatchewan,
the second in the same area within a few months,
Transport Minister Marc Garneau severely restricted the speed of trains
carrying hazardous commodities,
with a Ministerial Order on Feb. 6, 2020,

All trains with 20 or more cars carrying hazardous goods
or one or more cars of toxic inhalation gas were limited
to 25 MPH on the road and 20 MPH in metropolitan areas.



Now, on February 16, The Minister has loosened the restrictions.

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2020/02/minister-of-transport-updates-ministerial-order-to-reduce-the-risks-of-derailment-of-trains-transporting-dangerous-goods.html

Unit trains of tank cars loaded with hazardous commodities such as oil will be restricted to,
50 MPH on signalled track, 25 MPH in dark territory,
and never more than 30 MPH in metropolitan areas.
Also applies to any train with over 80 tank cars of hazardous commodities.

Trains which contain 20 or more cars loaded with hazardous commodities
or one or more cars of toxic inhalation gas will be restricted to,
50 MPH on signalled track, 40 MPH in dark territory,
and never more than 35 MPH in metropolitan areas.

CN has applauded the changes,
https://www.cn.ca/en/news/2020/02/cn-supportive-of-the-amendment-to-the-ministerial-order-on-train/


 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/20 18:35 by Marcus.

The oil trade press anticipated this walk-back from the Ministry a few days ago. Strangling the Alberta oil export and domestic transfer business would not be a good idea. More than doubling the cycle time for oil trains to eastern Canada would create havoc on the railroads and the shippers. At 25 mph, recrews would be required much more frequently.

Still, it does raise serious questions about the 117J tank cars.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The oil trade press anticipated this walk-back
> from the Ministry a few days ago. Strangling the
> Alberta oil export and domestic transfer business
> would not be a good idea. More than doubling the
> cycle time for oil trains to eastern Canada would
> create havoc on the railroads and the shippers. At
> 25 mph, recrews would be required much more
> frequently.
>
> Still, it does raise serious questions about the
> 117J tank cars.


Like maybe the old design wasn't bad afterall?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The oil trade press anticipated this walk-back
> > from the Ministry a few days ago. Strangling
> the
> > Alberta oil export and domestic transfer
> business
> > would not be a good idea. More than doubling
> the
> > cycle time for oil trains to eastern Canada
> would
> > create havoc on the railroads and the shippers.
> At
> > 25 mph, recrews would be required much more
> > frequently.
> >
> > Still, it does raise serious questions about
> the
> > 117J tank cars.
>
>
> Like maybe the old design wasn't bad afterall?

Maybe.

After the Lac Megantic disaster, there was some talk of requiring two buffer cars between each cut of 10 loaded oil tankers. So, a hundred tanker car unit train might be 120 total cars long. That didn't go over well with the railroads,and the government went with another plan. The new, fortified tank cars.

Gotta look like you're doing something. So, you try to string up engineer Harding to show you're serious.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The oil trade press anticipated this
> walk-back
> > > from the Ministry a few days ago. Strangling
> > the
> > > Alberta oil export and domestic transfer
> > business
> > > would not be a good idea. More than doubling
> > the
> > > cycle time for oil trains to eastern Canada
> > would
> > > create havoc on the railroads and the
> shippers.
> > At
> > > 25 mph, recrews would be required much more
> > > frequently.
> > >
> > > Still, it does raise serious questions about
> > the
> > > 117J tank cars.
> >
> >
> > Like maybe the old design wasn't bad afterall?
>
> Maybe.
>
> After the Lac Megantic disaster, there was some
> talk of requiring two buffer cars between each cut
> of 10 loaded oil tankers. So, a hundred tanker car
> unit train might be 120 total cars long. That
> didn't go over well with the railroads,and the
> government went with another plan. The new,
> fortified tank cars.
>
> Gotta look like you're doing something. So, you
> try to string up engineer Harding to show you're
> serious.

Harding wasn't exactly innocent. Anybody with more then two weeks seniority in engine service would know enough to set handbrakes...