Train Wreck in Quebec - Is that the line that crosses through the north Maine woods?

[Papa Bear]

I have been reading the news articles about the train that derailed in Lac-Mégantic Quebec (see this Recent NY Times Article). I noticed the rail line is the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, which I believe is the line that runs through the Maine north woods, crossing the border up in Beattie Township (near Lowelltown) and runs near Greenville on it's way to New Brunswick.

Anyone know if there's a lot of freight traffic through Maine? At one time they were going to run some tourist trips but I don't know if that ever happened.

Thnx

 

[peakbagger]

The rail line runs from Quebec to Searsport Maine on the coast with a spur to Millinocket. Much of the route runs in the same corridor as the proposed east west highway in Maine. Here is a link to the rail map

http://www.mmarail.com/downloads/mma_rail_map.pdf Here Is a link to its recent history http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/...aine-and-atlantic-railway/?ref=relatedSidebar

There was an attempt to run tourist trips a few years back that ran for a season.

There is a lot of traffic on this line of late as Irving Oil is shipping western Canadian crude to their refinery in Saint Johns NB as there is a substantial price difference between Canadian crude and conventional crude imported from outside of North America. The number of east coast refineries has dwindled of late, so Irving is major supplier to Northern New England. There has been at least one crude oil derailment in the Bangor area in the last year. The grand plan for the Millinocket Maine former papermill is to build a torrefaction plant for making "biocoal" out of low grade wood. Their plan was to start out with one modular plant and eventually end up processing as much low wood grade wood as GNP used when it was running. All of the biocoal would be shipped via the same rail system to Searsport for shipment to Europe. They seem to be delayed with the project which originally was scheduled to be built by this year. Currently they are out trying to get the state to finance the first plant.

A general note is that due to citizen opposition to pipelines, a large amount of crude is being transported around the US and from Canada in railcars and trucks in place of pipelines despite the much safer record for pipelines. One of the unintended consequences of pipeline opposition is higher risk of spills from surface transport. The trade off can be that when a pipeline does leak it can take longer to discover and isolate. I do not know the current status, but there was a significant shortage of rail tank cars in the US recently due to the high demand for their use for crude transport. The rail operators appreciate the business as the demand for coal transport has tanked.

 

[Mac]

It's actually North Dakota crude so far, as the Irving refinery would require significant adjustment in order to handle the western Canadian stuff.

 

[Daniel Eagan]

A general note is that due to citizen opposition to pipelines, a large amount of crude is being transported around the US and from Canada in railcars and trucks in place of pipelines despite the much safer record for pipelines.

One of the points the Times article made today was that the fuel being shipped was a result of fracking, and practically speaking there are no pipelines extending from fracking fields. So it's not so much citizen opposition as lack of infrastructure that has oil companies using trains.

Experts are still debating pipeline vs. railroad safety. Properly managed, trains shouldn't derail and explode. In the Times article the reporter noted that in the US safety systems put brakes into place even if, actually when air brakes fail. The train engineer was apparently sleeping in a hotel seven miles away when firemen extinguished a blaze on the train.

 

[Remix]

One of the points the Times article made today was that the fuel being shipped was a result of fracking, and practically speaking there are no pipelines extending from fracking fields. So it's not so much citizen opposition as lack of infrastructure that has oil companies using trains.

Experts are still debating pipeline vs. railroad safety. Properly managed, trains shouldn't derail and explode. In the Times article the reporter noted that in the US safety systems put brakes into place even if, actually when air brakes fail. The train engineer was apparently sleeping in a hotel seven miles away when firemen extinguished a blaze on the train.

I just want to comment in terms of advocating legislation to minimize environmental problems from oil spills.

Railroad accidents involving crude oil have been greatly increasing, and they are seldom reported in the news unless something spectacular occurs. This was the subject of the Wall Street Journal article on March 27th of this year.. wish I could link it but I cannot seem to get past the pay wall when I'm on my phone...

Having worked in an industry that makes high reliability pressure sensors for passenger and freight locomotives, I can tell you that there is no magical system that applies brakes when all air pressure is drained from a train. However in the US there are laws mandated by the Federal Railroad agency that require a certain percentage of hand brakes to be applied on a train before it can be considered "tied down". From all accounts it appears that the engineer did not set a sufficient number of hand brakes or perhaps none at all.

It will be interesting to find out if Canada has the same rules.

 

[peakbagger]

Interesting, I thought railroad equipment were equipped with air brakes like trucks that are applied unless there is air pressure applied to overcome the springs in the brake drums. Then again my exposure to railroad equipment is pretty limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brake_(road_vehicle) Wikipedia is under the same impression.

In theory with air brakes the train wouldn't have moved if the train lacked a compressor.

 

[DougPaul]

Interesting, I thought railroad equipment were equipped with air brakes like trucks that are applied unless there is air pressure applied to overcome the springs in the brake drums. Then again my exposure to railroad equipment is pretty limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brake_(road_vehicle) Wikipedia is under the same impression.

In theory with air brakes the train wouldn't have moved if the train lacked a compressor.

I think you are thinking of the Westinghouse brake system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_brake

I had the same thought... However the article does indicate that the system has some failure modes. And there are other possibilities...

Doug

 

[Remix]

Interesting, I thought railroad equipment were equipped with air brakes like trucks that are applied unless there is air pressure applied to overcome the springs in the brake drums. Then again my exposure to railroad equipment is pretty limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_brake_(road_vehicle) Wikipedia is under the same impression.

In theory with air brakes the train wouldn't have moved if the train lacked a compressor.

No, there are no springs on railroad breaks. A difference in air pressure between two "sides" forces the shoes to the wheel. So if both sides are fully charged with air, the brakes are released. If both sides have no air pressure, the brakes are released. Control is accomplished by reducing the air pressure on one "side", the train line.

Edit: It appears that there was a fire on the locomotive which firemen dealt with a few hours before the tragedy. They shut off the locomotive fuel supply. Air gradually bled out of the system so that the pressure on both "sides" became 0, and then the train started rolling because
-there was a 1.2% grade
-the engineer did not set any handbrakes and depended entirely on the locomotive to make up for leaking air. (this may be legal and common practice in Canada)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake

.

 

[RoySwkr]

Nonetheless, Burkhardt predicted the accident would lead to changes in the way railways operate, and indicated that MMA would no longer leave loaded trains unattended, a practice he said was standard in the industry.

But I'm not sure how railroads can avoid leaving loaded _cars_ on sidings, which could result in the same sort of incident - some sidings have a derail device that can be set to derail cars instead of letting them roll onto the main line but those aren't foolproof either

As a hiker, I occasionally pass unattended railcars and surely it wouldn't be hard to set them rolling in many cases

 

[Remix]

Just an Update

For those who are concerned with environmental risks to the natural preserves-

Today:
Federal regulators issued an emergency order Tuesday requiring rail shippers to test the makeup of crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale formation before transporting it.
The move comes as U.S. authorities investigate Bakken crude oil after a series of accidents involving exploding tank cars – including one in Quebec last July that killed 47 people and leveled a town.
The U.S. Department of Transportation said Tuesday that shippers are required to test oil that they ship from the Bakken region to ensure that it is classified correctly.

In a nutshell, some of this oil is very volatile, has a large vapor pressure, and a much lower ignition temperature than light, sweet crude.


I know that these trains travel through Western New York to Albany and down to New Jersey along the Hudson River (Im a bit of a train buff), but I am not sure if they travel on the Canadian Pacific line which skirts Lake Champlain and terminates in Montreal.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

When the train crew spots cars on sidetracks they set the handbrakes. Notice the handwheel about 2' in diameter on one end of the car above a platform for the crew to stand on.