Accident derailment British Columbia

Milne Dec 9, 2005

  1. Milne

    Milne TrainBoard Supporter

    339
    8
    20
    As a result of another CN derailment, the Transport Minister has issued an 80 car limit on CN trains using the old BC Rail line.

    Media report
     
  2. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,672
    23,159
    653
    I'm truly puzzled by this idea. How is limiting the number of cars, going to improve the condition of the track structure? Or repair a flawed piece of rolling stock? Wouldn't that require overt actions, to maintain and upgrade?

    [​IMG]

    Boxcab E50
     
  3. rsn48

    rsn48 TrainBoard Member

    2,263
    1
    43
    BoxcabE50,
    The military has a saying: "If stupid works, it isn't stupid." No where does this saying apply more than on RR lines. What usually happens in a take over (think UP melt down here) is that one RR takes over another, arrogantly thinking that it knows all the answers and will run the line better than the old RR.

    Usually policies and procedures evolve because of unique circumstances to the area. Because of these circumstances, you can't always approach the problem with an attitude of "I'm right, they're wrong (the old RR)." BC Rail track and territory is a lot more rugged than through the Canadian rockies, interestingly enough. The track isn't as heavy gauge and it isn't as smooth as the heavier track through BC and Alberta that CN uses. The terrain and track demand a different approach to freight hauling than CN usually uses.

    CN's approach is to run very long trains, much longer than CP, and very much longer than BC Rail ran on its own rail. CN under the Tellier regime wanted to reduce cost; one way is to reduce the number of engineers required by doubling up on the length of trains it runs. You can really notice the difference at the Cisco Bridges owned by CP and CN; twice as many CP trains as CN.

    So CN arrogantly thought they could continue their policy of longer trains on the more rugged, twisting and turning track of BC Rail; they were wrong.
     
  4. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,672
    23,159
    653
    Rick-

    I've been in the military.........

    I don't disagree with what you wrote.

    But it does still all go to infrastructure conditions. Maintained properly, they could probably easily go longer than 80 cars. But instead would need to reduce track speed. They can do one, or the other. But not both.

    [​IMG]

    Boxcab E50
     
  5. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,672
    23,159
    653
    BTW- Thinking of better days on those tracks, I'm going to post something in the BCR Fallen Flags Forum later tonight. Might be enjoyable?

    :D

    Boxcab E50
     
  6. E&NRailway

    E&NRailway TrainBoard Member

    401
    5
    19

    The derailments were caused by trains being too long and String-lining on curves.
     

Share This Page