Canadian Pacific to impose surcharge on older tank cars

Comments TRN
1

Join the discussion on the following article:

Canadian Pacific to impose surcharge on older tank cars

2

The tank cars aren’t the problem .It’s the operators. All these issues with CBR could have been prevented, with a proper operating practice. So now we lock up the house after it’s been robbed. …

3

Braden:

And just what in your self-declared omniscience are “proper operating practices”?

4

Braden:

And just what in your self-declared omniscience are “proper operating practices”?

5

A surcharge for additional liability risk is logical, but has been thrown out by the courts in the past. I recall one case involving chemicals being hauled by (?) UP to a chemical plant. The railroad noted that there were sources of the toxic chemicals closer to the destination plant, and placed a surcharge on the chemicals coming from farther away (being a common carrier, UP was unable to refuse to ship). The courts said no, however; the liability remained spread around all shippers (i.e., higher costs), and not just the shipper of the hazardous materials…

6

Here’s a brilliant idea: upgrade the tank cars and then when loaded,slap a " fragile: handle with care " sticker on them like the dang post office lol

7

It’s a perfectly sensible business decision to factor-in the potential liability cost in the rate charged to the shipper. The Casselton,ND derailment should remind us that crude oil accidents do not necessarily involve a maverick RR with questionable operating rules and can happen on the best-run railroads. I don’t understand the fuss about this.

8

Seems to me like a movement of greed more than of concern. CP and CN know there aren’t enough new tank cars to go around so they’re milking out money off the old tank car fleet before they’re upgraded as many shippers don’t have a choice. If they genuinely cared about safety they would ban them altogether.

9

Oh, it couldn’t possibly be that the RR’s are trying to protect themselves against the costs of disaster which is more likely wit the older cars. As long as the DOT-111 are approved for use by DOT, the railroads CANNOT ban them (DUH!).

10

This will definitely be a heavy incentive to upgrade the tank car fleet.

With PBF requiring cars carrying crude to their refinery to be upgraded. Irving Oil upgrading their cars and now Canadian Pacific instituting a surcharge it will probably happen sooner rather then later.

11

Wasn’t there a lot of oil moved by rail during WW2 due to U-boats? How did they do it 70 + years ago without a -Lac Megantic disaster?

12

@ERIC SCHNEIDER - I don’t believe the courts have ever ruled on it. The STB tends to make the decisions, and the carriers rarely appeal to the courts.

My guess is that they’re expecting the STB to be slightly more reasonable about the situation post-Lac Megantic. Certainly it would be a public relations fiasco for the STB to demand CP do nothing to discourage use of less safe oil tankers.

13

@ERIC SCHNEIDER - I don’t believe the courts have ever ruled on it. The STB tends to make the decisions, and the carriers rarely appeal to the courts.

My guess is that they’re expecting the STB to be slightly more reasonable about the situation post-Lac Megantic. Certainly it would be a public relations fiasco for the STB to demand CP do nothing to discourage use of less safe oil tankers.

14

@ Mr. HUNT and others. There certainly were horrific disasters during transportation of tank car trains during WWII. Here is one example from 1943 in Ashland Ohio: http://ashlandohiogenealogy.org/trainwreck1.html

15

I wonder if by charging extra for the older tank cars they will be hit with higher exposure percentages by lawyers in the event of a wreck?