The bridge

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

CBC News: Disclosure
Off the Rails: Incident at Mile 7.9 The Bridge
Broadcast: March 2, 2004

Railroad trestles… They are graceful timber bridges that span gorges and rivers. Without them, Canada would never have realized its national dream of building a rail line from coast to coast.

A CN train crossing a timber bridge.

Today, lumber may drive the economy of McBride, British Columbia [link], but it’s the railroad that drives the lumber.

From the moment you arrive in McBride and take a look around, it’s clear the railway is the tie that binds the town. From the street signs to the cinder sidewalks, everything seems to reflect a rich railroad history [link] [archival photos].

The bridge outside McBride at mile 7.9 is similar to the many timber bridges in this part of the country. They may look like throwbacks, but Canadian National (CN) [link] still has 650 of them in operation.

In fact, until 1968 when the highway was built, the wooden bridge at mile 7.9 was the only way in and out of McBride.

McBride is the kind of place that doesn’t need a town clock - the trains keep time in this town. On May 14, 2003, one of those trains would be late – and a tragic accident meant it would never arrive.

next: The Accident

Off the Rails: Incident at Mile 7.9 The Accident

Art McKay worked the rails in British Columbia for 32 years. On the morning of May 14th, 2003, he woke early and kissed his wife, Jane, goodbye. There was a storm brewing as he headed for the yards.

Art McKay
“He said goodbye that morning when he left,” recalls Jane. “He called me at about 7:15 that morning just to tell me not to catch a bus, to take a taxi because it was raining.”

After that call, the 51-year old engineer left the Prince George station on board Canadian National (CN) train #356, heading east for McBride and Jasper.

Coming the other

2

CHARGES LAID IN MCBRIDE, B.C. DERAILMENT

OTTAWA - The Attorney General of Canada has laid charges against the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) under the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Labour Code, Part II. The charges follow an extensive investigation conducted by Transport Canada into a derailment that resulted in the death of two CN employees on May 14, 2003 near McBride, British Columbia.

The Attorney General of Canada has laid one charge against CN under the Railway Safety Act alleging the company failed to ensure the engineering work relating to a line work, including design, construction, evaluation or alteration, was done in accordance with sound engineering principles.

The Attorney General has also laid two charges against CN under the Canada Labour Code, Part II, alleging that the company:

  • failed to ensure that the safety and health at work of every person employed by it was protected by failing to ensure that the bridge structure at Mile 7.9 would support the loading of the train operating over it; and

  • failed to ensure that the safety and health at work of every person employed by it was protected by failing to ensure that the bridge structure at Mile 7.9 would support the loading of the train operating over it, the direct result of which was the death of two employees.

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) is currently investigating the accident to determine the cause. Transport Canada is closely following the TSB’s ongoing investigation through a Minister’s Observer who was appointed after the accident. The Minister’s Observer will advise the department of any significant regulatory factors, identify deficiencies that require immediate corrective actions and assist in coordinating the required support for an investigation.

As the railway regulator, Transport Canada is responsible under the Railway Safety Act for promoting, monitoring and enforcing compliance with existing rules and regulations. The

3

CNR charged in two-death bridge crash a year ago near McBride, B.C.
Canada - Canadian Press
Tue May 11, 9:04 PM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian National Railway Co. faces federal charges a year after two employees died when a wooden trestle collapsed and the front of a freight train plunged into a ravine near McBride, B.C.

The crash in a remote area of the Cariboo region near the Alberta border last May 14 killed the engineer and conductor, the only people on the 86-car eastbound train. Transport Canada said Tuesday that charges have been laid under the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The Railway Safety Act charge alleges that Canada’s largest railway company did not ensure that work on the line was done in accordance with sound engineering principles.

The Labour Code counts state that CN failed to ensure worker health and safety “by failing to ensure that the bridge structure at Mile 7.9 would support the loading of the train operating over it, the direct result of which was the death of two employees.”

The first six cars of the train fell into the ravine with the trestle, which CN (TSX:CNR - news) said had been inspected two days previously.

Via Rail uses the same line for its Skeena service between the resort town of Jasper, Alta., and the port of Prince Rupert, B.C.

The crash started a fire which raged for a day before workers recovered the remains of conductor Ken LeQuesne and engineer Art McKay, both 51 years old and from Prince George, B.C., and each with 30 years of railway experience.

4

I just saw that in the news, this problem certainly doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

5

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada Cites Shortcomings Inspection and Maintenance Programs as Factor Contributing to the Derailment of a Canadian National Freight Train Near McBride, British Columbia

http://tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/2003/r03v0083/r03v0083.asp

GATINEAU, March 2 /CNW Telbec/ - The Transportation Safety Board of
Canada (TSB) issued its final report (R03V0083) today into the May 14, 2003
derailment of a Canadian National (CN) freight train, near McBride, British
Columbia, that resulted in the death of two CN crew members. The TSB’s
investigation determined that the derailment was most likely due to the
collapse of the trestle bridge under the weight of the lead locomotive. A post-
crash fire ensued and the bridge, the two locomotives, and the five cars and
their contents were further destroyed.
“The severity of the internal rot of several of the trestle bridge’s
wooden components was identified in a detailed inspection report in 1999,”
said TSB Chairman, Charles Simpson. “Our investigation identified several
shortcomings in the inspection, planning and maintenance processes that
allowed the unsafe condition to exist.”
As a result of heavy workload, overlaps of duties during job transitions,
and reliance on overall system assessments, the severity and urgency of the
condition that was identified in 1999 was not recognized, and the continuing
deterioration was therefore not reassessed.
In December 2003, seven months into the investigation, the TSB made
public two safety recommendations that focused on the inspection and
maintenance of timber bridges, and regulatory overview of railway maintenance
and record-keeping. Following the two recommendations made by the TSB, safety
action was taken by CN and by Transport Canada to improve safety.
"In this - and all other cases - our job is to find out what happened,
h

6

Does CliqueofOne contribute any original thoughts to any of his threads or is he just more adept at cut-and-paste (plagiarism?) than the rest of us?

7

I’m not too sure he is actually plagairizing: he does quote his sources and/or provides links.

As to original thoughts, what more is needed to be said. The case against CN’s operating practices seems fairly self-evident.

8

Extremely tragic story. Hopefully the CN is redoubling their inspections of wooden bridges.

9

CN PLEADS GUILTY TO CHARGE IN MCBRIDE DERAILMENT

http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/advisories/2005/05-ma025e.htm

10

Just amazing. Sad amazing mind you though. He was nearing retirement too…

11

This also relates to the thread regarding CN derailments…

There are two quite separate problems here. The first is that there were some lapses in inspection and maintenance on CN, particularly in the west. One of these was partly responsible for the bridge collapse being discussed in this thread. CN has examined its practices and determined that there were indeed problems, and admitted it, and is working to change its practices. This should be sufficient; given the politics, unfortunately it probably won’t be.

The second regards the problems on the former BC system. It is well to remember that the decision to sell the BC system to someone (CN wound up as the lucky (?) bidder) was a highly political decision. It was also, in some circles in British Columbia, a highly unpopular decision, as the BC system had been operated as a government operation rather than as a commercial enterprise, and it appeared to some as though there might be some changes made – which are being made. CN got some surprises, though, when it took over the operation, one of which is directly relevant here: the state of the BC infrastructure was not as good as it had been thought to be, and certainly not up to the standards of the rest of CN, nor of CP. A considerable amount of work still needs to be done before the infrastructure can support the type of heavy operation normal on the rest of the systems. One could say that CN has been overly optimistic in determining the level of service which can be supported by this infrastructure, and it appears that they intend to change their operating practices as required. They also hope to upgrade the infrastructure to normal heavy duty main line standards, but this takes time and a good bit of capital. Unfortunately, even handed debate on the subject is almost impossible, given the highly charged political atmosphere regarding the sale of the BC system.

Hope this helps at least a little…

12

Man what a sad story above…just aweful…I remember the Westray events down here…how sometimes profits do seem more important than people’s lives.

Sounds like a classic case of ‘buyer beware’. It is up to the buyer to do its due diligence. The more the buyer ‘looks into’ it, the more they know ‘about it’. Inspecting all that infrastructure in great detail would be pretty costly…so there comes in the 2nd business factor…cost/risk.

It will be very interesting to see what comes out of all of this…and with a federal election campaign coming up…who knows…someone might try to turn this into a ‘camera show’.

13

Too right, good buddy…[:(]

14

Trouble-plagued CN Rail gets fined $75,000

Maurice Bridge, Vancouver Sun, with file from Prince George Citizen
Published: Thursday, December 08, 2005

CN Rail has been ordered to pay a $75,000 fine in connection with a train wreck in east-central B.C. that killed two employees in 2003.

It was the third B.C. setback this week for the national rail carrier, which had two trains derail in less than 24 hours, one near near Squamish and the other between Burnaby and Richmond.

CN pleaded guilty in provincial court in Prince George Wednesday to a single count under the Railway Safety Act for failing to ensure proper documentation and procedures in respect of railway work inspection and maintenance.

Engineer Art McKay and conductor Ken LeQuesne died May 14 when an eastbound train of two locomotives and five cars loaded with lumber derailed on a wooden trestle near McBride, plunged into a ravine and burned. The bridge was destroyed in the fire.

Read full story at:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=8487cefb-4053-4d83-8ef7-3376bebad57b&k=50152

15

Is there a pattern to the problems of CN cutting back on their maintainence? Not only have they had problems in Canada, but the CN/IC wrecks down in Mississippi were, I think also laid at the feet of lack of good MOW proceedures.
Read the January Trains and see what the CP employees have to indicate about what they think of their competitor and how it does things.

16

Um… well… one might say there is a pattern: but what’s the pattern? As I see it, the pattern is that CN purchases a railroad and tries to operate it in the manner in which it (and, I might add, the other five Class I’s) operate, only to discover that what it’s got can’t stand up to that level of service and use. CN has recognized this, though, and is substantially upgrading its MOW activities on these lines.

One might point out that the problems have NOT been happening on CN, GT, or GTW track, nor on the lines which CN formerly owned but spun off (e.g. Central Vermont). Does that suggest a pattern, too?

17

Wel, for now the CN is largely letting the DMIR operate themselves and no derailments have happened here recently.

18

Quite true. And one might note that DMIR was in first class shape to begin with. Unlike some of the other properties…