Derailment in Veazie 07-03-2013

The Bangor Daily News is reporting that four cars have derailed in Veazie, Maine, near the Penobscot River:

Bangor Daily News wrote:Four tankers in a 92-car Pan Am Railways train derailed Wednesday morning near the Penobscot River, but indications are nothing is leaking, local fire and railroad officials said.
. . .
Pan Am Railways called the fire departments in Veazie and Bangor for assistance because the long train reached into both communities, the lieutenant said.

“The train was travelling west from Mattawamkeag and was going to Waterville,” Pan Am Railways Executive Vice President Cynthia Scarano said. “It was a mixed train, with paper, wallboard, scrap metal, wood, a couple sand cars.

“There were four cars that went off,” she said. “Three were [carrying] carbon dioxide and the fourth was just an empty car.”

Read more at: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/03/n ... ff-tracks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A big assumption that the continued excellent physical plant of District 1 continues to be displayed time to end the band-aid tie jobs up there and put some money in.

So, there used to be a 70 car restriction on trains. I thought it was east of Rigby, put in place after the big 'oops' they had in Readfield back a few years now. Then the oil trains started and they went to Waterville in 1 set, but were split down to 70 cars there. Then they started sending the whole train to Keag, but manifests had stayed at 70. For a bit now, maybe a month, I've seen reports of bigger POWA/WAPO's and PORU/RUPO's ranging into the 90 car range. This is, however, the first report I've seen of a train east of NMJ with more than 70, aside from the few unit oil jobs that made it that far this past winter.

Apparently with no work done up there the tracks magically got better and the trains bigger...despite the fact that they are again splitting oil jobs at Waterville. Can someone explain the thinking?

The problem being they have found no one to fund said trackwork projects. Why fund your own track upgrades when you can get someone else (NNEPRA, MBTA, MassDOT, PAS, Feds) to cover the costs using you MOW crews? Even though this is a "minor" derailment, I suspect it is acceptable to the bean counters in Billerica. With the hit or miss routings of the oil trains (I would argue because of the poor track), their hands are not forced even though good marketing by PAR and CSX have increased maritime traffic loadings.

tis a good point.

fogg1703 wrote:With the hit or miss routings of the oil trains (I would argue because of the poor track), their hands are not forced even though good marketing by PAR and CSX have increased maritime traffic loadings.

Oil trains may be 'hit or miss' but the oil traffic is hardly so. Most trains traversing D1 over the last month have had at least a handful of 1267 placarded tanks in the mix. While I believe it is true they are not moving as much oil as MM&A this has as much to do with sourcing as it does with Pan Am. MM&A runs CP sourced crude off the SOO, while Pan Am runs BNSF sourced crude.

I'd imagine the smaller cuts of oil are better for everyone. At the peak of oil train operations early this winter it wasn't uncommon for them to have trains staged at NMJ, Pittsfield, Waterville, Rigby, Wells, and even further west all because the refinery rack couldn't handle it.

It is dissapointing to see they didn't resume where they left off last fall. 40,000+ ties swapped out last year was great to see. But any hope of them continuing major work this spring seems to have given way to smaller projects here and there...

fogg1703 wrote:The problem being they have found no one to fund said trackwork projects. Why fund your own track upgrades when you can get someone else (NNEPRA, MBTA, MassDOT, PAS, Feds) to cover the costs using you MOW crews? Even though this is a "minor" derailment, I suspect it is acceptable to the bean counters in Billerica. With the hit or miss routings of the oil trains (I would argue because of the poor track), their hands are not forced even though good marketing by PAR and CSX have increased maritime traffic loadings.

Someone did offer recently but it would have meant some changes the company wasn't willing to make at the time.

Hmmm. Neighbors to the northeast......?

You probably have a pretty good idea who that was

>>changes the company wasn't willing to make at the time

Such as ?

PBM

post herein convey the thought that track conditions limit train lengths. why would that be? is it really a reflection on the sd/gp wheel configuations? i believe the sd has a lower per wheel tonnage. if not power related, what else? ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:post herein convey the thought that track conditions limit train lengths. why would that be? is it really a reflection on the sd/gp wheel configuations? i believe the sd has a lower per wheel tonnage. if not power related, what else? ken patrick

Pretty sure it was NOT power related, since the restriction covered the entire D1, 6 axles were not allowed on significant portions of the line at that time. The restriction was also put in place after a derailment in Readfield, if memory correctly serves, that had no relation to the locomotives on the train...It was track conditions.

From the Bangor Daily News:

Bangor Daily News wrote:Bangor fire and rescue crews were dispatched to the tracks behind Penobscot Plaza on Washington Street on Saturday afternoon after a caller reported an audible hissing sound coming from one of the two tanks parked behind the plaza.
. . .
Fire crews, including three trucks and an ambulance, were on scene for about 5 minutes Saturday, according to Assistant Fire Chief Thomas Higgins. As crews were on the way, Higgins was on the phone with a Pan Am representative who told him that the hissing was part of “normal venting,” in which a valve on top of the tank releases pressure. It’s especially common in warm temperatures, when pressure builds in the tank, he said.
. . .
The fire department examined the ventilation valves and dome on top of the tanks and found taht everything seemed to be operating correctly, Higgins said.
. . .
A person who answered the phone at Pan Am Railways Operations Center in North Billerica, Mass., said “there’s nothing wrong with that car,” deferring further comment to a company spokesman who did immediately respond to a message requesting comment.

Read more at: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/06/n ... l-venting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pan Am continues to push it's luck with deferred maintenance...What just happened in Canada,even though we don't know the cause, could happen on P/A with the same horrible result....It will unfortunately catch up with them.

If history is to be believed it should have happened already. Their maintenance has left much to be desired for years and they haven't had a catastrophic derailment. At 10 mph the likelihood is low.