RAILROAD NEWS AND COMMENTARY FROM WASHINGTON BY WES VERNON Danger: Lessons Learned (Or Not)?


CAN IT BE? Train cars again parked on moun- tain slopes sans required brake protection? Do we ever learn? This time the results ap- pear to cast a shadow on employees who were supervisors. One would think that after the 2013 run-


away train explosion in Lac-Megantic, a town in the Canadian province of Quebec, the ex- perience would have resulted in super-cau- tion by railroads, at least in North America. Alas, regulators at Transport Canada believe Canadian Pacific supervisors are allegedly responsible for leaving 57 rail cars parked on a slope without proper handbrakes, accord- ing to CBC investigative reporter Dave Seg- lins. This incident occurred on a hill near the Revelstoke mountain resort in the province of British Columbia back in February 2015, but was brought back into the news again recently when investigators raided CP head- quarters in December looking for evidence. Investigators were told that two of the cars contained “dangerous goods.” And there’s more: As a result of the up-


roar that resulted in CBC’s finding, investiga- tors apparently said something on the order of, “Hmmmm, we wonder how much of this sort of thing is going on elsewhere in the Ca- nadian rail system.” So, true to the ancient adage of “seek and ye shall find,” they did some seeking, and sure enough, there was something to find. Voila! “Let’s go to the tape:” Two Trans-


port Canada raids of CP headquarters yielded tape recordings, including one that convinced investigators who, according to CBC, “now be- lieve the train crew was ordered by three CP rail supervisors to ignore the rules.” All this despite then-Transport Minister Lisa Raitt’s emergency directive (issued as a result of the Lac-Megantic disaster) ordering that rail- ways apply handbrakes on all parked trains in case the airbrakes failed. Another disaster waiting to happen: Of


course, none of these allegations or warrants have been heard by the courts, and of course, questions of guilt or innocence do not become official “facts” until they have made their way through proper legal channels. “CP continues to co-operate fully with investigators,” as- sures a CP VP in an e-mail to CBC, adding, “As this is an ongoing [and widespread] inves- tigation, we have no further comment.”


CP and NS: Let the Merger Dominoes Fall? Having been spurned at least three times


by Norfolk Southern, Canadian Pacific CEO E. Hunter Harrison still won’t take no for an answer. Under his leadership at CP, that rail- road remains determined to take over NS. Other railroads appear just as determined


to stop the merger/takeover, concerned they would be adversely affected by it. Take War- ren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. That com- pany’s BNSF Railway chairman Matt Rose says that if CP/NS materializes, BNSF will not be a spectator, and will have to do its own deal. So too might other rail companies. But what matchups would result? One


smaller but attractive target could be Kansas City Southern. For one thing, KCS, a mid-


western line, is exempt from the more strin- gent 2001 rules due to its size. The stringent rules followed the three decades of mergers right before and then after the 1980 Staggers (partial) de-regulation bill, capped by the NS/ CSX slice-up of Conrail in the late ’90s. So, could BNSF end up attempting a collab-


oration with KCS? Both BNSF and the oth- er western states giant, Union Pacific, have swallowed enough other large and/or well-es- tablished railroads that any attempt on their part to team up with each other could be seen as unthinkable. It also could lead to years of regulatory,


political and legal battles that would outlast many of us. Perhaps that theory will be tested. Near the column’s deadline, CP issued a


“white paper” outlining its case for the merger with NS. Boiling it down: Enables far better utilization of existing infrastructure; introduc- es alternative options for re-routing around congested areas; creates new opportunities from most efficient shipment routes; end-to- end service for customers; add to “renaissance” following 1980 [partial] de-regulation; reduces highway congestion with fewer trucks; does not require federal public funding.


Terror on the Rails? Technological advances have made life


easier and more pleasant for us — and also easier for terrorists, like hackers who can flip a switch to derail a train or cause a collision. That is but one of the “gaping holes” in the se- curity of rail systems around the word. A slide show titled “The Great Cyber Train Robbery” imparted some less-than-comforting news/ scenarios. Reuters apparently assigned a reporter to


attend a “hackers convention” in Hamburg, Germany, in December who saw the show. What he and other conference attendees learned, for example was that some automat- ed computer-driven switches require constant access to the internet. If that signal is lost, the trains come to a halt. Russian research- ers told the audience that technologists “are working very hard to fix the situation,” but there were more than 60,000 exposed online control systems ripe for exploitation.


“Buying Amtrak” — Again? Every now and then, someone grabs the


same old metaphoric shovel and starts met- aphoric digging in the old metaphorically graveyard of ideas that have been marketed and failed — failed in this case to make a “profit,” that is. Here we return to the propo- sition that mainline passenger trains in “reg- ular service” can make it operationally under private sector ownership. Most readers know the history behind why Amtrak, as present- ly operated under the law, cannot expect to show up on the Dow Jones. We went over all that again just recently


as to why no mainline “regular service” pas- senger train “makes money,” and how and why competing modes can hide their loss- es, whereas Amtrak’s bottom line — or lack thereof — is right out in the open. “Good business?” Every member of Con-


21


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72