Canadian "Buffer Cars" discussion

[zephyr17]

But wasn't the Hinton wreck head-on? I can't recall an Amtrak or VIA accident where a buffer car on the rear would have made a difference.

Buffer cars were required both on the both head end and rear end of what VIA calls "HEP" (Budd) consists by both VIA policies and Transport Canada orders. The baggage cars serve as the forward buffer cars. That's the reason for the notice of "...temporary operational adjustments" that pets cannot be handled in baggage cars was because there can be no passenger access to baggage cars. There is no OBS access to the baggage cars, either, since they serve as buffer cars. No occupancy allowed at all for anyone. I expect that restriction to be lifted shortly with the removal of the buffer car requirements and baggage cars resume having only a single role as baggage cars again.

 

[Urban Sky]

Guess it was lucky in some perverse way that all their RDC runs except Sudbury-White River had been dropped.

As I explained elsewhere, VIA barely has enough RDCs left to operate this service (but they would have of course kept more if there had been any other RDC services left):

According to my "Trackside Guide 2021", VIA has only 6 RDCs in its active fleet and that was before the most recent wave of structural damages was discovered and one of these cars was sacrificed for the testing which may or may not result in a lifting of the buffer car requirement. Also, CN and CP require minimum axle counts of 8 for all train movements, which means you can only operate RDCs in multiples. One of the 6 RDCs is an RDC-4 and has only a large baggage but no passenger compartments, which means that with the current buffer car requirements, it's only useful if operated with at least 2 other RDCs. In short, there are barely enough RDCs for the SUDB-WHTR service (most baggage service just had to be cancelled, as the RDC-4 has a mechanical issue at the moment), let alone for deploying some of them anywhere else...

But wasn't the Hinton wreck head-on? I can't recall an Amtrak or VIA accident where a buffer car on the rear would have made a difference.

I believe the logic goes that it was questionable whether these cars still provided the mandated crashworthiness and that in absence of knowledge of the results of the tests performed on the cars “sacrificed” for testing, adding buffer cars was the most obvious mitigation strategy to maintain the safety of the passengers and staff on board.

Head-on collissions are indeed much more common than tail-end collissions in North American intercity passenger/freight railroading, given that the tracks on these lines are mostly operated bidirectionally and at relatively low frequencies, but tail-end collissions do happen in more urban (i.e. unidirectional routings per track at relatively high frequencies) settings, like this one in Spain last December:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63884695.amp

 

[jiml]

They had to run the RDCs in triples, as passengers would only be allowed on the middle RDC…

I didn't realize they still had that many spares until you posted. It's funny how the lead car wasn't safe for passengers, but the driver/engineer didn't get a vote.

 

[Urban Sky]

I didn't realize they still had that many spares until you posted.

Even though they put the RDCs from Vancouver Island (i.e. the only other RDC which operated past the 1990 cuts) into storage, they no longer have enough RDCs to operate multiple consists, let alone: multiple services without a shared base…

It's funny how the lead car wasn't safe for passengers, but the driver/engineer didn't get a vote.

It’s not a question of how “safe” the trains are, but how easily a safety risk can be mitigated. Given how abstract these risks are (the train may proof less structurally sound in a train-to-train collission, of which I don’t recall any happening in Canada since the Hinton disaster 37 years ago), pulling the RDCs out of service was apparently deemed a disproportionate response…

 

[Green Maned Lion]

This whole thing is a disproportionate response. The baggage car is always a buffer; somebody briefly attending to their pet in a baggage car that may possibly not have all the structural integrity it once did is not a sensible example of excessive risk.

We have no safety inspection in NJ, and cars that are older than 25 don’t even get pulled into facilities for a look sie. Cars that have been off the road for a decade with rotted out components all over the suspension and rusted body structures are legally permitted on the road, bad brakes, ready to blow out suspension, weather checked tires, and all. I don’t care how structurally compromised the budd cars are; conveyance upon them is safer than driving any car in a state such as NJ where cars such as described can be next to you on the highway going 80 mph without the state police giving them a second glance:

 

[jiml]

@Urban Sky, was one of the 6 active units "sacrificed" for testing?

 

[Urban Sky]

@Urban Sky, was one of the 6 active units "sacrificed" for testing?

Yes, 6208 (an RDC-2) was sacrificed:
https://groups.io/g/Canadian-Passenger-Rail/message/95897
If I read my Canadian Trackside Guide Correctly, that leaves only 1 RDC-1 (6105), 2 RDC-2s (6217&6219) and 2 RDC-4s (6250&6251) in VIA’s active roster…

 

[Urban Sky]

This whole thing is a disproportionate response. The baggage car is always a buffer; somebody briefly attending to their pet in a baggage car that may possibly not have all the structural integrity it once did is not a sensible example of excessive risk.

[…]

There are three plausible regulatory approaches when encountering that something might no longer comply with applicable safety regulations:

1) Ignore the issue until more definite evidence is found.
2) Accept mitigating measures until more definite evidence is found.
3) Immediately suspend operation until more definite evidence is found.

I am aware that Americans have a reputation for being rather “special” when it comes to accepting Safety Regulations which might be considered “Common-Sense” elsewhere, but I much rather live in a country which follows Approach #2 than #1 or #3…

 

[zephyr17]

There are three plausible approaches when encountering that something might no longer complies with applicable safety regulations:
1) Ignore the issue until more definite evidence is found.
2) Accept mitigating measures until more definite evidence is found.
3) Immediately suspend operation until more definite evidence is found.

I know that Americans can be rather “special” when it comes to Safety Rules which might be considered “Common-Sense” elsewhere, but I much rather live in a country which follows Approach #2 than #1 or #3…

I do not have a real problem with VIA and Transport Canada having exercised option 2 in this case, especially since they pretty rapidly lifted the requirement after the testing and engineering report was completed in March. My fear was that the universal bureaucratic principle that it is both easier and safer to say "no" rather than "yes" would delay or even entirely forestall the requirement being lifted once it was in force. That it only took a couple months after the testing and engineering report was finalized demonstrates that both Transport Canada and VIA can act with decisiveness and speed when they want to. A couple of months is Warp Speed in such organizations.

I personally think the chances of the dangers they were protecting against were pretty remote. However, corrosion issues revealed in the tear down in preparation for the rebuild of the dining car Alexandria in 2018 caused them to suspect that compliance of the fleet with safety requirements, particularly compression strength, might be compromised. It apparently took four years for that to percolate around enough that they finally decided they needed to do more extensive evaluation and testing, including destructive testing, and introduce the buffer car mitigation until testing was complete. I am just glad they didn't take another four years to undo it.

Ultimately, it boiled down to implementing the classic railroad principle, "If in doubt, take the safe course."

 

[Devil's Advocate]

1) Ignore the issue until more definite evidence is found.
2) Accept mitigating measures until more definite evidence is found.
3) Immediately suspend operation until more definite evidence is found.

Anything besides taking immediate preemptive action is considered ignoring the issue? Two of these sound like implement now, confirm assumptions later, and pretend cars and buses are safer. I'd prefer that customers were advised that cracks were found and allowed to accept their own risk. I think it's fine to prioritize center cars for kids and families while adults are allowed to sit in the other cars as necessary. Probably not possible under modern case law though.

 

[zephyr17]

Anything besides taking immediate preemptive action is considered ignoring the issue?

Well, it took them about four years from the discovery of the deep corrosion issues that ultimately prompted the action to actually taking it. They also continued the rebuild on the car (that only addressed the corrosion in so far as it affected the rebuild) that kicked the whole thing off and put it back into service.

That's not precisely "immediate".

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Well, it took them about four years from the discovery of the deep corrosion issues that ultimately prompted the action to actually taking it. They also continued the rebuild on the car (that only addressed the corrosion in so far as it affected the rebuild) that kicked the whole thing off and put it back into service. That's not precisely "immediate".

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought it was a quick trip from finding the corrosion to creating the buffer car rule. Unfortunate that it took them four years to test their assumptions. Either way I'd consider a slightly compromised train safer than a car or bus. Where I live they've cemented over every center turn lane and set every intersection to half duplex because improving driver performance and responsibility is considered hopeless.

 

[joelkfla]

Anything besides taking immediate preemptive action is considered ignoring the issue? Two of these sound like implement now, confirm assumptions later, and pretend cars and buses are safer. I'd prefer that customers were advised that cracks were found and allowed to accept their own risk. I think it's fine to prioritize center cars for kids and families while adults are allowed to sit in the other cars as necessary. Probably not possible under modern case law though.

I think that would be difficult logistically, and catastrophic publicity wise.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think that would be difficult logistically, and catastrophic publicity wise.

You're probably right but we're already making these types of decisions every day without realizing it. The truth is that where you sit on a bus, plane, or train has a significant and predictable impact on how likely you are to survive a destructive event or impact, but since it's not obvious we rarely think about it let alone consider it in making our decision. I've often wondered if people would choose different seats if each selection came with a calculated safety rating.

 

[zephyr17]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought it was a quick trip from finding the corrosion to creating the buffer car rule. Unfortunate that it took them four years to test their assumptions. Either way I'd consider a slightly compromised train safer than a car or bus. Where I live they've cemented over every center turn lane and set every intersection to half duplex because improving driver performance and responsibility is considered hopeless.

Yeah, my post 86 has a short summary of what happened, which I got from tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com whose owner, Eric Gagnon, followed the situation quite closely and got documentation of it using the Canadian equivalent of FOIA requests. The initial discovery was during the rebuild of the diner Alexandria (new interior and galley, not structural) in 2018. They didn't order the testing and implement the buffer cars until 2022. The Alexandria was apparently the first of a series of diner rebuilds, and they continued with that, though they had to rebudget to deal with the corrosion while noodling about the larger issue. There is no insight into what transpired in the interim between 2018 and 2022. I imagine it was a hot potato that they bounced around until someone called them on it. I know it was VIA that reported it and responded by themselves while asking Transport Canada to make it an order.

 

[Urban Sky]

Yeah, my post 86 has a short summary of what happened, which I got from tracksidetreasures.blogspot.com whose owner, Eric Gagnon, followed the situation quite closely and got documentation of it using the Canadian equivalent of FOIA requests.

Eric Gagnon’s Blog is called “Trackside Treasure” (no plural) and the report which recommended the Buffer Car measure can be found here:

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-report-that-hatched-buffer-cars.html?m=1

 

[zephyr17]

Eric Gagnon’s Blog is called “Trackside Treasure” (no plural) and the report which recommended the Buffer Car measure can be found here:

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-report-that-hatched-buffer-cars.html?m=1

Corrected, thanks.

 

[zephyr17]

Today's VIA 2. Photo from Facebook RailsBC group:

 

[zephyr17]

Just in case anyone is interested in the official Transport Canada order lifting the buffer car requirements:
https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transp...nder-section-3201-railway-safety-act-mo-23-01

 

[MARC Rider]

Well that's nice. Looks like I'll get the full Bullet Lounge experience on my trip this fall.