'Monster train' fears rising in suburbs

'Monster train' fears rising in suburbs

There are 666 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Mar 10, 2009, titled 'Monster train' fears rising in suburbs. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Amid fears of monster trains running through their communities, residents saw the first two Canadian National Railway trains roll down a suburban line Tuesday, one of them a nearly mile-long freight that will ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

“What a beautiful day!”

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, Illinois

#429 Apr 7, 2009
Alex wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious. Would you still be snickering if your house was on fire or you had a medical emergency and a CN train was eating away critical response time ?
I thought the comment was amusing. Personally I can't afford to live there, I live in the city. I worked there for years though and think that Barrington should start realizing that commerce and industry are rolling through, like it or not, so they should roll with it and build some infrastructure. It's a done deal, so now is the time to shut up and make the best of things.
Bill-Elgin

Elgin, IL

#430 Apr 7, 2009
railham wrote:
<quoted text>
Excatly Beagle...the politicians and their lackeys are in a desperate search for a fall guy (CN in this case) in this whole process. Their lack of planning for growth has revealed their incompetence for all the world to see. The STB has managed to cut through the "bull" and done its job in an admirable manner. One might be inclined to ask where has all of the money from taxes that have been collected from the haphazard development in the area gone, if not into an improved infrastucture? My guess is someone's pockets.
It went into Barrington's "full employment for lawyers program".
Post Bush America

Indianapolis, IN

#431 Apr 7, 2009
Marie wrote:
<quoted text>
Terrible to think how much this will happen! What really aggravates me is this is benefiting 2 other countries -- Canada and China! Yes! Trains are going from Canada, down to New Orleans, pallets being loaded on ships going to CHINA! And, the same in reverse! So, we are putting up with this for what? Not to benefit our country! And, they signed the deal on Christmas Eve, very sneaky, weeks before when it was supposed to be signed!
And once the economy improves they will be running an unlimited number of these trains brimming with Chinese imports to create more congestion, a larger trade deficit and a lot of happy executives at CN. And the benefits are..... cheap crap at Walmart because thats all anyone can afford.
My GGGeneration

Addison, IL

#432 Apr 7, 2009
Post Bush America wrote:
<quoted text>
And once the economy improves they will be running an unlimited number of these trains brimming with Chinese imports to create more congestion, a larger trade deficit and a lot of happy executives at CN. And the benefits are..... cheap crap at Walmart because thats all anyone can afford.
I decided to see if you were actually on the right track (no pun intended), so I ran over to Walmart earlier today. From the following CN shipments list, I WAS able to find "consumer goods" of course, but nothing else.

Automotive Products
Bulk Commodities
Coal
Consumer Goods
Dimensional Loads
Fertilizer
Forest Products
Grain
Hazardous Materials
Metals & Minerals
Petroleum & Chemicals
Alternative Energy

So I asked a store manager. That was a mistake of course, but he called corporate. They have no plans to stock coal at any Walmart in the future. Same with forest products. He did say the Wisconsin stores are considering adding silos for grain, however.
Joe Vitori

Indianapolis, IN

#433 Apr 7, 2009
Hazardous materials being carried by this outfit - that ain't good. Hearing from some CN employees on other posts and looking at reports re. CN's safety record I'd be worried living near this line. My GGGeneration probably doesn't.
My GGGeneration

Addison, IL

#434 Apr 7, 2009
Joe Vitori wrote:
Hazardous materials being carried by this outfit - that ain't good. Hearing from some CN employees on other posts and looking at reports re. CN's safety record I'd be worried living near this line. My GGGeneration probably doesn't.
Ok, for the billionth time... ALL railroads carry hazardous materials, and they cannot refuse to do so provided that whatever it is is "packaged" or loaded in accordance to existing laws. And you might want to catch a look at the placcards on the sides of semis next time you pull alongside one.

Within about a good 3-wood, I have two interstates, Wisconsin & Southern, UP, CP, CN/EJ&E and I think that's about it.
Not a Railroader

Council Bluffs, IA

#435 Apr 7, 2009
Joe Vitori wrote:
Hazardous materials being carried by this outfit - that ain't good. Hearing from some CN employees on other posts and looking at reports re. CN's safety record I'd be worried living near this line. My GGGeneration probably doesn't.
It is sad how many times a person has to quote the facts, but here they are again.

Maybe you could show us how horrible CN's safety record is, I would like to see the statistics.
To help you out here are some numbers that I have looked up on their safety record.
The true facts. One of the facts that many of the opponents don't mention is that CN's safety record is much better than the EJ&E's. CN - 4.1 accidents per million train miles (2008), vs. EJ&E - 15.1 accidents per million train miles (2008).
Now to show that I am not afraid of the facts I will say, it is true that CN's accident record is above the industry average of 3.1 accidents per million train miles (2008). So they could do better, but 4.1 is still much closer to the industry norm than 15.1, and better also much better.
All the information listed above is available on the web site of the Federal Railroad Administration. http://www.fra.dot.gov/ CN's accident rate, like the rest of the industry, has been coming down over the last 10 years. If you are going to convince me and many others you need to show with facts and figures how bad there safety record is. As it stands you have just repeated the line that I hear many of the opponents saying, but like them you fail to back up your statements.
Mark

Prospect Heights, IL

#436 Apr 7, 2009
This is a storm in a teacup ! I live in Barrington area and the one CN train I encountered recently took 2 - 3 minutes to pass !! No big deal
Ken in Aurora

Naperville, IL

#437 Apr 8, 2009
Mark wrote:
This is a storm in a teacup ! I live in Barrington area and the one CN train I encountered recently took 2 - 3 minutes to pass !! No big deal
Shush, you - don't confuse the NIMBYs with the facts!

:)
Informed

Saskatoon, Canada

#438 Apr 9, 2009
Hammer Head wrote:
I personally love the fact that a foreign owned company gets to run freight thru the U.S.however and whenever it wants!
Foreign owned... If you look in an atlas, under North America, and search for USA... You may even be surprised to find that Chicago is included in the list of fine cities located there.

Since CNR is locally owned in the US of A, and operates in North America, as far north as Canada, it would be hard to classify it as a foreign owned company.

Yet one might be confused by the name...
JBChitown

Lake Zurich, IL

#440 Apr 10, 2009
Not a Railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
It is sad how many times a person has to quote the facts, but here they are again.
Maybe you could show us how horrible CN's safety record is, I would like to see the statistics.
To help you out here are some numbers that I have looked up on their safety record.
The true facts. One of the facts that many of the opponents don't mention is that CN's safety record is much better than the EJ&E's. CN - 4.1 accidents per million train miles (2008), vs. EJ&E - 15.1 accidents per million train miles (2008).
Now to show that I am not afraid of the facts I will say, it is true that CN's accident record is above the industry average of 3.1 accidents per million train miles (2008). So they could do better, but 4.1 is still much closer to the industry norm than 15.1, and better also much better.
All the information listed above is available on the web site of the Federal Railroad Administration. http://www.fra.dot.gov/ CN's accident rate, like the rest of the industry, has been coming down over the last 10 years. If you are going to convince me and many others you need to show with facts and figures how bad there safety record is. As it stands you have just repeated the line that I hear many of the opponents saying, but like them you fail to back up your statements.
Here are some facts for you all on CN's safety record and the findings of the House of Commons Canada. The attached notes that a "culture of fear" at Canadian National Railway is making it difficult for employees to report safety violations that raise the risk of derailments and other accidents.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/pdfs/rail...
This report was released May 2008.
JBChitown

Lake Zurich, IL

#441 Apr 10, 2009
Not a Railroader wrote:
<quoted text>
It is sad how many times a person has to quote the facts, but here they are again.
Maybe you could show us how horrible CN's safety record is, I would like to see the statistics.
To help you out here are some numbers that I have looked up on their safety record.
The true facts. One of the facts that many of the opponents don't mention is that CN's safety record is much better than the EJ&E's. CN - 4.1 accidents per million train miles (2008), vs. EJ&E - 15.1 accidents per million train miles (2008).
Now to show that I am not afraid of the facts I will say, it is true that CN's accident record is above the industry average of 3.1 accidents per million train miles (2008). So they could do better, but 4.1 is still much closer to the industry norm than 15.1, and better also much better.
All the information listed above is available on the web site of the Federal Railroad Administration. http://www.fra.dot.gov/ CN's accident rate, like the rest of the industry, has been coming down over the last 10 years. If you are going to convince me and many others you need to show with facts and figures how bad there safety record is. As it stands you have just repeated the line that I hear many of the opponents saying, but like them you fail to back up your statements.
The true facts can be found in a report published in May 2008 to the House of Commons Canada. This states that a "culture of fear" at Canadian National Railway is making it difficult for employees to report safety violations that raise the risk of derailments and other accidents.

The full report can be found at:

http://www.tcrc295.com/Legislative/rail_safet...
beagle

Canada

#442 Apr 10, 2009
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
The true facts can be found in a report published in May 2008 to the House of Commons Canada. This states that a "culture of fear" at Canadian National Railway is making it difficult for employees to report safety violations that raise the risk of derailments and other accidents.
The full report can be found at:
http://www.tcrc295.com/Legislative/rail_safet...
True facts??

There was not a single statistic delineated. What facts do you think are relevant??

I'll give you some background--which you are obviously lacking.

On July 14, 2004 CN Rail was the successful bidder for BC Rail, the BC government owned, third largest and unprofitable (1441 mile) railroad in Canada. The opposition party in the BC legislature (NDP) vigourously opposed the sale and used every means possible to overturn the deal.(The NDP--New Democratic Party--is a leftist party that, that has a small federal presence but has never led a federal government. On occasion when they have led the provincial BC government they have been fiscally irresponsible and anti business.)

BC Rail's track was not at Class I standards and was built through the most treacherous mountainous regions in North America.

CN immediately started upgrading BC Rail's infrastructure. However, 1441 miles is a lot of track.

On August 5, 2005 a derailment on the former BC Rail line running north from Vancouver resulted in the death of all fish in the river.

On June 29, 2006 a the engineers of a locomtive, which had been fully serviced the previous week, lost control, also on former BC Rail trackage. Two died.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/stor...

JBC, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that CN capital expenditures upgrading infrastructure in BC ($250M) is a devious plot to undermine Barrington AND criticize them for not upgrading the same track rapidly enough.

In 2007, two of the unions representing CN's Canadian workers had a squabble over jurisdictions. CN was strike bound while the internecine union fight was resolved and CN could continue negotiations.

The document you highlighted is a typical Canadian government solution to this type of situation. It is "toothless" after the fact. But, by enacting a Commission or formal study it allows the federal government great leeway to act quickly if necessary.

The government did not find it necessary to act and the Commission obviated the machinations of the NDP.

Next?

beagle

JBChitown

Lake Zurich, IL

#443 Apr 11, 2009
beagle wrote:
<quoted text>
True facts??
There was not a single statistic delineated. What facts do you think are relevant??
Another rant from Beagle...

See how quick Beagle is to come to the defense of CN? It's really rather funny for someone who claims to have no ties to this particular institution.

Beagle, the FACTS that I provided are the FINDINGS of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee. You will also notice that they scored CN as having the LOWEST safety of all rail carriers in Canada. You have issue with it's findings!?!?!? It's government pal, not mine.
My GGGeneration

Addison, IL

#444 Apr 11, 2009
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
Another rant from Beagle...
See how quick Beagle is to come to the defense of CN? It's really rather funny for someone who claims to have no ties to this particular institution.
Beagle, the FACTS that I provided are the FINDINGS of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee. You will also notice that they scored CN as having the LOWEST safety of all rail carriers in Canada. You have issue with it's findings!?!?!? It's government pal, not mine.
Well in this country we have Cajon Pass... among the most dangerous stretches of railroading in North America. UP and BNSF have had numerous incidents with runaways coming down the mountain and typically they place several locomotives at the rear of the train as well to help slow it and keep it under control. They then drop off the additional locomotives.

I fail to see the difference between the basics of these two situations. But when something happens at Cajon Pass, the train fails to make the bend and ends up in the houses at the bottom. And yet, you're not condemning the UP and/or BNSF.

My GGGeneration

Addison, IL

#445 Apr 11, 2009
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
Another rant from Beagle...
See how quick Beagle is to come to the defense of CN? It's really rather funny for someone who claims to have no ties to this particular institution.
Beagle, the FACTS that I provided are the FINDINGS of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee. You will also notice that they scored CN as having the LOWEST safety of all rail carriers in Canada. You have issue with it's findings!?!?!? It's government pal, not mine.
By the way, Barrington isn't on a 2.2% grade!
JBChitown

Lake Zurich, IL

#446 Apr 11, 2009
My GGGeneration wrote:
<quoted text>
Well in this country we have Cajon Pass... among the most dangerous stretches of railroading in North America. UP and BNSF have had numerous incidents with runaways coming down the mountain and typically they place several locomotives at the rear of the train as well to help slow it and keep it under control. They then drop off the additional locomotives.
I fail to see the difference between the basics of these two situations. But when something happens at Cajon Pass, the train fails to make the bend and ends up in the houses at the bottom. And yet, you're not condemning the UP and/or BNSF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =QJ7OtAD_5wUXX
Neither of which will be using the EJ&E or are the topics of this board or received the lowest score of 1 out of the best possible 5 in the report I cited as was CN Rail by the Candian Government.
beagle

Canada

#447 Apr 11, 2009
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
Another rant from Beagle...
See how quick Beagle is to come to the defense of CN? It's really rather funny for someone who claims to have no ties to this particular institution.
Beagle, the FACTS that I provided are the FINDINGS of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee. You will also notice that they scored CN as having the LOWEST safety of all rail carriers in Canada. You have issue with it's findings!?!?!? It's government pal, not mine.
Hey JBC it's good to have you back.

But, if you read the Committee's report they did not score CN "as having the LOWEST safety of all rail carriers in Canada".

They scored CN as having the lowest level of implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS).(In an industrial environment SMS is the equivalent of an ISO 9000 or Six Sigma system.) There is no comparison of actual accident rates between CN, CP and VIA rail.

Once again, this type of Committee report is a standard means by which the Canadian Parliamentary system operates. A Committee or Royal Commission is implemented when difficult/high political profile events occur. The government in power can then rapidly "pull" or "position" recommendations for action from the Committee or Royal Commission and use them as the impetus for legislative action.

Karen Darch's attempt (June 2008 news release)to convey this Canadian Parliamentary Committee report as indicative of anything concrete is indicative of either her ignorance of the Canadian Parliamentary system or a blatant attempt to mislead her constituents.

beagle

Since: May 07

washington

#448 Apr 11, 2009
just wait, the Canadian Pacific is running 10000ft trains across Canada, and the BNSF is running 10000ft trains from chicago to Los Angeles on their southern transcon route. They think bigger is better and it makes em more money per capita.

And unfortunately railroads helped shape america and everything you buy has been hauled via the rail roads in some part. Either from the ports on container ships to your stores, or via box car, hopper, tanker.

Another thing too, majority of the railroad tracks were there long before homes were built. But sounds like most don't know their history or are to ignorant to do the research...
My GGGeneration

Addison, IL

#449 Apr 11, 2009
JBChitown wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither of which will be using the EJ&E or are the topics of this board or received the lowest score of 1 out of the best possible 5 in the report I cited as was CN Rail by the Candian Government.
Nope.... neither will be using the EJ&E. The UP already passes through Barrington though, doesn't it? You sir, like Karen Darch, are comparing apples to oranges at best in an attempt to stir the pot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Railroads Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News South Milton residents regrouping to oppose int... Jun 25 liteone 2
2008 STB URCS increase Jun 25 liteone 2
News Chamber breakfast meeting hears more details of... Apr '15 milton residents ... 1
News Why Canadian railway stocks may stop in their t... Apr '15 milton protest info 1
News CN plans intermodal logistics hub for greater T... Mar '15 Rita 1
News 5 key questions about CN rail's plans for Milton Mar '15 Rita 1
News Government needs to lobby for railways: Sask. NDP Mar '15 past present GTA ... 1
More from around the web