You are here

Over and Over, the Government’s own witnesses prove that Harding and Labrie weren’t the cause of the Lac-Mégantic Wreck

By staff - The Evidence is in: The Train Crew did not Cause the Lac-Mégantic Tragedy, October 30, 2017

Two days after a runaway train derailed in Lac-Mégantic, exploding and killing 47 people, Transport Canada inspector Alain Richer found another train belonging to the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic (MMA) railway parked in nearby Vachon hadn’t been properly secured.

Richer, now retired, testified Monday at the trial of Thomas Harding, 56, Jean Demaître, 53, and Richard Labrie, 59. The three former MMA employees are charged with 47 counts each of criminal negligence causing death in connection with the 2013 rail disaster.

According to Richer, when he and another Transport Canada employee went to inspect the 89-car train, they noticed it had been secured with only five handbrakes.

“They hadn’t met the minimum required,” Richer testified.

He said MMA’s own internal regulations showed the train should have been secured with double that number of handbrakes.

To determine the minimum number of handbrakes, Richer testified, workers had to follow a simple calculation, outlined on a chart in the company’s general instructions: Take 10 per cent of the number of rails cars, then add two.

Based on that chart, the train parked in Vachon should have been secured with 10 handbrakes, Richer said.

The derailment of the runaway MMA tanker-train on July 6, 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, Que., triggered a series of explosions that killed 47 people. (Reuters)

When Richer noticed only five handbrakes had been applied, he contacted an MMA supervisor, who sent an employee to the site. That employee, Randy Stahl, performed a brake efficiency test on the train as Richer watched.

This essentially means engaging the locomotive’s throttle at its lowest power setting to see if it would move or stay put. The train didn’t move, passing the test.

Just the same, Stahl put on an additional seven handbrakes, bringing the number to 12. However, Michael Horan, MMA’s assistant director of operations, later added another three handbrakes, bringing the total to 15, the trial has heard.

Richer also testified that MMA employees had not inspected the tanker cars involved in the Lac-Mégantic disaster. He said according to the rules and regulations, the cars didn’t warrant an inspection, as the train had already been certified by Canadian Pacific Rail employees at the Côte Saint-Luc yard before it left for Farnham.

Penalty brake failed to kick in

Richer also testified on tests he and a colleague performed on locomotive 5017, the lead locomotive involved in the July 6, 2013 derailment, to determine how long it took for the air brakes to lose their efficiency on the night the train derailed.

The court heard earlier in the trial that the locomotive had been shut down by firefighters who doused a fire on board about an hour before it rolled, unmanned, down the track towards Lac-Mégantic.

Richer said the test was to determine how much air was left inside the air conduit when the train broke away.

Harding’s lawyer asked the witness if the test was also to determine why the penalty brake — a type of backup defence, mean to prevent runaway trains — didn’t kick in.

“We already knew there was no emergency application. Indeed, we wanted to know why,” said Richer.

Richer said the test did identify the cause. The explanation of that cause is being left to another Crown witness, Stephen Callaghan, a rail expert who is to testify later in the trial.

Richer resumes his testimony before Superior Court Justice Gaétan Dumas and a 14-member jury at the Sherbrooke courthouse Tuesday.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

The Fine Print I:

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.

Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.

The Fine Print II:

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.

It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.