GATINEAU, Quebec — A broken rail caused to the Canadian National derailment that led to a hazardous-materials release and shelter-in-place order in a Montreal suburb in November 2024, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in a report released on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.
The derailment in Longueuil, Que., occurred about 8:27 a.m. on Nov. 14. It involved eight cars and led to a spill of hydrogen peroxide from one tank car [see “CN derailment near Montreal …,” Trains News Wire, Nov. 14, 2024]. Three CN crew members were taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure, while residents within 800 meters of the incident were told to stay indoors. The area covered by that restriction was gradually reduced, with the order completely lifted early the following morning [see “Last of shelter-in-place order lifted …,” News Wire, Nov. 15, 2025].
The 102-car train was traveling about 9 mph at Longueuil’s Southwark Yard when the derailment occurred, destroying about 373 feet of track. The eight derailed cars included a tank car of propane that did not leak, but the side wall of the car carrying hydrogen peroxide was punctured, leading to the release of the cargo.
The TSB found that a section of 100-pound rail had suffered a head-web separation because of an internal defect related to metal fatigue. The rail showed 10 millimeters (approximately .39 inch) of wear on the running surface and 6 mm (.24 inch) on the gauge side, exceeding the maximum of 14 mm of wear allowed under CN track standards for 100-pound rail. The upper portion of the rail head also showed significant deformation toward the field side, which the TSB notes usually occurs when rail is subjected to heavy loads for many years. The most recent ultrasonic testing of rails in the area had occurred on Nov. 22, 2023; the TSB was unable to determine the age of the rail, although some in the track segment destroyed by the derailment dated to 1925.
As a result of the investigation, a letter from the TSB to Transport Canada suggested the regulatory agency “may wish to consider reviewing rail inspection and testing requirements for tracks such as those located in rail yards to ensure that they remain fit for continued service.”
The age of the rail is less important than its condition. In this case, it should have been replaced.
I have run on 85 pound rail (yard and siding) dated in the 1890s which was in great condition.
Typical lack of CapEx for replacement of worn out physical plant and equipment. Gotta make the OR goals and stock options payouts! If this didn’t involve hazardous materials, would it even been noted by the TSB or media?