NPRM out for comment. One item that is puzzling to this poster is the 9/16ths steel requirement. For our materials experts are there not different quality of steels ? Shouldn't this requirement be performance based ?
http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-announces-comprehensive-proposed-rulemaking-safe-transportation-crude-oil
Comments-
-Rules not as extreme as some have feared.
-Seeks 40MPH speed limit for not upgraded cars, which is about what unit coal trains seem to make. Much better for capacity than 30MPH. New standards allowed 50MPH, so capacity concerns decrease.
-Interesting that they are considering requiring a DPU or two way EOT instead of ECP. Most unit oil trains already operate with DPUs, and almost all trains already operate with EOTs.
-1232 is still an option, despite explosions.
-Railroads seem to have fared better than the oil companies.
-At least another 6 months until final rules!!! That is a lot of tank car production.
blue streak 1 [snipped - PDN] . . . One item that is puzzling to this poster is the 9/16ths steel requirement. For our materials experts are there not different quality of steels ? Shouldn't this requirement be performance based ? . . .
Strength (Moment of Inertia / y or Section Modulus) is proportional to the square of the thickness (height) of the section. So 9/16" thick would be 81 / 49 or about 1.65 times stronger than 7/16" thick with the same allowable stress steel. Hard to get that much of a performance increase from a high-strength alloy without encountering some of those other problems. Plus, the added thickness means less shear stress, more resistance to impact/ puncture, etc.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Hard to get that much of a performance increase from a high-strength alloy without encountering some of those other problems. Plus, the added thickness means less shear stress, more resistance to impact/ puncture, etc. - Paul North.
Hard to get that much of a performance increase from a high-strength alloy without encountering some of those other problems. Plus, the added thickness means less shear stress, more resistance to impact/ puncture, etc.
NorthWest ... -1232 is still an option, despite explosions. ...
...
Both you and Trains NewsWire mention the 1232 standard, however, I can't find specific reference in the OP's above link. What am I missing?
Tank Car Option Three says it is based on a 2011 industry standard...which I think is the 1232.
Outdated train cars carrying flammable liquids across Iowa and the rest of the country would be phased out within two years under a new proposal from the U.S. Transportation Department.
During the phaseout, trains carrying highly-flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol, in DOT-111 tank cars could be limited to driving 40 miles per hour — much slower than some trains barrel through Eastern Iowa.
Local media runs photo of tank cars labeled Phosphoric Acid with corrosive diamonds to illustrate story.
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/government/laws/feds-propose-new-rules-for-trains-carrying-flammable-liquids-in-outdated-cars-20140723
Apparently, the person responsible for finding a stock picture could not find one with a flammable liquid placard and either thought the general public would not know the difference, or did himself not know the difference. ("Placard" is the proper term.)
IMO, it would have been better to have shown no picture if the proper picture was not available.
Johnny
blue streak 1One item that is puzzling to this poster is the 9/16ths steel requirement. For our materials experts are there not different quality of steels ? Shouldn't this requirement be performance based ?
I assume you are asking why there is not a standard set that defines the required effect rather than the type of construction that leads to that effect.
That is a great question because I have yet to see any statement of what effect is desired or intended in a high speed derailment of a tank train.
What is the effect of changing the tank wall from 7/16” to 9/16”?
Why should the speed be 40 mph instead of 41mph?
NorthWest Tank Car Option Three says it is based on a 2011 industry standard...which I think is the 1232.
Good catch. Thanks.
It sounds like most of the concern about the new regulations is the quicker than expected phase-out of the 111 tank cars in just two years, and the lead time in producing new cars:
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/washington/new-us-rail-regs-could-cause-tank-car-shortage-10256699
I'm not surprised about the rapid DOT-111 phase out, I saw it coming after Canada banned them in 2017. The DOT didn't want all of them migrating south. The big question now is what tank car option will be selected. 1 or 2 will force modification of the 1232s, exacerbating the potential shortage.
According to the recent NewsWire story, the existing CPC 1232 tank cars will effectively be grandfathered. Greenbrier said that between new cars and retrofits, the 2 year deadline is do-able.
Victrola1 Outdated train cars carrying flammable liquids across Iowa and the rest of the country would be phased out within two years under a new proposal from the U.S. Transportation Department. During the phaseout, trains carrying highly-flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol, in DOT-111 tank cars could be limited to driving 40 miles per hour — much slower than some trains barrel through Eastern Iowa. Local media runs photo of tank cars labeled Phosphoric Acid with corrosive diamonds to illustrate story. http://thegazette.com/subject/news/government/laws/feds-propose-new-rules-for-trains-carrying-flammable-liquids-in-outdated-cars-20140723
A while back, the (Cedar Rapids) Gazette had an article about oil trains that started out more or less neutral on the subject. The reporter then seemed to start down the road of hyperbole and sensationalism. She even quoted a professor of mechanical engineering from the University of Iowa who said tank cars were being operated 2 or 3 times the speeds they were designed for. He said tank cars were designed to be ran at 18 or 20 mph. I stopped reading at that point.
I almost wrote them that their reporting was something I would expect out of the Des Moines Register. Not the Gazette I grew up with. I guess I've been away too long.
Jeff
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oil-train-derails-seattle-rail-yard-spill-24697788
This one explains itself.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.