Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
WSJ - Oil in Quebec Rail Wreck Was Mislabeled

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="narig01"]Bucyrus I strongly disagree. If the product is misclassified the way in which it is loaded changes considerably and the requirements for the vessel(tank car in this case) change. You can load a cargo to reduce the potential for vapors to form. You may need a better designed container that allows for venting of flammable vapors. It can also change the size of the container. Further I would point out that the main cause of loss of life(in my humble opinion) was not the wreck itself but the resulting explosion and fire. Rgds IGN[/quote] I agree that the fire was the deadly element of the disaster.  Without the fire, I think it is quite possible that nobody would have even been injured.  But the point I was making is that, even though the oil was more volatile than labeled, there was no requirement (according to the article) to ship it in any way other than the way it was shipped.  Maybe there should be such a requirement, but according to the article, there is none.  The article says the following.  The closest the article comes to suggesting that the oil should have been handled differently is the last sentence: However, even if the oil had been properly classified, current rules do not require it to be transported in a different type of tank car. But Mr. Ross said the incident “calls into question” the adequacy of the rail cars used to transport such material. U.S. authorities have suggested the volatile oil should be shipped in smaller quantities in rail cars.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag