cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.
I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.
Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source.
Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well.
- Erik
I don't know how readily the oil would ignite, but a train wreck makes a lot of molten steel, fire, and sparks as it happens. So there would be plenty of ignition available to anything that would burn.
I recall that we had a discussion on this forum a couple years ago about leaving trains with engines running and cabs unlocked. As I seem to recall, it was based on a news story where a TV station sent its reporters out to prove they could get into the cabs of locomotives that had been left unattended and unlocked. It was quite controversial, but I don’t remember the details. Does anybody remember what that was about?
Looking at news sites, there is little now about this, as the plane crash in San Francisco is bigger news. So, the railroads may have gotten lucky.
Bucyrus That is an amazing development. I wonder if it could have been terrorism.
That is an amazing development. I wonder if it could have been terrorism.
There's always that possibility. Years back a customer of mine who was a Federal agent told me there were various incidents that occurred around the country that could be classified as terrorist or saboteur attacks that officially were explained away as having other causes, reason being as to not incite panic.
Probably not this time. I wouldn't assume terrorism, although there's always the possibility. Trouble is, by the time this accident investigation's complete and the results published the news cycle will have more than moved on and we'll never hear about it, unless it's mentioned in "Trains."
The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive. Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?
Bucyrus The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive. Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed?
Article I read stated part of the train 'ran away' - the locomotives and head end of the train were where the train had been 'parked'. If so it sounds like vandalism coupled with air leaking off the train and the train not having been stopped 'streached' so that tension within the couplings would not permit a uncoupling lever being operated successfully.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Bucyrus The news coverage seems to be indicating that the train ran away due to gravity, and not due to being under power from the locomotive. Does anybody know how much of a grade there is between the point where the train was tied up and the point where it derailed? Article I read stated part of the train 'ran away' - the locomotives and head end of the train were where the train had been 'parked'. If so it sounds like vandalism coupled with air leaking off the train and the train not having been stopped 'streached' so that tension within the couplings would not permit a uncoupling lever being operated successfully.
That is interesting news. Maybe they stopped with the slack bunched, which would have enabled a pin to be pulled. If so, the brakes must have been holding in order for the slack to stay bunched. Then, if a pin were pulled, the perpetrator would have had to have bled all those cars so they would run away.
Despite the BP gulf spill, they still drill offshore. Despite the Exxon Valdez, they still ship oil via tanker. Despite the Yellowstone River pipeline spill, they still build pipelines. People accept the fact that there are going to be some accidents in getting the oil to them. As long as spills are kept to acceptable levels, It seems inconceivable that rail oil transport should suffer any different fate. They will learn from their mistakes, and safety procedures will be tightened, Some environmental activist will renew the alarm, but they will eventually be ignored as before.
I would not expect shipping oil by rail to be banned outright because of this derailment. But I do not believe that the precedent for what is acceptable risk is guaranteed to remain unchanged. We have never been led by people who believe what our current leaders believe about oil. Canadian oil is a grand introduction of new supply, and the greens are quite defensive about that. The current debate is not about oil spills, breaking pipelines, sinking ships, chemical explosions, and other industrial calamities. Instead, it is about radically cutting CO2 emissions in order to prevent a fantastically larger catastrophe.
Here are some news about the subject. I just translated an article that was written in french.
The article says that there was no driver in the locomotive. Apparently, the driver had been sleeping at the hotel and with the gravity, the train has been going down the slope. Brakes were apparently deactivated for a reason that no one knows. 4 of the 73 cars have exploded in the city and huge amount of oil have been dumped into the river.
The train was staged at Nantes, about 7 miles away and 250' higher which, if I haven't misplaced the decimal point, works out as an average 0.7% downgrade. If someone started releasing the brakes, or the crew member did not apply sufficient, that would certainly allow a runaway train to pick up considerable speed.
Downloading the event recorder should provide some very helpful timing, brake pressure and speed data to aid the investigation.
John
I think it's odd that they're covering up the railroad name, as far as I know...Usually i know which one it is, but this time...
Mr. Railman I think it's odd that they're covering up the railroad name, as far as I know...Usually i know which one it is, but this time...
What do you mean exactly Mr. Railman?
erikem cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off. Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source. Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well. - Erik
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Nantes siding is the normal crew change point between Canadian crews and US crews, on the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic.
As to the loss of the IJN Taiho, the retreating Dutch had destroyed the equipment that stripped off the Condensates from the Crude Oil. With the Condensates not stripped off the Crude is very combustible.
As to a terrorist attack derailing a train in the US, look no further than the October 9th, 1995 derailment of Amtrak's Sunset Limited near Palo Verde, AZ.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment>
Murphy Siding erikem cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off. Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source. Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well. - Erik As I understand that situation, the fumes were circulated all through the below deck hangers by the ventilation systems fans, and a spark caused the fumes to explode. There's nothing similar to be expected in or near a train tank car.
The similarity being that crude oil can give off more flammable vapors than bunker C or diesel fuel and the flammable vapors are often what gets the conflagration started. In the case of the Taiho, the circulation of the fumes did as you understood lead to a good portion of the ship being filled with an explosive fuel/air mixture. In the case of a derailed tank car the fumes just need to find an ignition source to get a fire going, once that happens the heat from the fire will volatize the heavier fractions of the crude oil.
Here are some photos of this huge accident.
Article I read stated it was the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic.
Yes, it is the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic. With what I hear in the news, I don't think this company will survive very long in Quebec and I think that the government will stop trains to bring dangerous materials in the middle of a city.
There is a difference between unattended and unsecured.
Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew.
Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars.
The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules.
From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew?
This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
23 17 46 11
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-train-railroad-profile-20130706,0,6642224.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CNN is reporting Sunday that the train was unattended and a runaway for 7 miles before the derailment and fire. Obviously, the engineer did not properly tie it down when he went off duty.
There are some questions that the news media ought to be able to answer, but I can’t find the answers:
1) Did the entire train run away; or did only part of it run away? They make it sound like the whole train ran away.
2) The train was left unattended at 11:30 PM. When did the derailment happen?
3) Were the locomotives locked to prevent access?
4) Which direction was the train bound and which direction did it runaway?
These questions sound like they belong on a police or investigators report, not in the newspaper. I don't think the media could get too close to the scene let alone someone in charge. No comment is probably the most information they got from "in charge".
Just my
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Mookie These questions sound like they belong on a police or investigators report, not in the newspaper. I don't think the media could get too close to the scene let alone someone in charge. No comment is probably the most information they got from "in charge". Just my
The question that I would least expect to be answered is whether the engine cabs were locked. But the other three are easy questions that anybody near the scene could probably answer. Maybe the question about the time of the wreck has been answered and I have just not seen it. The point of that question is to know how much time elapsed while the train was standing. Certain scenarios such as bleeding cars or releasing handbrakes could be ruled out if the time was too short.
I find that there is more detailed information in the comments following the reports, but you have to weigh its probable credibility.
cacole CNN is reporting Sunday that the train was unattended and a runaway for 7 miles before the derailment and fire. Obviously, the engineer did not properly tie it down when he went off duty.
And you know that how?
Seriously, enlighten us.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Bucyrus I find that there is more detailed information in the comments following the reports, but you have to weigh its probable credibility.
Somewhere between made up and talking out of one's posterior, I'd imagine.
This derailment will raise is this question: Why can’t tank cars be built to withstand a derailment without rupturing?
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF1B4.pdf
Quote from the link:
The NTSB noted that more than half of the nation’s 60,000 railroad tank cars that
carry hazardous materials pre-date the 1989 standards and therefore were not designed to
withstand predictable levels of stress and are more likely to break open after derailing.
In particular, the NTSB found that pre-1989 cars constructed from “non-normalized,” or
weaker, steel, some of which are expected to remain in use until 2038, pose a much
higher risk than post-1989 cars.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.