CSSHEGEWISCH Deggesty An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements? Telegrapher/station agents were required for operation under timetable and train order. The gradual change away from timetable and train order operation has virtually eliminated the need for telegrapher/station agents.
Deggesty An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements?
An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements?
Telegrapher/station agents were required for operation under timetable and train order. The gradual change away from timetable and train order operation has virtually eliminated the need for telegrapher/station agents.
Johnny
This specific point was discussed earlier and answered earlier. Please read the entire thread. Thank you.
But to save you time: The relationship between shipper and railroad is not changed. Key Transportation's surcharges are based on calculations open to the public scrutiny of the additional costs incurred by the safety measures and the Key Transportation people do not discuss or possibly even know the rate agreements between railroad and shipper.
Given the public and political pressure to DO SOMETHING, I am fairly sure this will satisfy the trust busters. You don't agree? Well then we can go back and forth forever, but to do so is pointless and does not bring new information to bear on the problem.
I don't want to freez this thread in case someone genuinely has a new contribution that has not been discussed, particularly it is positive and can help solve the problem. If you wish to criticize my ideas or Fred's, please do read the thread and see if the criticism has not been discussed already. Thank you.
daveklepper THE LEGAL PEOPLE OF THE RAILROADS WILL FIGURE THE RIGHT WAY AROUND THIS ISSUE. ONE POSSIBILITY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A SURCHARGE ON A REGULAR FREIGH BILL TO HAVE HAZMAT HANDLED BY KEY TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REGULAR FREIGHT WITH SHIPPER ASSUMING TOTAL LIABILITY. PULLMAN WAS NEVER CHALLANGED ON TOTAL CONTROL OF SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, ONLY ON TIEING MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE. AGAIN, LOOK AT BRINKSÖ±
THE LEGAL PEOPLE OF THE RAILROADS WILL FIGURE THE RIGHT WAY AROUND THIS ISSUE. ONE POSSIBILITY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A SURCHARGE ON A REGULAR FREIGH BILL TO HAVE HAZMAT HANDLED BY KEY TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REGULAR FREIGHT WITH SHIPPER ASSUMING TOTAL LIABILITY. PULLMAN WAS NEVER CHALLANGED ON TOTAL CONTROL OF SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, ONLY ON TIEING MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE. AGAIN, LOOK AT BRINKSÖ±
At the risk of getting too deep into off -topic issues I have to point out that Brinks, although unquestionably the World's largest provider of secure cash/valuables transportation services, actually has plenty of competition in their primary business segment..
There a number of very large companies (Loomis, Dunbar, Gardai) and numerous smaller ones that compete with Brinks.
I think some people may be confused by the fact that "Brink's truck" has come to be a generic name for any armored cash transport and come to the conclusion that Brink's is like the "Ma Bell" of old in their respective industry..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Again, my effort was to try to see how Fred Frailey's proposals could be implemented without "gumming up the works." A company or a bueareau of all seven tasked with the task of making hazmat transport safer seemed to me the best approach . Then I tried to see now the specific operating ideas Fred wriote could be applied in practice. The first modification of Fred's ideas is that trains could pass each other keeping moving at resricted speed. The second is that directional running minimizes meets. Before going further generally, may I point out that years ago on this Forum I argued the case of single-speed railroading. I felt that N&W running coal trains at 70mph had something to teach us. A hazmat train, yes a petroleum train using the old tankcars, on a directionally-paired basically single-direction line, should run at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. Avoiding overtaking reduces risks. Also curves can only be superelivated for one speed, and runniing at that speed reduces risks. On paired directional running lines, the opposing traffic is usually one or two local peddler freights, and their stopping while others run by should rarely be a problem. Back to generalities: If Carl Ice were to tell me that running hazmat trains at normal speed on the Transcon is the safest approach, I would have to take his word, because he is the professional, has years of experience, and knows the equipment and physical plant. My guess is so would Fred.
Do nothing, change nothing, except gradually replace the tankcar fleet seems to be the answer to critics of my proposal . I don't think the industry can go that way, and I would hope that critics would come up with better ideas instead. My takeoff on Frred's ideas is not meant to be applied without common sense.
Euclid Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire?
Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire?
Welcome back.
A derailment of that scope? Maybe, probably? Even if it was a coal train that wrecked, there may have been a fire. Hard theory to test, though.
Like I said, welcome back.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
But my understanding is that the latest standards are also being reviewed. In any case, the large majority of cars do not meet current standards and should be used only by following Fred's suggestions with the modification of passing witout stopping a restricted speed permitted.
daveklepper The new standards are what are being formulated now. The existing standards you are referring to have been proven unsatisfactory. The did not prevent explosions and leaks in the recent derailments or even mitigate them. I used the words "shipper supplied" in my statement. Please read it again.
The new standards are what are being formulated now. The existing standards you are referring to have been proven unsatisfactory. The did not prevent explosions and leaks in the recent derailments or even mitigate them. I used the words "shipper supplied" in my statement. Please read it again.
The standards for new build tank cars were changed in 2011.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/16/22328508-rail-oil-industries-weigh-new-safety-measures-in-wake-of-derailments-explosions?lite
"The Association of American Railroads issued revised standards for the DOT-111s in 2011, requiring a thicker shell and shields on either ends to help prevent punctures. But the new standard was not applied retroactively, meaning that only about 14,000 of the approximately 92,000 DOT-111 cars in service today are built to the new standards."
I do not think all of the new standards of the new cars can be applied to the old cars. I see no reason why the end shields can not be applied, however I think a thicker shell would be far more difficult, if even possible.
An "expensive model collector"
Dave,
You did talk of shipper supplied cars.
There have been no explosions involving crude oil releases. There have been big fires, and probably open air ignition of flammable vapors, but there have been no explosions. I know the media has used that word, but that is to sell papers and because reporters do not know, or often care about, the meaning of technical terms.
Sloppy word choice and sloppy thinking are kind of like the chicken and the egg. Hard to tell which is the cause and which is the effect..
The DOT 111A tank car is a good design with millions of car years of service. It is far more likely to survive an accident than a flammable liquid tank truck. Check the figures on hazmat truck fatalities versus hazmat rail fatalities over any period you want. Rail if far safer. Not that I expect anyone to bother with the facts when anyone can run around demanding that "something be done".
Mac
I think dave's proposal includes newer safety standards for tank cars. It is implied, I believe.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper A PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE THE RELATIONSHIIP BETWEEN RAILROAD AND SHIPPER IS NOT CHANGED. THE RAILROAD CONTINUES THE PRESENT RATE SCHEME ONLY IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES A CAR THAT MEETS ALL THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES AND CAR OR USES A CAR FROM THE RAILROAD THAT HAS NOT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE KEY TRANSPORTATION SURCHARGE APPLIES. THE CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE IS BASED ON TRANSPARENT, OPEN-TO-THE-PUBLIC-INSPECTION, OF THE ADDITIONAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE REROUTS AND RESTRICTED SPEEDS OF KEY TRANSPORTATION HANDLING, AND THIS HANDLING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CARS THAT DO NOT MEET THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE CAR DOES MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND GOES AT THE RAILROAD-ONLY RATE, IT IS UP TO THE RAILROADS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER IT MOVES IN A CONVENTIONAL TRAIN OR A KEY TRANSPORTATION TRAIN. KEY TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BASIC RAILROAD RATES. ONLY THE SURCHARGES. Dave, Your solution here is based on two false premises about how the hazmat business operates. First, tank cars are supplied by the shipper, who either leases them or owns them. Railroads do not supply tank cars. Second, it is the duty of the shipper to package his material in a DOT approved container. A container is either approved or it is not. Mac McCulloch
A PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE
THE RELATIONSHIIP BETWEEN RAILROAD AND SHIPPER IS NOT CHANGED. THE RAILROAD CONTINUES THE PRESENT RATE SCHEME ONLY IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES A CAR THAT MEETS ALL THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES AND CAR OR USES A CAR FROM THE RAILROAD THAT HAS NOT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE KEY TRANSPORTATION SURCHARGE APPLIES. THE CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE IS BASED ON TRANSPARENT, OPEN-TO-THE-PUBLIC-INSPECTION, OF THE ADDITIONAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE REROUTS AND RESTRICTED SPEEDS OF KEY TRANSPORTATION HANDLING, AND THIS HANDLING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CARS THAT DO NOT MEET THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE CAR DOES MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND GOES AT THE RAILROAD-ONLY RATE, IT IS UP TO THE RAILROADS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER IT MOVES IN A CONVENTIONAL TRAIN OR A KEY TRANSPORTATION TRAIN. KEY TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BASIC RAILROAD RATES. ONLY THE SURCHARGES.
Problem now solved. Sometimes with Microsoft Windows XP, when a problem seems unsolvable, simply yanking out the power cord and thus bruttally shutting down the computer, assuming it lacks battery power, typical of desktops, solves the problem as the computer checks the disk and finds the problem with an internal "Scandisk" upon startup. Well, it worked this time for me.
Thanks for the explanation, Dave. We now know that you are not shouting.
I do not think that your Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet would be translated to the forums; I have tried using Greek (WordPerfect has both, and one or two other non-Roman alphabets), and Greek does not come out. Bad, bad forum design.
I DO ENJOY MY DIVS AND CDS AND ALSO STREAMING OCCASIONALLY
PARDON THE CAPS BUT THIS MORNING MY OLDER COMPUTER SEEMS RELUCTANT TO LEAVE THE HEBREW MODE FOR ENGLISH AND CAPS INSURES ENGLISH.
Dave, interesting read.
So you have a well-rounded work experience, but it sounds like your passion is, well, sound.
The digital revolution should have you in hog heaven as it were!
23 17 46 11
Pullman WAS busted up because the anti trusters decided that building AND operating sleeping cars was illegal. That made no legal or economic sense but is what happened.
Brinks has two or three competitors so it is clearly not a monopoly, unless the Injustice Department decides it is. Irrelevant on its face.
daveklepper And just how often have you heard Brinks accused of price-fixing even though they clearly have a monopoly\? You are raising a red herring. What Key Transportation would do in every case that is reasonable is offer two or even three possible routings, with departure cut-offs and arrivals appropriatly scaled to price. In many cases there would only be one choice, just as currently many shippers have onlly one choice and cannot raise the monopoly issue except by clamoring for reciprocal switching. Which has not and probably will not happen. You have raised a "red herring" in my opinion, but you have company.
And just how often have you heard Brinks accused of price-fixing even though they clearly have a monopoly\? You are raising a red herring. What Key Transportation would do in every case that is reasonable is offer two or even three possible routings, with departure cut-offs and arrivals appropriatly scaled to price. In many cases there would only be one choice, just as currently many shippers have onlly one choice and cannot raise the monopoly issue except by clamoring for reciprocal switching. Which has not and probably will not happen. You have raised a "red herring" in my opinion, but you have company.
Anti-trust would certainly be an issue under your proposal. Here is a bit of history that is a very summary explanation of an arcane subject.
One of the things the anti trust laws are intended to prevent is sellers getting together and agreeing on a price.The law calls it collusion.
Even before the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the railroads repeatedly attempted to agree on specific rates. The mechanisms were typically pools and traffic associations. Since someone was always building a new line, or trying to get more than his share of this or that pool, rates where often unstable. The instability was a problem for both the carriers and their customers.
A key provision of the ICA of 1887 was that the carriers publish their rates. What happened? The pools and traffic associations were transformed into rate bureaus. The rate bureaus published uniform rates on behalf of their carrier members. The "Trunk Lines" that is NYC, PRR, Erie and B&O, for example all had equal rates between Chicago and New York City.
The carriers sat down and decided what the rates would be, the rate bureau, acting as agents for the carriers published the tarriff, the carriers adopted the tariff, the ICC smiled, and the law was complied with. Of course the carriers colluded but the rates were published. They were uniform as between carriers and they were stable.
The anti trust probition came along 10 years or so later, but the railroads and the ICC continued as they had despite the fact that rate agreements were found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act in 1897. In 1948 Congress passed the Reed-Bulwinkle Act, which specifically legalized rate bureaus and their process.
The Stagers Act of 1980 eliminated the explicit anti trust protection of the Reed Bulwinkle Act. I have personal knowledge of conversations where railroaders with much more knowledge than I possesed express great concern about joint rate making without anti trust protection. As a practical, matter due to some combination of shielding by the ICC and the reduction of the number of carriers from hundreds to less than a dozen, anti trust has not been a big problem for the carriers post Staggers. I believe the rate bureaus have disappeared however.
As you proposed it, Keystone would have pricing authority and would bill and collect freight revenues from the customers. That makes it a rail monopoly and a prime target for trust busters in the Injustice Department. Absent an Act of Congress Keystone has anti trust problems. If you were Matt Rose would you trust Obama's minnions not to come after you even if they promissed they would not?
My professional background has apparently been discussed on ths Forum, and I wish to answer publicly, rather than by private communication. My professional career, 1957 - 1996 in the USA, with work in Canada, South Africa, and Israel as well, was almost entirely in architectural acoustics, that is sound isolation, noise control, sound amplification systems, and room acoustics. This included theatres, concert halls, and lots of churches and synagogues. Also on-board work for Pullman's Boston Red Line silver cars, station work for the LIRR and PATH.. and the sound system for LIRR's West Side Storage Yard, which will certainly be replaced as it is not suitable for a covered yard, under the new redevelopment program. However, in 1949 I went to MIT to be a railway electrfication engineer. I did take Professor Ballsbaugh's Transportation Planning course, had part-time jobs as a truck dispatcher for an ice-cream company and as a transformer designer. I also took music courses. Summer of 1951 was spent at ROTC summer camp at Fort Monmouth, and summer of 1952 at EMD in LaGrange where I designed the automatic transition system for FTs, successfully applied by the B&O, as well as dong a lot of routing testing or relays and other accessory equipment. My Science Bacholor's Thesis was on diesel locomotive load-regulator controls, and the main result was the conclusion that a jerk-free start with maximum acceleration could be obrained by dividing the power avialable from the diesel half to accelerate the diesel and half to accelerate the train, when moving directly from idle to run-8. Old heads who noticed an improvement in this area on the GP-9 (and possiblly the F-9) as compared with the GP-7 may wish to comment. Also, fewer parts! I was an unpaid employee of the B&M during this work. But I wanted to make my hi-fi sound better, took the basic acoustics and electro-acoustics courses, was part-time emplyed at the MIT Acoustics Lab., became hooked. My Army career, 1955-1957, was as Assistant Audio-Radio Member of the PsyWar board at Fort Bragg, and that headed me into my professional career, with a Science Masters Thesis, "A Binaural Recording System for Concert Hall Evaluation." In addition to serving as a prototype for several commecial dummy-head systems, it switched allignment of multi-channel magnetic tape recordings from trying to maximize signal strength to minimizing phase-shift between channels. During the time I had an active acoustical consulting career in the USA, I also helped Don Engle with the Shore Line Trolley Museum's substation and specified the emergency generator for the Kiryat Shemona City Hall in Israel. I should note that MIT does wish to give its graduates the tools for problem solving in general.
I added to Fred's recommendations by the idea that a Hazmat and a regular train could pass each other at restricted speed, and even two Hazmat trains at restricted speed. Further: Did not Conrail set up directional running in certain cases where they had parallel lines, and was not this lost in the division between NS and CSX? Would it not make sense for these two railroads to get together and both become both safer and more efficient by restoring this practice? Are there places where this can be done by BNSF and UP? By KCS and UP? CN and CP to so in the far west, what about elsewhere?.
From the railroad perspective
'Key Transportation' could charge and remit to the railraods a mileage rate based on the lowest rated commodity that the railroads handle - IF
and it is a big IF 'Key Transportation' assumes ALL liability in case of ANY accidents.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I am going to assume that under the "Key Transportation" concept being sliced and diced in this thread, any shipper of hazmat would go to that firm, rather than the underlying railroads, to get a rate and a routing. Since "Key Transportation" would not have any competition in such an arrangement, this could easily be construed either as price-fixing by the underlying roads or a combination in restraint of trade. At the very least, it would provide ammunition for various groups pushing for re-reg or open access.
I have no objections to your objections, and Pulllman did not make any attempt to concentrate 1st Class business on just a few routes. My effort, again, was to enable Fred's operating practices to have some iimplementation and not mess up operations. I beleive it is more important to reroute hazmat trains off very dense corridors that rerouting them from major poppulation centers. Then, more careful operation of these trains, and Fred's suggestion may or may not be the right approach to more careful operation, will be achievable. I don't imagine that the railroads will want to actually drive the business away. Sure shippers can complain about monopoly and any rate increase, but the Government, in all its forms, is likely to be more sensible if the railroads have a sensible overall plan.
If I remember correctly, about 2 months after the 9/11 attacks, a bill was proposed to have all hazmat shipments be accompanied by guards, all hazmat would be required to travel in special trains that would be routed around all cities and towns, and all manufacturing facilities that both manufactory and use these chemicals would be required to build “buffer zones” around their facilities.
The AAR, and a fairly wise Senator managed to get it killed before it even got to a initial vote.
A month or two after Graniteville , another proposal was introduced, banning transportation of certain hazmat, chlorine being high on the list, from being transported through Washington DC…as an afterthought, the bill’s sponsor included most other cities and towns.
It was also proposed, again, this stuff be consolidated into separate trains, run on specific routes, so forth and so on.
The major shippers groups objected, claiming they would be forced to use a monopoly, pay higher rates, end up with unpredictable delivery times, at one point, (again a major manufactures group) stated that if this bill passed, most users of these chemicals would go out of business, shutting down the economy.
I applaud Dave for thinking out of the box, (or tank as it may be) as his proposal is based on rational thinking, as opposed to the panic/moral outrage knee jerk reactions most prevalent.
I would like to point out that the same major objections will be applied again, plus some views of my own.
First, while the majority of railroad tracks appear to run through unpopulated areas, the truth is they originate and terminate in population centers; most of the users of hazmat and the manufactures of this stuff are located in populated areas, often densely populated areas in fact.
I live and work in the fourth largest city in the US, Houston, which also happens to be home to the two largest oil refineries in the US, Shell Deer Park and ExxonMobil,(formerly Standard Oil) in Baytown.
If you Goggle say, Deer Park Tx, or LaPort, Jacinto City or Houston, and zoom in on the ship channel area, you will see huge chemical plant complexes, several chemical storage and trans loading facilities all along the channel, with these cities surrounding them, all inside Harris County, home to 6.5 million people.
Houston alone has 3.1 million people inside the city limits, and you can’t get a train into or out of the ship channel area without going through Houston.
These plants built along the channel for two reasons, one, Houston was already a major rail hub, shipping most of the cotton crop in Texas out by both ship and train, and of course the ship channel allowed the plants both rail and ocean born transportation.
As a matter of course, the people who worked in these plants built homes in the small cities nearby, to be close to where they work.
Over the following century, the population has grown to the point there is no land left for these cities to even expand.
I would expect the same thing happens everywhere…a plant that either uses or makes this stuff, including crude oil, builds on a major rail line for the same basic reason, affordable mass shipping, and I would bet their employees have built homes nearby.
That’s one of the major functions of railroads, moving big loads of stuff to where the people are who use it or carrying away the stuff they manufacture.
Either way, it will have to go through a major population center, be it the origination point or the destination point.
If your city purifies its drinking water, you will have chlorine traveling through your city…and if there is a rail line near, the water plant will be on or near it.
Odds are, if there is no rail, it can travel by truck, or your city/town buys its water from a nearby city that does have rail access.
Again, if such a carrier group was formed, shipper will again object, claiming the forced routing amounts to a monopoly of sorts, and claiming higher shipping fees, which they will face because the circuitous route that will result will have many more miles, which translates to higher shipping fees.
I would venture that, outside of the rail fan community, most folks have no clue how much of this stuff travels by rail, in fact, I doubt they have an inkling of the sheer volume of hazardous materials traveling both the rails and the roads.
If you have any plastic products in your home, from a water bottle to a shopping bag to the lamp shade, crude oil was involved in its manufacturing, and odds are that crude traveled by rail through a city or town.
Same with chlorine, every time you turn on your tap water, you used chlorine that traveled by rail, in quantities that would stagger the imagination.
You may think about this also, if you aggregated just these two materials, chlorine and crude oil, and tried to ship all of it on one or two routes, you couldn’t do so, simply because you would have a solid series of back to back massive trains running 24/7 just to keep pace with current consumption…you simply don’t have the real estate in ROW or in yards to accomplish this.
I dunno. If railroads are going to be incurring higher costs to carry loads that they can't charge more for, eventually they will end up like a situation they had with passenger trains. Why not just skip the middle part, and jump right to forming a government agency to should the cost? Amhazard? I wonder what their logo would look like?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
A better answer to maxed train issue:
I think Fred would agree that two trains passing each other at restricted speed, the usual stop and proceed speed, would be as safe as one fully stopped and the other at 30 or 40 mph. Apologize for not posting this answer first!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.