The Folly of Rerouting Oil Trains

[Euclid]

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

 

[My emphasis added]

 

I am pretty sure that new regulation is right around the corner.  I believe it will be more stringent than any regulations on tank car construction so far.  The only question is how long the 111 cars can continue in use.  I also expect new regulations that prohibit oil trains from passing by certain areas due to public safety and environmental concerns. 

 

 

[BaltACD]

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/685/b1d.png

[schlimm]

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

[BaltACD]

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

[schlimm]

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

[Convicted One]

.

[Norm48327]

Euclid

Instead, they will simply stipulate where the tank cars cannot go. They will identify safety-sensitive areas along routes that the tank cars cannot pass.  Then it will be up to the industry to figure out how to get the oil to the refineries by rail.

I guess that would include just about every mile of track that someone live within a mile of.

Your statement is no better than the arguments posted in the Lac Megantic thread.

[tree68]

Euclid

The regulators will add these safety “no-go” zones in consultation with state and local authorities; and with public input.  Then they will prioritize the risk.  This will be an open-ended developing process that will impede the flow of oil by rail to a safer level.   

Should be interesting once they discover that nobody wants hazmat through their town...  

[Euclid]

I do not expect the oil and rail industry to develop and implement a rerouting plan.  This will come from the regulators.  HOWEVER: The regulators will not actually stipulate the routing change from a previous route to a new route. 

Instead, they will simply stipulate where the tank cars cannot go. They will identify safety-sensitive areas along routes that the tank cars cannot pass.  Then it will be up to the industry to figure out how to get the oil to the refineries by rail.

The regulators will add these safety “no-go” zones in consultation with state and local authorities; and with public input.  Then they will prioritize the risk.  This will be an open-ended developing process that will impede the flow of oil by rail to a safer level.   

[dehusman]

Convicted One

So then what you are saying, is, that if the terrorists want to disrupt American commerce, the easy route for them would be to flood the freight pool with unsafe tank cars that the railroads have no authority to refuse?

No, what the terrorists CAN do is once the re-routers have concentrated ALL the hazmat on one line, it will make it easier for them to attack that one line.

Odd that a railroad can expel a photographer from their property, but not a questionable shipment.

What's odd is that you can't realize there are things that are laws and regulations and regardless of opinions and studies and indignation, the laws prevail. 

Here's a chore that will keep you busy for a while.  Find ONE law, regulation, or interchange standard that the DOT 111-A tank car violates.  Not studies, not somebody's opinions, an actual law regulation or standard that the car itself violates that would prevent that car from being interchanged.

Here's a hint.  You won't find one.  They comply with every law out there.  They are legal to use.  They meet every safety standard for interchange.  There have been numerous examples of standards changing and actual safety flaws being found in cars where railroads participated with the car's owners to identify, locate and route the cars to be repaired or brought into compliance.  Happens all the time.  However there are NO such flaws that have been identified in the DOT 111-A cars.  They are legal to use, therefore they are SAFE to use from the standpoint of the law and regulations.

Are there better standards for car design?  Yes.  Should the cars be replaced or upgraded?  Yes.  Can the railroads refuse to transport them?  No.

Sorry that you don't like the laws.  By the way the railroads don't write or pass those either.

There are things the railroads can do without spending billions of dollars, disrupting their core business or violating laws. 

[Convicted One]

Murphy Siding

   If you haven't read the article, have you at least looked at the pictures?

I can't tell you what was in my "other" hand...

[Convicted One]

dehusman

but they don't have the right to refuse  the cars. 

So then what you are saying, is, that if the terrorists want to disrupt American commerce, the easy route for them would be to flood the freight pool with unsafe tank cars that the railroads have no authority to refuse?

Odd that a railroad can expel a photographer from their property, but not a questionable shipment.

I'd just like to supplement what I posted earlier with the observation that when ones pockets are sufficiently deep, you don't have to be "responsible" to be sued. When the stakes are high there is a limitless supply of lawyers willing to sue you,  simply from the realization that the law of averages dictates that there is a slim chance of victory even on groundless cases, since a jury can be induced to pump sympathy whenever there is  a victim needing relief.

I believe the thinking goes something like this " well those poor children lost their father due to this RAILROAD tragedy, and we can't bring back their father, but money will make the misery of the loss easier to tolerate, and maybe the railroad was not at fault, but the railroad has money, so what the heck, the children are needier than the big bad railroad..."

And there you go, if the railroad has purposefully avoided doing reasonable things to assure safety, the jury takes it upon thmseves to "even" the score.

[dehusman]

schlimm

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)

You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area.  Better check that. Several parties are liable.   Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin.   That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.  

 

Absolutely not.  I am saying that the railroads don't own the cars, They don't build the cars.  They don't design the cars (at least the 111's they have been involved in the next generation cars including the next gen TIH/PIH car).  The railroads don't select which cars are to be loaded.  The railroads don't load the cars.  Depsite all the hype about the 111 tank cars  being "unsafe" they are, in the eyes of the law, 100% interchange compliant.  The railroads have no legal basis for refusing the cars.  In the eyes of the law and interchange regulations the cars are "safe". 

 

The railroads have responsibility, they have liability, but they don't have the right to refuse  the cars.  There is a limits to what they can do legally.  As has been pointed out in past threads, the railroads have tried to refuse shipments, have been taken to court and have lost.

 

Rather than saying the railroads DON'T have liability, I am saying that the railroads DO have liability and because they have liability, the road that is forced to be the reroute road will have excessive risk and liability heaped on them.

 

[Deggesty]

Euclid: "I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars." As has been stated several times, the railroads are not responsible for replacing the tank cars that are less safe. Can't we acknowledge this, and not bring it up again?

[schlimm]

Euclid

I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars.  It may be the point about liability, or it may simply be the point that the fireball crisis is not the railroads’ problem because the cars meet the regulations, and the railroads are compelled to haul them.  However, while the railroads may be immune from any blame for the fireballs, they certainly do have a stake in the matter by their risk of losing the oil hauling business. 

And, as Schlimm has pointed out, I suspect the railroads do share in the liability.

In tort law, contributory negligence can be parceled out as percentages over the various agents involved. In the case of Bakken, that would include(but not be limited to)  the owners of tank cars, manufacturers of them, the shippers and the railroad on which the accident occurred.  Remember, there would not be any fireball without the Bakken, but there would also be no fireball without unsafe tank cars and a serious derailment and/or collision on the railroad.

[Euclid]

schlimm

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)

You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area.  Better check that. Several parties are liable.   Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin.   That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.  

 

I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars.  It may be the point about liability, or it may simply be the point that the fireball crisis is not the railroads’ problem because the cars meet the regulations, and the railroads are compelled to haul them.  However, while the railroads may be immune from any blame for the fireballs, they certainly do have a stake in the matter by their risk of losing the oil hauling business. 

And, as Schlimm has pointed out, I suspect the railroads do share in the liability.

[schlimm]

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)

You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area.  Better check that. Several parties are liable.   Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin.   That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.  

[Murphy Siding]

Convicted One

2. Isn't a longer haul in the railroad's best interest?  I doubt seriously that any safety related rerouting will force the railroads to choose a route that is shorter than the one they preferred. So rerouting should mean more money for the railroad.

(and "NO", I have not yet read the article)

  I think the issues lies in the fact that if the railroad has to haul the oil further, or slower, etc.  it has to charge more to haul it.  That may put Bakken Oil at a price disadvantage to oil coming into the coastal refineries from overseas.

      If you haven't read the article, have you at least looked at the pictures?

[northeaster]

This discussion is very interesting in part because how it is handled by the railroad industry will have big money consequences for them, whichever way they play it. EDBLYSARD is so correct about highly explosive materials moving thru cities everyday without mention. For over ten years, very large LNG tankers have been navigating right into the center of Boston with potential for leveling the city: if something goes wrong. Many years ago, I was a pretty good sailboarder in the cold waters of Maine. A friend questioned my sanity by saying, "What if you fall in the water?" Answer:The object is to not fall in the water! Well, with the very awful wreck in Canada, the railroads have fallen in the water. Of course the pro pipeline folk have run with this with little real pushback from the railroad industry & in fact have let it ripple out into all areas of hazardous material hauling.

[Euclid]

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs) and assumes the railroads are not doing anything becaue they aren't doing what a poster has suggested or don't know if the railroads are doing anything so assume since they don't know then the railroads muct not be doing anything.

This discussion does not assume that the railroads are responsible for the tank cars; and I don't know of anyone who assumes that the railroads are doing nothing about the oil train problem as you attribute to "a poster."

[Norm48327]

samfp1943

Don't forget the famous " Black Tom" explosion in New York Harbor (1916)

and don't forget the German attempt to sever a railroad (U.S. Canadian) connection at Vanceboro,Me. as well...

@ http://www.jerseycityonline.com/black_tom_explosion.htm

Thanks Sam. It was a better read than a James Bond novel.

[zugmann]

tree68

The anti-obesity people would be all over it!  See how terrible chocolate is?  It should be removed from stores immediately!  (Sure would make Valentine's Day a little harder to deal with).

Crude Oil = Cause du Jour

Even the big derailment and fire involving ethanol (which occurred in the Chicago area) didn't evoke this much hysteria - probably in part because ethanol is seen as a "green" solution.  Crude is seen as evil - a non-green energy source.

There was a huge stink about ethanol trains around here - esp. when they tried building an ethanol plant nearby.  The opposition, in a thinly veiled attempt to not appear as NIMBYs, tried every argument against the ethanol industry as  a whole.   They were even arguing about emergency lighting at the plants.  It was amusing.

As an aside, I've been noticing a lot (most of them that I see) of corn syrup tanks have had their CORN SYRUP ONLY lettering painted out.  Wondering if that is because of the opposition to corn syrup from certain groups?   I've also seen the C in CORN modified to be a P.  That may have something to do with it, too.

[samfp1943]

BaltACD

No problems with ships in the harbor!

Check out SS Grandcamp at Texax City, TX April 16, 1947

or maybe the Alum Chine in Baltimore Harbor in 1913

and there are others too numerous to mention.

Don't forget the famous " Black Tom" explosion in New York Harbor (1916)

and don't forget the German attempt to sever a railroad (U.S. Canadian) connection at Vanceboro,Me. as well...

@ http://www.jerseycityonline.com/black_tom_explosion.htm

[tree68]

Euclid

The image of oil also plays a role in demonizing oil trains.  If we had exploding trains of chocolate, the criticism wouldn’t be so harsh.      

The anti-obesity people would be all over it!  See how terrible chocolate is?  It should be removed from stores immediately!  (Sure would make Valentine's Day a little harder to deal with).

Crude Oil = Cause du Jour

Even the big derailment and fire involving ethanol (which occurred in the Chicago area) didn't evoke this much hysteria - probably in part because ethanol is seen as a "green" solution.  Crude is seen as evil - a non-green energy source.

[dehusman]

Convicted One

1. Once someone says "something should be done",  if the deep pockets (in this case the railroads) do nothing, then the very next time something bad happens, the monetary damages skyrocket. So the railroads want to be able to walk into that court room saying "hey, we've done our part".

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs) and assumes the railroads are not doing anything becaue they aren't doing what a poster has suggested or don't know if the railroads are doing anything so assume since they don't know then the railroads muct not be doing anything.

2. Isn't a longer haul in the railroad's best interest?  I doubt seriously that any safety related rerouting will force the railroads to choose a route that is shorter than the one they preferred. So rerouting should mean more money for the railroad.

Short anwer, no.  Its a railroad, not a taxi cab.  They railroads don't charge by the mile, they charge by the trip or weight.  So no they don't make more money hauling the car 1000 miles vs 1500 miles. 

The whole division of revenue discussion is small potatoes.  The thing the pro-reroute people are forgetting is that there is no division of revenue that can adequately cover the increased risk caused by forcing the oil trains to one particular route.  The owner of that route will have his risk rise astronomically.  It is one thing to solicit business and accept the risk yourself, its completely another to have risk forced on you by another party.

If the City of Chicago would be willing to indemnify the alternate route railroad and agree to cover all risk associated with personal injury, property damage, interruption of service, environmental damage and cleanup for any accident due to any cause, regardless of negligence, they might have a starting point.

[Convicted One]

>>How this public safety crisis develops moving forward hinges almost entirely on the random event.<<

I think that you are overlooking two key factors:

1. Once someone says "something should be done",  if the deep pockets (in this case the railroads) do nothing, then the very next time something bad happens, the monetary damages skyrocket. So the railroads want to be able to walk into that court room saying "hey, we've done our part".

2. Isn't a longer haul in the railroad's best interest?  I doubt seriously that any safety related rerouting will force the railroads to choose a route that is shorter than the one they preferred. So rerouting should mean more money for the railroad.

(and "NO", I have not yet read the article)

[Euclid]

Regulators look for reasons to regulate, and politicians look for causes to make their voters feel good.  Public safety is one of the most effective of such causes.  The media looks for drama to sell a story and they also serve both the regulators and the politicians at the same time.

It does indeed seem like selective indignation to focus on the danger of oil trains while ignoring the other hazardous materials.  But oil trains are the selected issue that seems to work best to serve the agendas at this moment.  They get to choose their issues.

The image of oil also plays a role in demonizing oil trains.  If we had exploding trains of chocolate, the criticism wouldn’t be so harsh.      

[BaltACD]

No problems with ships in the harbor!

Check out SS Grandcamp at Texax City, TX April 16, 1947

or maybe the Alum Chine in Baltimore Harbor in 1913

and there are others too numerous to mention.

[samfp1943]

edblysard

Odd little side note…they barge LPG, natural gas and oil up the Hudson river, right through New York City, and no one ever thinks to be worried there are floating bombs in Manhattan?

Ed makes a very valid point,IMHO! 

    In his area (Houston, Tx)  the barge and also the Rail traffic is just loaded with hazards..Right on the door steps of a Major Commercial area.  The Houston Ship Channel is not a very large waterway by any definition, except for volume of  waterborne traffic.   And portions of the 'rail net' goes right through what could be considered the Central Business District, (in its' very definitions). 

   The reactionary calls for putting the "Hazardous Traffic: ie; Rail tank cars, and other carloads of dangerous goods, in "less-populated areas" seems nothing more than Knee-jerk, 'feel-good', good ole political reactionisms, particularly, in a time close to what may be a nationally, significant year of shifting political powers(?).    A move at 'gaming' public voting trends, on both side of the spectrum.   The loosers are the people whoise products are having their costs pushed up, by politicians and their reactionary,less-than-well thought out actions.  

    Take the fireworks industry, fast being 'controlled' by politicians who react to a single inccident of individual harm. They limit locations,hours, types of product to be sold, not to mention areas where they can be used...The primary reason for their purchase. 

Here is aninteresting bit of information from a New Mexico County ( San Jaun) [snip] "...In New Mexico in 2012, 80 percent of the fires on public lands were caused by lightning, with less than 1 percent caused by fireworks, according to the New Mexico State Forestry Division, which adds fuel to Burnham’s argument that fireworks don’t cause fires, but provide an economic benefit to the state.

Burnham estimates that the fireworks industry brings in at least $15 million annually to the state, with some $70,000 in fees from vendors and more than $1 million in gross receipts tax revenues. He purchases 10 fireworks vendor licenses and is just one of 635 vendors in the state..."[snip]                                                      from this linked site:  @  http://www.tricitytribuneusa.com/burnham-fireworks-relatively-safe/

   My point is that the total number of Hazardous Loads on rail is only a gross estimate of its total quantity. The number of reported "incidents" is most likely not a total, but also an estimate(final solid totals, only seemt to come after long periods of computation)..gustimates, are not very solid grounds on which to base such an important arguments. 

  The old News axiom of " ...Nothing sells newspapers...More than tragedy or bad news..." [paraphrased].  Is likewise, no real grounds to make politically inspired rulings (ie; runn all crude oil away from populations in Cities), effectively, to legislate what seems to amount to a social "feel-good" safety net, while hoping for'positive' or favorable political outcomes.