Mention has been made that the only quick solution to lessen the rash of dertailments of trains carrying Bakken crude oil (in terms either the frequency or severity) may be to slow the trains down to speeds in the 25-35 mph range. However, doing so would severely slow velocity for other traffic carried over the same routes. Could the "DO SOMETHING NOW" reaction of the Federal Government result in designation of a single primary route for all loaded crude oil trains from North Dakota to a point east of the Mississippi to carry the majority of the traffic at a reduced speed?
It might be done on a rotating-route basis to spead the impact (both operationally and politically)- but if a railroad knew well advance that a route of their choosing would be effectively slowed to 25 mph while eastbound oil loads were operating over them for, say, a ten-day period, a long range plan could be developed to minimize the effect on the more time-sensitive cargo.
Designated routes? It could happen. Years ago in his autobiography Captain Eddie Rickenbacker said "NEVER underestimate the power of hysteria!" He was referring to the public reaction to a series of crashes by an airliner of the time called the Lockheed Electra, but we could very well see the same hysteria develop over oil train wrecks.
The best thing the railroads can do is demonstrate an immediate, agressive response to the derailments. It can be more intense and rigid track inspections, specialized training for head-end crews in handling oil trains, possibly shorter oil trains to ease handling, and so on. They have to show the public they're doing SOMETHING, because if they don't Washington will.
"Don't just do something, sit there!" isn't a prevailing philosophy in DC. The last thing anyone needs is knee-jerk legislation from the blind heavy hand of government. As the old saying goes, "Hard cases make bad laws."
Even Fred Frailey says oil trains are starting to make him nervous. That tells you something.
EuclidI don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe.
What do you think the price of gas would do then? I'd say at least $10 a gallon.
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
If they push all the oil to one route, I am going back to school to be a lawyer, because there will be thousands of lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court. Lawyers have steady jobs for decades.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Firelock76 Designated routes? It could happen. Years ago in his autobiography Captain Eddie Rickenbacker said "NEVER underestimate the power of hysteria!" He was referring to the public reaction to a series of crashes by an airliner of the time called the Lockheed Electra, but we could very well see the same hysteria develop over oil train wrecks. The best thing the railroads can do is demonstrate an immediate, agressive response to the derailments. It can be more intense and rigid track inspections, specialized training for head-end crews in handling oil trains, possibly shorter oil trains to ease handling, and so on. They have to show the public they're doing SOMETHING, because if they don't Washington will. "Don't just do something, sit there!" isn't a prevailing philosophy in DC. The last thing anyone needs is knee-jerk legislation from the blind heavy hand of government. As the old saying goes, "Hard cases make bad laws." Even Fred Frailey says oil trains are starting to make him nervous. That tells you something.
I no longer follow Fred's rants. Some of them are bordering ridiculous.
Norm
Brother, if you want rants you should read Tom Nemeth's Jersey Transit rants in "Railpace" magazine. Man, those are fun! Justified, but fun!
I have a hard time equating Fred's laid-back Texas style with a "rant."
zugmann Euclid I don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe.
Euclid I don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe.
EuclidThe price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market. Keep in mind that this hysteria over oil train safety is a perfect tool serving the interests of the anti-oil agenda. Public safety is their perfect pretext. They want public hysteria, and the oil trains are delivering it.
No, but if it rises enough, it will further damage a fragile economy. You accuse the green left of hysteria, but you do the very same thing in this forum. It's not just the "green left" causing panic, but the majority of people who have no clue about anything outside their own little circle. Oil trains can be seen. They'd rather have a pipeline under their feet. Out of sight and all that.
So yeah, that is "what".
Euclid zugmann Euclid I don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe. The price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market. Keep in mind that this hysteria over oil train safety is a perfect tool serving the interests of the anti-oil agenda. Public safety is their perfect pretext. They want public hysteria, and the oil trains are delivering it.
A brief thought on a Sunday morning:
This, and the one in WV about 2 weeks ago, (and the other derailments that have made news, and thses Forum Discussions)... While the POTUS (will still/has vetoed) a bill on the Keystone pipeline... When was the last time you saw a story about a pipeline jumping the rails, and causing such a conflagration, or polluting a river? Just a note: Galena, Ill, is the home of General & President Ulysses S Grant. [ For Me, and Firelock76]
zugmann Euclid The price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market. Keep in mind that this hysteria over oil train safety is a perfect tool serving the interests of the anti-oil agenda. Public safety is their perfect pretext. They want public hysteria, and the oil trains are delivering it. No, but if it rises enough, it will further damage a fragile economy. You accuse the green left of hysteria, but you do the very same thing in this forum. It's not just the "green left" causing panic, but the majority of people who have no clue about anything outside their own little circle. Oil trains can be seen. They'd rather have a pipeline under their feet. Out of sight and all that. So yeah, that is "what".
Euclid The price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market. Keep in mind that this hysteria over oil train safety is a perfect tool serving the interests of the anti-oil agenda. Public safety is their perfect pretext. They want public hysteria, and the oil trains are delivering it.
EuclidThe price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? .
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
And even with the wrecks, I have yet to see much of a frenzy whipped up. Just people pushing for the Keystone XL pipeline, many of which have very little understanding of where it will actually run. I swear half the populance of Pennsylvania (the Keystone State) think it will run through here.
When all those environmentalists are riding bicycles 50 miles one way to their jobs they may have a valid argument.
It's possible that the railroads might choose to keep the existing trains on the current routes and just run 'em at 25mph - but the thought of what a slug of 25mph trains would do to the flow of traffic on the NS and CSX mains east of Chicago is not pretty. By concentrating the slow trains on one route for a relatively brief period of time, the feds would be able to say they did something to lessen the potential danger, while rails how have the ability to plan around it and recover.
Of course, they might choose to use different routes for the them (NS is supposeded routing some along the old PRR Chicago-Pittsburgh line, which has potential to serve as a "slow main"). My thought, though, is that the towns that get =all= the trains on a full-time basis would kick like mules.
Norm48327 When all those environmentalists are riding bicycles 50 miles one way to their jobs they may have a valid argument.
They work in ivory towers not too far from their lofts. Many probably don't own a car.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
CatFoodFlambe It's possible that the railroads might choose to keep the existing trains on the current routes and just run 'em at 25mph - but the thought of what a slug of 25mph trains would do to the flow of traffic on the NS and CSX mains east of Chicago is not pretty. By concentrating the slow trains on one route for a relatively brief period of time, the feds would be able to say they did something to lessen the potential danger, while rails how have the ability to plan around it and recover. Of course, they might choose to use different routes for the them (NS is supposeded routing some along the old PRR Chicago-Pittsburgh line, which has potential to serve as a "slow main"). My thought, though, is that the towns that get =all= the trains on a full-time basis would kick like mules.
Oil trains run from 'well head' to refineries or export terminals. There are many refineries and export terminals across the country - not in a neat and clean 'alley'.
Those refineries and export terminals are not going anywhere in the short term. Suprisingly, most of them are located in population centers where their existance provides substansial employment opportunities for the inhabitants of those population centers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
We seen to be retreading the same territory again and again.
Rerouting to "less sensitive areas" tends to mean rerouting to secondary routes. Since most of the derailments that weren't caused by human error seem to have been caused by track, rail or subgrade issues, the idea of rerouting oil trains onto secondary routes which do not have the same inspection or maintenance regimien that the primary routes have would seem to be a counterproductive move. After all, the worst incident on record happened on just such a secondary route through a less sensitive area (the MMA and Lac Megantic). If the idea is to reduce incidents, then why would anybody intentionally putting them on routes that would be more likely to have incidents?
A number of the recent derailments of oil trains involve basically new tank cars.
It is unlikely that these tank cars were the cause of the derailments.
That leaves track conditions as the most likely cause.
The axle loads in the USA are higher than in most other countries, yet the track is often not maintained to a high enough standard to take these heavier loads.
Presumably it is a commercial decision to run heavier axle loads while not upgrading track and this decision is looking a bit unwise.
There is a "unit train problem" where a train of identical heavily laden vehicles can cause track problems because every car has the same effect on a weakness in the track. Intermodal trains are fast, but individual cars can vary in weight and length and don't have the same repetitive effect.
Coal trains have the unit train problem, but coal rarely catches fire, even in a serious derailment (although it is good to keep it out of rivers).
If you are going to select a route, it should have new 136lb rail on concrete ties with 24" of ballast with no contamination. Then you can start blaming the tank cars if something goes wrong.
M636C
I have no idea whether tank sloshing is a problem. However driving a TT tanker half full is no picnic. But why are the RR tank cars built with a greater volume capacity than its weight limit?. Are the cars built to carry the least dense product possible and what would that product be ?
Euclid I am not advocating a ban. All I am doing is reading the tea leaves and commenting on where I think this is headed. If I am creating hysteria, it would have to be in the oil/rail industry, and I think they are immune to hysteria. Short of banning oil trains, I don’t see a solution to the problem, or an end to the problem. I think that is where we are at. So I am left to wonder if such a radical solution as a ban might be forthcoming. I think that outcome is entirely feasible. There is no magic protection that says the Bakken oil must go to market. But this outcome may not be the result of an executive order to simply stop oil trains. It may be a DOT regulation to mandate a quick phase out of existing tank cars and a new regulation for tank cars that are so uneconomical that they won’t be built.
The Bakken now comprises a little over 10% of domestic crude oil production. Last I knew, a majority went by rail. There is no way this will be shut-off until an alternative transport option is in place. It is a basic political fact of life.
M636C The axle loads in the USA are higher than in most other countries, yet the track is often not maintained to a high enough standard to take these heavier loads.
Are you a qualified track inspector?
An "expensive model collector"
CatFoodFlambe It might be done on a rotating-route basis to spead the impact (both operationally and politically)- but if a railroad knew well advance that a route of their choosing would be effectively slowed to 25 mph while eastbound oil loads were operating over them for, say, a ten-day period, a long range plan could be developed to minimize the effect on the more time-sensitive cargo.
So, you want to have a bunch of crews laying around being paid to only be used over a ten day period evey month or so? Good luck with that.
samfp1943 When was the last time you saw a story about a pipeline jumping the rails, and causing such a conflagration, or polluting a river?
When was the last time you saw a story about a pipeline jumping the rails, and causing such a conflagration, or polluting a river?
The Yellowstone River has been polluted a couple of times by broken pipelines recently - Laurel, MT in 2011 and Glendive, MT in the last couple of months. The 2011 incident was memorable as I had driven across the US-212 bridge a few hoours before the break.
There have been several incidents of pipeline conflagrations...
- Erik
Euclid I don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe. Right now, there are two things happening. One is the alarming frequency of oil train wrecks with each one faithfully producing spectacular fireballs that are scaring the public. The other thing that is happening is the sudden realization that the industry has failed to deliver the tank car safety that was promised as a means to end the fireballs. Both of these factors are combining to produce a crisis that calls for immediate action that might radically modify the developing Federal specifications for tank cars. Secretary Foxx has recently said that he now thinks that we need an entirely new type of tank car. That sounds like a big change in direction. A couple more fireball wrecks, and an even greater change might occur.
Last time I looked, no major railroad had or wished to have facilities to produce complete railcars anymore.
So when you say "The other thing that is happening is the sudden realization that the industry has failed to deliver the tank car safety that was promised as a means to end the fireballs" you seem to be indicating that the railroads (carriers)are the ones responsible for the design and manufacture of safer rail cars.
I would think that responsibility would rest with the railcars manufacturing companies, if and when they are given the final approved specifications.
23 17 46 11
n012944 CatFoodFlambe It might be done on a rotating-route basis to spead the impact (both operationally and politically)- but if a railroad knew well advance that a route of their choosing would be effectively slowed to 25 mph while eastbound oil loads were operating over them for, say, a ten-day period, a long range plan could be developed to minimize the effect on the more time-sensitive cargo. So, you want to have a bunch of crews laying around being paid to only be used over a ten day period evey month or so? Good luck with that.
Not at all. But what happens when a politically motiviated STB slaps a 25mph limit on loaded oil trains? You won't have crews laying around - they'll all be sitting in Retzenberger vans at a grade crossing in Indiana waiting to dogcatch oil trains, coal trains, containers, vehicle trains and everything short of the track inspector's Hi-Railer.
Since 'fuel' trucks can't stay shiny side up and dirty side down - they should also be restricted - that will really help the flow of traffic on the Interstates.
http://news.yahoo.com/fuel-truck-spill-shuts-down-most-interstate-near-161928210.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.