Zug, I was at best a lukewarm fan of the Simpsons, but that Bear Patrol episode was my all-time favorite. It had all the shallow maneuvering of the politicians and the people. ONE time, a bear wanders into town, the people demand protection, the bear patrol was started, a $5 tax was charged, the people rebelled about the tax, the mayor diverts their ire by blaming immigrants for high taxes, and somebody keeps hollering "but what about the children?" A very realistic representation of ourselves.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I see 3 different 'interests'/ responsible parties in this - there may be some overlap, though - in sequential order:
Note that if any 1 of these is 'fixed', then the other 2 don't matter anymore, i.e.:
In a way this also reminds me of the 'tragedy of the commons'* - no one owns enough of the problem to have an incentive to fix it, espcially since the fix is likely to be very expensive to that entity, and the other 2 would then benefit by not having to share the cost or do their own fix, too.
*"The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. " - from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
So what we have is a circle of 3 players, with any 2 pointing their fingers at the 3rd. I suppose there's some mathematical 'game theory' which explains this further and suggests a resolution, but I don't know what it is.
- Paul North.
PDN - As succinct an explanation as I've seen.
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...
EuclidThat is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil.
I really don't see that happening. Be political suicide.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Euclid That is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil. I really don't see that happening. Be political suicide.
Euclid That is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil.
I must clarify that when I say "ban oil," I mean ban Bakken oil by putting a hold on oil by rail. The pretext for a ban based on fossil fuels is public safety in terms of transport. So, for the most part, it only involves Bakken and tar sands. But the opposition will take what they can get. I don't think that would be political suicide at all. We have the most anti-fossil fuel Adminstration and much of Congress in American history.
Certainly banning all oil would be political suicide, but not just banning CBR. The country was living without Bakken up until recently. The opposition would like to ban all oil, but the public safety pretext does not extend to all oil, so there is no support to ban all oil. But they know how to get things done incrementally.
Anti-fossil fuel? Yeah, right. Keep believing that.
It's not going to be a ban, but costs will be such that it won't be worth pumping or shipping. Will have nothing to do with "public safety". That's just a smoke screen certain factions throw up to seem like they care. (they don't).
Paul of Covington Zug, I was at best a lukewarm fan of the Simpsons, but that Bear Patrol episode was my all-time favorite. It had all the shallow maneuvering of the politicians and the people. ONE time, a bear wanders into town, the people demand protection, the bear patrol was started, a $5 tax was charged, the people rebelled about the tax, the mayor diverts their ire by blaming immigrants for high taxes, and somebody keeps hollering "but what about the children?" A very realistic representation of ourselves.
To sort of add to the conversation and remarks by Paul of Covington:
The TRAINS Newswire of this date carries the following headline:
"Refineries sue BNSF over tank car surcharge"
FTA:"...FORT WORTH – A trade group representing 400 U.S. oil refineries and chemical makers is suing BNSF Railway because the railroad has started charging $1,000 each time an older tank car is used to move crude oil, Bloomberg reports.."
"...The surcharge applies to DOT-111 tank cars that were at the center of the deadly Lac-Megantic, Quebec, oil train wreck that killed 47 people in 2013. BNSF began charging customers the surcharge in January 2015 and shippers say that it's adding a $1.50 to every barrel of fuel. The shippers accuse the railroad of trying to force them to buy newer, safer tank cars that are jacketed and, until recently, were thought to be less prone to rupturing in the event of a derailment. However, a series of recent oil train wrecks, including one on BNSF in Illinois, has shown that the newer tank cars, specifically the CPC-1232 tank cars are not as secure as the industry once thought..."[snipped]
It would seem that the 'intersted parties' that PDN mentioned are arming themselves for what could possibly one of those 'circular firing squads'. You can probably, already see the politicians warming up to jump into this fray.
Zugmann,
What you refer to as a "smoke screen" is what I am calling a "pretext." Whether it is a smoke screen or a genuine concern for public safety makes no difference to the objective.
It might not be an outright ban. I tend to think it will be more complicated than that; more along the lines of making it uneconomical as you mention. But if there is a oil train fire with many deaths, I would expect an executive order to halt until a solution can be found.
CMStPnP I kind of like what I percieve is the BNSF strategy evolving here. Ask the FRA for permission to deny carrying some hazardous cargos as a Common Carrier. Once permission is received setup your own specs for handling this cargo OR charge a premium for hauling it using the newly gained right of refusal.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/refiners-sue-bnsf-railway-over-1-000-oil-tank-car-surcharges
"The case is American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. BNSF Railway Co., 15-00682; U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston)."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-refiners-suing-bnsf-over-tanker-car-charge-1426624272
My 'take'/ prediction: Refiners lose, for 2 reasons:
A couple of days back TRAINS Newswire of 3/16/2015 carreid the following story reference a case where the FRA inspectors had found leaking valves on BNSF trains of tank cars carrying crude oil.
"FRA issues directive to replace unapproved tank car valves" March 16, 2015
FTA:[snipped] "...The FRA inspector observed each of the tank car’s top fittings and found product leaking from the liquid line ball valves and around each valve’s closure plug. Further tests conducted by the FRA found that certain closure plugs installed on the 3-inch valves caused mechanical damage and led to the destruction of the valves’ seal integrity. In addition, testing found that when a 3-inch closure plug was applied and tightened in the 3-inch McKenzie valve, the plug contacted and damaged the ball. Further testing revealed that the application of downward force on the valve ball applied by the 3-inch plug resulted in the over-compression, damage, and misalignment of the inboard seal, causing the valve to leak. While additional tests conducted by FRA concluded that McKenzie 1-inch and 2-inch ball valves do not appear to present the same safety concerns as the 3-inch valves, they are not approved for use on railroad tank cars and must also be replaced. To date, FRA is not aware of any non-accident releases or other releases from railroad tank cars involving the 1-inch or 2-inch McKenzie valves..."[snipped]
[snipped]"... The Directive requires all tank car owners to remove, within 60 days, any 3-inch McKenzie UNNR ball valves in tank cars used to transport any hazardous material described in 49 CFR 172.101. Further, the Directive requires all tank car owners to remove the 1-inch and 2-inch valves within 90 days. The FRA estimates that about 6,000 DOT-111 tank cars are equipped with the unapproved 3-inch valves. In addition, McKenzie indicates that it has sold more than 37,000 1-inch and 2-inch valves to a variety of tank car owners and tank car facilities. The removal and replacement of these valves are not expected to significantly disrupt freight rail traffic..."[snip]
Not sure how all this will shake out in the reality of real world operations, but I would suspect that the removal of 43,000 tank cars from the "fleet" for the 'repair/replacement of upgrades' cycle to take place will have some major repercussions as to prices and services; all up and down the chain of demands.
Euclid Zugmann, What you refer to as a "smoke screen" is what I am calling a "pretext." Whether it is a smoke screen or a genuine concern for public safety makes no difference to the objective. It might not be an outright ban. I tend to think it will be more complicated than that; more along the lines of making it uneconomical as you mention. But if there is a oil train fire with many deaths, I would expect an executive order to halt until a solution can be found.
As I mentioned in another recent thread, the Bakken represents about 10% of domestic crude production. There is no legal pretext or precident to shut that down. An economic hurdle, such as tank car fleet rebuild would take years to implement. The Lac Megantic disaster only resulted in rerouting the CBR around that vicinity, more stringent enforcement of existing rules (including North Dakota codifying Bakken volatile seperation parameters), and regulatory review of ways to upgrade tank cars.
A little more 'economic throughts' on the BNSF $1,000 per car surcharge:
LION made a reply on this thread:
Progressive Railroading Daily News.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion LION made a reply on this thread: Progressive Railroading Daily News.
More shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don't exist.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BroadwayLion LION made a reply on this thread: Progressive Railroading Daily News. ROAR
Euclid Or you could leave the wall relatively thin, and add internal rings. But the rings would have to be substantial, and they will add considerable weight. Rings also require a lot of extra welding and make the car harder to clean.
Or you could leave the wall relatively thin, and add internal rings. But the rings would have to be substantial, and they will add considerable weight.
Rings also require a lot of extra welding and make the car harder to clean.
I bet they'd add less weight than thickening the entire wall.
How often do they clean tank cars now? Do oil tank cars sometimes carry different types of cargo? I would expect that they're dedicated to oil, so why would they need to clean them?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
dehusmanMore shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don't exist.
You really must be gentle on your LION, him is not a rail expert of any sort, but ewe knew that.
We have to shoot in the dark, because there is no light on the subject. Like designing an airplane. You re-enforce this place, and the weak spot moves over there.
LION *likes* the idea of transit couplers. The newer ones are fully FRA approved, or so I am told by a locomitive engineer, and are fully up to the task. LION would make sticks of 50 oil cars with one "buffer car" at the end to serve as a transition between conventional couplers and the transit type couplers.
The reason why the LION likes his transit couplers is among other reasons is to put all kinds of sensors on the oil cars: weight, lading, pressure, presence of gas, the ballance on the trucks and the condition of the wheels and brakes. Perhaps more information, LION is not a petrolium engineer either. THIS IS DATA from which new generations of equipment can be made.
The LION would run two such "sitcks" of cars back to back so that there is a transition-buffer car at each end. What the heck, the car manufacturer or the oil shipper can have a technician on the buffer car keeping an eye on everything.
The buffer car would have track inspection gear on it, like continiously inspecting the track. If there is a developing condition on the rails the train can be slowed down.
LION also borrowed the idea of track brakes, electric or otherwise, to be used in emergency and in parking conditions, but not in normal braking conditions. Such a contrivance could apply emergency brakes evenly across the entire train. It would also help to apply service brakes evenly across the entire train. This will take the buff action out of the train and would minimise the effects of a derailment, least wise the LION thinks that this is possible, and is certainly better than not having this kind of control over your train.
The Idea of guard rails and timbers through town are mostly a vissible upgrade that the people in town can see, and be comforted by the fact that the railroad is working to mittigate these issues as the train passes through town. (Did I word that abmigously enough?) Will it help, obviously it will help, otherwise the railroads would not bother with these appliances on bridges and other sensitive locations. Will it stop a disaster? No. If you fix one thing a new issue will rear its head. But public relations with the towns that you pass through *are* important, especially if you wish to increase train speeds. "Yes, the trains are moving faster but we have done.... And so the railroad will now be even safer." PUBLIC RELATIONS is HALF of the job, especially with LLLLLTIST media out for your anatomical parts.
So in addition to guard rails/timbers, I would add a 4' high reinforced wall between the track and the town. Will it help. Yes, every little bit helps, but it will also reduce noise which is coming with the increased frequency of trains on the railroad. Public Relations commbined with some functionality.
Make these new high capacity oil lines QUIET ZONES at railroad expense. JUST DO IT. Better crossing gates, better lighting, better signaling of street traffic. Build good medians where the locality will allow or cooperate with the effort. You want to have the railroad have less impact on the townspeople even while you increase frequency and speeds and are double tracking your layout. And if the railroad is putting in new gates, make them something that cannot be run or ignored. In Hong Kong (back in the 60s) the ROW was fenced in and chain link fence closed the ROW while traffic moved. When a train came, the gates swung across the road blocking it entirely, and giving the train the ROW. Do I wnat that, actually no, I think it is stoopit, but something should be done, and in some places it may be necessary for the railroad to bite yet another bulled and elevate the roadway across its tracks. FAILING THAT, some roads will just be closed with New Jersey Barricades on both sides and end of problem.
Managing Public Relations is every bit important to the railroad as managing the oil and other traffic.
I will give credit to the Lion. That would solve all problems associated with the oil trains.
--
Mainly by making it so expensive that no more oil could ever be moved by rail.
BroadwayLion dehusman More shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don't exist. You really must be gentle on your LION, him is not a rail expert of any sort, but ewe knew that. We have to shoot in the dark, because there is no light on the subject. Like designing an airplane. You re-enforce this place, and the weak spot moves over there. LION *likes* the idea of transit couplers. The newer ones are fully FRA approved, or so I am told by a locomitive engineer, and are fully up to the task. LION would make sticks of 50 oil cars with one "buffer car" at the end to serve as a transition between conventional couplers and the transit type couplers. The reason why the LION likes his transit couplers is among other reasons is to put all kinds of sensors on the oil cars: weight, lading, pressure, presence of gas, the ballance on the trucks and the condition of the wheels and brakes. Perhaps more information, LION is not a petrolium engineer either. THIS IS DATA from which new generations of equipment can be made. The LION would run two such "sitcks" of cars back to back so that there is a transition-buffer car at each end. What the heck, the car manufacturer or the oil shipper can have a technician on the buffer car keeping an eye on everything. The buffer car would have track inspection gear on it, like continiously inspecting the track. If there is a developing condition on the rails the train can be slowed down. LION also borrowed the idea of track brakes, electric or otherwise, to be used in emergency and in parking conditions, but not in normal braking conditions. Such a contrivance could apply emergency brakes evenly across the entire train. It would also help to apply service brakes evenly across the entire train. This will take the buff action out of the train and would minimise the effects of a derailment, least wise the LION thinks that this is possible, and is certainly better than not having this kind of control over your train. The Idea of guard rails and timbers through town are mostly a vissible upgrade that the people in town can see, and be comforted by the fact that the railroad is working to mittigate these issues as the train passes through town. (Did I word that abmigously enough?) Will it help, obviously it will help, otherwise the railroads would not bother with these appliances on bridges and other sensitive locations. Will it stop a disaster? No. If you fix one thing a new issue will rear its head. But public relations with the towns that you pass through *are* important, especially if you wish to increase train speeds. "Yes, the trains are moving faster but we have done.... And so the railroad will now be even safer." PUBLIC RELATIONS is HALF of the job, especially with LLLLLTIST media out for your anatomical parts. So in addition to guard rails/timbers, I would add a 4' high reinforced wall between the track and the town. Will it help. Yes, every little bit helps, but it will also reduce noise which is coming with the increased frequency of trains on the railroad. Public Relations commbined with some functionality. Make these new high capacity oil lines QUIET ZONES at railroad expense. JUST DO IT. Better crossing gates, better lighting, better signaling of street traffic. Build good medians where the locality will allow or cooperate with the effort. You want to have the railroad have less impact on the townspeople even while you increase frequency and speeds and are double tracking your layout. And if the railroad is putting in new gates, make them something that cannot be run or ignored. In Hong Kong (back in the 60s) the ROW was fenced in and chain link fence closed the ROW while traffic moved. When a train came, the gates swung across the road blocking it entirely, and giving the train the ROW. Do I wnat that, actually no, I think it is stoopit, but something should be done, and in some places it may be necessary for the railroad to bite yet another bulled and elevate the roadway across its tracks. FAILING THAT, some roads will just be closed with New Jersey Barricades on both sides and end of problem. Managing Public Relations is every bit important to the railroad as managing the oil and other traffic. ROAR
dehusman More shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don't exist.
Brother Lion,
Do the transit style couplers offer any significant advantages over using semi-permanently drawbar connected blocks of tank cars?
I wonder how transit couplers would deal with the significantly greater slack forces of a long heavy tank train compared to an M.U transit consist?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
zugmann I will give credit to the Lion. That would solve all problems associated with the oil trains. -- Mainly by making it so expensive that no more oil could ever be moved by rail.
As well as creating ghettos all across the country.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
carnej1 I wonder how transit couplers would deal with the significantly greater slack forces of a long heavy tank train compared to an M.U transit consist?
There is no slack action in transit type couplers.
carnej1 Do the transit style couplers offer any significant advantages over using semi-permanently drawbar connected blocks of tank cars?
You do not need to go into the shop to uncouple cars. It can be done in the field by the train crew without any tools.
BroadwayLion carnej1 Do the transit style couplers offer any significant advantages over using semi-permanently drawbar connected blocks of tank cars? You do not need to go into the shop to uncouple cars. It can be done in the field. ROAR
You do not need to go into the shop to uncouple cars. It can be done in the field.
I suspect it would be done multiple times in the field with the slack action of a 100 car, 14300 ton oil train operating in undulating terrain.
BaltACDI suspect it would be done multiple times in the field with the slack action of a 100 car, 14300 ton oil train operating in undulating terrain.
There is no slack action in a transit coupler. It is the same as a draw bar until you unlock it.
BroadwayLion BaltACD I suspect it would be done multiple times in the field with the slack action of a 100 car, 14300 ton oil train operating in undulating terrain. There is no slack action in a transit coupler. It is the same as a draw bar until you unlock it. ROAR
BaltACD
At transit loadings - several hundred tons at most.
Rather than "NO" slack action in a transit coupler I think it more correct to say "MINIMAL". What is effectively zero in a 6 or 8 car transit train, with power distributed throughout, will become measurable as you get further back in a long oil train. I also suspect the typical transit coupler will have difficulty coping with the drawbar stress of 10-12,000 tons. Ergo, instant uncoupling and done multiple times as per BaltACD.
John
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.