Analysis forecasts derailment every other year if oil train terminal is built

[Wizlish]

Euclid

... I could not readily find the DOT study that it references. But I do remember looking at the DOT report when it first came out and was in the news. I am sure it would not be too hard to find.

Surely it was cited at least once in one of the oil-train discussions over the past couple of years.  Someone more patient than I (or whose aspirin bottle is still full) could go back (with the forum-search tool on the Classic Trains site, perhaps), find the reference and a link to the report (for some reason I think it came out of the pipeline-safety 'side' of DOT) and post them here.

[Euclid]

Wizlish and Norm,

Well yes, I would agree that there are agendas galore swirling all around us.  I tried to word my conclusion in terms general enough to allow for that.  So I used terms such as “unusual” and “indicate.”  Certainly I would never assert that agendas do or do not exist in absolute terms.  Anybody who would attempt that would have to have an agenda. 

I only used the link to THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY because it was handy and I could not readily find the DOT study that it references.  But I do remember looking at the DOT report when it first came out and was in the news.  I am sure it would not be too hard to find. 

In any case, my point about no indication of an agenda goes to that study and not to THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.  In my opinion, any organization with the term DIVERSITY in its name, without doubt, is solidly driven by an agenda. 

In larger terms, I would even expect agendas to be woven through any report by the USDOT, or anything from any government; and certainly from any of our news reporting.

What lends credibility to the DOT report is that the actual incidence of oil train wrecks seems reasonably in line with the report’s prediction.  But of course, it is all wishy washy because a “derailment” can be anything from one wheelset at 1 mph to 50 cars at 45 mph.   

[Norm48327]

Euclid

A risk analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades

Had they stopped there, I would say it is agenda free.

Euclid

causing more than $4 billion in damage and creating the potential for hundreds of deaths from accidents in densely populated areas.”

Adding that to the statement indicates an agenda. Something akin to saying more guns equals more crime.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

I don’t see anything unusual enough about the derailment prediction to indicate an agenda. The USDOT did their own oil train derailment prediction described here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/crude-oil-transport-02-23-2015.html

Well, now, let's look at this with respect to finding an agenda (assuming for the moment we can't determine one from the language after the word 'decades' in the quote you gave).

The Biological Diversity article is very careful to provide a hot link to its report on the risks of oil trains.  I expected, and was not disappointed, to see a hot link to the infamous Blast Zone site.  So I doubt it is either an oversight or a legitimate scientific choice that there is no actual link to the "USDOT study" that would ... for example ... mention exactly what kinds of derailments were predicted, or whether the billions of dollars and hundreds of potential deaths were actually in that study or (perhaps more likely) an estimate or extrapolation by the article's source or Margolis -- assuming those are different people.

I for one would be interested in seeing the actual source document from the Department of Transportation to see exactly how neutral and 'agenda-free' it was.  But it is curious in the extreme to see this article submitted as an example that agenda-free analyses are producing agenda-free consequences in discussion.

 

[Euclid]

I don’t see anything unusual enough about the derailment prediction to indicate an agenda.  The USDOT did their own oil train derailment prediction described here:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/crude-oil-transport-02-23-2015.html

From the link:

“A risk analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and creating the potential for hundreds of deaths from accidents in densely populated areas.”

[zugmann]

schlimm

Exactly. Some railroaders, like you, can see these things objectively.

I wouldn't go that far.  We all have our agendas.

[NorthWest]

tree68

It's likely a simple statistical analysis. Given that there are W derailments per X miles, and that Y% of the total miles are oil trains, then there will be Z derailments of oil trains... I'm sure the same analysis could be applied to stack trains, or any other commodity, and would result in similarly shocking statistics... The catcher here is that they are O-I-L trains...

Exactly. This is similar to the story a couple of years ago that panicked people over how many railroad deaths and derailments would be caused by the additional rail traffic if Keystone XL was cancelled-the State Department simply copied FRA data for deaths and derailments per mile and multiplied it by the amount of traffic proposed.

Stampede Pass is longer than the Fallbrook Sub, so the multiplication shows more derailments.

It would be useful to understand just exactly they include as a derailment- all derailments, or just FRA reportable ones. The latter would be more useful.

[Murphy Siding]

tree68

It's likely a simple statistical analysis.  Given that there are W derailments per X miles, and that Y% of the total miles are oil trains, then there will be Z derailments of oil trains...

I'm sure the same analysis could be applied to stack trains, or any other commodity, and would result in similarly shocking statistics...

The catcher here is that they are O-I-L trains...  

 

   That same equation would pull out the derailments that are specific to a certain line.  The article says the loaded trains would come in on one line, and the empties would go out on a different one.  If the outgoing line has higher mathmatical odds of derailing a train, them empties could be shown to be more apt to derail more often that loaded cars.

Of course, the same type of analysis could show that one color of car has a higher chance of derailing on that line than those of a different color.

[schlimm]

zugmann

  Seems like they are making a pretty good career for themselves.  Pretty good client list.  But hey, I guess it's easier to sit here and play armchair quarterback.

 But please, go ahead and insult me some more becuase I don't automatically think there's an agenda behind everything that isn't 100% pro-rail all the time.

 

 

Exactly.  Some railroaders, like you, can see these things objectively.

[Euclid]

tree68

It's likely a simple statistical analysis.  Given that there are W derailments per X miles, and that Y% of the total miles are oil trains, then there will be Z derailments of oil trains...

I'm sure the same analysis could be applied to stack trains, or any other commodity, and would result in similarly shocking statistics...

 

 

 

So how do the statistics arrive at the conclusion that empty oil trains are more likely to derail than loaded ones?

 

I guess the answer to my question is in here:

http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro%20Savage/SEPA%20-%20DEIS/DEIS%20Appendices/Appendix%20E.pdf

It looks like a very intertesting report.

[tree68]

It's likely a simple statistical analysis.  Given that there are W derailments per X miles, and that Y% of the total miles are oil trains, then there will be Z derailments of oil trains...

I'm sure the same analysis could be applied to stack trains, or any other commodity, and would result in similarly shocking statistics...

The catcher here is that they are O-I-L trains...  

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

The article you read has a link to the folks that did the study.  They are consultants to BNSF as well as former employees.  The president of the company was with BN&BNSF for 19 years, the two vice presidents were with BN/BNSF for 12 years and 25 years.

That was exactly what and why I was saying what I said, having already checked the links. There was nothing whatsoever to suggest the authors of the report were disgruntled former employees with some agenda.  Yet BaltACD said precisely that.  Apparently if anyone says anything about the rails that isn't glowing praise, the long knives come out, even when the authors are in the industry. So attack the messengers, whether on here, in the media, or former employees who have found career advancement.

[Murphy Siding]

zugmann

 

What are the stats of loads derailing vs. MTYs?  Could just be a matter of numbers.

 

The article says that the empties take a different route than the loaded cars.  Could it be that the empties are on a more mountainous route that has a higher chance of derailments?

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

 

BaltACD

 

 

schlimm

It isn't media hype.  It is a report written in part by former BNSF employees.

"The rail spill analysis portion of the Washington state draft document was written in part bythree consultants who are former employees of BNSF and its predecessor, Burlington Northern. In addition to the state agency for which they prepared the analysis, their clients include BNSF and the Port of Vancouver."

 

 

Former being the operative word.  Maybe FORMER for a reason?  Disgruntled FORMER employees with an agenda?

 

 

 

 

Try reading accurately.  BNSF is their client!  Doubtful BNSF would hire them as consultants if they are so "disgruntled with an agenda."   What's your agenda?  Envy?

 

I'm not certain you're in a position to admonish anyone about their reading accuracy.  The article you read has a link to the folks that did the study.  They are consultants to BNSF as well as former employees.  The president of the company was with BN&BNSF for 19 years, the two vice presidents were with BN/BNSF for 12 years and 25 years.

[schlimm]

BaltACD

 

 

schlimm

It isn't media hype.  It is a report written in part by former BNSF employees.

"The rail spill analysis portion of the Washington state draft document was written in part bythree consultants who are former employees of BNSF and its predecessor, Burlington Northern. In addition to the state agency for which they prepared the analysis, their clients include BNSF and the Port of Vancouver."

 

 

Former being the operative word.  Maybe FORMER for a reason?  Disgruntled FORMER employees with an agenda?

 

Try reading accurately.  BNSF is their client!  Doubtful BNSF would hire them as consultants if they are so "disgruntled with an agenda."   What's your agenda?  Envy?

[zugmann]

  Seems like they are making a pretty good career for themselves.  Pretty good client list.  But hey, I guess it's easier to sit here and play armchair quarterback.

 But please, go ahead and insult me some more becuase I don't automatically think there's an agenda behind everything that isn't 100% pro-rail all the time.

 

[tdmidget]

zugmann

 

You are easily fooled. There is nothing to tell us why they left BN/BNSF when they did. Their experiences do not look at all outstanding.

 

 

BaltACD

 

 

Former being the operative word.  Maybe FORMER for a reason?  Disgruntled FORMER employees with an agenda?

 

 

 

 

Pretty impressive bios.  http://www.mlinemgmt.com/bio.htm

 

What are the stats of loads derailing vs. MTYs?  Could just be a matter of numbers.

 

[zugmann]

BaltACD

 

 

Former being the operative word.  Maybe FORMER for a reason?  Disgruntled FORMER employees with an agenda?

 

Pretty impressive bios.  http://www.mlinemgmt.com/bio.htm

 

What are the stats of loads derailing vs. MTYs?  Could just be a matter of numbers.

[BaltACD]

schlimm

It isn't media hype.  It is a report written in part by former BNSF employees.

"The rail spill analysis portion of the Washington state draft document was written in part bythree consultants who are former employees of BNSF and its predecessor, Burlington Northern. In addition to the state agency for which they prepared the analysis, their clients include BNSF and the Port of Vancouver."

Former being the operative word.  Maybe FORMER for a reason?  Disgruntled FORMER employees with an agenda?

[MidlandMike]

The article says that first responders are not well prepared for oil spills.  Oil barges on the Columbia River to Pasco parallel the tracks, and an oil pipeline parallels the tracks Pasco/Spokane.  If they are not already ready prepared for oil spills, then it's probably not a priority.

[schlimm]

It isn't media hype.  It is a report written in part by former BNSF employees.

"The rail spill analysis portion of the Washington state draft document was written in part bythree consultants who are former employees of BNSF and its predecessor, Burlington Northern. In addition to the state agency for which they prepared the analysis, their clients include BNSF and the Port of Vancouver."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article46401335.html#storylink=cpy

[Norm48327]

Media serving up their best hype to promote their agenda and keep the sheep scared.

[zugmann]

I blame sloshing.

[Euclid]

Quote from the article:

“... the agency forcast a derailment incident might occur once every two years with a loaded train, and once every 20 months with an empty train.”

 

Why would there be more derailments of empty trains compared to loaded trains?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article46401335.html#storylink=cpy

[BaltACD]

zardoz

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article46401335.html

And I forecast there will be more drug related killings in Miami and Dade County in this year than there will be deaths from oil train incidents in Miami and Dade County through the balance of the Century.

[zardoz]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article46401335.html