NS serious derailment late feb 3 ( ~2100 )

[jeffhergert]

Reading both, they're going to have to install a whole lot of detectors.  I don't mean on the main lines that already have them every 20 oe so miles.  I mean on many secondary main and branch lines of the class ones.  On many regional and short lines.  There's a lot of trackage that handles hazmat in large quantities that don't have detectors.

There's things that are good and some questionable.  However, what congress legislates and how the FRA interprets and imposes that legislation may not be exactly in agreement.

Jeff 

[Overmod]

Meanwhile, over on the House side, the RAIL Act:

https://billjohnson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/johnoh_013_xml.pdf

Seems to have some of the strangely stilted language constructions used in S.576, including the provision about not blocking crossings and getting rid of the abbreviated pre-departure inspection.

[Overmod]

Just in case anyone can't understand the menu-bar structure in the link Zug provided, here is the text of Senate 576:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/576/text?s=1&r=5

Note the quiet imposition of a Federal mandate for two-man crews, and of not blocking crossings.

Note also the massively increased 'civil penalties' (up to 1% of a Class 1's income per incident) and the yearly imposition of $1M per railroad for 'improved first responder training'.

[tree68]

Euclid

I only asked about these details because I thought someone might have solid information such as from a news report, or whatever.  I have read a lot of news about this, but not all of it.  

The level of solid information you seek is the stuff of lawsuits.  You're not likely to find it in the news, and no independent expert is going to say anything quotable lest they be drawn into the legal proceedings.

We'll have to wait a while, but a lot of this will come out in the final reports.

[zugmann]

CSSHEGEWISCH

I will assume that said bill is being discussed.  Even if it has been introduced, it still has to pass both Houses of Congress, which can be a drawnout process, before it shows up on the President's desk for his signature.

 

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/576/actions?s=1&r=5

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I will assume that said bill is being discussed.  Even if it has been introduced, it still has to pass both Houses of Congress, which can be a drawnout process, before it shows up on the President's desk for his signature.

[Euclid]

Earlier here, I had suggested that what is needed is a breach proof tank car.  Response here was predictable.  Yet the same rationale was executed with the phase out of the DOT 111 tank car about 8 years ago.  At the time, the plan was said to make tank cars more damage resistant in derailments.  But when it was done, it was found that the new replacement cars were breach proof only in very slow speed derailments such as those occurring at less than 20 mph.  They were still easily breeched in “high speed derailments.”  

 

Again, about a month ago, I suggested practically breach-proof tank cars.  I suggested they be made so “streamlined” that they easily slip past each other, so as they pile up, the pile remains “fluid,” will little ability to grab and crush each other in a pileup. 

 

Here is something new that includes more breach resistant tank cars, inspired by the East Palestine disaster:

 

The Railway Safety Act of 2023

 

Senators Brown, Vance, Casey, Rubio, Fetterman, and Hawley Congress has the chance to take clear actions to prevent future, man-made rail disasters like the one that devastated East Palestine, Ohio, and the surrounding communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania

 

https://www.brown.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one-pager_for_railway_safety_act_of_2023.pdf

 

From the PDF:

  

"The bill provides $22,000,000 to FRA for research and development grants for wayside defect detectors, and $5,000,000 to PHMSA for expenses related to the development of stronger, safer, tank cars, valves for tank cars, and other tank car safety features. Together, these commonsense measures can help prevent future derailments involving hazardous materials around the country."

[Attuvian1]

Euclid, it's long since time to give it a rest.

It's as though the East Palestine accident has created a pile-up here among the forum's participants.  Having been heated up externally, some appear to be subject to now endothermic reactions over something that will now play out on its own - with little assistance from any of us.  But in this case, we all have relief valves that we can operate ourselves.  Apparently we haven't been able to assist sufficiently with yours.  I'm not at all trying to be snarky, just saying that there is a worldful of burning issues (pun not intended) that we each address that ultimately cannot be answered to our own satisfaction.  When that happens, we each need to find a mechanism to disengage.  Not to be able to do so becomes, well, unhealthy.

Good on ya'.

John

[Euclid]

 

tree68

 

 

Euclid

I have heard it mentioned at least twice, but only as a possibility.  I have also been assured at leat twice that the heating came from the reaction itself, and thus no other source, such as the initial fire, was needed.  Show me documentation that the original fire heated the vinyl chloride enough to start polymerization.  Wasn't the original fire extinguished in the first couple days?  Wasn't that at least a week before the plan for the controlled burn was decided on and begun?

 

 

Does it really matter?  

Fact:  There was a fire immediately following the derailment.  

Fact:  Fires tend to be hot.

Fact:  The cars in question were near the fire.

Fact:  Polymerization is a chemical process.  I think you'll find that once started, it's self-sustaining.  That is, even if the heating source is removed, the reaction will continue.

So all indications would seem to be that the heat of the fire probably started the process.

That said, the process started, at which point it had to be dealt with.

It doesn't matter if the process started because a rabid racoon sat on top of one of the cars.

If you want more in depth information on the polymerization of vinyl chloride, do a search.  I found dozens of hits, many from scholarly sources or industry documents.  

Then, if you want to contest those results, you can do so with their authors.

 

I don't disagree with any of that.  And the part you quoted by me does not rule anything out.  It only refers to conflicting information that I have encountered.  So why do you respond to it by saying, "Does it really matter?"  Of course it matters.  

I only asked about these details because I thought someone might have solid information such as from a news report, or whatever.  I have read a lot of news about this, but not all of it.  

[CSX Robert]

Dang racoons!  Always causing trouble!

[tree68]

Euclid

I have heard it mentioned at least twice, but only as a possibility.  I have also been assured at leat twice that the heating came from the reaction itself, and thus no other source, such as the initial fire, was needed.  Show me documentation that the original fire heated the vinyl chloride enough to start polymerization.  Wasn't the original fire extinguished in the first couple days?  Wasn't that at least a week before the plan for the controlled burn was decided on and begun?

Does it really matter?  

Fact:  There was a fire immediately following the derailment.  

Fact:  Fires tend to be hot.

Fact:  The cars in question were near the fire.

Fact:  Polymerization is a chemical process.  I think you'll find that once started, it's self-sustaining.  That is, even if the heating source is removed, the reaction will continue.

So all indications would seem to be that the heat of the fire probably started the process.

That said, the process started, at which point it had to be dealt with.

It doesn't matter if the process started because a rabid racoon sat on top of one of the cars.

If you want more in depth information on the polymerization of vinyl chloride, do a search.  I found dozens of hits, many from scholarly sources or industry documents.  

Then, if you want to contest those results, you can do so with their authors.

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

I have also been assured at leat twice that the heating came from the reaction itself, and thus no other source, such as the initial fire, was needed.

I have seen it explained that once the polymerization begins, it is an exothermic reaction that will lead to continued heating, with or with out an external heat source.  I don't believe I have seen anybody contribute the initial trigger of the polymerization to anything other than heating from the initial fire.

Euclid

Wasn't the orginal fire extinguiesed in the first couple days?

No. "Efforts to contain the fire stalled Saturday night when firefighters withdrew from the blaze due to concerns about air quality and explosions."

Euclid

Wasn't that at least a week before the plan for the controlled burn was decided on and begun?

No, the derailment was on the 3rd, the controlled releasy and burn started on the 6th.

[Euclid]

CSX Robert

 

 

Euclid

I am told it can begin by heat being applied to it, which then raises the question of what the heat source was that starting the reaction in this incident.  Nobody has cited such a heat source.

 

 

It has been mentined several times, the initial fire!

 

 

I have heard it mentioned at least twice, but only as a possibility.  I have also been assured at leat twice that the heating came from the reaction itself, and thus no other source, such as the initial fire, was needed.  Show me documentation that the original fire heated the vinyl chloride enough to start polymerization.  Wasn't the orginal fire extinguiesed in the first couple days?  Wasn't that at least a week before the plan for the controlled burn was decided on and begun?

 

[tree68]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Like any attorney worth his fee, Bucky only hears what he wants to hear.

Yes, but...

[CSX Robert]

Convicted One

 

 

CSX Robert

In most cases the communities grew up around the railroad, so...

 

 

lol..."THE RAILROAD WAS HERE FIRST"?   I'm not sure that is a motivating argument.  

 

It doesn't mean the railroad can be careless in their operations, but in response to the "they come through your community regardless if you approve, or not" comment, certainly a valid point.  "Oh, let's build a community around the railroad's line and then tell them how to use it"

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

CSX Robert

 

 

Euclid

I am told it can begin by heat being applied to it, which then raises the question of what the heat source was that starting the reaction in this incident.  Nobody has cited such a heat source.

 

 

It has been mentined several times, the initial fire!

Like any attorney worth his fee, Bucky only hears what he wants to hear.

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

I am told it can begin by heat being applied to it, which then raises the question of what the heat source was that starting the reaction in this incident.  Nobody has cited such a heat source.

It has been mentined several times, the initial fire!

 

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

Euclid

I do not know why the one car of vinyl chloride was getting warmer.  I have asked several questions about that point

 

Apparently you keep asking, we keep answering, you keep ignoring.  If you haven't figured out or learned by now... 

Please allow me to explain.  What I have been seeking is a complete explanation of how and why the one tank car load of vinyl chloride became unstable and began moving toward a point at which it would have exploded.  I have been told that the reason is that vinyl chloride can evolve to a condition in which it will spontaneously begin a reaction called polymerization.  Once that reaction begins, it will begin causing a corresponding temperature increase to the vinyl chloride, and that rising temperature will lead ultimately to an explosion of the vessel that holds the chemical.  The explosion was said to likely to throw shrapnel of the vessel for long distances.

 

I do not know if the explosion would be caused as a mechanical explosion caused by the excess gas pressure in the vessel due to the polymerization reaction; or by a high order chemical explosion; or a combination of both.

 

The main concern of my question is to learn the reason why a spontaneous reaction of vinyl chloride begins.  I am told it can begin by heat being applied to it, which then raises the question of what the heat source was that starting the reaction in this incident.  Nobody has cited such a heat source.  Instead, what I have been told is that the application of an external heat source was not necessary because vinyl chloride creates its own heat once the reaction begins.

 

I concluded that even if the reaction produces heat, there would have been no production of heat before the reaction began.  So where did that reaction initiating heat come from?  Again I was told that it came from the vinyl chloride itself because the reaction alone produces the heat.  Once again, this leaves the question of where the reaction initiating heat came from, because there was no heating occurring prior to the onset of the reaction. 

 

That is the essence of the question I was asking when I said “I do not know why the one car of vinyl chloride was getting warmer.  I have asked several questions about that point.”

 

I conclude that the answer is as follows:  The reaction initiating heat could not have come from the reaction itself.  If the only possible cause for the reaction initiating was added heat, then that heat may have come from rising outdoor ambient temperature, or from solar radiation striking the outside of the tank car.  It may have also come from fire burning in the wreckage.  As I mentioned, it was reported that fire hoses had been mounted on stands to continuously spray water on the tank cars in order to keep them cool.  That news report also stated that the water spraying had, a short time ago, been stopped, and the report said that it had no explanation for the cessation of water spray cooling. 

[Overmod]

Euclid

I do not know why the one car of vinyl chloride was getting warmer.  I have asked several questions about that point

Apparently you keep asking, we keep answering, you keep ignoring.  If you haven't figured out or learned by now... 

[mudchicken]

Stockholder rights law firm sues Norfolk Southern over PSR - FreightWaves 

How convenient. At least now some of the more greedy culpable parties can be identified and counter-sued for pushing PSR along with the front end of NS

[Convicted One]

CSX Robert

In most cases the communities grew up around the railroad, so...

lol..."THE RAILROAD WAS HERE FIRST"?   I'm not sure that is a motivating argument.  

[CSX Robert]

Convicted One

In the case of the railroad, they come through your community regardless if you approve, or not.

In most cases the communities grew up around the railroad, so...

[CSX Robert]

Convicted One

 

 

Euclid

From what I understand, there was no vinyl chloride spilled by the derailment itself.

 

 

 

Well then, what was burning before the cars were intentionally  breached?

 

 Polyethylene, polyvinyl, petroleum lube oil, three box car loads, and I probably missed some:https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/TRAIN%2032N%20-%20EAST%20PALESTINE%20-%20derail%20list%20Norfolk%20Southern%20document.pdf

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

 

 

Convicted One

So, what was burning to cause the pressure in that one car to increase? No one knew how much damage was done to the car.  There fore the car could explode at any time probably at a pressure somewhat lower than design limits of the car when newly built?

 

 

 

 

 

Well then, what was burning before the cars were intentionally  breached?

 

It is possible that the car was breached at a pressure that would have been just 10 PSI before the car would have ruptured?  NTSB might follow up on that possibility.

 

[/quote]

 

I don't get that quote structure.  I also don't know the answers to those questions.  It was reported that fire hoses had been mounted to spray water continously on the 5 tank cars of vinyl chloride for the purpose of keeping them cool.  At some point, they were shut off, and the news source wondered why.  I don't know if there was fire from other fuels near those 5 tank cars or not.  Certainly photos show fires buring amist much of the wreckage.  There were several other chemicals being shipped in tank cars in that train.  There was a list of those chemical published.  I assume it was those other chemicals that were burning or maybe even other materials. 

I do not know why the one car of vinyl chloride was getting warmer.  I have asked several questions about that point.  In some of the articles, there are people quoted for remarks stressing that an explosion of the warming car of vinyl chloride was like to happen very soon.  One comment was that there was only 15 degrees more temperature rise needed to cause the explosion.  Others insisted that it would have exploded if the controlled burn was not done.  Nothing in the NTSB report was that certain.  At this time, there were preparations or maybe actual action to place shaped explosives at certain locations under the the cars, set up triggering, and excavating a large trench to hold all of the contents of the 5 tank cars of vinyl chloride.  

[blue streak 1]

Convicted One

So, what was burning to cause the pressure in that one car to increase? No one knew how much damage was done to the car.  There fore the car could explode at any time probably at a pressure somewhat lower than design limits of the car when newly built?

 

Well then, what was burning before the cars were intentionally  breached?

[/quote]

 

It is possible that the car was breached at a pressure that would have been just 10 PSI before the car would have ruptured?  NTSB might follow up on that possibility.

[tree68]

Convicted One

Well then, what was burning before the cars were intentionally  breached?

It wasn't the oil tanks at the nearby oil company...

[Convicted One]

Euclid

From what I understand, there was no vinyl chloride spilled by the derailment itself.

 

Well then, what was burning before the cars were intentionally  breached?

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

What was burning?  Unless it was the vinal  chloride what was burning?  

 

 

It was the vinyl chloride that was burning.  The point was to burn it up to get rid of it, so it would not explode.  

[blue streak 1]

What was burning?  Unless it was the vinal  chloride what was burning?  

[Euclid]

I have no way of knowing whether those people I listed approved the plan. But, I think all of them will get their day in court.  I suspect NS is going to be blindsided by the ultimate response from the Federal EPA.  As I mentioned, NS was in charge of the tank cars, train, and track.  Nobody is going into the site and plant charges to breach and burn the contents of those tank cars without explicit approval from NS, so they are likely to be regarded as having given their approval.  They had better hope that the EPA agrees that the controlled burn was the right thing to do.  Funny we don’t get an answer out of them, considering the controversy over the controlled burn.    

 

In reading a safe handling paper from a manufacturer of vinyl chloride, I cannot see how filling an excavated trench with the chemical to use as the burning vessel would be legal.  A lot of the chemical would soak into the soil and move downward.  From what I understand, there was no vinyl chloride spilled by the derailment itself. If there had been, that would just have to play out as an accident with liability.  But an intentional plan that included discharging it into the soil might be something viewed quite differently.      

 

Derailments spilling this type of hazardous chemical should not come as any surprise.  Considering the stakes, I would expect there to be a well-designed plan of action to deal with these emergencies.  It would particularly control both fire and spillage.  It certainly would not have to rely on opening full tank cars with explosive charges, draining the contents into an open ditch, and disposing of the chemical in an open burn.  Is that the standard procedure?  Think of the risk of death taken by the people setting up the breach/burn methodology at the site. 

 

What would have been the procedure in this case, if there had not been any indication of a possible explosion due to polymerization?  How would they have re-railed the five tank cars loaded with vinyl chloride?  Or would they have emptied them first by trans-loading into trucks?