One of the things that irks me some is that folks are quick to comment on the few accidents that do happen, usually offering broad, generalized suggestions on how we "should" handle this stuff, but never mention the millions of miles we move haz mat every year with some of the most noxious chemicals known to man without incident, often right through their neighborhood.
Take a look at the placard on the car in my avatar....
23 17 46 11
Andrew Falconer wrote: In the current issue of TRAINS there is an article about the Tank Car of the Future.The new tank cars are to be highly resistant to damage and leaking for Hazardous Chemicals. I saw no mention if these standards will apply to Ethanol Tank Cars.Andrew
In the current issue of TRAINS there is an article about the Tank Car of the Future.
The new tank cars are to be highly resistant to damage and leaking for Hazardous Chemicals. I saw no mention if these standards will apply to Ethanol Tank Cars.
Andrew
It appears to me that the standards are meant for cars intended to carry commodities that are Inhalation Hazards. Chlorine is the most obvious in this category, but similar cars also carry sulfur dioxide, and probably other commodities. Anhydrous ammonia is probably the most widely-transported inhalation hazard, but it goes in a larger tank car. Don't know whether those cars have new standards as well.
Safer tank cars are really nothing new. The chemical companies themselves (DuPont and Olin immediately come to mind) have been specifying cars built to higher standards for their own use for some time now. How the new standards compare to their standards, I don't know.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Anyone know Steven Sengals number?
And we have to have a cute orphan in it too....
edblysard wrote: Ohhh...what if a tank car full of ethanol derailed, then fell into a coal mine and exploded...catching the mine, then the entire Appalachian range on fireunderground, therefore acting like a huge oven and causing an extreme amount of global warming, which then causes palm trees to grow in the Antarctic?Frozen Daiquiris on demand?Is there any training on how to handle that much frozen Daiquiris?
Ohhh...what if a tank car full of ethanol derailed, then fell into a coal mine and exploded...catching the mine, then the entire Appalachian range on fireunderground, therefore acting like a huge oven and causing an extreme amount of global warming, which then causes palm trees to grow in the Antarctic?
Frozen Daiquiris on demand?
Is there any training on how to handle that much frozen Daiquiris?
Ed, are you writing a movie?
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
There are already thousands of ethanol tank cars out there--probably that many built in 2006 alone. Haven't heard of 100-car trains yet, because I don't believe any receivers are set up to handle that many cars.
Previous posters are correct: any more than twenty cars of ethanol (car count in combination with other hazmat cars) would make the train a "Key Train", and it would be limited to 50 m.p.h.
No insulation is required on tank cars for ethanol. As has been stated, explosions are not a worry; fires could be. (Ethanol burns hot, like a Sterno ought!)
Most railroaders have better things to worry about, such as a realistic reliable source for frozen daquiris (none for me, thanks!).
(Ed, I saw this when you posted it, and am still laughing.)
Chicagorails, you aren't related to a certain journalist (and I use the term loosely) in Pittsburgh, are you?
If palm trees grow in the Antarctic, I do not think the Daiquiri's will be frozen, but all the penguins will be drunk. Nothing like a pie-eyed penguin for entertainment.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I do not know about the 40MPH limitation cause I caught it at Daggett whizzing by. While I did not have a radar gun for sure it was doing more then 40MPH. I also caught another at the double diamond at Colton & it to appeared be movong faster then 40MPH also
gabe wrote: Isn't there a 40 mph restriction for hazardous chemicals, such as ethonol?Also, there was a recent derailment of an NS unit ethenol train. Although 9 cars did catch fire, the whole train did not go.Gabe
Isn't there a 40 mph restriction for hazardous chemicals, such as ethonol?
Also, there was a recent derailment of an NS unit ethenol train. Although 9 cars did catch fire, the whole train did not go.
Gabe
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
In the grand scheme of hazardous materials, ethanol is a relative yawner. It is a Flammable Liquid, not a Flammable Gas. In practical terms this means that even in a hot fire it does not have the vapor pressure to cause the car to fail violently.
Design burst pressure on a 111a100w1 tank car is 500 psi. If the tank material in the vapor space is heated hot enough it will loose its tensile strength. In rare cases effective burst pressure will fall below actual internal pressure, which is limited to 82.5 PSI by the safety valve. If this happens a two or three foot long tear will open, usually parallel to the axis of the tank. The tear will allow the pressure in the tank to drop to atmospheric and the rest of the liquid will burn off.
Mac
markn wrote:Not being a wise acre, but I worry more about that semi tanker truck doing 75 to 80, ten feet off my rear bumper! .. in the rain.. at night...
.......souped up on no-doze...over the weight limit....4 RED on the NFPA diamond.....that thing is basically a missle on wheels.
RRKen wrote: Yes, a unit ethanol train is limited to 50 mph per DOT. No, it would not be a chain-reaction unless you had multiple cars open and or explode. As long as the fumes remained inside the cars, no flammability. Now if an adjacent car was burning, and heated up the next car, the vent may cause fumes to be released. This is why they mist and try to deluge the cars involved in such a situation to prevent that. As a commodity, it has a decent safety record so far, outside of the NS incident in the last four years. We get an occasional bad top seal, but the plant comes out within a few hours and repairs same. Our District handles hundreds of loads a day, without incident.
Yes, a unit ethanol train is limited to 50 mph per DOT. No, it would not be a chain-reaction unless you had multiple cars open and or explode. As long as the fumes remained inside the cars, no flammability. Now if an adjacent car was burning, and heated up the next car, the vent may cause fumes to be released. This is why they mist and try to deluge the cars involved in such a situation to prevent that.
As a commodity, it has a decent safety record so far, outside of the NS incident in the last four years. We get an occasional bad top seal, but the plant comes out within a few hours and repairs same. Our District handles hundreds of loads a day, without incident.
If I remember correctly, LPG tankcars were required to be insulated after the Kingman, AZ BLEVE. I don't remember if this also applies to tankcars that carry flammable liquids, if so, then it would take a little while for the ethanol to heat up.
I base my posts upon CN here in Canda ...
Unless its a ceratin type of car ... all dangerous cars are track speed .. 65mph max unless they are special dangerous where they can't go faster than 35mph in areas with more than 50000 people. A special dangerous is good for 65mph anywhere where there is 0-49,999 people.
Some railroads have speed restrictions on unit trains ... but CN got rid of that.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Would BNSF be the 2nd largest user of diesel in the USA, after UP ? I believe BN was 2nd, behind the US Navy, 20 years ago.
Could they produce enough diesel from Montana coal to meet all of their needs ?
nanaimo73 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels. Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol. I thought that was you demonizing coal-to-liquids, or at least the involvement of BNSF in a proposed Montana endeavor.
futuremodal wrote: Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels. Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol.
Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels. Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol.
I thought that was you demonizing coal-to-liquids, or at least the involvement of BNSF in a proposed Montana endeavor.
On the contrary, I am all for coal to liquids. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones of my energy policy wish list.
As for that BNSF/Montana thing....
1. I questioned why the Montana Guv would present the idea to BNSF rather than an energy company, and...
2. I questioned why BNSF actually is engaging the Guv in discussions on that proposal.
The speed limit for haz-mat (key) trains is 50 mph.
Plenty of other dangerous stuff gets transported by rail, (800,000 carloads a day) why worry about this now?
futuremodal wrote: chicagorails wrote: WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRYToo bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels. Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol. And pipelines don't derail!
chicagorails wrote: WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRY
WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRY
Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels. Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol. And pipelines don't derail!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.