Problem now solved. Sometimes with Microsoft Windows XP, when a problem seems unsolvable, simply yanking out the power cord and thus bruttally shutting down the computer, assuming it lacks battery power, typical of desktops, solves the problem as the computer checks the disk and finds the problem with an internal "Scandisk" upon startup. Well, it worked this time for me.
daveklepper A PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE THE RELATIONSHIIP BETWEEN RAILROAD AND SHIPPER IS NOT CHANGED. THE RAILROAD CONTINUES THE PRESENT RATE SCHEME ONLY IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES A CAR THAT MEETS ALL THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES AND CAR OR USES A CAR FROM THE RAILROAD THAT HAS NOT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE KEY TRANSPORTATION SURCHARGE APPLIES. THE CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE IS BASED ON TRANSPARENT, OPEN-TO-THE-PUBLIC-INSPECTION, OF THE ADDITIONAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE REROUTS AND RESTRICTED SPEEDS OF KEY TRANSPORTATION HANDLING, AND THIS HANDLING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CARS THAT DO NOT MEET THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE CAR DOES MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND GOES AT THE RAILROAD-ONLY RATE, IT IS UP TO THE RAILROADS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER IT MOVES IN A CONVENTIONAL TRAIN OR A KEY TRANSPORTATION TRAIN. KEY TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BASIC RAILROAD RATES. ONLY THE SURCHARGES. Dave, Your solution here is based on two false premises about how the hazmat business operates. First, tank cars are supplied by the shipper, who either leases them or owns them. Railroads do not supply tank cars. Second, it is the duty of the shipper to package his material in a DOT approved container. A container is either approved or it is not. Mac McCulloch
A PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE
THE RELATIONSHIIP BETWEEN RAILROAD AND SHIPPER IS NOT CHANGED. THE RAILROAD CONTINUES THE PRESENT RATE SCHEME ONLY IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES A CAR THAT MEETS ALL THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES AND CAR OR USES A CAR FROM THE RAILROAD THAT HAS NOT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE KEY TRANSPORTATION SURCHARGE APPLIES. THE CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE IS BASED ON TRANSPARENT, OPEN-TO-THE-PUBLIC-INSPECTION, OF THE ADDITIONAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE REROUTS AND RESTRICTED SPEEDS OF KEY TRANSPORTATION HANDLING, AND THIS HANDLING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CARS THAT DO NOT MEET THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE CAR DOES MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND GOES AT THE RAILROAD-ONLY RATE, IT IS UP TO THE RAILROADS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER IT MOVES IN A CONVENTIONAL TRAIN OR A KEY TRANSPORTATION TRAIN. KEY TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BASIC RAILROAD RATES. ONLY THE SURCHARGES.
I think dave's proposal includes newer safety standards for tank cars. It is implied, I believe.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The new standards are what are being formulated now. The existing standards you are referring to have been proven unsatisfactory. The did not prevent explosions and leaks in the recent derailments or even mitigate them. I used the words "shipper supplied" in my statement. Please read it again.
Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire?
Dave,
You did talk of shipper supplied cars.
There have been no explosions involving crude oil releases. There have been big fires, and probably open air ignition of flammable vapors, but there have been no explosions. I know the media has used that word, but that is to sell papers and because reporters do not know, or often care about, the meaning of technical terms.
Sloppy word choice and sloppy thinking are kind of like the chicken and the egg. Hard to tell which is the cause and which is the effect..
The DOT 111A tank car is a good design with millions of car years of service. It is far more likely to survive an accident than a flammable liquid tank truck. Check the figures on hazmat truck fatalities versus hazmat rail fatalities over any period you want. Rail if far safer. Not that I expect anyone to bother with the facts when anyone can run around demanding that "something be done".
Mac
daveklepper The new standards are what are being formulated now. The existing standards you are referring to have been proven unsatisfactory. The did not prevent explosions and leaks in the recent derailments or even mitigate them. I used the words "shipper supplied" in my statement. Please read it again.
The standards for new build tank cars were changed in 2011.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/16/22328508-rail-oil-industries-weigh-new-safety-measures-in-wake-of-derailments-explosions?lite
"The Association of American Railroads issued revised standards for the DOT-111s in 2011, requiring a thicker shell and shields on either ends to help prevent punctures. But the new standard was not applied retroactively, meaning that only about 14,000 of the approximately 92,000 DOT-111 cars in service today are built to the new standards."
I do not think all of the new standards of the new cars can be applied to the old cars. I see no reason why the end shields can not be applied, however I think a thicker shell would be far more difficult, if even possible.
An "expensive model collector"
An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements?
Johnny
But my understanding is that the latest standards are also being reviewed. In any case, the large majority of cars do not meet current standards and should be used only by following Fred's suggestions with the modification of passing witout stopping a restricted speed permitted.
Euclid Maybe somebody can post a link to a reference showing exactly what it planned to be improved with the new tank car safety standards. I would like to know how much safer they will be. For instance, I would like to know it this: In the case of the Casselton wreck, if that train was made up of the new and safer generation of tank cars, would there have been a fire?
Welcome back.
A derailment of that scope? Maybe, probably? Even if it was a coal train that wrecked, there may have been a fire. Hard theory to test, though.
Like I said, welcome back.
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
Do nothing, change nothing, except gradually replace the tankcar fleet seems to be the answer to critics of my proposal . I don't think the industry can go that way, and I would hope that critics would come up with better ideas instead. My takeoff on Frred's ideas is not meant to be applied without common sense.
Again, my effort was to try to see how Fred Frailey's proposals could be implemented without "gumming up the works." A company or a bueareau of all seven tasked with the task of making hazmat transport safer seemed to me the best approach . Then I tried to see now the specific operating ideas Fred wriote could be applied in practice. The first modification of Fred's ideas is that trains could pass each other keeping moving at resricted speed. The second is that directional running minimizes meets. Before going further generally, may I point out that years ago on this Forum I argued the case of single-speed railroading. I felt that N&W running coal trains at 70mph had something to teach us. A hazmat train, yes a petroleum train using the old tankcars, on a directionally-paired basically single-direction line, should run at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. Avoiding overtaking reduces risks. Also curves can only be superelivated for one speed, and runniing at that speed reduces risks. On paired directional running lines, the opposing traffic is usually one or two local peddler freights, and their stopping while others run by should rarely be a problem. Back to generalities: If Carl Ice were to tell me that running hazmat trains at normal speed on the Transcon is the safest approach, I would have to take his word, because he is the professional, has years of experience, and knows the equipment and physical plant. My guess is so would Fred.
Deggesty An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements?
Telegrapher/station agents were required for operation under timetable and train order. The gradual change away from timetable and train order operation has virtually eliminated the need for telegrapher/station agents.
daveklepper THE LEGAL PEOPLE OF THE RAILROADS WILL FIGURE THE RIGHT WAY AROUND THIS ISSUE. ONE POSSIBILITY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A SURCHARGE ON A REGULAR FREIGH BILL TO HAVE HAZMAT HANDLED BY KEY TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REGULAR FREIGHT WITH SHIPPER ASSUMING TOTAL LIABILITY. PULLMAN WAS NEVER CHALLANGED ON TOTAL CONTROL OF SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, ONLY ON TIEING MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE. AGAIN, LOOK AT BRINKSÖ±
THE LEGAL PEOPLE OF THE RAILROADS WILL FIGURE THE RIGHT WAY AROUND THIS ISSUE. ONE POSSIBILITY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A SURCHARGE ON A REGULAR FREIGH BILL TO HAVE HAZMAT HANDLED BY KEY TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REGULAR FREIGHT WITH SHIPPER ASSUMING TOTAL LIABILITY. PULLMAN WAS NEVER CHALLANGED ON TOTAL CONTROL OF SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, ONLY ON TIEING MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE. AGAIN, LOOK AT BRINKSÖ±
At the risk of getting too deep into off -topic issues I have to point out that Brinks, although unquestionably the World's largest provider of secure cash/valuables transportation services, actually has plenty of competition in their primary business segment..
There a number of very large companies (Loomis, Dunbar, Gardai) and numerous smaller ones that compete with Brinks.
I think some people may be confused by the fact that "Brink's truck" has come to be a generic name for any armored cash transport and come to the conclusion that Brink's is like the "Ma Bell" of old in their respective industry..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
This specific point was discussed earlier and answered earlier. Please read the entire thread. Thank you.
But to save you time: The relationship between shipper and railroad is not changed. Key Transportation's surcharges are based on calculations open to the public scrutiny of the additional costs incurred by the safety measures and the Key Transportation people do not discuss or possibly even know the rate agreements between railroad and shipper.
Given the public and political pressure to DO SOMETHING, I am fairly sure this will satisfy the trust busters. You don't agree? Well then we can go back and forth forever, but to do so is pointless and does not bring new information to bear on the problem.
I don't want to freez this thread in case someone genuinely has a new contribution that has not been discussed, particularly it is positive and can help solve the problem. If you wish to criticize my ideas or Fred's, please do read the thread and see if the criticism has not been discussed already. Thank you.
CSSHEGEWISCH Deggesty An item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune presented the solution. The item was a brief description of Thistle, Utah, in the early 1900s. "...it [Thistle] was equipped with such rail necessities as a junction house [I do not recall hearing of such], round house, engine turntable, depots, water tower, railroad yard, coal chute and a telegrapher who coordinated schedules to avoid mishaps." Where are such telegraphers now that we need them to avoid mishaps with oil movements? Telegrapher/station agents were required for operation under timetable and train order. The gradual change away from timetable and train order operation has virtually eliminated the need for telegrapher/station agents.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.