The Folly of Rerouting Oil Trains

[Euclid]

schlimm

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)

You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area.  Better check that. Several parties are liable.   Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin.   That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.  

 

I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars.  It may be the point about liability, or it may simply be the point that the fireball crisis is not the railroads’ problem because the cars meet the regulations, and the railroads are compelled to haul them.  However, while the railroads may be immune from any blame for the fireballs, they certainly do have a stake in the matter by their risk of losing the oil hauling business. 

And, as Schlimm has pointed out, I suspect the railroads do share in the liability.

[schlimm]

Euclid

I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars.  It may be the point about liability, or it may simply be the point that the fireball crisis is not the railroads’ problem because the cars meet the regulations, and the railroads are compelled to haul them.  However, while the railroads may be immune from any blame for the fireballs, they certainly do have a stake in the matter by their risk of losing the oil hauling business. 

And, as Schlimm has pointed out, I suspect the railroads do share in the liability.

In tort law, contributory negligence can be parceled out as percentages over the various agents involved. In the case of Bakken, that would include(but not be limited to)  the owners of tank cars, manufacturers of them, the shippers and the railroad on which the accident occurred.  Remember, there would not be any fireball without the Bakken, but there would also be no fireball without unsafe tank cars and a serious derailment and/or collision on the railroad.

[Deggesty]

Euclid: "I am not sure what point Dave is making when he says that the railroads don’t own the tank cars." As has been stated several times, the railroads are not responsible for replacing the tank cars that are less safe. Can't we acknowledge this, and not bring it up again?

[dehusman]

schlimm

dehusman

Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)

You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area.  Better check that. Several parties are liable.   Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin.   That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.  

 

Absolutely not.  I am saying that the railroads don't own the cars, They don't build the cars.  They don't design the cars (at least the 111's they have been involved in the next generation cars including the next gen TIH/PIH car).  The railroads don't select which cars are to be loaded.  The railroads don't load the cars.  Depsite all the hype about the 111 tank cars  being "unsafe" they are, in the eyes of the law, 100% interchange compliant.  The railroads have no legal basis for refusing the cars.  In the eyes of the law and interchange regulations the cars are "safe". 

 

The railroads have responsibility, they have liability, but they don't have the right to refuse  the cars.  There is a limits to what they can do legally.  As has been pointed out in past threads, the railroads have tried to refuse shipments, have been taken to court and have lost.

 

Rather than saying the railroads DON'T have liability, I am saying that the railroads DO have liability and because they have liability, the road that is forced to be the reroute road will have excessive risk and liability heaped on them.

 

[Convicted One]

dehusman

but they don't have the right to refuse  the cars. 

So then what you are saying, is, that if the terrorists want to disrupt American commerce, the easy route for them would be to flood the freight pool with unsafe tank cars that the railroads have no authority to refuse?

Odd that a railroad can expel a photographer from their property, but not a questionable shipment.

I'd just like to supplement what I posted earlier with the observation that when ones pockets are sufficiently deep, you don't have to be "responsible" to be sued. When the stakes are high there is a limitless supply of lawyers willing to sue you,  simply from the realization that the law of averages dictates that there is a slim chance of victory even on groundless cases, since a jury can be induced to pump sympathy whenever there is  a victim needing relief.

I believe the thinking goes something like this " well those poor children lost their father due to this RAILROAD tragedy, and we can't bring back their father, but money will make the misery of the loss easier to tolerate, and maybe the railroad was not at fault, but the railroad has money, so what the heck, the children are needier than the big bad railroad..."

And there you go, if the railroad has purposefully avoided doing reasonable things to assure safety, the jury takes it upon thmseves to "even" the score.

[Convicted One]

Murphy Siding

   If you haven't read the article, have you at least looked at the pictures?

I can't tell you what was in my "other" hand...

[dehusman]

Convicted One

So then what you are saying, is, that if the terrorists want to disrupt American commerce, the easy route for them would be to flood the freight pool with unsafe tank cars that the railroads have no authority to refuse?

No, what the terrorists CAN do is once the re-routers have concentrated ALL the hazmat on one line, it will make it easier for them to attack that one line.

Odd that a railroad can expel a photographer from their property, but not a questionable shipment.

What's odd is that you can't realize there are things that are laws and regulations and regardless of opinions and studies and indignation, the laws prevail. 

Here's a chore that will keep you busy for a while.  Find ONE law, regulation, or interchange standard that the DOT 111-A tank car violates.  Not studies, not somebody's opinions, an actual law regulation or standard that the car itself violates that would prevent that car from being interchanged.

Here's a hint.  You won't find one.  They comply with every law out there.  They are legal to use.  They meet every safety standard for interchange.  There have been numerous examples of standards changing and actual safety flaws being found in cars where railroads participated with the car's owners to identify, locate and route the cars to be repaired or brought into compliance.  Happens all the time.  However there are NO such flaws that have been identified in the DOT 111-A cars.  They are legal to use, therefore they are SAFE to use from the standpoint of the law and regulations.

Are there better standards for car design?  Yes.  Should the cars be replaced or upgraded?  Yes.  Can the railroads refuse to transport them?  No.

Sorry that you don't like the laws.  By the way the railroads don't write or pass those either.

There are things the railroads can do without spending billions of dollars, disrupting their core business or violating laws. 

[Euclid]

I do not expect the oil and rail industry to develop and implement a rerouting plan.  This will come from the regulators.  HOWEVER: The regulators will not actually stipulate the routing change from a previous route to a new route. 

Instead, they will simply stipulate where the tank cars cannot go. They will identify safety-sensitive areas along routes that the tank cars cannot pass.  Then it will be up to the industry to figure out how to get the oil to the refineries by rail.

The regulators will add these safety “no-go” zones in consultation with state and local authorities; and with public input.  Then they will prioritize the risk.  This will be an open-ended developing process that will impede the flow of oil by rail to a safer level.   

[tree68]

Euclid

The regulators will add these safety “no-go” zones in consultation with state and local authorities; and with public input.  Then they will prioritize the risk.  This will be an open-ended developing process that will impede the flow of oil by rail to a safer level.   

Should be interesting once they discover that nobody wants hazmat through their town...  

[Norm48327]

Euclid

Instead, they will simply stipulate where the tank cars cannot go. They will identify safety-sensitive areas along routes that the tank cars cannot pass.  Then it will be up to the industry to figure out how to get the oil to the refineries by rail.

I guess that would include just about every mile of track that someone live within a mile of.

Your statement is no better than the arguments posted in the Lac Megantic thread.

[Convicted One]

.

[schlimm]

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

[BaltACD]

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

[schlimm]

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

[BaltACD]

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/685/b1d.png

[Euclid]

schlimm

BaltACD

schlimm

dehusman

Not studies, not somebody's opinions,

The NTSB and AAR for starters have ID'd the 111's as unsafe for transporting highly flammable cargoes.  Not laws, but not just someone's uniformed opinion.   And that is why he new design of 2011 was developed and a reg is coming down.  

DOT 111 tank cars ARE NOT banned for use for the commodities that they are handling - including crude oil and ethanol.

NTSB and the AAR are conveying their OPINIONS - those opinions do not have the force of law or fall within the framework of regulators rule making.  At some point in the future the DOT 111 cars may be precluded from handling certain commodities, however, today is not yet the day.

I clearly stated that, if you actually read what I said.  The AAR opinion is not law or regulation, but the judgement of the rails' professional organization and lobbying arm. It  certainly carries more weight than opinion from me or even you.  The NTSB opinion is the result of a lengthy series of investigations.  Too bad it did not result in a regulation.

 

[My emphasis added]

 

I am pretty sure that new regulation is right around the corner.  I believe it will be more stringent than any regulations on tank car construction so far.  The only question is how long the 111 cars can continue in use.  I also expect new regulations that prohibit oil trains from passing by certain areas due to public safety and environmental concerns.