Okay, then why not just ignore his post? If you have concluded that he is not interested in a meaningful exchange, don't engage him. Reply to those who appear to be genuinely interested in hearing more from you based on the previous message traffic.
(shrug)
Respectfully,
-Crandell
selector wrote: Still, Michael, I think it was over the top. A simple refutation, point for point, would have sufficed.-Crandell
Still, Michael, I think it was over the top. A simple refutation, point for point, would have sufficed.
My enthusiasm for "point by point" refutations has diminished considerably given the well-established history of the gentleman. He's not interested in that. He's made that pretty clear in the past.
nanaimo73 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet you believe everything you read. For some posters, that is never a drawback.Is the sarcasm necessary?
MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet you believe everything you read. For some posters, that is never a drawback.
I'll bet you believe everything you read.
For some posters, that is never a drawback.
Is the sarcasm necessary?
Is that worth a post? The gentleman has an earned reputation, but something must bother you more than "sarcasm".
Any comments on Hazardous shipments?
In this instance, the article's sad conclusion that Class III railroads can't afford to purchase $1 billion in insurance coverage, when in fact Class I's don't purchase that much, might have been a tip-off about the quality of the article, deserving of some sarcasm of its own, and certainly anyone that believes that Class III's ought to have more insurance than Class I's, well, sarcasm is one tool ....
Take his quote, which he says is a "good one": "But even if the smaller railroads wanted to purchase more liability coverage, most could not afford to do so, market experts say."
Did the poster really believe that it took a "market expert" to say that companies always make tough choices between the amount of insurance coverage, and the amount they can afford to pay? That it has nothing in particular to do with railroading whatsoever? That this is a fact of life for every single business owner and manager every day?
The statement was so ludicrous on its face, especially as he thought it was a "good one", that sarcasm was, in fact, a kindly response.
n012944 wrote: And here is an interesting article that explains some of the insurance problems SMALL railroads are having with hazmat.http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=24120Here is a good quote:"But even if the smaller railroads wanted to purchase more liability coverage, most could not afford to do so, market experts say."
And here is an interesting article that explains some of the insurance problems SMALL railroads are having with hazmat.
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=24120
Here is a good quote:
"But even if the smaller railroads wanted to purchase more liability coverage, most could not afford to do so, market experts say."
A $10,000,000 policy would cost a Class II or III railroad $17,700. If the railroad wasn't worth more than that, what's the point?
"Presumably, if they get caught in a bad disaster, they'd be Chapter 11".
As would any company. Indeed, a company does not want to be overinsured because of the expense of carrying too much insurance. And, ultimately, especially for a small company, that becomes a negotiating tool itself during settlement: this is our insurance coverage, take it or leave it. And if they "leave it," its Chapter 11, time-consuming proceedings, and a possibility of nothing. There is a "real world" out there that doesn't appear in the story, er, article. The irony is that individuals and companies face that real world everyday; but the railroad industry seems to be the only one that complains about it all the time.
Ironically, the article doesn't seem to be able to point to any actual cases. For some posters, that is never a drawback.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 wrote: Here is an interesting article about the insurance problems that railroads are facing with TIH's.http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=24140
Here is an interesting article about the insurance problems that railroads are facing with TIH's.
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=24140
Except that, if you actually read it, there are no "insurance problems".
This is a pretty good example of misleading propoganda. The article finally acknowledges, about three miles into it, that the railroad was fully insured for this incident.
In fact, it had plenty of coverage. The system worked.
The article manages also to miss the fact that the incident was entirely Norfolk Southern's fault. That supervisors had illegally ordered an exhausted crew to work past the 12 hour limits. Gosh, why would they leave that out? Same kind of thing that could happen in a derailment and the locomotives roll down an embankment and into a school and kills a couple hundred kids. It "could" happen and it "could" bankrupt the company.
The article does not explore the fact that the insurance industry itself is not charging the railroads the kind of rates to suggest that "catastrophic" events are probable. But the article does set forth the current industry press releases regarding the current effort to cap liability.
Imagine if an airliner, thousands of which fly over populated areas daily, crashed on approach to just about any runway in the United States. Yes, the claims would bankrupt the company. If you hit a bus full of kids, I am sure the claims would exceed your assets. Yes, "catastrophic" events can happen to any industry, any person, any time and there is some measure of that risk actualizing.
Should everyone have a liability cap?
The fact is that railroads have been exposed to the same risks for well over a century. As has the chemical industry and everyone else, if you give it an honest thought. Nobody has changed the rules for common carriers on the railroads -- it's the railroads that want to change the rules. The fact also is that insurance rates for Class I railroads are, unfortunately for their argument, relatively low -- and that is the assessment given to the actual risk by the actual professionals involved.
It is ironic, and to some extent symptomatic of this industry, that in an incident in which the railroad was entirely at fault for the death and injury of human beings, that the industry steps forward and uses its own acknowledged negligence, and the resulting deaths of human beings, to argue that it not be held liable in the same fashion as everyone else in our society: once again, the special exception.
U.S. industry cost for excess liability insurance in 2006 ranged from $0.16 to $1.97 per $1,000 of company revenue.
The highest costs were in Construction at $1.97 per $1,000 of revenue, Health care at $1.47 per $1,000 of revenue, and Transportation at $1.44 per $1,000 of revenue.
Chemical companies generally paid $0.67 per $1,000 of revenue for an average policy size of $108 million. The average rate for all Transportation companies was $0.97 for an average policy limit of $68 million. Utilities paid $0.78 per $1,000 revenue for an average $110 million policy.
In 2006, United States Class I railroads paid an average of $0.41 per $1,000 of revenue, for an average policy limit of $419 million. The largest policy written was for $975 million, and the smallest was for $200 million.
BN paid less for its excess liability insurance coverage, including Hazmat, than it paid to a single corporate officer, Matt Rose. The rates charged to Class I railroads in general are approximately 20% of the highest rates charged by the insurance industry for similar coverage. That is a measure of risk, and the insurance industry obviously does not judge the risk very high.
The average transportation company in Canada pays $1.08 per $1,000 of revenue and $0.58 in the United Kingdom. Australian transportation companies pay an average of $0.98 per $1,000 of revenue. The disparity obviously results from the litigious society found in the United States-- oh, oops, it actually doesn't explain it at all, does it?
Murphy Siding wrote:I'm surprised that the other 99.7% of railroad shippers aren't kicking and screaming about subsidizing the .3%.
The cost per shipper on the BN is approximately 67 cents per carload for all excess liability insurance coverage, including Haz-Mat. That's why.
Murphy Siding wrote:In order to recover the additional cost for insurance from a shipper, it looks like the railroad would have to raise the rates on all shippers. That can't be too far off from the disparity as it is now.
Yup. A whole 67 cents. I'll bet that not a single shipper noticed.
Where's the crisis, Murphy?
Murphy Siding wrote:This would lead me to believe that the customers are well aware of the dangers as well, of shipping chemicals long distances. That kind of goes against the grain of thinking that it's only the railroad that has to worry about accidents, liability and lawsuits. Are the shippers & users of chemicals necceasirly against paying more for HAZ-MAT insurance? If there comes a time when insurors will no longer write a hasmat policy for a transportation company, it seems the next step would be to have the policy written for the chemical company. At that point, wouldn't the chemical company be paying for it?
Will someone please set this poster straight?
HAZ-MAT has always been dangerous.
The railroad industry, notwithstanding Haz-Mat, has not been paying extraordinary rates.
The AAR has had an ongoing Research and Test Department that, among other things, has been constantly reviewing tank car designs since I have been alive. As a for instance, the RPI-AAR Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project carried out major design studies, 1970-1973 which resulted in the Federal Hazardous Material Law in 1977 -- written by the railroads -- which changed requirements for shelf couplers, head shields, thermal shields, and steel jacket requirements. [AAR Research and Test Department, 1976/1977 Biennial Report, pp. 23-26].
As a result of the 1977 HML law, over 20,000 tank cars were retrofitted at a cost of approximately $200 million. As a result of the law, and the retrofit, the frequency of head tank punctures was reduced to 1/20th of the previous rate. Fire-induced ruptures were reduced to about 1/6 of the previous rate. [AAR, Research Report, 1978-1981, pp. 38-39].
That would have pushed insurance rates down, not up.
These are from the first two AAR reports I took off the shelf. Every one reports tests, studies, concerns, progress. The notion expressed in a post above that "if two of America's Class I railroads" were paying so much attention, there must be quite a problem, overlooks the fact that this has been an ongoing concern for decades; the same press releases get released about every two years, and progress reports are ongoing as well.
This would lead me to believe that the customers are well aware of the dangers as well, of shipping chemicals long distances.
What on earth? Are you suggesting that you actually previously thought that Dow Chemical had no idea ....? This whole thread carries the idea that somebody just woke up and decided there was a problem, when the rest of the world has been quite well aware of it for nearly a century ...
Are the shippers & users necessarily against paying more of HAZMAT insurance?
BNSF Rules Book 4980A, Naming Hazardous Waste Rules, Item 219 - Insurance Provisions:
Each railroad that is a party to a pricing document making reference to this rules book represents and warrants that it is and will maintain the ability to be financially responsible for general liability (including contractual liability) insurance of not less than five million dollars combined single incident limit for bodily injury and property damage.
Customer agrees to keep in force general liability (including contractual liability) insurance of not less than five million dollars combined single incident limit for bodily injury and property damage.
Certification of insurance will be furnished by customer to railroad(s) party to a pricing document making reference to this rules book.
That kind of goes against the grain of thinking that it's only the railroad that has to worry about accidents, liability and lawsuits ...
It isn't. It never has been. The only person that has this "grain of thinking" seems to be on this thread. Outside that narrow world, the shippers worry about accidents, liability and lawsuits, cities, towns, and states worry about accidents and spills and response, and how to save people's lives, the railroads worry about accidents and liabilty and lawsuits, and people that live near tracks run the risk of accidents and getting killed and perhaps some of them worry about it, and others grieve when people are killed or injured. There are all sorts of policies invoked during these accidents -- and some of them, unfortunately, are life insurance policies which doesn't seem to bother you nearly as much ...
BNSF Rules Book 4980A Item 216 - Joint Liability
To the extent the proximate cause of the loss, damage, suites, liability and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable investigation and legal expenses) arising out of any claim for loss of or damage to property or death of persons (including without limitation railroad's or customer's employees), caused by, resulting from, or growing out of the transportation of commodity moving under pricing documents making reference to this rules book, cannot be determined, any amount claimed shall be apportioned equally between railroad and customer. To the extent an act or omission of either party is not the sole cause but contributes to the above loss or damage, each party shall be liable for only that portion of the loss or damage caused by its negligence.
...it seems the next step would be to have the policy written for the chemical company. At that point, wouldn't the chemical company be paying for it?
Please go to any railroad price guide. You could have done so before you began your post. The chemical company is already purchasing HAZMAT insurance policies for the shipment of hazardous materials. The railroad company requires it, as well as full indemnification for any loss.
As an example:
BNSF Item 28: HAZARDOUS COMMODITIES REQUIREMENTS
The shipper of hazardous commodities, materials, substances, or wastes must meet the requirements within this Item.
1. Shipper's Sole Responsibility
The shipper must comply with: § Applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in Title 49 CFR. § Applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in Title 40 CFR. § All federal, state, and local laws governing hazardous commodities (such as materials, substances, and wastes) and associated topics including, but not limited to selecting equipment, placarding, labeling, marking, blocking, bracing, loading, unloading, storing, and handling.
BNSF has legal recourse against any party, including the shipper, for failure to comply with regulations and laws. The shipper is solely responsible for, and guarantees payment for, all expenses, fines, and costs relating to non-compliance.
13. Insurance Liability
The shipper agrees to keep current general liability (including contractual liability) insurance for at least the amount required by law for bodily injury and property damage, including any other insurance required by law. At BNSF's request, the shipper must provide certification of insurance. (See Item 55: Private Equipment Drayage Insurance.)
14. Shipper Indemnity
a. The shipper is solely responsible for and will indemnify BNSF against all property loss or damage, injury, death, incident, or any other liability, including fines, BNSF costs, expenses, late payments, attorney fees and all expenses resulting from any of the following:
§ Not complying with any of the Sections (1-15) addressed within this Item 28: Hazardous Commodities. § Improperly loading or unloading equipment. § Sending or supplying improper shipping instructions or information.
§ Tendering unacceptable commodities or a leaking shipment.
§ Damage resulting from any spill, response, mitigation, clean up, or disposal due to shipper's noncompliance with outlined obligations.
§ Damage resulting from utilizing private defective equipment. The BNSF Intermodal Rules and Policies Guide does not commit BNSF to accept private equipment.
§ Shipping chemicals or contaminants (including traces of) in a commodity that is not described in the hazardous commodity's proper shipping name. \
§ Resulting expenses from compliance with 49 CFR 174.16 (b) (Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to hazardous materials).
b. In the case of an incident, the shipper will: § Pay for clean up and restoration or reimburse BNSF for all related costs and expenses addressed in Section 10 plus a 50% handling charge, with a minimum of a $500 charge, in addition to other applicable charges.
§ Clean up to BNSF's satisfaction and to the satisfaction of any governmental body with jurisdiction.
c. The shipper will assume all legal defenses against any third party claims for damage caused by failure to comply with these obligations.
d. THE RESPONSIBILITIES DEFINED IN SECTION 14 OF THIS ITEM WILL APPLY REGARDLESS OF ANY NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION, IF BNSF CONTRIBUTES TO SUCH LOSS, DAMAGE, EXPENSES, OR COSTS.
We live in a capitalist economy so over the long term things need to make financial sense for all of the parties. When they don't you get the ICC, the PC or the Railway Labor Act. At some point if you want to ship very hazourdous material you may need to go to Lyolds and purchase insurance just as you have been doing for decades when you ship by water.
bobwilcox wrote: Hazard is an issue that impacts where you choose to process chemicals........................ The customer told us they had moved the manufacturing process from the Northeast to Texas for several reasons including the hazard of moving this stuff long distances. The shipper was not Union Carbide but another large industrial chemical company with production facilities all over the world.
Hazard is an issue that impacts where you choose to process chemicals.
....................... The customer told us they had moved the manufacturing process from the Northeast to Texas for several reasons including the hazard of moving this stuff long distances. The shipper was not Union Carbide but another large industrial chemical company with production facilities all over the world.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote:...I wonder if it would encourage the end users to move closer to the shippers?
When Bophal happened we checked our records to see if we were moving the stuff. We found that we had a sizeable movement from a shipper's plant on our line in TX to one of their plants in the Northeast. It was used at the plant in the Northeast to make another chemical. However, the movement had stopped about two years before Bophal. The customer told us they had moved the manufacturing process from the Northeast to Texas for several reasons including the hazard of moving this stuff long distances. The shipper was not Union Carbide but another large industrial chemical company with production facilities all over the world.
erikem wrote: Methyl isocyanate (the stuff from the Bhopal disaster) is a precursor to some pesticides. Some of the others may be used as precursors to some plastics - remember hearing that the two chemicals used to make nylon are pretty nasty (though not as bad as methyl isocyanate).
Methyl isocyanate (the stuff from the Bhopal disaster) is a precursor to some pesticides. Some of the others may be used as precursors to some plastics - remember hearing that the two chemicals used to make nylon are pretty nasty (though not as bad as methyl isocyanate).
Murphy Siding wrote:I didn't figure "methyl-ethyl-death" was the official name for it. I was curious if it was used for someting essential, so that it's shipmeny by railcars would always be a neccesity?
I didn't figure "methyl-ethyl-death" was the official name for it. I was curious if it was used for someting essential, so that it's shipmeny by railcars would always be a neccesity?
Murphy Siding wrote:If two of America's Class 1 railroads are focusing this much attention on the problem, it would be silly to think it was a non-issue to the railroads, the insurance carriers, and tho other shippers who have to pay the extra cost of the hazard insurance.
A press release?
The "other shippers who have to pay the extra cost ..."?
Where's that in the "press release"?
Who said it was a "non-issue"?
This is getting to be quite a thread ....
bobwilcox wrote: This BNSF press release indicates they are headed toward giving incentives to use the safest cars. News Release BNSF Announces Changes to Enhance Transportation Safety of Hazardous Materials FORT WORTH, Texas, April 9, 2007: Encourages Shippers to Use the Safest Tank Cars BNSF Railway Company today announced an effort to improve the transportation safety of toxic inhalation and poison inhalation hazardous materials (TIH/PIH).............
This BNSF press release indicates they are headed toward giving incentives to use the safest cars.
News Release
BNSF Announces Changes to Enhance Transportation Safety of Hazardous Materials
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 9, 2007: Encourages Shippers to Use the Safest Tank Cars BNSF Railway Company today announced an effort to improve the transportation safety of toxic inhalation and poison inhalation hazardous materials (TIH/PIH).............
MP173 wrote: As a supplier to a major tank car manufacturer, I see on the cars there are differences based on the type of tank car and the commodity handled. thus, a tank car is not a tank car. My guess is to manage a fleet requires a high degree of knowledge not only of the cars, but more importantly the commodities handled.ed
As a supplier to a major tank car manufacturer, I see on the cars there are differences based on the type of tank car and the commodity handled. thus, a tank car is not a tank car. My guess is to manage a fleet requires a high degree of knowledge not only of the cars, but more importantly the commodities handled.
ed
For whatever it is worth, I doubt that anyone disagrees, although the theory didn't work well in New Orleans and that's the one being touted by the AAR. In any case, this is an odd diversion from the equally odd point of this thread: the indignant proposition that all shippers are being required to bear the costs of liability insurance which 1) isn't true, the HAZMAT shippers are in fact required to carry insurance AND indemnify the RR and 2) the cost for the general community of shippers is negligble, the conversation in that regard is mostly red herring and the awful burden is, in any case, far outweighed by the economic benefits gained by the general shipping community from the revenue obtained by the RR for shipping HazMat.
MP173 wrote: Did the railroads at one time own and manage their own fleet of tank cars? ed
Did the railroads at one time own and manage their own fleet of tank cars? ed
Yes. You can see it in the ICC Reports which plainly shows car ownership of "tank cars". For instance, Santa Fe had 3,500 at one point. But, more so than he was on insurance not being written, Bob is correct on the matter of tank cars, the numbers were never large, and the relatvely small fleets of RR tank cars should not be confused with the larger, separate fleet of tanker cars that were, in fact, owned by shippers, as specialty chemicals, in particular, required the kind of attention that railroads were unable or perhaps unwilling to give to a specialized car fleet to meet the needs of the shipper.
Michael:
Did the railroads at one time own and manage their own fleet of tank cars? It is my understanding that tank car fleets have been privately owned by shippers or leased thru companies such as GE Capital and others. Most tank cars carry (at least today) a specific commodity. That commodity is listed, if hazardous
I was not aware this changed with Staggers in 1980's. Please clarify. Perhaps the car ownership changed for Box cars, covered hoppers, etc, but those seldom handle haz mat.
MichaelSol wrote: In other words, there is insurance coverage available. Hurricane Katrina thoroughly rattled the insurance industry and as part of its own risk reduction, carriers withdrew coverage for all sorts of things formerly insured. As the industry recovers from its hurricane related sticker shock, it will no doubt return to offering many of its former lines of coverage. One concern of the insurance industry, however, in regard to HAZ-MAT relates to the rail industry's own decisions which have increased the risk regarding railroad rolling stock. After Staggers in particular, one of the usual bright ideas was to pressure shippers to purchase their own rolling stock. This reduced the capital needs of the rail industry, which is usually a good idea. With regard to HAZ-MAT, however, what it did was disperse a specialized maintenance expertise regarding railroad rolling stock away from the rail industry -- which had the centralized expertise and plausible experience -- to hundreds of shippers, and maintenance facilities, companies for which railroad rolling stock was not their ordinary line of business. The red lights should have already been flashing on that one.The results ought to have entirely predictable. Naturally, not for this bunch, which then cried that what was an entirely predictable result of their intentional policy, when it happened, wasn't their fault. From the AAR:"For example, a few years ago in New Orleans, a tank car that railroads did not own containing more than 30,000 gallons of liquid butadiene began to leak. Vapor from the butadiene tank car rolled out across a neighborhood until the pilot light of an outdoor gas water heater ignited it. More than 900 people were evacuated. The National Transportation Safety Board found that the probable cause of the accident was an improper gasket that a chemical company had installed on the tank car. Nevertheless, a state court jury entered a punitive damages verdict against the railroads involved in the amount of $2.8 billion."The amount was, of course, later set aside, but railroads complain that such potential verdicts have caused insurance carriers to threaten to withdraw coverage. That's just not entirely true. What railroads have done even as they have sigificantly improved their own safety records is to knowingly and purposefully create a technical circumstance under which the most hazardous of materials are carried in equipment no longer fully under railroad control insofar as safety is concerned. That increases the risk as the New Orleans case points to.
In other words, there is insurance coverage available.
Hurricane Katrina thoroughly rattled the insurance industry and as part of its own risk reduction, carriers withdrew coverage for all sorts of things formerly insured. As the industry recovers from its hurricane related sticker shock, it will no doubt return to offering many of its former lines of coverage.
One concern of the insurance industry, however, in regard to HAZ-MAT relates to the rail industry's own decisions which have increased the risk regarding railroad rolling stock. After Staggers in particular, one of the usual bright ideas was to pressure shippers to purchase their own rolling stock. This reduced the capital needs of the rail industry, which is usually a good idea.
With regard to HAZ-MAT, however, what it did was disperse a specialized maintenance expertise regarding railroad rolling stock away from the rail industry -- which had the centralized expertise and plausible experience -- to hundreds of shippers, and maintenance facilities, companies for which railroad rolling stock was not their ordinary line of business. The red lights should have already been flashing on that one.
The results ought to have entirely predictable. Naturally, not for this bunch, which then cried that what was an entirely predictable result of their intentional policy, when it happened, wasn't their fault.
From the AAR:
"For example, a few years ago in New Orleans, a tank car that railroads did not own containing more than 30,000 gallons of liquid butadiene began to leak. Vapor from the butadiene tank car rolled out across a neighborhood until the pilot light of an outdoor gas water heater ignited it. More than 900 people were evacuated. The National Transportation Safety Board found that the probable cause of the accident was an improper gasket that a chemical company had installed on the tank car. Nevertheless, a state court jury entered a punitive damages verdict against the railroads involved in the amount of $2.8 billion."
The amount was, of course, later set aside, but railroads complain that such potential verdicts have caused insurance carriers to threaten to withdraw coverage. That's just not entirely true. What railroads have done even as they have sigificantly improved their own safety records is to knowingly and purposefully create a technical circumstance under which the most hazardous of materials are carried in equipment no longer fully under railroad control insofar as safety is concerned. That increases the risk as the New Orleans case points to.
Murphy Siding wrote: Would railroads be able to charge different rates-higher or lower-based on whether the shipper shipped hazardous cargoes in tougher tank cars?
Would railroads be able to charge different rates-higher or lower-based on whether the shipper shipped hazardous cargoes in tougher tank cars?
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 9, 2007: Encourages Shippers to Use the Safest Tank Cars BNSF Railway Company today announced an effort to improve the transportation safety of toxic inhalation and poison inhalation hazardous materials (TIH/PIH). BNSF will publish tariffs (public prices), effective Jan. 1, 2008, to restructure rates based on car risk factors in an effort to encourage shippers to use the most enhanced and upgraded available cars. The tariff incentives are based on the most improved and enhanced car identified by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) as the DOT specification tank car 112J500W for anhydrous ammonia and 105J600W for chlorine. These cars can also be used for most other TIH/PIH commodities. “Our number one priority is the safety of our employees, customers and the communities in which we operate,” says John Lanigan, executive vice president and chief marketing officer. “The AAR requires that any tank cars built after Jan. 1, 2008, meet these specifications and all shippers must convert their entire fleet to these cars by Dec. 31, 2018. We hope this change will incent our TIH/PIH shippers to use the most improved and strongest tank cars available as soon as possible, thus further improving the safety of transporting these materials. TIH/PIH shipments represent significantly less than one percent of BNSF’s total annual volume. BNSF continues to invest significantly in improving safety and rail continues to be the safest mode for transporting hazardous materials. BNSF’s safety investments include track and structures maintenance; operating practice changes; and improved safety training for BNSF employees and community responders. “We believe these policy changes along with our safety investments help address the concerns of the citizens in the communities where we operate,” Lanigan says. “BNSF is committed to leading the industry in the safe transportation of hazardous materials through capital investments and encouraging tank car manufacturers to build, and customers to use, improved and stronger cars.” A subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (NYSE:BNI), BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America, with about 32,000-route-miles in 28 states, and two Canadian provinces. The railway is among the world’s top transporters of intermodal traffic, moves more grain than any other North American railroad, transports the components of many of the products we depend on daily, and hauls enough low-sulfur coal to generate about ten percent of the electricity produced in the United States. BNSF Railway is an industry leader in Web-enabling a variety of customer transactions at www.bnsf.com.
n012944 wrote: erikem wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Earlier, RailWay Man had mentioned "methyl-ethyl-death". A that point, I wondered why there wasn't a push for tougher tank cars. It appears some in the industry are thinking that way as well. What is "methyl-ethyl-death" used for?I suspect that RWM used "methyl-ethyl-death" as a catch-all phrase for all sorts of nasty chemicals such as methyl-isocyanate (the stuff involved in the Bhopal accident).I'd also agree that tougher tank cars are needed for the most hazardous cargoes. That would be my guess too. When I first hired on, my instructors always called it "methyl-ethyl-bad-stuff." I think RWM was going along those same lines.
erikem wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Earlier, RailWay Man had mentioned "methyl-ethyl-death". A that point, I wondered why there wasn't a push for tougher tank cars. It appears some in the industry are thinking that way as well. What is "methyl-ethyl-death" used for?I suspect that RWM used "methyl-ethyl-death" as a catch-all phrase for all sorts of nasty chemicals such as methyl-isocyanate (the stuff involved in the Bhopal accident).I'd also agree that tougher tank cars are needed for the most hazardous cargoes.
Murphy Siding wrote: Earlier, RailWay Man had mentioned "methyl-ethyl-death". A that point, I wondered why there wasn't a push for tougher tank cars. It appears some in the industry are thinking that way as well. What is "methyl-ethyl-death" used for?
Earlier, RailWay Man had mentioned "methyl-ethyl-death". A that point, I wondered why there wasn't a push for tougher tank cars. It appears some in the industry are thinking that way as well.
What is "methyl-ethyl-death" used for?
I suspect that RWM used "methyl-ethyl-death" as a catch-all phrase for all sorts of nasty chemicals such as methyl-isocyanate (the stuff involved in the Bhopal accident).
I'd also agree that tougher tank cars are needed for the most hazardous cargoes.
That would be my guess too. When I first hired on, my instructors always called it "methyl-ethyl-bad-stuff." I think RWM was going along those same lines.
Railroads require shippers of hazardous materials to indemnify the railroads for any losses incurred, including liability to third parties. Liability insurance is required by the railroad of the shipper and proof of compliance can be requested. This is addition to the insurance coverage carried directly by the railroad company.
Murphy Siding wrote:Would capping the liability be a hard sell? It seems a rail disaster with capped liability would be a huge legal free-for-all. Earlier, RailWay Man had mentioned "methyl-ethyl-death". A that point, I wondered why there wasn't a push for tougher tank cars. It appears some in the industry are thinking that way as well. What is "methyl-ethyl-death" used for?
Would capping the liability be a hard sell? It seems a rail disaster with capped liability would be a huge legal free-for-all.
The railroads are finding it a very hard sell with Congress. Needless to say a proposal like this makes the trial lawyers go crazy. In addition a railroad likethe NS has an annual free cash flow, after capital expenses, of over $1 billion.
Down the road I think most of this stuff is going to stop moving. People will find alternative chemicals that are more benign, manufacture of end procuct chemicals will be done at the location where the TIH is produced or users will do the job without using chemicals.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.