Check it out:
www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation
Article is "Deadly cargo to roll on". (I could not post the exact link for some reason, but you'll find it)
The Sun reporter interviews some Baltimore residents (who apparently just moved near tracks) and they want CSX to bypass the city with hazardous materials. Accuse the railroad of not complying with federal law. Be sure to read the blogs that follow the story, too.
In another post, we have been discussing the fact that the media and the public doesn't know beans about railroads and I think this pretty much seals the matter.
(And I am a former member of the news media)
This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety. By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight. Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice.
The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not am option.
Paul
Tharmeni wrote: Check it out:www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationArticle is "Deadly cargo to roll on". (I could not post the exact link for some reason, but you'll find it)The Sun reporter interviews some Baltimore residents (who apparently just moved near tracks) and they want CSX to bypass the city with hazardous materials. Accuse the railroad of not complying with federal law. Be sure to read the blogs that follow the story, too. In another post, we have been discussing the fact that the media and the public doesn't know beans about railroads and I think this pretty much seals the matter. (And I am a former member of the news media)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.hazard25may25,0,3839063.story
Some of the blogs were good. Most if not all were for the railroads
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
IRONROOSTER wrote: Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice. Paul
Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
IRONROOSTER wrote: This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety. By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight. Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice. The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not am option.Paul
How frequently do they happen? I've lived next to the BNSF since back when it was the Frisco and they operated black and gold diesels, 45 years to be exact. There has been precisely one wreck, and that was about 30 years ago. I remember a RR employee riding on the flatcar in front of the "Big Hook" inviting my kids and I to ride down about half a mile and watch them put the cars back up on the track. We did and had a great time. I remember it was coal cars and one boxcar full of LCL.
My daughter lived in Hampstead MD next to the WM tracks for 10 years. We used to sit on her front porch and watch the trains go by.
Should we have been afraid?
As to the President's safety, the 2003 "Classic Trains" told about Harry Truman actually spending some time at the throttle of a moving B&O train. What's to fear?
Ishmael wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety. By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight. Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice. The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not am option.Paul How frequently do they happen? I've lived next to the BNSF since back when it was the Frisco and they operated black and gold diesels, 45 years to be exact. There has been precisely one wreck, and that was about 30 years ago. I remember a RR employee riding on the flatcar in front of the "Big Hook" inviting my kids and I to ride down about half a mile and watch them put the cars back up on the track. We did and had a great time. I remember it was coal cars and one boxcar full of LCL.My daughter lived in Hampstead MD next to the WM tracks for 10 years. We used to sit on her front porch and watch the trains go by.Should we have been afraid? As to the President's safety, the 2003 "Classic Trains" told about Harry Truman actually spending some time at the throttle of a moving B&O train. What's to fear?
May 18, 2008 Lafayette, La appears to be the latest with thousands evacuated from theoir homes
From purchasing.com
Rails report 54% more hazmat spills By Dave Hannon -- Purchasing, 3/5/2008 9:52:00 AM The number of incidents where railroad cars released hazardous materials increased in 2007 from 28 to 43 in the U.S. According Federal Railroad Administration data, the total number of trail accidents has declined 14% in 2007, but an Associated Press report points out that hazmat incidents increased.
The number of incidents where railroad cars released hazardous materials increased in 2007 from 28 to 43 in the U.S. According Federal Railroad Administration data, the total number of trail accidents has declined 14% in 2007, but an Associated Press report points out that hazmat incidents increased.
Too many for me to live close to the tracks.
IRONROOSTER wrote: This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety. By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight. Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice.
Isn't it in the best interest of the federal government, to regulate interstate commerce? If you let each state,county, city and municipality start making and enforcing it's own rules, what would you have? If you let Baltimore limit what can be shipped there, what stops a state line Iowa, for example, from prohibiting shipment of certain items through it's state?
IRONROOSTER wrote: The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not an option.Paul
The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not an option.
Seems like it might be easier, to just make sure the railroads are as safe as possible.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Why is it that so many little TV reporters and beat journalists think they are competent to do our thinking for us? Some of these folks need to go back to school and learn how to write an unbiased story -- they might be surprised at how many of their remarks are "editorial" (opinion).
I do understand that most newspapers have been "featurized" since the 1960s, but there are ways to do that that are journalisticallly honest, and some not. I mean, Walter Lippman certainly had opinions, but his readership could distinguish them from fact -- and he is best known today as a writer of editorials or what today we'd call "op ed."
Thsnk you for letting me get that off my chest.
Well, Paul, maybe old age has blunted my fears. I went through the era when the A-bomb was going to detroy civilization, when the Bolskeviks were going to take over the world, when anything you ate was poison, when there were satanist cults out to kidnap your children and Lord knows what else.
Now I'm a bit fatalistic and the BNSF hauls mostly coal. You're probably right, but I'm not going to worry about it.
Murphy Siding wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: This appears to be another case of the federal government closing off the local governments efforts to regulate safety. By making it part of the FRA, who then basically give responsibility to the railroads, there is no effective oversight. Unfortunately, the public has no way to accurately assess the danger except through serious incidents involving hazardous materials Since these occur too frequently, rerouting appears to be the only safe choice. Isn't it in the best interest of the federal government, to regulate interstate commerce? If you let each state,county, city and municipality start making and enforcing it's own rules, what would you have? If you let Baltimore limit what can be shipped there, what stops a state line Iowa, for example, from prohibiting shipment of certain items through it's state? IRONROOSTER wrote: The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. Personally given the dangers, I would try to live and work at least a couple of miles from any track. But for many people that's not an option.Paul Wouldn't you guess that a majority of the people in the US live or work within a couple of miles of a railroad track? Wouldn't you also want to live a couple of miles away from an airport, a highway, a navigatable river, a pipeline, a port, etc...? Seems like it might be easier, to just make sure the railroads are as safe as possible.
Ah, but are they? or is the federal gov't letting them off the hook? Is this like lead poisoning from China where the federal gov't said we had enough inspectors but really didn't? Like the beef fiasco. And on and on... the federal gov't doesn't have a good track record recently on protecting the citizens. I agree the railroads should be made as safe as possible, but I don't think that is happening. And of course your point about the airports, highways, etc. is well taken. All of those should be as safe as possible - but are they? As you say, it's hard/impossible for everyone to avoid all of these all the time, that's why people get upset.
I read the article, and the reporter seemed mostly to stick to the facts. I have no sympathy for Mr. Peterson. He knew, or he must have seen that the tracks were there before he bought his house. Then to make his point he had the Baltimore Sun's photographer take a picture of him while he was standing on the CSX's tracks; it's too bad a CSX police officer, or any police officer, didn't come by and arrest him for trespassing.
The point is there is not much that can be done to reroute hazardous materials to different railroads to totally prevent them from being transported through populous cities. For example if you ship a toxic chemical from the "Chemical Coast" of New Jersey to Columbia, SC, to the best of my knowledge there is no routing on a single railroad to ship it and totally avoid heavily populated cities.
The comments that appeared after the article seemed to be reasonable, and the people who posted them seemed to be very well informed.
IRONROOSTER wrote: Too many for me to live close to the tracks.Paul
Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.
IRONROOSTER wrote: . The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game.
.
The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game.
When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot. Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.
An "expensive model collector"
RudyRockvilleMD wrote: I read the article, and the reporter seemed mostly to stick to the facts. I have no sympathy for Mr. Peterson. He knew, or he must have seen that the tracks were there before he bought his house. Then to make his point he had the Baltimore Sun's photographer take a picture of him while he was standing on the CSX's tracks; it's too bad a CSX police officer, or any police officer, didn't come by and arrest him for trespassing.The point is there is not much that can be done to reroute hazardous materials to different railroads to totally prevent them from being transported through populous cities. For example if you ship a toxic chemical from the "Chemical Coast" of New Jersey to Columbia, SC, to the best of my knowledge there is no routing on a single railroad to ship it and totally avoid heavily populated cities. The comments that appeared after the article seemed to be reasonable, and the people who posted them seemed to be very well informed.
Even better, I would like to see someone here come up with a route between the NJ chemical coast and Columbia SC, with the following criteria:
1) It can use more then one RR, as it seems that the people opposed use the argumant that the RR's simply don't want to share the traffic. 2) it needs to avoid as many populated areas as possible, also give an estimate of the number of people it will effect on the new route and what cities. 3) it needs to stay on "quality track", not 10 and 20 MPH branch lines (safety, you know) 4) calculate the mileage of your route compared to that of the CSX and NS for the direct single line route.
Let's see what a route would look like- and in my opinion how un-reasonable it will be. In other words what people in towns get increased risk so other people and towns get reduced risk. Lacking a RR atlas, alas, I can't do it myself.
n012944 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: . The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot. Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.
Sat on the runway for over 2 hours last year in PHL waiting on Bush to take off so we could go- (an extra 2 hours on top of a 10 hour flight) the whole airport was shut down- were people steamed. Stupid.
matthewsaggie wrote: n012944 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: . The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot. Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president. Sat on the runway for over 2 hours last year in PHL waiting on Bush to take off so we could go- (an extra 2 hours on top of a 10 hour flight) the whole airport was shut down- were people steamed. Stupid.
Sorry to contribute to this getting further off topic, but if memory serves me well, Bill Clinton was on a runway or taxiway somewhere getting a haircut on Air Force 1 and it shut the whole airport down.
The harder (read "more expensive") the FRA makes it for the RRs to handle hazardous stuff the more:
1. Traffic will shift to truck where it will be
a) in closer contact with even more people
b) more likely to be involved in a disaster
2. Expensive goods made from the chemicals will be
3. Time spent on trains will increase - increasing the risk of disaster.
The answer is to get the chemical industry to stop shipping hazardous stuff as much as possible. Most of this junk is intermediate-step-in-some-process goo. Better they go all the way from raw materials to final product in one place instead of shipping stuff all over creation.
IMHO opinion the routing and speed limit regs (30 mph dark, 50 mph signalled) proposed by the FRA are borderline stupid. The tank car strength rule isn't too bad as long as it's matched by similar requirements on other modes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
We've shifted from the era when people wanted the railroad "downtown" to where they want it anyplace but. So many towns owe their very existance to the railroad. The station was the literal center of town.
As is usually the case, however, those calling for change don't offer any solution other than "somewhere else."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
oltmannd wrote: The harder (read "more expensive") the FRA makes it for the RRs to handle hazardous stuff the more:1. Traffic will shift to truck where it will be a) in closer contact with even more people b) more likely to be involved in a disaster2. Expensive goods made from the chemicals will be3. Time spent on trains will increase - increasing the risk of disaster. The answer is to get the chemical industry to stop shipping hazardous stuff as much as possible. Most of this junk is intermediate-step-in-some-process goo. Better they go all the way from raw materials to final product in one place instead of shipping stuff all over creation.IMHO opinion the routing and speed limit regs (30 mph dark, 50 mph signalled) proposed by the FRA are borderline stupid. The tank car strength rule isn't too bad as long as it's matched by similar requirements on other modes.
Reality + truth + practicality = above.
RWM
TomDiehl wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Too many for me to live close to the tracks.Paul Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.
The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves. Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue. But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.
I believe the article refers to suspending hazmat shipments not all trains.
IRONROOSTER wrote: n012944 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: . The telling part was when the railroads suspended shipments while the president was at the football game. When Air Force One lands at a commercial airport, all takeoff and landings by other aircraft are suspended until the aircraft is taxied to a safe spot. Under your reasoning, all landing and takeoffs should stop around any city of size, since they are too "dangerous" to do around the president.I believe the article refers to suspending hazmat shipments not all trains. Paul Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: TomDiehl wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Too many for me to live close to the tracks.Paul Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves. Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue. But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.Paul
Direct cut-and-paste from the article:
"In Baltimore, an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines, many residents see the dangers first-hand.Bryan Peterson's South Baltimore home rattles when rail cars and their hazardous chemicals roll past in the middle of the night, coming and going from Locust Point factories and terminals."
The statement "and their hazardous chemicals" looks to be added as an afterthought, since noone would care if his house was "rattled" by the freight cars passing by. Then they quote statistics for HAZMAT rail shipments nationwide, but no mention of how often it happens on this line. Again, too small a number for anyone to care?
I wonder how long railroads have been hauling hazardous materials? Especially in view of their common carrier status. If his home was near the Interstate, would he expect all truck shipments of HAZMAT to be rerouted?
It also sound like he's not too far from the "Locust Point factories and terminals," and they're in "an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines."
Sounds like an even stronger case for his poor judgment rather than the "evil railroad."
Sorry, still no sympathy for his stupidity.
IRONROOSTER wrote: But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.
Stand facing tracks.
Open eyes (had to include that one since the guy in the article obviously misses stuff)
If a big round tubular thing goes by with orange, red, white or green "stickers" on the corners, there's hazmat.
That wasn't that hard, was it? And if you look at the colors and write down the numbers, you'll know exactly whats in the cars too.
Since there are probably 50 or 60 chemical plants or refineries within a 50 mile radius of Baltimore there are probably chemical cars all over the place. Unless he is proposing moving ALL that industry to someplace else, he will always see chemicals cars coming by his house.
Just up the road from him is Wilmington. Headquarters of the Dupont company. They have been shipping gunpowder and dynamite by rail since the mid 1800's.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BaltACD wrote: When the Pres is in the area....ALL freight train movements are suspended until the Pres leaves the area.
Correct. They don't want any road crossings blocked that might stop a motorcade or delay access.
TomDiehl wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: TomDiehl wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Too many for me to live close to the tracks.Paul Exactly the point several people made in the comments to that article. Were the trains "rolling by and rattling the windows" when he looked at the property? Did he see the railroad tracks that close to the home he was about to buy? Sounds more like he's trying to blame the railroad for his own poor judgment.The issue is hazmat carried by trains, not trains themselves. Looking at the track doesn't tell you anything about hazmat loads. I agree if the complaint is about noise then yes the purchaser can see the tracks and reasonably be expected to understand the noise issue. But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.Paul Direct cut-and-paste from the article:"In Baltimore, an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines, many residents see the dangers first-hand.Bryan Peterson's South Baltimore home rattles when rail cars and their hazardous chemicals roll past in the middle of the night, coming and going from Locust Point factories and terminals."The statement "and their hazardous chemicals" looks to be added as an afterthought, since noone would care if his house was "rattled" by the freight cars passing by. Then they quote statistics for HAZMAT rail shipments nationwide, but no mention of how often it happens on this line. Again, too small a number for anyone to care?I wonder how long railroads have been hauling hazardous materials? Especially in view of their common carrier status. If his home was near the Interstate, would he expect all truck shipments of HAZMAT to be rerouted?It also sound like he's not too far from the "Locust Point factories and terminals," and they're in "an old industrial port city where neighborhoods sprouted along rail lines."Sounds like an even stronger case for his poor judgment rather than the "evil railroad."Sorry, still no sympathy for his stupidity.
Title of article is "Deadly cargo rolls on",
opening paragraph "Tankers filled with deadly chemicals are likely to continue to roll through Baltimore and other major cities despite new federal rules initially aimed at reducing the risk of catastrophic accidents or terrorist threats by sending much of the cargo through less-populated areas."
The main thrust of the article is the hazmat.
He may have been ignorant about the danger, but that's not the same as stupid.
I still think he has valid concerns and grievance.
dehusman wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: But I don't know how he can easily know about the hazmat problem.Stand facing tracks.Open eyes (had to include that one since the guy in the article obviously misses stuff)If a big round tubular thing goes by with orange, red, white or green "stickers" on the corners, there's hazmat.That wasn't that hard, was it? And if you look at the colors and write down the numbers, you'll know exactly whats in the cars too.Since there are probably 50 or 60 chemical plants or refineries within a 50 mile radius of Baltimore there are probably chemical cars all over the place. Unless he is proposing moving ALL that industry to someplace else, he will always see chemicals cars coming by his house.Just up the road from him is Wilmington. Headquarters of the Dupont company. They have been shipping gunpowder and dynamite by rail since the mid 1800's. Dave H.
Not everyone knows what hazmat marking are, so they might not recognize them even if they were there when such a train passed by. Plus no one stands around for days by a house they are thinking about buying to see what dangers may pass by. Of course with hazmat it's what passes by further away as well, so standing by the house doesn't work either.
But I guess your point is: don't live or work within a couple of miles of the tracks and, if you do, you deserve to die when the hazmat incident occurs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.