Why must our Roadmasters perform TIH evaluations, even though our Track Inspectors have gone over the (dark territory) lines that day? A bit expensive, no?
Depends. How much will it cost if you dump 20,000 gallons of liquid chlorine on the ground?
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...
tree68 Depends. How much will it cost if you dump 20,000 gallons of liquid chlorine on the ground?
I had a near-fatal experience with an anhydrous ammonia leak, and believe me, the warnings about hazmat are to be ignored at your peril!
NS and their insurers paid out around $500M to $700M for Graniteville, SC. Of course, that was a small town. It would be much worse in a more densely populated area.
LC
You can never be too careful when something that is potentially that dangerous is involved. This is why there are always people complaining about hazardous train loads going through their neighborhoods, past schools, etc..
I live in an agricultural area (the "Golden Triangle" of Montana), with lots of anhydrous ammonia coming down from Canada. I have been overcome by ammonia, while seeding grain, and know it is not a "nice" experience. Far from it!
My question, re-stated, is: why does the Track Inspector's evaluation have to be re-evaluated by a Roadmaster. A bit redundant, and expensive, methinks, not counting divorce attorney's fees. Is this another FRA thingie? Maybe a union thingie...
I see that the railroads are thinking about refusing TIH shipments. Maybe they will, if the courts don't back them up. No enterprise should be required to carry 'stuff' that they don't like or make money on. Put all the ammonia on the highways! One 'semi' crash, in a populated area, might change the court's opinions. Doubt it...
BNSFwatcherMy question, re-stated, is: why does the Track Inspector's evaluation have to be re-evaluated by a Roadmaster. A bit redundant, and expensive, methinks, not counting divorce attorney's fees. Is this another FRA thingie?
Having just finished my NORAC refresher, which included a section on "human factors," I suspect this is an effort to pin down responsibility should something happen. Considering some of the fines I might now be personally responsible for, never mind what the railroad might have to pay, I suspect that the roadmaster will be quite careful where he puts his name.
We're all familiar with those situations where everyone points at someone else when it comes time to take responsibility for an incident. This draws a line.
BNSFwatcher My question, re-stated, is: why does the Track Inspector's evaluation have to be re-evaluated by a Roadmaster. A bit redundant, and expensive, methinks, not counting divorce attorney's fees. Is this another FRA thingie? Maybe a union thingie...
You're hearing hoofbeats and expecting zebras. Ever hear of "checking your work?" For something as potentially costly as a release of TIH, this hardly strikes me as a waste of money. More like "prudent and sensible."
Not a realm where the court system has authority to interpret the law. The STB holds the authority. After the STB issues a ruling a railway or shipper or government entity doesn't like, and after the railway or shipper or government entity exhausts the STB appeal process, then the railway, shipper, or government entity can go to a federal court and seek a ruling that the STB is ignoring or misapplying its statutory authority, and if the court agrees only on that narrow case not on the law itself, the case is sent back to the STB for review. All the STB has to do is show it met its statutory authority. It doesn't have to prove the statutory authority is reasonable or sensible. Congress holds that authority to determine what's reasonable and what's not when it writes the law, and the president holds veto power unless overrode by Congress. The courts can determine if the iaw is consistent with the Constitution and precedent law, only.
The railways do not have legal authority to reject TIH shipments. They are common-carriers. Accepting the rights of a common-carrier means accepting the obligations of a common-carrier. Rights of a common-carrier include pre-emption from tens of thousands of federal, state, and local ordinances that apply to non-common carriers, ability to place many disputes into the federal court rather than a broad diversity of state and local courts, ability to exert eminent domain, and federal enforcement of the protection of the commercial health of the company. Companies have the free choice to decide whether to be common-carriers or non common-carriers. Most choose the common-carrier route because the positives so greatly outweigh the negatives. But once they choose, then they are agreeing to play by the rules. They don't get to make up the rules any way they feel like whenever the rules cramp their style, without giving up the benefits, too.
Why should the public give special favors to certain companies and get nothing in return? Is that fair to the companies who don't get the special favors? Is that fair to the public?
RWM
Further RWM's comments.
This is really about the rates the carriers get to charge. The subject has been litigated before with high level radioactive waste in late 1970's early 1980's. The railroads wanted to charge special train rates for special train service. Railroads claimed they could not afford to pay for the insurance they needed to buy to make hauling it a tolerable risk in mixed trains. ICC told the railroads if you really want to provide special train service you are welcome to do so but you must charge carload rates.
TIH products are a larger universe with a lot more money at stake. Here the RR's are fighting the chemical companies, rather than the Federal Govt as in the RAM case. This will go on for a long time. I expect to see an inter/industry insurance pool financed by an agreed rate increase before it is all over.
Mac
Perhaps a dedicated train to haul hazmat. This special train would have a nice, relatively slow speed restriction, as the potential damage to freight cars increases as speed increases. The down side would be the congestion a slow train would cause on a busy main line. In addition, this train would not haul any other commodity.
It always amazes me to see trains go by so fast with so many hazmat cars in them. Sometimes I wonder just what I am doing locating myself so close to potential harm, knowing that if something does go wrong with the train, there probably wouldn't be enough pieces of me left to identify. But then I realize that I am statistically much safer standing next to a train than I am driving in traffic.
Of course, railroaders deal with these threats every day.
Welcome to the TRAINS forums! -- a.s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.