For you entertainment, a little blast from the past from Virginia, posted on Statter911 today. Circumstances aren't comparable, but the result was:
http://statter911.com/2013/07/07/film-from-1967-fire-in-the-plains-va-after-train-truck-collide-former-fire-chief-narrates/#comments
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...
narig01One other question has their been any mention of this being a deliberate act?
I have mentioned it.
When events such as this happen, I tend to wonder about the cause.
We get plenty of oil trains through town here on the BNSF, probably as many as 6 each way (empty going west, loaded coming east) every day. I often thought about how big of a mess a derailment would be, should one happen.
Now, I know.
As far as this being a deliberate act, I find it very had to believe that that train crew was so lazy, as to want to just leave the train sitting there, without taking appropriate safety precautions. While I would imagine it's possible, that a crew would be lax in it's procedures, I fail to see how they would be that lax. Which leads one to consider a deliberate act, either by a vandal, or someone who didn't like oil, or someone who wished to kill people for some religious or political cause.
Scratch the international terrorism angle. No one claimed responsibility, which is what would have happened if that were the case.
Ecos, or greenies being upset at oil being transported? Possibly. No evidence exists to support that theory (or any theory at this point) but, it would make sense. A massive derailment and oil spill would allow the "Green" groups to begin taking steps to shut down oil transportation by rail. Perhaps the fire and destruction was not part of their plans, assuming this were the case.
A vandal? Possibly. When I lived in LaGrange Park, with the small "LaGrange Yard" on the IHB right behind my apartment building, kids were always doing stuff to the coal hoppers that were frequently parked there, from "tagging" the cars, to climbing on them, to trying (quite unsuccessfully) to move the cars, throw switches, or trying to open the bottoms of the cars to dump the coal, or do other types of damage. Perhaps someone wanted to see what would happen if a train "ran away", and didn't think beyond the nose on their face about the consequences.
So, we have a tragic accident caused by something, or someone that is unknown to us at the moment, and it's something we may never find out. All we have left is speculation, and we have a choice, so to speak, of three possibilities.
A fatigued and overworked, or careless and lazy train crew (pick one, most people will pick the one that coincides with their view of the railroad industry)
Eco-terrorists, or some Eco group causing the accident to further their agenda.
A vandal, or group of vandals, who thought it would be fun to make a train a "runaway" . Or, were just screwing around with the parked train, and didn't realize what they were doing, until the train started to roll away.
I lean to the other two, mainly because I like to think, that 99% of the train crews on this continent are competent enough to take proper safety precautions with the train that is their responsibility.
Just putting my .02 out there.
The member formerly known as "TimChgo9"
I see that the derailment occurred 90 minutes after the train was left unattended. So, allowing about 20 minutes for the runaway to transpire, that leaves 70 minutes for the cause of the runaway to occur.
If hand brakes were set on a sufficient number of cars, and on five locomotives, and if the air brakes were applied, it is hard to imagine a reason for a loss of brakes to hold the train. That raises the question of sabotage based on a variety of motives such as internationally inspired terrorism or domestic eco terrorism. Or it could have just been malicious vandalism. In terms of terrorism, the wreck certainly played out the very scenario that has been predicted for at least the last twenty years.
The following article also indicates train was parked on a hill above the village with fatality count now three.
http://news.yahoo.com/quebec-police-3-dead-oil-train-derailment-142335759.html
That being said all RRs need to implement steps to prevent a similar accident.
1. A RR that routinely parks any type train for whatever reason at a location needs some kind of derail especially on the downhill side.
2. I have always felt that split rail derails are the best. If a train runs thru one then it will hit the ground and probably not go further wheras rail mounted derails have been reported to fail.
3. A frog on the continuing rail can be an owls type frog to reduce maintenance.
4. Many previous posts have pointed out that the Gunpow Amtrak collision into the rear of a Conrail DH loco consist would not have happened if Amtrak had not removed the split rail derail that PRR installed at that location.
5. It is recognized that crew may have to be transported to rear derail.
6. Most importantly a split rail derail can have a large berm built just beyond the derai. PRR did have one at Gunpow.
7. Saluda grade's runaway trackss can also be considered a method to prevent runaways.l
5 are now confirmed dead: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CN_CANADA_OIL_TRAIN_DERAILMENT?SITE=KING&SECTION=WORLDHEADS&TEMPLATE=WORLDHEADS.html
NW
The biggest safety advantage of rail over pipeline is that while derailments are more common than pipeline failures, the derailments release less oil on average. So, generally, derailments are less catastrophic than pipeline failures. Indeed, this derailment only released four tank cars (sometimes called “tanker wagons”). So, the derailment proved the norm in terms of spill. But unfortunately, it more than made up for that by destroying a town.
Bucyrus Here is the beginning of the reaction that will make this the most costly train wreck in history: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0707/Does-Canada-train-blast-show-danger-of-oil-transport-in-US QUOTE FROM THE LINK: Across the border in Maine, the tragedy is likely to turn up the volume on an existing debate about the safety of shipping crude oil through the state from Canada’s western petroleum region to New Brunswick’s coastal refineries. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would move much of this heavy oil from Canada south through the US to Texas. Its backers say this means of transportation is safer than is freight transport. But it has been blocked, for now, by environmental concerns. That means railroads continue to carry the bulk of this oil cargo. But Maine environmentalists aren’t happy about this, either. On June 27 six members of the protest group “350 Maine” were arrested in the south-central town of Fairfield for blocking railroad tracks with signs calling to “Stop Fracked Oil”.
Here is the beginning of the reaction that will make this the most costly train wreck in history:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0707/Does-Canada-train-blast-show-danger-of-oil-transport-in-US
QUOTE FROM THE LINK:
Across the border in Maine, the tragedy is likely to turn up the volume on an existing debate about the safety of shipping crude oil through the state from Canada’s western petroleum region to New Brunswick’s coastal refineries.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would move much of this heavy oil from Canada south through the US to Texas. Its backers say this means of transportation is safer than is freight transport. But it has been blocked, for now, by environmental concerns.
That means railroads continue to carry the bulk of this oil cargo. But Maine environmentalists aren’t happy about this, either. On June 27 six members of the protest group “350 Maine” were arrested in the south-central town of Fairfield for blocking railroad tracks with signs calling to “Stop Fracked Oil”.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The derailment of a train loaded with crude oil in Quebec resulted in devastating explosions and fire. The accident raises questions about the safety of shipping oil through Maine to New Brunswick’s coastal refineries.
Mookie These questions sound like they belong on a police or investigators report, not in the newspaper. I don't think the media could get too close to the scene let alone someone in charge. No comment is probably the most information they got from "in charge". Just my
These questions sound like they belong on a police or investigators report, not in the newspaper. I don't think the media could get too close to the scene let alone someone in charge. No comment is probably the most information they got from "in charge".
Just my
This derailment will raise is this question: Why can’t tank cars be built to withstand a derailment without rupturing?
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF1B4.pdf
Quote from the link:
The NTSB noted that more than half of the nation’s 60,000 railroad tank cars that
carry hazardous materials pre-date the 1989 standards and therefore were not designed to
withstand predictable levels of stress and are more likely to break open after derailing.
In particular, the NTSB found that pre-1989 cars constructed from “non-normalized,” or
weaker, steel, some of which are expected to remain in use until 2038, pose a much
higher risk than post-1989 cars.
Bucyrus I find that there is more detailed information in the comments following the reports, but you have to weigh its probable credibility.
I find that there is more detailed information in the comments following the reports, but you have to weigh its probable credibility.
Somewhere between made up and talking out of one's posterior, I'd imagine.
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
cacole CNN is reporting Sunday that the train was unattended and a runaway for 7 miles before the derailment and fire. Obviously, the engineer did not properly tie it down when he went off duty.
CNN is reporting Sunday that the train was unattended and a runaway for 7 miles before the derailment and fire. Obviously, the engineer did not properly tie it down when he went off duty.
And you know that how?
Seriously, enlighten us.
The question that I would least expect to be answered is whether the engine cabs were locked. But the other three are easy questions that anybody near the scene could probably answer. Maybe the question about the time of the wreck has been answered and I have just not seen it. The point of that question is to know how much time elapsed while the train was standing. Certain scenarios such as bleeding cars or releasing handbrakes could be ruled out if the time was too short.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
There are some questions that the news media ought to be able to answer, but I can’t find the answers:
1) Did the entire train run away; or did only part of it run away? They make it sound like the whole train ran away.
2) The train was left unattended at 11:30 PM. When did the derailment happen?
3) Were the locomotives locked to prevent access?
4) Which direction was the train bound and which direction did it runaway?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-train-railroad-profile-20130706,0,6642224.story
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is a difference between unattended and unsecured.
Any train left by its crew, unless that crew is personally relieved by another crew who at that time takes charge of the train, must be secured properly by the leaving crew.
Depending on the carrier, that will include a full service reduction on the train brake, (a 20lb minimum ) full application of the independent brake, centering and removing the reverser, isolation switch to the isolate position, generator field off, setting a hand brake on every locomotive, and depending on the carrier a specified number of hand brakes on the cars.
The GCOR and NORAC don’t give a specific number of handbrakes required beyond the phrase “sufficient brakes to prevent movement” but each carrier gives a number of brakes in their safety rules.
From what I have read here, it sounds as if the train was left unsecured or not completely secured and it was a single man crew?
This may play out as a hard knock against single person crews…while it is possible a single person may be fatigued enough to fail to comply with the safety rule about securing a train, it is unlikely, (not impossible) that a two person crew would fail to do so properly.
23 17 46 11
Yes, it is the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic. With what I hear in the news, I don't think this company will survive very long in Quebec and I think that the government will stop trains to bring dangerous materials in the middle of a city.
Mr. Railman I think it's odd that they're covering up the railroad name, as far as I know...Usually i know which one it is, but this time...
I think it's odd that they're covering up the railroad name, as far as I know...Usually i know which one it is, but this time...
Article I read stated it was the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here are some photos of this huge accident.
Murphy Siding erikem cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off. Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source. Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well. - Erik As I understand that situation, the fumes were circulated all through the below deck hangers by the ventilation systems fans, and a spark caused the fumes to explode. There's nothing similar to be expected in or near a train tank car.
erikem cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off. Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source. Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well. - Erik
cx500 I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.
I am more curious about what actually caused the oil to ignite. Crude oil is not as volatile as certain other petroleum products, and more commonly creates a big mess as it spills. Once something like the raging inferno seen here occurs, of course, all bets are off.
Keep in mind what happened to the IJN aircraft carrier Taiho in the Battle for the Phillipines Sea. The ship was fueled with Indonesian crude oil instead of Bunker C, a torpedo hit damaged the fuel bunker and volatiles from the crude oil got circulated around the ship. Six hours later it blew up when the fumes reached an ignition source.
Having said that, I do wonder what caused the oil to ignite as well.
- Erik
The similarity being that crude oil can give off more flammable vapors than bunker C or diesel fuel and the flammable vapors are often what gets the conflagration started. In the case of the Taiho, the circulation of the fumes did as you understood lead to a good portion of the ship being filled with an explosive fuel/air mixture. In the case of a derailed tank car the fumes just need to find an ignition source to get a fire going, once that happens the heat from the fire will volatize the heavier fractions of the crude oil.
As to a terrorist attack derailing a train in the US, look no further than the October 9th, 1995 derailment of Amtrak's Sunset Limited near Palo Verde, AZ.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment>
Nantes siding is the normal crew change point between Canadian crews and US crews, on the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic.
As to the loss of the IJN Taiho, the retreating Dutch had destroyed the equipment that stripped off the Condensates from the Crude Oil. With the Condensates not stripped off the Crude is very combustible.
What do you mean exactly Mr. Railman?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.