Oil Train Derailment and Fire near Casselton, ND

[daveklepper]

But the UP was forced to handle a product they did not want on their property, Chlorine.  Posibly, the whole hazmat question should be handled at the same time as the Bakken Crude  problem.   Possibly what is needed is a separate system, somewhat like what Pullman was in the days of the best in passenger railroading: An 8th nationwide railroad company, owned by the seven Class I's and choosinig routes and schedules to minimize danger, rather than the shortest route of one company.   At times the hazmat cargoues would be handled in regular trains, but every effort would be made to isolate them and make safety the main criteria in routing and speed.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

I do not know the specifics of the impact of Dave's suggestion, other than movement when there is less rail traffic might be safer.  At night the commuter trains do not run, for example. 

However, the point, which you either miss or attempt to avoid is the one I made above.  Dodging around to avoid dealing with the problem is not a satisfactory response for the rails if they wish to retain credibility.  They need to recognize the problem and address it proactively.  

   OK.  Fair enough.  I understand what you're saying.  If UP, one of the biggest railroads, was unsuccessful in getting things changed about chlorine, which is a much bigger danger than Bakken oil, how do you propose the railroads recognize the problem, and address it proactively?

[henry6]

ZUG...the answer is simple: if you want to refuse the load, there is no other railroad in town so that is not the answer.  And if you were the engineer and I handed you they keys to then engine and said "go" and you blew up a mile down the track, how would you really feel and react?  Up said no to chlorine but chlorine is not as sexy as mushroom clouds of flame and smoke.  Plus it's been years since that episode and the lawyers have had time to sharpen their claws, the insurance companies get heartburn faster and the investors are more worried about return on investment with no risks.  The whole world is different.  John Wayne Rah Rah Machismo is not considered smart these days when it comes to protecting money.  There are big fingers and many of them all pointed toward everybody else when it comes to determining blame while an umbrella of lies and deceptions deflect truth til all are caught.  I believe I am talking being practical here for all parties to deal with it.  If you..the railroad...can't deal with how to and with customers, they should get out of the business and let someone who does want solutions and success ride the rails instead.

[Murphy Siding]

ZUG...Simply refuse the load.  Tell them that even though your carrier is legally required to accept the load, you prefer to be on unemployment.  Then the railroad can simply tell Uncle Sam "nanner! nanner! You can't make us accept that load- just like you couldn't make us accept that chlorine".  I mean, other than shut the railroad down, what can the government really do anyway?

[daveklepper]

I think my scheme is a solution.  And a solution is necessary.  Some people have told me Obama Care is unconstitutional, that the Goevernment cannot FORCE people to buy insurance.   But is it not doing so?   Recall during WWII when the head of one of the coal companies prefered a strike rather than binding arbitration, and this resulted in front page newspaper pictures of him  sitiing in his executive chare while two MP's carried the chair and him out of his office and out of his companies buildiing.  I think the railroads have to come up with a solution and waiting for the details on the exact and precise nature of the problem may bring unwanted regulation to bear on the problem.

I think BNSF would be a lot better off to have its hazmat trains run via Raton Pass and not have to pass and be overtakenn by all the traffic on the Transcon.

[tree68]

Crude is still just the cause d'jour.

A comparison of the ERG for crude and ethanol tells me, as a firefighter, that I'd rather deal with the crude - we carry a certain amount of Class B foam (and more is available) that will handle the oil.  Alcohol-resistant foam is more scarce.

The response guides differ only as it applies to using alcohol resistant foam.  Evacuation distances, etc, are the same.

On those occasions when I'm trainwatching at Utica Union Station, I see just as many ethanol trains go by as I do crude.  Maybe more.

We know that an ethanol wreck can be just as bad - there have already been a few of those where fire was involved, and at least one fatality.  Had Lac Megantic involved an ethanol train instead of a crude train, the results would not have been substantially different.

As Houston Ed has noted, there are dozens of other substances just as, and many more dangerous than crude, no matter what it's make-up, all shipped by rail.

All of this concern is commendable, but the DOT111A problem extends beyond crude oil, and crude oil is no more dangerous than any other substance carried on the rails.  The DOT111A issue is being worked as fast as new cars can be built - there's little or nothing we can do about it.

And with darned few exceptions, any rail routing is going to go through somebody's home town.  There are places we definitely shouldn't be routing hazmat (the tunnel in Baltimore, within sight of the US Capitol, to name a couple), but if we're going to transport the stuff (generally a necessity), we gotta run the trains somewhere.

[edblysard]

daveklepper

I think my scheme is a solution.  And a solution is necessary.  Some people have told me Obama Care is unconstitutional, that the Goevernment cannot FORCE people to buy insurance.   But is it not doing so?   Recall during WWII when the head of one of the coal companies prefered a strike rather than binding arbitration, and this resulted in front page newspaper pictures of him  sitiing in his executive chare while two MP's carried the chair and him out of his office and out of his companies buildiing.  I think the railroads have to come up with a solution and waiting for the details on the exact and precise nature of the problem may bring unwanted regulation to bear on the problem.

I think BNSF would be a lot better off to have its hazmat trains run via Raton Pass and not have to pass and be overtakenn by all the traffic on the Transcon.

Dave,

The photo you refer to is of Avery Sewell, Chairman of Montgomery Wards, being removed from the Chicago Office after FDR ordered to US Army to seize the property, because Sewell refused to honor a War Labor Board ruling involving binding arbitration in regards to a strike of Wards by Retail Employees of America Union, (an affiliate of the CIO)

[schlimm]

Possibly just a coincidence, but:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53804901/ns/business-us_business/t/bnsf-railway-names-carl-ice-ceo-replacing-matthew-rose/#.Usxx5PvcCN8

And this, which contradicts the opinion of some who have commented:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53954566/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/railcars-north-dakota-crude-train-crash-older-less-safe-investigators/#.UsxybfvcCN8

The railcars carrying crude oil that crashed into a derailed grain train in North Dakota on Monday were all older types that do not meet the latest industry safety standards, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board said on Tuesday.

[henry6]

schlimm

Possibly just a coincidence, but:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53804901/ns/business-us_business/t/bnsf-railway-names-carl-ice-ceo-replacing-matthew-rose/#.Usxx5PvcCN8

And this, which contradicts the opinion of some who have commented:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53954566/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/railcars-north-dakota-crude-train-crash-older-less-safe-investigators/#.UsxybfvcCN8

The railcars carrying crude oil that crashed into a derailed grain train in North Dakota on Monday were all older types that do not meet the latest industry safety standards, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board said on Tuesday.

And from tree: "All of this concern is commendable, but the DOT111A problem extends beyond crude oil, and crude oil is no more dangerous than any other substance carried on the rails.  The DOT111A issue is being worked as fast as new cars can be built - there's little or nothing we can do about it"

Tree,  crude oil is different than other petroleum and chemicals and there is a difference between crude oils, too.  Bakken crude is in fact more flammable and volatile than others.

And Schlimm's second link tells the story of the wrong tank cars.  This means someone was either misinformed or didn't give a damn....like Zug's example, or ship it before someone else does.  Maybe the railroad is more at fault than I've thought.  I don't know who owned the cars or who leased the cars for this traffic...but it sounds like there is more greed involved here.  And where there's greed, there's haste; and when there is haste there' s waste: lives, property, time, money,  The only winners are the lawyers, the politicians, and the media who don't have to work to hard because the sound bytes are easy to get.

[zugmann]

henry6

And if you were the engineer and I handed you they keys to then engine and said "go" and you blew up a mile down the track, how would you really feel and react?

If I was blown up, I don't think I'd feel anything.  Wouldn't be reacting anymore, either. 

[zugmann]

henry6

If you..the railroad...can't deal with how to and with customers, they should get out of the business and let someone who does want solutions and success ride the rails instead.

PS.  I am not the railroad.  I am not a spokesperson, nor do my views reflect those of any railroad.  I am just one person on the internet who may or may not be a railroader.  My opinion is mine alone. 

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

And this, which contradicts the opinion of some who have commented:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53954566/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/railcars-north-dakota-crude-train-crash-older-less-safe-investigators/#.UsxybfvcCN8

     According to this link, the American Association of Railroads, an industry trade group has been working on proposals to raise the standards on tank cars hauling hazardous goods.  It appears they passed a resolution in 2011 suggesting better construction, thicker walls, etc.  That leads me to believe the railroads have been proactively seeking ways to improve the situation for several years now.  By law, they are still being required to accept cars that don't meet the proposed standards- per the article.

[Murphy Siding]

henry6

And Schlimm's second link tells the story of the wrong tank cars.  This means someone was either misinformed or didn't give a damn....like Zug's example, or ship it before someone else does.  Maybe the railroad is more at fault than I've thought.  I don't know who owned the cars or who leased the cars for this traffic...but it sounds like there is more greed involved here.  And where there's greed, there's haste; and when there is haste there' s waste: lives, property, time, money,  The only winners are the lawyers, the politicians, and the media who don't have to work to hard because the sound bytes are easy to get.

   I'm not seeing that in the article.  Can you point that out for me please?

[schlimm]

Murphy Siding

By law, they are still being required to accept cars that don't meet the proposed standards- per the article.

It does not say that in the article.  And the requirement is a regulation as a common carrier, not a specific law.  The UP chlorine decision is raised repeatedly, as though that were binding now.   Different cargo, though both are hazardous.  And the DOT 111 cars have been labeled by the NTSB as unsafe for certain ladings for many years.  And what would be the consequence of refusal to accept DOT 111 cars loaded with Bakken?  Fines?  Or is the loss of revenue the driving force here, as Henry stated?

[edblysard]

Yes, I too would like to see which “wrong tank car” was chosen, and who chose it.

DOT111A tank cars are not illegal or forbidden.

Which tank car exactly is the “right” tank car?

And you would be so kind as to reply to my query of Jan 7 at 6:19?         

Schlimm…the AAR is a trade group and lobbying arm of the railroads, not a government entity, they can make suggestions, not law and or rules.

I fail to see where your second link contradicts anything anyone here has posted.

Your comment toward the first link is a little perplexing…Carl Ice is Matt Rose’s chosen successor, Rose has been grooming him for the job several years now.

Why would it be coincidental for the person he was grooming to take his place, to take his place?

Rose is on the way to bigger and better things.

 

How you are determining that the NTSBs recommendation that the DOT11A is unsuitable for certain products makes it illegal or forbidden to use the cars is beyond me.

The NTSB is an investigative branch, not a legislative branch of the government, until Congress passes a law making the use of DOT111As for crude illegal the cars meet the legal requirements.

Just because the NTSB says or published something does not make it true, or a law….the NTSB states that something like 35% of the bridges that make up the interstate highway are insufficient in both design, construction  and safety, but I still see them in use.

 

 

[CShaveRR]

Ed, perhaps the combination of fire and Ice was too much for some posters to resist.

One thing that I haven't seen addressed here (admittedly I haven't gone very far back) is that the Bakken crude is being discovered very recently (thanks to these incidents) as being not your ordinary crude oil.  It has approximately the same volatility as gasoline.  With Lac Megantic, they thought it might be a fluke, that the crude settled over the long trip and some volatile stuff came to the top.  But this Casselton wreck involved fairly freshly-loaded cars, and the same thing happened.  Still, the shippers are calling it crude oil, and trying to get it out before some sort of embargo occurs (don't know when or if that could happen).  There are smoking guns out there saying that the shippers know that this is a different animal, yet they're trying to say that it's just more crude oil.

So, conventional crude oil is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars.  Gasoline is shipped in DOT-111A tank cars.  There have been no problems because they haven't been shipped in trainload quantities until recently.  One car blowing up would possibly be newsworthy for a day or so, depending on the location.  But here you have something with the volatility of gasoline being shipped a hundred cars (give or take) at a time, and it seems like Armageddon, and the railroads are at fault (that's the perception, which I don't buy into).

Now, new tank cars to accommodate the crude business have been coming out by the thousands for the last couple of years or so.  I have yet to hear of a disaster involving those cars.  There are enough cars on order right now for the carbuilders to be kept busy for a year or more.  Between the crude itself and the frac sand, this has the potential to replace coal as a big revenue producer.

So, how do we handle the wait for the roper tank cars to be built to accommodate this stuff?  Carbuilders say that retrofitting existing cars is not the answer (they would...they want to fatten their order books!).  It can be done, and probably for a lot less expense than new cars, but anything older than the cars built for the ethanol boom are probably too old to justify it (and how's that ethanol thing going...enough surplus cars there yet?  Didn't think so...).  The shppers want more cars, but are telling the railroads that this is just crude oil.  They don't want to sit around waiting for the order backlog to be built sometime in 2015.  New pipelines?  Good luck with that...it would be even longer for them to be operational, even if they do get approval.

Bullets will have to be bitten somewhere.  The safest answer would be to invest in a lot of on-site refining capability, but that would take as long as any of the other options.  And Heaven forfend that the oil companies spend any of their profits on such things when they can earn more money shipping and exporting the oil.

Off my soapbox.  I may be full of it.  But think about who really might be to blame here, or how best to bide the time until viable solutions are available.

[edblysard]

henry6

ZUG...the answer is simple: if you want to refuse the load, there is no other railroad in town so that is not the answer.  And if you were the engineer and I handed you they keys to then engine and said "go" and you blew up a mile down the track, how would you really feel and react?  Up said no to chlorine but chlorine is not as sexy as mushroom clouds of flame and smoke.  Plus it's been years since that episode and the lawyers have had time to sharpen their claws, the insurance companies get heartburn faster and the investors are more worried about return on investment with no risks.  The whole world is different.  John Wayne Rah Rah Machismo is not considered smart these days when it comes to protecting money.  There are big fingers and many of them all pointed toward everybody else when it comes to determining blame while an umbrella of lies and deceptions deflect truth til all are caught.  I believe I am talking being practical here for all parties to deal with it.  If you..the railroad...can't deal with how to and with customers, they should get out of the business and let someone who does want solutions and success ride the rails instead.

So in essence, you are saying that laws you don’t agree with are laws that you should ignore and not obey.

In my experience, disobeying the law is not a path to any solution towards any problem, and in no way any measure of success.

By the way, there is a law that addresses any difference between what a car is placarded and what appears on the shipping papers.

The law requires the carrier to handle the car according to what the papers say.

[dehusman]

For those wanting to send the crude oil trains on a magical mystery tour across shortlines and branch lines, which of the following options has less risk:
1.  Run a train of heavy loads across a 315k lb axle load main track that has 136 lb CWR, is good for 70 mph, is inspected daily, has detector cars and track geometry cars across it 2-4 times a year, has CTC for broken rail protection, and automatic defect detectors every 20-25 miles.

2.  Run a train of heavy loads across a 263k lb axle load main track that has 115 lb jointed rails, is only good for 40 mph, is inspected maybe twice a week, has a detector car over it maybe once a year and a geometry car maybe once a decade, is not signalled and minimal if any defect detectors.

If you had to bet your family's life on that train not derailing once in a thousand trips, which option would you choose?

If you picked option 1 your family will be safe 99.99999% of the time.  If you picked 2 you don't understand what risk mitigation is.  (Bonus points if you remember that the biggest disaster that has happened with Bakken crude occurred on a short line not in a major city).

If you wanted to reduce risk would you rather have a train that is out moving on the rail system for 5 days and travels 1000 miles or a train that takes 10 days and travels 1500 miles?  Which option give you more exposure to something going wrong?

If you wanted to reduce risk would you set up a system that transfers or interchanges the risk between more or fewer management systems?  Which option give you more exposure to something going wrong?

[BaltACD]

dehusman

 

2.  Run a train of heavy loads across a 263k lb axle load main track that has 115 lb jointed rails, is only good for 40 mph, is inspected maybe twice a week, has a detector car over it maybe once a year and a geometry car maybe once a decade, is not signalled and minimal if any defect detectors.

 

FRA regulations require trains to pass a Defect Detector every 50 miles - Class 1 or Short line.  My carrier started out with Detectors placed approximately 25 miles apart (so a defective detector could be taken out of service awaiting repairs and the train still be OK with the 50 mile rule).  Subsequently a program has been undertaken to have Defect Detector spaced between 10 & 15 miles apart.  If the train does operate over 50 miles without passing a working detector, the train must be stopped and inspected by the crew.

[mudchicken]

(1) Most shortlines would die and go to heaven with 115# rail. Most are living off of service worn  85#-110# OH rail that has been cascaded down . (The folks with 110# rail are nervous as heck, wishing for either 90# or 112/115# that would be an improvement. Larger weight does not automatically imply better.) Good luck on finding OTM for that smaller stuff, especially angle bars, tie plates and anchors that hold)

(2) Some of those bi-weekly inspections can be suspect if the trackman doing the work is not properly trained. (then again, I've seen some scary bad UP, CSX, SP and BN people in the past)...Some shortline owners (fewer now than there used to be) are operating people with no clue what they are running on. As stated many times before, most state DOT's are clueless about railroads (rubber tired bubbas or political hacks only - no trained railroaders on staff)...Conversely, there are some shortlines out there, managed by old line track people, doing a masterful job of holding the plant together, training a new generation and improving the line on a shoestring budget.[my heros]

(3) Some shortline track structure was only 254K to start with, even though the bridges might have been 263K once upon a time.

[tree68]

henry6

Tree,  crude oil is different than other petroleum and chemicals and there is a difference between crude oils, too.  Bakken crude is in fact more flammable and volatile than others.

But is Bakken crude more volatile than anything else the railroads carry?  I seriously doubt it.  In fact, there are many more volatile and dangerous substances carried by the railroads on a daily basis, as Houston Ed has pointed out.  As I noted, ethanol is just as bad as Bakken crude, and is moving in greater quantities.

A trainload of any of dozens of chemicals wrecking a la Lac Megantic would make the loss of life that did occur there look trifling.  Nine people died at Graniteville - with only one chlorine car involved - and it didn't even release all of it's contents (60 of 90 tons).  

While the composition of any given grade of crude may be different, or has been suggested, may vary within it's grade, it's still just another flammable/combustible.  And just like any other hazardous substance, if the product stays in it's container, it's no more dangerous than any other substance being shipped by rail.

Bakken crude is the scary hazmat du jour.  

[zugmann]

tree68

Bakken crude is the scary hazmat du jour.  

I remember similar discussions when unit ethanol trains started running to the east coast.  Long trains of tank cars scare people.  

[schlimm]

edblysard

How you are determining that the NTSBs recommendation that the DOT11A is unsuitable for certain products makes it illegal or forbidden to use the cars is beyond me.

The NTSB is an investigative branch, not a legislative branch of the government, until Congress passes a law making the use of DOT111As for crude illegal the cars meet the legal requirements.

1.  I did not say the NTSB opinion makes it illegal.  Read more carefully before you try to claim someone said something.

2. The NTSB is part of the executive branch.  Its investigative findings influence other agencies within the DOT, such as the FRA, which makes the rules under the authority given it by Congress. Congress does not make regulatory rules as legislative bills. The FRA could ban the use of DOT 111 cars for Bakken crude if it saw fit. 

[BaltACD]

schlimm

edblysard

How you are determining that the NTSBs recommendation that the DOT11A is unsuitable for certain products makes it illegal or forbidden to use the cars is beyond me.

The NTSB is an investigative branch, not a legislative branch of the government, until Congress passes a law making the use of DOT111As for crude illegal the cars meet the legal requirements.

1.  I did not say the NTSB opinion makes it illegal.  Read more carefully before you try to claim someone said something.

2. The NTSB is part of the executive branch.  Its investigative findings influence other agencies within the DOT, such as the FRA, which makes the rules under the authority given it by Congress. Congress does not make regulatory rules as legislative bills. The FRA could ban the use of DOT 111 cars for Bakken crude if it saw fit. 

To date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status.

[henry6]

It doesn't matter whether Bakken Crude is more or less flammable than anything else the railroad carries. But it does matter that it is more flammable than any other crude railroads carry.  And it is a fact that the oil industry did not convey any information to railroads, pipelines, government agencies, and emergency and first responders.  This is all factual and not conjecture.   

[schlimm]

In 2009, a CN train derailed with a cargo of ethanol in DOT-111 tank cars, with considerable damage and one fatality.  All the tank cars suffered ruptured valves.  The NTSB recommendations are on pp 90-93.  It is still relevant and will undoubtably resurface, to get action finally taken.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/RAR1201.pdf

[schlimm]

BaltACD

To date the FRA has not seen fit to restrict the use of DOT 111 cars - so they are legal for the cargos they are hauling and for a carrier to refuse to accept the cars the carrier would be in violation of its common carrier status.

And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier?   Doubtful.   Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer.  The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve.   Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.

[zugmann]

schlimm

And if a railroad unilaterally refused, given the history and the two recent accidents involving Bakken, do you actually think the FRA would punish the carrier?   Doubtful.   Waiting years for new cars or retrofitted cars is unacceptable any longer.  The railroads would be wise to at least appear to be ahead of the curve.   Change is coming because the public is understandably losing confidence in safe transport of this cargo.

RR refuses oil.  Oil company complains to congress (esp. if election year).  Congress pressures FRA.  FRA pressures RR. 

[BaltACD]

What is it about Bakken Crude that makes it EXPLOSIVE and not just flammable as most other grades of crude.

We really need to understand more about this specific product than we currently know.  You can call it 'light & sweet' - but I don't see Saudi 'light & sweet' crude blowing up when it is involved in a accident.  Burning is one thing - exploding is another.

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

Murphy Siding

By law, they are still being required to accept cars that don't meet the proposed standards- per the article.

It does not say that in the article.  And the requirement is a regulation as a common carrier, not a specific law. 

  You are correct.  I misread that.