dakotafredTree68 is whistling in the wind if he thinks the anti-fossil fuel crowd won't be all over this one. It's better than even the horrific Lac Megantic, because it happened at home. They jump up and down when a pipeline in N.D. leaks a few hundred gallons; what do you think they'll do with Casselton?
Special interest crowds will be all over anything that fits their agendas. That's nothing new. But when was the last time Lac Magantic was even mentioned on any national news that the general public actually pays attention to?
This will be long forgotten by 99.9999% of the population by tomorrow.
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
I just heard that the oil train struck some derailed cars of another train on the adjacent track. However, there remains reports of Bakken oil being more volatile and flammable than regular oil and that the oil companies are shipping anyway. Fire companies have been contacted along the routes about the flammability of the oil should there be a derailment. As I said earlier, gasoline, jet fuel, etc., have all been carried by rail for over one hundred years. Safely. Where I will change my message is that knowing how volatile this new Bakken oil is, railroads will have to step up their vigil and rules in moving it, even requiring more help from the oil companies than just pamphlets to the nearby firehouses.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Norm48327 I'm going to take a different approach. I don't see a problem with oil by rail, but specifically, a problem that needs to be resolved with the Bakken crude before shipment. The highly volatile compounds are the guilty culprit and need to be removed prior to shipping. That's going to require some processing to remove those compounds and provide different (safer) transport. The shippers can't keep handing the railroads crude that is bound to explode with the slightest provocation.
I'm going to take a different approach. I don't see a problem with oil by rail, but specifically, a problem that needs to be resolved with the Bakken crude before shipment. The highly volatile compounds are the guilty culprit and need to be removed prior to shipping. That's going to require some processing to remove those compounds and provide different (safer) transport. The shippers can't keep handing the railroads crude that is bound to explode with the slightest provocation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It was in this morning's news on National Public Radio, so appears to still be "in the news".
BTW I believe they said the overnight low there was -30F, current temp (9:20 a.m.) is -18F.
First we don't know what caused this accident yet..so let's wait on that call. But secondly, there was talk that the gas/oil companies have not been up front about the volatility of the Bakken oil, have often over filled the tank cars, and have mixed other volatile liquids into the shipments: hey, it's not their railroads. Oil and gas and gasoline have been safely shipped by rail (and highway) for well over a 100 years with very few problems. Railroads today know they cannot make money on slow and bad order tracks or when the lines are closed due to derailments. So, we must look more closely at the energy industry for causes and solutions to the likes of Lac Magentac and Fargo.
Norm
I happened to be flipping TV channels when the network talk shows started this morning. At least two of them led with video of the North Dakota mini-mushroom clouds. Just as Chatsworth caused the government to demand the adoption of a technology only partially invented on an improbable schedule, these wrecks have a great potential for causing a quick and dirty "solution" by legislative fiat.
Whatever else you think about oil on the rails, you gotta admit it makes for one heck of a fireball!
Tree68 is whistling in the wind if he thinks the anti-fossil fuel crowd won't be all over this one. It's better than even the horrific Lac Megantic, because it happened at home. They jump up and down when a pipeline in N.D. leaks a few hundred gallons; what do you think they'll do with Casselton?
One non-hysterical way to look at the big-headline oil-by-rail accidents we have seen so far:
Lac Megantic was apparently caused by an inexcusably careless and stupid operating practice: leaving a potential bomb parked unattended, on a grade, with live locomotives. Presumably, the practice outlawed, this kind of accident won't happen again.
Casselton happened because of a mechanical failure about which -- Washington take note -- Positive Train Control would have done nothing. Mechanical failure is a transportation fact of life with which we will have to live -- in the air, on water, highway and rail -- even after all operation has been automated.
We have said that tank cars will be made more secure -- not perfectly secure -- in the future. The question will be whether we are grownup enough to live with another of life's many remote hazards in the meantime.
Lac Megantic
Aliceville
Casselton
...
A clear pattern has emerged:
Consider the words of a respected analyst, shedding light on a notable techn-managerial failure:
Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Volume 2:
Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle
by R. P. Feynman
Conclusions
If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent (it is difficult to be more accurate).
Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers.
In any event this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner. The astronauts, like test pilots, should know their risks, and we honor them for their courage. Who can doubt that McAuliffe was equally a person of great courage, who was closer to an awareness of the true risk than NASA management would have us believe?
[F5] Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
tree68Except for local coverage (which will continue for the duration), this will be a non-story for most of the nation before the ball drops in Times Square.
And why should you be glad of that? Do you think the AAR is anti DOT-111 tankcars? They certainly regard their use for hauling certain flammables (such as the bakken crude) as dangerous unless modified.
schlimmLast anyone heard, the AAR is neither an "enviro" group nor an "anti-DOT111" group"
As Narig pointed out about Aliceville, and someone else mentioned about other coverage (or lack thereof), unless someone (the enviros or the anti-DOT111 folks, f'rinstance) uses this as a rallying point, it'll be out of the news within a day or so.
The reference to AAR in the story merely points out that they have taken issue with the cars - which we knew. It's background information, and we should be glad that someone did some research for their story.
Except for local coverage (which will continue for the duration), this will be a non-story for most of the nation before the ball drops in Times Square.
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...
Video of the fire and smoke made the NBC "Nightly news" on the west coast.
Grinnell
tree68 Flyover country. If it weren't for the movie, most people would have never heard of Fargo. Unless the enviro or anti-DOT111 folks go after it, this won't last one news cycle, other than locally and in the rail press.
Flyover country. If it weren't for the movie, most people would have never heard of Fargo.
Unless the enviro or anti-DOT111 folks go after it, this won't last one news cycle, other than locally and in the rail press.
Contrast the above with this quote from the Yahoo article:
"The Association of American Railroads recently proposed costly fixes to older tank cars that do not meet its latest standards but continue to carry hazardous fuels such as oil."
Last anyone heard, the AAR is neither an "enviro" group nor an "anti-DOT111" group"
NorthWest Reports of head end locomotives being involved in fireball-I think that is the DPU in the pics-any word on the crews? They seem to be ignored in news reports! Hope they are okay!
Reports of head end locomotives being involved in fireball-I think that is the DPU in the pics-any word on the crews? They seem to be ignored in news reports! Hope they are okay!
According to Business Insider, no injuries to crew or anyone else has been reported. Good news if it stays that way.
I trust the railroads...its their business, their property, their people. Its the oil companies I don't trust.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-trains-collide-north-dakota-one-them-carrying-215524489--finance.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
WHAT is going on? I didn't think crude oil would go up like that.
Looked like a mini-Hiroshima.
Local info and photos ...
http://www.inforum.com/
Newswire with more details.
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/12/BNSF%20oil%20train%20derails%20explodes%20in%20North%20Dakota.aspx
jclass article activated: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-northdakota-collision-idUSBRE9BT0OV20131230
Two trains were involved. There was a derailment and then another train ran into it, possibly on an adjacent track. Casselton was the place, but it was out of town and so there were no city injuries.
Here is from the Fargo Forum
It is out of the radio news cycle already.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Please, keep us updated!
This has occurred in just the last hour so few details are known. http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/24329396/train-derailment-west-of-casselton
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.