People proposing solutions like there is only one HAZMAT train operating on a line segment. First off, almost all Merchandise trains contain some HAZMAT, but not in a high enough quantity to be considered a Key Train. Outside of designated Ethanol and Crude Oil trains, most main lines will have more than one Key Train, merchandise trains that have a number of HAZMAT shipments above the lower limit for what defines a Key Train (yesterday my territory had 3 sections of one train ID that were all Key Trains).
A number of years ago a city on my territory wanted to be notified 'whenever' a HAZMAT was either destined to terminate in the city or pass through the city. The company complied with their wishes, after a week of several hundred notifications a day, the city decided it didn't really want to know as they had no manpower to process the information. There is a lot of HAZMAT moving today and there will be more moving tomorrow; not only on the rails but on the highways, waterways and pipelines. Today world is run on the back of HAZMAT in myriad of manufacturing processes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmann So we have an oil train and a general slop train going pass each other on a 2% continuous grade. Who do we stop? The slop train with a kicker going downhill, or the oil train with the engine that isn't loading right and probably won't be able to start again?
So we have an oil train and a general slop train going pass each other on a 2% continuous grade. Who do we stop? The slop train with a kicker going downhill, or the oil train with the engine that isn't loading right and probably won't be able to start again?
Dave, where does Zugmann say the oil train only has one engine? He just says one engine isn't working properly and if it stops, good luck starting again. There are places where maxed out trains can have problems starting with all engines working properly.
Zug, I think you should stop the junk train with the dynamiter and go for the two-fer. When it goes into emergency, the slack comes in and pops a car off, blocking the other track. That means the oil train has to stop also.
Although I suppose there's better chance of media coverage if we stop the oil train. That way when the junk train sets air because dynamics aren't enough, the dynamiter could pop that car into the oil train.
Jeff
On the Moffat in particular, D&RGW NEVER deliberately maxed trains out, and I presume UP adheres to that rule today. This included coal trains off the Craig branch. There was always enough power to insure reliable operation under adverse cicumstances, and in the end this means that if all goes well better utilization of equipment and crews are the results.
I again make analogy to how Pullman handled first-class passengers. Not all Pullman passsengers rode all-Pullman trains. But still uniform and good standards were observed, regardless of what comfort standards the coach passengers faced. I am proposing the same kind of thinking now be applied to SAFETY regarding hazmat shipments.
And meets between a stopped train and a moving train do reduce chances for a problem to develope by more than 50% as compared to meets between two moving trains. The danger in the second case may be infinitessemal,, but lets make it infinitessimally-infinitessimal.
daveklepper And meets between a stopped train and a moving train do reduce chances for a problem to develope by more than 50% as compared to meets between two moving trains. The danger in the second case may be infinitessemal,, but lets make it infinitessimally-infinitessimal.
You could just stop running trains completely, that would reduce danger by 100%.
An "expensive model collector"
A crude oil train meets an ethanol train, and both stop?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I don't know how much of an issue that this really is, but I can't see running a solid HAZMAT train on the Moffat Route because of a certain five-mile long tunnel on that route.
CSSHEGEWISCH I don't know how much of an issue that this really is, but I can't see running a solid HAZMAT train on the Moffat Route because of a certain five-mile long tunnel on that route.
Murphy Siding A crude oil train meets an ethanol train, and both stop?
And neither can move until the other has departed.
Norm
Again, it is Fred Frailey'ss idea, and I think it is a good one. The tunnel is single track. Indeed, the whole route is single track but with decently long passing sidings. Fred has not mandated that the hazmat train stop or the train it is passing stop, just one of the two. This provides the great risk reduction. Two hazmat trains meet, and one stops while the other roles by. You have a problem with that?
The nature of the track construction in the Moffat Tunal today is such that a derailment inside the tunnel is very very unlikely. Also, it is of concrete, not wood construction. It is a very safe tunnel for handliing hazmat trains.
Fred may write for a railfan magazine, but TRAINS is respected as serious stuff, and Fred has had hands-on experience.
At one time rail handled a lot of money and secuirties. Now all of it is on Brinks trucks. Key Transportation (or whatever the seven decide to call it) should have the same reputation for safety that Brinks has for security and Pullman had for comfort and service.
daveklepper Fred may write for a railfan magazine, but TRAINS is respected as serious stuff, and Fred has had hands-on experience.
LOL.
I guess using that logic every writer for Sports Illustrated that covers football can start writing plays for his/her favorite team. Even more so if they once played peewee football. After all, SI is a respected magazine, and they would have hands-on experience playing the game in their youth......
Also, in my years railroading I have never seen a copy of Trains in any office. Railway Age and Progressive Railroading are the ones I have seen most often. THOSE are the magazines that are respected as "serious stuff" in the industry.
I respect your opinion. However, I simply argue the case on its merits and not on personalities. If the idea appeals to one important railroad executive, and I am reasonably certain some DO read Trains, then it may be presented to all seven Class I's and may have a chance for implementation. Or it may suggest allternative approaches. It is simply meant as a contribution. I have read all the objections to the idea and I to me my answers are satisfactory. Differences of opinion make the Forum worthwhile and I don't deny anyone's right to disagree witih me.
From my inbox ( I recommend subscribing to this blog) :
________________________________________________________________
Could New Tank Car Rules Derail the Bakken Crude Boom? | RBN Energy
https://rbnenergy.com/could-new-tank-car-rules-derail-the-bakken-crude-boom
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
zugmann From my inbox ( I recommend subscribing to this blog) : ________________________________________________________________ Could New Tank Car Rules Derail the Bakken Crude Boom? | RBN Energy https://rbnenergy.com/could-new-tank-car-rules-derail-the-bakken-crude-boom
mudchicken CSSHEGEWISCH I don't know how much of an issue that this really is, but I can't see running a solid HAZMAT train on the Moffat Route because of a certain five-mile long tunnel on that route. They run-em (carefully).....As much as DRGW UP and BNSF were obsessive about their power, there are always the BN and SP camps out there running clapped-out junk.
I think the SP camp is winning.
What about the swimsuit issue?
Ya think they need someone to get hands on experience and then report on it?
I volunteer, just to keep Zug out of trouble!
23 17 46 11
edblysard What about the swimsuit issue? Ya think they need someone to get hands on experience and then report on it? I volunteer, just to keep Zug out of trouble!
That's good. I think you'd look better in a swimsuit than I.
A better answer to maxed train issue:
I think Fred would agree that two trains passing each other at restricted speed, the usual stop and proceed speed, would be as safe as one fully stopped and the other at 30 or 40 mph. Apologize for not posting this answer first!
I dunno. If railroads are going to be incurring higher costs to carry loads that they can't charge more for, eventually they will end up like a situation they had with passenger trains. Why not just skip the middle part, and jump right to forming a government agency to should the cost? Amhazard? I wonder what their logo would look like?
If I remember correctly, about 2 months after the 9/11 attacks, a bill was proposed to have all hazmat shipments be accompanied by guards, all hazmat would be required to travel in special trains that would be routed around all cities and towns, and all manufacturing facilities that both manufactory and use these chemicals would be required to build “buffer zones” around their facilities.
The AAR, and a fairly wise Senator managed to get it killed before it even got to a initial vote.
A month or two after Graniteville , another proposal was introduced, banning transportation of certain hazmat, chlorine being high on the list, from being transported through Washington DC…as an afterthought, the bill’s sponsor included most other cities and towns.
It was also proposed, again, this stuff be consolidated into separate trains, run on specific routes, so forth and so on.
The major shippers groups objected, claiming they would be forced to use a monopoly, pay higher rates, end up with unpredictable delivery times, at one point, (again a major manufactures group) stated that if this bill passed, most users of these chemicals would go out of business, shutting down the economy.
I applaud Dave for thinking out of the box, (or tank as it may be) as his proposal is based on rational thinking, as opposed to the panic/moral outrage knee jerk reactions most prevalent.
I would like to point out that the same major objections will be applied again, plus some views of my own.
First, while the majority of railroad tracks appear to run through unpopulated areas, the truth is they originate and terminate in population centers; most of the users of hazmat and the manufactures of this stuff are located in populated areas, often densely populated areas in fact.
I live and work in the fourth largest city in the US, Houston, which also happens to be home to the two largest oil refineries in the US, Shell Deer Park and ExxonMobil,(formerly Standard Oil) in Baytown.
If you Goggle say, Deer Park Tx, or LaPort, Jacinto City or Houston, and zoom in on the ship channel area, you will see huge chemical plant complexes, several chemical storage and trans loading facilities all along the channel, with these cities surrounding them, all inside Harris County, home to 6.5 million people.
Houston alone has 3.1 million people inside the city limits, and you can’t get a train into or out of the ship channel area without going through Houston.
These plants built along the channel for two reasons, one, Houston was already a major rail hub, shipping most of the cotton crop in Texas out by both ship and train, and of course the ship channel allowed the plants both rail and ocean born transportation.
As a matter of course, the people who worked in these plants built homes in the small cities nearby, to be close to where they work.
Over the following century, the population has grown to the point there is no land left for these cities to even expand.
I would expect the same thing happens everywhere…a plant that either uses or makes this stuff, including crude oil, builds on a major rail line for the same basic reason, affordable mass shipping, and I would bet their employees have built homes nearby.
That’s one of the major functions of railroads, moving big loads of stuff to where the people are who use it or carrying away the stuff they manufacture.
Either way, it will have to go through a major population center, be it the origination point or the destination point.
If your city purifies its drinking water, you will have chlorine traveling through your city…and if there is a rail line near, the water plant will be on or near it.
Odds are, if there is no rail, it can travel by truck, or your city/town buys its water from a nearby city that does have rail access.
Again, if such a carrier group was formed, shipper will again object, claiming the forced routing amounts to a monopoly of sorts, and claiming higher shipping fees, which they will face because the circuitous route that will result will have many more miles, which translates to higher shipping fees.
I would venture that, outside of the rail fan community, most folks have no clue how much of this stuff travels by rail, in fact, I doubt they have an inkling of the sheer volume of hazardous materials traveling both the rails and the roads.
If you have any plastic products in your home, from a water bottle to a shopping bag to the lamp shade, crude oil was involved in its manufacturing, and odds are that crude traveled by rail through a city or town.
Same with chlorine, every time you turn on your tap water, you used chlorine that traveled by rail, in quantities that would stagger the imagination.
You may think about this also, if you aggregated just these two materials, chlorine and crude oil, and tried to ship all of it on one or two routes, you couldn’t do so, simply because you would have a solid series of back to back massive trains running 24/7 just to keep pace with current consumption…you simply don’t have the real estate in ROW or in yards to accomplish this.
I have no objections to your objections, and Pulllman did not make any attempt to concentrate 1st Class business on just a few routes. My effort, again, was to enable Fred's operating practices to have some iimplementation and not mess up operations. I beleive it is more important to reroute hazmat trains off very dense corridors that rerouting them from major poppulation centers. Then, more careful operation of these trains, and Fred's suggestion may or may not be the right approach to more careful operation, will be achievable. I don't imagine that the railroads will want to actually drive the business away. Sure shippers can complain about monopoly and any rate increase, but the Government, in all its forms, is likely to be more sensible if the railroads have a sensible overall plan.
I am going to assume that under the "Key Transportation" concept being sliced and diced in this thread, any shipper of hazmat would go to that firm, rather than the underlying railroads, to get a rate and a routing. Since "Key Transportation" would not have any competition in such an arrangement, this could easily be construed either as price-fixing by the underlying roads or a combination in restraint of trade. At the very least, it would provide ammunition for various groups pushing for re-reg or open access.
From the railroad perspective
'Key Transportation' could charge and remit to the railraods a mileage rate based on the lowest rated commodity that the railroads handle - IF
and it is a big IF 'Key Transportation' assumes ALL liability in case of ANY accidents.
And just how often have you heard Brinks accused of price-fixing even though they clearly have a monopoly\? You are raising a red herring. What Key Transportation would do in every case that is reasonable is offer two or even three possible routings, with departure cut-offs and arrivals appropriatly scaled to price. In many cases there would only be one choice, just as currently many shippers have onlly one choice and cannot raise the monopoly issue except by clamoring for reciprocal switching. Which has not and probably will not happen. You have raised a "red herring" in my opinion, but you have company.
My professional background has apparently been discussed on ths Forum, and I wish to answer publicly, rather than by private communication. My professional career, 1957 - 1996 in the USA, with work in Canada, South Africa, and Israel as well, was almost entirely in architectural acoustics, that is sound isolation, noise control, sound amplification systems, and room acoustics. This included theatres, concert halls, and lots of churches and synagogues. Also on-board work for Pullman's Boston Red Line silver cars, station work for the LIRR and PATH.. and the sound system for LIRR's West Side Storage Yard, which will certainly be replaced as it is not suitable for a covered yard, under the new redevelopment program. However, in 1949 I went to MIT to be a railway electrfication engineer. I did take Professor Ballsbaugh's Transportation Planning course, had part-time jobs as a truck dispatcher for an ice-cream company and as a transformer designer. I also took music courses. Summer of 1951 was spent at ROTC summer camp at Fort Monmouth, and summer of 1952 at EMD in LaGrange where I designed the automatic transition system for FTs, successfully applied by the B&O, as well as dong a lot of routing testing or relays and other accessory equipment. My Science Bacholor's Thesis was on diesel locomotive load-regulator controls, and the main result was the conclusion that a jerk-free start with maximum acceleration could be obrained by dividing the power avialable from the diesel half to accelerate the diesel and half to accelerate the train, when moving directly from idle to run-8. Old heads who noticed an improvement in this area on the GP-9 (and possiblly the F-9) as compared with the GP-7 may wish to comment. Also, fewer parts! I was an unpaid employee of the B&M during this work. But I wanted to make my hi-fi sound better, took the basic acoustics and electro-acoustics courses, was part-time emplyed at the MIT Acoustics Lab., became hooked. My Army career, 1955-1957, was as Assistant Audio-Radio Member of the PsyWar board at Fort Bragg, and that headed me into my professional career, with a Science Masters Thesis, "A Binaural Recording System for Concert Hall Evaluation." In addition to serving as a prototype for several commecial dummy-head systems, it switched allignment of multi-channel magnetic tape recordings from trying to maximize signal strength to minimizing phase-shift between channels. During the time I had an active acoustical consulting career in the USA, I also helped Don Engle with the Shore Line Trolley Museum's substation and specified the emergency generator for the Kiryat Shemona City Hall in Israel. I should note that MIT does wish to give its graduates the tools for problem solving in general.
I added to Fred's recommendations by the idea that a Hazmat and a regular train could pass each other at restricted speed, and even two Hazmat trains at restricted speed. Further: Did not Conrail set up directional running in certain cases where they had parallel lines, and was not this lost in the division between NS and CSX? Would it not make sense for these two railroads to get together and both become both safer and more efficient by restoring this practice? Are there places where this can be done by BNSF and UP? By KCS and UP? CN and CP to so in the far west, what about elsewhere?.
daveklepper And just how often have you heard Brinks accused of price-fixing even though they clearly have a monopoly\? You are raising a red herring. What Key Transportation would do in every case that is reasonable is offer two or even three possible routings, with departure cut-offs and arrivals appropriatly scaled to price. In many cases there would only be one choice, just as currently many shippers have onlly one choice and cannot raise the monopoly issue except by clamoring for reciprocal switching. Which has not and probably will not happen. You have raised a "red herring" in my opinion, but you have company.
Dave,
Anti-trust would certainly be an issue under your proposal. Here is a bit of history that is a very summary explanation of an arcane subject.
One of the things the anti trust laws are intended to prevent is sellers getting together and agreeing on a price.The law calls it collusion.
Even before the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the railroads repeatedly attempted to agree on specific rates. The mechanisms were typically pools and traffic associations. Since someone was always building a new line, or trying to get more than his share of this or that pool, rates where often unstable. The instability was a problem for both the carriers and their customers.
A key provision of the ICA of 1887 was that the carriers publish their rates. What happened? The pools and traffic associations were transformed into rate bureaus. The rate bureaus published uniform rates on behalf of their carrier members. The "Trunk Lines" that is NYC, PRR, Erie and B&O, for example all had equal rates between Chicago and New York City.
The carriers sat down and decided what the rates would be, the rate bureau, acting as agents for the carriers published the tarriff, the carriers adopted the tariff, the ICC smiled, and the law was complied with. Of course the carriers colluded but the rates were published. They were uniform as between carriers and they were stable.
The anti trust probition came along 10 years or so later, but the railroads and the ICC continued as they had despite the fact that rate agreements were found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act in 1897. In 1948 Congress passed the Reed-Bulwinkle Act, which specifically legalized rate bureaus and their process.
The Stagers Act of 1980 eliminated the explicit anti trust protection of the Reed Bulwinkle Act. I have personal knowledge of conversations where railroaders with much more knowledge than I possesed express great concern about joint rate making without anti trust protection. As a practical, matter due to some combination of shielding by the ICC and the reduction of the number of carriers from hundreds to less than a dozen, anti trust has not been a big problem for the carriers post Staggers. I believe the rate bureaus have disappeared however.
As you proposed it, Keystone would have pricing authority and would bill and collect freight revenues from the customers. That makes it a rail monopoly and a prime target for trust busters in the Injustice Department. Absent an Act of Congress Keystone has anti trust problems. If you were Matt Rose would you trust Obama's minnions not to come after you even if they promissed they would not?
Mac
THE LEGAL PEOPLE OF THE RAILROADS WILL FIGURE THE RIGHT WAY AROUND THIS ISSUE. ONE POSSIBILITY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE A SURCHARGE ON A REGULAR FREIGH BILL TO HAVE HAZMAT HANDLED BY KEY TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REGULAR FREIGHT WITH SHIPPER ASSUMING TOTAL LIABILITY. PULLMAN WAS NEVER CHALLANGED ON TOTAL CONTROL OF SLEEPING CAR SERVICE, ONLY ON TIEING MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE. AGAIN, LOOK AT BRINKSÖ±
Pullman WAS busted up because the anti trusters decided that building AND operating sleeping cars was illegal. That made no legal or economic sense but is what happened.
Brinks has two or three competitors so it is clearly not a monopoly, unless the Injustice Department decides it is. Irrelevant on its face.
Dave, interesting read.
So you have a well-rounded work experience, but it sounds like your passion is, well, sound.
The digital revolution should have you in hog heaven as it were!
I DO ENJOY MY DIVS AND CDS AND ALSO STREAMING OCCASIONALLY
PARDON THE CAPS BUT THIS MORNING MY OLDER COMPUTER SEEMS RELUCTANT TO LEAVE THE HEBREW MODE FOR ENGLISH AND CAPS INSURES ENGLISH.
A PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED, AND ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION MIGHT BE
THE RELATIONSHIIP BETWEEN RAILROAD AND SHIPPER IS NOT CHANGED. THE RAILROAD CONTINUES THE PRESENT RATE SCHEME ONLY IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES A CAR THAT MEETS ALL THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE SHIPPER PROVIDES AND CAR OR USES A CAR FROM THE RAILROAD THAT HAS NOT MET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE KEY TRANSPORTATION SURCHARGE APPLIES. THE CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE IS BASED ON TRANSPARENT, OPEN-TO-THE-PUBLIC-INSPECTION, OF THE ADDITIONAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE REROUTS AND RESTRICTED SPEEDS OF KEY TRANSPORTATION HANDLING, AND THIS HANDLING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CARS THAT DO NOT MEET THE LATEST SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. IF THE CAR DOES MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND GOES AT THE RAILROAD-ONLY RATE, IT IS UP TO THE RAILROADS INVOLVED AS TO WHETHER IT MOVES IN A CONVENTIONAL TRAIN OR A KEY TRANSPORTATION TRAIN. KEY TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BASIC RAILROAD RATES. ONLY THE SURCHARGES.
Thanks for the explanation, Dave. We now know that you are not shouting.
I do not think that your Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet would be translated to the forums; I have tried using Greek (WordPerfect has both, and one or two other non-Roman alphabets), and Greek does not come out. Bad, bad forum design.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.