And the poor Beavers are now among the homeless.
Norm
Did the beavers have a permit to construct the dam? Was it constructed to the specifications (tailored to the location) for such a dam?
Johnny
schlimmIt has been and continues to be that some on these forums want to pretend the transportation of Bakken crude (and other hazmats) is no big deal, hope the subject is ignored by the media and the public and the governments.
It's not that Bakken crude isn't a big deal - it's just no bigger a deal than any other hazmat on the rails. And there's stuff that's far worse than crude riding the rails every day.
And it's not hoping that the media will ignore it, it's knowing that coverage of any given incident won't last longer than a news cycle or two.
Of course, that won't stop the media from bringing crude-by-rail into virtually any rail-based story, witness the derailment of three hoppers of coal in BC this past weekend: http://o.canada.com/news/b-c-train-derailment-throws-coal-dust-into-river-system/
Beavers got the blame for that one, but the story did manage to question whether CN was properly inspecting its rails...
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...
schlimm It has been and continues to be that some on these forums want to pretend the transportation of Bakken crude (and other hazmats) is no big deal, hope the subject is ignored by the media and the public and the governments.
Funny... I haven't seen that. So which people in which posts? Be specific.
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
Norm: I have no idea why you say that. It is the opposite of what I have been saying. I know that top rail management is very concerned and i have said so. I reposted the summary Paul North posted from the WSJ that mentioned the views of CEO's.. It has been and continues to be that some on these forums want to pretend the transportation of Bakken crude (and other hazmats) is no big deal, hope the subject is ignored by the media and the public and the governments.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm,
If you think upper management isn't concerned about safety you're delusional. Every hazmat incident cost the railroad big bucks, and potentially huge lawsuits. You are refusing to accept what those in the industry know as fact. Your adding ifs, ands, or buts doesn't change the equation one bit.
n012944 daveklepper It is the ability to meet Fred Frailey's suggestion of limiting hazmat train speeds to 40mph and insuring that all meets and bypasses have one of the two trains at rest that needs this approach. Why are we taking Fred Frailey's suggestions as gospel?
daveklepper It is the ability to meet Fred Frailey's suggestion of limiting hazmat train speeds to 40mph and insuring that all meets and bypasses have one of the two trains at rest that needs this approach.
It is the ability to meet Fred Frailey's suggestion of limiting hazmat train speeds to 40mph and insuring that all meets and bypasses have one of the two trains at rest that needs this approach.
Why are we taking Fred Frailey's suggestions as gospel?
When You say "hazmat trains," do you mean those that are Key trains (I assume that's where the proposed Key Transportation name comes from) or those that carry hazmat? They aren't always the same thing.
I'm guessing that it's assumed that Key trains are mostly unit trains of ethanol or crude oil, etc. I think there are probably as many, if not more, manifest trains than unit trains that meet the Key train definition. A key train can have as little as one or as many as twenty or more cars, depending on type of load, of hazmat cars. You could have a 19 car block of ethanol in a 100 car manifest and it's not a key train. Yet those cars 19 cars can cause big problems if they are involved in a derailment. So to be truly safe, you are going to have to include almost any train with a hazmat load.
So if we start restricting trains to 40 mph and/or positive meets where one must be stopped (I can almost read how law makers would word the restriction now, "When a train meets another train on an adjacent track that has loads classified as hazardous materials by the USDOT, both shall come to a full and complete stop and neither shall move until the other as departed.) It will impact more than just a few trains a day.
On the positive side, it will increase the number of train crew jobs to handle all the dog catching because the system becomes grid-locked.
Jeff
schlimmAs usual, tasteless as well as defensive. If you don't know why or what, find out and never use it again.
Yeah, yeah, yeah....nothing new from you. Whatever.
BaltACD The carriers (all of them) have been working with HAZMAT Shippers and Consignees for the past 40 years or more to come up with a 'final solution' to the safe carriage of HAZMAT commodities.
zugmann: Exactly. the goal post is always moving. There will NEVER be a final solution. Only a better one than the last.
As usual, tasteless as well as defensive. If you don't know why or what, find out and never use it again.
Murphy Siding ... Do YOU think that safety in the movement of hazmat materials has changed over the last 40 years?
...
Do YOU think that safety in the movement of hazmat materials has changed over the last 40 years?
The Hazardous Material Transportation Act came about in 1975 and continued bringing the separate modes of transportation together in standardizing hazard handling, worker training, and response procedures. Standardized emergency response guides were published and the first responders really grew in in their hazmet capabilities. 40+ years ago it seemed like once a week would see on the news, a huge field filled with drums of waste chemicals. It seems like you see a lot more tank cars today than 40 years ago.
n012944Please do tell, who has stated they don't think the higher ups are concered about safety issues?
I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head.
yes, please do tell.
schlimm Dave Klepper: Judging from their comments on the various threads, some forum members would prefer the issue to simply disappear from the media, as though that would solve the problem. They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue..
Dave Klepper: Judging from their comments on the various threads, some forum members would prefer the issue to simply disappear from the media, as though that would solve the problem. They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue..
schlimm They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues
They do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues
Please do tell, who has stated they don't think the higher ups are concered about safety issues?
An "expensive model collector"
And every year new 'HAZMAT' materials are created which generate new hazards to attempt to control. HAZMAT is the proverbial 'Wack a Mole' game, every time you think you have solved a issue - 10 more pop up.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe carriers (all of them) have been working with HAZMAT Shippers and Consignees for the past 40 years or more to come up with a 'final solution' to the safe carriage of HAZMAT commodities.
Exactly. the goal post is always moving. There will NEVER be a final solution. Only a better one than the last.
Dave,
You have not detailed what you are proposing and why it would be better than the current system. Until you do that no one can intelligently comment on your concept.
Mac
schlimm BaltACDNobody - Railroads, Shippers, Consignees, FRA can implement an action on their own - all must be involved! Regardless the public increasingly is demanding a solution NOT 40 years of what amounts to inaction. Additionally, the railroad execs ARE recognizing that the status quo endangers the future of the railroads: [from PDN] "There was an excellent article by a Betsy Morris starting on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (IIRC) of yesterday's (Thursday, 09 Jan. 2014) print edition of the Wall Street Journaltitled "Fiery Oil-Train Accidents Raise Railroad Insurance Worries", which also discussed haz-mat liability issues. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to be available on-line without being a subscriber. I thought it was pretty fairly balanced. It quoted Hunter Harrison quite a bit. One key point (pun not intended !) is that present insurance coverage is limited to about $1.5 Billion, but the "worst-case scenario" is much higher than that. However, higher insurance limits are said to be uneconomical as a practical matter.One CEO (Rose or Moorman) said that as a result, they are essentially risking bankrupting the company with each carload shipment of toxic haz-mats - a cold and sobering thought."
BaltACDNobody - Railroads, Shippers, Consignees, FRA can implement an action on their own - all must be involved!
Regardless the public increasingly is demanding a solution NOT 40 years of what amounts to inaction.
Additionally, the railroad execs ARE recognizing that the status quo endangers the future of the railroads:
[from PDN] "There was an excellent article by a Betsy Morris starting on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (IIRC) of yesterday's (Thursday, 09 Jan. 2014) print edition of the Wall Street Journaltitled "Fiery Oil-Train Accidents Raise Railroad Insurance Worries", which also discussed haz-mat liability issues. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to be available on-line without being a subscriber. I thought it was pretty fairly balanced. It quoted Hunter Harrison quite a bit. One key point (pun not intended !) is that present insurance coverage is limited to about $1.5 Billion, but the "worst-case scenario" is much higher than that. However, higher insurance limits are said to be uneconomical as a practical matter.One CEO (Rose or Moorman) said that as a result, they are essentially risking bankrupting the company with each carload shipment of toxic haz-mats - a cold and sobering thought."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimmAs I said, "They [forum members] do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue."
And if we don't know, imagine how it is for the general public...
And a problem, from the public's point of view, is that if something happens, being told that "we've been working on it" rather implies that it hasn't been worked on hard enough, because another [insert incident here] just happened, again.
We also have to deal with the Ford Pinto phenomenon - until the cure is less expensive than the disease, there's no reason to enact the cure.
Murphy SidingWho's to say that the railroads are not doing these things you mention, but that it's not apparent to folks bystanders on railroad message board forums? It would be pretty easy to sit back and scream that the railroads are sitting on their hands, when they should be doing something-anything!
As I said, "They [forum members] do not seem to realize that their railroads at the highest level of leadership, are very concerned about liability and safety issues and are looking for solutions beyond waiting years until sufficient replacement tank cars are delivered, even if that means losing some revenue."
The carriers (all of them) have been working with HAZMAT Shippers and Consignees for the past 40 years or more to come up with a 'final solution' to the safe carriage of HAZMAT commodities. The FRA enforces what is a 'safe' container for the various HAZMAT commodities - once the FRA specifies what the proper tank car (or other car) is for a particular commodity, the carriers must accept the commodity under their Common Carrier obligation.
What is safer - a 1000 mile route that goes through cities and towns or a 1500 mile route that goes through other cities and towns. HAZMAT doesn't originate from 'nowhere' and it is not destined to 'nowhere'; additionally it is among the life bloods that keep US Manufacturing running and people employed.
Nobody - Railroads, Shippers, Consignees, FRA can implement an action on their own - all must be involved!
schlimm Recognition of a problem is the first step in finding solutions. Pointing out the seriousness of a problem, i.e., criticism, to those in the field is what outsiders can do. It is not our responsibility to find a solution, but that does not negate the the validity of the criticism.
Recognition of a problem is the first step in finding solutions. Pointing out the seriousness of a problem, i.e., criticism, to those in the field is what outsiders can do. It is not our responsibility to find a solution, but that does not negate the the validity of the criticism.
If the railroads individually cannot refuse shipment of common carrier hazmat loads, and cannot charge more to cover possible liability, how will they collectively pay for slower transit on longer routes?
What's your solution?
Dan
I agree. And I really don't claim credit for the Key Transportatoin idea. What I tried to do was figure out how to implement Fred Frailey's suggested operating rules without gumming up capacity on major routes. It need not be a new corporation, although that would be best from cost allocation, liability, legal matters, and even relations with public officials. It could be one of the existing car leasing companies or an AAR bureau..
I had to think through the the NIMBY problem.
Say a small town now has only one Hazmat train going past each day. Say with Key Transportation handling all hazmat railroading, the number is doubled to two. Safety is still better, because Fred Frailey's rules reduce risk by more than half.
Uncle Jake: Hazmat trains are more of a problem than a source of revenue that needs competition. I pointed out there are pipelines and trucks and barges and for that matter air freight. You are raising an issure that has been answered in my opinion. Conrail Asssetts is a monopoliy in the area it serves, but no-one is complaining that CSX and NS should be running their own trains over the tracks with Conrail only providing the tracks. Problems are best solved by cooperation, not competition. If you read scientific journals you will find that laboratories working in any specific field do not keep secrets from each other but work together to advance science.
Then there are the examples of Pullman and AT&T.
It is the ability to meet Fred Frailey's suggestion of limiting hazmat train speeds to 40mph and insuring that all meets and bypasses have one of the two trains at rest that needs this approach. You cannot meet Fred's requirements on something like the BNSF Transcon or the UP Cheyenne-Green River without gumming up the traffic and/or considerably reducing capacity. Obviously, rerouting from population centers has to be done with care. I do not forsee a huge increase in the number of trains; a typical "safe" line might go from 10 to 12. I don't think there will be objections, and the new company will keep a pretty low profile.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.