I wonder if all this negative publicity will end up getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
GP-9_Man11786 I wonder if all this negative publicity will end up getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved.
Which makes one wonder if maybe there isn't someone behind this report, pushing an agenda.
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...
Direct link to the FRA Report for which the article is based:
James
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite
Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So obviously the answer is cars that would be more secure. That ain't gonna happen overnight and the cost of retrofitting cars may not be practical as many of them may be nearing the end of their service life.
Norm
With few exceptions, the rail industry does not own the cars. And they have shown a lot of concern about carrying hazmat. I don't see how you can say that they resist retrofits. If anyone is to blame, it is the petroleum and chemical industry and, perhaps, the leasing companies.
John Timm
schlimm http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits.
The rail industry is not resisting retrofits!
The car owners (who are really financial types - not railroaders) are the ones resisting retrofitting the cars.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yet another oil train thread by Schlimm.
Sigh.
So Schlimm - what do we do next? What should the railroads do, the shippers do, the governments do?
What should they do right now to satisfy you?
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 So Schlimm - what do we do next? What should the railroads do, the shippers do, the governments do? What should they do right now to satisfy you?
You really don't get it, do you?
It's not about me, what I want , satisfying me. And it isn't about you. It's about doing all that can be done to minimize the probability that the next accident isn't 40 tank cars overfilled with Bakken crude exploding in a metro area. It's what the public wants.
Schlimm,
I want your opinion.
What do you ( a member of the public) think should be done (since you are well-read in the subject, judging from your posts).
I will answer as i wish, not as you rudely demand. I am not a technical expert. So I do not have a solution and neither do you, since you are not a technical expert either. One thing seems clear. There is a danger which has been known about the DOT 111 cars for 30 years. There has been a lot of buck-passing (RRs, leasing companies, handling shippers, oil companies, AAR, NTSB, FRA, PHMSA) and there is a lot of money involved since Bakken took off four years ago. Too bad the various industries didn't do something earlier, but that would have cut short the 40 year life of the tank cars in question. Some have said it will take 5-10 years to replace the DOT 111's, which coincidentally (?) would correspond with their normal retirement time. All the regulatory agencies, rails and oil-related companies need to sit down quickly in the DOT and arrive at a series of measures to address the problem
Dave Klepper (a retired industrial engineer) offered a suggestion based on Fred Frailey's column. Both he and Frailey were dismissed as outsiders. At least one rail CEO sees this as a crisis. But it is apparent that many on this forum to see this is a tempest in a teapot and hope it just goes away in the short news cycles. Maybe it will. Maybe not. I believe the public is tired of excuses and stalling, because it is pretty clear that has been happening for many years already.
schlimm I will answer as i wish, not as you rudely demand. I am not a technical expert. So I do not have a solution and neither do you, since you are not a technical expert either. One thing seems clear. There is a danger which has been known about the DOT 111 cars for 30 years. There has been a lot of buck-passing (RRs, leasing companies, handling shippers, oil companies, AAR, NTSB, FRA, PHMSA) and there is a lot of money involved since Bakken took off four years ago. Too bad the various industries didn't do something earlier, but that would have cut short the 40 year life of the tank cars in question. Some have said it will take 5-10 years to replace the DOT 111's, which coincidentally (?) would correspond with their normal retirement time. All the regulatory agencies, rails and oil-related companies need to sit down quickly in the DOT and arrive at a series of measures to address the problem Dave Klepper (a retired industrial engineer) offered a suggestion based on Fred Frailey's column. Both he and Frailey were dismissed as outsiders. At least one rail CEO sees this as a crisis. But it is apparent that many on this forum to see this is a tempest in a teapot and hope it just goes away in the short news cycles. Maybe it will. Maybe not. I believe the public is tired of excuses and stalling, because it is pretty clear that has been happening for many years already.
So basically, you don't have even the slightest suggestion?
Interesting.
Sorry if I came off as rude.
Nah... I'm not really sorry, to be honest.
But my opinion or yours isn't worth donkey spit because we aren't technical engineers, but yet Frailey's is, even though he isn't a technical engineer either? Did I miss something?
schlimm I believe the public is tired of excuses and stalling, because it is pretty clear that has been happening for many years already.
I believe the public is tired of excuses and stalling, because it is pretty clear that has been happening for many years already.
Other than the Lac Megantic accident I don't believe there has been any major outcry from the general public regarding this. Sure the sensationalism media is playing it up, but I've not heard a single soul in my neighborhood even raise the matter.
schlimm zugmann So Schlimm - what do we do next? What should the railroads do, the shippers do, the governments do? What should they do right now to satisfy you? You really don't get it, do you? It's not about me, what I want , satisfying me. And it isn't about you. It's about doing all that can be done to minimize the probability that the next accident isn't 40 tank cars overfilled with Bakken crude exploding in a metro area. It's what the public wants.
Our modern society entails risks. There's no way around that. What the public wants is something that doesn't exist. Namely all the modern gadgets and conveniences with no risks and no pollution of any kind. I'm not saying things can't be made safer, but the goal advertised to the public by those with their own agendas (and everyone on every side of any issue has their own agenda) often are unrealistic and unachievable. That is unless everyone is willing to give up much of their modern lifestyles. That last part is never told to the public. Probably because those pushing the agendas know the public wouldn't be as willing to follow then.
No new design of construction or upgrade for existing tank cars will be ever be good enough for some. They will say they are still dangerous and liable to leak or burn or whatever. And because nothing that man builds can be made perfect, eventually a new safer tank car will be involved in a derailment and something bad will happen. But then I think the real goal for many isn't so much a safer way to transport petroleum products, but the abandonment of petroleum and all other fossil fuels. They just use the excuse of the former to try to sell the latter.
Jeff
schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits.
\ And the rail industry resists retrofits.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002
An "expensive model collector"
While I would agree that there are some who would like to see a movement away from fossil/carbon-based fuels (and that is a significant issue), to attempt to create a straw man argument in regard to a specific issue of reasonable attention to safety is invalid. The suggestion that this is about trying to achieve some impossible level of perfection is almost silly. Questioning the seriousness of the players involved in getting improvements in cars whose unsafe design has been known for 30 years is pretty reasonable. The slowness in getting action is pretty lame. One could speculate as to the motives, but that does not advance a solution. What the public wants is some answers and action to address the problem, not miracles.
n012944 schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits. Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude.... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002 "Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules"
If they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
One may be somewhat justified in being skeptical of railroad industry commitment to promptly finding the safest possible manner in which to handle CBR. Take a look at this post on trainorders.com today:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3292600,3292615#3292615
The idea that a few new ties may suffice for safety is risible.
The risk profile of crude by rail (CBR) for all transactional parties (producers, traders, railroads, tank car companies, refineries, et al) is now paramount, obviously, and the general public's valid concerns (see the recent WSJ article) only amplify the magnitude of this issue.
One can only speculate about the actual or implicit risk profiles measured or assumed by the transactional parties, and up until the dramatic incidents of recent months it is safe to assume that the general public had no meaningful view of the risks generated by the rapidly increasing volumes of CBR passing through their vicinities.
The one somewhat relevant statistic perhaps most widely publicized came from the Association of American Railroads. In a recent AAR paper on the transportation of hazardous materials it was stated that: "Railroads have a strong record for safely moving hazardous materials (hazmat), with 99.9977 percent of all shipments reaching their destination without a release caused by an accident."
The initial simple visual impression of this statistic is, to my eyes and perhaps those of many in the general public, of a vanishingly small risk to be attached to growing volumes of CBR. And yet .... The AAR estimates that in 2013 approximately 400,000 loads of CBR moved. Apply the AAR statistical "risk profile" to that number of loads and the result is: 9 loads of CBR did not reach their destination without a release caused by an accident.
Perhaps it is not unreasonable to attach some geography to that statistical exercise: Aliceville and Casselton.
Informal internet railroad blog commentary has suggested a not uncommon response to many accidents: It's just a "one off" thing. Won't happen again any time soon. (May one be justified in wondering if some of the CBR transactional parties may have this type of implicit risk profile?)
So, rather than simply accepting the AAR's statistical approach, revealing as it is, I did another simple desk analysis using Federal Railroad Administration accident data for Jan - Oct., 2013. Those data show a Train Accident Rate of 1.2 accidents per million train-miles on "other track", i.e., other than yard track. (I used this statistic not because accidents on yard track are of no concern, but because there is no clear statistical showing of the number of train-miles that accrue in yards. Further, I make the assumption that mainline accidents at track speed are more likely to be "catastrophic" in impact.)
Again, a vanishingly small number when applied to CBR, right?
CBR now moves mostly in unit trains. Using the AAR's stat of 400,000 loads of CBR in 2013, and an assumed average unit train size of 100 cars per train and an average loaded haul of 1,000 miles (conservative, given the many trains to East, West and Gulf Coasts), plus the return empty haul of 1,000 miles, we see that CBR generated roughly 8 million train-miles in 2013.
Apply the FRA stat of 1.2 accidents per million train-miles to 8 million CBR train-miles: ~9.6 accidents. Let's round to 10, as there are no fractional accidents. But, then, let's divide by 2, as our major concern is with loaded trains.
Statistics from AAR and FRA, massaged (or mangled) by me suggest 5 "train accidents" of loaded CBR trains in 2013.
Geography? Lac Megantic, Aliceville, Casselton. Those were the ones I am aware of, but perhaps there were less dramatic, non-explosive line-haul accidents. (Ok, I know, the Lac Megantic accident was in Canada, but it was U.S. crude from North Dakota hauled many miles in the U.S. by a U.S.-type railroad.) In any event, the statistical result appears to be roughly consonant with actual experience.
IF 2014 experience parallels that of 2013, i.e., if 2013 was not merely a "one off" year ("bad luck"?), but with 20% growth in CBR unit train miles, using the AAR metric, we will see 11 cars of CBR not reach their destination without a release caused by accident. Using the my FRA 2013 train accident experience metric, we will see approximately 6 loaded CBR train accidents.
Geography? If only that could be accurately predicted! Colorado, perhaps?
What are the risk profiles applied by the transactional parties? Would be fascinating to know.
I am reminded of the analyses done by Richard Feynman and others after the loss of the shuttle Challenger: NASA management's implicit loss ratio was around 1 lost shuttle in 100,000 missions ("airline-type safety"), while a realistic engineering risk profile suggested 1 loss every 50 to 100 missions. Actual experience: 2 lost in 130 missions.
Feynman's closing words in his "dissenting" addendum to the Challenger report: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
schlimm While I would agree that there are some who would like to see a movement away from fossil/carbon-based fuels (and that is a significant issue), to attempt to create a straw man argument in regard to a specific issue of reasonable attention to safety is invalid. The suggestion that this is about trying to achieve some impossible level of perfection is almost silly. Questioning the seriousness of the players involved in getting improvements in cars whose unsafe design has been known for 30 years is pretty reasonable. The slowness in getting action is pretty lame. One could speculate as to the motives, but that does not advance a solution. What the public wants is some answers and action to address the problem, not miracles.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimmIf they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
(edited)
Ya know what?
Believe whatever you want.
466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you !
One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ?
- Paul North.
schlimm n012944 schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits. Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude.... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002 "Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules" If they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
What do you propose? As pointed out to you multiple times, the railroads can't refuse the cars as long as the regulatory agency approves their use. The railroads don't own the cars, so what do they do? Damn those nasty railroads for following the laws of this land....So please Schlimn, instead of tossing your insults, give us ideas. Please make them legal ideas though....
BTW
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/195511-dot-to-issue-regs-for-stronger-tanker-rail-cars-in-2015
"DOT to issue stronger tanker car regs in 2015"
"The AAR said it supports new regulations for rail cars carrying flammable liquids."
Good. I actually did call for ALL the parties to arrive at a solution (s) in the DOT, but your rudeness and personal attacks trump thouroughness, like actually reading carefully, . BTW, lex's post is far stronger in its prediction of bakken accidents this year.
schlimm, but your rudeness and personal attacks trump thouroughness, like actually reading carefully,
Heh.... can't make that stuff up, folks.
What's your solution? Does your union (if you are a member) have a position? Because your responses sound like they were written in corporate.
schlimm What's your solution? Does your union (if you are a member) have a position? Because your responses sound like they were written in corporate.
Ah, you caught me. I'm just a computer program. A computer program from the future where the oil trains have enslaved mankind. Hahahaha.
Probably the most stringent tank car hazards are for TIH/PIH cars. If you read some of the links in the myriad of related threads there is a study done by Harvard on the risks of TIH/PIH. They describe several accidents in which cars in carload shipments (not unit trains) of TIH/PIH were breached in an accident. If arguably the most hardened cars have been breached in accidents there is a reasonable argument that ANY car involved in the Lac Megantic accident would have been breached by the forces involved.
If you read the various attachments you would also read about several shippers, car companies and railroads that are cooperating on the design of a next generation of TIH/PIH tank car. I myself have posted about how one railroad (the UP) has been testing the prototype cars in actual train service to measure how sturdy the car is.
The railroads are more than willing to cooperate with industry to solve the problem since they know (as demonstrated in several of these threads) that they will be blamed for the problem even though most of the "solutions" proposed by the posters are out of the railroad's control or violate several Federal laws and even have precedents (cited in the threads) where the railroads have attempted some of the remedies proposed and have been stopped by a court of law.
If you want to get something done, stop harassing the railroads and go to the car leasing companies websites and harass the people who OWN the cars, who have the power over REPLACING the cars and who CONTROL the fixing of the type 111 car problem.
Complaining to the railroads is like complaining to TurboTax that the tax rates are too high.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Complaining to the railroads is like complaining to TurboTax that the tax rates are too high.
That is a perfect analogy. No doubt it will fall on deaf ears for the railroad haters on this board.
From the NBC article linked in the original post.
The boom has left a number of companies scrambling for tank cars to move the oil, and the report says that led to several cases in which companies sent cars out that did not meet standards.
Excellent example of a reporter miss-quoting a written report to make something appear more of a concern or more dangerous than it is simply to increase the scare value of their own report.
What the report really said.
6. One transloader released loaded tank cars that were out of specification (safety appliances). The pressure to ship those cars was more than the risk of failure in transportation or discovery by FRA. (Rail car shortage is a major concern. We have had cases of cars being shipped out of specification.)
Note the part in parentheses, “Safety appliances”…, anybody out there know what that means?
Not what the reporter implies or may want you to think, or what the un informed casual reader may surmise…a safety appliance is not an appliance to make the car safe for transportation of product, but are the devices in place that allow railroaders to safely work on and with the car, grab irons, sill stirrups, cross over platforms, hand holds and side rails, pin levers and such.
Nothing whatsoever to do with ability of the car to safely carry the product inside.
And take a wild guess at who most likely discovered these cars “out of specification?
A car man or railroader at a terminal doing the normal inspection performed on all trains that pass through terminals.
Blaming the railroad for something ONE of the trans loaders and or shipping companies did makes perfect sense?
How?
Here’s some food for thought.
Bad order cars, cars with a safety appliance bad order or an actual operational bad order, (worn or missing brake shoe, bad wheel set, sharp wheel flange, broken brake rigging, stuff like that) are big dollar business.
Car departments at all major railroads love to find them, they bill repairs at the AAR Manual of Interchange rate, which specifies exactly how the cars must be repaired and what materials can be used, this thing is a seriously thick book that details down to the particular metal grade a cotter pin used to hold a cut lever handle in place can be made of….in the real world such a cotter pin might cost 99 cents, in the railroad world, it’s a $5.00 part.
On my small class 3 railroad our car department routinely bills several million dollars of repairs quarterly to each of our class 1 member lines for bad order repair…trust me, not a car one can enter our railroad without being looked over at least twice, once on arrival, and once on departure at the minimum, and you can bank on the class 1 roads doing the same to these unit trains, it is big business money.
No matter how valuable or how “hot” a car might be, it will be inspected by the railroad, and cut out of the train if any bad order of any type is found.
What you are looking at is a situation being sensationalized for no other reason than it allows people with an agenda to wave their respective flags and get valuable press coverage for their 15 minutes of fame.
Be they reporters, city mayors, congressmen, the FRA or the NTSB, even a few forum members are using these few incidents to create an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding.
The reporters of course do so to increase readership, nothing sells better than disaster beside sex and money, the FRA and NTSB are simply doing their jobs as they see it, and the forum members, well, I get the feeling they have their own agenda, and from what I gather from the majority of their postings, that agenda is that they don’t like railroaders or railroads all that much, and post here simply to cause dissent and fear, the better to allow themselves their own 15 minutes!
Now for something from the silly but relevant thought department.
Using the fear monger approach and placing things out of context to make a point and further an agenda…
I would bet that almost all of the forum members out there are going to do something tomorrow that taken out of context is extremely dangerous and possible deadly for some of you.
All of you are going to dispense and transport a hazardous liquid, one many times more volatile that this crude oil under discussion, and all of you are going to do so with no formal training on how to dispense this product, nor how to safely transport this product, much less will any of you have any type of shipping papers, nor will any of you have placards displayed to warn first responders if you have an accident that results in a release of this hazardous material.
You are going to transport this product in a single walled tank, made from mild steel easily punctured, a child can drive a screwdriver through this tank with little effort, and said tank will be held in place with two strips of plumbing strap and four mild steel bolts, and the tank will be located in such a fashion that any rear impact with the transport vehicle will easily rupture the tank, as will any large debris on the surface you use to transport this tank.
The device used to protect this tank is only required, by federal law, to withstand an impact of 5 mph or less.
You are going to transport this packing group 2 flammable liquid in close proximity to and with several thousand other people similarly un trained and not qualified, and during transport, your shipment will be subject to the random and illogical actions of these thousand others who may or may not be qualified.
Of course, I am talking about you filling your gas tank on your car…you’re going to put approximately 20 gallons of gasoline in a cheaply made tank, hung by equally cheap straps in the rear of your car, and drive around in populated areas with a thousand other people, any one of which could easily rear end you and rupture the gas tank…you see cars on fire all the time on the evening and morning news.
Yet if this was a railroad we were discussing, the person dispensing the gasoline into a tank car would be required to wear full hazmat suit, including a respirator, have the tank car properly grounded, and must have a license and be fully trained to dispense the gas.
Then the person transporting the tank car would be required to have shipping papers with all the hazmat infor, the car must be placarded, and the person must pass a federally mandated test on handling the gasoline, and have a response guide with details on what to do if an accident happens in their possession at all times.
You on the other hand, with absolutely no formal training are allowed to dispense this extremely dangerous liquid at will, you can fill your automobile fuel tank with it, you can put it in hand carried gas cans, and you transport it on freeways and roads full of other drivers busy texting their friends instead of driving their cars, and no one blinks an eye at this, yet if you think it through….
So why is it that you, totally un trained, are allowed to dispense and transport what amounts to a liquid bomb in the back of your automobile in the company of thousands of other un trained people in densely populated areas, and do so in a tank that is far more easily ruptured than a railroad tank car, often at speeds twice the speed the tank car travels, all while subject to the random and un-predictable actions of all the other drivers around you…no one seems to be bothered by that.
On the other hand, in my capacity as a freight train conductor, I am required by federal law to attend formal training on how to handle this stuff, have to follow federal laws about the documentation on the tank car and its contents, placement of this tank in my train, follow strict procedures on moving this tank, on a surface that has to meet federal requirement as to speed a am allowed to move and move only in a tightly controlled environment with almost no traffic or other trains near me at any time.
Odd double standard at work…I guess because it is convenient and almost a necessity for all of us to use and transport gasoline in our cars, and because we want to do so, then it is ok.
Of course, the solution to all the automobile fires, the death of entire families in several instances should, following the rational of the panic mongers, be to simply ban all automobile gas tanks.
Makes almost as much sense as banning all the tank cars on the rail, yes?
23 17 46 11
OK. I agree with this evaluation. But i wonder if Fred Frailey's operating suggestions still mkae sense to you? Would they alter your railroad's operations ini any significant way? If they did, would you consider them a positive approach? Would my suggested "Key transportation Inc." organizational approach,, with the details well thought-through, be of advantage to your railroad?
Fred is of couse, aware of this suggestion, and possibly he will make a case for it for the ralilroaqds and it will be implemented, or something similar and as effective or better.
My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body.
I actually mentioned this to some pretty important folks in the government.. we'll see, I sincerely wish I had an answer. I enjoy low gas and heating oil prices (not low enough for sure) as I'm sure everyone does, I fear the impact on the economy could be devastating if this is not resolved and soon. High gas an heating oil prices would certainly affect me , my family and my friends adversely.
Pretty damn fine, Ed, on all counts. Thanks for the insights on bad-ordering.
You may have the right answer, and it may not be all that expensive if applied total-rail system-wide.
We alll want the railroads to be able to keep the business, maximize safety, and not have costs go through the roof.
Randy Stahl My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body.
"...when sparks entered the tank body ." ??????????
The only way sparks enter the tank body is when the tank is breached. How do you propose to maintain the integrity of the CO2/nitrogen blanket with a big gaping hole in the side of the tank car? If there is a hold big enough to let sparks in, its going to be big enough to let air in too.
dehusman Randy Stahl My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body. "...when sparks entered the tank body ." ?????????? The only way sparks enter the tank body is when the tank is breached. How do you propose to maintain the integrity of the CO2/nitrogen blanket with a big gaping hole in the side of the tank car? If there is a hold big enough to let sparks in, its going to be big enough to let air in too.
The heavier inert gasses displace oxygen and is heavier than air. There should still be a layer of inert gas between the combustible and the oxygen at least for a while. I'm not talking about eliminating fires or explosions, I'm talking about delaying them at least so people have a few precious seconds to run away.
Think about it .. how long does an inert gas blanket really have to last providing there are no external sources of ignition ? Till the cars come to a rest right?
In Megantic , death was immediate or nearly so.. if they had 1 to 5 minutes before an explosion to get away many lives would have been preserved.
BaltACD schlimm http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits. The rail industry is not resisting retrofits! The car owners (who are really financial types - not railroaders) are the ones resisting retrofitting the cars.
...which is why the industry isn't resisting. Not a RR expense (directly, anyway).
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul_D_North_Jr 466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you ! One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ? - Paul North.
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr 466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you ! One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ? - Paul North. I agree and hope serious efforts are made by ALL the relevant parties. The tank cars and their use need to be addressed by the appropriate regulatory body and the manufacturers and leasing companies now. The oil companies and shippers need to correctly label shipments or face large fines and refusal to transport because of fraudulent labeling. And the rails need to address the accident issue. Afterall. these explosions of Bakken in DOT-111 would not happen if the rails did not have the accidents. But since I am "anti-rail" even if i say the sun rises in the east, it will be rejected.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101341864
"The U.S. railroad industry has expressed support for stricter tank car regulations, but it should be known that railroad companies own fewer than 700 of the tank cars. The vast majority (more than 99 percent) of the fleet is owned by a wide array of mainly petrochemical shipping firms, which lease the tank cars to rail companies. "
Hopefully this will be read thoroughly, so certain people can stop saying the railroads are resisting changes made to the tank cars.
Had I been CEO of a railroad which transports CBR, the day after the Lac Megantic disaster I would have convened my senior staff as a task force to address deeply every safety element of CBR transport on our road and to rapidly come up with comprehensive measures to radically improve safe performance of the CBR transport task.
Highly visible steps would have been taken rapidly, with the knowledge that openness to blow-back from any and all quarters, internal and external, was expected and essential. Adaptation and learning would be continuous, but inaction would be unacceptable. I would have described the threat to the company as existential. Careers, especially mine, would have been on the line.
(While the CBR task force would have been the central focus of my daily activities for weeks and months, a closely related concern would have been building a most carefully constructed set of communication strategies to parallel the roll-out of CBR safety actions. An over-riding concern in this regard would have been to have in place a communication plan in the event of another catastrophic event.)
What might be some of the CBR safety elements to come out of an intense senior-management led company-wide effort? Perhaps they might include some like these:
1. Specification of “Safety Corridors”, i.e., specific routes (and limited alternates) between each and every O-D pair to be subject to stringent and continuing engineering review of Track, Structures, and Signaling. CBR train movements (all? sample?) would be immediately preceded and followed by inspection.
2. CBR trains on the “Safety Corridors” would move as “Special Trains”, subject to “Special Train” rules and charges. As experience accrued, perhaps such designation could be relaxed for trains composed exclusively of new generation tank cars. Treatment of “Special Trains” would be analogous to the handling of so-called “dimension” or “high/wide” shipments: Terminal-to-Terminal scheduling for movement at periods of least traffic.
3. “Special CBR Trains” do not run in exceptional weather conditions: Below 0 degrees/Above 100 degrees/High winds/High water/Tornado threat/Blizzard.
4. “Special CBR Trains” on “Safety Corridors” would be coordinated by “CBR Safety Advocates” in the Control Center.
5. Mechanical inspections, particularly intense, would be uniquely tailored to include critical elements of tank car design (coordinated with tank car builders.) Frequency of inspections would be “X” times that of conventional equipment. Car inspectors would be “CBR-Certified”.
6. Crew the DPUs to assure maximum crew awareness (e.g., smoke from dragging brakes) and flexibility in case of incident (e.g.., move rear cars away from derailment).
This list is meant to be suggestive, not definitive, of course.
Lots of “negatives”, for sure:
1. Expensive: Raise the rates
2. Hurts tank car utilization: One of the prices to be paid by shipper for safety.
3. Impacts on other railroad lines of business: Minimize by use of “Corridors”, “Special Trains”, “Advocates”, Planning, planning and more planning.
4. Ultimately, high cost may divert CBR to pipeline or keep crude in the ground: Remember, the threat of unsafe operations is existential to our railroad.
Perhaps all of this has already been done, but not yet announced.
If not, I hope it is well underway.
And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/energy-environment/north-dakota-senators-want-stronger-rail-safety-rules.html
Action is coming, as surely as night follows day:
On Thursday, Senator Hoeven and his fellow North Dakota senator, Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, met with Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary, and the head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Cynthia L. Quarterman. Secretary Foxx told the North Dakota senators that he wants to organize a meeting next week with regulators and railroads executives to gather information. He suggested that along with testing results, the administration might then “be able to provide some guidance regarding the standard for new railcars,” according to a joint statement by the two senators.
The oil industry sees it as a stroke of bad luck that the Casselton fire occurred while the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was considering new rules. Grady C. Cothen Jr., a transportation policy consultant who was formerly the deputy associate administrator for safety standards, said of the railroads and the shippers, “they’re waiting for the shoe to drop from the Department of Transportation.”
The problem, he said, was that Bakken crude was “not what any of us expected,” with a far higher tendency to explode or burn. “The D.O.T. has probably hesitated initially, because they didn’t know what they had on their hands,” he added, “and they were not willing to take a low-cost solution if something more significant was needed.”
Meanwhile, the oil producers blame the rails:
In an email, Jack Ekstrom, a vice president at Whiting Petroleum, another major Bakken producer, said, “It seems likely that inspecting track and equipment used on the tracks, managing train speeds, building track around cities rather than through cities would be safer.”
Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said in an interview, “What we are thinking is you need to keep the trains on the tracks, right? What are we doing to keep the trains on the tracks to prevent derailments, inspecting the tracks?”
Norm48327 And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether.
No ..not really. Many of these things were done before the Megantic disaster. There was a lot of money on the line.
You have made several posts now in which you argue that profits should be maximized by the railroads (i.e., by continuing to use the DOT-111 tank cars) while implying that the costs of potential accidents should be borne by the public (you don't address the costs, so I assume that those whose houses are set aflame when one of these trains derails must bear the costs themselves).
I am pro-railroad, but I agree with 466lex's outline above: if you can't afford to make the investments to ship petroleum safely BEFORE you actually move a car then you cannot ship petroleum. And I would extend that to pipelines as well. Private profits and public costs is inherently unjust.
DwightBranch Norm48327 And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether. You have made several posts now in which you argue that profits should be maximized by the railroads (i.e., by continuing to use the DOT-111 tank cars) while implying that the costs of potential accidents should be borne by the public (you don't address the costs, so I assume that those whose houses are set aflame when one of these trains derails must bear the costs themselves).
You are claiming that I said the above. Not true. I suggest you reread my posts. What I said was it's going to affect delivery times and cost money. Never did I advocate putting safety on the back burner.
Warped and twisted.
schlimm In an email, Jack Ekstrom, a vice president at Whiting Petroleum, another major Bakken producer, said, “It seems likely that inspecting track and equipment used on the tracks, managing train speeds, building track around cities rather than through cities would be safer.”
Clearly the man needs a history lesson. As I recall, cities grew up around the railroads, which were as often as not there first.
... Daily, I might add. And inspecting the cars, and controlling the traffic. This guy clearly has no idea how a railroad operates.
Norm48327 You are claiming that I said the above. Not true. I suggest you reread my posts. What I said was it's going to affect delivery times and cost money. Never did I advocate putting safety on the back burner. Warped and twisted.
I am "warped and twisted"? If that is allowed to be said here I will say that you are perverted and disgusting.
I read just fine:
"So obviously the answer is cars that would be more secure. That ain't gonna happen overnight and the cost of retrofitting cars may not be practical as many of them may be nearing the end of their service life."
"Other than the Lac Megantic accident I don't believe there has been any major outcry from the general public regarding this. Sure the sensationalism media is playing it up, but I've not heard a single soul in my neighborhood even raise the matter."
"And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether."
You strongly imply that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that the only people raising the issue are looking to cause trouble.
DwightBranchYou strongly imply that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that the only people raising the issue are looking to cause trouble.
And, after a fashion, I agree with him.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, but this isn't a perfect world. As was outlined elsewhere in one of these threads, based on normal operating circumstances, there were actually less incidents involving crude last year than would have been expected. One was due to questionable circumstances (Lac Megantic), the ND incident involved a train other than the oil train derailing.
Slowing/stopping trains when meeting already occurs in many instances - a train in a siding is normally stopped, or moving ever so slowly. Not all rail lines in this country are double tracked, with trains meeting at speed.
That the people raising the issue are looking for "trouble" is beyond a strong possibility. Given the opposition in this country to the use of fossil fuels, and specifically things like fracking, anything the opponents of such things can do to make it uneconomical to use Bakken, or other newer sources of oil clearly falls in their favor.
The pipeline has already been mentioned. If I was pulling to have it built, I'd certainly be pointing out the disadvantages of other methods of moving the product. The incidents we're discussing surely provide such fodder. And we know the media (and those with an agenda) love to sensationalize. One story about the ND wreck had a headline that implied that the entire mile-long train had exploded. Later in the story it was mentioned that ten cars were actually burning...
As discussed at length, the railroads are not responsible for the tank cars in question, aside from ensuring that they are safe to haul on the railroad. That many thousands of ton-miles have accrued hauling crude without incident indicates that it's possible.
Is the DOT111A unsafe for hauling crude? Not unless it wrecks. I haven't heard any reports of cars failing on their own. Should it be upgraded/replaced? I'll agree that it probably should. At the very least, all new cars should be built to a higher standard - something that is already happening anyhow.
Are there problems with labelling/handling of the material by the originator? It would appear that there are, and I'm sure that's being remedied, too. If there's criminal negligence, I'm sure it will come out in a court case or so.
Is ethanol being handled in DOT111A cars? Can't answer that one - but when one compares the emergency response to an ethanol spill to a crude spill - they differ only in the fact that the firefighting foams required are different. Yet there are probably as many, or more, ethanol trains on the rails as there are crude trains. Where's the outrage?
As with any problem, there are those who want it fixed yesterday. It could be argued that a portion of this problem could have been fixed "yesterday," but it's too late now. The issue has to be dealt with in the future.
And this all leads to the question - what will we have to say about an incident involving crude that occurs with all of the safeguards that everyone is proposing in place? Who do we blame then?
tree68 schlimm In an email, Jack Ekstrom, a vice president at Whiting Petroleum, another major Bakken producer, said, “It seems likely that inspecting track and equipment used on the tracks, managing train speeds, building track around cities rather than through cities would be safer.” Clearly the man needs a history lesson. As I recall, cities grew up around the railroads, which were as often as not there first.
Not so fast! The history of location of rail lines and towns goes both ways. Many American towns were present long before the rails, even in the midwest. In the history of my hometown, the fledgling G&CU was given incentives (land and money) by various towns to locate their RoW through their infant towns.
466lex Had I been CEO of a railroad which transports CBR, the day after the Lac Megantic disaster I would have convened my senior staff as a task force to address deeply every safety element of CBR transport on our road and to rapidly come up with comprehensive measures to radically improve safe performance of the CBR transport task. Highly visible steps would have been taken rapidly, with the knowledge that openness to blow-back from any and all quarters, internal and external, was expected and essential. Adaptation and learning would be continuous, but inaction would be unacceptable. I would have described the threat to the company as existential. Careers, especially mine, would have been on the line. (While the CBR task force would have been the central focus of my daily activities for weeks and months, a closely related concern would have been building a most carefully constructed set of communication strategies to parallel the roll-out of CBR safety actions. An over-riding concern in this regard would have been to have in place a communication plan in the event of another catastrophic event.)
466lex Perhaps all of this has already been done, but not yet announced. If not, I hope it is well underway.
I hope so as well, but pretty clearly the "Highly visible steps would have been taken rapidly" has not happened yet and the word for "openness to blow-back" if that was supposed to occur has not been passed along, at least with some members of this forum.
schlimmNot so fast! The history of location of rail lines and towns goes both ways.
Indeed, it does - the key words there being "grew up."
The problem with his statement is that it sounds (to me, anyhow - and likely to many people with no knowledge of railroads, or history in general) like the big bad railroads built right through the middle of the cities as they exist today.
And, as you point out, in many (if not most) cases, the railroads were invited in - they didn't bully their way through. Given how things were 150 years ago, they may well have built around a town instead of through it, but then the city/town then enveloped the railroad.
Back then the most dangerous commodity on the trains was livestock.
tree68 DwightBranchYou strongly imply that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that the only people raising the issue are looking to cause trouble. And, after a fashion, I agree with him.
I worded that sentence poorly, I meant "the costs of strengthening tank cars or increased spending on better track or requiring more than one crew member per train" etc. outweigh the benefits. In other words, I think he was saying "let's not pay for the improved safety and hope for the best." I think crude should move by train rather than pipeline for a number of reasons (including the environment, pipeline spills are almost always much worse than derailments), but we can't do what we Americans often try to do, that is, get by as cheaply as possible, spend as little as possible on infrastructure, and then hope for the best.
DwightBranch I worded that sentence poorly, I meant "the costs of strengthening tank cars or increased spending on better track or requiring more than one crew member per train" etc. outweigh the benefits. In other words, I think he was saying "let's not pay for the improved safety and hope for the best." I think crude should move by train rather than pipeline for a number of reasons (including the environment, pipeline spills are almost always much worse than derailments), but we can't do what we Americans often try to do, that is, get by as cheaply as possible, spend as little as possible on infrastructure, and then hope for the best.
Still wrong. The point I was trying to make is "Would the investors sink a lot of money in cars that are nearing the end of their service life". More likely they would prefer buying new so they can get forty or fifty years out of them. The owners are bean counters, not railroaders. They want to get the maximum out of their investment. New cars will be coming in, and the old ones eventually scrapped.
tree68 Given how things were 150 years ago, they may well have built around a town instead of through it, but then the city/town then enveloped the railroad.
When the railroad came to town 140-160 years ago (or they came together around the same time), the railroad ROW was located usually near the center of town. Indeed, the depot was the CENTER of the community for transportation but also news, telegraph, politics, going off to war, etc. Of course as time went by, the communities grew much larger. It is important to recall that towns and rails used to have a much closer relationship as good neighbors. It would be wise if the rails and towns tried to recapture that spirit, rather than the name-calling of "NIMBY" and "noisy, dangerous public nuisance" don't you think?
schlimmWhen the railroad came to town 140-160 years ago (or they came together around the same time), the railroad ROW was located usually near the center of town.
Agreed. But even if it was built at the edge of town, the town soon surrounded it. I know of a town that basically dried up because the railroad didn't go through it. "Podunk Station" soon became the new "Podunk" and the old "Podunk" became nothing more than a crossroads.
It would be wise if the rails and towns tried to recapture that spirit, rather than the name-calling of "NIMBY" and "noisy, dangerous public nuisance" don't you think?
Oh, absolutely! But given the conversations we've had here about noise, crossings, etc, methinks the chance of such a reconciliation is pretty much zero.
DwightBranch tree68 DwightBranchYou strongly imply that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that the only people raising the issue are looking to cause trouble. And, after a fashion, I agree with him. I worded that sentence poorly, I meant "the costs of strengthening tank cars or increased spending on better track or requiring more than one crew member per train" etc. outweigh the benefits. In other words, I think he was saying "let's not pay for the improved safety and hope for the best." I think crude should move by train rather than pipeline for a number of reasons (including the environment, pipeline spills are almost always much worse than derailments), but we can't do what we Americans often try to do, that is, get by as cheaply as possible, spend as little as possible on infrastructure, and then hope for the best.
Thee average service life of a tank car is 35 years from its build date…in some instances, such as specialized non-hazardous service; a waiver can be obtained for I think 40 years.
A huge percentage of the DOT111a tanks are close to their end of service date, most will not be rebuilt or modified, for obvious reasons.
As for the infrastructure comment…
You, as a taxpayer, have invested nothing, beyond the amount Amtrak receives, in subsidies to railroads, all the tracks, bridges, right of way, equipment and materials are private property and private investments.
And before you imply that railroads haven’t invested in infrastructure, you should do research before making such statements.
Railroads have invested more in the last 5 years in rebuilding or rehabbing old track, adding new double track, and replacing bridges than they did in all the previous 50 years.
From the FRA report…
4. Facilities that plan on utilizing 286K tank cars are being required to upgrade to at least 132 lbs rail by servicing railroad.
That doesn’t sound like a carrier hoping for good luck.
It sure reads like “upgrade or no service” (quotes are mine)
In the last 5 years, no other industry, private or publicly owned, has returned as much of its capital to its growth plan and restructuring than railroads.
As for the “let’s not pay for the safety” comment, those are your words, not the words of the poster you are addressing, and you don’t pay for any of it to begin with, unless you own stock in the railcar owner or the leasing company or the railroads, you won’t, haven’t and never will pay a dime for the cars…and as an investor,(I am, by the way) I would not vote to modify a tank car with less than 5 years left on its service life…about 6 month of the remaining life will be spent modifying the car, only to have the car scrapped in 4 years or so, not a sound investment from any angle…modified cars don’t work as well as advertised anyway,(head shields on tank cars after the Englewood explosion come to mind, just more shrapnel than protection) the money would be better spent on the newer design cars in larger quantities.
As for the perceived danger of these cars, remember that, at Lac Megantic, it would have made zero difference what type of tank car had been involved, at 70 mph, when a tank car hits a building, or anything else for that matter, the tank car will rupture, period.
The Casselton accident is one of those odd coincidences, the chance of a defective axel even being under a grain car is rare, with the advanced manufacturing process and the ISO standards involved, defective axles are a rare, very rare defect, it involves staggering odds that this one axel happened to cause a car to derail in front of a train with crude oil in the consist.
I would suggest that, before you accept what a reported writes, or other forum members imply, you do some research, and read the actual NTSB report.
Take the time to go to the FRA website, read the statistics and the real numbers, and read both the NTSB recommendations and the FRA recommendations.
If, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems) then you should come to same conclusion that most of the actual railroad people, both in the operation department, transportation department, and management have come to….the issue isn’t the cars, the track, or the routes the cars take, we have been hauling much worst stuff in the same cars on the same routes for years…it is both a political issue being used to garner press time and exposure for groups with an agenda and an excuse for those who don’t grasp how railroads work to flap their lips, or wiggle their fingers as it were….
The FRA expects 60 trains a week at least in the next two years, (that’s a conservative guess by the way), so where are you going to assemble these trains, and how do you expect any single rout to be able to serve that many trains without a major investment in new yards and track….and consider this, do you really want that much hazardous material aggregated in one place?
Just imagine the conflagration if there was a fire or explosion in a yard with 3500 of these cars stored side by side.
It would make Dresden look like a wennie roast.
The title of this thread makes one to ask. Is there anything in the crude that causes some kind of chemical reaction, separation, etc that ends up in the tank cars once they bounce around during transit ?
edblysard As for the infrastructure comment… You, as a taxpayer, have invested nothing, beyond the amount Amtrak receives, in subsidies to railroads, all the tracks, bridges, right of way, equipment and materials are private property and private investments.
That is so untrue as to be laughable (this and this come to mind, along with all of the tiger grants, I just saw the other day that a railroad in Iowa received FRA money, gift not loan, to replace a bridge) but that isn't even my point. If the railroad is required to charge more in order to cover the costs, then we as a society should be required to pay higher prices for petroleum products. I shouldn't have my gas consumption subsidized by exposing people along the rights of way to risks they never signed on for.
DwightBranch edblysard As for the infrastructure comment… You, as a taxpayer, have invested nothing, beyond the amount Amtrak receives, in subsidies to railroads, all the tracks, bridges, right of way, equipment and materials are private property and private investments. That is so untrue as to be laughable (this and this come to mind, along with all of the tiger grants, I just saw the other day that a railroad in Iowa received FRA money, gift not loan, to replace a bridge) but that isn't even my point. If the railroad is required to charge more in order to cover the costs, then we as a society should be required to pay higher prices for petroleum products. I shouldn't have my gas consumption subsidized by exposing people along the rights of way to risks they never signed on for.
edblysardIf, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems) then you should come to same conclusion that most of the actual railroad people, both in the operation department, transportation department, and management have come to….the issue isn’t the cars, the track, or the routes the cars take, we have been hauling much worst stuff in the same cars on the same routes for years…it is both a political issue being used to garner press time and exposure for groups with an agenda and an excuse for those who don’t grasp how railroads work to flap their lips, or wiggle their fingers as it were…
So aside from the condescension and failure to give a somewhat more precise citation which his conclusion is based upon, the author shows us that he knows, without equivocation, that the real reason for concerns is, wait a second, a CONSPIRACY of politicos, the press and unspecified others to speak or write. Amazing!!
edblysardIf, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems) then you should come to same conclusion that most of the actual railroad people, both in the operation department, transportation department, and management have come to….the issue isn’t the cars, the track, or the routes the cars take, we have been hauling much worst stuff in the same cars on the same routes for years…it is both a political issue being used to garner press time and exposure for groups with an agenda and an excuse for those who don’t grasp how railroads work to flap their lips, or wiggle their fingers as it were….
You're an idiot. Or more precisely, a pontificating blowhard. As for your assertion that the fuss about oil traveling in unsafe manner is the product of "groups with an agenda" there is a reason we don't allow companies to decide how much they want to spend on safety, regardless of how much they know about their particular business: THEY (railroad management in particular) have an agenda. Experience shows us that when it comes to protecting people they don't know or keeping the money money management will often choose keeping the money. And as NBC is reporting today an FRA report from two years ago shows that railroads have been taking unreasonable chances in order to maximize profits.
Because NBC or the FRA have no agendas?
Be careful about who you call an idiot.
PS. I'm sure you are going to now call me an idiot. Pssshhh... I've been called worse by better. So go ahead.
Railroads aren’t taking the chance; they are simply following the law.
If any blame should be applied, re read the FRA report, and note they, (the FRA) point out the true culprit, shippers classified the oil as a packing group 3, when it should have been classified as packing group 2.
Nowhere in the report dose the FRA assign any blame or find any fault with the carriers.
Railroads have no control over what the shipper labels or classify their product as.
Like your mailman, they pick up and deliver, with little legal ability to question what the letter, or tank car contains.
Railroads don’t load the cars, nor do they classify the product, they don’t produce the product, they simply carry it from point A to point B, and handle it according to the classification the people who produce it and load it apply.
As per the same FRA report, it is the responsibility to the company loading the tank car to properly label the car with the appropriate packing group classification….nowhere in the report does the FRA even hit that is the legal responsibility of the railroad but instead point blank state the shipper is responsible party.
Pontificating and blowhard?
That’s the best you can come up with?
I had hoped for an intelligent, civil discussion, but apparently you left your manners, along with your civility, in the same place you left you reading and comprehension skills.
Remember to put the seat back down…..
DwightBranch You're an idiot. Or more precisely, a pontificating blowhard. As for your assertion that the fuss about oil traveling in unsafe manner is the product of "groups with an agenda" there is a reason we don't allow companies to decide how much they want to spend on safety, regardless of how much they know about their particular business: THEY (railroad management in particular) have an agenda. Experience shows us that when it comes to protecting people they don't know or keeping the money money management will often choose keeping the money. And as NBC is reporting today an FRA report from two years ago shows that railroads have been taking unreasonable chances in order to maximize profits.
Dwight,
Might I remind you that personal attacks are not welcome here. Insulting people in the railroad business will get you nowhere but ostracized.
Your already subsidizing commercial highway vehicles exposing millions to risks they didn't sign on for via your gas taxes.
Gee, it's nice to have DwightBranch back with us. Now if we could only bring back Michael Sol, Railroad Man, ICLand and a few other flamers, it would be the good old days all over again.
Norm48327 Dwight, Might I remind you that personal attacks are not welcome here. Insulting people in the railroad business will get you nowhere but ostracized.
Says the man who earlier referred to Dwight's post as "Warped and twisted.." So the people in the railroad business can insult and flame as much as they want, but us outsiders have to watch out or we will be ostracized? This forum has double standards, always has. After the last blow up over Bucyrus' posts, a few railroaders were tapped on the wrist. As I recall, Ed Blysard got so incensed that he deleted all his posts, picked up his football and said he was finished here. Guess that was only temporary?
I would suggest we all dial back the rhetoric and agree to disagree. Being a railroader does not entitle you to immunity from criticism and being outsiders does not entitle us to unnecessary rudeness.
zugmann Because NBC or the FRA have no agendas? Be careful about who you call an idiot. PS. I'm sure you are going to now call me an idiot. Pssshhh... I've been called worse by better. So go ahead.
Reading that FRA report, it seems much of that is focused at the shippers, their facilities and procedures.
The editing of that report, was it done by the FRA, or NBC?
I said it before, and I'll say it again. There are many out there that no matter what safety procedures or equipment modifications and upgrades are made, it will never be enough. It's not that they are against rail transportation of petroleum, they are against the use of petroleum (or any fossil fuels), period. They can't get the general public on board to abandon petroleum "to save the whales," so they will try to convince the GP that transportation of it is so unsafe by any means. Including pipelines.
Now to head off those who are going say that I'm saying we shouldn't do more for safety (if anyone even takes notice of this), No that's not what I'm saying. I'm all for things that improve safety. I'm not for things that give the impression of safety, but don't really do anything. Most of the time it seems for every true safety measure, we get 2 or 3 "smoke and mirrors" safety measures.
Murphy Siding Man, I'm feeling left out. Is it OK if I call you a big maroon? I figure that way, it will add an air of intelligence to whatever I say.
Man, I'm feeling left out. Is it OK if I call you a big maroon? I figure that way, it will add an air of intelligence to whatever I say.
I'd be hurt if you didn't.
schlimm Says the man who earlier referred to Dwight's post as "Warped and twisted.." So the people in the railroad business can insult and flame as much as they want, but us outsiders have to watch out or we will be ostracized? This forum has double standards, always has. After the last blow up over Bucyrus' posts, a few railroaders were tapped on the wrist. As I recall, Ed Blysard got so incensed that he deleted all his posts, picked up his football and said he was finished here. Guess that was only temporary? I would suggest we all dial back the rhetoric and agree to disagree. Being a railroader does not entitle you to immunity from criticism and being outsiders does not entitle us to unnecessary rudeness.
Feel better now?
jeffhergertI said it before, and I'll say it again. There are many out there that no matter what safety procedures or equipment modifications and upgrades are made, it will never be enough. It's not that they are against rail transportation of petroleum, they are against the use of petroleum (or any fossil fuels), period. They can't get the general public on board to abandon petroleum "to save the whales," so they will try to convince the GP that transportation of it is so unsafe by any means. Including pipelines.
Let's say the railroads had a sudden increase in transporting fertilizer. But the fertilizer seems to be more volatile and explosive than it should be. How do you think it would compare to the crude oil trains? Same reaction, more reaction, or less reaction? You can't argue with what Mr. Jeff has posted. Oil/ethanol/energy things are hot button issues. Does that mean they are getting greater scrutiny and attention from the press/publics? I would argue they do, but I'm just an idiotic, corporate shill of a maroon. So my opinion is worthless.
zugmann....etc....., but I'm just an idiotic, corporate shill of a maroon. So my opinion is worthless.
schlimm Norm48327 Dwight, Might I remind you that personal attacks are not welcome here. Insulting people in the railroad business will get you nowhere but ostracized. Says the man who earlier referred to Dwight's post as "Warped and twisted.." So the people in the railroad business can insult and flame as much as they want, but us outsiders have to watch out or we will be ostracized? This forum has double standards, always has. After the last blow up over Bucyrus' posts, a few railroaders were tapped on the wrist. As I recall, Ed Blysard got so incensed that he deleted all his posts, picked up his football and said he was finished here. Guess that was only temporary? I would suggest we all dial back the rhetoric and agree to disagree. Being a railroader does not entitle you to immunity from criticism and being outsiders does not entitle us to unnecessary rudeness.
Precisely, and he and Blysart implied that I couldn't read or couldn't comprehend what I read, I was simply responding. Glass houses, etc. And turnabout is fair play.
Experience is generally a good teacher, but I see a lot of people here who work for railroads using that to make a thinly veiled political argument ("government regulation is always misguided, let private owners of businesses decide how much they want to spend on safety, the environment," etc) to stifle arguments from those who believe we are a society, not a collection of individual fiefdoms.
Zugmann, if you have something to say, say it. If it is insulting and patronizing you can expect insults back,.
DwightBranchZugmann, if you have something to say, say it. If it is insulting and patronizing you can expect insults back,.
Do you need a hug?
zugmann DwightBranchZugmann, if you have something to say, say it. If it is insulting and patronizing you can expect insults back,. Do you need a hug?
Do you need to go back on your meds?
I can argue with Jeff and say he is simply wrong. Because if the railroads don't do something constructive themselves, the Government will, like inward facing cameras in reponse to the Metro-North event, not a very efficient solution to the problem. And yes, obviouslly Fred Frailey's and my suggestions would definitely take care of the hazmat fertilzer affair, should it ever occur, as well as the present tank-car-fleet problem as long as that lasts. Jeff, you have your head in the sand. Truly. Jeff is right that it won't be an absolutely perfect sollution, but it will such an improvement over the present situation that will satisfy a lot more people that leaving the present situation "to take care of itself" which simply is not going to happen anyway.
jeffhergert DwightBranch You're an idiot. Or more precisely, a pontificating blowhard. As for your assertion that the fuss about oil traveling in unsafe manner is the product of "groups with an agenda" there is a reason we don't allow companies to decide how much they want to spend on safety, regardless of how much they know about their particular business: THEY (railroad management in particular) have an agenda. Experience shows us that when it comes to protecting people they don't know or keeping the money money management will often choose keeping the money. And as NBC is reporting today an FRA report from two years ago shows that railroads have been taking unreasonable chances in order to maximize profits. Reading that FRA report, it seems much of that is focused at the shippers, their facilities and procedures. The editing of that report, was it done by the FRA, or NBC? I said it before, and I'll say it again. There are many out there that no matter what safety procedures or equipment modifications and upgrades are made, it will never be enough. It's not that they are against rail transportation of petroleum, they are against the use of petroleum (or any fossil fuels), period. They can't get the general public on board to abandon petroleum "to save the whales," so they will try to convince the GP that transportation of it is so unsafe by any means. Including pipelines. Now to head off those who are going say that I'm saying we shouldn't do more for safety (if anyone even takes notice of this), No that's not what I'm saying. I'm all for things that improve safety. I'm not for things that give the impression of safety, but don't really do anything. Most of the time it seems for every true safety measure, we get 2 or 3 "smoke and mirrors" safety measures. Jeff
Responding to daveklepper, I actually agree with Jeff here about there being a few with an agenda to stop rail transport. I think some of them wouldn't be happy unless the UP main were a bike trail for lawyers, managers, stock brokers, etc.. But he doesn't go so far as to say that safety concerns are unwarranted, or that all government regulation (which means "confirmation") is unwelcome. The existence of a few outliers who want to shut working class jobs down doesn't invalidate the overall need for regulation. The problem on this site is that some of the pro-management types present us with a false dichotomy, in which we are told we must choose between clueless nuts who are opposed to industrial jobs, or corporate management who want to control all spending on safety, the environment, etc.
I completely agree with Jeff that there are forces at work here that have nothing whatsoever to do with public safety. I can't prove it because the people behind such an effort aren't going to tip their hand and admit as much. They'd prefer to use the current situation to their advantage but remain in the background.
Of course, those background forces may well be at odds - the pipeline people want to build their pipeline, so discrediting rail transport is a logical choice. The no fossil fuels at all people don't want the pipeline, either, but they can simply help along with discrediting rail, then go after the pipeline later.
As I've said before - crude oil is simply the cause du jour. Ethanol isn't going to be an issue because it's "green," and because the corn producers want to protect their subsidies. The attack on coal is progressing all too well.
OK, so I guess Jeff was not refering to me or my suggestions, because I have yet to see an objection to them that cannot be answered logically. For a more complete answer, please see the Key Transportation Thread. I would be among the last to wish to convert the UP mail to a bike trail; that is for sure!
Can’t seem to find where I said any such thing…
I didn’t imply you couldn’t read, or comprehend, I said if you’re reading skill were as good as you said they were then….
By the way, it is a d on the end, not a t.
Zug, I think he needs a Snickers too!
Judging from the recent responses by certain people, I guess the period of their having their posts checked by a moderator must have ended a while ago.
"If, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems) then you should come to same conclusion that most of the actual railroad people, both in the operation department, transportation department, and management have come to…"
Although he denies it, by any objective standard, his statement strongly implies that unless Dwight has a reading (or comprehension) problem, he would agree with the author's opinion on the Bakken crude oil issue.
schlimm Judging from the recent responses by certain people, I guess the period of their having their posts checked by a moderator must have ended a while ago.
Yep, DwightBranch seems to be able to say whatever he/she would like, tossing insults like baseballs in spring training. It is sad how this site is so heavy handed in moderation some days, with almost none on other days.
You know very well Dwight did not start the insults, but was unable to restrain himself and returned the insults in spades. Ed was quite insulting when he said "If, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems)" Dwight responded by calling him "a idiot. Or more precisely, a pontificating blowhard" Ed retaliated with "I had hoped for an intelligent, civil discussion, but apparently you left your manners, along with your civility, in the same place you left you reading and comprehension skills...Remember to put the seat back down….."
Norm48327 continued the insults by saying Dwight 's post was "warped and twisted.." I had hoped the insults could stop, in a post, even if opinions continued to differ. However, it appears that the railroaders may be attempting to use a variation on an old tactic they have used before to get this thread locked down.
What is warped and twisted is the appearant 'fact' that Bakken Crude appears to be more Explosive than refined gasolene or ethanol.
There have been derailments involving those two commodities for years and when spilled and ignited they will burn - they will burn like hell; but they don't appear to be anywhere near as explosive as Bakken Crude.
daveklepper OK, so I guess Jeff was not refering to me or my suggestions, because I have yet to see an objection to them that cannot be answered logically. For a more complete answer, please see the Key Transportation Thread. I would be among the last to wish to convert the UP mail to a bike trail; that is for sure!
If we slow or stop all oil trains that have meets (even on double track territory), it will make the trip from oil field to refinery longer, will it not?
Now the refineries want xx number of barrels a day to refine. Now if we end up slowing the trains down for the trip, then wouldn't we have to run either longer trains, or have more trains (and tank cars) to keep the refineries optimally supplied?
Now here's where the statisticians have to come into play - what's more of a risk? Running fewer trains faster, or more trains slower? Especially when every grade crossing is a chance for a train to be hit (or hit something) and derail.
I don't know the answer.
I have handled high and wides (from both the cab and movement office) that required opposing trains to be stopped or to operate at greatly reduced speed. Let me tell you - it is a pain in the butt and a chore in and of itself. To facilitate multiple meets every day, and to arrange them at locations that won't adversely affect the motoring public at the multitude of grade crossings is no small feat.
(and look at that - I was able to make my point without calling anyone an idiot. Imagine that.)
schlimm You know very well Dwight did not start the insults, but was unable to restrain himself and returned the insults in spades. Ed was quite insulting when he said "If, as you state, you have no problem reading, (and hopefully no comprehension problems)" Dwight responded by calling him "a idiot. Or more precisely, a pontificating blowhard" Ed retaliated with "I had hoped for an intelligent, civil discussion, but apparently you left your manners, along with your civility, in the same place you left you reading and comprehension skills...Remember to put the seat back down….." Norm48327 continued the insults by saying Dwight 's post was "warped and twisted.." I had hoped the insults could stop, in a post, even if opinions continued to differ. However, it appears that the railroaders may be attempting to use a variation on an old tactic they have used before to get this thread locked down.
Off topic and an attempt to get the thread locked?
Bah, just messing with you. I really don't care.
schlimmJudging from the recent responses by certain people, I guess the period of their having their posts checked by a moderator must have ended a while ago.
Certain people? Glad I ain't one of those!
Zugman, I quite a agree with one of the points you made,, and that is why to implement Fred Frailey's idea, possibly with my modification to allow two trains to pass each other at restricted speed, I suggst rerouting off the densest doiuble-track corridors onto lines frequencies of perhaps 10 or 20 trains a day. Use the Moffat instead of Sheman Hill. After the North Dakota nncident, if I were Matt Rose or Carl Ice, I would like those old tankcars off the Transocn.
I think the added safety is worth the delay and added costs. You have every right to disaagree.
daveklepper I suggst rerouting off the densest doiuble-track corridors onto lines frequencies of perhaps 10 or 20 trains a day. Use the Moffat instead of Sheman Hill. After the North Dakota nncident, if I were Matt Rose or Carl Ice, I would like those old tankcars off the Transocn.
I suggst rerouting off the densest doiuble-track corridors onto lines frequencies of perhaps 10 or 20 trains a day. Use the Moffat instead of Sheman Hill. After the North Dakota nncident, if I were Matt Rose or Carl Ice, I would like those old tankcars off the Transocn.
Cool suggestion. Would you be so kind as to provide a specific route between North Dakota and the New Orleans or ND and the east coast area that only rides on main tracks with less than 20 trains a day?
How many oil trains are traveling west from Denver? How do you get from ND to Denver without going on a route that has more than 20 trains a day or increases the route miles? The one instance where a passing train struck an oil train occurred in North Dakota. Please explain how you get from North Dakota to anyplace else without going through North Dakota.
If you want the railroads to implement your idea it has to be at least possible.
Most of the "solutions" people have been throwing out are impractical, ineffective or outright illegal. The major railroads all have team of people that assess risk associated with hazmat. They do it with actual data with actual information with actual statistical methods.
The funniest proposal yet is relocating the tracks so they don't go through any towns, or at least larger towns. (Guess the Lac-Megantics and Casseltons are expendable.) We had such a letter in our local paper the other day.
These innocents -- not idiots! not maroons! -- don't realize that, before the rails incurred that expense, and passed it on to shippers, the oil companies would carry their product to the refinery in gallon cans.
Then there are politicians -- including, alas, one of our own U.S. senators -- who helpfully suggest that the rails simply tighten safety so that their trains never derail! (Pursuing this brilliant breakthrough, the pols ought to dispense with air, marine and highway accidents.)
What a wonderful world it would be without derailments. I could work my entire life and be proud of the job I did and not feel ashamed for being part of the railroad industry in 2013-14. I'm all for zero derailments !!!
Responding to Dehuseman
East of Chcago, I would suggest that NS and CSX get serious about direcdtional running on parallel lines. Both systems would benefit, so would stockholders and customers. UP should do the same Ogdon - Sacramento with the SP and WP lines OR the SP can be the dense line the WP the Hazmat-with-care line. East Denver, I would use UP's line to Kansas City, and from KC there are several medium density routes to connect with NS and CSX, and which to use requires some study, and it may be possible to bypass Chicago. Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area. North from Houston, UP akready has directional running, and can do so or has done it between Houston and New Orleans. Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
Since you have changed the discussion to paired track arrangements, I will assume that you can't identify a route between ND and the east coast and ND and the New Orleans area that only carries 10-20 trains a day.
How about Inside Gateway, WP-line, Moffat, UP to KC, UP to Houston, UP to New Orleans Paired track or no more than 20 trains a day. Only slightly round-about and should work.
Does require UP-BNSF cooperation however. No problem for Key Transportaton, Inc.
Uh... never mind.
daveklepper How about Inside Gateway, WP-line, Moffat, UP to KC, UP to Houston, UP to New Orleans Paired track or no more than 20 trains a day. Only slightly round-about and should work. Does require UP-BNSF cooperation however. No problem for Key Transportaton, Inc.
daveklepper Responding to Dehuseman Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area.
Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area.
The ex RI is line dark territory, so you have no broken rail protection. Do you really want oil trains running over that? It is also single track west of Joliet, with few sidings. Currently my employer runs about 7 oil trains a day each way, I am sure the other major eastern railroad is running at least that many. Add in around 4 ethanol trains a day as well. Including empties, your talking around 20 trains each way a day. There is no way you are going to be able to squeeze that into a 5 hour period. Even if the railroads spen the money to double track the railroad AND put in a signal system, it would only be possible under perfect conditions. Ask anyone who works for the railroad and they will tell you that perfect conditions only happen once and a great while, and they are not something you should plan for.
daveklepper Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
So, you never plan and getting higher priority trains around these slower oil trains on the line of road?
dehusman This illustrates a problem with a lot of the proposals tossed out on the forums...One of most amusing suggestions was to stop oil trains in "high wind" situations.
Lots of sniping. Do you have any proposals?
Sure:
1. Keep the commodity on main routes (best maintenance, best track, best signal systems, best defect detection).
2. Minimize route miles.
3. Don't do stupid things (like run a one man crew on a dark territory and park the train on steep grade).
4. Replace the 111 tank cars with better designs (will take years to accomplish).
5. Audit procedures to ensure compliance (both on a local level and from a corporate level).
Saw a story on network TV this morning about a 19 car coal train derailment in Wisconsin. Before the oil train derailments, this would not have warranted any national coverage. The "hook" was the concern that coal trains could dump over on bridges, killing people. Yes, it has happened before and it was a tragedy, but with what kind of frequency? And do we now expect to put sidewalls on all bridges? I'm waiting for the local politicians to chime in on this one.
desertdog Saw a story on network TV this morning about a 19 car coal train derailment in Wisconsin. Before the oil train derailments, this would not have warranted any national coverage. The "hook" was the concern that coal trains could dump over on bridges, killing people. Yes, it has happened before and it was a tragedy, but with what kind of frequency? And do we now expect to put sidewalls on all bridges? I'm waiting for the local politicians to chime in on this one.
Our local paper today had an article about how coal has been polluting water supplies, etc for years. Given the recent actions regarding coal fired plants, the article sounds like more "justification" for getting away from coal.
If Fred's soggestions were adopted, if the oil train is that slow, it can stop while the extra-fast train psses it. Again, too many of these comments appear to me to be "Let us do nothing to change anything, except build more tank cars to gradually replace the fleet." I just don't think the rail industry can implement that scenareo. If You can come up with changes that make more sense that my takeoff on Fred's ideas, just fine. This scheme is not intended to be applied pedantically,but with common sense and where possible.
Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
This whole topic reminds me of an editorial in the "Pontiac Press" (MI) back in the sixties.
The big topic was "killer trees" - trees close enough to the road to be hit and substantial enough to do significant damage if they were struck (like that big oak in your front yard).
The editorial postulated that all such trees should be cut down. It went on to suggest that cars should be properly spaced by some method of supervision, and their speed controlled.
The piece concluded by admitting that some driver would still manage to roll his car and kill himself.
daveklepper Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
Again, my effort was to try to see how Fred Frailey's proposals could be implemented without "gumming up the works." A company or a bueareau of all seven tasked with the task of making hazmat transport safer seemed to me the best approach . Then I tried to see now the specific operating ideas Fred wriote could be applied in practice. The first modification of Fred's ideas is that trains could pass each other keeping moving at resricted speed. The second is that directional running minimizes meets. Before going further generally, may I point out that years ago on this Forum I argued the case of single-speed railroading. I felt that N&W running coal trains at 70mph had something to teach us. A hazmat train, yes a petroleum train using the old tankcars, on a directionally-paired basically single-direction line, should run at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. Avoiding overtaking reduces risks. Also curves can only be superelivated for one speed, and runniing at that speed reduces risks. On paired directional running lines, the opposing traffic is usually one or two local peddler freights, and their stopping while others run by should rarely be a problem. Back to generalities: If Carl Ice were to tell me that running hazmat trains at normal speed on the Transcon is the safest approach, I would have to take his word, because he is the professional, has years of experience, and knows the equipment and physical plant. My guess is so would Fred.
dehusmanhe thing I can't figure out is why all the broughaha about the crude oil. Regardless of the volatility, its still just a flammable liquid.
Exactly.
As has been pointed out on one of these threads (although not in so many words), Lac Megantic would have likely had the same outcome with brand-spanking-new safe-as-they-can-be cars as it did with DOT111's.
Or if the substance had been ethanol. Or a "Tank Train" of any number of flammables.
While I rather doubt that such is the case with our forum members, I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety.
You have no way of knowing that the spanking-new-safe-as-they-can-be tank cars would have produced the same result. No one can say that for certain. No one can say for certain that the explosions and fire would not have occured. However, the final report may contain details that can lead to a probabilitity one way or another, but we do not have those details at the present time, and note that I write may, not will
We appear to be beating a dead horse.
Noted this comment just above: "... I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety."
Latest report from the front:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Train-Derails-Schuykill-Expressway-Closed-241114931.html
“A train derailment left a tanker car and boxcar leaning off a Philadelphia bridge early this morning [Monday, Jan. 20, 2014].
“Police and firefighters responded to the train derailment near the Schuylkill Expressway, between South and 34th Streets, around 12:30 a.m.
“According to CSX spokesman Gary Sease, the 101-car freight train was headed from Chicago to Philadelphia when seven cars derailed on the Schuylkill Arsenal Railroad Bridge where it crosses over the Schuylkill from University City to Grays Ferry -- just south of the South Street Bridge. It is not yet known what caused the derailment.
“Six cars carried crude oil, but no leaking was reported. Another car contained sand, according to CSX.
“No injuries were reported.
“….”
Are they making this stuff up?
466lex Noted this comment just above: "... I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety." Latest report from the front: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Train-Derails-Schuykill-Expressway-Closed-241114931.html “A train derailment left a tanker car and boxcar leaning off a Philadelphia bridge early this morning [Monday, Jan. 20, 2014]. “Police and firefighters responded to the train derailment near the Schuylkill Expressway, between South and 34th Streets, around 12:30 a.m. “According to CSX spokesman Gary Sease, the 101-car freight train was headed from Chicago to Philadelphia when seven cars derailed on the Schuylkill Arsenal Railroad Bridge where it crosses over the Schuylkill from University City to Grays Ferry -- just south of the South Street Bridge. It is not yet known what caused the derailment. “Six cars carried crude oil, but no leaking was reported. Another car contained sand, according to CSX. “No injuries were reported. “….” Are they making this stuff up?
"Killing" the messenger of bad news has been a defensive tactic used at least since ancient Greece. But it never works, whether the tactic is denial, minimization, blaming it on a conspiracy with some agenda, etc. As you have pointed out in an earlier post, there is a pretty high probability of ~6 tank cars of Bakken being involved in some accident this year with explosive and/or fiery results. Changes are coming. Thankfully, rail execs do appear to be working cooperatively on them with the other parties. Their attitudes are a stark contrast with many of the posts here.
Obviously there is a safety issue. Less obvious perhaps is another issue. That other issue is the inflammation of the safety issue by those who want to leave the oil in the ground. And while the most hardcore of that faction may be considered to be a fringe, they have the general sympathy and support of the majority of Americans. Don’t ask those supporters how they will live without oil. They don’t worry about that. They are being told that they can replace oil by wind, solar, and other enlightened forms of energy, and they believe it. This is a societal tug of war.
If the railroad industry does not realize what they are actually fighting in this oil war—if they think it is only about safety—they will lose the war. That is because this is a war of perceptions, and they had better fight back on that level or they will lose.
I hear people say that the oil has to move, and it will move one way or the other. The issue openly on the table only involves Bakken oil, and no it does NOT have to move. The green movement certainly has the ear of the regulators. And the regulators can easily impose enough safety and handling regulations to make Bakken oil too expensive to compete. End of story. The oil stays in the ground.
The battle being waged against fossil fuels is an incremental fight. They are killing coal. They killed the pipelines, and now they will kill two birds with one stone by killing rail, and killing Bakken by default.
Uh...never mind.
schlimm "Killing" the messenger of bad news has been a defensive tactic used at least since ancient Greece. But it never works, whether the tactic is denial, minimization, blaming it on a conspiracy with some agenda, etc. As you have pointed out in an earlier post, there is a pretty high probability of ~6 tank cars of Bakken being involved in some accident this year with explosive and/or fiery results. Changes are coming. Thankfully, rail execs do appear to be working cooperatively on them with the other parties. Their attitudes are a stark contrast with many of the posts here.
But if the train does not have meets with a combined velocity of over 100mph, then a derailment will be far less likely to occur. If the combined velocity can be kept to say 40mph and fewer meets encountered. And obviously the grain train deraialment affecting the opposing train would not have happened if the grain train had not been moving. If it had been moving and the oil train stopped, the results would certainly have been less spectacular because the forces involved would have been far less. With directional running, there would not have been the meet.
We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please? Fred made some specific suggestions. I note he has not repeated them in his subsequent postings and has not picked up on my attempt to make them practical, which is, in itself, enough of a criticism to stop me from promoting them. But I am being asked to answer the same questions over and over again. What suggestions Fred has made, I have made, others have made, may never be implemented. Or perhaps some will be. The decisions will be made by responsible people. We were discussing tank car construction, and you revived an issue that was already discussed thoroughly and completely. That is simply rude.
I understand the point about combined velocity having a higher potential for damage if one train happens to derail during a meet and collide with the other. But such meeting passes only occur during a very small percentage of the total travel. And yet, over the entire route, there is full potential for derailments which would be easily capable of breaching and igniting tank cars. So even if you eliminate one train from moving during a meeting pass, it only eliminates a tiny percentage of the total risk.
This point has been discussed ad nausieum. When two trains pass, the likelyhood of a problem is doubled. In addition obviously a derailment on a bridge or just before entering tunnel or at a signal bridge may possibly bring a lot more harm than one in a open field. So the combined velocity can be compared to a train on a bridge or entering tunnel, where there is some cause for impact. And note that Fred asked to reduce speeds of oil trains in general, 40mph tops. So he did not just talk about meets. And either did I. I really don't want to pursue this anymore. Since Fred dropped it, then so would I like to drop it. If you must, go challange Fred on his recommendation to limit oil trains to 30 or 40 mph, as a comment to his latest posting. In thinking it through, I came up with a sitiuation where that would decrease safety: directional running on a constant-speed line with curves superelevated for the normal train speed of 50 or 60 mph. (1) introducing overtaking meets otherwise unnecessary. (2) wheel-flange and rail wear and forces on curves.
daveklepper We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please?
We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please?
Best way I know of how to do that is quit typing.
Dave,
I am only asking for the reasoning regarding the issue of meets.
I can see your point how the likelihood of a derailment during a meet would be doubled because it involves two trains instead of one. And a derailment of one train during a meet would have a very high probability of involving the other train by fouling it. But still, how many miles of passing meets with both trains moving will be encountered in say 1000 miles of travel? I would think it would be as little as ten miles or 1%.
I can see a lot more potential to reduce the overall hazard if the speed is reduced for the entire route, as you mention.
Yet I did point out the one case where reducing oil-train speed might possiblly reduce safety instead of increasing it. But both the stop-one-train-at-meets and reducing speed were Fred Frailey;s suggestions, and again I just tried to figure out how to iimplement them without major reductions in overall railroad capacity. They did make sense to me. You are sayiing the overall speed reduction is far more important than one train stopped at meets. Maybe you are right. But since Fred is nbt following up on his recommendations, I really would like to drop the whole matter.
EuclidI can see a lot more potential to reduce the overall hazard if the speed is reduced for the entire route, as you mention.
This reduces the capacity of the line. If this is the only train on the line, no big deal. If it's a busy mainline, not so good.
Next time you're on a nice, curvy 55 mph two lane road (no passing zones), try driving at 40 instead of the speed limit...
If you want to see what disparate speeds do to a mainline, hang around one for a few hours around some Amtrak activity.
Larry,
I am not suggesting that slowing down is the solution. I only meant to compare it to stopping one train in a passing meet. In that comparison, I think that slowing down would be far more effective because its safety-adding effect would apply for a much longer time during the travel of the train. But I don’t see slowing down as being a practical solution and I don’t think stopping one train during a meet would be enough to solve the overall problem. I also don’t think that strengthening tank cars will be enough of a solution.
As I type (5 PM) the temperature in Fargo/Casselton is -11 degrees F.
Should oil trains be parked until more moderate temperatures return? Well away from the mains.
Would that the cause of the Dec. 30 incident were known, but there has been discussion that either a broken rail, wheel, or axle on the grain train caused that derailment into the CBR train.
The effects of low temperature on rairoad steel are well-studied.
What would an experienced railroad metallurgist recommend?
What would a railroad CEO decide?
Euclid I can see a lot more potential to reduce the overall hazard if the speed is reduced for the entire route, as you mention.
A classic situation.
Lets say under the current operation a train is loaded today, takes 3 days to transit to destination, 2 days to unload, 3 days to transit back to origin, and another 2 days to load. Total cycle is 10 days. If the customer requires one train a day, then it will take 10 sets of equipment, 3 of which will be under load moving on the railroad at any given time.
For safety we reduce the speed of the trains to 30 mph and stop them at all meets and passes We will assume the empties are not considered "unsafe" and can move at normal speed. That doubles the transit time on the loaded side. It now takes 6 days to transit to destination, 2 days to unload, 3 days to transit back to origin, and another 2 days to load. Total cycle is 13 days. If the customer requires one train a day, then it will take 13 sets of equipment, 6 of which will be under load moving on the railroad at any given time.
So to "improve" safety you have doubled the number of loaded oil trains moving on the railroad and now you have to find a place to hold the empty hazardous sets of equipment that will be queueing for loading. Instead of 1000 Type 111 tank cars out there you now have 1300 type 111 tank cars hauling crude oil.
Have you really reduced the risk?
466lex As I type (5 PM) the temperature in Fargo/Casselton is -11 degrees F. Should oil trains be parked until more moderate temperatures return? Well away from the mains.
Just for the record, the train that derailed in Casselton wasn't an "oil train". It was a manifest train (a mixed freight train) that had a few cars of crude oil traveling in it. If you parked all the unit trains that train would still be running.
It was a mechanical failure on the wheel and axle. Had nothing to do with the rail.
Probably since the BNSF has a CEO and the railroad did what they did and major railroads have people whose only job is to assess risk and report to the CEO and the board of directors, I can only think that a railroad CEO would do EXACTLY what the railroads are currently doing, since that is in fact what they are doing.
Dehusman,
I have no idea how those logistics would shake out. They may very well add to the hazard because of the increased amount of equipment moving. I am just looking at hauling the same amount of oil, but hauling it slower. And I only mention it because it was brought up in conjunction with another proposal to stop one train when two meet and pass. I thought the slowing down option would be far more effective in reducing tank car breaching than the option of stopping one train during a passing meet.
But that does not mean that I prefer the slowdown option. I think the meeting and passing revision would not do enough to solve the problem, and the slowdown option would be too expensive and impractical to implement. It could very well be impractical and counterproductive for the very reasons you cite.
Actually, I don’t expect the industry to come up with a solution to the problem. But it is all a matter of the odds. Fred Frailey has a blog on the odds of future oil train wrecks. But just because the odds predict a certain number per year, that does not mean that the distribution of wrecks will be equal over time.
The oil-by-rail industry needs a miracle to survive this juggernaut of bad press. Such a miracle would be zero fireballs for say five years. If that were the case, that would at least give some breathing room to fight back and create the perception that the problem has been solved. But the odds predict a lot more oil train derailments than zero in five years.
Response to dehusman comments on Tue, Jan 21 2014 12:51 AM:
“Just for the record, the train that derailed in Casselton wasn't an "oil train". It was a manifest train (a mixed freight train) that had a few cars of crude oil traveling in it. If you parked all the unit trains that train would still be running.”
Perhaps Reuters got it wrong. Looks like a DPU, a buffer car, and a string of tank cars, but I wasn’t there. Just a picture and a news story to indicate it was a unit CBR train….
“Reuters – Monday, Dec 30, 2013
Caption:
“Reuters/REUTERS - A plume of smoke rises from scene of a derailed train near Casselton, North Dakota December 30, 2013. The train that derailed was travelling eastbound, carrying crude oil, according to a BNSF spokeswoman. Emergency and fire-fighting crews are responding to the derailment, which occurred around 2:10 p.m. Casselton is roughly 20 miles west of Fargo, ND along Interstate 94. REUTERS/Michael Vosburg/Forum News Service
“By Alicia Nelson
“FARGO, North Dakota (Reuters) - A BNSF train carrying crude oil in North Dakota collided with another train on Monday setting off a series of explosions that left at least 10 cars ablaze, the latest in a string of incidents that have raised alarms over growing oil-by-rail traffic.
“Local residents heard five powerful explosions just a mile outside of the small town of Casselton after a westbound train carrying soybeans derailed, and an eastbound 104-car train hauling crude oil ran into it just after 2 p.m. CST (2000 GMT), local officials said. There were no reports of any injuries.
“Half of the oil cars have been separated from the train, but another 56 cars remain in danger, said Cecily Fong, the public information officer with the North Dakota Department of Emergency Services. ….” [Emphasis added.]
Source link: http://news.yahoo.com/two-trains-collide-north-dakota-one-them-carrying-215524489--finance.html
“It was a mechanical failure on the wheel and axle. Had nothing to do with the rail.”
Perhaps the NTSB has issued their final report and I just missed it. Pretty fast turnaround.
“Probably since the BNSF has a CEO and the railroad did what they did and major railroads have people whose only job is to assess risk and report to the CEO and the board of directors, ….”
Interesting inside information. I guess I have missed the statements of the BNSF CEO quoting their risk assessors on the Casselton event. Must have been reassuring. (I imagine CSX will have their risk assessors talking to the Philadelphia media within the next month or so.) Inside information presumably will show that BNSF metallurgists gave the high green to continue full CBR operations through Casselton at 20 below tonight. After all …
“…I can only think that a railroad CEO would do EXACTLY what the railroads are currently doing, since that is in fact what they are doing.”
What’s that old tragi-comic definition of insanity?
I still wish the discussion would cease, but in answer to Euclid's question, the answer is:: "Yes. we still have reduced the risk, and to undersand why, you have to learn the relationships between force, acceleration, mass, and velocity." Double the speed of the impact, you double the total kinetic energy. But because of nonlinearities in structure failure, some locations may see quadruple the force or even more.
466lex Perhaps Reuters got it wrong. Looks like a DPU, a buffer car, and a string of tank cars, but I wasn’t there. Just a picture and a news story to indicate it was a unit CBR train….
I stand corrected, one of the reports I read said there were other cars/commodities involved and that lead to my misunderstanding.
“Probably since the BNSF has a CEO and the railroad did what they did and major railroads have people whose only job is to assess risk and report to the CEO and the board of directors, ….” Interesting inside information. I guess I have missed the statements of the BNSF CEO quoting their risk assessors on the Casselton event. Must have been reassuring. (I imagine CSX will have their risk assessors talking to the Philadelphia media within the next month or so.) Inside information presumably will show that BNSF metallurgists gave the high green to continue full CBR operations through Casselton at 20 below tonight. After all …
The comments on this forum seem to take the attitude that the railroads are just whistling in the dark and not paying attention to any of this. People are wildly speculating and throwing out "solutions" without real data to support them or any regard for what the consequences may be (Frailey included). The point was that rather than being reactionary, as your view of what the railroads do, they are actually attempting to get out ahead of the risk. So yes, the railroads will look at the accidents in hindsight, but the more important thing is that they do have people looking at the risk in the future. These aren't kneejerk reactions So whatever they do in response to some of these incidents won't be for months or years down the road because it will take that long to analyze, formulate any changes and then implement those changes. The railroads have been down this path before. It happened with the LPG/flammable gases in the 1970's (how BLVE, "blevee", became known), it happened when the ethanol trains started.
“…I can only think that a railroad CEO would do EXACTLY what the railroads are currently doing, since that is in fact what they are doing.” What’s that old tragi-comic definition of insanity?
Not a all. I never said railroads would never change. I'm saying that the major railroads have seriously looked at the transportation of hazmat, its one of their core businesses, and have made the best choices (you may have a different opinion on how to define "best"). The point is they are actually looking at facts and are picking solutions that fit the best fit of effective, efficient and sustainable. You can debate how you would score that fit differently, but the fact is they have looked at it.
Once again, my comments are pointed at the major, class 1 railroads. The smaller shortlines probably don't have the resources to do as much.
For example, here's a change I would make if I were a CEO, in light of the Lac Megantic incident, where part of the MMA's liability might blow back on the connecting carriers, I would offer any connecting shortlines assistance to audit their safety and operating practices with regard to hazmat shipments. If that became a legal anti-trust problem, I would work through the AAR to set up an industry audit team to assist those railroads without the expertise to determine where their risks were. That solution doesn't send trains on magical mystery tours across the country, it doesn't slow down the network, it doesn't add cars to the fleet, it doesn't increase shipping costs to the consumer, but suprise, it could have actually prevented Lac Megantic.
dehusmanSo whatever they do in response to some of these incidents won't be for months or years down the road because it will take that long to analyze, formulate any changes and then implement those changes.
The rails with have to come up with something far better than moving at the glacial pace you propose. If that's the best they can propose, they won't be transporting Bakken crude at all. Fortunately, their CEO's are wiser.
schlimm dehusmanSo whatever they do in response to some of these incidents won't be for months or years down the road because it will take that long to analyze, formulate any changes and then implement those changes. The rails with have to come up with something far better than moving at the glacial pace you propose. If that's the best they can propose, they won't be transporting Bakken crude at all. Fortunately, their CEO's are wiser.
Murphy SidingI believe he railroad industry is no different. They know they have a problem. They know it costs lives, and it costs them money. They also know they have to improve things. I am sure they are working o it as we speak.
If you actually had read all of three of my sentences, you would have noticed the third one: "Fortunately, their CEO's are wiser." I do not think their wisdom is to wait around for years to change the current method of transporting Bakken crude by their rail lines the way some on these threads wish..
It is stunning to me that the whole Bakken oil field development has progressed this far with no understanding or consideration of the high volatility/flammability nature of the product. It is as if the railroads, the oil producers, the shippers, and the regulators have been blindsided by the explosive/flammable nature of Bakken crude. I would have thought they would have been intimately familiar with the product right down to the molecular level. But I guess not.
Even though lots of people are suggesting solutions to the problem, I don’t expect it to be solved. Sometimes evolution is not enough. Sometimes it takes a revolution, and I don’t think the industry is up to that challenge. Oh sure, they will take action right away, but it will only produce a marginal improvement.
The problem is set up by the convergence of the green movement, the Bakken boom, the killing of pipelines, and the emergence of rail as an alternative to pipelines. The catalyst that materialized the problem was Lac Megantic. And like that fire, this problem is out of control and will run its course.
schlimm If you actually had read all of three of my sentences, you would have noticed the third one: "Fortunately, their CEO's are wiser." I do not think their wisdom is to wait around for years to change the current method of transporting Bakken crude by their rail lines the way some on these threads wish..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.