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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
Norm
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.
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...
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.