daveklepper Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
John Timm
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).
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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 !!!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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.)
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
"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.
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!
23 17 46 11
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.