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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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
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…..
23 17 46 11
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.
Norm
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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
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.
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...
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.