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?
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
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.
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.
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,.
zugmann....etc....., but I'm just an idiotic, corporate shill of a maroon. So my opinion is worthless.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
Your already subsidizing commercial highway vehicles exposing millions to risks they didn't sign on for via your gas taxes.
Norm
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
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….
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!!
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Back then the most dangerous commodity on the trains was livestock.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?”
... Daily, I might add. And inspecting the cars, and controlling the traffic. This guy clearly has no idea how a railroad operates.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.