The funniest proposal yet is relocating the tracks so they don't go through any towns, or at least larger towns. (Guess the Lac-Megantics and Casseltons are expendable.) We had such a letter in our local paper the other day.
These innocents -- not idiots! not maroons! -- don't realize that, before the rails incurred that expense, and passed it on to shippers, the oil companies would carry their product to the refinery in gallon cans.
Then there are politicians -- including, alas, one of our own U.S. senators -- who helpfully suggest that the rails simply tighten safety so that their trains never derail! (Pursuing this brilliant breakthrough, the pols ought to dispense with air, marine and highway accidents.)
What a wonderful world it would be without derailments. I could work my entire life and be proud of the job I did and not feel ashamed for being part of the railroad industry in 2013-14. I'm all for zero derailments !!!
Responding to Dehuseman
East of Chcago, I would suggest that NS and CSX get serious about direcdtional running on parallel lines. Both systems would benefit, so would stockholders and customers. UP should do the same Ogdon - Sacramento with the SP and WP lines OR the SP can be the dense line the WP the Hazmat-with-care line. East Denver, I would use UP's line to Kansas City, and from KC there are several medium density routes to connect with NS and CSX, and which to use requires some study, and it may be possible to bypass Chicago. Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area. North from Houston, UP akready has directional running, and can do so or has done it between Houston and New Orleans. Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
Since you have changed the discussion to paired track arrangements, I will assume that you can't identify a route between ND and the east coast and ND and the New Orleans area that only carries 10-20 trains a day.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
daveklepper How about Inside Gateway, WP-line, Moffat, UP to KC, UP to Houston, UP to New Orleans Paired track or no more than 20 trains a day. Only slightly round-about and should work. Does require UP-BNSF cooperation however. No problem for Key Transportaton, Inc.
daveklepper Responding to Dehuseman Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area.
Into Chicago, from the west, the ex RI line run by regional might be good bet. but must avoid the commuter rushes, using Midnight - 5 AM for hazmat travel through the Chicago area.
The ex RI is line dark territory, so you have no broken rail protection. Do you really want oil trains running over that? It is also single track west of Joliet, with few sidings. Currently my employer runs about 7 oil trains a day each way, I am sure the other major eastern railroad is running at least that many. Add in around 4 ethanol trains a day as well. Including empties, your talking around 20 trains each way a day. There is no way you are going to be able to squeeze that into a 5 hour period. Even if the railroads spen the money to double track the railroad AND put in a signal system, it would only be possible under perfect conditions. Ask anyone who works for the railroad and they will tell you that perfect conditions only happen once and a great while, and they are not something you should plan for.
An "expensive model collector"
daveklepper Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
Directional running is, of course, far better than stopping at meets and even safer.
So, you never plan and getting higher priority trains around these slower oil trains on the line of road?
dehusman This illustrates a problem with a lot of the proposals tossed out on the forums...One of most amusing suggestions was to stop oil trains in "high wind" situations.
Lots of sniping. Do you have any proposals?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sure:
1. Keep the commodity on main routes (best maintenance, best track, best signal systems, best defect detection).
2. Minimize route miles.
3. Don't do stupid things (like run a one man crew on a dark territory and park the train on steep grade).
4. Replace the 111 tank cars with better designs (will take years to accomplish).
5. Audit procedures to ensure compliance (both on a local level and from a corporate level).
Saw a story on network TV this morning about a 19 car coal train derailment in Wisconsin. Before the oil train derailments, this would not have warranted any national coverage. The "hook" was the concern that coal trains could dump over on bridges, killing people. Yes, it has happened before and it was a tragedy, but with what kind of frequency? And do we now expect to put sidewalls on all bridges? I'm waiting for the local politicians to chime in on this one.
John Timm
desertdog Saw a story on network TV this morning about a 19 car coal train derailment in Wisconsin. Before the oil train derailments, this would not have warranted any national coverage. The "hook" was the concern that coal trains could dump over on bridges, killing people. Yes, it has happened before and it was a tragedy, but with what kind of frequency? And do we now expect to put sidewalls on all bridges? I'm waiting for the local politicians to chime in on this one.
Our local paper today had an article about how coal has been polluting water supplies, etc for years. Given the recent actions regarding coal fired plants, the article sounds like more "justification" for getting away from coal.
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.
Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
This whole topic reminds me of an editorial in the "Pontiac Press" (MI) back in the sixties.
The big topic was "killer trees" - trees close enough to the road to be hit and substantial enough to do significant damage if they were struck (like that big oak in your front yard).
The editorial postulated that all such trees should be cut down. It went on to suggest that cars should be properly spaced by some method of supervision, and their speed controlled.
The piece concluded by admitting that some driver would still manage to roll his car and kill himself.
daveklepper Possibly the very fist step is for the seven to get together to explore more possibilities for directional running.
Again, my effort was to try to see how Fred Frailey's proposals could be implemented without "gumming up the works." A company or a bueareau of all seven tasked with the task of making hazmat transport safer seemed to me the best approach . Then I tried to see now the specific operating ideas Fred wriote could be applied in practice. The first modification of Fred's ideas is that trains could pass each other keeping moving at resricted speed. The second is that directional running minimizes meets. Before going further generally, may I point out that years ago on this Forum I argued the case of single-speed railroading. I felt that N&W running coal trains at 70mph had something to teach us. A hazmat train, yes a petroleum train using the old tankcars, on a directionally-paired basically single-direction line, should run at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. Avoiding overtaking reduces risks. Also curves can only be superelivated for one speed, and runniing at that speed reduces risks. On paired directional running lines, the opposing traffic is usually one or two local peddler freights, and their stopping while others run by should rarely be a problem. Back to generalities: If Carl Ice were to tell me that running hazmat trains at normal speed on the Transcon is the safest approach, I would have to take his word, because he is the professional, has years of experience, and knows the equipment and physical plant. My guess is so would Fred.
dehusmanhe thing I can't figure out is why all the broughaha about the crude oil. Regardless of the volatility, its still just a flammable liquid.
Exactly.
As has been pointed out on one of these threads (although not in so many words), Lac Megantic would have likely had the same outcome with brand-spanking-new safe-as-they-can-be cars as it did with DOT111's.
Or if the substance had been ethanol. Or a "Tank Train" of any number of flammables.
While I rather doubt that such is the case with our forum members, I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety.
You have no way of knowing that the spanking-new-safe-as-they-can-be tank cars would have produced the same result. No one can say that for certain. No one can say for certain that the explosions and fire would not have occured. However, the final report may contain details that can lead to a probabilitity one way or another, but we do not have those details at the present time, and note that I write may, not will
We appear to be beating a dead horse.
Norm
Noted this comment just above: "... I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety."
Latest report from the front:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Train-Derails-Schuykill-Expressway-Closed-241114931.html
“A train derailment left a tanker car and boxcar leaning off a Philadelphia bridge early this morning [Monday, Jan. 20, 2014].
“Police and firefighters responded to the train derailment near the Schuylkill Expressway, between South and 34th Streets, around 12:30 a.m.
“According to CSX spokesman Gary Sease, the 101-car freight train was headed from Chicago to Philadelphia when seven cars derailed on the Schuylkill Arsenal Railroad Bridge where it crosses over the Schuylkill from University City to Grays Ferry -- just south of the South Street Bridge. It is not yet known what caused the derailment.
“Six cars carried crude oil, but no leaking was reported. Another car contained sand, according to CSX.
“No injuries were reported.
“….”
Are they making this stuff up?
466lex Noted this comment just above: "... I still maintain that the "attack" on crude transport has little to do with safety." Latest report from the front: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Train-Derails-Schuykill-Expressway-Closed-241114931.html “A train derailment left a tanker car and boxcar leaning off a Philadelphia bridge early this morning [Monday, Jan. 20, 2014]. “Police and firefighters responded to the train derailment near the Schuylkill Expressway, between South and 34th Streets, around 12:30 a.m. “According to CSX spokesman Gary Sease, the 101-car freight train was headed from Chicago to Philadelphia when seven cars derailed on the Schuylkill Arsenal Railroad Bridge where it crosses over the Schuylkill from University City to Grays Ferry -- just south of the South Street Bridge. It is not yet known what caused the derailment. “Six cars carried crude oil, but no leaking was reported. Another car contained sand, according to CSX. “No injuries were reported. “….” Are they making this stuff up?
"Killing" the messenger of bad news has been a defensive tactic used at least since ancient Greece. But it never works, whether the tactic is denial, minimization, blaming it on a conspiracy with some agenda, etc. As you have pointed out in an earlier post, there is a pretty high probability of ~6 tank cars of Bakken being involved in some accident this year with explosive and/or fiery results. Changes are coming. Thankfully, rail execs do appear to be working cooperatively on them with the other parties. Their attitudes are a stark contrast with many of the posts here.
Obviously there is a safety issue. Less obvious perhaps is another issue. That other issue is the inflammation of the safety issue by those who want to leave the oil in the ground. And while the most hardcore of that faction may be considered to be a fringe, they have the general sympathy and support of the majority of Americans. Don’t ask those supporters how they will live without oil. They don’t worry about that. They are being told that they can replace oil by wind, solar, and other enlightened forms of energy, and they believe it. This is a societal tug of war.
If the railroad industry does not realize what they are actually fighting in this oil war—if they think it is only about safety—they will lose the war. That is because this is a war of perceptions, and they had better fight back on that level or they will lose.
I hear people say that the oil has to move, and it will move one way or the other. The issue openly on the table only involves Bakken oil, and no it does NOT have to move. The green movement certainly has the ear of the regulators. And the regulators can easily impose enough safety and handling regulations to make Bakken oil too expensive to compete. End of story. The oil stays in the ground.
The battle being waged against fossil fuels is an incremental fight. They are killing coal. They killed the pipelines, and now they will kill two birds with one stone by killing rail, and killing Bakken by default.
Uh...never mind.
schlimm "Killing" the messenger of bad news has been a defensive tactic used at least since ancient Greece. But it never works, whether the tactic is denial, minimization, blaming it on a conspiracy with some agenda, etc. As you have pointed out in an earlier post, there is a pretty high probability of ~6 tank cars of Bakken being involved in some accident this year with explosive and/or fiery results. Changes are coming. Thankfully, rail execs do appear to be working cooperatively on them with the other parties. Their attitudes are a stark contrast with many of the posts here.
But if the train does not have meets with a combined velocity of over 100mph, then a derailment will be far less likely to occur. If the combined velocity can be kept to say 40mph and fewer meets encountered. And obviously the grain train deraialment affecting the opposing train would not have happened if the grain train had not been moving. If it had been moving and the oil train stopped, the results would certainly have been less spectacular because the forces involved would have been far less. With directional running, there would not have been the meet.
We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please? Fred made some specific suggestions. I note he has not repeated them in his subsequent postings and has not picked up on my attempt to make them practical, which is, in itself, enough of a criticism to stop me from promoting them. But I am being asked to answer the same questions over and over again. What suggestions Fred has made, I have made, others have made, may never be implemented. Or perhaps some will be. The decisions will be made by responsible people. We were discussing tank car construction, and you revived an issue that was already discussed thoroughly and completely. That is simply rude.
I understand the point about combined velocity having a higher potential for damage if one train happens to derail during a meet and collide with the other. But such meeting passes only occur during a very small percentage of the total travel. And yet, over the entire route, there is full potential for derailments which would be easily capable of breaching and igniting tank cars. So even if you eliminate one train from moving during a meeting pass, it only eliminates a tiny percentage of the total risk.
This point has been discussed ad nausieum. When two trains pass, the likelyhood of a problem is doubled. In addition obviously a derailment on a bridge or just before entering tunnel or at a signal bridge may possibly bring a lot more harm than one in a open field. So the combined velocity can be compared to a train on a bridge or entering tunnel, where there is some cause for impact. And note that Fred asked to reduce speeds of oil trains in general, 40mph tops. So he did not just talk about meets. And either did I. I really don't want to pursue this anymore. Since Fred dropped it, then so would I like to drop it. If you must, go challange Fred on his recommendation to limit oil trains to 30 or 40 mph, as a comment to his latest posting. In thinking it through, I came up with a sitiuation where that would decrease safety: directional running on a constant-speed line with curves superelevated for the normal train speed of 50 or 60 mph. (1) introducing overtaking meets otherwise unnecessary. (2) wheel-flange and rail wear and forces on curves.
daveklepper We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please?
We are going in circles on this. Can we stop, please?
Best way I know of how to do that is quit typing.
Dave,
I am only asking for the reasoning regarding the issue of meets.
I can see your point how the likelihood of a derailment during a meet would be doubled because it involves two trains instead of one. And a derailment of one train during a meet would have a very high probability of involving the other train by fouling it. But still, how many miles of passing meets with both trains moving will be encountered in say 1000 miles of travel? I would think it would be as little as ten miles or 1%.
I can see a lot more potential to reduce the overall hazard if the speed is reduced for the entire route, as you mention.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.