DwightBranch Norm48327 And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether. You have made several posts now in which you argue that profits should be maximized by the railroads (i.e., by continuing to use the DOT-111 tank cars) while implying that the costs of potential accidents should be borne by the public (you don't address the costs, so I assume that those whose houses are set aflame when one of these trains derails must bear the costs themselves).
Norm48327 And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether.
And all of that is going to affect fluidity of the railroad and cost a huge sum of money. May as well get out of the crude business altogether.
You have made several posts now in which you argue that profits should be maximized by the railroads (i.e., by continuing to use the DOT-111 tank cars) while implying that the costs of potential accidents should be borne by the public (you don't address the costs, so I assume that those whose houses are set aflame when one of these trains derails must bear the costs themselves).
You are claiming that I said the above. Not true. I suggest you reread my posts. What I said was it's going to affect delivery times and cost money. Never did I advocate putting safety on the back burner.
Warped and twisted.
Norm
I am pro-railroad, but I agree with 466lex's outline above: if you can't afford to make the investments to ship petroleum safely BEFORE you actually move a car then you cannot ship petroleum. And I would extend that to pipelines as well. Private profits and public costs is inherently unjust.
No ..not really. Many of these things were done before the Megantic disaster. There was a lot of money on the line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/energy-environment/north-dakota-senators-want-stronger-rail-safety-rules.html
Action is coming, as surely as night follows day:
On Thursday, Senator Hoeven and his fellow North Dakota senator, Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, met with Anthony Foxx, the transportation secretary, and the head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Cynthia L. Quarterman. Secretary Foxx told the North Dakota senators that he wants to organize a meeting next week with regulators and railroads executives to gather information. He suggested that along with testing results, the administration might then “be able to provide some guidance regarding the standard for new railcars,” according to a joint statement by the two senators.
The oil industry sees it as a stroke of bad luck that the Casselton fire occurred while the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was considering new rules. Grady C. Cothen Jr., a transportation policy consultant who was formerly the deputy associate administrator for safety standards, said of the railroads and the shippers, “they’re waiting for the shoe to drop from the Department of Transportation.”
The problem, he said, was that Bakken crude was “not what any of us expected,” with a far higher tendency to explode or burn. “The D.O.T. has probably hesitated initially, because they didn’t know what they had on their hands,” he added, “and they were not willing to take a low-cost solution if something more significant was needed.”
Meanwhile, the oil producers blame the rails:
In an email, Jack Ekstrom, a vice president at Whiting Petroleum, another major Bakken producer, said, “It seems likely that inspecting track and equipment used on the tracks, managing train speeds, building track around cities rather than through cities would be safer.”
Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said in an interview, “What we are thinking is you need to keep the trains on the tracks, right? What are we doing to keep the trains on the tracks to prevent derailments, inspecting the tracks?”
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Had I been CEO of a railroad which transports CBR, the day after the Lac Megantic disaster I would have convened my senior staff as a task force to address deeply every safety element of CBR transport on our road and to rapidly come up with comprehensive measures to radically improve safe performance of the CBR transport task.
Highly visible steps would have been taken rapidly, with the knowledge that openness to blow-back from any and all quarters, internal and external, was expected and essential. Adaptation and learning would be continuous, but inaction would be unacceptable. I would have described the threat to the company as existential. Careers, especially mine, would have been on the line.
(While the CBR task force would have been the central focus of my daily activities for weeks and months, a closely related concern would have been building a most carefully constructed set of communication strategies to parallel the roll-out of CBR safety actions. An over-riding concern in this regard would have been to have in place a communication plan in the event of another catastrophic event.)
What might be some of the CBR safety elements to come out of an intense senior-management led company-wide effort? Perhaps they might include some like these:
1. Specification of “Safety Corridors”, i.e., specific routes (and limited alternates) between each and every O-D pair to be subject to stringent and continuing engineering review of Track, Structures, and Signaling. CBR train movements (all? sample?) would be immediately preceded and followed by inspection.
2. CBR trains on the “Safety Corridors” would move as “Special Trains”, subject to “Special Train” rules and charges. As experience accrued, perhaps such designation could be relaxed for trains composed exclusively of new generation tank cars. Treatment of “Special Trains” would be analogous to the handling of so-called “dimension” or “high/wide” shipments: Terminal-to-Terminal scheduling for movement at periods of least traffic.
3. “Special CBR Trains” do not run in exceptional weather conditions: Below 0 degrees/Above 100 degrees/High winds/High water/Tornado threat/Blizzard.
4. “Special CBR Trains” on “Safety Corridors” would be coordinated by “CBR Safety Advocates” in the Control Center.
5. Mechanical inspections, particularly intense, would be uniquely tailored to include critical elements of tank car design (coordinated with tank car builders.) Frequency of inspections would be “X” times that of conventional equipment. Car inspectors would be “CBR-Certified”.
6. Crew the DPUs to assure maximum crew awareness (e.g., smoke from dragging brakes) and flexibility in case of incident (e.g.., move rear cars away from derailment).
This list is meant to be suggestive, not definitive, of course.
Lots of “negatives”, for sure:
1. Expensive: Raise the rates
2. Hurts tank car utilization: One of the prices to be paid by shipper for safety.
3. Impacts on other railroad lines of business: Minimize by use of “Corridors”, “Special Trains”, “Advocates”, Planning, planning and more planning.
4. Ultimately, high cost may divert CBR to pipeline or keep crude in the ground: Remember, the threat of unsafe operations is existential to our railroad.
Perhaps all of this has already been done, but not yet announced.
If not, I hope it is well underway.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101341864
"The U.S. railroad industry has expressed support for stricter tank car regulations, but it should be known that railroad companies own fewer than 700 of the tank cars. The vast majority (more than 99 percent) of the fleet is owned by a wide array of mainly petrochemical shipping firms, which lease the tank cars to rail companies. "
Hopefully this will be read thoroughly, so certain people can stop saying the railroads are resisting changes made to the tank cars.
An "expensive model collector"
schlimm Paul_D_North_Jr 466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you ! One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ? - Paul North. I agree and hope serious efforts are made by ALL the relevant parties. The tank cars and their use need to be addressed by the appropriate regulatory body and the manufacturers and leasing companies now. The oil companies and shippers need to correctly label shipments or face large fines and refusal to transport because of fraudulent labeling. And the rails need to address the accident issue. Afterall. these explosions of Bakken in DOT-111 would not happen if the rails did not have the accidents. But since I am "anti-rail" even if i say the sun rises in the east, it will be rejected.
Paul_D_North_Jr 466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you ! One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ? - Paul North.
466lex, I really like and respect your analysis - thank you !
One quibble or addendum, though: Those accident rates reflect actual recent experience, not some unchangeable law of physics (except maybe human nature . . . the Challenger management succumbed to wishful thinking and pressure from above to make the launch schedule, as I understand it). Which is to say that a concerted safety improvement effort could make those statistics better - and equally valid the other way, that ignoring reality as displayed by these trends could lead to a worse track record . . . The choice is up to the effectiveness of the managements of the "transactional parties" - can they cooperate, or just point fingers and fire press releases at each other ?
- Paul North.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD schlimm http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits. The rail industry is not resisting retrofits! The car owners (who are really financial types - not railroaders) are the ones resisting retrofitting the cars.
schlimm http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/05/20343288-danger-on-the-tracks-unsafe-rail-cars-carry-oil-through-us-towns?lite
Lots of excuses, but little action in the 30 years since the DOT 111 cars were first identified as dangerous. The PHMSA has to rule, but it has stalled for several years. And the rail industry resists retrofits.
The rail industry is not resisting retrofits!
The car owners (who are really financial types - not railroaders) are the ones resisting retrofitting the cars.
...which is why the industry isn't resisting. Not a RR expense (directly, anyway).
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
dehusman Randy Stahl My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body. "...when sparks entered the tank body ." ?????????? The only way sparks enter the tank body is when the tank is breached. How do you propose to maintain the integrity of the CO2/nitrogen blanket with a big gaping hole in the side of the tank car? If there is a hold big enough to let sparks in, its going to be big enough to let air in too.
Randy Stahl My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body.
My idea was to put a CO2 or Nitrogen blanket in the cars after loading to purge the oxygen from the explosive mixture in the tops of the cars. It seems that at least some of the cars blew up from the inside out when sparks entered the tank body.
"...when sparks entered the tank body ." ??????????
The only way sparks enter the tank body is when the tank is breached. How do you propose to maintain the integrity of the CO2/nitrogen blanket with a big gaping hole in the side of the tank car? If there is a hold big enough to let sparks in, its going to be big enough to let air in too.
The heavier inert gasses displace oxygen and is heavier than air. There should still be a layer of inert gas between the combustible and the oxygen at least for a while. I'm not talking about eliminating fires or explosions, I'm talking about delaying them at least so people have a few precious seconds to run away.
Think about it .. how long does an inert gas blanket really have to last providing there are no external sources of ignition ? Till the cars come to a rest right?
In Megantic , death was immediate or nearly so.. if they had 1 to 5 minutes before an explosion to get away many lives would have been preserved.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
You may have the right answer, and it may not be all that expensive if applied total-rail system-wide.
We alll want the railroads to be able to keep the business, maximize safety, and not have costs go through the roof.
Pretty damn fine, Ed, on all counts. Thanks for the insights on bad-ordering.
I actually mentioned this to some pretty important folks in the government.. we'll see, I sincerely wish I had an answer. I enjoy low gas and heating oil prices (not low enough for sure) as I'm sure everyone does, I fear the impact on the economy could be devastating if this is not resolved and soon. High gas an heating oil prices would certainly affect me , my family and my friends adversely.
OK. I agree with this evaluation. But i wonder if Fred Frailey's operating suggestions still mkae sense to you? Would they alter your railroad's operations ini any significant way? If they did, would you consider them a positive approach? Would my suggested "Key transportation Inc." organizational approach,, with the details well thought-through, be of advantage to your railroad?
Fred is of couse, aware of this suggestion, and possibly he will make a case for it for the ralilroaqds and it will be implemented, or something similar and as effective or better.
From the NBC article linked in the original post.
The boom has left a number of companies scrambling for tank cars to move the oil, and the report says that led to several cases in which companies sent cars out that did not meet standards.
Excellent example of a reporter miss-quoting a written report to make something appear more of a concern or more dangerous than it is simply to increase the scare value of their own report.
What the report really said.
6. One transloader released loaded tank cars that were out of specification (safety appliances). The pressure to ship those cars was more than the risk of failure in transportation or discovery by FRA. (Rail car shortage is a major concern. We have had cases of cars being shipped out of specification.)
Note the part in parentheses, “Safety appliances”…, anybody out there know what that means?
Not what the reporter implies or may want you to think, or what the un informed casual reader may surmise…a safety appliance is not an appliance to make the car safe for transportation of product, but are the devices in place that allow railroaders to safely work on and with the car, grab irons, sill stirrups, cross over platforms, hand holds and side rails, pin levers and such.
Nothing whatsoever to do with ability of the car to safely carry the product inside.
And take a wild guess at who most likely discovered these cars “out of specification?
A car man or railroader at a terminal doing the normal inspection performed on all trains that pass through terminals.
Blaming the railroad for something ONE of the trans loaders and or shipping companies did makes perfect sense?
How?
Here’s some food for thought.
Bad order cars, cars with a safety appliance bad order or an actual operational bad order, (worn or missing brake shoe, bad wheel set, sharp wheel flange, broken brake rigging, stuff like that) are big dollar business.
Car departments at all major railroads love to find them, they bill repairs at the AAR Manual of Interchange rate, which specifies exactly how the cars must be repaired and what materials can be used, this thing is a seriously thick book that details down to the particular metal grade a cotter pin used to hold a cut lever handle in place can be made of….in the real world such a cotter pin might cost 99 cents, in the railroad world, it’s a $5.00 part.
On my small class 3 railroad our car department routinely bills several million dollars of repairs quarterly to each of our class 1 member lines for bad order repair…trust me, not a car one can enter our railroad without being looked over at least twice, once on arrival, and once on departure at the minimum, and you can bank on the class 1 roads doing the same to these unit trains, it is big business money.
No matter how valuable or how “hot” a car might be, it will be inspected by the railroad, and cut out of the train if any bad order of any type is found.
What you are looking at is a situation being sensationalized for no other reason than it allows people with an agenda to wave their respective flags and get valuable press coverage for their 15 minutes of fame.
Be they reporters, city mayors, congressmen, the FRA or the NTSB, even a few forum members are using these few incidents to create an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding.
The reporters of course do so to increase readership, nothing sells better than disaster beside sex and money, the FRA and NTSB are simply doing their jobs as they see it, and the forum members, well, I get the feeling they have their own agenda, and from what I gather from the majority of their postings, that agenda is that they don’t like railroaders or railroads all that much, and post here simply to cause dissent and fear, the better to allow themselves their own 15 minutes!
Now for something from the silly but relevant thought department.
Using the fear monger approach and placing things out of context to make a point and further an agenda…
I would bet that almost all of the forum members out there are going to do something tomorrow that taken out of context is extremely dangerous and possible deadly for some of you.
All of you are going to dispense and transport a hazardous liquid, one many times more volatile that this crude oil under discussion, and all of you are going to do so with no formal training on how to dispense this product, nor how to safely transport this product, much less will any of you have any type of shipping papers, nor will any of you have placards displayed to warn first responders if you have an accident that results in a release of this hazardous material.
You are going to transport this product in a single walled tank, made from mild steel easily punctured, a child can drive a screwdriver through this tank with little effort, and said tank will be held in place with two strips of plumbing strap and four mild steel bolts, and the tank will be located in such a fashion that any rear impact with the transport vehicle will easily rupture the tank, as will any large debris on the surface you use to transport this tank.
The device used to protect this tank is only required, by federal law, to withstand an impact of 5 mph or less.
You are going to transport this packing group 2 flammable liquid in close proximity to and with several thousand other people similarly un trained and not qualified, and during transport, your shipment will be subject to the random and illogical actions of these thousand others who may or may not be qualified.
Of course, I am talking about you filling your gas tank on your car…you’re going to put approximately 20 gallons of gasoline in a cheaply made tank, hung by equally cheap straps in the rear of your car, and drive around in populated areas with a thousand other people, any one of which could easily rear end you and rupture the gas tank…you see cars on fire all the time on the evening and morning news.
Yet if this was a railroad we were discussing, the person dispensing the gasoline into a tank car would be required to wear full hazmat suit, including a respirator, have the tank car properly grounded, and must have a license and be fully trained to dispense the gas.
Then the person transporting the tank car would be required to have shipping papers with all the hazmat infor, the car must be placarded, and the person must pass a federally mandated test on handling the gasoline, and have a response guide with details on what to do if an accident happens in their possession at all times.
You on the other hand, with absolutely no formal training are allowed to dispense this extremely dangerous liquid at will, you can fill your automobile fuel tank with it, you can put it in hand carried gas cans, and you transport it on freeways and roads full of other drivers busy texting their friends instead of driving their cars, and no one blinks an eye at this, yet if you think it through….
So why is it that you, totally un trained, are allowed to dispense and transport what amounts to a liquid bomb in the back of your automobile in the company of thousands of other un trained people in densely populated areas, and do so in a tank that is far more easily ruptured than a railroad tank car, often at speeds twice the speed the tank car travels, all while subject to the random and un-predictable actions of all the other drivers around you…no one seems to be bothered by that.
On the other hand, in my capacity as a freight train conductor, I am required by federal law to attend formal training on how to handle this stuff, have to follow federal laws about the documentation on the tank car and its contents, placement of this tank in my train, follow strict procedures on moving this tank, on a surface that has to meet federal requirement as to speed a am allowed to move and move only in a tightly controlled environment with almost no traffic or other trains near me at any time.
Odd double standard at work…I guess because it is convenient and almost a necessity for all of us to use and transport gasoline in our cars, and because we want to do so, then it is ok.
Of course, the solution to all the automobile fires, the death of entire families in several instances should, following the rational of the panic mongers, be to simply ban all automobile gas tanks.
Makes almost as much sense as banning all the tank cars on the rail, yes?
23 17 46 11
dehusman Complaining to the railroads is like complaining to TurboTax that the tax rates are too high.
Complaining to the railroads is like complaining to TurboTax that the tax rates are too high.
That is a perfect analogy. No doubt it will fall on deaf ears for the railroad haters on this board.
Probably the most stringent tank car hazards are for TIH/PIH cars. If you read some of the links in the myriad of related threads there is a study done by Harvard on the risks of TIH/PIH. They describe several accidents in which cars in carload shipments (not unit trains) of TIH/PIH were breached in an accident. If arguably the most hardened cars have been breached in accidents there is a reasonable argument that ANY car involved in the Lac Megantic accident would have been breached by the forces involved.
If you read the various attachments you would also read about several shippers, car companies and railroads that are cooperating on the design of a next generation of TIH/PIH tank car. I myself have posted about how one railroad (the UP) has been testing the prototype cars in actual train service to measure how sturdy the car is.
The railroads are more than willing to cooperate with industry to solve the problem since they know (as demonstrated in several of these threads) that they will be blamed for the problem even though most of the "solutions" proposed by the posters are out of the railroad's control or violate several Federal laws and even have precedents (cited in the threads) where the railroads have attempted some of the remedies proposed and have been stopped by a court of law.
If you want to get something done, stop harassing the railroads and go to the car leasing companies websites and harass the people who OWN the cars, who have the power over REPLACING the cars and who CONTROL the fixing of the type 111 car problem.
schlimm What's your solution? Does your union (if you are a member) have a position? Because your responses sound like they were written in corporate.
What's your solution? Does your union (if you are a member) have a position? Because your responses sound like they were written in corporate.
Ah, you caught me. I'm just a computer program. A computer program from the future where the oil trains have enslaved mankind. Hahahaha.
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, but your rudeness and personal attacks trump thouroughness, like actually reading carefully,
Heh.... can't make that stuff up, folks.
Good. I actually did call for ALL the parties to arrive at a solution (s) in the DOT, but your rudeness and personal attacks trump thouroughness, like actually reading carefully, . BTW, lex's post is far stronger in its prediction of bakken accidents this year.
schlimm n012944 schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits. Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude.... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002 "Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules" If they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
n012944 schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits. Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude.... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002 "Railroads Seek Tighter Tank-Car Safety Rules"
schlimm \ And the rail industry resists retrofits.
\ And the rail industry resists retrofits.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant there dude....
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196303848431002
If they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
What do you propose? As pointed out to you multiple times, the railroads can't refuse the cars as long as the regulatory agency approves their use. The railroads don't own the cars, so what do they do? Damn those nasty railroads for following the laws of this land....So please Schlimn, instead of tossing your insults, give us ideas. Please make them legal ideas though....
BTW
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/195511-dot-to-issue-regs-for-stronger-tanker-rail-cars-in-2015
"DOT to issue stronger tanker car regs in 2015"
"The AAR said it supports new regulations for rail cars carrying flammable liquids."
schlimmIf they really want that so much, why don't they "aggressively" be proactive instead of hiding behind regulations, rules, agencies, etc. Instead words: "Mommy, can you stop using those nasty DOT-111 tank cars? Please? Pretty please?" that cost nothing and get nothing done, two months and one more major accident later.
(edited)
Ya know what?
Believe whatever you want.
schlimm While I would agree that there are some who would like to see a movement away from fossil/carbon-based fuels (and that is a significant issue), to attempt to create a straw man argument in regard to a specific issue of reasonable attention to safety is invalid. The suggestion that this is about trying to achieve some impossible level of perfection is almost silly. Questioning the seriousness of the players involved in getting improvements in cars whose unsafe design has been known for 30 years is pretty reasonable. The slowness in getting action is pretty lame. One could speculate as to the motives, but that does not advance a solution. What the public wants is some answers and action to address the problem, not miracles.
While I would agree that there are some who would like to see a movement away from fossil/carbon-based fuels (and that is a significant issue), to attempt to create a straw man argument in regard to a specific issue of reasonable attention to safety is invalid. The suggestion that this is about trying to achieve some impossible level of perfection is almost silly. Questioning the seriousness of the players involved in getting improvements in cars whose unsafe design has been known for 30 years is pretty reasonable. The slowness in getting action is pretty lame. One could speculate as to the motives, but that does not advance a solution. What the public wants is some answers and action to address the problem, not miracles.
One may be somewhat justified in being skeptical of railroad industry commitment to promptly finding the safest possible manner in which to handle CBR. Take a look at this post on trainorders.com today:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3292600,3292615#3292615
The idea that a few new ties may suffice for safety is risible.
The risk profile of crude by rail (CBR) for all transactional parties (producers, traders, railroads, tank car companies, refineries, et al) is now paramount, obviously, and the general public's valid concerns (see the recent WSJ article) only amplify the magnitude of this issue.
One can only speculate about the actual or implicit risk profiles measured or assumed by the transactional parties, and up until the dramatic incidents of recent months it is safe to assume that the general public had no meaningful view of the risks generated by the rapidly increasing volumes of CBR passing through their vicinities.
The one somewhat relevant statistic perhaps most widely publicized came from the Association of American Railroads. In a recent AAR paper on the transportation of hazardous materials it was stated that: "Railroads have a strong record for safely moving hazardous materials (hazmat), with 99.9977 percent of all shipments reaching their destination without a release caused by an accident."
The initial simple visual impression of this statistic is, to my eyes and perhaps those of many in the general public, of a vanishingly small risk to be attached to growing volumes of CBR. And yet .... The AAR estimates that in 2013 approximately 400,000 loads of CBR moved. Apply the AAR statistical "risk profile" to that number of loads and the result is: 9 loads of CBR did not reach their destination without a release caused by an accident.
Perhaps it is not unreasonable to attach some geography to that statistical exercise: Aliceville and Casselton.
Informal internet railroad blog commentary has suggested a not uncommon response to many accidents: It's just a "one off" thing. Won't happen again any time soon. (May one be justified in wondering if some of the CBR transactional parties may have this type of implicit risk profile?)
So, rather than simply accepting the AAR's statistical approach, revealing as it is, I did another simple desk analysis using Federal Railroad Administration accident data for Jan - Oct., 2013. Those data show a Train Accident Rate of 1.2 accidents per million train-miles on "other track", i.e., other than yard track. (I used this statistic not because accidents on yard track are of no concern, but because there is no clear statistical showing of the number of train-miles that accrue in yards. Further, I make the assumption that mainline accidents at track speed are more likely to be "catastrophic" in impact.)
Again, a vanishingly small number when applied to CBR, right?
CBR now moves mostly in unit trains. Using the AAR's stat of 400,000 loads of CBR in 2013, and an assumed average unit train size of 100 cars per train and an average loaded haul of 1,000 miles (conservative, given the many trains to East, West and Gulf Coasts), plus the return empty haul of 1,000 miles, we see that CBR generated roughly 8 million train-miles in 2013.
Apply the FRA stat of 1.2 accidents per million train-miles to 8 million CBR train-miles: ~9.6 accidents. Let's round to 10, as there are no fractional accidents. But, then, let's divide by 2, as our major concern is with loaded trains.
Statistics from AAR and FRA, massaged (or mangled) by me suggest 5 "train accidents" of loaded CBR trains in 2013.
Geography? Lac Megantic, Aliceville, Casselton. Those were the ones I am aware of, but perhaps there were less dramatic, non-explosive line-haul accidents. (Ok, I know, the Lac Megantic accident was in Canada, but it was U.S. crude from North Dakota hauled many miles in the U.S. by a U.S.-type railroad.) In any event, the statistical result appears to be roughly consonant with actual experience.
IF 2014 experience parallels that of 2013, i.e., if 2013 was not merely a "one off" year ("bad luck"?), but with 20% growth in CBR unit train miles, using the AAR metric, we will see 11 cars of CBR not reach their destination without a release caused by accident. Using the my FRA 2013 train accident experience metric, we will see approximately 6 loaded CBR train accidents.
Geography? If only that could be accurately predicted! Colorado, perhaps?
What are the risk profiles applied by the transactional parties? Would be fascinating to know.
I am reminded of the analyses done by Richard Feynman and others after the loss of the shuttle Challenger: NASA management's implicit loss ratio was around 1 lost shuttle in 100,000 missions ("airline-type safety"), while a realistic engineering risk profile suggested 1 loss every 50 to 100 missions. Actual experience: 2 lost in 130 missions.
Feynman's closing words in his "dissenting" addendum to the Challenger report: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.