It seems to me that what is more needed is to reduce the volatility of the Baken crude oil. I live in MN and there is currently a shortage of propane. As I understand, propane and other "light" chemicals are the cause of the explosions that follow train accidents. Currently, the oil is not "treated" in any way before being loaded into tank cars. Separating out will reduce the volatility and make the treated-crude safer to ship.
The vast majority of crude being shipped from North Dakota to Chicago passes thru Minneapolis and St. Paul on tracks that are close to residential areas. The local press is starting to ask about alternate routes. Evidently the reporters do not understand the history of railroads: cities and towns came after the tracks.
Bob
Euclid Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said.
It sounds like you are supposing that new Federal standards will be better and safer than the current standards (the ones that new cars are being built to) used by the industry. That may or may not be the case. Railroads at times have requirements or practices that exceed what the Federal regs require. It could be that new Federal standards will mirror the industry standards.
Some that are said to be anti-rail I don't think really are. I think they like railroads just fine. It's corporations they don't like or trust. That a corporation won't act unless the government forces them to. So since the government has yet to act, industry must not be doing anything. Or if the industry is doing something it can't be enough or effective.
When the first car that has been built to the new standards is involved in a catastrophic derailment, the first thing to be said (and I imagine the NTSB will be shouting the loudest) will be that the new government standards were watered down by the industry.
Jeff
dehusman Euclid Well then there are new standards coming, as I originally said. But the industry isn't going to wait until whenever the government issues new standards to build cars as you suggested in an earlier post. They are building cars to the standards developed 2 (3) years ago and whether it takes weeks or months or years for the government to issue its regs, the industry is moving forward with new, safer car designs.
I understand, but even though the industry began improving tank cars 2-3 years ago to their own standards, won't those cars have to meet the new government standards that are being developed in response to the recent oil train wrecks? If so, how can the industry know that their existing highest standards will meet the new government standards that have not yet been created?
But the industry isn't going to wait until whenever the government issues new standards to build cars as you suggested in an earlier post. They are building cars to the standards developed 2 (3) years ago and whether it takes weeks or months or years for the government to issue its regs, the industry is moving forward with new, safer car designs.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
An industry standard is not the same as a Federal standard. The industry established a standard in 2011, the Federal specs, soon.
dehusman EuclidAs I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars. The new standards were developed in 2011 and since then all new "111" tank cars have been built to those standards. There are still about 75,000 tank cars to rebuild or replace.
EuclidAs I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
The new standards were developed in 2011 and since then all new "111" tank cars have been built to those standards. There are still about 75,000 tank cars to rebuild or replace.
You may be right, but what is meant by this reference when they speak of new standards that are in the process of being developed? I have seen other articles speaking of new tank car standards that will be developed to address this oil train issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/09/us-usa-rail-senator-idUSBREA0812T20140109
Quote from article:
“Foxx also said that federal specifications on tank cars would come "in weeks, not months," Hoeven said.”
****************************************************
Here is another article that refers to developing new standards for the future and it says that the industry players have 30 days to make comments about the proposed new standards.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579312983265742414
Euclid Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship? It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
Murphy Siding Also, if the Bakken crude doesn't ship by rail, how would it ship?
It might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil. We were living without Bakken before. We can live without it in the future.
OPEC would cheer! Could OPEC money be fueling the outrage?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIt might not ship if the cost of transportation drives up the cost of production so high that it cannot compete with foreign oil.
And one cannot help but wonder if there are folks who will cheer (discreetly) if that happens. That may or may not include those in the envirogreenie camp, and competitors to Bakken Crude...
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...
they are breakin' I. E. recycleing old tankers in a yard in K.C.MO. every day. One does what 1 can to make things safe buit nothing is perfect.
schlimm Euclidt only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business. There is also a huge potential financial loss at stake. it appears that manyn posters fear the loss of the Bakken oil transport revenue if the associated costs become too high. However, at least one rail CEO (BNSF?) opined that one crash had the potential to bankrupt his railroad. Risk management is an important part of a business' executive leadership team and is a good deal more complicated than denouncing lawyers, politicians, and the general public as "anti-rail." So perhaps the choice is between reduced revenue vs. an unacceptable risk for bankruptcy?
Euclidt only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business.
There is also a huge potential financial loss at stake. it appears that manyn posters fear the loss of the Bakken oil transport revenue if the associated costs become too high. However, at least one rail CEO (BNSF?) opined that one crash had the potential to bankrupt his railroad. Risk management is an important part of a business' executive leadership team and is a good deal more complicated than denouncing lawyers, politicians, and the general public as "anti-rail." So perhaps the choice is between reduced revenue vs. an unacceptable risk for bankruptcy?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars.
daveklepperMy understanding is that the latest designs do considerably reduce risk by correcting known weaknesses in the old design.
That may be, but how much is a considerable reduction, and how long will it take?
This question involves my earlier post on this in response to your earlier comment as follows:
daveklepper Building as many flamable liquid state-of-the art tankcars as quickly as possible does make more sense,
It only makes sense if it solves the problem. As I understand it, it will take until 2015 to just develop the standards for new tank cars. Won’t it take several more years before the existing fleet is replaced by the new safer tank cars? And how safe will they be?
That question is not even being asked let alone being answered in the public discussion. In Fred Frailey’s statistic of SIX serious oil train accidents per year, how many will there be if all tank cars were of the upgraded design? Would SIX change to THREE? Or would there still be FIVE?
How long will it take for the oil-by-rail traffic to double as the boom continues, and SIX accidents per year becomes TWELVE?
It only makes sense if it solves the problem, and solves it soon. Five years and a partial solution is too little, too late. With that plan, it becomes a game of Russian roulette placing at stake, innocent lives and the continuation of the oil by rail business.
The only way to win that game is if fate postpones those SIX accidents per year and saves them for some date way in the future after a real solution to the problem is implemented that will prevent fate from cashing in all those saved up accidents.
My understanding is that the latest designs do considerably reduce risk by correcting known weaknesses in the old design.
I think it is accurate to say that there are two independent risks to the industry regarding oil trains. One is the liability of an accident that is serious enough to bankrupt a company. The other is the loss of the oil hauling business due to new transportation regulations increasing the cost of Bakken oil to the point that it cannot compete with foreign oil.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperBuilding as many flamable liquid state-of-the art tankcars as quickly as possible does make more sense,
schlimm dehusmanit would be 5, closer to 10 years (or more with the technology) before is would be certified for use. Then the companies would have to buy them, so you might get a significant penetration into the fleet 20-25 years from now. The revolutionary Airbus A380 went into design in 1997, test flights 2005, certification 2006-7, service entry Oct. 2007. Rather a lot more complicated and expensive than a tank car, yet 10 years from design to service, with 122 built so far. Is it just possible that a breakthrough tank car design might be somewhat quicker?
dehusmanit would be 5, closer to 10 years (or more with the technology) before is would be certified for use. Then the companies would have to buy them, so you might get a significant penetration into the fleet 20-25 years from now.
The revolutionary Airbus A380 went into design in 1997, test flights 2005, certification 2006-7, service entry Oct. 2007. Rather a lot more complicated and expensive than a tank car, yet 10 years from design to service, with 122 built so far. Is it just possible that a breakthrough tank car design might be somewhat quicker?
Maybe quicker, but does it kill the economics? Having to replace the tank car fleet from scratch raises the cost of providing the service and can change the economic flow patterns of the product.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Building as many flamable liquid state-of-the art tankcars as quickly as possible does make more sense,
'Makes sense. Thanks.
Murphy Siding Now that's an interesting thought. Would it be possible to take those existing (but obsolescent) well cars, and build them into tank cars? Kind of like recycling the good parts? They do it with locomotives. Think of something along the Cleveland class cruisers that became aircraft carriers in WWII.
Now that's an interesting thought. Would it be possible to take those existing (but obsolescent) well cars, and build them into tank cars? Kind of like recycling the good parts? They do it with locomotives. Think of something along the Cleveland class cruisers that became aircraft carriers in WWII.
Overmod................ A reasonably-rectangular (or oval) carbody bulit to 'load out' before it 'cubes out' would have the desired low center of gravity. Which leads me to think that perhaps an interim solution, shy of building Hundreds Of Expensive New Tank Cars, would be to build a slew of 40' tank modules, and drop them in existing (but obsolescent) well cars. There is your low center of gravity, easy removal of damaged tanks for servicing, easy provision of heating lines, air lines, etc. for facilitation of loading and discharge -- etc. The well-car structure provides some of your collision bracing and structural protection (in addition to the armor, shock-attenuation, and structure in the enclosing 'container' frame that is provided for the tank module, in addition to what is already used for containerized tanks). Makes a certain amount of intermodal loading possible, too, for what that might be worth. It also makes adoption of full ECP braking, high-speed trucks with stabilizers, and other safety requirements relatively more cost-effective..................
There is your low center of gravity, easy removal of damaged tanks for servicing, easy provision of heating lines, air lines, etc. for facilitation of loading and discharge -- etc. The well-car structure provides some of your collision bracing and structural protection (in addition to the armor, shock-attenuation, and structure in the enclosing 'container' frame that is provided for the tank module, in addition to what is already used for containerized tanks). Makes a certain amount of intermodal loading possible, too, for what that might be worth. It also makes adoption of full ECP braking, high-speed trucks with stabilizers, and other safety requirements relatively more cost-effective..................
When you change the type of car you end up changing the loading pattern, then not only does the shipper have to get all new equipment for transportation but has to build new racks or modify existing racks to load and unload the oil. $$$
Another consideration is that by moving it in containers you are shipping less per platform which means more cars or more trains to haul the same volume of oil (unless you doublestack it, a truly bad idea.)
The existing fleet can be replaced faster and more cheaply with new cars of conventional designs that are more secure and less likely to rupture. The problem is that the existing cars are built for a commodity with one set of characteristics and the commodity really has a different set of characteristics. We already have very successful designs for those characteristics, its just a matter of getting cars that match the actual characteristics (designs closer to flammable gas designs).
EuclidA really futuristic and advanced oil train would have tank cars shaped like fish belly gondolas. They would carry the load as low as possible for the lowest possible center of gravity. Unlike a fish belly gondola which has a flat floor and merely dropped side walls, the fish belly tank cars would have a floor that drops down to within maybe six inches above the rail. A train of those type of tank cars would have sailed right through Lac Megantic without leaving the rails.
The 'rail whale' tank cars had what amounted to a depressed center section between the span bolsters, for much this sort of reason. One problem is that this drops what is essentially a reinforced monocoque structure very close to things sticking up from the track, which might cause substantial damage a la Titanic even to multiple-compartment cars. That is not a criticism, only a concern.
Rectangular tanks were noted as a bad idea in the commentary to the Trains article: much more structural material needed for the enclosed volume; trouble getting product out of the 'corners' or getting the last part of the load out of the car; different baffling needed especially near the upper part of the car. A reasonably-rectangular (or oval) carbody bulit to 'load out' before it 'cubes out' would have the desired low center of gravity. Which leads me to think that perhaps an interim solution, shy of building Hundreds Of Expensive New Tank Cars, would be to build a slew of 40' tank modules, and drop them in existing (but obsolescent) well cars.
There is your low center of gravity, easy removal of damaged tanks for servicing, easy provision of heating lines, air lines, etc. for facilitation of loading and discharge -- etc. The well-car structure provides some of your collision bracing and structural protection (in addition to the armor, shock-attenuation, and structure in the enclosing 'container' frame that is provided for the tank module, in addition to what is already used for containerized tanks). Makes a certain amount of intermodal loading possible, too, for what that might be worth. It also makes adoption of full ECP braking, high-speed trucks with stabilizers, and other safety requirements relatively more cost-effective.
I will let you all argue forward and back about whether to allow some forms of stack on top of the oil modules (which might not reach full ISO interchange height... Personally, I'd run oil trains as fully dedicated blocks following current practices, with buffer cars and all the other operating precautions that go with an explosive liquid cargo. But other paradigms might be implemented, with proper care and attention...
Euclid ... A really futuristic and advanced oil train would have tank cars shaped like fish belly gondolas. They would carry the load as low as possible for the lowest possible center of gravity. Unlike a fish belly gondola which has a flat floor and merely dropped side walls, the fish belly tank cars would have a floor that drops down to within maybe six inches above the rail. A train of those type of tank cars would have sailed right through Lac Megantic without leaving the rails.
...
A really futuristic and advanced oil train would have tank cars shaped like fish belly gondolas. They would carry the load as low as possible for the lowest possible center of gravity. Unlike a fish belly gondola which has a flat floor and merely dropped side walls, the fish belly tank cars would have a floor that drops down to within maybe six inches above the rail. A train of those type of tank cars would have sailed right through Lac Megantic without leaving the rails.
Once a fish-belly tank car lost its trucks, it would be like a rocking horse.
daveklepperNote that oil trucks these days no longer have round tanks, they are oval. Possibly with the desire for increased capacity, the newest and safest tankcars will also have oval tanks, but long dimension vertical to take advantage of clearances available even on the more restricted existing freight routes.
That is an interesting thought. I gather that the oval tanks on highway trailers are to lower the center of gravity. But they would be slightly more complicated to fabricate possibly. I recall that Trains once had a small article about an idea to make tank cars rectangular in cross section.
You would lose the natural structural advantage of a cylinder, so the rectangular tank would have to have extra reinforcing members. However, it has the advantage of filling up the railroad clearance diagram where as a cylinder is like a round peg in a square hole regard the clearance diagram.
dehusman schlimm I realize it is different (System, passenger, not freight, high speed) but I seem to recall reading somewhere that one reason the SNCF has not had a fatality on their TGV's to date is that even if they derail, the cars stay together and do not jack knife or separate or overturn, mostly continuing along the RoW forward until they stop. Shouldn't that principle at least be worth considering? Maybe. Maybe not. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-12/french-wreck-reveals-hidden-danger-in-its-vaunted-train-system
schlimm I realize it is different (System, passenger, not freight, high speed) but I seem to recall reading somewhere that one reason the SNCF has not had a fatality on their TGV's to date is that even if they derail, the cars stay together and do not jack knife or separate or overturn, mostly continuing along the RoW forward until they stop. Shouldn't that principle at least be worth considering?
I realize it is different (System, passenger, not freight, high speed) but I seem to recall reading somewhere that one reason the SNCF has not had a fatality on their TGV's to date is that even if they derail, the cars stay together and do not jack knife or separate or overturn, mostly continuing along the RoW forward until they stop. Shouldn't that principle at least be worth considering?
That wreck was an old (needs to be replaced) conventional equipment train on old track (also needs to be replaced according to the article). Apples and oranges.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.