Norm48327The pipelines were put on hold for political reasons that I won't get into here.
That was my point. I am not sure what pipelines mike was talking about, but I know of no case where a pipeline project was started, and then the sponsors suddenly stopped the project because they realized that oil trains were a better option to move oil.
The pipelines are being killed by the anti-fossil fuel movement and rail is being turned to as the second-best alternative to pipelines. So now the anti-oil target is the oil trains. It was simply a matter of oil taking the route of the least resistance by switching to rail.
There are a lot of regulatory hurdles to building new pipelines, so the opposition has a lot of leverage. Rail is an established transport system, so there are a lot fewer regulatory hurdles. But that will soon change as the green movement gets the ear of the regulators. The ultimate goal is to leave the oil in the ground because the issue is about using the oil. It really has nothing to do with how the oil is transported.
You are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmYou are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
Much of the pipeline opposition has made it clear that they oppose the development and introduction of new oil from Bakken and Canadian tar sands. They base their opposition on safety. They say that these new oil supplies will prolong the use of oil, and that the use of oil is threatening our safety by causing climate change. They also say it is threatening our safety by transportation spills contaminating our water, and by fire and explosions killing people outright. It does not require a conspiracy to see this view being widely promoted. It is as plain as day.
schlimm You are conflating safety with your anti-green agenda. Rather a crass effort. Already we have seen the usual circular, endless display of conspiracies, the "yes buts" ad nauseam. Same old stuff like before with the Nevada crossing signal.
Those "if's ands, and buts" keep coming back, just under a different name. Is it coincidence that both were manufacturers of earth moving equipment based in Ohio? Fill us in, Bucky.
Norm
It requires either a paranoid mentality or some cognitive slippage to see the concerns about the safety of transporting Bakken crude as merely a cover for eliminating the use of oil. That is what conflating means.
Gee Norm, I was agreeing with you about the opposition to pipelines. Now I am beginning to wonder which side you are on.
Euclid Gee Norm, I was agreeing with you about the opposition to pipelines. Now I am beginning to wonder which side you are on.
And I'm beginning to wonder when this thread will be locked!!!!
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
schlimmIt requires either a paranoid mentality or some cognitive slippage to see the concerns about the safety of transporting Bakken crude as merely a cover for eliminating the use of oil. That is what conflating means.
The issue of public safety from fire and explosions, and the issue of the damage from CO2 are indeed being conflated by some to form the basis of their opposition to oil trains. I did not say that all of the opposition was based on such a conflation.
Euclid MidlandMike 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. Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built. Mike, Were those pipelines put on hold because rail was suddenly regarded as a preferable option compared to the pipelines; or were the pipelines put on hold because of opposition to them, thus leaving rail as the only alternative?
MidlandMike 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. Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
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.
Some (domestic) pipeline projects were put on hold when rail became an viable option. If new tank car regulations push up the cost too much, then in the time allowed for the upgrade, pipelines will start to be built.
First note that I used the qualifier domestic pipelines. That is to remove the international Keystone XL pipeline project from the conversation because it has little to do with the Bakken, and much to do with political controversy over tar sands.
The first domestic pipeline on hold that comes to mind was mentioned a couple of times in Fred Frailey's blog. Kinder Morgan had an "open season" to gage interest on a PL project from Texas to California. (IIRC it was to convert a underutilized natural gas line to crude.) Those oil companies interested would eventually have to sign "take-or-pay" contracts (ship at least a minimum amount of oil or pay anyway). Whereas rail isn't so inflexible, apparently it was considered a better option. There was also a pipeline project from the Bakken (unrelated to Keystone) that was put on hold.
The Keystone XL is the only major pipeline where environmental concerns have gained enough traction to put a PL project in possible jeopardy. The fact that it is international, gives the politics an opening. When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued.
"When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued."
And meeting all those legal requirements, dealing with federal, state, and local agencies can take years.
So, in the mean time?????
why does in need to be locked? are u the forums morality police? does political discourse make u paranoid dude?
MidlandMikeThe Keystone XL is the only major pipeline where environmental concerns have gained enough traction to put a PL project in possible jeopardy. The fact that it is international, gives the politics an opening. When domestic pipeline projects meet all legal requirements, their permits are issued.
Thanks for that information Mike. I see that there is growing optimism that XL will be approved by the Obama Administration. It is bolstered by new scientific information that shows minimal carbon impact due to the construction of the pipeline.
However, there is one thing about that point that I have never understood:
Was President Obama's earlier opposition that was based on carbon referring to only the carbon produced by building the pipeline; or did it include all the carbon produced by burning the contents delivered by the pipeline?
When the President referred to opposing the pipeline if it will lead to a net increase in greenhouse gases, I would interpret that to include the effect of using the oil delivered by the pipeline as well as the construction of the pipeline.
Without clarifying that point, the statement is quite ambiguous. Certainly the burning of all of the fuel products derived from the oil moved by the pipeline will produce a big net increase in greenhouse gases. Yet today’s news about scientific evidence of minimal carbon refers to only the construction of the pipeline.
a perfectly ambiguious answer brought to u by our professional politicians in DC
rbandr why does in need to be locked? are u the forums morality police? does political discourse make u paranoid dude?
To whom was the question directed?
to the one who was wondering when this thread would be locked. if it ain't u do not sweat it?
Actually, the topic of this thread was a concept for a new oil train that would be specialized for optimum safety and performance. It would be a dramatic advance in railroad state of the art. All the components are already available. They would just need to be combined.
This advancement could benefit all freight trains, but the need to meet the standardization for such a massive conversion would be a bridge too far. However, with this oil train fireball public relations / regulatory crisis, it might pay to radically advance just the oil trains. That would be a big change, but it might be manageable, considering what is at risk in losing the oil traffic over safety issues.
A new train such as this would improve safety, but perhaps more importantly, it would change perceptions among the public and the regulators.
Euclid Thanks for that information Mike. I see that there is growing optimism that XL will be approved by the Obama Administration. It is bolstered by new scientific information that shows minimal carbon impact due to the construction of the pipeline. However, there is one thing about that point that I have never understood: Was President Obama's earlier opposition that was based on carbon referring to only the carbon produced by building the pipeline; or did it include all the carbon produced by burning the contents delivered by the pipeline? When the President referred to opposing the pipeline if it will lead to a net increase in greenhouse gases, I would interpret that to include the effect of using the oil delivered by the pipeline as well as the construction of the pipeline. Without clarifying that point, the statement is quite ambiguous. Certainly the burning of all of the fuel products derived from the oil moved by the pipeline will produce a big net increase in greenhouse gases. Yet today’s news about scientific evidence of minimal carbon refers to only the construction of the pipeline.
The big increase in carbon footprint from tar sands comes from the unconventional nature of its production.
In a conventional oil field, oil either flows from a well due to natural gas pressure, or is pumped, usually using a pumpjack powered by casinghead gas from the well. Very little energy needs to be use to produce the well.
Tar sands can't be pumped up via conventional means. They either pump steam underground to get the bitumen to flow to wells, and have to drill a lot more wells, or they simply mine the tar sands near the surface. After they extract the tar sand they have to process it to remove the bitumen from the sand. All this burns a lot more energy to produce.
And then to transport the bitumen, they either put it in cars with heating coils to load/unload,or they dilute it with very light oil (eg. condensate). They either have to ship condensate to Alberta, or recycle it back from the refinery. There is some loss of efficiency because of the dead weight transport of the condensate both ways. They could convert the bitumen to syncrude which is easy to transport, but requires the extra energy for the extra processing.
I don't know that the actual burning of the fuel from tar sand would be any more carbon intensive, it's mainly the initial production that is the problem. From what I heard on the news tonight, the Keystone study said that the tar sands would probably be produced by somebody anyway, so it would not be any different whether it went thru the Keystone pipeline, or somebody else's pipeline. Some choice.
What I am suggesting with this new oil train concept is to control ECP brakes to change the in-train forces in a way that reduces the destructive nature of a derailment once it starts. I have never heard anyone else state this as an objective. I suspect that it has not occurred to industry experts.
The closest they have come is the recognition that ECP brakes will reduce in-train forces, and thus prevent those forces from causing a derailment. That is different from what I am proposing, which is to reduce the destruction caused by a derailment. This is accomplished by separating the braking performance between the cars ahead of the derailment and the cars behind it. So what I am talking about is actually creating new in-train forces to stretch the train. The purpose is to keep the train stretched through the derailing cars; as opposed to the usual scenario in which the cars run into the derailment under compression, and pile up into a heap.
This separating of the braking performance into two sections is done automatically once a derailment is located by a sensor. This sensing, reacting, and controlling the divided brake application would be a completely automatic function with many parameters factored in by a computer. These would be factors such as speed, tonnage, location of the train on the line, and location of the derailment in the train.
To get to what I am talking about, only requires a small modification to the basic control system for ECP brakes. The flexible ability to control ECP brakes is a fundamental advantage of the ECP system. What I am proposing is a natural addition to that fundamental advantage. ECP brakes facilitate the use of sensors, and it is indeed sensors that will be needed to add this extra derailment control feature to ECP brakes.
It takes 5-10 sec for the brakes to apply once the brake valve starts the application. A train going 30 mph is traveling 44 ft/sec. That's between 220 and 440 ft before you can start to control the train. In that time between 4 and 8 more cars may have passed over the point of derailment and derailed. In that 5-10 seconds and several hundred feet, there is a strong probability that one or more cars will have skewed to the point that one or more wheels have reached the ends of the ties. As soon as that happens there is no braking force that you can apply that will keep the train streched in a straight line. Once the wheels get off the ties, they will present a huge amount of drag and will decelerate FASTER than the brakes can decelerate the train. It doesn't matter whether you have ECP or conventional brakes, the rear of the train can't decelerate faster than the derailed cars.
At some point the air hoses on the derailed cars, whch are now dragging on the ties because the wheels are on or off the ends of the ties, will part, putting the train in emergency. When that happens you have lost control of the situation.
You entire premise hinges on the conditions that only one car derails, it remains upright, in line, on its trucks, on tangent track, train line intact and there are no other external forces acting on it (switches, grade crossings, collisons with other vehicles, debris, etc). While that does happen, its an edge case.
I have seen too many derailments with the wheels went from the POD to the ends of the ties in one car length or less.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I get very nervous about enabling wireless modulation of brake actuation entirely separate from brake-pipe reduction, on multiple cars simultaneously (which unless I'm mistaken is what the proposal entails).
Imagine the fun of MULTIPLE dynamiters all in a row... or perhaps spaced in a moving consist. Remember the old Three Stooges routine "see these two fingers... now you don't!"? That's going to be the situation for at least one drawbar, or Flatwheel City by the time the train grinds to a halt.
In order for the system to work correctly, there will have to be multiple sensors in the train, and more importantly, some form of processing (probably distributed) that determines the correct timing and duration of the ECP response, proportions it to the various ECP controllers on or between the cars, and then takes care of modulating the response. I see headaches.
dehusmanIt takes 5-10 sec for the brakes to apply once the brake valve starts the application. A train going 30 mph is traveling 44 ft/sec. That's between 220 and 440 ft before you can start to control the train. In that time between 4 and 8 more cars may have passed over the point of derailment and derailed. In that 5-10 seconds and several hundred feet, there is a strong probability that one or more cars will have skewed to the point that one or more wheels have reached the ends of the ties. As soon as that happens there is no braking force that you can apply that will keep the train streched in a straight line. Once the wheels get off the ties, they will present a huge amount of drag and will decelerate FASTER than the brakes can decelerate the train. It doesn't matter whether you have ECP or conventional brakes, the rear of the train can't decelerate faster than the derailed cars. At some point the air hoses on the derailed cars, whch are now dragging on the ties because the wheels are on or off the ends of the ties, will part, putting the train in emergency. When that happens you have lost control of the situation. You entire premise hinges on the conditions that only one car derails, it remains upright, in line, on its trucks, on tangent track, train line intact and there are no other external forces acting on it (switches, grade crossings, collisons with other vehicles, debris, etc). While that does happen, its an edge case. I have seen too many derailments with the wheels went from the POD to the ends of the ties in one car length or less.
Dave,
With all due respect, I do not believe you are looking at the total picture of the system and response that I am describing. Instead, you are construction a scenario of failure based mostly on the conventional air brake system performance.
My premise does not (as you say it does) hinge on the condition that only one car derails, that cars remain upright, remain on their trucks, or that the train line remains intact. I do agree that the conditions of track curvature, or excess forces from encountering switches might defeat the system and cause an immediate jackknifing. It is not meant to prevent pileups in cases of collisions with other trains, or in the case of derailing the locomotives from various causes.
Sure it takes some time to move the brake linkage once the application has been signaled.
But until that happens, cars on both sides of the derailment are going to be rolling freely with no compression from the trailing cars that will tend to skew a derailed car. So, while the entire train is still rolling without braking, the dragging resistance of one or even several cars could easily be irrelevant to the momentum of the train. Having several cars on the ties does not mean that the system has lost control of the situation. I disagree with your basic premise that the first car to derail will create so much running resistance that it will decelerate the trailing cars faster than the braking can hold them back.
The response does not depend on putting the train into emergency upon the breaking of the first air hose. And the breaking of the first air hose will not put the train into emergency. The brakes are not controlled by brake line reduction.
I agree that certain circumstances will prevent this system from controlling a pileup. However, in the scenario that you paint as typical, a derailment happens and every car following that occurrence will derail at the same spot. Therefore, you conclude that several cars will be on the ground before any braking is initiated on the trailing cars. And with that many cars on the ground, you conclude that they will surely jackknife. I don’t believe that is a certainty if the train does not go into emergency, and if there is no braking initiated on the cars ahead of the derailment-- both of which will be the case.
It is trains moving at full speed that have the most energy that can be applied to causing a destructive pileup. But that same energy can be most effective in keeping the derailed cars in line and stretched despite their dragging resistance. Even the derailed cars retain the force of momentum. At the slower speeds, there is less momentum to accomplish overcoming of the dragging resistance, but that same lack of momentum will also mitigate the potential for a destructive pileup.
So, in my proposal, a braking response is initiated on the trailing cars the instant the first car derails. If it takes 5-10 seconds for that application to take hold, the derailed car or several derailed cars will drag. They may tip over. They may lose trucks. But they will stay stretched and generally in line even though braking on the trailing cars has not yet begun.
Even for as violent as this dragging process can be, it is not what causes the maximum resistance that is indicated by the severely compressed and flattened cars in a wreck. The resistance that makes that possible comes from piling up several cars into a heap. That heap becomes the immovable anchor that the enormous linear inertia of the trailing cars is directed against.
My point is to react to the derailment more proactively in order to prevent that pileup from beginning. It won’t prevent every pileup, but air bags in cars do not prevent every death or injury. I would expect this system to prevent a lot of pileups, and not just ones in rare occasions when things go just right.
Design and test such a system. Then post the results.
Overmod,
This system will not prevent derailments. It will just prevent them from piling cars into a heap. The heap amounts to a very resistive obstacle. If it forms while the trailing cars are still coming on with considerable speed, the compressive force of those cars pressing into the heap will be overwhelming. I do not believe that the best standards of tank car strength being considered will be sufficient to protect them from rupture if they are caught in this squeeze between the oncoming trailing cars and the heap.
So I think it pays to think of a way to prevent the heap from forming. Certainly, there will be plenty of derailment damage even if the cars do not pileup into a heap. This concept is not intended to prevent damage. It is only intended to prevent tank car rupture by preventing the cars from piling into a heap.
The ECP brakes in this system will be controlled by wire, but will need some type of wireless backup for this derailment mitigation feature. There won’t be multiple dynamiters, as you suggest, because the system will not dynamite the brakes in the traditional sense of a rapid loss of train line pressure triggering a pneumatic chain reaction of emergency braking. There will be no brake actuation controlled by brake-pipe reduction since that is eliminated by the ECP approach. The brake pipe simply charges the car reservoirs. The ECP system does apply brakes on all cars simultaneously, as you mention. That is the beauty of ECP electronic control by wire versus the conventional air brake control by changes in the train line pressure.
As you mentioned, my concept, which includes ECP brakes, would also require derailment sensors on each car, and the information from them would have to be processed for the optimum brake response.
Assuming the first car derails, and you have 10,000 tons trailing that car, how much energy do you think it would take to stop the remaining cars without decimating the first car? Train brakes can't possibly supply the necessary force.
Euclid There won’t be multiple dynamiters, as you suggest, because the system will not dynamite the brakes in the traditional sense of a rapid loss of train line pressure triggering a pneumatic chain reaction of emergency braking. There will be no brake actuation controlled by brake-pipe reduction since that is eliminated by the ECP approach. The brake pipe simply charges the car reservoirs. The ECP system does apply brakes on all cars simultaneously, as you mention. That is the beauty of ECP electronic control by wire versus the conventional air brake control by changes in the train line pressure.
There won’t be multiple dynamiters, as you suggest, because the system will not dynamite the brakes in the traditional sense of a rapid loss of train line pressure triggering a pneumatic chain reaction of emergency braking. There will be no brake actuation controlled by brake-pipe reduction since that is eliminated by the ECP approach. The brake pipe simply charges the car reservoirs. The ECP system does apply brakes on all cars simultaneously, as you mention. That is the beauty of ECP electronic control by wire versus the conventional air brake control by changes in the train line pressure.
Where does the mechanical power come from to apply the brakes in this ECP system?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWhere does the mechanical power come from to apply the brakes in this ECP system?
It comes from compressed air fed to reservoirs through a brake pipe in the normal fashion. But it is controlled by electronic signals sent through a cable passing through the cars just like the brake pipe does. So the control does not depend on sensing changes in brake pipe pressure the way conventional air brakes work.
In the add-on feature I am describing, when it kicks in to respond to a derailment, it will be able to tell each car how much braking to apply independently from all the other cars.
Euclid seems to be ignoring one issue in his proposal, the law of conservation of energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A moving freight train contains lots of kinetic energy, which has to be converted to another form of energy when the train stops. In a normal brake application, the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy by the brakes and is dissipated into the atmosphere. In a derailment, that energy is going to have to go somewhere much more quickly, a lot of it is absorbed in the accordioning of a string of freight cars before they come to rest. The brake shoes and wheels would have to absorb a lot of energy very quickly to prevent this from happening.
Euclid BaltACDWhere does the mechanical power come from to apply the brakes in this ECP system? It comes from compressed air fed to reservoirs through a brake pipe in the normal fashion. But it is controlled by electronic signals sent through a cable passing through the cars just like the brake pipe does. So the control does not depend on sensing changes in brake pipe pressure the way conventional air brakes work. In the add-on feature I am describing, when it kicks in to respond to a derailment, it will be able to tell each car how much braking to apply independently from all the other cars.
So long as you have a system that requires pressure differential for it's power you have the potential for the valve that controls that differential to malfunction and perform in a undesired manner - the same as today's system, no matter how that valve is controlled. If it is made by man, it will fail eventually.
BaltACDEuclidBaltACDWhere does the mechanical power come from to apply the brakes in this ECP system? It comes from compressed air fed to reservoirs through a brake pipe in the normal fashion. But it is controlled by electronic signals sent through a cable passing through the cars just like the brake pipe does. So the control does not depend on sensing changes in brake pipe pressure the way conventional air brakes work. In the add-on feature I am describing, when it kicks in to respond to a derailment, it will be able to tell each car how much braking to apply independently from all the other cars. So long as you have a system that requires pressure differential for it's power you have the potential for the valve that controls that differential to malfunction and perform in a undesired manner - the same as today's system, no matter how that valve is controlled. If it is made by man, it will fail eventually.
EuclidBaltACDWhere does the mechanical power come from to apply the brakes in this ECP system? It comes from compressed air fed to reservoirs through a brake pipe in the normal fashion. But it is controlled by electronic signals sent through a cable passing through the cars just like the brake pipe does. So the control does not depend on sensing changes in brake pipe pressure the way conventional air brakes work. In the add-on feature I am describing, when it kicks in to respond to a derailment, it will be able to tell each car how much braking to apply independently from all the other cars.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.