Overmod EuclidSo what difference does it make whether an oil train burns in some part of Chicago or in Staples, Minnesota? It has a quarter-mile radius of population either way. Yes, it's important -- critically important -- to focus on ways to make the accidents less severe, less frequent, and in as many ways as possible less deadly. Making trains safer in derailment is one part of that picture. Avoiding critical population concentrations and densities, though, is another, just as valid, point of view.
EuclidSo what difference does it make whether an oil train burns in some part of Chicago or in Staples, Minnesota? It has a quarter-mile radius of population either way.
I was looking at the fact that population density within the blast zone is the same in a city the size of Chicago as it is in Staples, MN.
However, I can see another point. If an oil train has the probability of derailing per a certain amount of distance traveled, it has a higher probability of derailing in Chicago than it does in Staples because it will travel many more miles traversing Chicago than it will traversing Staples.
schlimm Gee, wake up and smell the coffee! Rahm is a tough cookie, not someone to mess with. he's looking out for his city, so he's grandstanding, of course. And he throws out an unpalatable proposal (the tax/fee) to get his real objective, namely route the cars on one of several bypasses around, not through Chicago. The rest of the routing is not his concern. heck, Dave Klepper's proposal was also to try to bypass our largest metro areas. And where does most of the Bakken crude go? Houston area?
Gee, wake up and smell the coffee! Rahm is a tough cookie, not someone to mess with. he's looking out for his city, so he's grandstanding, of course. And he throws out an unpalatable proposal (the tax/fee) to get his real objective, namely route the cars on one of several bypasses around, not through Chicago. The rest of the routing is not his concern. heck, Dave Klepper's proposal was also to try to bypass our largest metro areas.
And where does most of the Bakken crude go? Houston area?
Yes, please.
Every single drop if you would be so kind.
We have the refineries to work it, the storage to hold it, the facilities to trans load and ship out the finished product, and the people skilled in handling pretty much anything you can send.
23 17 46 11
schlimm Another factor is that by using a routing through Chicago, for example, the condition of some connecting tracks is not at the same high standard of repair as the mainline of the BNSF from ND to Chicago.
Another factor is that by using a routing through Chicago, for example, the condition of some connecting tracks is not at the same high standard of repair as the mainline of the BNSF from ND to Chicago.
An "expensive model collector"
I'm not going to respond to you with juvenile name-calling. When I said Chicago, I did not limit that to the area within the boundaries of the city proper. Rather, I should have said the metropolitan area. Since I and others had earlier mentioned avoiding metro areas and major population concentrations, that seems obvious. Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection. The whole point, as others have stated, is obvious: avoid routings through major population centers en route. Simple probabilities, as Overmod and another poster calculated, that at least 6 tank cars loaded with Bakken will be involved in an accident with fire, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Fred Frailey has a blog where he states his calculation of the probability of future oil train wrecks.
He says this:
“So there it is: the statistical probability of five or six possibly very serious oil train accidents per year. I think the number in 2014 could be higher, if nothing is done to reduce the probabilities. That’s because railroads will probably handle substantially more oil loads this year than last. Plus, average trip length may be longer than the 1,000 miles I estimate.
You can look at five or six accidents two ways. One is that it’s only five or six rolls of the dice, perhaps five or six minor derailments. The other is that railroads can look forward to five or six Lac-Megantics or Casseltons every year if they don’t do something, which is how I see things. In other words, a call to action if I’ve ever seen one. — Fred W. Frailey”
Here us the blog piece:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2014/01/18/predicting-oil-train-accidents.aspx
I agree with his sobering characterization of the urgency of this problem.
"So there it is: the statistical probability of five or six possibly very serious oil train accidents per year."
Did Fred provide a source of those statistics? They can be twisted to meet what ever agenda one may have.
Now, let's talk odds. Which way are you more likely to meet your demise; a fiery explosion of a tank car or a collision with another car on a crowded highway? Inner city folks have a much higher chance of crime related death. Life comes with no guarantees of safety.
Norm
Latest flaming disaster in Canada. I say the American media will give it precious little coverage.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-pipeline-explosion-cuts-heat-to-4-000-amid-extreme-cold-1.2511585
NBC's Lester Holt did a few seconds on it...let's face it an explosion and sky high flames in the night make great photo's for the Peacock color spread.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Norm48327Now, let's talk odds. Which way are you more likely to meet your demise; a fiery explosion of a tank car or a collision with another car on a crowded highway? Inner city folks have a much higher chance of crime related death. Life comes with no guarantees of safety.
This is a public perception problem because the public has seen the fireballs, and they are simply unwilling to accept the odds of it happening to their town even though those odds are vastly in their favor. The public gets to make that decision.
What makes the lives of folks in Chicago more valuable than those in a smaller city or town? If you carried the theory out, wouldn't it be best to just outlaw the movement of all explosive liquids through, into, or out of Chicago (in this example)- just to be on the safe side? No oil, no ethanol, no gasoline, etc, on the rails of Chicago would certainly make it safer-right?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection.
Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection.
So the people that live along the EJ&E or the TP&W are less entitled to the safety of not having killer oil trains run along side them then the people of Chicago?
I wonder how these people feel about your proposal....
http://www.fightrailcongestion.com/
In case not everyone here is aware of it, the NTSB is recommending oil trains avoid populated areas.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ntsb-train-safety-20140123,0,7844878.story#axzz2rYkO9AUQ
From the article:
“The 15 pages of [NTSB] recommendations were issued jointly with Canadian authorities. The most significant one calls for “expanded hazard material route planning for railroads” so that trains avoid populated areas and other sensitive regions.”
schlimmI'm not going to respond to you with juvenile name-calling. When I said Chicago, I did not limit that to the area within the boundaries of the city proper. Rather, I should have said the metropolitan area. Since I and others had earlier mentioned avoiding metro areas and major population concentrations, that seems obvious. Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection. The whole point, as others have stated, is obvious: avoid routings through major population centers en route. Simple probabilities, as Overmod and another poster calculated, that at least 6 tank cars loaded with Bakken will be involved in an accident with fire, etc.
Euclid This is a public perception problem because the public has seen the fireballs, and they are simply unwilling to accept the odds of it happening to their town even though those odds are vastly in their favor. The public gets to make that decision.
So, what you're saying is that the public does not think death on the highway is a problem. If they get to make that decision they should forgo driving as well.
schlimm The whole point, as others have stated, is obvious: avoid routings through major population centers en route.
Schlimm,
While I agree this point is obvious I'm not sure it is always possible. Even where railroads don't go through major population centers they still go through a lit of smaller cities and towns. And the residents of those towns are not going to be interested in simple probabilities or in the number of automobile accidents. They will just want the oil out of town. Perhaps the railroads will find a way to deal with and defuse the environmental activists. I hope so.
I don't want to make too fine a point of this but Amtrak is very popular among the leaders of those places it passes through. Perhaps there will be an advantage for freight railroads that share tracks with Amtrak.
John
eolafanschlimm I'm not going to respond to you with juvenile name-calling. When I said Chicago, I did not limit that to the area within the boundaries of the city proper. Rather, I should have said the metropolitan area. Since I and others had earlier mentioned avoiding metro areas and major population concentrations, that seems obvious. Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection. The whole point, as others have stated, is obvious: avoid routings through major population centers en route. Simple probabilities, as Overmod and another poster calculated, that at least 6 tank cars loaded with Bakken will be involved in an accident with fire, etc. For oil (or any other dangerous commodity) trains going from ND or points west to the East Coast or down South to Houston or wherever, the old EJ&E seems a very good alternative, especially when considering that route is in VERY good shape since the "Canucks" got ahold of it and improved it dramatically...that will keep the oil out of Rahm's city.
schlimm I'm not going to respond to you with juvenile name-calling. When I said Chicago, I did not limit that to the area within the boundaries of the city proper. Rather, I should have said the metropolitan area. Since I and others had earlier mentioned avoiding metro areas and major population concentrations, that seems obvious. Maybe use the EJ&E or the old TP&W if there is some connection. The whole point, as others have stated, is obvious: avoid routings through major population centers en route. Simple probabilities, as Overmod and another poster calculated, that at least 6 tank cars loaded with Bakken will be involved in an accident with fire, etc.
Even using the IHB would keep the oil out of Chicago, and away from Rahm's taxing power. There are plenty of connections in Indiana to any of the Eastern railroad lines that are no less risky than main lines for moving the freight.I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in rail activity on the IHB myself (just to see more trains in easily accessible places to me), and I'm not going to get all panicky about the possibility of one of these maybe exploding. Heck, if my number comes up, let it be known that I went out in a blaze of glory, doing what I wanted to, notepad in hand. If anyone wants to sue somebody on my behalf, I won't care.With the new standards for crude-hauling tank cars (and please don't call them tanker cars!), the system will eventually be safe. It may be an impossibility to do it as fast as some people would like, but it will be done. And this time I expect to live to see it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
schlimmExactly. We seem to have a number of geographically and statistically challenged posters on here. The NTSB recommends avoiding highly populated reasons. Why? Simple probabilities: the inevitable accidents are less likely to cause loss of life and property in areas with a lower concentration of buildings and people. [And for the rails, less likelihood of the sort of bankrupting consequences at least one rail CEO fears.] Ideally, the routing should avoid the Twin Cities as well. Even using the EJ&E puts the routes through some outer suburbs (including myself) but poses less risk than routing it through naperville, Hinsdale, etc. on the BNSF.
So we get to ask the tough question: how many people constitute a large population? Or, if an oil train explodes, how many dead people is too many?
Then ask those same statisticians whether it is less risky to have fewer fast trains, or more slower trains?
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
zugmannSo we get to ask the tough question: how many people constitute a large population? Or, if an oil train explodes, how many dead people is too many?
Indeed. Lac-Mégantic (the poster child for this issue) has a population just shy of 6,000, and is located in an otherwise rural area - pretty much where advocates of moving hazardous trains out of "populated areas" say such trains should be running...
BTW, the current image on Google Maps shows the aftermath of the wreck: 45°35′N 70°53′W
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...
zugmann schlimmExactly. We seem to have a number of geographically and statistically challenged posters on here. The NTSB recommends avoiding highly populated reasons. Why? Simple probabilities: the inevitable accidents are less likely to cause loss of life and property in areas with a lower concentration of buildings and people. [And for the rails, less likelihood of the sort of bankrupting consequences at least one rail CEO fears.] Ideally, the routing should avoid the Twin Cities as well. Even using the EJ&E puts the routes through some outer suburbs (including myself) but poses less risk than routing it through naperville, Hinsdale, etc. on the BNSF. So we get to ask the tough question: how many people constitute a large population? Or, if an oil train explodes, how many dead people is too many? Then ask those same statisticians whether it is less risky to have fewer fast trains, or more slower trains?
I can just imagine a small town on a railroad suddenly having oil traffic for the first time and being told that it is because the railroad is re-routing oil trains to areas where there are fewer people available to get killed.
For the sake of discussion, there are many other hazardous chemicals handled by the railroads that could kill people in a much larger area than an oil train explosion. Chemicals such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide, just to name a couple, are shipped on a daily basis to plants within high population density. They have the potential to kill more people than a derailed oil train. They are also needed at plants in populated areas. That begs the question of how they should be routed simply because they will spread over an area faster than an oil fire would. Dow Chemical regularly ships such materials between Michigan and Texas. Any suggestions on how to get them to their destination without going through populated areas?
Murphy Siding zugmann schlimmExactly. We seem to have a number of geographically and statistically challenged posters on here. The NTSB recommends avoiding highly populated reasons. Why? Simple probabilities: the inevitable accidents are less likely to cause loss of life and property in areas with a lower concentration of buildings and people. [And for the rails, less likelihood of the sort of bankrupting consequences at least one rail CEO fears.] Ideally, the routing should avoid the Twin Cities as well. Even using the EJ&E puts the routes through some outer suburbs (including myself) but poses less risk than routing it through naperville, Hinsdale, etc. on the BNSF. So we get to ask the tough question: how many people constitute a large population? Or, if an oil train explodes, how many dead people is too many? Then ask those same statisticians whether it is less risky to have fewer fast trains, or more slower trains? Suppose there are 2 options for a route? One is through a town of 6,000 wealthy, politically connected citizens, the other through a town of 6,000 working class, poorer citizens. Someone flips a coin to see over which route the boogie man trains should be sent- right?
In those special coin tosses, they use a two headed coin.
Jeff
jeffhergert Murphy Siding Suppose there are 2 options for a route? One is through a town of 6,000 wealthy, politically connected citizens, the other through a town of 6,000 working class, poorer citizens. Someone flips a coin to see over which route the boogie man trains should be sent- right? In those special coin tosses, they use a two headed coin. Jeff
Murphy Siding Suppose there are 2 options for a route? One is through a town of 6,000 wealthy, politically connected citizens, the other through a town of 6,000 working class, poorer citizens. Someone flips a coin to see over which route the boogie man trains should be sent- right?
Suppose there are 2 options for a route? One is through a town of 6,000 wealthy, politically connected citizens, the other through a town of 6,000 working class, poorer citizens. Someone flips a coin to see over which route the boogie man trains should be sent- right?
Bingo! I am sure that it is just a coincidence that Schlimm mentions Hinsdale and Naperville as two of the towns that should have the oil trains routed around them. Both Hinsdale and Naperville are home to some of the highest income zip codes in Illinois.
http://wealth.mongabay.com/cities/ILLINOIS.html
Yes. That entire suburban route has a large population as well. And some of the areas the BNSF traverses are not so rich: parts of Aurora, Westmont, Berwyn, to name a few. You really do not know what you are talking about. Your greed-driven fear that the rails might make a little less money is comical. Meanwhile the CEO's, who actually can see the big picture, are looking with caution at the Bakken problem because they recognize that they are potentially one disaster from bankruptcy. Fortunately, they are the ones making decisions.
schlimm Yes. That entire suburban route has a large population as well. And some of the areas the BNSF traverses are not so rich: parts of Aurora, Westmont, Berwyn, to name a few. You really do not know what you are talking about. Your greed-driven fear that the rails might make a little less money is comical. Meanwhile the CEO's, who actually can see the big picture, are looking with caution at the Bakken problem because they recognize that they are potentially one disaster from bankruptcy. Fortunately, they are the ones making decisions.
Does there exist a route that is isolated enough that the people living near the tracks are statistically insignificant?
zugmann schlimm Yes. That entire suburban route has a large population as well. And some of the areas the BNSF traverses are not so rich: parts of Aurora, Westmont, Berwyn, to name a few. You really do not know what you are talking about. Your greed-driven fear that the rails might make a little less money is comical. Meanwhile the CEO's, who actually can see the big picture, are looking with caution at the Bakken problem because they recognize that they are potentially one disaster from bankruptcy. Fortunately, they are the ones making decisions. Does there exist a route that is isolated enough that the people living near the tracks are statistically insignificant?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.