How this public safety crisis develops moving forward hinges almost entirely on the random event. In that sense, the probability and odds of oil train accidents are meaningless for all practical purposes. And yet rerouting oil trains to relatively safer areas is focused exclusively on managing probabilities and risk in the most subjective terms.
The proponents of rerouting will tell us how many lives they are saving, but there will be no way to verify that sort of claim. The only way to validate the rerouting will be to promote it to the public as something that is being done about the problem.
But at the same time, there will be the unintended consequence of promoting the danger of oil trains to the public precisely due to the message that oil trains must be kept away from the public. That is worst possible message to be sending when trying to manage a crisis based almost entirely on the perception of danger.
Therefore, in my opinion, this rerouting plan is as wrongheaded as can be. It will hurt rather than help. It is the fumbling bureaucratic solution to a problem that is nearly unsolvable.
Yes, but following Fred Frailey's`suggestions (with my modifications and additions?) will definitely reduce the chances of accidents happening. The lower the speed, the lower the chance for an accident and the lower the chance that any accident will be very serious. The only exception is on lines where directional sharing of parallel routtes exists, and the fleet speed is the least dangerous, since it reduces occasioins for meets.
On this question of meets. Note that the railroad industry is the only transportation medium where some cases do not involve any transportation people in the loading process, only the shipper's people.
daveklepper On this question of meets. Note that the railroad industry is the only transportation medium where some cases do not involve any transportation people in the loading process, only the shipper's people.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Route oil trains on good well kept rail lines, and reduce the speed....Some experts from the industry should be able to determine, "what speed", and perhaps whatever speed will be decided, will beat the "speed" of oil traveling thru pipe lines.
Quentin
Modelcar Route oil trains on good well kept rail lines, and reduce the speed....Some experts from the industry should be able to determine, "what speed", and perhaps whatever speed will be decided, will beat the "speed" of oil traveling thru pipe lines.
I agree completely, and would add: with sufficient crews to operate safely, to keep the train moving without stopping in places that lack yard crews and supervision, run between places with 24-hour monitoring (i.e., major terminals), sufficient on-train personnel to do things like tie the train down if necessary in an emergency (not have the one person aboard leave the engine to tie down cars in the dark a la MM&A). I would NOT run these trains down shortlines just to avoid large cities. All this can be done safely at a profit on the major railroads, this isn't low margin stuff.
Modelcarspeed" of oil traveling thru pipe lines.
Russell
OK You are correct about container shipments in general. But the point about meets remains valid.
Just a musing: you re-route anything and within 10 years, people will move there.
I don't think that will be the answer to the problem.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
EuclidHow this public safety crisis develops moving forward hinges almost entirely on the random event. In that sense, the probability and odds of oil train accidents are meaningless for all practical purposes. And yet rerouting oil trains to relatively safer areas is focused exclusively on managing probabilities and risk in the most subjective terms.
You do not understand probabilities or you would not make such a statement. Try going back and reading what Frailey and klepper wrote and ask Dave. K. if you still do not get it
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
csxnsModelcarspeed" of oil traveling thru pipe lines.Now you said it just how fast can oil travel thru the pipe I thought of this before but never asked but all ways wondered.
Association of Oil Pipelines:"Product moves from three to eight miles per hour depending upon line size, pressure, and other factors such as the density and viscosity of the liquid being transported. At these rates, it takes from 14 to 22 days to move liquids from Houston, Texas to New York City"
But:"It is difficult to say without knowing other properties like velocity or pressure difference, but with estimated velocity of 1 m/s it is about 200.000 gph or 4,8 mil gallons per day."
chutton01"Product moves from three to eight miles per hour depending upon line size, pressure, and other factors such as the density and viscosity of the liquid being transported. At these rates
schlimmEuclidHow this public safety crisis develops moving forward hinges almost entirely on the random event. In that sense, the probability and odds of oil train accidents are meaningless for all practical purposes. And yet rerouting oil trains to relatively safer areas is focused exclusively on managing probabilities and risk in the most subjective terms. You do not understand probabilities or you would not make such a statement. Try going back and reading what Frailey and klepper wrote and ask Dave. K. if you still do not get it
I understand the point about probabilities just fine. If my statement indicates to you that I do not, perhaps it is because you do not understand my statement.
My point is that dealing with this snowballing public relations problem by splitting hairs about the probabilities of killing more or less people here or there is tone deaf. It is missing the forest by looking at the trees.
Routing oil trains away from densely populated areas sounds beneficial on the surface. Probabilities are simple if you just ask whether a person is better off farther from a fireball rather than closer to it.
But rerouting means choosing between two alternate routes of considerable distance. The choice will be far from clear because each route will have a bewildering mix of pros and cons when it comes to public vulnerability. The pros and cons will also include all of the economic, operational, and logistical issues including distance, type of track, labor agreements, traffic patterns, etc.
The choice of route will require the weighing of an enormous number of competing risk and safety factors. The results of these calculations will be hard to quantify and interpret. They will vary widely between different approaches to the calculation.
But in the larger perspective, once you accept the premise that oil trains can kill people at any moment; and thus try to distance the trains from people, there will be no satisfactory solution to be found. Every life will be important. Forcing the need to choose the least deadly location will simply highlight and promote the menace of oil trains.
There will also be intense resistance to placing oil trains in new areas with the explanation that they are deemed too dangerous to people where the trains previously ran. Talk about an issue for NIMBYS!
daveklepper OK You are correct about container shipments in general. But the point about meets remains valid.
Freight carriers expect and require that Shipper's load their loads (all commodities) in accordance with the applicable loading requirements when they are offered for shipment as specified in the Bill of Lading.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Odd little side note…they barge LPG, natural gas and oil up the Hudson river, right through New York City, and no one ever thinks to be worried there are floating bombs in Manhattan?
23 17 46 11
Rerouting to avoid populaton centers seems highly impractical as a hard and fast rule. It may make sense only when two alternatives are equal in all other respects. But operating practices regarding speed and meets can reduce the chances for an incident and reduce the severity of any incidents that might happen.
If there are routes that can accept an oil train to run at 40 mph to bypass a metro area completely or in part, then that would be a desirable option. Working out the details about tariff, etc. should not be reason to not attempt. The EJ&E/CN would accomplish that in part in metro Chicago.
edblysard Odd little side note…they barge LPG, natural gas and oil up the Hudson river, right through New York City, and no one ever thinks to be worried there are floating bombs in Manhattan?
Ed makes a very valid point,IMHO!
In his area (Houston, Tx) the barge and also the Rail traffic is just loaded with hazards..Right on the door steps of a Major Commercial area. The Houston Ship Channel is not a very large waterway by any definition, except for volume of waterborne traffic. And portions of the 'rail net' goes right through what could be considered the Central Business District, (in its' very definitions).
The reactionary calls for putting the "Hazardous Traffic: ie; Rail tank cars, and other carloads of dangerous goods, in "less-populated areas" seems nothing more than Knee-jerk, 'feel-good', good ole political reactionisms, particularly, in a time close to what may be a nationally, significant year of shifting political powers(?). A move at 'gaming' public voting trends, on both side of the spectrum. The loosers are the people whoise products are having their costs pushed up, by politicians and their reactionary,less-than-well thought out actions.
Take the fireworks industry, fast being 'controlled' by politicians who react to a single inccident of individual harm. They limit locations,hours, types of product to be sold, not to mention areas where they can be used...The primary reason for their purchase.
Here is aninteresting bit of information from a New Mexico County ( San Jaun) [snip] "...In New Mexico in 2012, 80 percent of the fires on public lands were caused by lightning, with less than 1 percent caused by fireworks, according to the New Mexico State Forestry Division, which adds fuel to Burnham’s argument that fireworks don’t cause fires, but provide an economic benefit to the state.
Burnham estimates that the fireworks industry brings in at least $15 million annually to the state, with some $70,000 in fees from vendors and more than $1 million in gross receipts tax revenues. He purchases 10 fireworks vendor licenses and is just one of 635 vendors in the state..."[snip] from this linked site: @ http://www.tricitytribuneusa.com/burnham-fireworks-relatively-safe/
My point is that the total number of Hazardous Loads on rail is only a gross estimate of its total quantity. The number of reported "incidents" is most likely not a total, but also an estimate(final solid totals, only seemt to come after long periods of computation)..gustimates, are not very solid grounds on which to base such an important arguments.
The old News axiom of " ...Nothing sells newspapers...More than tragedy or bad news..." [paraphrased]. Is likewise, no real grounds to make politically inspired rulings (ie; runn all crude oil away from populations in Cities), effectively, to legislate what seems to amount to a social "feel-good" safety net, while hoping for'positive' or favorable political outcomes.
No problems with ships in the harbor!
Check out SS Grandcamp at Texax City, TX April 16, 1947
or maybe the Alum Chine in Baltimore Harbor in 1913
and there are others too numerous to mention.
Regulators look for reasons to regulate, and politicians look for causes to make their voters feel good. Public safety is one of the most effective of such causes. The media looks for drama to sell a story and they also serve both the regulators and the politicians at the same time.
It does indeed seem like selective indignation to focus on the danger of oil trains while ignoring the other hazardous materials. But oil trains are the selected issue that seems to work best to serve the agendas at this moment. They get to choose their issues.
The image of oil also plays a role in demonizing oil trains. If we had exploding trains of chocolate, the criticism wouldn’t be so harsh.
>>How this public safety crisis develops moving forward hinges almost entirely on the random event.<<
I think that you are overlooking two key factors:
1. Once someone says "something should be done", if the deep pockets (in this case the railroads) do nothing, then the very next time something bad happens, the monetary damages skyrocket. So the railroads want to be able to walk into that court room saying "hey, we've done our part".
2. Isn't a longer haul in the railroad's best interest? I doubt seriously that any safety related rerouting will force the railroads to choose a route that is shorter than the one they preferred. So rerouting should mean more money for the railroad.
(and "NO", I have not yet read the article)
Convicted One 1. Once someone says "something should be done", if the deep pockets (in this case the railroads) do nothing, then the very next time something bad happens, the monetary damages skyrocket. So the railroads want to be able to walk into that court room saying "hey, we've done our part".
Much of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs) and assumes the railroads are not doing anything becaue they aren't doing what a poster has suggested or don't know if the railroads are doing anything so assume since they don't know then the railroads muct not be doing anything.
Short anwer, no. Its a railroad, not a taxi cab. They railroads don't charge by the mile, they charge by the trip or weight. So no they don't make more money hauling the car 1000 miles vs 1500 miles.
The whole division of revenue discussion is small potatoes. The thing the pro-reroute people are forgetting is that there is no division of revenue that can adequately cover the increased risk caused by forcing the oil trains to one particular route. The owner of that route will have his risk rise astronomically. It is one thing to solicit business and accept the risk yourself, its completely another to have risk forced on you by another party.
If the City of Chicago would be willing to indemnify the alternate route railroad and agree to cover all risk associated with personal injury, property damage, interruption of service, environmental damage and cleanup for any accident due to any cause, regardless of negligence, they might have a starting point.
EuclidThe image of oil also plays a role in demonizing oil trains. If we had exploding trains of chocolate, the criticism wouldn’t be so harsh.
The anti-obesity people would be all over it! See how terrible chocolate is? It should be removed from stores immediately! (Sure would make Valentine's Day a little harder to deal with).
Crude Oil = Cause du Jour
Even the big derailment and fire involving ethanol (which occurred in the Chicago area) didn't evoke this much hysteria - probably in part because ethanol is seen as a "green" solution. Crude is seen as evil - a non-green energy source.
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...
BaltACD No problems with ships in the harbor! Check out SS Grandcamp at Texax City, TX April 16, 1947 or maybe the Alum Chine in Baltimore Harbor in 1913 and there are others too numerous to mention. Don't forget the famous " Black Tom" explosion in New York Harbor (1916) and don't forget the German attempt to sever a railroad (U.S. Canadian) connection at Vanceboro,Me. as well... @ http://www.jerseycityonline.com/black_tom_explosion.htm
Don't forget the famous " Black Tom" explosion in New York Harbor (1916)
and don't forget the German attempt to sever a railroad (U.S. Canadian) connection at Vanceboro,Me. as well...
@ http://www.jerseycityonline.com/black_tom_explosion.htm
tree68 The anti-obesity people would be all over it! See how terrible chocolate is? It should be removed from stores immediately! (Sure would make Valentine's Day a little harder to deal with). Crude Oil = Cause du Jour Even the big derailment and fire involving ethanol (which occurred in the Chicago area) didn't evoke this much hysteria - probably in part because ethanol is seen as a "green" solution. Crude is seen as evil - a non-green energy source.
There was a huge stink about ethanol trains around here - esp. when they tried building an ethanol plant nearby. The opposition, in a thinly veiled attempt to not appear as NIMBYs, tried every argument against the ethanol industry as a whole. They were even arguing about emergency lighting at the plants. It was amusing.
As an aside, I've been noticing a lot (most of them that I see) of corn syrup tanks have had their CORN SYRUP ONLY lettering painted out. Wondering if that is because of the opposition to corn syrup from certain groups? I've also seen the C in CORN modified to be a P. That may have something to do with it, too.
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
samfp1943 Don't forget the famous " Black Tom" explosion in New York Harbor (1916) and don't forget the German attempt to sever a railroad (U.S. Canadian) connection at Vanceboro,Me. as well... @ http://www.jerseycityonline.com/black_tom_explosion.htm
Thanks Sam. It was a better read than a James Bond novel.
Norm
dehusmanMuch of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs) and assumes the railroads are not doing anything becaue they aren't doing what a poster has suggested or don't know if the railroads are doing anything so assume since they don't know then the railroads muct not be doing anything.
This discussion does not assume that the railroads are responsible for the tank cars; and I don't know of anyone who assumes that the railroads are doing nothing about the oil train problem as you attribute to "a poster."
Convicted One 2. Isn't a longer haul in the railroad's best interest? I doubt seriously that any safety related rerouting will force the railroads to choose a route that is shorter than the one they preferred. So rerouting should mean more money for the railroad. (and "NO", I have not yet read the article)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
dehusmanMuch of this discussion assumes that the railroads are responsible (they are not responsible for the cars, the tank car owners are responsible for the tank car designs)
You seem to be saying the rails would have no liability in the event of a catastrophic derailment/explosion/fire in a heavily-populated area. Better check that. Several parties are liable. Railroad exec's are familiar with the issue and realize they need to reduce their exposure to potential financial ruin. That includes re-routing away from metro areas en route when possible, even if the cost increases slightly to considerably.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.