First stop reading stuff filtered through a news reporter's interpretation of things he doesn't understand.
Read something from the AAR and US government:
https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Press-Releases/Pages/Freight-Railroads-Join-U-S-Transportation-Secretary-Foxx-in-Announcing-Industry-Crude-By-Rail-Safety-Initiative.aspx
The AAR committed to using two way telemetry devices or distributed power on key trains (trains with 20 or more loaded hazmat cars or 2 RSSM loads).
The two way technology and DP power has been in use for the last 15-20 years. DP initiates a brake application or release from the rear at the same time as the head end. The two way EOT initiates an emergency application from the rear at the same time as the head end.
20 loaded cars of hazmat was established as the criteria of a key train back in the 1980's and railroads limit the operation of key trains. The limitations are by Federal law and railroad rule. Later RSSM (high explosives, radioactive and TIH/PIH) was added and there was a lower threshold of the number of cars. Many railroads have more restrictive key train rules. The BNSF and UP classify a train as a key train if it has one loaded RSSM car.
Class one railroads have been dealing with these issues for decades. They have a lot of very effective technology and processes that have been in place for decades.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Of particular interest, the article I linked to on the previous page also mentions a new brake system for oil trains. It says this:
“Railroads have also agreed to use better braking systems on all 20-car crude-carrying trains that will enable brakes to be applied from both ends of the train to stop it faster in the event of an emergency.”
Didn’t somebody just recently bring this idea up in a thread here? Was it brought up in relation to this article, or was it somebody suggesting it as a new idea? Maybe somebody remembers the thread and can find it.
I wonder how the brakes setting from the hind end are controlled. Is it an automatic response to brakes being applied by the engineer, or is it a manual response that can be used at the engineer’s discretion?
If it is an automatic response, I wonder if it senses an emergency application and opens the brake pipe from the end of the train. Or is it just for service applications?
What is their point in referring to 20-car crude-carrying trains? Why 20 cars?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/oil-trains-usa-canada-idUSL6N0LU2WL20140225
daveklepperI disagree with Euclid. Like Euclid, I also have specific physical ideas that should improve safety (posted), but I am also willing to grant that additional inspections, slower operating speeds, and some rerouting can also contribute to safety, both separately and together.
I never said or implied that stepped up inspections would not improve safety. But what is the measure of that improvement? How much will the improvement offset the oil train public safety issue? There are no answers because both the problem and the solution of stepped up inspections are unquantifiable.
The article used the word “demonstrate.” If there is a problem with oil trains, why not fix the problem? The railroads have been criticized by the oil industry for having track and train defects that can cause oil trains to derail, and I assume they feel this is a bad rap.
The article said that the industry intends to demonstrate that they are doing all they can to fix the problem. Demonstrate to who? Why demonstrate it? Why not just fix the problem? The “demonstration” comment sounds like a way of saying that the problem is not our fault because we are doing everything we can to avoid it. In that sense, it sounds like a symbolic measure more than a real solution.
The problem is that the oil trail problem has no solution, because it is not much more than a theoretical prediction. I tend to agree with the idea that the best way to push back against it is with solutions that are somewhat theoretical or symbolic in themselves. Fight fire with fire.
BaltACD Euclid It is interesting that it says the extra measures are meant to demonstrate rail operators are doing all they can to avoid accidents. This choice of words strikes me as indicating the increased inspections are more of a symbolic nature as a marketing pushback against safety criticism than they are a positive remedy to the actual problem. You are trolling with that comment.
Euclid It is interesting that it says the extra measures are meant to demonstrate rail operators are doing all they can to avoid accidents. This choice of words strikes me as indicating the increased inspections are more of a symbolic nature as a marketing pushback against safety criticism than they are a positive remedy to the actual problem.
It is interesting that it says the extra measures are meant to demonstrate rail operators are doing all they can to avoid accidents. This choice of words strikes me as indicating the increased inspections are more of a symbolic nature as a marketing pushback against safety criticism than they are a positive remedy to the actual problem.
You are trolling with that comment.
Seems to be a common problem, eh.
Norm
I disagree with Euclid. Like Euclid, I also have specific physical ideas that should improve safety (posted), but I am also willing to grant that additional inspections, slower operating speeds, and some rerouting can also contribute to safety, both separately and together. But I aslo agree with Schimm that crude language is not appropriate in this or any Trains or any Kalmbach forum discussion.
dehusman Euclid It is interesting that it says the extra measures are meant to demonstrate rail operators are doing all they can to avoid accidents. This choice of words strikes me as indicating the increased inspections are more of a symbolic nature as a marketing pushback against safety criticism than they are a positive remedy to the actual problem. BS.
BS.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If you get too defensive, your world fills up with trolls.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I agree with Dave.
The OP did not link a source for the news about stepping up derailment prevention measures, but here is a link that covers it to some extent, plus it provides a good update to all elements of the oil-by-rail safety issue. It goes into speed limits, rerouting to avoid high density areas, new tank cars, and oil volatility:
Related to the stepped up derailment prevention, the article says this:
“Enhanced inspections - including high-tech measurements of track geometry, such as curvature and alignment - will go beyond current standards set by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and are meant to demonstrate rail operators are doing all they can to avoid accidents.”
That is part of my objective in the safe oil train proposal I made in another thread. The oil train problem is largely a marketing creation by the media and public response to the media. So, to the extent the problem is a marketing creation, it makes sense to fight it with marketing.
On my carrier EVERY report of a track condition, no matter if it is from a outside party, off duty employee, on duty employee or ailens from another planet is refered to MofW for inspection through the companys computerized trouble reporting system - once a 'ticket' is created it remains outstanding until the results of party dispatched to inspect the condition have been posted to the 'ticket'. From a operating perspective, when the report of any track annomaly is received, trains are issued a Restricted Speed speed restriction at the location until the track has been inspected by MofW personnel.
The report of problems by Non-MofW personnel, may consider the problem more severe than trained MofW personnel view the issue to be. Conversly, some seeminly trivial issues reported by outside parties may end up being highly important when viewed by trained MofW personnel.
schlimm Randy Stahl Big Bend KenIn this day where detectors are placed to help find and point out defects on wheels, bearings, loose parts, etc., it seems (at least in my area) that railroads fall far short of inspecting and repairing defects in the tack itself. The BNSF in particular, their line going west from St. Louis (Cuba Sub.) is sectional rail (not welded) for several miles until the next county where the condition can be called A-1. The double tracks which pass by our depot has an average of three missing and/or loose bolts on their rail joiners for every 100 feet of track. Some of the rails have chips on their ends at the joiners which makes a sound like a large fireworks every time a train passes by. The ties are beyond description and within that 100 feet, add at least two dozen missing spikes. About seven years ago they had a contractor go through the area and after they were finished two weeks later, there was no noticeable improvement. I once reported a rail joiner which only had one tight bolt and two loose bolts, and there was supposed to a total of six. I later had to promise a railroad detective to never make a report like that again. I think next time I will call a local TV station and let them hash it out. Because TV personalities are qualified track inspectors no doubt. The issue is the observations and report of the poster, which was ignored by the railroad in question. When folks take the time to go through channels and get that treatment for their efforts, it is natural to take it somewhere else. The media would be one choice; the FRA another. Obviously either the "qualified" BNSF inspector wasn't doing his job or the repair folks were not.
Randy Stahl Big Bend KenIn this day where detectors are placed to help find and point out defects on wheels, bearings, loose parts, etc., it seems (at least in my area) that railroads fall far short of inspecting and repairing defects in the tack itself. The BNSF in particular, their line going west from St. Louis (Cuba Sub.) is sectional rail (not welded) for several miles until the next county where the condition can be called A-1. The double tracks which pass by our depot has an average of three missing and/or loose bolts on their rail joiners for every 100 feet of track. Some of the rails have chips on their ends at the joiners which makes a sound like a large fireworks every time a train passes by. The ties are beyond description and within that 100 feet, add at least two dozen missing spikes. About seven years ago they had a contractor go through the area and after they were finished two weeks later, there was no noticeable improvement. I once reported a rail joiner which only had one tight bolt and two loose bolts, and there was supposed to a total of six. I later had to promise a railroad detective to never make a report like that again. I think next time I will call a local TV station and let them hash it out. Because TV personalities are qualified track inspectors no doubt.
Big Bend KenIn this day where detectors are placed to help find and point out defects on wheels, bearings, loose parts, etc., it seems (at least in my area) that railroads fall far short of inspecting and repairing defects in the tack itself. The BNSF in particular, their line going west from St. Louis (Cuba Sub.) is sectional rail (not welded) for several miles until the next county where the condition can be called A-1. The double tracks which pass by our depot has an average of three missing and/or loose bolts on their rail joiners for every 100 feet of track. Some of the rails have chips on their ends at the joiners which makes a sound like a large fireworks every time a train passes by. The ties are beyond description and within that 100 feet, add at least two dozen missing spikes. About seven years ago they had a contractor go through the area and after they were finished two weeks later, there was no noticeable improvement. I once reported a rail joiner which only had one tight bolt and two loose bolts, and there was supposed to a total of six. I later had to promise a railroad detective to never make a report like that again. I think next time I will call a local TV station and let them hash it out.
Because TV personalities are qualified track inspectors no doubt.
The issue is the observations and report of the poster, which was ignored by the railroad in question. When folks take the time to go through channels and get that treatment for their efforts, it is natural to take it somewhere else. The media would be one choice; the FRA another. Obviously either the "qualified" BNSF inspector wasn't doing his job or the repair folks were not.
... Or the track is class compliant
I don't understand why threads like this one have to drone on and on with endless arguments. They end up looking like food that's in the fridge too long that's drying out or getting a fungus on it. There are railfans who read and remember endless details they read elsewhere on the web,,, then repeat it here. And then there are the engineers, brakemen and others out there working in the real world of railroading. I once applied at a local RR but never got a call or hired. I'm glad I didn't as a flip flop schedule is not for me. I know working on a railroad compared to being a railfan are about as far apart as Earth is from Mars. I will chase a train once in a while or go see them in downtown St.Paul or from Daytons Bluff. I will call an 800 number if I see a broken flange again. I will call 911 if again I see two guys on the ends of grain hopper cars wearing striped prison uniforms (DM&E Rochester Mn about 25 years ago). I will tinker with my Lionel trains and will get my layout up and running again. My movie loosely based on trains might even get made some day. I will work on my pickups, lawn equipment and home made mowers.....BUT, I will never work for a railroad out on the trains. Its not for me.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
I can't speak to what other carriers do.
On my carrier, between our Track Geometery train, Guage restraint measureing car, various Sperry rail testing cars and multiple FRA test cars, the main lines get tested by one or more of these testing mediums approximately monthly. Whenever a new testing 'product' comes on the market, it's use gets incorporated in the testing and inspection program. The higher volume lines get more testing than the lower volume lines. All this is over and above the routine inspections of the MofW personnel that are responsible for their territories.
Even with all this inspection and testing - failures still happen. Nothing is perfect, never has been, never will be.
Big Bend Ken, you mention "rail joiners," are you referring to fish plates?
How much traffic does this line have? How fast do the trains run? How much revenue does it generate for the BNSF?
I appreciate your concern. And, I think of a twenty mile section of the Frisco which, some forty years ago, had a speed limit of ten miles an hour because of the condition of the track. One evening, I made the round trip over the twenty miles to a junction and back, and it took two hours each way, plus the time for supper and taking care of the necessary switching. I trusted the engineer. This section has long been abandoned.
No, I have never worked for any railroad, but have enjoyed knowing many men in road service ( and being known to more than I knew) and several station agents and operators.
Johnny
I never said the railroads aren’t doing anything. And I only posed the pregnant question rhetorically to frame the issue. Norm said the question was ridiculous, but only on the surface. And now you introduce a bicycle into the question. Here is what I see:
Derailments cost money.
Preventing derailments cost money.
A balance has been struck between paying for derailments and paying to prevent them.
Oil traffic raises the cost of derailments.
A new balance needs to be struck by raising the expenditures on preventing derailments to equalize with the higher cost of derailments due to oil traffic.
But the basic most important question is this:
Can the railroads attain enough derailment prevention to balance the new higher cost of derailments due to oil traffic, and still make a profit?
Euclid So the pregnant question is this: If the industry can do more to prevent derailments for the purpose of avoiding oil train catastrophes, why aren’t they already doing it? Who does not want as few derailments as possible?
So the pregnant question is this:
If the industry can do more to prevent derailments for the purpose of avoiding oil train catastrophes, why aren’t they already doing it? Who does not want as few derailments as possible?
Because reality rears its ugly head. The railroads operate within physical and economic constraints. Technologies we use today didn't exist or weren't feasible 20 years ago. There are still things we don't have the technology to test or detect or correct automatically. We still have human beings involved that can make mistakes. Like it or not, railroads are for profit service companies. They still have to provide service that meets customer needs at a competitive price. If you want to see a railroad that couldn't meet customer needs at a competitive price, buy a bicycle. They still have constraints on how much they can spend on capital improvements. There are constraints on how fast things can be changed, there are constraints on how fast things can be built. There are legislative, regulatory and governmental constraints. Just this week there were Congressional hearings on PTC installation. The FRA is requiring railroads to install PTC but the FCC is prohibiting them from installing radio towers to support PTC. No radio towers, no PTC.
Just because you don't know what they are doing, doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.
Euclid So the pregnant question is this: If the industry can do more to prevent derailments for the purpose of avoiding oil train catastrophes, why aren’t they already do it? Who does not want as few derailments as possible?
If the industry can do more to prevent derailments for the purpose of avoiding oil train catastrophes, why aren’t they already do it? Who does not want as few derailments as possible?
Your question is ridiculous on it's surface. Every derailment costs the railroads money, and the bad ones suffer them bad public relations. Do you truly think they don't care if cars depart the tracks?
schlimm In a word, YES.
In a word, YES.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Norm48327Now, based on some posters here we should be reporting every flat tire on an automobile to the NHTSA.
Based on one, BaltACD's contention, which was made for very different and valid reasons than your spurious comment.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. Spiders would be very proud.
Now, based on some posters here we should be reporting every flat tire on an automobile to the NHTSA.
Flame suit on.
Euclid Dave Klepper’s original point was that part of the railroad industry’s response to the oil train fireball crisis is to reduce derailments by increasing various means of derailment prevention. I wonder how effective that can be.
Dave Klepper’s original point was that part of the railroad industry’s response to the oil train fireball crisis is to reduce derailments by increasing various means of derailment prevention. I wonder how effective that can be.
schlimmLet me try to correct this. Not sure what Euclid is saying. I have never changed my view. Ed misread or misunderstood what I said and what the FRA threshold means, but quoted BaltACD accurately. I only used the 20/80 ratio to show the absurdity of taking the sensible FRA derailment stats and replacing them with the actual number of derailments, ala BaltACD, and what poor PR that would become for the freight railroads.
I only used the 20/80 ratio to show the absurdity of taking the sensible FRA derailment stats and replacing them with the actual number of derailments, ala BaltACD, and what poor PR that would become for the freight railroads.
Schlimm,
Okay, I see what you meant when you said this:
“Irony: Dave Kepper's title of this thread was "Zero derailment railroading" The official FRA total derailments for the 10-year period 2001-2010 was 8,092. BaltACD suggests that only 20% of actual derailments are reported to the FRA. If that is the case, the actual number would have been 40,460, an average of 4046 per year, about 11 every day. Long way to go to ZERO.”
You meant it to show the absurdity of the position by BaltACD which was that the statistics were overstating the derailment problem by excluding 80% of derailments deem to be minor. At least I think that was his position that the statistics were overstating the derailment problem. I don’t recall him actually saying that, but I had the feeling that he was reacting to you, and perceived that you were overstating the derailment problem by your interpretation of the statistics. All BaltACD said was that excluding 80% of the derailments skews the statistics.
So, in your quote above, you were showing that the derailment problem that BaltACD implied was being overstated by the statistics omitting 80% of the derailments would be much more overstated if the statistics included the missing 80% of derailments. So you were pointing out the absurdity of that position by BaltACD.
BUT here is my suggestion: This thread has been dancing around the interpretation of statistics to come to some unstated conclusion, which is like the elephant in the room. It is as if the actual topic is ghosted, and is only being discussed by innuendo constructed by the interpretation of statistics. I suggest that you all come right out and state your points about derailments and either tie the statistics directly to your point about derailments or simply forget about statistics.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.