Euclid samfp1943 ... But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major 'cause celebre' in the Activist segment of our society... ... Rail did a surprise end run around their pipeline opposition, and they are not amused. Certainly, they will wield their power to even the score. That power is lobbying the regulators to price oil-by-rail out of the market by forcing the cost up with new regulations for safer tank cars and safer operations...
samfp1943 ... But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major 'cause celebre' in the Activist segment of our society...
...
But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major 'cause celebre' in the Activist segment of our society...
... Rail did a surprise end run around their pipeline opposition, and they are not amused. Certainly, they will wield their power to even the score.
That power is lobbying the regulators to price oil-by-rail out of the market by forcing the cost up with new regulations for safer tank cars and safer operations...
The Keystone XL Pipeline involves Tar Sands oil production which has a higher environmental impact than conventional oil, which puts it on the environmental activist top priority. The fact that it crosses an international border is the only thing that gave the story legs, because it was then subject to national political permitting scrutiny. Keystone has no bearing on the Bakken or domestic pipelines or pipelines crossing into the US carrying conventional oil, all of which continue to be planned or built.
Most big pipeline companies also own or use crude hauling trucks, and some have built rail loading facilities. They are in the crude transporting business, and will use the most cost effective means. If they don't, their oil company customers will look for some one else to move their oil. The oil companies will use the most efficient and reliable means of transportation: pipeline, rail, boat, whatever. Railfans should accept that the public spectacle of the rail/crude accidents are the drivers behind tougher regulations.
tree68EuclidWhat exactly is the dispute that Senator Heitkamp is referring to when she says this is shaping up to be a regulatory fight? I guess the dispute will be whether the impending new tank car specifications need to exceed the standards of the 1232 tank cars. As for the regulatory fight - based on the video, I only see that happening if outside parties try to force conditions that the major players find excessive. It actually sounds like the AAR, API, and whoever that other guy was are pretty much on the same sheet of music. In some ways, I'd view the senator's comment as a threat.
EuclidWhat exactly is the dispute that Senator Heitkamp is referring to when she says this is shaping up to be a regulatory fight? I guess the dispute will be whether the impending new tank car specifications need to exceed the standards of the 1232 tank cars.
As for the regulatory fight - based on the video, I only see that happening if outside parties try to force conditions that the major players find excessive. It actually sounds like the AAR, API, and whoever that other guy was are pretty much on the same sheet of music. In some ways, I'd view the senator's comment as a threat.
That is the way I read her too. I watched that video several times just to study her comments. It almost seems like her tone communicates more than her sentences. And her tone is highly adversarial, particularly in regard to her suggestion that the industry is pulling a fast one by claiming a falling percentage of 111 tank cars when that falling percentage is due to adding new tank cars to the fleet rather than removing 111s from it.
She acts like the industry is violating a commitment or requirement to take 111 tank cars out of service while misleading the public to portray that they are taking the 111s out or service.
I do not know the facts of what the industry is legally bound to; or has committed to do voluntarily regarding the retirement of 111s. But Senator Heitkamp’s closing point sounded like she believed that she had caught the industry lying.
Mr. Searle defended against her insuation of bad faith on the part of the industry by saying that the 111s are legally authorized for use. But Senator Heitkamp cut off his point and reverted back to her point that the industry is playing games with the numbers to make it look like they are removing the 111s from service when they are not.
I would like to learn exactly what the industry has committed to do, or is legally bound to do, regarding the revmoval of 111s from service.
Somebody playing games with numbers....how novel!
Politicians would never play games with numbers
and I can sell you some waterfront land in Timbuktu
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Keystone Pipeline is virtually a political game right now as the stuff is moving in trains which has awakened the oil and gas companies to the fact that rail is more user friendly in that shipments can be rerouted en route as needed to where needed with minimum delays and maximum choices. Therefore only the politicians need Keystone Pipeline at the moment.
But as for the tank cars: they are the purview of the shippers to provide either by lease or by ownership and be up to the standards required for the product shipped and they must assures the railroad that what is in the shipment is acceptable to the cars being used. Otherwise, the railroad will not be required to accept the load for shipment.
So, the politicians have a side show to look like they are not obstructing anything while drawing our attention away from matters which we can do something about.
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.
BaltACDSomebody playing games with numbers....how novel! Politicians would never play games with numbersand I can sell you some waterfront land in Timbuktu
But-- is somebody really playing with numbers? If Senator Heitkamp would have finished her sentences rather than let them trail off into vague accusation; maybe we could understand why she thinks the public is being deceived by the number expressing the quantity of DOT-111 tank cars in service.
On the face of her expressed concern, I completely fail to understand what her grievance is. Clearly she believes that the railroad industry is being deceptive by claiming that the percentage of DOT-111 tank cars is falling. I would like to know how she constructs that argument.
Why would the number of 111 tank cars in service have any direct bearing on safety?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Why would the number of 111 tank cars in service have any direct bearing on safety?
Because DOT 111 is the ONLY number that politicians know and in their minds and in their pronouncements it is the domestic version of a IED ready to explode at any time loaded or empty with any commodity.
BaltACD Because DOT 111 is the ONLY number that politicians know and in their minds and in their pronouncements it is the domestic version of a IED ready to explode at any time loaded or empty with any commodity.
Dave,
I assume that Senator Heitkamp is referring only to the 111s engaged in hauling crude oil. She says that she has been told that the percentage of 111s engaged in hauling crude oil is decreasing, and is now at 40% of the total tank car fleet engaged in hauling crude oil. She says that implies a reduction in the number 111s when (she says) it is not a reduction in that number.
This is because the falling percentage of 111s is due to an increase in the total number of cars in the crude oil tank car fleet. Therefore the actual number of 111s in crude oil service has not fallen, and Senator Heitkamp seems to feel that this is a bad faith failure of the oil and rail industry.
My question is this: What is it that would require the industry to be reducing the number of 111s in crude oil service? Senator Heitkamp apparently knows the answer to that question, but she did not disclose it during the discussion.
Assuming that the total number of 111A's in service has not, in fact, dropped, but instead the percentage has been reduced by the number of new cars placed in service (as the Senator implies), I would opine that it's because there is a call for those cars to meet a shortage thereof.
If that's the case, then the total inventory of 111A's will not drop until such time as they become surplus to the needs of the industry.
Meanwhile, there have been how many incidents involving the 111A's since ND?
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...
MidlandMike Euclid samfp1943 ... But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major 'cause celebre' in the Activist segment of our society... ... Rail did a surprise end run around their pipeline opposition, and they are not amused. Certainly, they will wield their power to even the score. That power is lobbying the regulators to price oil-by-rail out of the market by forcing the cost up with new regulations for safer tank cars and safer operations... The Keystone XL Pipeline involves Tar Sands oil production which has a higher environmental impact than conventional oil, which puts it on the environmental activist top priority. The fact that it crosses an international border is the only thing that gave the story legs, because it was then subject to national political permitting scrutiny. Keystone has no bearing on the Bakken or domestic pipelines or pipelines crossing into the US carrying conventional oil, all of which continue to be planned or built.
I understand your point that Keystone has no bearing on the Bakken pipelines. But I do think there is a relationship between the environmental opposition to pipelines and oil-by-rail as transportation for both Tar Sands and Bakken. Tar Sands is indeed high on the list of oil operations opposed by the anti-oil activists, but so is Bakken because of its fracking.
So, there is opposition to pipelines used for transporting the Tar Sands oil produced in Canada, and opposition to pipelines used for transporting the Bakken oil produced in the U.S. There is also opposition to the pipeline alternative of rail transport of oil from Tar Sands and oil from Bakken.
Euclid ... I understand your point that Keystone has no bearing on the Bakken pipelines. But I do think there is a relationship between the environmental opposition to pipelines and oil-by-rail as transportation for both Tar Sands and Bakken. Tar Sands is indeed high on the list of oil operations opposed by the anti-oil activists, but so is Bakken because of its fracking. So, there is opposition to pipelines used for transporting the Tar Sands oil produced in Canada, and opposition to pipelines used for transporting the Bakken oil produced in the U.S. There is also opposition to the pipeline alternative of rail transport of oil from Tar Sands and oil from Bakken.
I agree that there is lots of environmental opposition to the Bakken because of its fracking, and all fracking in general. However, I don't see where they have stopped any domestic pipelines, and the only place where I have seen any actual effect is in NY state, where they still have a moratorium on fracking while they study the issue (lots of Bakken oil travels on NY rails and waterways). The present federal regulatory review for the tank cars is a public safety issue, rather than an environmental concern. If it had not been for the spectacular tan car accidents, the tank cars would have kept rolling along with little public notice.
MidlandMike I agree that there is lots of environmental opposition to the Bakken because of its fracking, and all fracking in general. However, I don't see where they have stopped any domestic pipelines, and the only place where I have seen any actual effect is in NY state, where they still have a moratorium on fracking while they study the issue (lots of Bakken oil travels on NY rails and waterways). The present federal regulatory review for the tank cars is a public safety issue, rather than an environmental concern. If it had not been for the spectacular tan car accidents, the tank cars would have kept rolling along with little public notice.
I believe the environmental opposition exerts pressure intended to limit or stop pipelines and oil-by-rail transportation. And the strongest motivation for this opposition is focused on Tar Sands and Bakken oil transportation. I understand your point that the tank car regulations are intended to address public safety rather than environmental concern.
However, the environmental opposition to oil-by-rail will exploit the obvious opportunity to influence the development of the new tank car safety regulations. Even though the regulations are about public safety rather than protecting the earth, pushing for stringency in the new regulations provides the perfect opportunity to drive up the price of Bakken oil, which will slow down its consumption and limit the development of the Bakken reserve.
Indeed, there is the potential to force Bakken oil to be left in the ground, which is the stated objective of the anti-fossil fuel activism. Furthermore, public safety is a perfect pretext for advancing any cause that can be linked to it because nobody can oppose public safety. So the environmentalists can advance their cause in the discussion without the need to mention it and appear to be off topic.
This is a powerful tug of war over thwarting the new oil supply pouring out of Tar Sands and Bakken. In recent years, the anti-oil movement was reacting to the ramp-up of oil by rail by focusing on warning of how such shipping endangers the environment as well as public safety. They took this tactic because they have less leverage in restricting oil by rail compared to holding up pipeline approval.
Their dire warnings of derailments, spills, fires, and explosions sounded like “the sky is falling.” Then last July, Lac Megantic happened. The sky did fall. The theoretical danger of shipping oil by rail was validated in spectacular fashion for the entire world to see. But, for the anti-oil agenda, that was only like a paid infomercial in which the message of Lac Megantic calling for new tank car regulations was born.
To cash in on the call for tank car regulations that Lac Megantic placed on the table, the anti-oil activists need to influence the development of those regulations. Their objective will be to influence the new regulations to be as financially punitive to the oil industry as possible.
Throughout this tank car controversy, I have felt that the regulators are going to want a stronger tank car than the industry wants to provide. Here is an article that points in that direction:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-usa-railways-oilstocks-idUSBREA381UD20140409
“The Association of American Railroads has gathered together oil producers, shippers, tank car manufacturers and others to try to design a tank car that will satisfy regulators.
But industry sources say compromise has been difficult among stakeholders with different concerns such as costs and whether an overly bulky model might limit cargoes.”
**********
“Many shippers are phasing out DOT-111s in favor of a toughened model known as version 1232, but officials have said even that tank car needs design upgrades and a blessing from regulators.
"Even the railroad industry and the DOT have been talking about going beyond the 1232," National Transportation Safety Board chair Deborah Hersman told lawmakers. "We think that's wise given the risk here."
A design favored by the railroad association would require tank cars to be fitted with pressure relief valves, to sit within a steel jacket and have larger shields at either end to prevent puncture.”
I keep hearing about the steel jacket to protect tank cars. How would that be configured? I picture an outer layer of steel around the steel oil tank. But why not just make the walls of the oil tank thicker?
Or is there more to this “steel jacket” such as a cushioned layer of foam between the oil tank and the steel jacket?
Somewhere, either on-line or in TRAINS magazine, about a year or so ago, I remember seeing something about testing a tank car design that had a layer of tubes sandwiched between the tank and an outer jacket. It was supposed to minimize the chance of puncture. Does anyone else remember seeing it?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonSomewhere, either on-line or in TRAINS magazine, about a year or so ago, I remember seeing something about testing a tank car design that had a layer of tubes sandwiched between the tank and an outer jacket. It was supposed to minimize the chance of puncture. Does anyone else remember seeing it?
I went looking for that information yesterday and found this called Next Generation Tank Car Project:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0605
It references five PDF documents on the subject of tank car puncture resistance. I have not looked at them all in detail, but the first one appears to cover most, if not all of the information in the others. So that is the one called:
Detailed Puncture Analyses of Various Tank Car Designs: Final Report - Revision 1
You can open the PDF from that link. It is a big file. It covers a lot of detail about double wall construction and ways to improve puncture resistance. I find it a little hard to see the forest for the trees in this report. There is a lot of technical data.
I had mentioned some of my thoughts on derailment dynamics in the thread called “A Safe Oil Train.” Reading this FRA report makes me wonder about those ideas I mentioned in that thread. A lot of the FRA report focuses on puncture from impact. This implies a smaller protruding or leading feature on one car puncturing the broader surface of another car.
What I was talking about in the safe oil train thread was a car being crushed by the collective force of the string of cars pushing into the derailed heap. Since oil is practically non-compressible, a tank car of oil could not be crushed unless the crushing force raised the pressure of the oil high enough to burst the tank. So that is an entirely different rupture vector than the puncture rupture focused on in the FRA report.
I wonder how often a compression force bursts a tank car in a wreck.
More likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.
dehusman More likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.
If you don't have the initial bursting and fires, how do you have heating?
BaltACDdehusmanMore likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.If you don't have the initial bursting and fires, how do you have heating?
dehusmanMore likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.
To have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture.
1) A tank car is punctured from the outside by colliding with a relatively sharp feature such as a coupler of another tank car or a broken rail end.
2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure.
I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible.
Euclid To have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture.
To have a fire at least one car must release material (doesn't necessarily have to rupture).
That could be caused by :
The shell is punctured.
The shell cracks.
The shell is gouged or abraded through
The internal pressure exceeds the setting on the relief valve and it vents.
The valves are sheared off.
OR
The derailed engine catches fire.
Another car catches fire.
An external source catches fire (gas line, propane tank, vehicle, etc.)
2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure. I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible.
If it has ever happened, it would be exceedingly rare. You would have to hold the car steady enough to apply that much pressure without slipping, the pressure would have to be broad enough to not puncture the car but extert enough pressure to exceed the tensile strength of the steel. That's why heat works. It can be distributed over the entire car, all the pressure is from inside and the heat lowers the strength of the metal.
Remember in Casselton the cars didn't initially explode. The crew had enough time to get out of the wreckage and get clear before the major fires began. They didn't begin to explode until the fire had spread, several minutes after impact.
dehusmanThat's why heat works. It can be distributed over the entire car, all the pressure is from inside and the heat lowers the strength of the metal.
The problem with LP and fire has almost always been point impingement - flame concentrated on a single point on the tank. Eventually the internal pressure on the tank, combined with the weakening of the metal at the point of flame impingement causes the tank to fail catastrophically. Since the contents of the tank are highly volatile, a fireball ensues.
It is not beyond possibility that a DOT111A or similar car could fail in a similar manner.
In fact, it doesn't require that the contents of the tank be flammable - given enough internal pressure and a failure of the container, "interesting" things can happen. That's why steam engines occasionally exploded.
dehusmanEuclidTo have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture. To have a fire at least one car must release material (doesn't necessarily have to rupture). That could be caused by : The shell is punctured. The shell cracks. The shell is gouged or abraded through The internal pressure exceeds the setting on the relief valve and it vents. The valves are sheared off. OR The derailed engine catches fire. Another car catches fire. An external source catches fire (gas line, propane tank, vehicle, etc.) 2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure. I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible. If it has ever happened, it would be exceedingly rare. You would have to hold the car steady enough to apply that much pressure without slipping, the pressure would have to be broad enough to not puncture the car but extert enough pressure to exceed the tensile strength of the steel. That's why heat works. It can be distributed over the entire car, all the pressure is from inside and the heat lowers the strength of the metal.
EuclidTo have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture.
I am using the term “rupture” to mean a breach in the tank structure for any cause including puncture, tearing, abrasion, pressure bursting, cracking, etc.
I have no doubt that the heat of fire can cause tank cars to explode. But I am not convinced that it would be exceedingly rare, as you say, for tank cars to be crushed and caused to burst. I understand your point that a tank car would need to be sufficiently captured in order for the force of colliding cars to crush it. But I have seen this effect in wrecks. Some cars are likely to be sufficiently captured by the mass of the pileup.
Although maybe the crushing effect is likely to amount to a broad area puncture causing the rupture rather than a pure case of raising the internal pressure to the bursting point.
This overall question occurs to me after reading over the PDF on tank car ruptures. It seems like the whole focus treats tank cars like individual vehicles where one runs into another and punctures it with a coupler or relatively sharp feature. I know that puncture by couplers has long been a major concern, and that it lead to the head shield remedy. Now, I see that there may be plans to equip tank cars with “push-back” couplers to reduce the potential for coupler puncture of tanks.
Euclid, my computer ran on Windows XP, so in order to avoid the XPocalypse, I traded it in on a new computer, and with data transfer, etc, I am just getting around to reading your Tue reply.
In the golden days of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s the general public was also convinced of the need for more environmental laws, and the politicians obliged. While current surveys show that the public does not want to backslide on the environment, they also want their oil. Politicians know this, and will not endanger oil supply. While environmental groups may welcome any safety regulation that might hobble oil production, I don't see any recent instances where these groups have had any definitive influence on restricting domestic oil production in federal regulation, or even state regulation, beyond New York (I am not familiar enough with the NY moratorium on fracking to know if it is basically an environmental win, or if some other political force is at work).
Euclid BaltACDdehusmanMore likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.If you don't have the initial bursting and fires, how do you have heating? To have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture. 1) A tank car is punctured from the outside by colliding with a relatively sharp feature such as a coupler of another tank car or a broken rail end. 2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure. I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible.
A much easier way for a tank car leak/fire to start is from the breaking off of a top or bottom valve, which protrude beyond the tank.
MidlandMikeEuclidTo have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture. 1) A tank car is punctured from the outside by colliding with a relatively sharp feature such as a coupler of another tank car or a broken rail end. 2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure. I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible. A much easier way for a tank car leak/fire to start is from the breaking off of a top or bottom valve, which protrude beyond the tank.
EuclidTo have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture. 1) A tank car is punctured from the outside by colliding with a relatively sharp feature such as a coupler of another tank car or a broken rail end. 2) A tank car is crushed and the resulting squeeze on the oil causes the tank to burst from excess internal pressure. I have assumed that cause #2 happens, but most of what I read refers only to cause #1. So I ask whether cause #2 is possible.
I understand that valves breaking off are a common cause for leaks, but my comment is focused on a breach of the tank structure itself, either by piercing the shell from the outside, or by bursting the tank by squeezing it. If the latter occurs, it seems to me that it would have the potential to release oil in the largest quantities, the quickest. It might release an entire tank load in one instant.
In the Lac Megantic wreck, it was described as being like a tsunami of flaming oil that ran though the town and overtook people running for their lives. I wonder what type of tank breaching produced this massive amount of oil just moments after the wreck.
MidlandMikeIn the golden days of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s the general public was also convinced of the need for more environmental laws, and the politicians obliged. While current surveys show that the public does not want to backslide on the environment, they also want their oil. Politicians know this, and will not endanger oil supply. While environmental groups may welcome any safety regulation that might hobble oil production, I don't see any recent instances where these groups have had any definitive influence on restricting domestic oil production in federal regulation, or even state regulation, beyond New York (I am not familiar enough with the NY moratorium on fracking to know if it is basically an environmental win, or if some other political force is at work).
I understand what you are saying, but I think your glass is half full whereas mine is half empty. In my opinion, the opposition to oil today has almost no relationship to the environmental movement of the 1960-70 era. That environmentalism was about pollution.
Today, it has grown into a much wider base of opposition that now embraces a comprehensive cause known as “degrowth.” This is the ultimate destination for the angst about carbon footprint and sustainability.
I don’t expect this opposition to suddenly be able to ban fossil fuels, but killing part of the production is certainly within the realm of possibility, especially if it can be done in the name of public safety. A more limited, higher cost supply serves the green movement well.
And the opposition to oil is not just the obvious radical activist types. The opposition is also diffused throughout much of the political class. Probably at least half the public as well are generally sympathetic with the anti-fossil fuel movement. All of this opposition will have input on the development of oil train safety, just as they do with oil drilling, pipelines, and refining.
You mentioned the effect of oil opposition in New York. I am not familiar with all the recent developments in New York regulations, but the most recent is a halt of the construction of heating boilers at the Port of Albany. The boilers are part of a new facility for heat liquefying bitumen to enable unloading it from tank cars. My interpretation is that, although this is part of the transportation function, the heating of oil has triggered the kind or regulatory scrutiny applied to refining.
http://www.troyrecord.com/government-and-politics/20140312/mccoy-issues-moratorium-on-global-partners-proposed-crude-oil-processing-expansion
Perhaps the general public is conflicted, they are anti-oil but still want gas in their cars. Politicians are less conflicted, and make a decision, generally to keep the oil supply coming.
I grew up in New York, but left before I paid much attention to politics. The Albany oil heating facility seems to be under review by the state environmental agency (DEC) and health dept. Not sure what the county executive's roll is. They may get involved in zoning and such, but if the DEC ok's the project, I wonder what legal recourse he has
MidlandMikeNot sure what the county executive's roll is.
New York is a "home rule" state, wherein the greatest authority lies with the lowest levels of government.
That probably isn't a good blanket statement (there's always exceptions to any rule), but the sentiment remains, so the local county administrator has a pretty heavy hammer in the whole to do.
Euclid I understand that valves breaking off are a common cause for leaks, but my comment is focused on a breach of the tank structure itself, either by piercing the shell from the outside, or by bursting the tank by squeezing it. If the latter occurs, it seems to me that it would have the potential to release oil in the largest quantities, the quickest. It might release an entire tank load in one instant.
You aren't going to have the forces to do that on a round tube filled with something that doesn't compress. Get two piece of PVC pipe and put them on the walk to your house, up against the steps. Then try to crush the pipe up against the steps by hitting the other one with a sledge hammer. The inside pipe will pop out way before it crushes, and its not even an enclosed container filled with liquid.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.