The simple answer, to why the valves protrude from the tank, is that a simple fill-up valve must be above the level you wish to fill to, and the drain valve must be below the level you wish to drain. I believe the top dome may contain more than one valve, and there may be pressure relief valves, so it may be there is not much you can do there. Plus it is less likely to hit the ground. The bottom drain valve seems to have a spigot and a valve at the end, which seems to be asking for trouble. I wonder if they could design a valve more flush to the tank bottom, with a removable valve stem.
Euclid Push-Back Couplers I know that puncture by couplers in tank car derailments have long been a major concern, and that it lead to the head shield remedy. The head shield protects the tank end from puncture. I assume that the tank end or “head” is most vulnerable to puncture because it is properly aligned to receive coupler impact as couplers override during a derailment. The compound curve form of the tank head also makes it relatively unable to deflect during a coupler impact. The lack of deflection causes the coupler impact to puncture. Here is a link to an article in Popular Mechanics about safer oil trains. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4212536 The article is a few years old, but is on the same track as tank car improvement today. It talks about how couplers are liable to puncture tanks. One person comments that couplers are shaped like giant can openers. They say they can reduce this problem by eliminating the sharp edges of couplers. I would like to see how that would be done and still be left with a compatible coupler. They also mention the possibility of equipping tank cars with “push-back couplers.” Apparently the purpose is to permit the coupler to collapse telescopically in order to reduce the ability to pierce the coupler through a tank end. However, the push-back coupler, as it is presently conceived, seems to be intended as a crash energy absorbing feature for passenger trains or transit train application. Here is a link to a description and illustrations of push-back couplers. http://www.voith.com/en/products-services/power-transmission/scharfenberg-couplers/scharfenberg-couplers-railcars/crash-energy-management-41850.html They are shown as basic push-back couplers and also combined with energy absorbing anti-climbers. They look pretty complex and costly. The application of push-back couplers to tank cars for reducing the coupler puncture potential seems like an application that is different than the intended use as a crash energy absorbing feature, in which the intent is to resist the push back force. Whereas, for coupler puncture protection, the couplers should push back with as little resistance as possible. Therefore I wonder if the push-back couplers would push through the end of a tank car tank easier than they would push back. If they were redesigned for the puncture-prevention role, and made to push back with less resistance, then what happens with slack run-in? Even without any involvement of a derailment, I would think that the force of slack run-in alone would be a strong enough force to pierce a coupler through a tank head. So the question is this: Can a coupler be designed with enough yield in its telescoping collapse to make it unable to puncture tank ends; and yet not have so much yield that it is unable to withstand the compression of slack run-in force? If that is possible, it seems like threading a needle.
Push-Back Couplers
I know that puncture by couplers in tank car derailments have long been a major concern, and that it lead to the head shield remedy. The head shield protects the tank end from puncture. I assume that the tank end or “head” is most vulnerable to puncture because it is properly aligned to receive coupler impact as couplers override during a derailment. The compound curve form of the tank head also makes it relatively unable to deflect during a coupler impact. The lack of deflection causes the coupler impact to puncture.
Here is a link to an article in Popular Mechanics about safer oil trains.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4212536
The article is a few years old, but is on the same track as tank car improvement today. It talks about how couplers are liable to puncture tanks. One person comments that couplers are shaped like giant can openers. They say they can reduce this problem by eliminating the sharp edges of couplers. I would like to see how that would be done and still be left with a compatible coupler.
They also mention the possibility of equipping tank cars with “push-back couplers.” Apparently the purpose is to permit the coupler to collapse telescopically in order to reduce the ability to pierce the coupler through a tank end.
However, the push-back coupler, as it is presently conceived, seems to be intended as a crash energy absorbing feature for passenger trains or transit train application. Here is a link to a description and illustrations of push-back couplers.
http://www.voith.com/en/products-services/power-transmission/scharfenberg-couplers/scharfenberg-couplers-railcars/crash-energy-management-41850.html
They are shown as basic push-back couplers and also combined with energy absorbing anti-climbers. They look pretty complex and costly.
The application of push-back couplers to tank cars for reducing the coupler puncture potential seems like an application that is different than the intended use as a crash energy absorbing feature, in which the intent is to resist the push back force. Whereas, for coupler puncture protection, the couplers should push back with as little resistance as possible.
Therefore I wonder if the push-back couplers would push through the end of a tank car tank easier than they would push back. If they were redesigned for the puncture-prevention role, and made to push back with less resistance, then what happens with slack run-in? Even without any involvement of a derailment, I would think that the force of slack run-in alone would be a strong enough force to pierce a coupler through a tank head.
So the question is this:
Can a coupler be designed with enough yield in its telescoping collapse to make it unable to puncture tank ends; and yet not have so much yield that it is unable to withstand the compression of slack run-in force?
If that is possible, it seems like threading a needle.
Remember - every foot of 'cushioning' you put in the draft gear of a car becomes another foot of available slack within the the train - the more slack in a train, the harder it becomes to handle smoothly, especially when encountering undulating terrain where the train may be on multiple humps and sags all at the same time - with the slack doing it's own dance throughout the train and the engineer having limited abilities to keep the slack under control.
The biggest question I have in tank car construction - why do the top and bottom valve systems have to be external to the car? Can't the valving and access manholes be constructed in such a manner that the car 'must be' punctured or compressed to the point of bursting for uncontrolled content discharge to happen? Anything that is outside the circular basis of the car is easily knocked off in a derailment leading to content discharge.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusman 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.
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.
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.
Dave,
You are right that the oil is not compressible, but that does prevent a tank car filled with oil from bursting if the tank is squeezed hard enough. While the oil will not compress, it will hydraulically transfer the external squeeze on the tank to a uniform tensile load on the tank skin. Unless the squeeze is absolutely uniform on the tank exterior, the tensile load may cause the skin to open up in any area where the squeeze is not being applied. Or to put it another way, if you squeeze a water balloon hard enough, it will burst.
I agree that in your example using the PVC pipes and a sledge hammer; it will not be easy to rupture a tube. However, I do not think the example is analogous to the crushing effect on tank cars during a pileup. Indeed, if you took the physics of the PVC pipes and applied it to tank cars, you would probably have a practically indestructible tank car.
Take another look at this article:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/15/303351495/the-long-wait-on-safety-rules-for-the-soda-can-of-rail-cars
It refers to the 111 tank cars as “soda cans.” I suggest you try your sledge hammer experiment using unopened aluminum cans of pop and see what happens.
Look at the photograph of the burning wreck at Lac Megantic. Note the car in the foreground that is considerably crushed in its mid-section as it lies crosswise to the line of track. Notice that directly leading into that crush zone are two tank cars side by side, and aligned perpendicular to the crushed tank car.
I can’t say for sure that the crushed car did hydraulically burst from the crushing squeeze on its oil by the two other cars running into it. The crushed car might have simply ripped or cracked open from the crushing, allowing the oil to be freely ejected through the breach as the tank was crushed. Or the crushed car may have been shoved into the trucks of the car ahead of it, and the truck frames of that car may have punctured the tank of the crushed car; and simply ejected the oil through the puncture as the tank was crushed. But in any case, the photo clearly illustrates the effect that I am talking about.
It might be that the new, stronger tank cars will be strong enough for the tank skin to resist breaking under a tensile load from internal hydraulic pressure from an external squeeze. They might even be strong enough to resist punctures of all type as well as cracking or tearing from abrasion. I don’t know if the new regulations will result in tank cars with that capability. I don’t know if tank cars could meet that objective without being priced out of the market. But I tend to doubt it.
Euclid ... I don’t expect Senator Heitkamp to sway the decision all on her own. But I see her as representative of the broader oil opposition movement. Seeing the unreasonableness of leaving the fate of the 1232 tank cars up in the air, I don’t think the opposition has any intention of compromising.
...
I don’t expect Senator Heitkamp to sway the decision all on her own. But I see her as representative of the broader oil opposition movement. Seeing the unreasonableness of leaving the fate of the 1232 tank cars up in the air, I don’t think the opposition has any intention of compromising.
Senator Heitkamp (ND) is a strong supporter of the Keystone Pipeline, so I hardly see her as "representative of the broader oil opposition movement." I think she has a genuine public safety concern. I will take DOT Secretary Foxx at his word that tank car regulations will take some time despite the problems it will cause.
.
MidlandMikeIf Sen. Heitkamp makes standards so prohibitivly expensively beyond any reasonable cost/benefit ratio, then I believe the railroads and shippers will make enough noise that a reasonable compromise will be reached.
Then after the new regulations come in, all new tank cars will have to meet those regulations. That would allow the natural progress that the industry is making to improve safety with the introduction of 1232 cars continue during the development of the new regulations.
That seems fair and reasonable to me. But instead, the industry is told that the new regulations are coming, and not told whether or not those regulations will obsolete the 1232 tank cars. So it leaves industry in the dark about the fate of the 1232 car design, and unwilling to take the undue risk of investing in that design. And it also makes the entire oil train issue more dangerous to the public than it need be.
If Sen. Heitkamp makes standards so prohibitivly expensively beyond any reasonable cost/benefit ratio, then I believe the railroads and shippers will make enough noise that a reasonable compromise will be reached. I understand similar fights have been waged over ethanol, etc, and obviously were resolved.
It sounds like the new tank car regulations may not be ready until after this year is over. In the meantime, the uncertainty about what the new regulations will require discourages the purchase of any new tank cars that might make the current fleet marginally safer. This is because safer tank cars purchased now might be rendered obsolete as soon as the new regulations become known if those safer cars do not meet the letter of the new regulations.
So ironically, the new regulations intended to add safety may actually be increasing the danger because the wait for the new regulations is keeping the less-safe cars in service longer.
I expect the new regulations to be the classic product “designed by a committee.” Not only will there be the tank car committee, but it will be closely joined by the regulators, politicians, and the railcar component suppliers hoping to sell their hardware to the quest of raising safety. And the public constituency will be there demanding perfect safety after being alarmed by media coverage of the oil train menace. The committee will be forced to work fast to accomplish the most important mission there could be—that is to save lives and protect the public. All of this is going to add up to one mighty expensive tank car.
So far, we have only had a few fireball derailments, so the committee will be working to solve a problem of more potential fireballs in the future. It seems to me that they will inevitably conclude that the only acceptable result of their mission will be ZERO FIREBALLS going forward.
Senator Heitkamp speaks of laying down markers. One of the markers that she has laid down is that oil trains must be safe, no matter how much it costs. She said that the trains must be as safe as “humanly possible.” And she does not simply overlook the limitations of cost in meeting that objective. She adds the assertion that there shall be no tradeoff for cost. Her position is clear.
The cost of tank cars has a limit imposed by market economics. Strengthening tank cars reduces the probability of fires in accidents; but it raises the cost of tank cars toward the cost limit of market economics. Making tank cars as safe as “humanly possible” goes way beyond the natural cost limit imposed by market economics.
If the new tank car regulations are to meet Senator Heitkamp’s marker of being as safe as humanly possible, the cost will most definitely price hauling oil by rail out of the market.
tree68 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.
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.
The county administrator would still need a legal theory to deny the project. If the environmental and public health agencies ok'd it, then he would have to show they were in error, or he would have to show the project would be in violation of some other law.
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.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
MidlandMikeNot sure what the county executive's roll is.
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...
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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Euclid To have a fire, at least one tank car must rupture. I can see two possible causes for rupture.
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.
dehusman More likely cars without thermal shielding burst due to the contents being heated.
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?
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.
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
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?
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.