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.
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.
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/15/303351495/the-long-wait-on-safety-rules-for-the-soda-can-of-rail-cars
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
...
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
From the Popular Mechanics article I linked to in the push-back coupler post above:
“REMOVABLE VALVES AND FITTINGSProjecting fixed valves, used to load and unload the tanks’ toxic contents, are vulnerable to damage or breaking off in crash impacts. Recessed and/or removable valves and fittings eliminate this hazard. Security against tampering would be vastly improved as well.”
It does not explain how this would actually be built. Midland Mike makes good points about why the fittings need to project from the tank exterior. What the quote describes seem like quite an engineering challenge.
Perhaps the tank car builders could take a cue from the aircraft industry regarding fill and drain valves. On most aircraft, fuel tank sump drain valves are flush with the outer surface yet still drain from the very bottom of the tank. It wouldn't be difficult to design such a valve for tank cars but would likely be more expensive.
Norm
Here is the link to the NTSB forum on tank car safety that took place yesterday and today:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2014/railsafetyforum/agenda.html
I have not read the entire forum presentation, so I am not sure how much is really news. Some of the related coverage focuses on the fact that the uncertainty of what the new regulations will require has resulted in putting new tank car manufacturing on hold, and leaving the industry in limbo. But people have been voicing concerns over that issue for at least a couple months.
I think the blockbuster news is yet to come in the form of the actual new federal regulations that result.
Hi All
On the CBC radio morning news today.
Ms Lisa Raitt, Canadian Federal Minister of Transport , issued new regulations, as I understand them, 1. mandating the retrofitting or replacement of 111 tank cars within a three year period. 2. requiring study and then establishment of reduced maximum speeds for, as well as establish emergency protocols for, oil and other hazmat trains and 3. a requirement that the railroads inform the communities through which they run such trains of the contents of such trains as well as the above mentioned protocols.
I'll post the minister's order later, if/when I can find it.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
lenzfamilyHi All On the CBC radio morning news today. Ms Lisa Raitt, Canadian Federal Minister of Transport , issued new regulations, as I understand them, 1. mandating the retrofitting or replacement of 111 tank cars within a three year period. 2. requiring study and then establishment of reduced maximum speeds for, as well as establish emergency protocols for, oil and other hazmat trains and 3. a requirement that the railroads inform the communities through which they run such trains of the contents of such trains as well as the above mentioned protocols. I'll post the minister's order later, if/when I can find it. Charlie Chilliwack, BC
Charlie,
Thanks for that report.
On the very surface, informing the communities when oil trains are about to pass through sounds like a good idea because then the people in those communities will be forewarned and able to take appropriate measures to protect themselves.
But what measures could be taken? The only thing I can think of would be to evacuate the community until the train has passed.
What am I missing about the benefit of informing communities about approaching oil trains? If communities have to be warned of possible annihilation several times a day for oil trains, it is time to move the railroad or the community.
Euclid lenzfamilyHi All On the CBC radio morning news today. Ms Lisa Raitt, Canadian Federal Minister of Transport , issued new regulations, as I understand them, 1. mandating the retrofitting or replacement of 111 tank cars within a three year period. 2. requiring study and then establishment of reduced maximum speeds for, as well as establish emergency protocols for, oil and other hazmat trains and 3. a requirement that the railroads inform the communities through which they run such trains of the contents of such trains as well as the above mentioned protocols. I'll post the minister's order later, if/when I can find it. Charlie Chilliwack, BC Charlie, Thanks for that report. On the very surface, informing the communities when oil trains are about to pass through sounds like a good idea because then the people in those communities will be forewarned and able to take appropriate measures to protect themselves. But what measures could be taken? The only thing I can think of would be to evacuate the community until the train has passed. What am I missing about the benefit of informing communities about approaching oil trains? If communities have to be warned of possible annihilation several times a day for oil trains, it is time to move the railroad or the community.
A number of years back - in the 70's - when HAZMAT incidents had become much too commonplace because of the financial stress on the industry and the deferred maintenance that let the track structure deteriorate to be much less than optimal. A big city in my service territory decided it's Fire Department needed to be notified every time a HAZMAT shipment was either destined to the city or was going to pass through the city. My carrier complied - after a very short period of time the FD decided being notified of 500+ shipments on a continuing daily basis was more information than they had bargained for and they decided it was better to get accurate information on any specific cars that were involved in a situation upon the occurrence of the situation.
When it comes to being notified of 'potential hazards' the old saying - 'Be careful what you ask for - you may actually get it!' springs readily to mind. There is much HAZMAT moving at any time - on railroads, and even closer to more homes - in trucks. HAZMAT in it's many forms is at the foundation of our manufacturing economy and it must be transported or the economy will spiral into collapse.
BaltACDWhen it comes to being notified of 'potential hazards' the old saying - 'Be careful what you ask for - you may actually get it!' springs readily to mind. There is much HAZMAT moving at any time - on railroads, and even closer to more homes - in trucks.
Indeed - If John Q Public wants to sit alongside the Interstate or other busy commercial route with an ERG (it's available on-line), they're gonna need some help, because there's a lot of placarded material on the move.
Fire department hazmat teams don't exist so much for the railroads as they do for the highways.
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...
Today, it is risky to build new tank cars because there is no way to know if they will meet the new federal tank car regulations said to be coming soon. Nobody wants to buy a new tank car today and find it outlawed by new regulations in six months. So it makes sense to simply postpone new tank car purchases until the new regulations are known.
The problem with that strategy is that the industry is also being pressured to stop using the current fleet of tank cars which are deemed to be less safe than necessary. The prospect of replacing that entire fleet of tank cars is daunting enough. But when you add to it, the promise of new regulations, and the uncertainty of what they will require; forward action is almost impossible. It is bad enough to have to replace tens of thousands of serviceable tank cars in one move. Nobody wants to do that once, and then have to do it again next year because of new regulations.
Up until now, the industry has been building a new class of safer tank cars because some minimum number of new cars is needed for normal attrition. It is still risky, but the industry has mitigated the risk by voluntarily making substantial safety improvements to the cars in the hope they will either meet the new regulations, or be accepted by the regulators as being grandfathered in. Because the industry is taking this risk voluntarily, these new and improved cars are referred to as “good faith” tank cars. It is like doing the right thing without a contract that requires it.
But the good faith is still a part of a transaction. The industry gives good faith in hopes that the regulating community will reciprocate by permitting the good faith cars to be exempt from the new regulations. Such an exemption would amount to a return of good faith from the regulators to the industry. It is like a romance between big oil and the regulators-- a heck of a way to do business.
My sense is that the romance is becoming frayed as time wears on. The one saving grace of good faith tank cars is that only limited quantities are needed over a given time. But the longer the time, the greater the “good faith” investment becomes; and nobody knows how long the time will be.
My prediction is that the new tank car regulations will certainly not be released this year and maybe not even next year. And when they are released, it remains to be seen whether the good faith cars will be allowed to run without further modification to meet the new regulations.
lenzfamilyI'll post the minister's order later, if/when I can find it.
Here you are.....from the horse's mouth.......
April 23, 2014 - Ottawa - Transport Canada
The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, today announced decisive actions to address the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's initial recommendations regarding the ongoing investigation into the Lac-Mégantic train derailment.
Following the tragic accident last summer, Transport Canada took immediate steps to protect Canadians and the communities along our country's railway lines. The Government of Canada is building upon this work by introducing concrete measures to further strengthen Canada's regulation and oversight of rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. Effective immediately, Transport Canada will:
Transport Canada is working closely with stakeholders—railways, shippers, municipalities, first responders, Aboriginal communities, provincial and territorial governments, and U.S. officials— to protect the health and safety of Canadians. The department continues to cooperate fully with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's ongoing investigation.
"As the Minister responsible for Canada's transportation system, I am committed to making our country a model of world class safety. The measures I am announcing today improve the safety of the railway and transportation of dangerous goods systems from coast to coast to coast." The Honourable Lisa Raitt Minister of Transport
lenzfamily lenzfamilyI'll post the minister's order later, if/when I can find it. Here you are.....from the horse's mouth....... Transport Canada takes action in response to TSB's initial Lac-Mégantic recommendations Improving the safety of Canada's railway and transportation of dangerous goods systems April 23, 2014 - Ottawa - Transport Canada The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, today announced decisive actions to address the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's initial recommendations regarding the ongoing investigation into the Lac-Mégantic train derailment. Following the tragic accident last summer, Transport Canada took immediate steps to protect Canadians and the communities along our country's railway lines. The Government of Canada is building upon this work by introducing concrete measures to further strengthen Canada's regulation and oversight of rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. Effective immediately, Transport Canada will: Issue a Protective Direction removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service; Require DOT-111 tank cars used to transport crude oil and ethanol that do not meet the standard published in January 2014 inCanada Gazette, Part I, or any other future standard, to be phased out or refitted within three years; Issue a Protective Direction requiring Emergency Response Assistance Plans for crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and ethanol; Create a task force that brings stakeholders such as municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers together to strengthen emergency response capacity across the country; and Require railway companies to reduce the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods and implement other key operating practices. Transport Canada is working closely with stakeholders—railways, shippers, municipalities, first responders, Aboriginal communities, provincial and territorial governments, and U.S. officials— to protect the health and safety of Canadians. The department continues to cooperate fully with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's ongoing investigation. Quick Facts The Government of Canada invested $60 million to support response and recovery efforts in Lac-Mégantic and committed up to $95 million for decontamination efforts. Emergency Response Assistance Plans will be required for trains that have even a single tank car loaded with one of the following flammable liquids transported in large quantity by rail: crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, or ethanol. Transport Canada is issuing a Ministerial Order that requires railway companies to develop new rules regarding operating practices for the safe transportation of dangerous goods. Quote "As the Minister responsible for Canada's transportation system, I am committed to making our country a model of world class safety. The measures I am announcing today improve the safety of the railway and transportation of dangerous goods systems from coast to coast to coast." The Honourable Lisa Raitt Minister of Transport Charlie Chilliwack, BC
While I applaud Canuckistan for implementing their tank car regulations, I foresee the US implementing regulations that will conflict and this mess will continue to drag out for the international movement of oil and other HAZMAT commodities that move in tank cars.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, in North Dakota yesterday, on "tough" new rules being promulgated by his department:
"The worst thing we could do is propose a tank-car standard that is inadequate to the material that is being transported."
A close second would be a standard so unrealistic that it cripples movement of oil by rail -- and its benefits to the U.S. economy -- without being able to do a thing about the real-world, worst-case scenario that WILL happen again one day, somewhere, given the right combination of circumstances.
Dakotafred,
I think Secretary Foxx’s comment and your follow-up remarks sum up the whole thing in a nutshell. I am thoroughly convinced that the new Foxx Tank Car will indeed cripple the movement of oil by rail. I expect that he and many others involved at his level consciously want that result. And new regulations in the name of public safety is the perfect tool to get that result.
The best thing that could happen is for Secretary Foxx to spend enough time dragging out the creation of new standards that it gives time to get all the Bakken oil out of the ground and to the refineries.
Euclid and all:
I too am suspicious of everything this administration does regarding fossil fuels. I hope BNSF has not taken a huge, good-faith gamble in ordering 5,000 new tank cars that are as safe as the current art can build them.
While this started out as a crude-by-rail regulatory concern, which was contentious enough, ethanol was brought into the mix, which thoroughly muddied the waters. Ethanol is currently running adds on TV saying big oil is using their power to stifle clean energy (translation: ethanol industry wants to increase the amount of ethanol in gas to above 10%. The problem is that most car engines other than flex fuel can't handle this, but that is the topic for a different forum). So it is hard to see that all the stake holders will come to consensus. Shippers have buried their heads in the sand, and dream of derailment-free rail operation. Railroads see no problem with shippers paying whatever it costs to build crash-worthy tank cars, but can't anticipate that will drive many shippers to pipeline. The regulators really need some consensus, and that is why there is no clear path to new federal regulations yet. If the railroads let it drag on too long, shippers might start to sign pipeline construction contracts (long term). After that, the only likely captive rail crude shipments would be North Dakota to the Pacific Nnorthwest.
MidlandMike While this started out as a crude-by-rail regulatory concern, which was contentious enough, ethanol was brought into the mix, which thoroughly muddied the waters. Ethanol is currently running adds on TV saying big oil is using their power to stifle clean energy (translation: ethanol industry wants to increase the amount of ethanol in gas to above 10%.
While this started out as a crude-by-rail regulatory concern, which was contentious enough, ethanol was brought into the mix, which thoroughly muddied the waters. Ethanol is currently running adds on TV saying big oil is using their power to stifle clean energy (translation: ethanol industry wants to increase the amount of ethanol in gas to above 10%.
dakotafred MidlandMike While this started out as a crude-by-rail regulatory concern, which was contentious enough, ethanol was brought into the mix, which thoroughly muddied the waters. Ethanol is currently running adds on TV saying big oil is using their power to stifle clean energy (translation: ethanol industry wants to increase the amount of ethanol in gas to above 10%. Ethanol, tax-subsidized and all, is a cornered rat, with not enough market -- because of increased fuel efficiency, less driving, etc. -- to soak up its product. It should go away -- and I say that as resident of a state that makes a lot of (subsidized) money off it.
Johnny
BaltACD 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. 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.
As I understand it, the so-called “push-back coupler” is not made to provide a slack cushioning effect during operation, and they do not affect slack action. Instead, they only operate during a derailment or collision when they collapse under the compression shock of the wreck. The point is to absorb and dissipate the compressive shock of a collision. I believe the push-back couplers are actually destroyed in the performance of that shock absorbing function and require replacement. So, they only function in wrecks, and will not have any effect of increasing the slack action during normal train operation.
However, in the Popular Mechanics article that I linked to earlier, the use of push-back couplers was not to perform the normal function of absorbing crash energy during a wreck. Instead, they were proposed as a coupler that would push back under the compression forces of a wreck rather than punch through the end of a tank car.
I believe that was a flawed proposal because I think that a coupler that would be able to resist normal slack run-in would be fully capable of puncturing a tank car end. I suspect that the term, “push-back coupler” simply sounded like a good solution to prevent punctures, but cannot actually meet that objective.
I would like to see a proposal for a coupler that is less like a can opener as the above linked article of the Popular Mechanics article mentioned.
The critical word in this entire thread - Looming!
Since no one feels confident in what the new requirements will be - no one is going to commit to anything in the absence of the new requirements.
BaltACDThe critical word in this entire thread - Looming! Since no one feels confident in what the new requirements will be - no one is going to commit to anything in the absence of the new requirements.
While the new regulations are not here yet, there is plenty of scrambling now to find every useful idea possible to meet those impending new regulations when the do arrive. And there actually is a commitment to improved “good faith” tank cars being built now before the new regulations arrive. As much as they don’t want to risk building now only to find that it does not meet the new regulations, they can’t wait forever for the new regulations. Tank cars are wearing out, and they need to be replaced.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.