http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/07/04/5-ways-the-lac-megantic-crash-changed-how-we-ship-crude-by-rail/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A very important requirement, not noted is that an unattended triain should be placed in "Emergency" not full service. The Lake Megantic train would have sat there fro a week or more in that state without any risk of a run-away. it takes a little longer to recharge the train but that is minor factor for the removal of risk. )I wrote on this at the time of the crash but it bears repeating.)
The AAR just put out a comprehensive paper on railroad industry actions on CBR safety:
https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Crude%20oil%20by%20rail.pdf
If my understanding is correct, the federal DOT has called for oil trains to be equipped with ECP brakes, and notified the AAR of this in a recent letter to them. What is the status of that request? Is it likely to be mandated by the DOT? As I recall, CSX has come out against it, saying that it will not do much good in preventing accidents.
Another thing to consider when putting the train in emergency and leaving it, say the outbound crew to pick it up arrives 5 hours after the emergency application. The train will have been off of air for longer than 4 hours, and the entire train will have to have a new Class 1 brake test done which means a walking inspection of making sure that all the brakes on the cars apply and either a roll by or walking inspection to verify that they release.
I'm watching this string with extreme interest; you see, I'm in the nuclear field, and this rail accident is one of those watershed events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi. It's an event that is easily going to have permanent repurcussions industry-wide.
How the industry centrally responds (AAR), individually responds (each railroad) and how the Federal government and public have responded seem so far quite as I could have expected, with the pleasant exception that the general public isn't calling for the wholesale abandonment of crude oil shipments, tank cars, or railroads.
I've bookmarked the AAR response and I will to compare it to how the Nuclear Energy Institute has been responding to Fukushima Daiichi in order to see if there are interesting parallels. Perhaps we can learn something 'bigger picture' by studying both; we shall see.
One thing is clear: The spotlight is on, as we say, and it won't go off soon. There will have to be credible responses to equipment conditions, and to the risk (both real and perceived) to populated areas, before it dims any.
-Will Davis
Railroad Locomotives - My Blog
Will DavisHow the industry centrally responds (AAR), individually responds (each railroad) and how the Federal government and public have responded seem so far quite as I could have expected, with the pleasant exception that the general public isn't calling for the wholesale abandonment of crude oil shipments, tank cars, or railroads.
The public is in the PNW. Every day there seems to be a news story, editorial or letter to the editor demanding nationalization, the banning of hazmat transport, etc...
Good thoughts on the parallels with nuclear power. Keep us posted on you observations, please!
I think when Mr. Davis says there isn't a general cry from the public calling for abandonment of crude oil shipments or hazmat shipments he's saying there's no evidence anyone's planning a march on railroad corporate headquarters with torches and pitchforks. The general public's smarter than that.
Certainly there'll be letters to the editor calling for the banning of oil shipments, hazmat shipments, nuke waste shipments, or any other "scary" shipments. There's always letters to the editor about those topics, typically from the 30% of the people in this country who aren't happy unless they're terrified of SOMETHING. The general public knows that the stuff HAS to be moved somehow, there's no avoiding it, especially oil. The country and it's economy runs on oil. The world runs on oil, some places more than others.
But this sure doesn' t mean 'ol John Q. Public doesn't want it moved as safely as humanly possible.
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.
Jerry Pier A very important requirement, not noted is that an unattended triain should be placed in "Emergency" not full service. The Lake Megantic train would have sat there fro a week or more in that state without any risk of a run-away. it takes a little longer to recharge the train but that is minor factor for the removal of risk. )I wrote on this at the time of the crash but it bears repeating.)
That is not a valid statement (assuming that the engines are attached and there is continuity in the trainline) and it is not "a very important requirement".
.
How do you test effectiveness of handbrakes when the train is in the hole?
You can't. And you NEVER rely on just the airbrakes (emergency or not) to hold a train. Railroading 101.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann How do you test effectiveness of handbrakes when the train is in the hole? . . . . . . You can't. And you NEVER rely on just the airbrakes (emergency or not) to hold a train. Railroading 101.
That's the PERFECT setup for a vandal or terrorist leaving a train in emergency. All you gotta do is pull some bleed rods and the train is gone... with NO chance of stopping it even if the train separates. NO thanks, I'd rather have the train fully charged.
Randy Stahl That's the PERFECT setup for a vandal or terrorist leaving a train in emergency. All you gotta do is pull some bleed rods and the train is gone... with NO chance of stopping it even if the train separates. NO thanks, I'd rather have the train fully charged.
Pull some bleed rods? How is that going to release the whole train?
And if the train is on air, and separates, it will still dump the cars. Why? Because if the air is still running, the self maintaining feature on the Automatic Brake Valve will keep the line charged to it's last state. So no matter how many times you pull the bleed rod, the car valve will sense the brake pipe pressure, and charge the EMG reservior back up to at least the pressure of the BP.
If the train is off air, then of course there is concern, however, if there is no brake pipe pressure involved, then you are a fool for thinking even emergency application will hold it.
Secure! Test! Set Air!
Euclid If my understanding is correct, the federal DOT has called for oil trains to be equipped with ECP brakes, and notified the AAR of this in a recent letter to them. What is the status of that request? Is it likely to be mandated by the DOT? As I recall, CSX has come out against it, saying that it will not do much good in preventing accidents.
FRA, an arm of DOT has a proper rule making proceedure. Comment is allowed under those proceedures and it might take a few years to finally iron out. This prevents knee-jerk reations from becoming stupid laws/rules.
That's where the importance of a proper handbrake test comes in. As stated, you pull enough bleed rods and only the handbrakes will be holding the train. There's one place where I have to leave cars on ground air and its on a hill, and at the bottom is an interlocking with NS. 2 handbrakes will hold an empty coal train and needless to say at this location I apply 3.
zugmannHow do you test effectiveness of handbrakes when the train is in the hole?
It's called Rule C-102. Go look it up in the NS-1.
And in what part of c102 do you dump the train?
My point is the one response to dump, then tie down the train. If you apply proper handbrakeage and do a proper 102 test, you don't need to dump the train. And you shouldn't. The whole point of the test is to make sure handbrakes only can hold said cut of cars.
So many people over-analyze and over-think these things.
I predict that when the dust all settles, oil by rail will be handled in highly specialized trains that will be a departure from conventional interchangeable, loose-car railroading. These trains will have ECP brakes, specialized couplers without slack and no draft gear. They will also have single control, pneumatically powered brake locks to secure the train with all brakes set fully and mechanically locked in the set condition. If they retain hand brakes, the hand brakes will not be used for securement. The brakes will be locked into full set, and no push-pull test will be needed to verify the securement.
ECP brakes will set simultaneously, and thus will reduce in-train braking forces that can cause derailments. If a train derails, ECP brakes will dissipate the kinetic energy faster than conventional air brakes because ECP brakes set simultaneously. The quicker dissipation of kinetic energy will leave less time for that energy to damage tank cars.
EuclidThey will also have single control, pneumatically powered brake locks to secure the train with all brakes set fully and mechanically locked in the set condition.
Isn't that what a handbrake basically is?
If we go the ECP route, I think cars will eventually get push-button handbrakes like many locomotives have. One button, and you have 100% handbrakes set. But there will probably always be a manual override on cars. Electronics fail.
Unless you change the whole air brake thing, ala roadrailer.
zugmann EuclidThey will also have single control, pneumatically powered brake locks to secure the train with all brakes set fully and mechanically locked in the set condition. Isn't that what a handbrake basically is?
I am referring to one control lever in the cab that will activate a pneumatically powered mechanical lock simultaneously on every car in the train after the air brakes are fully set. After that, if the air brakes happen to release, the brake rigging and shoes will remain fully applied due to the mechanical lock.
It has nothing to do with handbrakes. You could take the handbrakes off and throw them away, but you might want to keep them for sentimental reasons.
What if I need to set out a shop with air brake issues?
That's why couplers are absolutely necessary. You're not going to shop a whole train because one car has a bad brake/wheel/defect. You'll set that car out and continue on.
zugmann And in what part of c102 do you dump the train? My point is the one response to dump, then tie down the train. If you apply proper handbrakeage and do a proper 102 test, you don't need to dump the train. And you shouldn't. The whole point of the test is to make sure handbrakes only can hold said cut of cars. So many people over-analyze and over-think these things.
True, the C-102 doesn't call for the air to be dumped. However, if it does, you have to wait longer for the cars to recharge and brakes release to comply with the rule and make sure the cars stay there. Many times on a steep grade I have had conductors ask for the air to be knocked down on cars being set off (not cutting away from the entire train) in order to get a better hand brake on the cars, then complete the C-102 test.
Whether or not the air gets dumps is really a moot point. When you cut away from the cars, the air gets dumped anyway.
RRKen Randy Stahl That's the PERFECT setup for a vandal or terrorist leaving a train in emergency. All you gotta do is pull some bleed rods and the train is gone... with NO chance of stopping it even if the train separates. NO thanks, I'd rather have the train fully charged. Pull some bleed rods? How is that going to release the whole train? And if the train is on air, and separates, it will still dump the cars. Why? Because if the air is still running, the self maintaining feature on the Automatic Brake Valve will keep the line charged to it's last state. So no matter how many times you pull the bleed rod, the car valve will sense the brake pipe pressure, and charge the EMG reservior back up to at least the pressure of the BP. If the train is off air, then of course there is concern, however, if there is no brake pipe pressure involved, then you are a fool for thinking even emergency application will hold it. Secure! Test! Set Air!
No, if the train is left in EMERGENCY , it is off air. If you pull enough (all) bleed rods the brakes will release, . The train isn't going to go into emergency again until the brakes are recharged.
I agree.. Secure and test. service reduction.
Euclid I predict that when the dust all settles, oil by rail will be handled in highly specialized trains that will be a departure from conventional interchangeable, loose-car railroading. These trains will have ECP brakes, specialized couplers without slack and no draft gear. They will also have single control, pneumatically powered brake locks to secure the train with all brakes set fully and mechanically locked in the set condition. If they retain hand brakes, the hand brakes will not be used for securement. The brakes will be locked into full set, and no push-pull test will be needed to verify the securement.
Just remember not all crude is the same, the ONLY crude that has had problems is the Bakken crude. The crude from every other formation that railroads have been hauling for over a century does NOT have those same problems.
There is also a problem with Congress and the FRA just throwing solutions out there just because they are cool and high tech without thinking about whether they would have solved a problem. ECP wouldn't have prevented Lac Megantic, it wouldn't have prevented Casselton, it wouldn't have prevented the release in Kentucky.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanJust remember not all crude is the same, the ONLY crude that has had problems is the Bakken crude. The crude from every other formation that railroads have been hauling for over a century does NOT have those same problems. There is also a problem with Congress and the FRA just throwing solutions out there just because they are cool and high tech without thinking about whether they would have solved a problem. ECP wouldn't have prevented Lac Megantic, it wouldn't have prevented Casselton, it wouldn't have prevented the release in Kentucky.
I agree that Bakken oil is posing the problem, and by "oil by rail," I meant to refer only to Bakken. ECP can prevent derailments by reducing in-train braking forces. Compared to conventional air brakes, ECP can also reduce the damge once a derailment occurs by dissipating the kinetic energy quicker due to its simultaneous application.
So, ECP would not have prevented the Casselton collision, but it might have reduced the damage.
ECP would not have prevented the derailment at Lac Megantic, and it would not have prevented any damage once the derailment occurred. However, it might have prevented the runaway in the first place. But I do not know for sure how that would have played out. We still don't know excactly how the air brakes released on that train. Whatever caused it, I wonder if that same cause would be possible with ECP brakes.
In any case, there should not have been any reliance on air brakes to hold the train, and that would also apply to ECP brakes.
The plain fact of the matter is you don't want ANY oil train derailments, even if the stuff doesn't go "boom" like Bakken crude. Any way you look at it it makes a helluva mess to clean up.
henry6 Correct. Not all crude is Bakken. But the railroads have to protect themselves and be protected from oil and gas shippers who mislabel or otherwise lie about the product being shipped.
But the shippers aren't "lying" to the extent that it would change how the railroads transport the crude. The brouhaha about mislabeling is of interest to the responders and the regulators, but if they had labeled it correctly it would not have made a single difference in how the product was transported.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.