From Fred Frailey’s blog, he quotes CSX as saying that ECP will cost $8,000-15,0000 per car and $25,000-50,000 per locomotive. I conclude that neither the railroads, car owners, nor oil companies will be paying the tab for ECP, though. Instead, it will just be passed through as a cost increase on the refined product where rail shipping played a role in the production.
Euclid If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
You aren't going to force railroads to equip tank cars with ECP because (other than the BNSF) no railroads own oil tank cars. Installing equipment is not a railroad problem, its a tank car leasing company problem.
In the case of converting cars to ECP exclusively, it will not limit their ability to be interchanged with each other. So they can still be assembled into any size consist.
Assuming they have compatible ECP.
This dual mode issue also applies to locomotives, but that decision can be independent of rolling stock. I suspect that railroads would want to retain conventional air brake controls on locomotives rather than convert to ECP exclusively and dedicate them to oil train use only.
This is where the railroads will not be happy. They will be forced to keep specialty locomotives and spare locomotives in around just in case an ECP train has an engine failure. A huge cost and very inefficient.
At that point the railroads could require the oil companies to buy their own locomotives if they have non-interchangeable cars. That would probably be a deal killer from the oil company's perspective.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Euclid BaltACDTechnology is technology and any technology can and will fail. ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP. Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment. I agree that ECP is not immune to failure, and that there must be a fallback position in case of failure. But I do not believe that the fallback position must include interchangeability with all other rolling stock. Special operations within a small, specialized niche can have a failure fallback position that is also specialized. It also depends on the value of that niche. There are always ways to do things differently. While applying ECP in the niche of oil train service would require dual mode to retain interchangeability, that requirement might not be much of a hardship because the number of cars in the niche is so small. So the industry might very well decide to install ECP while retaining conventional air brakes. But again, this is ECP brakes in the context of a federal mandate, so the industry will not have the luxury rejecting both the dedicated ECP and the dual mode option in favor of simply retaining conventional air brakes alone.
BaltACDTechnology is technology and any technology can and will fail. ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP. Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment.
ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP.
Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment.
I agree that ECP is not immune to failure, and that there must be a fallback position in case of failure. But I do not believe that the fallback position must include interchangeability with all other rolling stock. Special operations within a small, specialized niche can have a failure fallback position that is also specialized. It also depends on the value of that niche. There are always ways to do things differently.
While applying ECP in the niche of oil train service would require dual mode to retain interchangeability, that requirement might not be much of a hardship because the number of cars in the niche is so small. So the industry might very well decide to install ECP while retaining conventional air brakes.
But again, this is ECP brakes in the context of a federal mandate, so the industry will not have the luxury rejecting both the dedicated ECP and the dual mode option in favor of simply retaining conventional air brakes alone.
Railroads don't own the oil cars; they just have to move them; move them without bringing the rest of their networks to a stop.
From the railroad perspective, ECP will require dedicated locomotives to be equipped for ECP operation which thereby limits their utility in the overall use of the locomotive fleet (yes a ECP equipped locomotive must be equipped for 'normal' brake operations and can be used in other service, however, that service has to be secondary to the intended use in ECP operations-thus limiting their universal use). So now when it comes time to move a Oil train, just locomotives to handle the tonnage won't do - I must be ECP equipped locomotives to handle the tonnage. If a locomotive failure happens enroute, the replacement locomotive must also be ECP equipped.
This is not to say ECP can't be done. However, ECP and it ramifications cannot be underestimated. I have no idea of the costs of applying ECP to either cars or locomotives - I doubt that either will be 'cheap'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid I think that ECP overcomes those problems better than conventional air brakes. If an ECP cable breaks, it triggers an emergency application just as the parting of the brake pipe does with conventional air brakes. Also, it is said that ECP reduces undesired emergency applications compared to conventional air brakes. I don’t know of any operational drawbacks of ECP compared to conventional air brakes, and there are several significant advantages of ECP brakes compared to conventional air brakes. I am not sure how a bad ordered set out would be dealt with if it had only ECP brakes. Maybe it would be repaired where it was set out. Just call the roving ECP repairman.
I think that ECP overcomes those problems better than conventional air brakes. If an ECP cable breaks, it triggers an emergency application just as the parting of the brake pipe does with conventional air brakes. Also, it is said that ECP reduces undesired emergency applications compared to conventional air brakes. I don’t know of any operational drawbacks of ECP compared to conventional air brakes, and there are several significant advantages of ECP brakes compared to conventional air brakes.
I am not sure how a bad ordered set out would be dealt with if it had only ECP brakes. Maybe it would be repaired where it was set out. Just call the roving ECP repairman.
Technology is technology and any technology can and will fail.
Euclid That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists. In the case of converting cars to ECP exclusively, it will not limit their ability to be interchanged with each other. So they can still be assembled into any size consist.
That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists.
Regular operation of ECP only works well but what happens when the control wire breaks. broken, crushed, separated. derailment. and so forth With a separation occurs does a RR need the loss of air to stop the train? Further a failure of a car's ECP computer might apply brakes un commanded or prevent brakes from being applied. RR environment does not allow confidence of a 4 sigma or better reliability. Think of present set ups that cause un commanded emergency applications ( shooter ? ) . . If a car becomes bad ordered at some out of the way then a local with normal pneumatic only needs that to operate the brakes ?
If tank cars were converted to replace conventional air brakes with ECP brakes, it would eliminate the mixing in of cars with conventional air brakes with a consist of cars with ECP brakes. If this limitation were not acceptable, the cars would have to be converted to ECP while retaining conventional air brakes, so they could operate in either mode. This dual mode would be a higher cost than just converting to straight ECP brakes exclusively.
The only penalty that I see for converting cars to ECP exclusively is that they cannot operate in manifest train consists. But a number of cars can be left unconverted to run in mixed consists, and then excluded from use in unit trains of ECP cars. That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists.
Jeff,
I think you are right about the railroads not wanting to convert to ECP. It was introduced as being the way of the future with full conversion anticipated. But I think the bloom went off of that rose; mainly because of the need for dual mode during the conversion of all locomotives and rolling stock. And then once that conversion is complete, all that extra hardware for the old mode is obsolete. It is a bridge too far.
So that kind of left ECP looking for a niche, and the niche was thought to be specialized unit trains of dedicated consists. I am not sure where that idea went. But now, this issue with oil train safety seems to me to have opened up a great new niche for ECP. However, this may come about due to regulation against the wishes of the railroads.
But in the bigger picture, I think ECP always carried the potential possibility of being universally mandated in the name of safety just as PTC has. So the railroads might oppose ECP oil trains simply because they would be the camel getting his nose under the tent, and lead to universal ECP.
jeffhergert 30 hours seems like a lot, but in severe winter weather, it doesn't take long to burn it up. Jeff
30 hours seems like a lot, but in severe winter weather, it doesn't take long to burn it up.
Jeff
Today's perspective from the seemingly objective analysts at RBN Energy:
https://rbnenergy.com/the-trains-they-are-a-changin-will-new-tank-car-standards-stifle-crude-by-rail-part-2
Euclid If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes; or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes; or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
The cars would probably be equipped to operate in either mode, ECP or conventional. There will be times when cars won't be moved in unit trains.
I've seen newer cars, mostly hoppers, covered and open, that have extra piping and hardware that I've been told was some of the components for ECP. If ECP is adopted, those cars are just that much closer to being set up for it.
Maybe the talk of ECP being required is being pushed by those companies producing the components? I read an article a while back in Railway Age that ECP was on the back burner for most carriers. Partly because of other demands for railroad investment, like PTC.
BaltACD So if a crew gets 4 hours of limbo time, they cannot be called for duty until 14 hours after their mark off time. T&E personnel can only accumulate 30 Limbo Hours in a calendar month.
The law doesn't require TE&Y to be held out of service after accumulating the 30 hours. (The monthly cap of all on duty time does.) After 30 hours an employee can still work, but every time they go on limbo time over 30 hours, the railroad gets fined.
The fine is enough that my company is starting to hold out of service those who are at, or close to, the 30 hour cap. If on a guaranteed board, they pay up to the guarantee when out of service. I don't know how it works for boards (like mine) that don't have one.
My carrier is handling a volume of 'single car' oil business that at one terminal is aggregating about 50 cars a day, in addition to multiple unit oil trains.
rockymidlandrr ...but the 30 mph speed restriction I don't ever see passing. The loss of capacity would be big...
I am not sure if this is a matter of a 30 mph speed limit on oil trains “passing” or not. I don’t think it is something that Congress will vote on. Instead it will be something simply imposed by the U.S. DOT. It is being considered as a new regulation. BNSF has referred to the idea as an unfunded mandate such as PTC. They say it will cost them $2-billion in lost capacity. So we are seeing the emergence of the following new regulations:
1) Oil train babysitting.
2) Oil train reduced speed limit.
3) Oil train ECP brakes.
4) Oil train stronger tank cars.
rockymidlandrr The ban on leaving crude oil trains unattended could be very beneficial to the crews, because they would have to wait for the outbound crew. So the overtime accumulated would be helpful, but the 30 mph speed restriction I don't ever see passing. The loss of capacity would be big on carriers where speed is the name of the game, and running track speed. BNSF has "fun" blending 70 and 55 mph trains, but my employer would be blending 60 and 30. But on the other side of that coin, thats only 60 and 30 going downhill because you only get enough power to just get over the hills anyways.
The ban on leaving crude oil trains unattended could be very beneficial to the crews, because they would have to wait for the outbound crew. So the overtime accumulated would be helpful, but the 30 mph speed restriction I don't ever see passing. The loss of capacity would be big on carriers where speed is the name of the game, and running track speed. BNSF has "fun" blending 70 and 55 mph trains, but my employer would be blending 60 and 30. But on the other side of that coin, thats only 60 and 30 going downhill because you only get enough power to just get over the hills anyways.
Sounds great on paper! Reality however, has a way of intruding on paper railroading. With the upsurge in business outpacing the increase in hiring and qualifying T&E personnel - there are times when there is NO CREW to be had for 12 hours or more.
Once a crew goes HOS they begin accruing 'limbo time' until they are finally relieved at the destination terminal. When they do mark off duty, the amount of 'limbo time' is added to the 10 hours undisturbed rest that the HOS law mandates. So if a crew gets 4 hours of limbo time, they cannot be called for duty until 14 hours after their mark off time. T&E personnel can only accumulate 30 Limbo Hours in a calendar month.
rockymidlandrrBack on subject, mandating ECP and DP on the trains would be a good step though as better train handling could be practiced as ECP is the future.
It was John Rimer, chief mechanical officer of CSX Transportation, who said that ECP brakes would not have any impact on preventing accidents and minimal effect on the distance required to stop a train. I disagree. I think ECP brakes would have an impact on preventing accidents for due to the following reasons:
ECP brakes apply simultaneously on all cars, whereas conventional air brakes apply in propagation from one care to the next. This wave of application propagation causes in-train forces that can cause derailments, so the lack of this application wave with ECP brakes reduces derailments.
Undesired emergency applications also cause in-train forces that are likely to be more severe than those caused by the propagation wave in service braking applications of conventional air brakes. ECP brakes reduce undesired emergency applications, and thus reduce derailments due to that cause.
Also, because of the application propagation wave of conventional air brakes, the full application takes more time to achieve than it does with the simultaneous application of ECP brakes. Therefore, ECP brakes stop a train faster than conventional air brakes because they take less time to set on all cars. Stopping a train amounts to dissipating its kinetic energy through braking friction. The quicker this kinetic energy is dissipated, the less time there is for it to cause damage in the collisions between tank cars during a high speed derailment. So, in this case, ECP brakes reduce damage potential once a derailment has begun.
As good as an idea is to put a lower wage worker on the train, that is against the labor agreement. It would be the same as a trainmaster sitting on the engine, again against the agreements. Having a fresh crew for the inbound train would be the ideal situation, and their train would become very "hot" as their time ran out to get to their destination. But then again, I've seen situations too where a local was held out of the terminal long enough that they went dead on the main, stacking up a coal and intermodal train. Four hours later, the crews on the other trains were running out of time and ended up not making it to their destinations either.
Back on subject, mandating ECP and DP on the trains would be a good step though as better train handling could be practiced as ECP is the future.
rockymidlandrrThe ban on leaving crude oil trains unattended could be very beneficial to the crews, because they would have to wait for the outbound crew.
Methinks that might depend on the requirements of "attending the train." If all that is required is a babysitter, then a low-level laborer with minimal training could do the job. Depending on labor agreements and a host of other considerations, it's possible the "babysitter" could drive the van to the train, then stay there while the crew drove back... Or not...
It's interesting to note that one of the folks cited in Frailey's piece states that ECP and distributed power would have limited effect in preventing incidents.
The currently nebulous new construction requirements definitely place both the manufacturers and the car owners in a difficult position. Kinda like the wife telling the husband the dining room needs to be painted before the big dinner party, but not telling him what color...
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...
Not strictly related to the theme, but ...
Even the Wall Street Journal, in a story in its July 5-6 edition, reined in its habitual anti-rail bias to note, re. rail service to Lac-Megantic:
"Lac-Megantic exists because of the century-old railroad, and one in six jobs still depends on the rail, according to a provincial business-development agency.
"The railroad ... is a lifeline for the Eastern Townships region here. Some 50 businesses in the area rely on trains to ship 14,000 carloads a year. Those businesses support 4,200 jobs, 1,100 of which are around Lac-Megantic.
"For Tafisa Canada Inc., the town's largest employer, with 350 workers, the railroad is a crucial link to buyers of its particle board throughout the U.S. and Western Canada. About 50 railcars arrived at Tafisa's Lac-Megantic plant weekly before the derailment. After the accident, the company had to find alternate rail depots to reach by truck, adding under US$10 million to Tafisa's expenses.
" 'For our survival, we depend on the train,' says Chief Executive Louis Brassard."
Referring to the article linked to the first post, the five ways that Lac Megantic changed oil by rail is a work in progress, and I believe that it is less than half finished. There are some big shoes yet to drop such as:
1) The criminal prosecution of the engineer and two others, and the course it might take.
2) The accident report from Transport Canada indicating what the train securement was and what it should have been; and the recommendations for future operations.
3) The new U.S. federal tank car construction regulations.
Item #1 of the article’s list of five (stronger tank cars) is also far from resolved. Most players agree that the DOT-111 tank cars are inadequate and must be phased out, however the speed of the phase-out and what will replace them is completely unresolved. A newer car design known as the 1232 had been the intended replacement for the 111, but doubts have been raised as to whether the 1232 is adequate.
The Federal DOT is developing the new regulations that will dictate the design of new tank cars, and nobody knows when they will release these regulations. Meanwhile, the industry has responded by building a better tank car using their best judgment in lieu of any regulatory standard. These cars are known as the “good faith” tank cars because building them without the assurance that they will meet the new federal regulations is an act of good faith.
However, in my opinion, the “body language” of the DOT indicates that the “good faith” will be rebuffed, and the cars built under that standard will not meet the new federal regulations. For this reason, the good faith effort is a gamble for the industry. The fleet of existing cars is wearing out and replacement must be ongoing. However, the prospect that the good faith cars might become prematurely obsolete upon the release of the new regulations is a risk in which the stakes rise as more good faith cars are built. And yet, there is some indication that the new federal regulations which would resolve the matter will not be ready this year. Will they be ready in 2015? Will they ever be ready? The indefinite lack of new regulations will ultimately lead to an entire tank car fleet made up of “good faith” cars. If this incredible risk is not taken, the only alternative is to end shipping oil by rail.
Meanwhile, the U.S. DOT is asking the industry to respond to a new request that could become a federal mandate. This would include the following:
1) ECP brakes on oil trains.
2) A 30 mph speed limit for oil trains.
3) A ban on leaving oil trains unattended.
This comes with the talk of a “crude by rail regulatory package” intended to be put forth by DOT, which would include operational measures. BNSF says they would need to spend $2-billion in order to recover the lost capacity on their railroad due to a 30 mph speed limit on oil trains.
For more information on these new rules being considered, look at this:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2014/06/13/the-next-rules-of-oil-by-rail.aspx
Regarding the WSJ article on crude stabilizers, it has been more practical to use them in Texas because of the availability of necessary infrastructure such as gas and propane lines. It would help resource conservation if more gas lines were built to the Bakken, which is a regulatory issue. But remember, the other byproducts of the stabilizers are propane, etc, which are even more explosive (google BLEVE), and would also be carried by thousands of tank car loads.
But pipelines, which carry most of the crude oil moved in the U.S., at times require stabilization of oil for safety purposes, according to a spokesman for Enbridge Inc., one of the biggest pipeline companies in North America.
Very interesting. believe that this was hinted at in the past, If Canadian transportation safety board finds out they may delay their report ?
jeffhergert There are allowances under the rules to omit a testing of the brakes and relying on a specific number of brakes. Normally, that would be in instances where you were cutting away from the train with such a large number of cars that you either couldn't put enough handbrakes on to hold the entire train for the test or it would be severe overkill to do so. Doing the test, for us a complete release of engine and train brakes, is considered the "primary" method. Relying on a specific number is considered the "secondary" method. At first, I was going to use "minimum" instead of "specific" when referring to the required number. The reason I didn't is that even places that require a minimum number, the release test is still required. The minimum number reflects total cars in the train and sometimes that minimum may not be enough. Those places using a specific number do so by using a chart (for us) and taking into account total tonnage and grade considerations. Since using this method is for times when you can't release for a check, I'm sure the specific number required by the chart has a safety factor built in. Jeff
There are allowances under the rules to omit a testing of the brakes and relying on a specific number of brakes. Normally, that would be in instances where you were cutting away from the train with such a large number of cars that you either couldn't put enough handbrakes on to hold the entire train for the test or it would be severe overkill to do so.
Doing the test, for us a complete release of engine and train brakes, is considered the "primary" method. Relying on a specific number is considered the "secondary" method.
At first, I was going to use "minimum" instead of "specific" when referring to the required number. The reason I didn't is that even places that require a minimum number, the release test is still required. The minimum number reflects total cars in the train and sometimes that minimum may not be enough. Those places using a specific number do so by using a chart (for us) and taking into account total tonnage and grade considerations. Since using this method is for times when you can't release for a check, I'm sure the specific number required by the chart has a safety factor built in.
I understand your distinction between the primary and secondary method. But I don’t understand your comment as follows:
“Normally, that [secondary method] would be in instances where you were cutting away from the train with such a large number of cars that you either couldn't put enough handbrakes on to hold the entire train for the test or it would be severe overkill to do so.”
In thinking about it, I am guessing that you are referring to making a cut, leaving some cars, and pulling away with a large number of cars in tow. I had not thought about how that would affect a push-pull test, but if that is what you are referring to, I can see the issue.
Say you had 60 cars, and you were going to stop and cut off the last 10 cars and leave them standing on a grade, and pull away with the engine and the first 50 cars. I could see how you might set handbrakes on all 10 cars, release the airbrakes for a test, and have the engines and first 50 cars left with a high enough mass to roll away while dragging the 10 cars with handbrakes set. The 10 cars would be as secured as possible with handbrakes, and yet the test could not confirm that.
So instead of confirming the securement with a release test, you simply set a “specific” amount called for in the instructions. And that specific amount would have a generous safety factor determined by previous calculations and testing.
If the following article is anywhere near accurate - Lac Megantic is going to have an affect on the oil producers also, as they have not been as proactive in preparing Bakken Crude for safe shipment as they have for explosive varieties of Texas Crude.
North Dakota Fracking: Behind the Oil-Train ExplosionsThe Wall Street Journal (Online)By Russell Gold and Chester DawsonJuly 7, 2014When energy companies started extracting oil from shale formations in South Texas a few years ago, they invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make the volatile crude safer to handle.In North Dakota's Bakken Shale oil field, nobody installed the necessary equipment. The result is that the second-fastest growing source of crude in the U.S. is producing oil that pipelines often would reject as too dangerous to transport.Now the decision not to build the equipment is coming back to haunt the oil industry as the federal government seeks to prevent fiery accidents of trains laden with North Dakota oil. Investigators probing crude-by-rail accidents, including one a year ago that killed 47 people in Quebec, are trying to determine why shale oil has proved so combustible-a question that has taken on growing urgency as rail shipments rise.Only one stabilizer, which can remove the most volatile gases before transport, has been built in North Dakota and it hasn't begun operation, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal.Stabilizers use heat and pressure to force light hydrocarbon molecules-including ethane, butane and propane-to form into vapor and boil out of the liquid crude. The operation can lower the vapor pressure of crude oil, making it less volatile and therefore safer to transport by pipeline or rail tank car.As the Journal previously reported, oil tapped from shale is generally more volatile and more similar to jet fuel than traditional crude oil, which has seldom been linked to explosive accidents. The production of this volatile oil through hydraulic fracturing has soared, accounting for most of the additional 3 million barrels a day of oil that the U.S. produces today compared with 2009.The federal government is weighing whether to require stabilization, holding high-level meetings with oil executives."We are open to any recommendations with a demonstrated ability to improve safety, including the stabilizing or further processing Bakken crude," says Sarah Feinberg, the chief of staff to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.If the government mandates the use of stabilizers, companies would have to make big investments in equipment and might have to slow development of the Bakken oil field.Energy executives point out that neither federal nor state regulations require crude to be stabilized before it is transported. Some say stabilization is unnecessary, noting that South Texas produces more of the highly volatile oil known as condensate."There is nothing wrong with the crude oil" in the Bakken, says Jeff Hume, vice chairman of Continental Resources Inc., one of the largest crude producers in North Dakota. "It does not need stabilization."Robert Hall, a National Transportation Safety Board director, says the decision on whether to stabilize is driven by commercial considerations. "The regulations are silent," he says.About a million barrels a day are pumped from the Bakken, an oil field that has grown so fast that few pipelines exist to transport the crude. Instead, about 630,000 barrels a day travel by train to refineries on the East, West and Gulf coasts, a trend that is growing because the energy industry has found rail shipments to be more flexible than fixed pipelines.Federal officials have expressed concern that unstabilized Bakken oil has been loaded onto trains and shipped without proper labeling or handling. Local safety officials have warned that their communities aren't prepared to handle a derailment.The American Petroleum Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for the oil industry, doesn't offer standards for how crude should be treated before being shipped. "We have not seen any data to suggest processing crude in the field reduces risk," a spokesman says. The North Dakota Petroleum Council expresses a similar view.But pipelines, which carry most of the crude oil moved in the U.S., at times require stabilization of oil for safety purposes, according to a spokesman for Enbridge Inc., one of the biggest pipeline companies in North America.Many industry experts and energy executives say privately that using stabilizing units would improve safety but are reluctant to make that point publicly for fear of antagonizing the companies that do business in North Dakota.One exception is a company that has built the first stabilizer there, which is scheduled to open in the next few weeks."It is safer to stabilize that product before it goes into rail cars," says David Scobel, chief operating officer of Caliber Midstream Partners LP of Denver. "It is not accurate to say, 'If we stabilize the crude, that's the magic solution so there will be no more fires.' But it is more stable."Starting in 2008, energy companies that had been using new techniques to tap shale for natural gas began turning those methods, including fracking and horizontal drilling, on formations rich in oil. While much of this activity took place in Texas, which has a century-old oil industry, one of the most promising discoveries was in shale under North Dakota plains better known for producing wheat and canola.Over the past six years, the industry has drilled 7,000 wells in North Dakota, almost all of them spread across about 15,000 square miles of the Bakken. Rather than installing pipelines to collect oil from these far-flung locations, companies used trucks to collect the oil and started building rail terminals to ship it by train. Crude-by-rail shipments from North Dakota have quadrupled since 2012.The most combustible components of Bakken crude-known as light ends-constitute between 2% and 11.9% of its volume, according to an analysis by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, an industry trade group. Other sources have a lower figure for Bakken light ends. These vaporous liquids can be valuable, but only if pipelines or special railcars are available to transport them.Lacking that infrastructure, stripping out volatile liquids could hurt profits by reducing the volume of crude for sale. Stabilizing the crude could cut potential revenue by perhaps 2%, an industry executive estimates.Hess Corp., a large Bakken-crude producer, considered building a stabilizer in 2011 for North Dakota oil. Instead, the company opted for a less expensive, more rudimentary process that heats oil to between 80 and 120 degrees Fahrenheit in so-called heater treaters to strip out light ends. A stabilizer wasn't needed, Hess Vice President Gerbert Schoonman says.But heater treaters aren't as precise as stabilizers and can't remove as much volatile material, according to an executive at a company that produces both kinds of equipment.The situation in the Bakken contrasts with the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. In 2012, there was basically no equipment to stabilize the crude. But companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build centralized facilities and pipelines to move the resulting propane and butane to a Gulf Coast petrochemical complex.The crude was stabilized enough to be shipped without incident through pipelines, trucks and rail tank cars, says Rusty Braziel, an industry consultant. "Over a two-year period of time, the vast majority of the problem went away."
Doing the test, for us a complete release of engine and train brakes, is considered the "primary" method. Relying on a specific number is considered the "secondary" method. Our securement check lists have a place to record what method was used. On Key trains, it is one of the subjects that is covered in the job briefing between the crew and train dispatcher. (I heard a key train being secured yesterday. The crew and dispatcher did the job briefing. The crew used the primary method. Then the dispatcher said he had to confirm with the superintendent that it was OK to leave the train. First time I've heard of that requirement. It was approved, but then the powers that be decided to run the train after all, so the crew had to go back and untie the train.)
It is not only the ND crude oil shipments that are creating havoc.....
http://news.yahoo.com/saltwater-leak-alters-water-supply-1-nd-town-202349179.html
Euclid I would expect that the criminal trial will pursue the question of whether securement was routinely compromised on the MM&A as a part of company culture, and the engineer was just following that culture. By charging two not only the engineer, but also two of his supervisors, it opens the door to pursuing the question of whether the securement fault was only a one-time violation by the engineer; or whether he acted accordance with some type of company sanctioned procedure. However, it is disconcerting that in the news of criminal charges, there is no mention by the police of a push-pull test being performed or omitted. It leaves me wondering if the police even understand that element of the securement rule. When you have special instructions on a railroad that talk about requiring a minimum number of handbrakes at different locations and with different tonnages, it would be easy to perceive that as being the only requirement. It would be extremely easy and likely for an outsider to interpret it that way. It might even be possible for a railroad culture to interpret that way with the aid of a little rationalization. Just the sound of the special instruction leaves the impression that it fully addresses the securement requirement, when it is actually only a part of the requrement.
I would expect that the criminal trial will pursue the question of whether securement was routinely compromised on the MM&A as a part of company culture, and the engineer was just following that culture. By charging two not only the engineer, but also two of his supervisors, it opens the door to pursuing the question of whether the securement fault was only a one-time violation by the engineer; or whether he acted accordance with some type of company sanctioned procedure.
However, it is disconcerting that in the news of criminal charges, there is no mention by the police of a push-pull test being performed or omitted. It leaves me wondering if the police even understand that element of the securement rule.
When you have special instructions on a railroad that talk about requiring a minimum number of handbrakes at different locations and with different tonnages, it would be easy to perceive that as being the only requirement. It would be extremely easy and likely for an outsider to interpret it that way. It might even be possible for a railroad culture to interpret that way with the aid of a little rationalization. Just the sound of the special instruction leaves the impression that it fully addresses the securement requirement, when it is actually only a part of the requrement.
When the trial is actually held, your assertions will be baby talk, in comparison to the actions and assertions of the lawyers on both sides of the trial. The horse will be thoroughly beaten to death multiple times.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.