CSX oil train derailment

[Euclid]

LION,

I was wondering if you ever heard back from GATX.  I find that it is impossible to communicate with the inustry, its suppliers, or the regulators.  It is best to send your ideas to the policticians.

[CShaveRR]

Please recognize that there is no coupler construction possible at all that will withstand jackknifing when you have 143 tons of pressure on each fist snapping the pencil, as it were.  The couplers are fine--there was a picture making the rounds a couple of weeks (or months) ago of a string of acid tank cars that tipped over as a unit in a yard (MRL?).  It's a safe assumption that these cars weren't moving at 40-50 mph when one of them tipped.

The new tank specs (DOT-116) will have even thicker shells than the CPC-1232 cars.  But use the Titanic-vs.-iceberg analogy.  Think this shell is going to withstand a jagged rock hitting it at 40 mph?  Uh-uh.

Now, as to these derailments of Baaken crude.  The explosiveness is caused by gases contained in the crude, which have historically been stripped from crude before shipment and flared off or put to use (they could be shpped separately in pressure tank cars if the demand were there).  

That's it, in a nutshell (or a CPC-1232 shell):  the railroads have been doing their part, designing safer equipment and operating it over well-designed trackage.  There will be failures, there will be breaches.  It should be the responsibility of the shippers to take the same precautions regarding explosive gases that have been, and are being, taken elsewhere in the country.  If open flares have become problematic, railroads have a solution for that, too.

[Euclid]

 

 

CShaveRR

The new tank specs (DOT-116) will have even thicker shells than the CPC-1232 cars.  But use the Titanic-vs.-iceberg analogy.  Think this shell is going to withstand a jagged rock hitting it at 40 mph?  Uh-uh.

I think the issue is that the public has largely been let to believe that the stronger tank cars will solve the exploding oil train problem.  There was never any escape clause about the Titanic-vs-iceberg excuse. 

[cefinkjr]

Broadway:

Isn't the LION somehow violating your "If a train doesn't carry passengers, the LION is not interested in it." creed by commenting at all on oil trains? 

Followed the links you provide (obviously) and I gotta say you are not wrapped real tight.  In fact, you are almost as nutty as most of us model railroaders.

But in a more serious vein and more appropos of this thread's topic, train handling could have been a factor.  We (Penn Central) learned the hard way back in the '70s that running a train full of a liquid is different than running a train full of wheat.  We had a northbound Tropicana orange juice train that was literally pushed through a stop signal by the train's contents.  The engineer (actually the motorman as the power was a GG1) swore that he had stopped short of the signal and then "here comes thousands of gallons of orange juice!"  PC's solution was to recall from retirement some engineers (motormen) who had experience with WW II oil trains.  They rode the northbound Tropicana trains for a while to advise the assigned crews.

[BroadwayLion]

cefinkjr

Isn't the LION somehow violating your "If a train doesn't carry passengers, the LION is not interested in it." creed by commenting at all on oil trains?

But LION lives in Richardton, North Dakota, so him sees the oil trains and other related Bakken services close up. Halliburton is building a sand depot right here in Richardton (west of town). Other firms are building rail terminals just east of town.

And of course we like to see people well employed in this part of the country, and so have a vested interest in the movement of the oil. (The oil industry brings more tasty people to live in our area.)

cefinkjr

Followed the links you provide (obviously) and I gotta say you are not wrapped real tight. In fact, you are almost as nutty as most of us model railroaders.

I resemble that remark!

ROAR

[Euclid]

dehusman

One also has to ask if them being acordianned is a bad thing.  In the derailment the kinetic energy of stopping a train in a short distance has to be absorbed somehow.  Are the cars substantively damaged by being accordianed or is that really better from the standpoint of allowing the train to "crumple", absorbing the energy in the least destructive way?

In a mid-train derailment, as the first cars accordion, they continue to be pushed along sideways by the cars coming ahead on the rails behind them. As the accordion continues, it builds a heap that becomes increasingly more resistant to the forward shove of the oncoming cars behind them. If the heap builds enough resistance, and if there are still say 10-40 cars behind it on the rails, their rolling kinetic energy will apply enough force to crush the first car contacted in the heap. The crushing will burst the car.

The best way to dissipate the kinetic energy in a derailing train of flammable material is for the cars to remain coupled and in line with each other. The jackknifing or accordion of an oil train certainly does dissipate energy, but it dissipates it too quickly, and thus sets the stage for a tank rupture and fire.

 

[BroadwayLion]

It is not all that hard to crush a railroad tank car...

 

ROAR

[dehusman]

Euclid

In a mid-train derailment, as the first cars accordion, they continue to be pushed along sideways by the cars coming ahead on the rails behind them. As the accordion continues, it builds a heap that becomes increasingly more resistant to the forward shove of the oncoming cars behind them. If the heap builds enough resistance, and if there are still say 10-40 cars behind it on the rails, their rolling kinetic energy will apply enough force to crush the first car contacted in the heap. The crushing will burst the car.

You keep saying this.  Please provide one documented (NTSB or FRA report) example where the force of derailment caused a car to burst due to pressure from other cars against it.  Puncture, yes.  Heated and burst, yes.  Pile of loaded cars and burst, no.

 

[dehusman]

BroadwayLion

It is not all that hard to crush a railroad tank car...

 

Unfortunately that is not a a crush in the same context we are discussing.  That was an empty tank car that had been steam cleaned, thus heated inside, then sealed and when the interior cooled, caused a drop in internal air pressure allowing the external air pressure to collapse the car.  The cars we are talking about are not empties, they are loads.  We are not talking about collapsing a car (reducing internal pressure) we are talking about bursting a car (increasing internal pressure).

Here a trick you should try, get two cans of soda.  Take one and drink the soda.  Squeeze the empty can in your hand.  Does it crush?  Now take the full can of soda.  Squeeze that in your hand.  Does it crush?  Thats the difference between a loaded and empty container.

[MidlandMike]

CShaveRR

...

Now, as to these derailments of Baaken crude.  The explosiveness is caused by gases contained in the crude, which have historically been stripped from crude before shipment and flared off or put to use (they could be shpped separately in pressure tank cars if the demand were there).  

...

 

Bakken crude has always used gas seperation, apparently to varying degrees, and a recent ND regulatory order to standardize it is being implemented.  However, the seperating process is only for the 4 lightest components of the crude, and while it should decrease flammability incrementally, there will still be plenty of bang left in crude vapors confined in a tank car.

[Euclid]

dehusman

Here a trick you should try, get two cans of soda.  Take one and drink the soda.  Squeeze the empty can in your hand.  Does it crush?  Now take the full can of soda.  Squeeze that in your hand.  Does it crush?  Thats the difference between a loaded and empty container.

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car cannot be crushed in a train wreck? 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

dehusman

Here a trick you should try, get two cans of soda.  Take one and drink the soda.  Squeeze the empty can in your hand.  Does it crush?  Now take the full can of soda.  Squeeze that in your hand.  Does it crush?  Thats the difference between a loaded and empty container.

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car cannot be crushed in a train wreck? 

Try stomping on the full can with a hard soled boot, and see if it maintains it's complete integrety.  With enough force, the weak spot will be found.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

dehusman

Here a trick you should try, get two cans of soda.  Take one and drink the soda.  Squeeze the empty can in your hand.  Does it crush?  Now take the full can of soda.  Squeeze that in your hand.  Does it crush?  Thats the difference between a loaded and empty container.

 

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car cannot be crushed in a train wreck? 

 

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car can be crushed in a train wreck?

      It sounds just as silly when I put words in your mouth.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

 

dehusman

Here a trick you should try, get two cans of soda.  Take one and drink the soda.  Squeeze the empty can in your hand.  Does it crush?  Now take the full can of soda.  Squeeze that in your hand.  Does it crush?  Thats the difference between a loaded and empty container.

 

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car cannot be crushed in a train wreck? 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that the fact that a person cannot crush a full soda can with their hand proves that a full tank car can be crushed in a train wreck?

      It sounds just as silly when I put words in your mouth.

 

 

In response your question: No I am not saying that.

The question I asked of Dave is not silly at all, and it does not put words into his mouth, as you say. You would not think my question is silly and that it does put words into his mouth if you bothered to understand the question and its context.  What I asked for is a clarification of what Dave’s analogy is intended to show.

A full soda can and a full tank car are both cylinders.  If you squeeze either one hard enough, it will burst.  I interpret Dave’s analogy as attempting to show that, since you cannot hand squeeze full soda can hard enough to burst it, that proves that a train wreck cannot squeeze a full tank car hard enough to burst it.  After all, the bursting of tank cars was the topic for which he offered the analogy.

I fail to see that the conclusion is proven by the analogy.  But Dave does not tie the analogy directly to tank cars.  He only compares a full soda can to an empty one.  In that respect, I agree with his point that a full soda can is harder to crush than an empty one.  I was just asking him to tie his analogy to tank cars.  There is nothing silly about it.  Apparently the point and the logic totally escapes you.

 

 

[dehusman]

That cars rupture is obvious.  I am saying that the mode of failure that cars are squeezed and cause the internal pressure in the cars to become so high the cars burst is not correct.  That a car can impact another car and puncture the tank car is possible.  That a car can impact another car, crease the tank and cause the tank wall to crack at the crease is possible.

We waste millions of electrons with fanciful "solutions" to modes of failure that don't occur.  All coupling systems have to have enough movement in them to allow two coupled cars to negoiate a curve or a switch.  If a car can negoiate a switch, one end of the car can diverge enough for the wheels to go off the ends of the ties,  Once the wheels leave the ties you lose control of keeping the train upright and in line.  Once the cars leave the ties, where they end up is a matter of the weight of the cars, the speed of the cars, the condition of the ground, the shape of the terrain and the number of obstructions in the way.

[Euclid]

Dave,

You say that that the mode of failure that cars are squeezed and cause the internal pressure in the cars to become so high the cars burst is not correct?  What do you mean by not correct?

Do you mean that it cannot happen in a train wreck?  I ask the question because obviously it is possible to burst a car if the squeeze pressure is high enough (assuming that the squeeze is not evenly distributed on the car’s exterior).

If you are contending that a train wreck cannot produce that amount of squeeze, how do you know that?

[MidlandMike]

You must also consider other causes of tank failures.  In a tank car derailment, valves and fittings can be broken-off, leading to leakage.  If it catches fire, it may lead to a confined vapor explosion.

[tree68]

Euclid

Do you mean that it cannot happen in a train wreck?  I ask the question because obviously it is possible to burst a car if the squeeze pressure is high enough (assuming that the squeeze is not evenly distributed on the car’s exterior).

Emphasis mine.

If the "squeeze" is not evenly distributed on the car's exterior, that would tend to suggest the very high possibility of mechanical failure of the tank.  I would opine that any "bursting" due to outside pressures would likely be secondary to the physical failure of the tank due to puncture, crease, or other physical insult.  

DOT111A's had a design strength of 500 PSI.  One would assume that the newer CPC-1232 cars would have at least the same, and possibly a higher burst strength.  I'm not even going to begin to guess what kind of a reduction of the volume of one of those cars would require to reach an internal pressure of 500 PSI.

 

 

[dehusman]

Bingo.  By the time you put enough pressure on the car the shell will either puncture or be creased and crack.    If the car is engulfed in a fire the shell will be weakened from the heat, the contents will be superheated and THAT pressure will cause the car to burst.

[Euclid]

I just threw that exception in the case of equal squeeze in there as a qualifier.  What I mean is this:  Say that a laboratory experiment was conducted where a loaded and sealed tank car is placed in a larger enclosed tank of water or other liquid.  Then say the pressure of that liquid in the larger tank was raised.  The tank car would be squeezed evenly all over its surface.  The oil inside would be practically non-compressible because it is a liquid.

So the loading on the steel wall of the tank car, would be simply compressing the steel between the building pressure in the larger outer tank, and the inner backing of the non-compressible oil in side of the tank car.  There would be no force that would try to burst the tank car.

But if you had a loaded and sealed tank car, and squeezed it in a giant vise, the vise compressing the tank walls in just limited areas would raise the internal pressure of the oil, causing it to force outward in the tank areas not being directly squeezed by the vise jaws.  Eventually the rising internal pressure would burst the walls outwards in some area not directly backed up by the squeeze of the vise jaws.  It would be like hand squeezing a water balloon until it bursts.  All train wrecks will squeeze tank cars unevenly, like the giant vise example.

I feel that the only factor that would prevent a tank car from being burst in that manner in a train wreck would be if the pressure applied were simply not high enough.  I believe that there is the potential for that squeeze to be great enough to burst a tank car in many train derailments.  But it will depend on the focus of kinetic energy in an oncoming string of cars forcing into the heap of cars as the size of that heap grows, thus increasing the resistance of the heap to the oncoming cars plowing into the heap.   

 

[jeffhergert]

CShaveRR

Please recognize that there is no coupler construction possible at all that will withstand jackknifing when you have 143 tons of pressure on each fist snapping the pencil, as it were.  The couplers are fine--there was a picture making the rounds a couple of weeks (or months) ago of a string of acid tank cars that tipped over as a unit in a yard (MRL?).  It's a safe assumption that these cars weren't moving at 40-50 mph when one of them tipped.

The new tank specs (DOT-116) will have even thicker shells than the CPC-1232 cars.  But use the Titanic-vs.-iceberg analogy.  Think this shell is going to withstand a jagged rock hitting it at 40 mph?  Uh-uh.

Now, as to these derailments of Baaken crude.  The explosiveness is caused by gases contained in the crude, which have historically been stripped from crude before shipment and flared off or put to use (they could be shpped separately in pressure tank cars if the demand were there).  

That's it, in a nutshell (or a CPC-1232 shell):  the railroads have been doing their part, designing safer equipment and operating it over well-designed trackage.  There will be failures, there will be breaches.  It should be the responsibility of the shippers to take the same precautions regarding explosive gases that have been, and are being, taken elsewhere in the country.  If open flares have become problematic, railroads have a solution for that, too.

 

Railway Age article on this subject.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/oil-train-mishaps-reveal-tank-car-strengths-and-limitations.html?channel=60

Jeff

[samfp1943]

Jeffhergert posted the following link:

Railway Age article on this subject.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/oil-train-mishaps-reveal-tank-car-strengths-and-limitations.html?channel=60

Jeff

From that link:[snip] "...The oil industry has argued that railroads are to blame for not keeping their trains on track, a contention accepted by the Federal Railroad Administration and its sister agency the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which have chosen to ignore the matter of “hot oil” being loaded directly from wells to tank cars without first cooking off the explosive dissolved gases.

Such heat treatment is routine in Texas, from where equally volatile light crude has been shipped by rail for years without a single explosive incident.

The oil industry says there is a ready market for the extracted gases in Texas, but none in North Dakota. Therefore, say the producers, the explosive gases are best shipped to refineries while still dissolved in the crude. Otherwise, they would have to be shipped away by rail or flared into the atmosphere..."[snipped]  { I added the emphasis to the linked article and its information}samfp1943

It would seem that the blame, and the solutions to the problematic transportation of the Bakken Crude is writte in this article; So far the FRA(?) has mandated that the speed of the trains carrying Bakken Crude have been limited to 45 mph. New tank car specifications have been orded and they are being delivered...The problem seems to be the entrainded gases in the crude, the treatment before shipment has been apparently 'deemed' too costly or environmentally unfriendly, and the burning off is not allowed(?) so it is shipped as is, to be extracted in the existing refineries of the Gulf Coast.

Why could not the gases be 'extracted', then  shipped in seperate shipments to facilities that could use them?        They might have to be concentrated ( as a liquid(?); or as a compressed gas(?) in thier own tank cars. 

 

[ruderunner]

Keep in mind that gasoline was once a useless waste product of lamp oil...

[Euclid]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting that article.  It confirms what I have suspected all along.  That is, that the strengthening of tank cars will not solve the exploding oil train problem.  Up until about now, the problem has been blamed on the DOT-111 cars, and the solution has been heralded as making stronger tank cars.  That position seems to have turned on a dime in that article when it says this:

“Carbuilders themselves recently warned that no amount of extra metal or sophisticated engineering will protect against breaches and fires in high-energy derailments.”  

Up until now, the public position has been that stronger tank cars will solve the problem.

I would restate the statement quoted above as follows:

“Any amount of extra metal or sophisticated engineering will protect against breaches and fires in high-energy derailments to some extent.”   

It is just a matter of deciding how much extra protection is needed to control the problem adequately, and whether shipping the oil is worth the extra cost.  However, the public has been left to believe that the problem will be, and must be solved 100%.

So very much is at stake right now as we wait to see where the next exploding oil train will occur.   I would not be surprised to see a ban on shipping Bakken oil by rail.   

[ROBERT WILLISON]

Jeff, I think you hit it on the head. The general public understand and accepts reasonable risk. Nothing can be made 100% risk free. 

New tank cars can be  and will be built to higher standards. Thier are too many stake holders here including the railroads, shippers and the end users of the product not to develop a better car.

Most can remember when an air bag was consider an unneeded and costly government regulation. Every one knows  the air bag won't save you if drive over a cliff. Over time they have saved many a life.

A better tank car will be built to meet the needs of all the stakeholders in this issue.  

But time is ticking, and needs to be done in responsible time frame.

[Euclid]

ROBERT WILLISON

Nothing can be made 100% risk free. 

New tank cars can be  and will be built to higher standards. A better tank car will be built to meet the needs of all the stakeholders in this issue. 

There is no technical problem in building a tank car that will survive high speed derailments.  Nothing can be perfect, but 99% perfect may be attainable.  But there is one problem.  Such a tank car will be so heavy that it won’t carry enough oil to make the shipment worthwhile.

 

[BroadwayLion]

ROBERT WILLISON

The general public understand and accepts reasonable risk.

The media and their agenda are the ones who will  not let go of the issue.

ROAR

[ROBERT WILLISON]

Thier is a silent majority that will not allow continued disasters. The big one in the us has yet to happen.  If it does things will get ugly. It won't be tree huggers or the media, just out rage ordinary Americans.

[diningcar]

Mr. Willison, you wouldn't be thinking about the threat of bombs being detonated in our shopping malls would you. If one, or more, of these occur a train derailment will be relagated to page 15 next to Ann Landers.

[blue streak 1]

CSX is rerouting some oil trains onto NS's old Virginian.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2015/02/21/oil-trains-quietly-rerouted-after-derailment.html