CSX oil train derailment

[schlimm]

Euclid

It is interesting to look back over the last year as this oil by rail controversy has evolved.  A year ago, there was confidence that the problem could be solved.  Lac Megantic was called an outlier, thus not part of any trend.  Just one other fiery oil train wreck came next, but still no trend.  Fred Frailey calculated a prediction of future oil train wrecks indicating that more oil train wrecks were sure to follow soon. 

The industry assured the public that the problem was the DOT-111 tank car not being strong enough to withstand derailments.  They assured the public that they would solve that problem by replacing the 111 car with a stronger car that would not breach in a derailment. 

They told us about stronger steel, more steel, better valves, and better valve protection.  I said that I doubted that the improvements would solve the problem, and suggested a whole new generation of unit train for hauling oil.  Of course, there was no way that the industry would consider such an option.  One part of my suggestion was ECP brakes, and the railroads have since come out swinging against the notion of using ECP brakes.

At the same time, there was great promise in the possibility of taking the volatility out of the oil before it was shipped by rail.  I read every comment about that possibility and never could come to any conclusion about the feasibility.  The topic seems to defy technical consensus.  I conclude that the so called “degassing” of Bakken oil will not happen soon, if it is even possible. 

Now, concurrent with the West Virginia oil train wreck, there was another one in Quebec that has slipped largely under the news media radar.  On the face, it was not particularly newsworthy, but at a deeper level, the earth moved in the oil by rail debate.  The Quebec wreck proved that the diluted bitumen from the Canadian tar sands is just as volatile and explosive as Bakken crude.  So the challenge to de-gas crude for shipping by rail seems more unlikely than ever at this point.

Almost, at the same time, the industry seems to have acknowledged that stronger tank cars will not solve the problem.  This is a truly spectacular and discrediting reversal.      

We were told that the industry would reroute the oil trains to protect the public, and slow them down in sensitive areas.  Yet slowing down and rerouting the trains seems to be impractical and unlikely.  Has any oil traffic been slowed down or rerouted so far? 

We were told that track inspection and maintenance would be stepped up. Every railroader knows that no amount of track and equipment inspection and maintenance will assure freedom from derailments.  If they are not caused from track and equipment problems, they can still be caused by train collisions, train handling, and train slack dynamics.  There is simply no low-hanging fruit in solving the oil train problem by better maintenance.  Oil trains will continue to derail, and every time, there is the potential for a blockbuster event that will suddenly force the problem to solved by a regulation banning oil by rail.

So, now we are left with just one ray of hope.  That is to discover some heretofore unknown cause for oil trail derailments.  I would say that this is an incredible longshot, but it is all that is left.  There is no statistical indication that oil trains derail any more frequently than other types of freight trains.  But since we don’t have much history on the topic, there is a possibility that the cause of oil train problem lurks in the dynamics of loaded tank cars in unit trains.  Some have suggested the oil sloshing might be involved.  Perhaps the relatively higher center of gravity in loaded tank cars plays a role.  Maybe the shapeless nature of oil, combined with a higher center of gravity should be looked at.   

 

Good summary, but too many players and posters are in denial and/or pointing fingers.  A good solution has yet to be found.   Possibly there is none acceptable within the parameters of competing economics and safety.

[ROBERT WILLISON]

You can see how this is going to play out. The Canadian government is going to require its railroads to carry a billion dollar in insurance to transport oil. Hopefully thier will be no further serious incidents or this will increase.

Like I always contended, regulations will not be coming from the tree huggers, but from the silent majority in the middle.  All the stakeholder's, the producers, shippers, railroads and end user need to continue to search for solutions.

[Euclid]

It is interesting to look back over the last year as this oil by rail controversy has evolved.  A year ago, there was confidence that the problem could be solved.  Lac Megantic was called an outlier, thus not part of any trend.  Just one other fiery oil train wreck came next, but still no trend.  Fred Frailey calculated a prediction of future oil train wrecks indicating that more oil train wrecks were sure to follow soon. 

The industry assured the public that the problem was the DOT-111 tank car not being strong enough to withstand derailments.  They assured the public that they would solve that problem by replacing the 111 car with a stronger car that would not breach in a derailment. 

They told us about stronger steel, more steel, better valves, and better valve protection.  I said that I doubted that the improvements would solve the problem, and suggested a whole new generation of unit train for hauling oil.  Of course, there was no way that the industry would consider such an option.  One part of my suggestion was ECP brakes, and the railroads have since come out swinging against the notion of using ECP brakes.

At the same time, there was great promise in the possibility of taking the volatility out of the oil before it was shipped by rail.  I read every comment about that possibility and never could come to any conclusion about the feasibility.  The topic seems to defy technical consensus.  I conclude that the so called “degassing” of Bakken oil will not happen soon, if it is even possible. 

Now, concurrent with the West Virginia oil train wreck, there was another one in Quebec that has slipped largely under the news media radar.  On the face, it was not particularly newsworthy, but at a deeper level, the earth moved in the oil by rail debate.  The Quebec wreck proved that the diluted bitumen from the Canadian tar sands is just as volatile and explosive as Bakken crude.  So the challenge to de-gas crude for shipping by rail seems more unlikely than ever at this point.

Almost, at the same time, the industry seems to have acknowledged that stronger tank cars will not solve the problem.  This is a truly spectacular and discrediting reversal.      

We were told that the industry would reroute the oil trains to protect the public, and slow them down in sensitive areas.  Yet slowing down and rerouting the trains seems to be impractical and unlikely.  Has any oil traffic been slowed down or rerouted so far? 

We were told that track inspection and maintenance would be stepped up. Every railroader knows that no amount of track and equipment inspection and maintenance will assure freedom from derailments.  If they are not caused from track and equipment problems, they can still be caused by train collisions, train handling, and train slack dynamics.  There is simply no low-hanging fruit in solving the oil train problem by better maintenance.  Oil trains will continue to derail, and every time, there is the potential for a blockbuster event that will suddenly force the problem to solved by a regulation banning oil by rail.

So, now we are left with just one ray of hope.  That is to discover some heretofore unknown cause for oil trail derailments.  I would say that this is an incredible longshot, but it is all that is left.  There is no statistical indication that oil trains derail any more frequently than other types of freight trains.  But since we don’t have much history on the topic, there is a possibility that the cause of oil train problem lurks in the dynamics of loaded tank cars in unit trains.  Some have suggested the oil sloshing might be involved.  Perhaps the relatively higher center of gravity in loaded tank cars plays a role.  Maybe the shapeless nature of oil, combined with a higher center of gravity should be looked at.   

[BaltACD]

The shipping of Canadian tar sand bitumen is made more hazardous by what is added to it to make it flowable

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/why-bitumen-isnt-necessarily-safer-than-bakken.html?channel=60

[Euclid]

What is the evidence that suggests that the rate of oil train wrecks will fall toward the last year of the time frame?

[BaltACD]

Paul_D_North_Jr

schlimm

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2015-02-22-US--Oil%20Trains-Safety/id-302da298369f4215850e884a3895e211 

 

 

 

Summary: AP article dated-lined Feb. 22, 2015 reporting on a previously unpublished DOT study from July 2014:

 

Fuel-hauling trains could derail at 10 a year

Predicts an average of 10 major derailments a year over the next 20 years - 15 in 2015 down to 5 in 2034, toal of 207.  Total damages: $4.5 Billion. 

Up to 10 "higher consequence events" with greater damage and possible fatalities. 

Worst case scenario: 200 deaths, $6 Billion in damage.

Query: Correlation with actual experience since then ?   

- Paul North.

 

Article is the biggest pile of steaming cow droppings I have seen in a while.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

schlimm

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2015-02-22-US--Oil%20Trains-Safety/id-302da298369f4215850e884a3895e211 

Summary: AP article dated-lined Feb. 22, 2015 reporting on a previously unpublished DOT study from July 2014:

Fuel-hauling trains could derail at 10 a year

Predicts an average of 10 major derailments a year over the next 20 years - 15 in 2015 down to 5 in 2034, toal of 207.  Total damages: $4.5 Billion. 

Up to 10 "higher consequence events" with greater damage and possible fatalities. 

Worst case scenario: 200 deaths, $6 Billion in damage.

Query: Correlation with actual experience since then ?   

- Paul North.

[schlimm]

oltmannd

 

 

WilliamKiesel

So, is sloshing the problem? If so, what is the appropriate speed. What is the best manner for operation? What is the optimum number of tank cars? Should spacer cars with new draft gear and dampening design be interspered through the train? already suggested, might an electric controlled air brake system be part of he answer?

 

 

These are all good questions.  It's clear that the standard method of doing business is inadequate for these trains since there are so many and the danger is fairly great.  The industry better get busy figuring out the answers.

 

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2015-02-22-US--Oil%20Trains-Safety/id-302da298369f4215850e884a3895e211

[tree68]

blue streak 1

...maybe there was no pressure relief ?

The new cars do include a pressure relief valve, but I did not spot what it's set for.  It would certainly be enough to prevent any significant overpressure.

The issue with an overturned car and the relief valve is the relative viscosities of a gas (ie, air) and a liquid which is probably "thicker" than water.  We all know that you can blow a much larger quantity of air through a straw in a given time than we can a mouthful of water.  So if something (ie, a fire) is causing the pressure in an overturned car to rise, the relief valve probably won't help a lot.  And that assumes that it will even work on an overturned car.  I can't speak to that.

[blue streak 1]

It seems that the BAKKEN crude has much more volitiles.  At present the producers are not removing these volitiles.  Testing of the crude needs to determine how much shaking of the crude causes these volitiles to separate from the underlying crude.  If it separates then do these cars need the protection that is afforded to propane type tank cars ?

As well how much heat causes these volitiles to separate ?  6 hours before the last explosion may indicate that most cars contained the volitiles and maybe there was no pressure relief ?  If cars were tipped a gas pressure relief valve on the top of car might not have been able to work ? Instead the crude may have blocked it ?

 

Of course the condition of the track or wheels of a car may haave caused these wrecks.  However the behavior of the product after a derailment may be as important ?

 

 

[BaltACD]

And if you have oil heat, you have this threat!

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/hazmat-responds-after-heating-oil-truck-overturns/

[Murphy Siding]

     My house is 6 blocks from a rail line, 8 blocks from an Interstate highway.  I'd be more concerned about the highway.

[tree68]

BaltACD

I can't believe it - railroad not involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/tanker-truck-9k-gallons-fuel-crashes-catches-fire-164511265.html

If people realized how many of those were on the highway at any given time, they'd, well.....

Most don't realize that one of those pulls into their neighborhood gas station several times a week, often during the wee hours of the morning.  

[BaltACD]

I can't believe it - railroad not involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/tanker-truck-9k-gallons-fuel-crashes-catches-fire-164511265.html

[Murphy Siding]

    Perhaps they could simply take the gas out of the oil, and use that gas to power ethanol plants in eastern North and South Dakota.  What fault could the petroleum industry possibly find with that?

[BaltACD]

oltmannd

WilliamKiesel

So, is sloshing the problem? If so, what is the appropriate speed. What is the best manner for operation? What is the optimum number of tank cars? Should spacer cars with new draft gear and dampening design be interspered through the train? already suggested, might an electric controlled air brake system be part of he answer?

 

 

These are all good questions.  It's clear that the standard method of doing business is inadequate for these trains since there are so many and the danger is fairly great.  The industry better get busy figuring out the answers.

That I am aware of, train handling or uncontrolled slack action within a oil train has not been identified as a cause of the currently known derailments.

[oltmannd]

WilliamKiesel

So, is sloshing the problem? If so, what is the appropriate speed. What is the best manner for operation? What is the optimum number of tank cars? Should spacer cars with new draft gear and dampening design be interspered through the train? already suggested, might an electric controlled air brake system be part of he answer?

These are all good questions.  It's clear that the standard method of doing business is inadequate for these trains since there are so many and the danger is fairly great.  The industry better get busy figuring out the answers.

[oltmannd]

carnej1

Regarding the extraction of volatiles from Bakken crude

Apparently, the API says extraction of volatiles won't make much difference....but they're hardly impartial.

[oltmannd]

kgbw49

Today's tank cars are really just updated versions of the original ones - metal tanks on a platform mounted above the wheels with a very high center of gravity. Even the latest versions look like modifications of the oil tank cars that rode the rails in WW2. What about some outside the box thinking? What about double hulled vessels mounted low to the ground "between" the trucks, much like a well car for containers. In fact, the trucks could be equipped with an aerodynamic faring above them that would contour with the vessel and serve as a deflector to a coupler coming toward the vessel. Perhaps a lower center of gravity and double hulls, with larger capacity vessels to make up for some of the added tare, would result in a more stable ride and perhaps a dragging to a stop in a derailment instead of folding up like an accordion. Also, wouldn't DPUs help reduce some of the accordion effect if they would go into emergency upon breaking of the train line? It seems like all the thinking is "just do the same thing that is going on now, but tweak it". And so far the tweaking doesn't seem to be making any market improvements in the safety.

Two comments (one critical and one Kudos!):  

Current tank cars are quite bit different from those 50 years ago.  Biggest difference?  No center sill anymore!  The current designs all use the the tank itself as the car's structural strength.

If we are going to be involved in "boom and bust" of Bakken crude as the price of oil fluctuates, then maybe container tanks in well cars would be a more flexible way to approach this traffic.

[carnej1]

Regarding the extraction of volatiles from Bakken crude and utilization of the resulting gasses (rather than flaring);there is some interest in the industry in shipping gas in liquified form in tank cars (we've had at least one thread about the proposal) but that O.C will also generate some controversy regarding..

 

[BaltACD]

One trueism -

There is no perfect form of transportation.

Accidents/incidents will happen in any and all forms of transportation that will cause loss of commodity and/or loss of life.

Highway, railroad, water, pipeline and air all have their incidents - they always have and they always will.

Moving anything subjects it to an accidental risk.  Just moving one's own person around the house subjects you to the risk of a slip, trip or fall.

[WilliamKiesel]

Is there an engineer or physicist who can help? It appears from looking at the accident sites on Google maps at for the the bakken accidents at Mt Carbon, WV 381496N 81.293108, Casselton, ND 46.901619N 97.283389W, Aliceville, AL 33.095494N 88.146056W, Lynchburg VA 37.415672N 79.138683W. I also looked at the New Brighton, PA 40.738831N 80.131896W derailment involving ehtanol on 2006. All of these sites are either straight or moderate curves. Waht is the factor of cargo sloshing in the tank cars? What are the fluid dynamics for a strtified liquid such as bakken crude? How does the distributed inertia and viscosity of bakken crude coontributing to unstable vehicle dynamics and rail/ wheen interaction? Might  skin friction result in the tank due to sloshing creating localized heating, strees and failure? Are boiling liquid expanding vapor events causing the derailments?

Are the tank cars full when then leave the bakken terminal? A full container lessens slosh. Are the cars losing contents through pressure relief valves in transit sufficient to contribute to slosh? Is the braking dynamics of ordinary air brakes contributing to slosh and a series of events leading to failure? Is there are optimal speed of operation for bakken crude? Is there a maximum number of tank cars not to be exceeded?

Given that the cars at Mt Carbon WV were 1232 types, it is apparent that preventing a catastrophe is much more important.

The railroad companies merely accepting bakken crude now amounts to negligent behavior. The Railroad company must analyze and assure that critical components in the bakken crude are not part of the lading. The railroad company has a duty to refuse.

While Casselton was a collision with another freight train, was the series of events of the derailments due to sloshing then a collision? Lynchburg, Alliceville and Mt Carbon happened on straight and / or gentle curves. Higher speed was not a factor.

Looking at the 2006 ethanol derailment at New Brighton, PA, the NTSB found a rail failure at the point where the r.o.w. ended at the end of a bridge and returning to earth and ballast. Was derailment due to a rail failure? Or, was the derailment due to sloshing seeting the events in place for vehicle wheel separation and the energy required to contribute to rail failure?

In looking at the Vandergrift, PA derailment the news photos showed tank cars that stringlined ahead of an apparent rail weld failure. The cars behind the gap in the rail derailed. Was that tank car derailment due to sloshing that created the rail weld failure? In that tank car derailment bakken was not the crude oil being carried. No explosion. No leakage.  The Conemaugh of the NS line has remarkable curvature and is operated at slow speed. The combination of curvature and  / or normal braking: Could sloshing have contributed to the February 14, 2014 accident.

So, is sloshing the problem? If so, what is the appropriate speed. What is the best manner for operation? What is the optimum number of tank cars? Should spacer cars with new draft gear and dampening design be interspered through the train? already suggested, might an electric controlled air brake system be part of he answer?

[mudchicken]

Murphy: Since Graniteville, the railroads have been asking that question and have yet to get  a proper response. (Including from STB, where the shippers (mostly chemical shippers) are claiming unfair rates and conditions inhibiting interstate commerce. (NOR 42117,lots of charges and countercharges, no real solution  - so far everybody just agrees to disagree.)  

[Euclid]

jeffhergert

Silly me.  I thought we were more concerned with wiping out a town when an accident does happen.  I guess it's better to have all that explosive oil burn off in a big fireball than to just puddle on the ground when the car is breached. 

While both situations are bad, I think one (the explosive one) is worse than the other. 

 

Jeff,

[Murphy Siding]

     At what point does the carrier- rail or truck- insist that the oil  carried meet a certain *safety*(?) level, or charge a higher rate for shipment, or ask that the shipper provide some sort of insurance policy?

[tree68]

Jeff - I agree.  I would opine that there is some underlying reason for, if you will, deflecting the blame for these incidents from the volatility of the crude itself to the transport medium (in this case, trains).

The usual mantra is to "follow the money."

[jeffhergert]

Silly me.  I thought we were more concerned with wiping out a town when an accident does happen.  I guess it's better to have all that explosive oil burn off in a big fireball than to just puddle on the ground when the car is breached. 

While both situations are bad, I think one (the explosive one) is worse than the other.  Some things may burn, but won't necessarily explode in most situations.  Since we can only go so far in the design and construction of the cars, I would think other options should be looked at, too.  Doesn't mean you can't improve the tank cars, just that no matter what there will eventually be another accident where a car will be breached.

I wonder what the public reaction would be if it was said that the risk could be reduced by removing some of the volatility of the oil.  All they ever report about is the design and construction of the cars.  Of course, most of the media love the headline inspiring fireball photos.  Many are also on the green/no fossil fuel bandwagon.  Bringing risk to an acceptable level for most people might impact them adversely.  And it's low hanging fruit to just blame the railroad (seems to be a reoccuring theme by some on here,also) even though most cars aren't railroad owned.  It would also require more indepth investigation and reporting.    

Jeff

[Euclid]

The article is about making Bakken oil less volatile.  It offers that as the ultimate challenge.  But it comes to that conclusion because of a startling admission that the problem cannot be solved by stronger tank cars.  So the only recourse it to throw the responsibility of solving the problem back onto the oil producers to make Bakken oil less volatile. 

However, the railroad industry has assured us that they are moving ahead with stronger tank cars, and they have clearly implied that will solve the problem.  So I am amazed to hear the comment in the article:

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

Did they just figure that out?  Or have the carbuilders been dragged along in the industry’s assertion that stronger cars will solve the problem?  If so, it appears that the carbuilders want to set that record straight so as to not be blamed when stronger cars prove inadequate to solve the problem.      

The article strikes me as being in denial and back tracking about what was implied by the call for stronger tank cars.  Now they say that the newer CPC-1232 tank cars were only intended to be safer than the DOT-111 cars in slow speed derailments and rollovers.  In fact, the following statement from the article seems to vindicate the previously maligned DOT-111 cars after the long running consensus that the 111 car was indeed the problem:

“Both the CSX oil train disaster in West Virginia and the nearly concurrent CN derailment and explosions in Ontario involved the newest CPC-1232 tank cars, underscoring the fact that the overwhelming risk factor is the explosivity of untreated crude oil, not the inadequacy of the disgraced DOT-111.”

Oddly, the article concludes that failures of the 1232 tank cars to perform as promised proves that the volatility of Bakken oil is the problem.  That strikes me as childlike reasoning.  We all knew that the oil burns.  The point of stronger tank cars was to prevent spilling the oil.   

[jeffhergert]

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.

 

I think some are missing one of the points of the article.  The answer isn't just building stronger cars, but making the crude less volatile.  You probably can build a car that will withstand almost everything, but it will probably be so inefficient to be rendered useless.  That's not to say a safer car can't or shouldn't be built, but maybe the shippers need to do all they can to make the oil less explosive.

Of course that might mean the oil companies make a few cents less.  No more catastrophic derailments would take the wind out of the sails for those who either want to see no oil extracted out of the ground or have a vested interest in pipelines.

Jeff (who has a vested interest in freight moving by rail)

[tree68]

I would opine (rather obviously) that the danger is relative, which makes it hard to determine a method of rating the danger.

The damages resulting from a 100 car pile-up in a cornfield in Iowa, miles from the nearest residence are going to be far different from those resulting from Lac Megantic.  It might be necessary to piecemeal such ratings.  That might result in some rerouting, but I doubt that most folks would be happy with knowing that their lives and property are worth less that someone elses...