Galena IL Derailment - "Carrying Oil"

[BaltACD]

I am not aware of any operating personnel reporting that slosh is a problem in handling oil trains - with the cars filled to capacity there isn't much room of sloshing. 

Slosh comes into play with partly loaded tank cars that are switched in working industries.  Have been with crews switching industries where each coupling or stop for spotting would take several minutes as the slosh from the part loads in the cars being handled took their time to slosh to a stop.  Slosh with these part loads could move the entire cut of cars and engine half a car length in each direction.

[erikem]

Paul of Covington

   If sloshing is a problem, why don't they install baffles to control it?   I'm assuming that they don't have them.

 

That's what came to my mind as well.

A couple other things come to mind:

#1 Is sloshing the real problem with the Bakken crude trans?

#2 How much will adding baffles interfere with emptying and cleaning?

#3 Done right, baffle could significantly strengthen the tank and would also keep the constituents of Bakken crude well mixed.

 - Erik

[WilliamKiesel]

The Galena, IL accident 42.374519N 90.443761W derailment appears to have been at a switch. Preceding that point about 500-600 feet north is a transition from a bridge over the Galena River to earthen right of way. Was the train braking? Was that transition from bridge to earth together with slosh enough to set in motion wheel vehicle interaction that with the vibration inherent with a switch enough to precipitate a derailment?

The 2006 ethanol derailment at New Brighton, PA was atributed to a broken rail at the transition of the right of way from bridge to earth. Given the number of non- tank car trains that passed before the rail failure, was it slosh that accelerated the rail failure?

It is conceivable that the volume of water required for a steam generator on a diesel locomotive could, as noted, contribute to locomotive instability if storage of the water was not thought out. Where was the water for a SDP40F stored relative to the locomotive center of gravity? Interesting consideration.

Returning to Bakken crude, railroads should operate with the assumption that Bakken crude  is inherently unstable and contributing to derailments. Railroad companies should consider operating at a speed at which derailment is unlikely to have energy sufficient to affect the tank car. If that is 15 mph, then so be it.

Until smart tank cars are outfitted for answers, Bakken crude unit train speeds should be reduced to an appropriately cautious speed.

[M636C]

dehusman

 

 

So several hundred gallons in a tank under the frame "sloshing" is causing a derailment but several thousand gallons of fuel in tanks under the frame of every diesel in N America "sloshing" do not?

 

The tank in question in the SDP40F was above the frame, a large cylindrical tank located behind the engine and in front of the steam generators. The height above rail was said to be one of the causes. It was also located just above the leading axle of the trailing truck and it was the high lateral force on this axle that caused rail to roll over in several cases.

M636C

[M636C]

But the SDP40Fs never derailed on Santa Fe tracks in Amtrak service either and continued to work the Super Chief right up to the end of their service. Remember the SDP40Fs on that train were repainted in phase II paint while most SDP40Fs were dismantled in factory paint.

Santa Fe's track was to a better standard and was suitable for heavy locomotives at high speed.

In the east, GE E60CPs and P30CHs had derailment problems too.

But to return to the thread topic, I'm a bit worried that a screwed journal could occur on a gas tanker. They should be checked often enough to prevent that.

M636C

[dehusman]

CatFoodFlambe

Those of you who are over 40 may remember the problems Amtrak had with their SDP40F's derailing - to the point that several Class I's refused to run them over their lines.  Amtrak wound up decommissiong them after - what, 5-6 years?  

Yet, Santa Fe made some modifications - including removal of the water tanks supplying the steam generators - and ran them for a couple of decades without incident.   A number of mechanial people felt that the water sloshing around in the water tank was the culprit. 

So several hundred gallons in a tank under the frame "sloshing" is causing a derailment but several thousand gallons of fuel in tanks under the frame of every diesel in N America "sloshing" do not?

[CatFoodFlambe]

Those of you who are over 40 may remember the problems Amtrak had with their SDP40F's derailing - to the point that several Class I's refused to run them over their lines.  Amtrak wound up decommissiong them after - what, 5-6 years?  

Yet, Santa Fe made some modifications - including removal of the water tanks supplying the steam generators - and ran them for a couple of decades without incident.   A number of mechanial people felt that the water sloshing around in the water tank was the culprit. 

[samfp1943]

tree68

 

Paul of Covington

   If sloshing is a problem, why don't they install baffles to control it?   I'm assuming that they don't have them.

 

 

I would opine that they don't have baffles because they normally run either full or empty.  I would assume that the tanks are designed (as the new ones appear to be, based on ads I've seen) to a specific product, thus are built such as a full tank will be well within the required envelopes.

Someone with hands-on experience will have to speak to that.

I can find nothing that refers to baffles in tank cars aside from one item about chemical cars that mentions them.  

I recall seeing a photo of a tank car intended for tetraethyl lead, or something like that, which was tiny, due to the heavy weight of the product.

 

 

(tree68)  Larry/ Paul of Covington:

     Railroad tank cars are generally not baffled, unless they are compartmentalized; in order to carry entirely different products, in the other compartments.   Those cars would generally have unloading appliances for each product space; similarly,a dome on the top to facilitate seperate loading of those products in their designated compartments.

One reason for having an open interior in single product cars would be to facilitate the post-product cleanings, while it could also be a safety requirement, in case a man were  to have enter the tank, to facilitate one of the following tasks: enter the tank for cleaning, inspection, or repairs.  Internal baffles might be problematic in those cases, particularly, if there were to be a rescue involved in the car?

Heavier products are consequently shipped in smaller tanks.

see linked @ http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2360775

Then you have an incident such as this one involving a tank car of LPG Mar. 7 in Vt.

See link story @  http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/03/06/derailment-of-tank-cars-closes-vt-15-in-essex-junction/24491849/

One can imagine the weeping an gnashing of teeth had it been a 'crude' incident.  Petroleum is a critical ingredient of today's life style, and it will get to market.  Pipelines are a pretty safe way to transport liquids over long distances, rail transport is a solution to solve another set of issues.

 

 

[tree68]

Paul of Covington

   If sloshing is a problem, why don't they install baffles to control it?   I'm assuming that they don't have them.

I would opine that they don't have baffles because they normally run either full or empty.  I would assume that the tanks are designed (as the new ones appear to be, based on ads I've seen) to a specific product, thus are built such as a full tank will be well within the required envelopes.

Someone with hands-on experience will have to speak to that.

I can find nothing that refers to baffles in tank cars aside from one item about chemical cars that mentions them.  

I recall seeing a photo of a tank car intended for tetraethyl lead, or something like that, which was tiny, due to the heavy weight of the product.

 

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

Euclid

and I am surprised if it is not being considered by the industry.

What makes you so sure it isn't?

I am not sure it isn't.  I said I am surprised if it isn't.

[Paul of Covington]

   If sloshing is a problem, why don't they install baffles to control it?   I'm assuming that they don't have them.

[zugmann]

Euclid

and I am surprised if it is not being considered by the industry.

 

What makes you so sure it isn't?

[tree68]

blue streak 1

Sidebar   --   pictures of the wrecked tank cars seem to have them collasped inward.

And some with portions jutting outward.  While a mechanical collapse is certainly possible, one can't discount deformation secondary to heat/fire.

I'm thinking that car split a switch.

[Euclid]

blue streak 1

Sidebar   --   pictures of the wrecked tank cars seem to have them collasped inward.

 http://thegazette.com/subject/news/officials-derailed-train-cars-still-burning-near-galena-but-no-environmental-concerns-20150306

 

Perhaps those cars were crushed and by the kinetic energy of the oncoming cars feeding into the pileup, thus causing an internal pressure rise sufficient to burst the tank walls. 

[Euclid]

 

The idea of sloshing playing a role in derailments is very interesting, and I am surprised if it is not being considered by the industry.  I would think that loaded tank cars have a relatively high center of gravity compared to other rolling stock such as covered hoppers or even gondolas.  It would be interesting to see a comparison of how these different types of cars ride. 

Perhaps the shapeless nature of the tank car load also plays a role.  All freight cars have slack action which can run in and run out with enough force to pull a drawbar or jackknife cars.  A tank car with enough air space above the load might produce another version of "slack action" as the load itself runs in against the leading end of the tank. 

Perhaps the typical coupler and draft gear slack “run-in” is causing a secondary “run-in” of the oil load itself, thus multiplying the normal slack run-in typical of any freight train.  I cannot believe that this topic would not be under intense scrutiny by the designers and operators of tank cars. 

Maybe it is time for the rectangular, “fish belly” tank car that is sized to be nearly full of oil when its weight capacity is reached.       

[dehusman]

blue streak 1

Sidebar   --   pictures of the wrecked tank cars seem to have them collasped inward.

 http://thegazette.com/subject/news/officials-derailed-train-cars-still-burning-near-galena-but-no-environmental-concerns-20150306

 

blue streak 1

So if sloshing is a problem just make tank cars with lower capacity to eliminate sloshing.. Why have the RRs not sent an instrumented tank car with Bakken to Pubelo ?  That way real information can be acquired. 

Is it correct that Bakken cannot be shipped by pipeline without most of the volitile gasses removed?

Sidebar   --   pictures of the wrecked tank cars seem to have them collasped inward.

 http://thegazette.com/subject/news/officials-derailed-train-cars-still-burning-near-galena-but-no-environmental-concerns-20150306

 

 

One of the most telling pictures on that web site is the car with one end on one track and another end on another track.  If I was investigating the wreck, that is certainly a place I would want to start back from.

 

By the way the CN derailed an oil train in Ontario last night too.

[blue streak 1]

So if sloshing is a problem just make tank cars with lower capacity to eliminate sloshing.. Why have the RRs not sent an instrumented tank car with Bakken to Pubelo ?  That way real information can be acquired. 

Is it correct that Bakken cannot be shipped by pipeline without most of the volitile gasses removed?

Sidebar   --   pictures of the wrecked tank cars seem to have them collasped inward.

 http://thegazette.com/subject/news/officials-derailed-train-cars-still-burning-near-galena-but-no-environmental-concerns-20150306

[WilliamKiesel]

I grew up near Altoona, Pennsylvania, when the Pennsylvania Railroad cast a long shadow. As a result, I have followed the railroad industry for years.

The Bakken crude oil explosions have been disturbing. With the most recent event near Galena, Illinois I did some research. It became apparent to me that the phenomenon of slosh during transit is not identified or understood.

It is apparent that preventing a catastrophe is much more important than the container used for carriage. whether it is a 11 or 1232 tank car. Prevention must be zero tolerance, absolute; given the nature of Bakken crude oil.

Bakken crude oil is a stratified multi constituent liquid. Its weight is such that something like 28,000 gallons are the weight limit for a 30,000 gallon tank car. Visualize the 2000 gallons as about 36 drums of 55 gallon capacity. That's quite a bit of empty space inside a tank car. It is about 269 cubic feet.

What is the factor of cargo sloshing in the tank cars? What are the fluid dynamics for a stratified liquid such as Bakken crude? How does the distributed inertia and viscosity of Bakken crude contribute to unstable vehicle dynamics and rail/ wheel interaction? Might  skin friction result in the tank due to sloshing creating localized heating, stress and failure? Are boiling liquid expanding vapor events (BLEVE) causing the derailments?


Are the braking dynamics of ordinary air brakes contributing to slosh and a series of events leading to failure? Is there an optimal speed of operation for Bakken crude? Is there a maximum number of tank cars not to be exceeded? Is the draft gear and energy absorption of the tank cars adequate for handling Bakken crude.
These are the questions must be examined.
The inherent problem with railroad tank cars is that they are stupid. That is, there are no sensors on the tank cars to identify what the cargo is doing and how it affects vehicle dynamics.
Using internet satellite photos with my aerial photo interpretation skills gained from my USAF service I looked at Bakken accidents at  Galena, Illinois, 42.374518N 90.443761W, Mt Carbon, West Virginia 381496N 81.293108,  Aliceville, Alabama, 33.095494N 88.146056W, and Lynchburg Virginia, 37.415672N 79.138683W. All of those derailments were at slower speeds on easy curvature. No switches were in the vicinity. So, the rail was continuous and uninterrupted. Was slosh the factor for the derailments?
The Casselton, North Dakota, 46.901619N 97.283389W, derailment involved a freight train traveling on the adjacent track traveling in the opposite direction. The track was straight. News reports indicated the freight train adjacent to the Bakken crude oil train derailed. The Bakken crude oil train reportedly collided with the derailed cars. The derailed tank cars appeared to have been within the mid train. Perhaps what happened was a slosh induced derailment that then affected the adjacent train?

I also looked at the New Brighton, Pennsylvania, 40.738831N 80.131896W derailment involving ethanol in 2006. Was slosh a contributing factor to the rail fracture and failure? The NTSB determined that a rail failure caused the accident. The NTSB determined that rail integrity inspection had been inadequate for the section that failed. As the rail failed where the bridge ended and the roadbed began and that it was a tank car unit train that created the physical dynamics, was the reason slosh? Given the number of trains that passed the point of derailment before the unit tank car train derailment the question is reasonable. It is impossible to answer because the tank cars were stupid. No sensors. No data collected.
The New Brighton accident was a near catastrophe as the derailed cars ignited and fell into the Beaver River. Fortunately, the protective embankment and distance from the ignition and fire to residences limited the accident to property damage.
If it can be done, it appears that unit tank car trains of Bakken crude oil should be limited to a line haul speed sufficiently slow to make the possibility of tank failure in the event of derailment unlikely. Until intelligent tank cars are outfitted, stupid tank cars should probably walk, not jog, not run, not gallop. Finally, in support of slow speed operation look at the February 12, 2014, derailment at Vandergrift, Pennsylvania. A unit tank car train of Canadian crude oil derailed at Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, 40.6022N, 79.555119W. This was on the Conemaugh line. That section of original Pennsylvania Railroad line has never had its 1860's civil engineering changed. It has severe 6 and 8 degree curves. While the newspaper reports attributed the derailment to a misplaced spike, ground photos show tank cars tipped on their side which seems to indicate that the tank cars tipped due to what is called string lining. That is, on a curve the cars pull themselves off the track against the lower or inside rail. Where the overturned cars rested in a string on their sides was a broken point in the rail. It appears that the weld in the continuous rail failed coincidentally with the string lining. The following derailed cars were slightly breached at the slow speed of operation releasing some 10,000 gallons of Canadian crude. Was sloshing the contributing force to cause a string line derailment with the resulting force to break the rail connection weld?  This accident demonstrated how slow operating speed prevented a major breach of tank cars. The nature of the crude differing from Bakken crude meant no ignition and explosion with subsequent chain of ignition and explosion of adjacent tank cars.

So, is sloshing the problem? If so, what is the appropriate speed? What is the best manner for operation? Should all tank cars for Bakken crude oil be outfitted with sensors so that they are intelligent? What is the optimum number of tank cars? Should spacer cars with new draft gear and dampening design be interspersed through the train? Might an electric controlled air brake system be part of he answer?

[samfp1943]

I can't speak for the 'rules/regulations' in Canada, but I was under the impression( mistaken?) the several months back the FRA had demanded that 'Oil Trains' be slowed to 45 mph. 

That seems to be the case out here on BNSF, they surely seem to move much slower than regular traffic. Even the mixed trains that seem to have a fair share of tankcars seem to move much less than track speed(?)

  

[cptrainman]

Euclid

I don't think there will be a choice to use trucks if oil by rail is banned.  The only option will be to leave Bakken oil in the ground until trains are proven safe to handle it. 

 

Months ago my coworkers and I spoke of this very issue. It is unanimous that these crude trains cannot be 100% safe at track speed. Run them at a speed that is the best guarantee that they will not explode when they derail. Wait! The railroads don’t want to run them that slow. It will disrupt the rest of the network.

 

Its getting to the point where the railroads don’t want these trains. The liability is not worth the revenue generated. Actually, with all these disasters, the cost of cleanup and the network outages must be costing more than what is generated.

 

We have a real problem here. Pipelines are not built yet to haul the stuff. It is too dangerous to haul by train unless the speeds are drastically reduced.

 

As was reported a couple a days ago, Hunter Harrison wants the option to say “no” to hauling dangerous goods where the liabilities are too high.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/canadian-pacific-railway-wants-to-limit-shipments-of-dangerous-goods/article23298275/

 

[Euclid]

Illinois Oil Train Derailment Involved Safer Tank Cars

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/train-carrying-bakken-crude-derails-burns-illinois-29431139

[Victrola1]

UPDATE: Air, water being monitored after train derails, oil fire

Posted: Mar 05, 2015 4:09 PM CSTUpdated: Mar 06, 2015 12:18 PM CST  

GALENA, Ill. (KWWL) -Air and water samples were being taken Friday, but results might not be available for several days as a crude oil fire continues to burn following a train derailment near Galena.............    

http://www.kwwl.com/story/28274534/2015/03/05/developing-train-derails-near-galena-crude-oil-burning

[wanswheel]

Galena Fire Department had to abandon $10,000 worth of equipment, at least temporarily.

http://www.thonline.com/news/breaking/article_fb191072-c373-11e4-9c86-9bc87b7364e4.html

 

[ROBERT WILLISON]

What are BNSF  out of pocket expenses and costs on an incident of this kind?

[alphas]

What's the BNSF's alternative route until everything gets cleaned up and restored?

[Euclid]

According to the link:

“Trevino said the National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Railroad Administration have been notified of the derailment, which involved unjacketed CPC-1232 model cars with a half-height heat shield.”

------------------------------------------------------------

It seems like a relatively small number of cars derailed, raising the question of whether this was a high speed derailment or a low speed derailment.  But since it burned, it must have been one of those “high energy derailments” that no tank car can withstand without breaching. 

[Victrola1]

A spectacular fireball for television news crews. Dig out file video of CP's derailment on the other side of the Mississippi from last month. 

 http://www.kcrg.com/bnsf-train-derails-south-of-galena-20150306

 

http://wqad.com/2015/03/05/train-carrying-oil-derails-near-galena-illinois/

[Euclid]

I don't think there will be a choice to use trucks if oil by rail is banned.  The only option will be to leave Bakken oil in the ground until trains are proven safe to handle it. 

[seppburgh2]

There will be more calls to eliminate these "bomb trains" for public safty reasons. The calls are getting louder in PA. But as we know, trucks are far safer for hazardus transport. Right?

[Euclid]

Wow, I did not realize that it actually burned.  I thought it just made the news because oil cars were involved.  That is one BIG fireball.