Oil Train

[samfp1943]

A couple of days back TRAINS Newswire of 3/16/2015 carreid the following story reference a case where the FRA inspectors had found leaking valves on BNSF trains of tank cars carrying crude oil.

"FRA issues directive to replace unapproved tank car valves"  March 16, 2015

FTA:[snipped] "...The FRA inspector observed each of the tank car’s top fittings and found product leaking from the liquid line ball valves and around each valve’s closure plug. Further tests conducted by the FRA found that certain closure plugs installed on the 3-inch valves caused mechanical damage and led to the destruction of the valves’ seal integrity. In addition, testing found that when a 3-inch closure plug was applied and tightened in the 3-inch McKenzie valve, the plug contacted and damaged the ball. Further testing revealed that the application of downward force on the valve ball applied by the 3-inch plug resulted in the over-compression, damage, and misalignment of the inboard seal, causing the valve to leak.

While additional tests conducted by FRA concluded that McKenzie 1-inch and 2-inch ball valves do not appear to present the same safety concerns as the 3-inch valves, they are not approved for use on railroad tank cars and must also be replaced. To date, FRA is not aware of any non-accident releases or other releases from railroad tank cars involving the 1-inch or 2-inch McKenzie valves..."[snipped]

[snipped]"... The Directive requires all tank car owners to remove, within 60 days, any 3-inch McKenzie UNNR ball valves in tank cars used to transport any hazardous material described in 49 CFR 172.101. Further, the Directive requires all tank car owners to remove the 1-inch and 2-inch valves within 90 days. The FRA estimates that about 6,000 DOT-111 tank cars are equipped with the unapproved 3-inch valves. In addition, McKenzie indicates that it has sold more than 37,000 1-inch and 2-inch valves to a variety of tank car owners and tank car facilities. The removal and replacement of these valves are not expected to significantly disrupt freight rail traffic..."[snip]

Not sure how all this will shake out in the reality of real world operations, but I would suspect that the removal of 43,000 tank cars from the "fleet" for the 'repair/replacement of upgrades' cycle to take place will have some major repercussions as to prices and services; all up and down the chain of demands.

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

CMStPnP

I kind of like what I percieve is the BNSF strategy evolving here.   Ask the FRA for permission to deny carrying some hazardous cargos as a Common Carrier.    Once permission is received setup your own specs for handling this cargo OR charge a premium for hauling it using the newly gained right of refusal.

Seems like that's what BNSF has done - $1,000 per car - and now the litigation has begun:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/refiners-sue-bnsf-railway-over-1-000-oil-tank-car-surcharges 

"The case is American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. BNSF Railway Co., 15-00682; U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston)."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-refiners-suing-bnsf-over-tanker-car-charge-1426624272 

My 'take'/ prediction: Refiners lose, for 2 reasons:

• Any such rate challenge belongs in front of the STB instead - which has primary jurisdiction in such disputes - not the U.S. District Court, which is for general litigation matters.
• DOT/ PHMSA tank car standards are safety-related "minimums", neither maximums nor exclusive (not pre-empting other standards that are stronger).  Other parties (RRs) have the power to exceed those standards - or require the shippers to do so - and in lieu thereof, to charge accordingly for the risk that the RRs are assuming by hauling the stuff in the less-safe cars.

- Paul North.   

[Euclid]

Zugmann,

What you refer to as a "smoke screen" is what I am calling a "pretext."  Whether it is a smoke screen or a genuine concern for public safety makes no difference to the objective. 

It might not be an outright ban.  I tend to think it will be more complicated than that; more along the lines of making it uneconomical as you mention.  But if there is a oil train fire with many deaths, I would expect an executive order to halt until a solution can be found.   

[samfp1943]

Paul of Covington

   Zug, I was at best a lukewarm fan of the Simpsons, but that Bear Patrol episode was my all-time favorite.  It had all the shallow maneuvering of the politicians and the people.   ONE time, a bear wanders into town, the people demand protection, the bear patrol was started, a $5 tax was charged, the people rebelled about the tax, the mayor diverts their ire by blaming immigrants for high taxes, and somebody keeps hollering "but what about the children?"   A very realistic representation of ourselves.

 

To sort of add to the conversation and remarks by Paul of Covington:

The TRAINS Newswire of this date carries the following headline:

"Refineries sue BNSF over tank car surcharge"

FTA:"...FORT WORTH – A trade group representing 400 U.S. oil refineries and chemical makers is suing BNSF Railway because the railroad has started charging $1,000 each time an older tank car is used to move crude oil, Bloomberg reports.."

"...The surcharge applies to DOT-111 tank cars that were at the center of the deadly Lac-Megantic, Quebec, oil train wreck that killed 47 people in 2013. BNSF began charging customers the surcharge in January 2015 and shippers say that it's adding a $1.50 to every barrel of fuel. The shippers accuse the railroad of trying to force them to buy newer, safer tank cars that are jacketed and, until recently, were thought to be less prone to rupturing in the event of a derailment. However, a series of recent oil train wrecks, including one on BNSF in Illinois, has shown that the newer tank cars, specifically the CPC-1232 tank cars are not as secure as the industry once thought..."[snipped]

It would seem that the 'intersted parties' that PDN mentioned are arming themselves for what could possibly one of those 'circular firing squads'.  You can probably, already see the politicians warming up to jump into this fray.

 

March 18, 2015

[zugmann]

Anti-fossil fuel?  Yeah, right.  Keep believing that.

 

It's not going to be a ban, but costs will be such that it won't be worth pumping or shipping.  Will have nothing to do with "public safety".  That's just a smoke screen certain factions throw up to seem like they care. (they don't).

[Euclid]

zugmann

 

Euclid

That is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil.

 

 

I really don't see that happening.  Be political suicide.

I must clarify that when I say "ban oil," I mean ban Bakken oil by putting a hold on oil by rail.  The pretext for a ban based on fossil fuels is public safety in terms of transport.  So, for the most part, it only involves Bakken and tar sands.  But the opposition will take what they can get.  I don't think that would be political suicide at all.  We have the most anti-fossil fuel Adminstration and much of Congress in American history. 

Certainly banning all oil would be political suicide, but not just banning CBR.  The country was living without Bakken up until recently.  The opposition would like to ban all oil, but the public safety pretext does not extend to all oil, so there is no support to ban all oil.  But they know how to get things done incrementally.       

[zugmann]

Euclid

That is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil.

I really don't see that happening.  Be political suicide.

[tree68]

PDN - As succinct an explanation as I've seen.  

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I see 3 different 'interests'/ responsible parties in this - there may be some overlap, though - in sequential order:

1. Producers, for not modifying their more volatile/ explosive crude oil;
2. Shippers/ carbuilders, for not having cars that can better withstand derailments without leaking and exploding;
3. Railroads, for not preventing derailments.

Note that if any 1 of these is 'fixed', then the other 2 don't matter anymore, i.e.:

1. If the oil is made less explosive (more molasses-like crude), then neither derailments nor subsequent car ruptures matter - nothing much happens.
2. If the cars can be built to withstand crash forces and not rupture, then derailments can happen, with cargo of any degree of explosiveness - again, nothing happens.
3. If the railroads can prevent derailments, then the strength of the cars and the nature of the oil won't matter - the cars won't have to withstand high forces, and the oil will never be spilled.   

In a way this also reminds me of the 'tragedy of the commons'* - no one owns enough of the problem to have an incentive to fix it, espcially since the fix is likely to be very expensive to that entity, and the other 2 would then benefit by not having to share the cost or do their own fix, too. 

*"The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garrett Hardin, which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource. " - from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

So what we have is a circle of 3 players, with any 2 pointing their fingers at the 3rd.  I suppose there's some mathematical 'game theory' which explains this further and suggests a resolution, but I don't know what it is.

- Paul North. 

[Paul of Covington]

   Zug, I was at best a lukewarm fan of the Simpsons, but that Bear Patrol episode was my all-time favorite.  It had all the shallow maneuvering of the politicians and the people.   ONE time, a bear wanders into town, the people demand protection, the bear patrol was started, a $5 tax was charged, the people rebelled about the tax, the mayor diverts their ire by blaming immigrants for high taxes, and somebody keeps hollering "but what about the children?"   A very realistic representation of ourselves.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

Nobody is advocating “perfect safety.”  Of course that is impossible.  What Secretary Foxx is advocating is “as safe as possible.” 

 

 

Alas, many people equate the two.  Reality says otherwise.

People who don't understand where the fuel for their Rolls Kanardly comes from are the same people who don't know where their food comes from.  

 

 

There is a lot of pie in the sky about the ability for solar, wind, and renewables to replace fossil fuels.  And a lot of people who want Bakken oil to stay in the ground have bought that pie.  They may eventually come to see that the promise can’t be delivered, but for now, they are convinced that it can.  That is all it takes to be a political force in the movement to ban oil. 

 

[tree68]

Euclid

Nobody is advocating “perfect safety.”  Of course that is impossible.  What Secretary Foxx is advocating is “as safe as possible.” 

Alas, many people equate the two.  Reality says otherwise.

People who don't understand where the fuel for their Rolls Kanardly comes from are the same people who don't know where their food comes from.  

[zugmann]

One of my favorite Simpsons quotes of all time came from Mayor Quimby in reference to the mob that was protesting the tax he had to enact to fund the Bear Patrol the citizenry wanted:

 

 "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?"

 

Ok, a bit extreme, but the basic point is there.  On a local forum, someone was shocked about how crude train wrecks have gone up 37% since 2008, not understanding that the railroads are hauling something like 8000x more crude than in 2008.  Lots of nasty stuff gets transported every day, but the crude oil trains are big and scary and a wreck or two that is widely shown gets them all worked up.  Never mind the fact that certain factions are pushing hard for the KXL pipeline and these wrecks are great at promoting that - even in parts of the country that pipeline would not affect at all.

 

With so many people growing up in cul-de-sac neighborhoods and working white collared/service type jobs (and electing leaders of the same ilk), there is a major societal disconnect from real industry in the country anymore.  

 

People want their cheap gas, but they don't want the oil transported. (Or at least in a manner visible to them)

Mayor Quimby wasn't that far off.

 

 

[Norm48327]

"Embargo Bakken crude oil shipments until such time that the safety issues can be addressed, if possible."

Can they legally do that? I was under the impression they, as a common carrier, must accept all cargo.

[schlimm]

Euclid

as the industry did not divulge how much more safety they were going to provide with the new tank cars.  Unfortunately, reality caught up with this tactic by the practical demonstration of several recent train wrecks. 

Whenever there is an attempt to obfuscate, stall, minimize and generally belittle the concerns of the "general public"  once reality catches up credibility is lost.  The public is not interested in excuses for why it should permit ~10 oil train wrecks annually, since eventually one of those will be in a populated area.   Silly posturings about no such thing as "perfect safety" will only fuel the fire and what will happen then will not be to the rails' likings, with potentially ruinous liabilities and mandated shut downs as a hazard to public health.   The time for the rails to act is now, no longer being dazzled by short-term riches.  Embargo Bakken crude oil shipments until such time that the safety issues can be addressed, if possible.

[Euclid]

Nobody is advocating “perfect safety.”  Of course that is impossible.  What Secretary Foxx is advocating is “as safe as possible.”  Obviously, the current situation is woefully inadequate; “near perfect” isn’t even on the horizon.  However, we now know that the current situation is about as good as it is going to get.  This is not going to fly with the regulators, the politicians, or the public.

Apparently the industry thought that they could get away with simply promising more safety even though the increment of improvement would be so small as to be practically meaningless.  But nobody could debate the point as long as the industry did not divulge how much more safety they were going to provide with the new tank cars.  Unfortunately, reality caught up with this tactic by the practical demonstration of several recent train wrecks. 

 

 

 

 

 

[oltmannd]

The problem statement is pretty simple:  The safety of hauing crude oil in tank cars needs to be improved.

The solution(s) are trickier and not yet clear.  But, the gist of any solution will be two fold:

1. The improvements have to be weighed against the direct and economic impact costs.   That is, it balances the improvement benefit against the total costs.  This is not easy to calculate, but good faith estimates are possible.  This will not include any language like "prevents", "always", "will", "won't" or "safe".  

2. A politically palatable one from the view of the public.  There is a political demand to "do something" and that something has to be perceived as "enough".  This can have all sorts of absolute language in it.

If #1 and #2 have enough in common, we might actually wind up with a decent solution.  So far, all we have is a bunch of flashy news video and some proposed regs still sitting with the FRA that are stalling any progress, whether it is "enough" or not, by either standard.

[blue streak 1]

Any idea if the required replacement of the tank car valves noted in today's newswire has any thing to do with explasions ? 

[Norm48327]

"no tank car can be built to survive a high speed derailment without breaching"

It is an immutable law of physics that when two objects of like mass and weight collide the weaker of the two will be damaged.

 

[BaltACD]

Safe as possible, in the history of man has never equaled perfect safety.

[Euclid]

That article (posted above by Jeff) seems to mark the beginning of an amazing turnaround in the plan to make oil trains safer.  It is first I ever saw any claim that no tank car can be built to survive a high speed derailment without breaching.

I believe that this admission of the limitations of tank car strength is in response to the sudden, recent practical demonstrations that the 1232 cars appear to have no ability to limit breaching in a high speed derailment.  This is a major loss of credibility, assuming that the “stakeholders” have been led to believe that stronger tank cars were going to solve the problem. 

So there has to be a little egg on the face over this.  And some of that egg may be also on the face of the USDOT.  If tank cars cannot be made breach proof, it calls into question the objective of the impending new tank car regulations. 

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has stated his goal is to do everything necessary to make tank cars as safe as possible.  Yet the new information indicates that they are already about as safe as possible.  So I expect DOT to add a few new chapters to their tank car regulations between now and the release date.  This may require moving the release date further ahead than the current deadline.  

 

[CMStPnP]

I kind of like what I percieve is the BNSF strategy evolving here.   Ask the FRA for permission to deny carrying some hazardous cargos as a Common Carrier.    Once permission is received setup your own specs for handling this cargo OR charge a premium for hauling it using the newly gained right of refusal.

[Worldwiderailfan]

I hate how the media only sees the negativity in trains. Railroad museums and other rail-related things have events that they run and can give the railroads a better image, but No the media only sees the bad in them. Be happy for once!

[tree68]

samfp1943

It seems that people want to live 'risk free'.

I would opine that the 24 hour news cycle (and just plain always, everywhere coverage) have done more to make the world seem less safe than any increase in unsafe incidents.  Where years ago an incident like Lynchburg might have garnered a couple of inches on page 9 of the paper, and maybe a few seconds on the local TV news within a certain radius, today it's splashed on multiple media, worldwide, live, and in living color.

As has been seen in other threads, grade crossing incidents are actually down.  But what does occur gets major coverage, which might lead one to think that they are a greater problem instead.

I'll agree that political motives are a major part of the issue.  These folks need to "make hay while the sun shines," exploiting any incident to its fullest in pursuit of their goals, which I would opine have little or nothing to do with rail safety.  

[samfp1943]

jeffhergert

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

Read the paragraph below the 2nd picture.  It says the new design tank car is designed for slow speed accidents and roll overs.  That it or the awaiting for official approval designs also would not withstand high-speed derailments or collisions.

Jeff 

 

snipped from the link provided by jeffhergert:

FTL:"...The CPC-1232 car is designed to contain its lading in relatively slow-speed derailments and rollovers. As the Crowsnest Pass event indicates, they work as designed in low-energy incidents. Carbuilders themselves advise that neither the CPC-1232 nor its yet-to-be-approved official successor could withstand the forces of high-speed derailments or collisions.

The flow of crude by rail through Crowsnest Pass has increased markedly under an agreement between CP and Union Pacific to smooth the interchange of unit oil trains at the border between Idaho and British Columbia..."

This whole conversational topic of " Tank Car Safet,etc"  would be a mute point. IF the subject had not become an International 'Political Football'; and thus allowing a reasonable approach to long distance transportation of the crude oil products, get lost in the weeds as political expedients took over. IMHO.

         The railrioads, and the shipper's organizations have been trying new safety enhancements for years: double-shelf couplers; from several years back, the addition to the ends of the cars a heavy braced steel plate, to prevent punctures; also various appliance configurations of valves, and manholes. To name a few enhancements that have made it to real world operations. 

          I'm not sure where this is all going to end up. It seems that people want to live 'risk free'. An impossible task?   Anytime, objects move about, there is risk of tasks going wrong. They may work thousands of times perfectly, but then the law of averages will kick in, and an incident will happen. How serious the incident is will depend on the factors present at that time.     Some time back here on this Forum there was a discussion on highway-rail grade crossing incidents, and the injuries to tresspassers hit by moving equipment.  I think, that someone had posed a link to research on placing air bags on the front of locomotives to help prevent injuries in those events (?).  Point being, anytime we have advances with technologies, praticularly, in transportation, there is the potential for incidents with various levels of bad outcomes to the rest of society, as that technology is tried in a real environment.             Trains will derail, trucks will wreck, automobiles will be involved, and people will be hurt.  It is the risk we take to enjoy the level of convenience in a 'modern' society that most people seem to seek.

 

[jeffhergert]

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

Read the paragraph below the 2nd picture.  It says the new design tank car is designed for slow speed accidents and roll overs.  That it or the awaiting for official approval designs also would not withstand high-speed derailments or collisions.

Jeff 

[Euclid]

I think the force could potentially be “astronomical.”  It depends on how many cars still on the rails are feeding into the derailment.  And it also depends on how immovable the growing heap of cars becomes.  These two factors can combine to create a wreck force scenario that will demolish loaded tank cars, spill their contents, and start big fires.

This force potential needs to be tackled at its root.  Doing so requires a review of train brake systems, couplers, and design shape of the tank cars.    

[tree68]

And let's not forget the possibility of two trains moving in opposite directions tangling due a derailment by one or the other.

The oil train may be limited to some lower speed, but even if the oncoming train is also limited to, say, 45 mph, the closing speed could be 90 mph, or higher.   A baretable flat turned spear would probably defeat even the full headshield on a "new" tank car.

[Euclid]

Paul,   

Those small projectiles would puncture the tank, and that seems to be well studied.  A lot of thought has gone into preventing couplers of one car from riding up and puncturing the end of the adjoining car. 

You mention my reference to a high energy wreck that no tank car can survive.  I did suggest that type of wreck as being able to burst tank cars like they were water balloons.

But it is not just a matter of a tank car running at high speed into a stationary tank car, or even into a pile of tank cars.  My point is there could be many cars on the track and coming ahead at track speed behind the start of a derailment.  The derailment builds a giant heap of cars.  What is feeding into that heap is not just individual cars.  It is the whole hind end of the train.  All of that kinetic energy is being dissipated in the destruction of one car at a time being shoved into the growing heap.    

That scenario could burst ten tank cars in a row.  With that much rending of steel, sources of ignition will be everywhere.  So a lot of fuel would be ignited. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

While making the tank car walls thicker will obviously strengthen them somewhat, I see 2 flaws to that logic, at least until the post-accident studies and reports can tell us a whole lot more about the mechanism and sequence of the failures:

1. The failures may not have anything at all to do with the wall thickness.  They may be from such other causes as breakage or malfunction of the valves and/ or vents, failure of the welds at either the ends or seams in the middle, etc.
2. Impact (or other) forces so massive that no practical wall thickness can stand up to them.  This may be what Euclid is referring to with his "high-energy" wreck scenario - the hammer-like action of a fast-moving following tank car crashing into the side of a just-derailed tank car laying broadside to it.  Another one would be an impact by or with a small but hard projectile, such as a broken rail as the track is destroyed, the coupler of another car, a sharp and stiff corner, etc.

- Paul North.