Oil Train

[Wizlish]

Fascinating.  In one of the patents for the ECP system that evolved into the EP-60 (issued in 1989) NYAB noted details of a computerized system in the 'prior art' that measured and maintained the brake-cylinder pressures dynamically (that patent being GSI's US4402047 from 1980).  Apparently they're just now coming to realize that maintaining applied brake pressure is a different thing from commanded application of pressure through the proportional valve.  I am looking to find information on how they implement their BCM (brake cylinder maintainer) feature in a way, as they note, that is easily retrofitted to the EP-60 valve.

Why this is an exciting addition to rail safety, especially in the context of the present exhausting discussion, is less clear.  All the issues we are concerned with involve reasonably prompt application and modulation of the brake pressure, effectively running the actual brake pressure in servo.  The NYAB BCM monitors the individual cylinder pressures separately, and trims each one if its pressure begins to fall minutes or more after a stop (at nominally-optimized brake presure per car) has been completed.  That will help keep it stopped ... but nothing of immediate concern in reducing observed types of oil train accident is really helped by that.  (Lac Megantic would have been prevented by other characteristics of an ECP brake long before the 'value' of keeping cylinder pressure applied via a BCM would have begun to matter...)

I have to wonder whether this fancy new feature introduces a possiblity of introducing 'maintaining' pressure to a cylinder that might cause either inadvertent application or an unexpectedly high cylinder pressure upon proportional application using, say, a load-sensing device or 'snow brake' setting to reduce expected application force.

[schlimm]

Decisions seem more driven by sales than safety, i.e., appear to collude with AAR on ECP mandate (which will happen anyway) to sell new brake valves as well.

[wanswheel]

DB-60 II

http://www.nationalcoaltransportation.org/component/rsfiles/preview?path=2015%2BOperations%2Band%2BMaintenance%2BConference%2B-%2BPinehurst%2BNC%252FConnellOM15.pdf

 

Excerpt from Watertown Daily Times, April 30

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/air-brake-chief-says-business-steady-despite-slowdown-in-railcar-orders-20150430

Earlier this year, Air Brake began to sell an enhanced control valve for pneumatic brake systems with a new safety feature that Mr. Hawthorne said he believes will soon have industrywide demand. He said the feature corrects leakages in brake cylinders and improves brake efficiency.

“We expect this feature on our control valve to become the standard you’ll see in the industry in 18 months,” Mr. Hawthorne said, adding that the valve is expected to be sold internationally in several countries, including Canada and Mexico. “From an economic standpoint, we feel this valve will enable the brake system to perform better, longer and with less downtime.”

The company received approval from the Association of American Railroads, a Washington-D.C.-based industry trade group, to sell 3,750 control valves with the new feature, he said, which will then be tested by clients in the field. This fall, the company expects to receive approval from the AAR to sell up to 10,000 more valves.

“We’ll monitor the 10,000 through most of 2016, and then we expect to receive unconditional approval,” said Mr. Hawthorne, who described the improved valve as “the safest in the industry.”

[Euclid]

Thanks for posting that Wanswheel.

I now think I can see where New York Air Brake Co. is coming from in denouncing ECP as a component of the solution to the oil train problem.  They side with the AAR against the ECP mandate because the good will that engenders with their customers may boost sales of non-ECP product.  It may give them an advantage over their competitor, Wabtec.

But more directly, they are offering an alternative to ECP that will be palatable enough for the railroads to swallow.  That is their new Brake Cylinder Maintainer (BCM) known as the DB-60 II.  If NYAB and the AAR could get the ECP mandate changed to a DB-60 II mandate, then the AAR would be happy, and NYAB would come out a winner against their competition. 

The only question I have now is to ask how the DB-60 II makes oil trains safer.

[wanswheel]

Reuters, July 14

"It's the wrong solution for the problem," company president Mike Hawthorne told Reuters.

Wall Street Journal, May 1

“We’re not breaking out the champagne yet,” Mike Hawthorne, president of New York Air Brake, said in an interview. “This is an opportunity for us to see one of our big technology investments get more play in the market, but we’d be absolutely doing it in support of our customers. We don’t want to sell product just to satisfy a regulation. We want to sell a product that would solve this safety problem.”

Railway Age, September 19, 2014

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/new-york-air-brake-marks-125-years.html?channel=35

...NYAB “has launched research and development efforts to introduce new technology to make oil trains, and all freight trains, safer,” said Hawthorne. “Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, a new and safer air brake control valve will be manufactured in Watertown that ensures there is always air pressure available to activate freight car brakes, regardless of how long the engineer applies the brakes. This new control device, called the DB-60 II, is the most significant improvement to pneumatic air brake control valves in 40 years.”

[BaltACD]

Euclid

It completely eliminated UDEs.

I'll call absolute BS to that particular statement!  Only God can eleiminate UDE's and he is still trying to get qualified as a Train Dispatcher.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

So what I find to be very strange, is that one of the manufactures has issued a statement from its president denying the benefits of his ECP product. 

 

 

He's not denying the benefits of ECP as a whole.  He's saying that ECP is not the solution for the problem at hand:

 

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

 

 

 

ECP brakes are made mainly by two U.S.-based manufacturers -- New York Air Brake, the U.S. unit of Germany's Knorr-Bremse AG, and Wabtec Corp. While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.

"It's the wrong solution for the problem," company president Mike Hawthorne told Reuters.

 

The above comment that you quote from the article was apparently made by NYAB President, Mike Hawthorn.  Frankly, I don’t know exactly what he is saying because of the way he is stating it.  When you have a large safety problem, do you ONLY address the causes that contribute most to the problem?  Apparently Mr. Hawthorn thinks so.  Nobody has ever suggested that ECP should or can stop an accident once a train starts to derail, as Mr. Hawthorn says. 

He does not say anything in the quote about the benefits of ECP, as you seem to infer.  The part about ECP being reliable is apparently from another person in the company.  I assume that it rebuts the AAR charge that ECP is unreliable, and therefore compromises safety, as also stated in the article. 

You say that Mike Hawthorn is not denying the benefits of ECP as a whole.  So what?  The point is that he is denying the benefits of ECP as a whole, pertaining to oil trains. 

Then from that statement you and others here have clearly said that his statement confirms that the entire ECP industry agrees with Hawthorn and the AAR on the claim that ECP brakes will not provide any benefit to oil train safety. 

Yet, as I have referenced on the previous page, the entire ECP industry most certainly does not agree with Hawthorn.  I think it is absurd to believe that ECP is a benefit to train safety for all trains except oil trains.  I think that absurdity weakens the case that AAR is making against the mandate.

Not only are Hawthron’s comments contrary to the views of Wabtec and the rest of the ECP experience, but they are also contrary to the views of his own company-- New York Air Brake Co.  Here is a quote from New York Air Brake regarding their ECP product. It sounds much different than what their president said about ECP not being a solution (my emphasis in red):

“EP-60 has proven itself in the harsh climate of Northern Canada over years of revenue service on QCM iron ore trains, where very high reliability service continues to be demonstrated. The improved train handling significantly decreased fuel consumption, dramatically increased brake shoe life, and greatly decreased coupler and knuckle failures. It completely eliminated UDEs. EP-60 reduces in-train forces, prolongs wheel life, and safely permits higher operating speeds and shorter stop distances. The result is a proven technology that delivers a high return on investment, increased safety, and improved operation.”

Wouldn’t ECP also do that for oil trains as well as the iron ore trains of the QCM?  How does ECP greatly decrease coupler and knuckle failures on the iron ore trains?

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.

 

 

Why would you think that the people who design, build and test air brakes would have a different opiinion from the people who are their customers and helped them design and test the air brakes?

 

 

Well, they did have the same opinion and common interest prior to the mandate. But, since the mandate, the second set of people you cite (the railroads) are NOT the customers of the ECP manufacturers. They have turned on a dime and are running away from ECP with every argument they can think of. With the ECP mandate, the railroads suddenly do not agree with the ECP manufacturers. So that is a really good reason why I would think that they would have a different opinion about ECP than the manufactures. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

So what I find to be very strange, is that one of the manufactures has issued a statement from its president denying the benefits of his ECP product. I can understand why the railroads are running away from ECP, but I find it strange that one of the ECP manufacturers would run away with the railroads, and join their course of denouncing ECP.

[tree68]

Euclid

So what I find to be very strange, is that one of the manufactures has issued a statement from its president denying the benefits of his ECP product. 

He's not denying the benefits of ECP as a whole.  He's saying that ECP is not the solution for the problem at hand:

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

[BaltACD]

tdmidget

It's called  "honesty"

A rare commodity these days!

[tdmidget]

It's called  "honesty"

 

[Euclid]

.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Note that these are economic benefits.  Prevention of derailments is not on the list.

This article:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml from what appears to be an independent organization, mentions "significant forces" regarding conventional braking, but does not mention derailments.

So what we're looking for is a way to mitigate oil train derailments - and ECP does not appear to be any more than a very small part of that solution.

 

You cited the link as quoted above and say that it does not mention preventing derailments.  From the link you cited (my emphasis added in red):

“With the new responsiveness of ECP braking, braking distances will be reduced. A range of 30 - 70% reduction has been quoted. This will allow shorter stopping distances and will, in turn, allow higher speeds. The improved train handling will reduce slack action, breakaways and derailments and will lead to a reduction in draft gear maintenance.”

 

This quote is from Wabtec:

“Unlike traditional pneumatic brakes, which are initiated from the locomotive and applied to one freight car at a time in a domino-like sequence, ECP uses microprocessor and networking technologies to apply the brakes to each car in the train simultaneously. In this way, ECP eliminates the pushing and pulling of cars against each other during the braking process, which ultimately causes equipment wear and failures, and derailments.”

http://www.wabtec.com/railroad/ecpb.asp

 

Here is a quote from New York Air Brake regarding their ECP product.  It sounds much different than what their president said about ECP not being a solution:

“EP-60 has proven itself in the harsh climate of Northern Canada over years of revenue service on QCM iron ore trains, where very high reliability service continues to be demonstrated. The improved train handling significantly decreased fuel consumption, dramatically increased brake shoe life, and greatly decreased coupler and knuckle failures. It completely eliminated UDEs. EP-60 reduces in-train forces, prolongs wheel life, and safely permits higher operating speeds and shorter stop distances. The result is a proven technology that delivers a high return on investment, increased safety, and improved operation.”

*****************************************

 

These QMC trains are unit trains like the oil trains.  You say that slack is not a problem with unit trains, but only with mixed consist trains.  If ECP brakes have greatly decreased the coupler and knuckle failures on QMC, what was causing those failures in the first place?

 

[tree68]

Euclid

I already explained what “fundamental truth” I was talking about in an earlier comment.  Read it in my next post above.

By golly, you're right.  But this thread is about oil trains, and it's been pointed out that slack action derailments are not the problem with oil trains - that's an issue for mixed consists.

Hence NYAB's contention that ECP is not the solution for THIS problem.  It may be a solution for mixed consists, but not for oil trains.  Thus mandating ECP for oil trains is essentially useless.

As I recall, what you said that WABTEC said about ECP basically parallels what NYAB says for general consists.  While the person you spoke with may not be a flack, you can bet what he told you will hold up in a court of law, as it was necessarily non-commital.

You say that NYAB says that ECP is beneficial to users, but not all users.  Where do they say that? 

From your post of July 16:

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

From this I infer that ECP is useful/beneficial for most applications, but not for oil train incidents.

There's more to train handling than preventing derailments.  Broken knuckles, damage to lading, and fuel considerations come to mind.  In fact, preventing derailments is probably down the list a ways.

Wikipedia (I know...) lists the following as benefits:

Greater intervals between brake tests are also likely because of the ability of ECP brakes to self-diagnose which should generate large cost savings that will help pay for the system to be installed.

The benefits are better control of braking, less equipment wear from pushing and pulling between cars, shorter stopping distance and improved headways.

Note that these are economic benefits.  Prevention of derailments is not on the list.

This article:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml from what appears to be an independent organization, mentions "significant forces" regarding conventional braking, but does not mention derailments.

So what we're looking for is a way to mitigate oil train derailments - and ECP does not appear to be any more than a very small part of that solution.

[Buslist]

I'm wondering if we can create a crowd funding site to sponsor Euclic to one of Gary Wolf's train handling and derailment classes so he will fially get it all? And quit wasting all our time?

[Euclid]

tree68

Still waiting to hear what that fundamental truth is.  I'm sure NYAB and WABTEC would be interested, too.  I'd be willing to bet that the WABTEC person you talked to was a PR flack who was reading from the product description.

Your confusion over NYAB's statement stems from assuming that just because a solution may be beneficial to users (as NYAB says ECP is), it is beneficial to all users.  Aspirin is an excellent pain reliever with a long and safe history, but it's not the pain reliever of choice for someone using blood thinners or with ulcers.  And NYAB is saying the ECP is not the solution to the tanker issue.  

 

 

I already explained what “fundamental truth” I was talking about in an earlier comment.  Read it in my next post above.

Actually I am not taking any position on the ECP mandate.  You are all just jumping to that conclusion.  I have ideas that require ECP brakes, but they are way outside of the application of basic ECP as defined by the mandate.  Here, I am only talking about the debate about the mandate and what each side is saying. 

I am not taking sides on the mandate itself because I don’t have any stake in it either practically or as an advocate.  I have criticized both sides for what they have said in the debate.  For instance earlier in this thread, I posted the content of a message I received from the FRA that explained in considerable detail why they believe ECP will make oil trains safer.  Then I carefully explained why I disagree with much of their points. 

Incidentally, the person I spoke to at Wabtec is most assuredly not a public relations flack. 

I conclude that the AAR opposes the mandate because they don’t believe the advantages justify the cost.  They may be right.  I certainly don’t think ECP alone is a panacea.  If it only prevents a couple oil train derailments in a decade; or if it only reduces the number of derailed tank cars in a wreck by an average of 5%, maybe that is not worth the cost.

But in their zeal to say that ECP benefit does not justify the cost, the AAR seems to have got a running start by saying or implying that there is no benefit.  I think they do themselves a disservice in taking that exaggerated position because it makes it easier for the FRA to claim they are wrong.         

I don’t understand your point about ECP not being beneficial to all users.  You say that NYAB says that ECP is beneficial to users, but not all users.  Where do they say that?  If their position is the ECP is beneficial to some users but not others, why is that?  Why is better train handling, graduated release, fewer UDEs, less slack action, and quicker stopping not beneficial to all users?   

[tree68]

Still waiting to hear what that fundamental truth is.  I'm sure NYAB and WABTEC would be interested, too.  I'd be willing to bet that the WABTEC person you talked to was a PR flack who was reading from the product description.

Your confusion over NYAB's statement stems from assuming that just because a solution may be beneficial to users (as NYAB says ECP is), it is beneficial to all users.  Aspirin is an excellent pain reliever with a long and safe history, but it's not the pain reliever of choice for someone using blood thinners or with ulcers.  And NYAB is saying the ECP is not the solution to the tanker issue.  

 

[Euclid]

edblysard

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes. 

 

What "fundamental truth" are you referring to?

 

 Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

 

Because their product is being represented in the press as a save all single solution to a problem that has more causes than the product can prevent.

 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

 

You know this how?

By first hand experience? The company that makes the product disagrees with your statement, and they would be in a much better position to know.

 

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

Which "sides" are you referring to?

If you mean the AAR, they are not a "side", they are a trade group whose primary purpose is to promote things that make railroading safer and more profitable.

If the other side you mention is NYAB, I would imagine they have a much deeper and more precise grasp of the "details" of their system than you do.

If you mean the politicians that created the mandate, they are simply trying to get re-elected, and would "mandate" anything that would help accomplish that.

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter. 

 

 

Ed,

What I said about NYAB had nothing to do with my knowledge, experience, and opinions; and nothing to with comparing my views to the views of NYAB, or me debating their views.  However, Dave’s comments above sure try to make it seem that way.  You are both jumping to that conclusion.      

My ONLY point I was making is that I find it strange that a company producing the most sophisticated air brake products would downplay the benefits of that product at the same time their industry promotes those benefits to the markets. 

I said this: “I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.”

I find it strange because it is strange that NYAB would say that, while I conclude that Wabtec would not say that.  When I have talked to someone at Wabtec, he seemed to be promoting all the usual claims of better safety from easier train handling, shorter stopping distance, reduced slack, etc.

The two sides I was referring to is the AAR and USDOT/FRA.  I call them “sides’ because they are in disagreement over the results of using ECP brakes.  So they are two sides of a debate.  Clearly the two sides are not two groups of experts agreeing with each other as Dave asserts above.

The “fundamental truth” that I said NYAB is denying is the truth that ECP brakes reduce slack action, and slack action can cause derailments.  I did not say how often ECP brakes would prevent a derailment in that way.  But it can happen. The AAR and NYAB seem to be saying that it can never happen.   

As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure I understand the exact points NYAB is making.  NYAB says “ECP can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”  Who has ever claimed that it can?  ECP is only claimed to be able to prevent a derailment from occurring.  I think that NYAB comment is ambiguous at least.  What exactly does “stop and accident” even mean?  Does it mean prevent an accident or put an end to one after it begins?  If it means prevent an accident, it makes no sense to qualify it with “after it begins.” 

NYAB also seems to be dismissing ECP because it will not be the total solution for the problem; when he says “it’s the wrong solution for the problem,” or when they say ECP brakes “aren’t a solution.”  This has been the position of the AAR as well.  That is, that ECP will not solve the whole problem as if anyone expects a single measure that will end oil train derailments 100%.  It is a way of discrediting any partial solution because it is only partial.  Common sense says that solving a complex problem will often require several partial solutions to do the whole job. 

So I am not sure what is behind the NYAB comments, but I find them strange.  I mean strange in content and structure.

[Norm48327]

edblysard

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter.

Hear, hear!

[edblysard]

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes. 

 

What "fundamental truth" are you referring to?

 

 Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

 

Because their product is being represented in the press as a save all single solution to a problem that has more causes than the product can prevent.

 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

 

You know this how?

By first hand experience? The company that makes the product disagrees with your statement, and they would be in a much better position to know.

 

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

Which "sides" are you referring to?

If you mean the AAR, they are not a "side", they are a trade group whose primary purpose is to promote things that make railroading safer and more profitable.

If the other side you mention is NYAB, I would imagine they have a much deeper and more precise grasp of the "details" of their system than you do.

If you mean the politicians that created the mandate, they are simply trying to get re-elected, and would "mandate" anything that would help accomplish that.

I find it almost stunning arrogance that you claim to have a better grasp of the details of a brake system than the CEO of the company that produces said brakes, considering you have zero experience in designing such products and zero experience in the use of train brakes, or any actual hands on experience in railroading for that matter. 

 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

I am talking about the AAR and the USDOT disagreeing with each other.  If they were the infallible experts that you insist they are, then why do they disagree on this matter?  They are diametrically opposed, so they both can’t be right.  That is my point.

Democrats & Republicans both believe they are right - yet are for the most part diametrically opposed - It's human nature to disagree and defend one's viewpoint as the ONLY RIGHT way.

[Euclid]

dehusman

 

Euclid

 

It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

 

 

They do.  Its just that it conflicts with your concepts, so you dismiss them as wrong or flawed or unclear.  Even though they have designed the brake systems, they build the brake systems, they test the brake systems, they sell the brake systems, they have a hundred years of actual experience with actual brake systems (they didn't just Google a bunch of reports), since they don't conform to your preconcieved notions of how things "are", they must be wrong and you are infallibly right.

 

 

Than is nonsense.  I am not talking about whether either side agrees with my ideas.  I am talking about the AAR and the USDOT disagreeing with each other.  If they were the infallible experts that you insist they are, then why do they disagree on this matter?  They are diametrically opposed, so they both can’t be right.  That is my point. 

 

[dehusman]

Euclid

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.

Why would you think that the people who design, build and test air brakes would have a different opiinion from the people who are their customers and helped them design and test the air brakes?

 

Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

If the railroads buy ECP they can buy a NYAB product.  If the railroads buy conventional brakes, they can buy a NYAB product.  Where have they lost?

The company says that their ECP brakes cannot stop an accident once a train starts to derail. That is somewhat true in that you can’t stop a derailment the instant a train derails by applying the ECP brakes.

No that's 100% true. 

 First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.

Please site specifically which OIL TRAIN derailments were cause by slack action or "lack of train handling precision".  I'll save you the trouble, the answer is none.

Slack action problems will be in trains of mixed car types, in mixed loads and empties.  Those problems are not found in unit trains like oil trains.  Your bringing up "slack action" as a cause is the red herring.

  It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details. 

They do.  Its just that it conflicts with your concepts, so you dismiss them as wrong or flawed or unclear.  Even though they have designed the brake systems, they build the brake systems, they test the brake systems, they sell the brake systems, they have a hundred years of actual experience with actual brake systems (they didn't just Google a bunch of reports), since they don't conform to your preconcieved notions of how things "are", they must be wrong and you are infallibly right.

[Wizlish]

wanswheel

Articles about the other Montana derailment

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dTcIiipcd2dAhBMWufDfBdvaafn0M&q=BNSF+crude+oil+culbertson&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMIt8fn0Y3lxgIVBMk-Ch0G7AG9

 

Thanks for the list of references!

 

For some reason it is difficult to figure out from the reporting where in the train the Culbertson derailment occurred, but I deduced it was fairly far back in the train (there is a picture of a substantial number of 'underailed cars' said to be moving westbound, and the original train was routed westbound).  I would suspect either a progressive derailment or stringline.  Cars are apparently 1232s, which seem to have done the job against explosions despite three of them leaking.  The usual quotes trying to drum up FUD about 'big orange glow' and “We’re real lucky it didn’t go bang"...

 

My initial suspicion/speculation is that here, too, is a case that might have been helped with prompt sensing and recognition of midtrain derailment.

[wanswheel]

Articles about the other Montana derailment

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dTcIiipcd2dAhBMWufDfBdvaafn0M&q=BNSF+crude+oil+culbertson&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMIt8fn0Y3lxgIVBMk-Ch0G7AG9

[Wizlish]

I think we may need to wait for another report to find out any technical information; the story says nine boxcars derailed, three of them loaded with ethanol and four with petroleum.  That doesn't bode well as an indicator of their distinctive competence in railway-technology reporting...

[Euclid]

7/14/15 BNSF Derailment at Fort Kipp, Montana:

Here is an example of a recent derailment that might have been mitigated by derailment sensors on the cars.  It began with a derailed-dragging event that apparently persisted for 3-4 miles before the train stopped.  It is reported that about ½ mile of track was completely destroyed.  Nine cars were derailed.  It is unclear how the derailment progressed from one car to nine cars over the 3-4 miles.  Also unclear is whether any of the cars ultimately piled up, or if they all stayed in line until the train stopped. 

If nine cars derailed sequentially at the point of first derailment, it seems unlikely that they would have continued for miles without derailing all the cars behind them at the point of first derailment.  Although, that would be possible if first car to derail was ninth from the hind end.

http://www.kfyrtv.com/home/headlines/Train-Derails-Near-Wolfpoint-Montana--315237641.html

[BaltACD]

cx500

Shifting the focus over to pipelines, take a look at this report.  No fires but lots of volume spilled.

< http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-6-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604 >

Moving anything, anywhere by any method has risks.

Moving yourself from one side of the living room to the other involves the risks of slip, trip and fall.

[cx500]

Shifting the focus over to pipelines, take a look at this report.  No fires but lots of volume spilled.

< http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-6-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604 >

[Euclid]

Based on the above linked article from Reuters:

Apparently, the only basis for the AAR saying that ECP brakes jeopardize safety is their own claim that ECP brakes are unreliable.  I think that is going to be a weak argument.  Generally, ECP brakes add safety.   But the AAR claim means that ECP brakes are less safe than conventional air brakes.  Maybe there are some reliability issues such as the well-known connector problem.  But, I don’t think there is a net loss of safety with ECP compared to conventional.  In other words, ECP brakes are not unreliable enough to jeopardize safety. 

The AAR says that the FRA never made the case for ECP increasing safety.  I don’t think the AAR has made the case for ECP decreasing safety, as they claim. 

Actually, and ironically, one of the two ECP manufacturers has made a clearer case against ECP brakes than the AAR has.

Here is a quote from the article by the NEW YORK AIR BRAKE Co.:

“While a New York Air Brake official said ECP technology is reliable, the company has said that ECP brakes aren't a solution for oil trains because most derailments are caused by a broken track, wheel or axle, and ECP brakes can’t stop an accident once a train starts to derail.”

 

I find it very strange that New York Air Brake takes the same position as the AAR, and even goes so far as to misrepresent a fundamental truth about ECP brakes.  Why would NYAB shoot themselves in the foot when presented with the blessed fruit of a federal mandate requiring the use of their products?

The company says that their ECP brakes cannot stop an accident once a train starts to derail. That is somewhat true in that you can’t stop a derailment the instant a train derails by applying the ECP brakes.  Obviously, you cannot totally prevent a derailment after it begins.  But that red herring only part of the story. 

First of all, there are some derailments that ECP would actually prevent by their better control of slack action and their aid to train handling precision.  But, set that aside and consider the following aspect of their comment.   

NYAB is right that ECP cannot stop a derailment from starting, if that is what they mean. But ECP brakes do stop an accident from continuing once a trains starts to derail.  They do that by stopping the train.  And they do that quicker than conventional air brakes.  Granted it may not be that much quicker, but seconds count in the progress of a high speed derailment.  The quicker the train stops, the fewer the number of cars that will derail, and the less the number of gallons of oil that will spill.

It is amazing that neither side of this high stakes ECP mandate have a clear grasp of the technical details.  I don’t think it will be decided on the technical details.