Both Don Phillips and Fred Frailey wrote pieces in the May/15 issue of Trains magazine that address public perceptions of risks associated with transport of crude oil by rail.
Frailey, IMO, hit a home run. Rather than re-spouting the common place "if the NIMBYS don't want their houses blown up, why did they buy next to the RR in the first place?" type defensive rants, I thought his suggestion to place more defect detectors and increase the frequency of track inspections along crude corridors to be a welcome guide post towards taking responsibility rather than the all-too-common tendancy of shrugging the responsibility off and finger pointing
FRA requires that a train must pass a Defect Detector at least every 50 miles. Knowing that electronic equipment in the railroad enviornment will fail from time to time, my carrier initially installed their defect detctors about every 25 miles, so one could be taken out of service and still be 'FRA Legal' by passing a DD at least every 50 miles. Over the past several years my carrier has under taken a project to space the DD's every 10 to 15 miles on the high volume segments of the property.
FRA rail inspection vehicles traverse our high volume track segments yearly or more frequently and in addition company rail inspection vehicles are scheduled over the high volume track segments at least twice yearly, if not more frequently. Third Party outside vendors track inspection vehicles traverse the high volume track yearly if not more frequently. Part of divisional managements performance measurement system is dependent upon the track time that is made available to all the forms of track inspection vehicles - FRA, Vendor and Company Owned.
I can't speak to other carrier's practices.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD FRA requires that a train must pass a Defect Detector at least every 50 miles. Knowing that electronic equipment in the railroad enviornment will fail from time to time, my carrier initially installed their defect detctors about every 25 miles, so one could be taken out of service and still be 'FRA Legal' by passing a DD at least every 50 miles. Over the past several years my carrier has under taken a project to space the DD's every 10 to 15 miles on the high volume segments of the property. FRA rail inspection vehicles traverse our high volume track segments yearly or more frequently and in addition company rail inspection vehicles are scheduled over the high volume track segments at least twice yearly, if not more frequently. Third Party outside vendors track inspection vehicles traverse the high volume track yearly if not more frequently. Part of divisional managements performance measurement system is dependent upon the track time that is made available to all the forms of track inspection vehicles - FRA, Vendor and Company Owned. I can't speak to other carrier's practices.
Certainly more reassuring to the impacted public, I would think than defensive anti-NIMBY rants.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Didn't Fred pretty much destroy his credibility with his instance that there was a mega merger in the works in spite of all the facts and logical arguments to the contrary? Read Jim McClellan's interview in the May issue of Trains for the view from someone "been there done that"!
EuclidDid Don Phillips make a defensive anti-NIMBY rant?
No, Don did not. If the way I worded my post gave you that impression, then I'm sorry, didn't mean to finger him. The anti-nimby rants that I identified as common place tend to originate from a few regular members here who's contributions tend toward the "heavy fisted" style of composition.
Convicted One Euclid Did Don Phillips make a defensive anti-NIMBY rant? No, Don did not. If the way I worded my post gave you that impression, then I'm sorry, didn't mean to finger him. The anti-nimby rants that I identified as common place tend to originate from a few regular members here who's contributions tend toward the "heavy fisted" style of composition.
Euclid Did Don Phillips make a defensive anti-NIMBY rant?
Sorry for the confusion. I used the term "defensive anti-Nimby rants" referring to the same ham-fisted posters who Convicted One mentioned in contrast to BaltACD's useful, educational post.
Okay, I see. I have not read Phillips on oil trains, but I have followed Fred's blogs here. I think he makes a lot of great points.
schlimmSorry for the confusion.
Another thing I found interesting in Frailey's article, was how one of the head honchos of one of the Canadian carriers was "requesting" that the railroads be given permission to refuse shipments they feel are unsafe.
I am shocked because never would I have expected that the railroads are "required" to accept lading they feel to be unsafe.
So, If I ship an open Gaylord full of acetone peroxide, the railroad is obligated to accept shipment?
Convicted One schlimm Another thing I found interesting in Frailey's article, was how one of the head honchos of one of the Canadian carriers was "requesting" that the railroads be given permission to refuse shipments they feel are unsafe. I am shocked because never would I have expected that the railroads are "required" to accept lading they feel to be unsafe. So, If I ship an open Gaylord full of acetone peroxide, the railroad is obligated to accept shipment?
schlimm
If you ship a allowed commodity in an approved shipping container, the carriers cannot refuse it.
Bakken Crude in a DOT 111 tank car is an allowed commodity in an approved shipping container - no matter how explosive it may be.
Convicted One Another thing I found interesting in Frailey's article, was how one of the head honchos of one of the Canadian carriers was "requesting" that the railroads be given permission to refuse shipments they feel are unsafe.
EHH was simply repeating something UP tried about a decade ago in relation to transporting some type of hazardous material. They ended up losing in court not too many years ago. It should be in the Newswire section. And no, you do have to put a on a lid and other resonable protections before you can ship whatever that was. Hence the debate about DOT 111 cars.
FF did get on thing right that I have believed since this whole CBR mess came up, the RR's have to hire more carmen and section men or whatever thier new job names are these days. If the RR's don't get a grip on this issue soon someone is going to force them to implement manned rollby inspection once per hour.
They won't be Station Agents, because it would be done by men in trucks leapfrogging the trains, but it is going to cost them a bunch.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Convicted One schlimm Sorry for the confusion. Another thing I found interesting in Frailey's article, was how one of the head honchos of one of the Canadian carriers was "requesting" that the railroads be given permission to refuse shipments they feel are unsafe. I am shocked because never would I have expected that the railroads are "required" to accept lading they feel to be unsafe. So, If I ship an open Gaylord full of acetone peroxide, the railroad is obligated to accept shipment?
schlimm Sorry for the confusion.
AgentKid Convicted One Another thing I found interesting in Frailey's article, was how one of the head honchos of one of the Canadian carriers was "requesting" that the railroads be given permission to refuse shipments they feel are unsafe. EHH was simply repeating something UP tried about a decade ago in relation to transporting some type of hazardous material. They ended up losing in court not too many years ago. It should be in the Newswire section. And no, you do have to put a on a lid and other resonable protections before you can ship whatever that was. Hence the debate about DOT 111 cars. FF did get on thing right that I have believed since this whole CBR mess came up, the RR's have to hire more carmen and section men or whatever thier new job names are these days. If the RR's don't get a grip on this issue soon someone is going to force them to implement manned rollby inspection once per hour. They won't be Station Agents, because it would be done by men in trucks leapfrogging the trains, but it is going to cost them a bunch. Bruce
Manned inspection doesn't add anything to the safety equation except expense.
My carriers rules require a car that has been stopped by a Defect Detector 2 times to be set out - even though the man inspecting the car cannot find the defect that caused the activation. Cars then have the offending wheel set(s) changed out by the car department.
Today's defect detectors have a much better 'visual acuity' for the defects they are testing for than manned rollby inspections.
As Balt said, "If you ship a allowed commodity in an approved shipping container, the carriers cannot refuse it." However, if you misidentify your shipment on the bill of lading, you are responsible for any damage ocurring as a result of your misidentification. I would say that very few, if any, carriers have any way to verify that you have the correct identification.
Also, (at least this was so when I was involved in hazardous shipments) you may not ship anything classified as an inhalation hazard by air; the regulations forbid such shipment. (Not precisely pertinent to the topic, perhaps, but a statement that certain things may not be shipped in all manners.)
Johnny
(*Defect Detectors vary greatly in their capability, from mere hotbox and dragging equipment, to Wheel Impact Load Detectors ["WILD"], misaligned wheel, "hunting" trucks, cracker or missing wheel sections, etc.)
But the track gets a "high-tech" (more than visual**) inspection maybe only 5 to 10 times a year or so, depending on the scheduling of the sort outlined by BaltACD above.
(**FRA mandatory track inspections are generally 2 x weekly, mainly visual only by a qualifed person, etc.)
Think about these disparities, and their implications.
- Paul North.
EuclidI thought I have seen photographs of long tank car trains during WWII. As I gather, these were largely trainloads of gasoline. How did they manage to control that? Was there a safety factor in those old 1940’s tank cars that does not exist in the new tank cars of today?
Given the censorship of the time, finding information on such incidents that did occur would likely be a daunting task. An incident that occurred outside populated areas might not have been reported to the public at all.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidI thought I have seen photographs of long tank car trains during WWII. As I gather, these were largely trainloads of gasoline. How did they manage to control that?
During WWII, I imagine that there were a greater frequency of oil train accidents. However, the public had bigger problems to think about, found shipping it by rail neccesary to get any gasoline at all during rationing, and weren't trying to get the nation to stop using oil. Explosions, if not censored by the press due to sabatoge fears, were probably viewed as collateral damage in the war effort where oil was neccesary. The media also had bigger things to report, and train accidents were unfortunately way more common.
Euclid I think this acceptance of shipped goods is decided ahead of time by the regulators and the input from railroads that determines what must be carried and under what conditions. I assume there are many things that railroads are prohibited from carrying. Apparently it is okay to ship Bakken oil the way they are doing it. And yet these regulations can change with the times. So there are calls for changing the requirements for accepting oil traffic in reaction to this explosion hazard that nobody seemed to see coming. It is an interesting proposition because there is no reason why an option to refuse oil shipments cannot be granted by the government. The government could just as easily ban oil by rail shipping. So if public safety is the goal, this government must listen to its constituents and take some type of action. This puts government in the driver’s seat. They can stop Bakken oil by rail simply by delaying the new tank car rules, and all the while threatening to make them more stringent. Who wants to build a new tank car if it can be outlawed the next day? It would be interesting if the government simply gave the industry the option to stay out of the oil by rail business. I’ll bet that would put the number crunchers to work. It would be interesting to see who stays in and who gets out.
You really need to read Don Phillips' Commentary. He starts off by saying that many people ask him if the government will shut down CBR because of the fireballs. He says; "no way, never." because it will harm the economy and weaken th country. He has been a Washington reporter for decades, so he should know the politics.
Euclid [snipped - PDN] . . . I thought I have seen photographs of long tank car trains during WWII. As I gather, these were largely trainloads of gasoline. How did they manage to control that? Was there a safety factor in those old 1940’s tank cars that does not exist in the new tank cars of today?
The tank cars of that day were a lot smaller than those of today - about half the capacity, hence 'stiffer' in a structural sense, and I'm sure that the steel of the tanks was thicker than today. The trains also were likely not a long as they are today.
On the other hand, there were steam locomotives with their fireboxes all over the place, friction bearings to cause hotboxes, jointed rail, etc.
And the attitude back then - as noted above - was summarized in the saying: "Don't you know there's a war on ?"
This wuold make a darn good topic for a history paper, to compare and contrast with today. If I was back in a college environment . . . Maybe Mike (wanswheel) can help us out on this.
P.S. - See:
http://www.texascity-library.org/wwii/images/drive_poster.jpg
From Pinterest - caption says on the B&O through Halethorpe, MD, from Classic Trains Magazine (can't find out which issue yet, though):
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f2/98/7d/f2987d1906595bfddc41b8bde67af51c.jpg
http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/TankCars/WWII.html
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/petrol-train-carries-its-cargo-to-supply-the-british-army-news-photo/80794176
https://lionelllc.wordpress.com/2013/04/
http://blackstonemodels.com/new/tankcar/tankcarhistory.php
P.P.S. - One of the webpages I visted was this one, which is mainly about truck operations in France after the D-Day invasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ball_Express
Hiowever, there are some interesting railroad references there, esp.:
"Even the French railroads were, to some degree, operated similarly, with loaded trains moving forward almost nose to tail."[6]— For Want of a Nail: The Influence of Logistics on War (1948) by Hawthorne Daniel"
^ Daniel, Hawthorne. 1948. For Want of a Nail: The Influence of Logistics on War. New York: Whittlesey House. Pages 270-271.
That book might have a better description of the US oil trains.
John A. Rehor - who wrote The Nickel Plate Story that I referenced above - was (IIRC) a safety inspector with the ICC's bureau of Explosives. As such, he - and that Bureau - might well have had records pertaining to the safety of the WWII oil train operations in the US. - PDN.
MidlandMike Euclid I think this acceptance of shipped goods is decided ahead of time by the regulators and the input from railroads that determines what must be carried and under what conditions. I assume there are many things that railroads are prohibited from carrying. Apparently it is okay to ship Bakken oil the way they are doing it. And yet these regulations can change with the times. So there are calls for changing the requirements for accepting oil traffic in reaction to this explosion hazard that nobody seemed to see coming. It is an interesting proposition because there is no reason why an option to refuse oil shipments cannot be granted by the government. The government could just as easily ban oil by rail shipping. So if public safety is the goal, this government must listen to its constituents and take some type of action. This puts government in the driver’s seat. They can stop Bakken oil by rail simply by delaying the new tank car rules, and all the while threatening to make them more stringent. Who wants to build a new tank car if it can be outlawed the next day? It would be interesting if the government simply gave the industry the option to stay out of the oil by rail business. I’ll bet that would put the number crunchers to work. It would be interesting to see who stays in and who gets out. You really need to read Don Phillips' Commentary. He starts off by saying that many people ask him if the government will shut down CBR because of the fireballs. He says; "no way, never." because it will harm the economy and weaken th country. He has been a Washington reporter for decades, so he should know the politics.
Canadian Pacific has gone to daily track inspections over all mainline routes. They have been doing this for about three weeks now.
Paul_D_North_Jr This wuold make a darn good topic for a history paper, to compare and contrast with today.
This wuold make a darn good topic for a history paper, to compare and contrast with today.
Not a history paper, but I did jot down some points from the article "Black Gold by the Tainload" from Kalmbach's Classic Trains Special Edition "Railroads and World War II"
The movement of oil by rail started very soon after Pearl Harbor. It moved from the producing states of TX, LA, and OK to locations all over the US. Large amounts were sent to ports in the north east for export to the Allies in Europe. The article noted that 53% of the aviation fuel used by the Allies in the Battle of Britain was made from American crude.
The peak volume moved was 1,107,029 barrels per day. There were 4,100 US Army owned, and 67,000 RR owned tank cars in service. 90% were between 20 and 30 years old, and many had spent almost the entire previous decade in storage. This caused problems, one RR in one month set out 4,262 bad order cars. One critic observed that cars were being repaired with no regard for the total costs involved.
At the same time as oil started moving by rail, pipline construction also started, which led to the situation were the peak volume month for oil by rail was July 1943, and by the end of the war RR's were hauling less oil than they were when the war broke out.
Now for the hair-raising part, oil trains ran at speeds up to 50 mph! Railway Age timed one random train from Texas City, TX to Boston, MA that took 120½ hours for an average speed of 21 mph.
"Mister, don't you know there is a war on?", indeed.
Paul_D_North_Jr Euclid [snipped - PDN] . . . I thought I have seen photographs of long tank car trains during WWII. As I gather, these were largely trainloads of gasoline. How did they manage to control that? Was there a safety factor in those old 1940’s tank cars that does not exist in the new tank cars of today? The tank cars of that day were a lot smaller than those of today - about half the capacity, hence 'stiffer' in a structural sense, and I'm sure that the steel of the tanks was thicker than today. The trains also were likely not a long as they are today.
I wonder about that. Were the 10,000 gallon, 1940-era tank cars more breach resistant than today's 30,000 gallon models?
Paul_D_North_Jr And the attitude back then - as noted above - was summarized in the saying: "Don't you know there's a war on ?"
A WW2 era article in Popular Science (IIRC, June 1944 issue) mentioned a figure in excess of 100,000 industrial fatalities in the US from Pearl Harbor to spring 1944. From that, I would suspect that news of WW2 oil train accidents would have been suppressed.
Balt:
Based on the "cause of derailments" thread, my gut reaction is that once annually track inspections are too infrequent. My understanding is that inspections take up a lot of track time, which severely curbs the enthusiasm for more frequent inspections.
One thought (perhaps grossly impractical) is to use laser induced ultrasonics to check rail integrity to reduce track time required for inspections from higher track speeds possible with a non-contacting defect detection system.
- Erik
In a earlier post I mentioned Defect Detectors - my carrier presently has almost 900 of them installed across the property - most are of the standard hot journal, dragging equipment variety; however there are nearly 100 special purpose detectors installed at strategic locations for such things as Wheel Impact, Wheel contour and a host of other defects. Nearly all the detectors are linked with car identity scanners and the resulting data is input into a computer system that tracks the 'trending' health of cars as they operate across the property. Early warning notification is sometimes sent on specific cars whose condition may not have activated the detector to where the detector notifys the crew of a defect, however, the trend of the cars data indicates something has gone wrong - e-mails and CADS Notifications are sent for the train to be stopped, the car inspected by the crew and for the car to be set off in the nearest available track for repair by the car department.
Additionally various track inspection vehicles crisscross the sytem to hopefully find defects before they become failures and get them replaced. The test vehicles are from various track maintenance vendors as well as the company's own test trains and vehicles.
At present, on my division, there are 8 track inspection vehicles working on my division alone - my division is not unique from the 10 operating divisions that make up the company.
Anyone that says defects in track and cars are not taken seriously by the carriers (at least my carrier) doesn't have any idea what they are talking about.
Remember ALL these inspections require TRACK TIME - Track time that is critically short for the operation of trains and the inspections of the cars and track.
erikem Paul_D_North_Jr And the attitude back then - as noted above - was summarized in the saying: "Don't you know there's a war on ?" A WW2 era article in Popular Science (IIRC, June 1944 issue) mentioned a figure in excess of 100,000 industrial fatalities in the US from Pearl Harbor to spring 1944. From that, I would suspect that news of WW2 oil train accidents would have been suppressed. Balt: Based on the "cause of derailments" thread, my gut reaction is that once annually track inspections are too infrequent. My understanding is that inspections take up a lot of track time, which severely curbs the enthusiasm for more frequent inspections. One thought (perhaps grossly impractical) is to use laser induced ultrasonics to check rail integrity to reduce track time required for inspections from higher track speeds possible with a non-contacting defect detection system. - Erik
Certified Company Track Inspectors are required to inspect their MAIN LINE tracks twice weekly. Signal Maintainers must inspect their power oprated switches weekly - as well as respond to signal troubles whenever they occurr.
The various Vendor and Company testing equipment use any and all techniques that have been proven to reliably find critical defects - laser, ultrasonics, acoustic, infra-red. The critical element for any testing technique is for it to be reliable in actually finding the defects it is looking for, without false positives. Various testing techniques move across the property at various track speeds from 60 MPH (where permitted) on down to 10 MPH. Needless to say, it becomes more difficult to provide track time to slow speed testing. The frequency of the testing, is determined by the speed, tonnage and type traffic a line handles with lines handling passenger, oil and HAZMAT getting tested at a much higher frequency.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid I think this acceptance of shipped goods is decided ahead of time by the regulators and the input from railroads that determines what must be carried and under what conditions. I assume there are many things that railroads are prohibited from carrying. Apparently it is okay to ship Bakken oil the way they are doing it. And yet these regulations can change with the times. So there are calls for changing the requirements for accepting oil traffic in reaction to this explosion hazard that nobody seemed to see coming. It is an interesting proposition because there is no reason why an option to refuse oil shipments cannot be granted by the government. The government could just as easily ban oil by rail shipping. So if public safety is the goal, this government must listen to its constituents and take some type of action. This puts government in the driver’s seat. They can stop Bakken oil by rail simply by delaying the new tank car rules, and all the while threatening to make them more stringent. Who wants to build a new tank car if it can be outlawed the next day? It would be interesting if the government simply gave the industry the option to stay out of the oil by rail business. I’ll bet that would put the number crunchers to work. It would be interesting to see who stays in and who gets out. You really need to read Don Phillips' Commentary. He starts off by saying that many people ask him if the government will shut down CBR because of the fireballs. He says; "no way, never." because it will harm the economy and weaken th country. He has been a Washington reporter for decades, so he should know the politics. I have only said it is possible, but not predicted it. If Phillips says it is impossible, he loses credibility in my mind because it clearly is not impossible. Since when do politicians worry about harming the economy? The President has already said that he would not approve the Keystone Pipeline if it contributes greenhouse gases. Of course it would do exactly that. So politicians have to consider that a little economic harm may be necessary to avoid the great climatic harm of greenhouse gas production. The reason why Phillips has a lot of people asking him if the government will shut down oil by rail is that a lot of people sense that it is a very real possibility.
It appears that you still have not read Phillips' article, and yet based on 3 quoted words, you have judged him as not credible. If you had read the article, you would have seen that those 3 words were an attention grabber within the first two sentences of the aritcle. He never said it was impossible, and even gave a temporary shut down scenario. He then went to give the reasons why any effective shut down would be inconceivable. Since it does not appear that you will be reading the article, I will attempt to point out the problems with your above posts.
Euclid: "The government could just as easily ban oil by rail shipping."
The U.S. government does not act by edict. They can not outlaw an activity without cause, and are subject to show cause in court.
E: "They can stop Bakken oil by rail simply by delaying the new tank car rules, and all the while threatening to make them more stringent. Who wants to build a new tank car if it can be outlawed the next day?"
The regulators can't stop the transport without offering alternatives. Until there are new rules, shippers will continue to use CPC 1232 tank cars, and if new rules are still not out when those cars start to wear out, than they will use DOT 111 cars.
E: "Since when do politicians worry about harming the economy? The President has already said that he would not approve the Keystone Pipeline if it contributes greenhouse gases. Of course it would do exactly that. So politicians have to consider that a little economic harm may be necessary to avoid the great climatic harm of greenhouse gas production."
Where to begin? I will just address the Keystone PL. Canadian Tar Sand oil is already being carried by existing and expanded pipelines and by rail. Much of the reason to build Keystone has gone away. It has no effect on domestic oil production, much less the economy. On the other hand, Bakken is 10% of domestic crude production. Much of it, plus other light crudes, are hauled by rail. Effectivly shutting down that amount of production would put the US economy in a tailspin. All politicians are aware of this, or are made aware if they propose such legislation.
E: "The reason why Phillips has a lot of people asking him if the government will shut down oil by rail is that a lot of people sense that it is a very real possibility."
And then he goes on to explain in his article why those people are uninformed.
Euclid Midland Mike, When you quoted Phillips to me the first time with “He says; no way, never,” you did not tell me it was just an attention grabber. You used it to prove to me that stopping oil by rail was impossible. Now you say it was only an attention grabber, and that Phillips never said it was impossible. Then you go on to say that Phillips gave examples that prove it is inconceivable. So which way is it with Phillips? Why should I accept his opinion as fact?
I used his attention grabber because I thought it would get your attention, to read his article. I said that he believed that CBR would not effectively be shut down (i.e., long term as opposed to his short term scenario). If you want to dispute his article, then read his article, and cite your own evidence for whatever points you disagree with. I am stunned that you can carry on an arguement for so long about an article, and still have not bothered to have read the article.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.