Convicted One BaltACD 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. Contributory negligence? Maybe that needs to be part of the equation? Perhaps part of the liability needs to be spread around to include the sanctioning body that approved inadequate lading/equipment combination? Hide out underneath the old government umbrella!
BaltACD 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.
Contributory negligence? Maybe that needs to be part of the equation? Perhaps part of the liability needs to be spread around to include the sanctioning body that approved inadequate lading/equipment combination? Hide out underneath the old government umbrella!
Rewrite the transprtation laws!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDIf 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.
MP173 My guess is the comparisons will level out in the 3Q when drilling activity started to drop. Still, both NS and CSX are handling in excess of 4000 loads per week.
My guess is the comparisons will level out in the 3Q when drilling activity started to drop. Still, both NS and CSX are handling in excess of 4000 loads per week.
Drilling activity may or may not level off in the 3rd Quarter.
See this RBN Energy article "I Cannot Complete..."
Since we were on the subject of SPVs on another thread, here is a picture of FRA track geometry car T-10.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=431560&nseq=3
Question for Mudchicken -
What kinds of quality testing is done upon new rail by the manufacturers before it is released from the manufacturing facility?
While the oil patch drilling activity is down, the amount of oil handled by rail (CBR) is still strong.
YTD - CSX up 18.6% 2015 vs 2014
YTD - NS up 26% 2015 vs 2014.
Meanwhile, coal volumes continue to drop...
Ed
Paul_D_North_Jr What they can't detect is internal rail defects until they progress to the upper surface of the rail (there are some that 'come out' under the head or in the web area, etc.), gauge that goes wide only under a substantial lateral load (like a locomotive truck), not a pick-up truck ('dynamic' wide gauge), spongy subgrade that deflects only under heavy axle loads, ties that are rotten internally (without an on-foot inspection), etc. Most of these latter ones require either a 'heavy' track geometry car with the lateral pressure (high "L/V ratio" capability), or one of the rail inspection vehicles with magna-flux, ultrasonic, laser, etc., depending on whether it's looking for internal rail flaws, external rail wear patterns, etc. But even the best of those have difficulties at joints (insulated and compromise even in CWR track), and especially turnouts - the switch points and frogs.
What they can't detect is internal rail defects until they progress to the upper surface of the rail (there are some that 'come out' under the head or in the web area, etc.), gauge that goes wide only under a substantial lateral load (like a locomotive truck), not a pick-up truck ('dynamic' wide gauge), spongy subgrade that deflects only under heavy axle loads, ties that are rotten internally (without an on-foot inspection), etc.
Most of these latter ones require either a 'heavy' track geometry car with the lateral pressure (high "L/V ratio" capability), or one of the rail inspection vehicles with magna-flux, ultrasonic, laser, etc., depending on whether it's looking for internal rail flaws, external rail wear patterns, etc. But even the best of those have difficulties at joints (insulated and compromise even in CWR track), and especially turnouts - the switch points and frogs.
That's why I was musing about laser induced ultrasound - should be able to detect internal defects while traveling faster than the contact making ultrasound. I saw a presentation over 10 years ago about using laser induced ultrasound to measure wall thickness of seamless tubing immediately after it was extruded. It's quite possible that the laser ultrsound may not detect as small a defect as the contacting type, but if the increased detection vehicle speed allows for more frequent inspections...
I'd suspect a well instrumented locomotive, e.g. 3 axis accelerometers on each axle, could give useful info on the health of the ties and roadbed.
- Erik
BaltACD [snipped - PDN] . . . 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. . . .
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. . . .
The Hi-Rail inspections are good for catching some things, especially if the inspector is familiar with the territory and can see certain track parameters gradually progress or get worse, such as the rail wear or wheel track pattern, soft subgrade that creates mud holes, 'static' wide gage, ponded water from blocked culverts or beaver dams, incipient landslides, settled or misalighed track, larger defects or variations in track geometry parameters, etc.
What's needed - IMHO - is more frequent inspections with these more capable vehicles, until the defect or variation rate is very low - to a statistical irreducible minimum (not quite zero). But as BaltACD notes, good luck getting the track time to do the inspections and fix the defects/ variations, let alone the money for the cars, their operation, and fixing the defects/ variations.
- Paul North.
I've ridden in one of the FRA cars - don't recall if it was that one. In fact, I was the conductor of record for the trip. Pretty cool stuff.
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...
A few of the test vehicles the carriers are using
Euclid, I believe the Forum rules prevents us from copying or using large chunks of copyrighted material, so I will wait until you have read the article.
BaltACD 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.
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.
Balt,
Thanks for the reply, more things are going on with track testing than I was aware of. FWIW, false positives are also a big issue in my line of work.
Midland Mike,
You're the one who cited the article and made the point about it. I am only responding to that point as you made it. Then you came back and changed that point. My point was simple and I have not changed it. It is that nobody can say whether oil by rail will be stopped by government regulation. If they do say it can't, I believe they are wrong. If Phillips did not say that, then tell me what he did say. If I get a chance to see the article, I will read it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ?"
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Canadian Pacific has gone to daily track inspections over all mainline routes. They have been doing this for about three weeks now.
On the other hand, there were steam locomotives with their fireboxes all over the place, friction bearings to cause hotboxes, jointed rail, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(*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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.