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
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
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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?
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 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.
schlimmSorry for the confusion.
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.
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?
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidDid Don Phillips make a defensive anti-NIMBY rant?
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"!
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 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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.