Oil Trains Cause Track Defects?

[schlimm]

PNWRMNM

The story that oil trains have a magic ability to cause or find track defects is male bovine excrement. Mac McCulloch

Dismissing actual experts' speculative thoughts with a vulgarity reflects poorly on your contention.

[BaltACD]

schlimm

PNWRMNM

The story that oil trains have a magic ability to cause or find track defects is male bovine excrement. Mac McCulloch

Dismissing actual experts' speculative thoughts with a vulgarity reflects poorly on your contention.

Speculation is always male bovine excrement - no matter who is depositing it.

[schlimm]

BaltACD

 

 

schlimm

PNWRMNM

The story that oil trains have a magic ability to cause or find track defects is male bovine excrement. Mac McCulloch

Dismissing actual experts' speculative thoughts with a vulgarity reflects poorly on your contention.

 

 

Speculation is always male bovine excrement - no matter who is depositing it.

 

Prejudging is the hallmark of folks with an pre-existing agenda.  Having an open mind for possibilities, even those we don't like, is what separates empirical science from belief.

And the use of a cowardly eumphemism for a juvenile vulgarity to dismiss thoughts one dislikes is an example of a closed mind.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 Speculation is always male bovine excrement - no matter who is depositing it.

Only to those who's speculation differs.

[schlimm]

Investigators at Safety Transportation Board Canada are more knowledgable than forum members.

Rick Inclima, safety director at the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, also has applicable credentials.

 

[Euclid]

Euclid

I have some theories about the so-called “sloshing” effect, but I would not call it “sloshing”.  Sloshing sounds like a random wave action in all directions on the oil surface, induced by the ride of the tank car. 

The effect that I am curious about is the full load surging forward during brake application and/or slack run-in.  This oil surge moving from car to car in sequence might act as its own sort of slack run-in, that is to say a chain reaction of building surge force. 

Depending on how much air space is in each tank car, this forward surge of the oil would take significant weight off of the trailing end of the car and add it to the leading end, thus overloading the lead truck.  Furthermore, the force of the overload might exceed that actual weight increase because of the abruptness of the weight transfer.  It would be like a hammer impact.    

 

This quoted from the article is what I am describing above.  It is the higher dynamic loads on track due to weight transfer when the oil load surges to one end of the tank car:

“Tank cars are only partially filled with oil, allowing for expansion if the temperature increases. The tanks have internal baffles, but the liquid can still slosh as the cars move, causing higher dynamic loads, said Bill Keppen, an independent rail safety expert. “Sloshing increases the stress on the track,” he said.”

 

Here is a reference to Bill Keppen:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-keppen/19/765/122

[M636C]

Unit trains of identical vehicles can exacerbate track problems since if a particular track problem is affected by an axle with a particular load and speed, and your train is made up of 400 such axles, a problem that would take years to occur with a mix of different vehicles at varying speeds could fail relatively rapidly.

It doesn't matter what is in the vehicles and whether it can move.

The recent rapid increase in block oil trains on tracks that haven't had block coal or ore trains previously will show up previously unknown weaknesses in track and the ballast.

It is the increase in unit trains, not related to what they carry. The axle load of the loaded unit trains will in general be heavier than general freight trains and the number if identical vehicles will be much greater.

M636C

[tree68]

Tank cars are only partially filled with oil...

Poor characterization.  Kind of like saying that soda bottles are only partially filled with product.

In my mind, "partially filled" is well less filled than leaving the 2% (or slightly more) air gap we've been discussing.  Like half full.

Of course, when you've got an agenda, well...

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Tank cars are only partially filled with oil...

 

 

Poor characterization.  Kind of like saying that soda bottles are only partially filled with product.

In my mind, "partially filled" is well less filled than leaving the 2% (or slightly more) air gap we've been discussing.  Like half full.

Of course, when you've got an agenda, well...

 

Well I think Mr. Keppen’s point is that the cars do indeed contain more air space than 2%.  As Mac said, you can’t get much weight transfer with 2% air space.  Mr. Keppen makes the point that there is enough weight transfer to cause track damage.  Therefore, he must expect more than 2% air space.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

Euclid

I have some theories about the so-called “sloshing” effect, but I would not call it “sloshing”.  Sloshing sounds like a random wave action in all directions on the oil surface, induced by the ride of the tank car. 

The effect that I am curious about is the full load surging forward during brake application and/or slack run-in.  This oil surge moving from car to car in sequence might act as its own sort of slack run-in, that is to say a chain reaction of building surge force. 

Depending on how much air space is in each tank car, this forward surge of the oil would take significant weight off of the trailing end of the car and add it to the leading end, thus overloading the lead truck.  Furthermore, the force of the overload might exceed that actual weight increase because of the abruptness of the weight transfer.  It would be like a hammer impact.    

 

 

 

This quoted from the article is what I am describing above.  It is the higher dynamic loads on track due to weight transfer when the oil load surges to one end of the tank car:

“Tank cars are only partially filled with oil, allowing for expansion if the temperature increases. The tanks have internal baffles, but the liquid can still slosh as the cars move, causing higher dynamic loads, said Bill Keppen, an independent rail safety expert. “Sloshing increases the stress on the track,” he said.”

 

Here is a reference to Bill Keppen:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-keppen/19/765/122

 

 Dude!  You're quoting and replying to yourself now!  Don't those voices in your head talk to each other?

[Murphy Siding]

schlimm

 

 

PNWRMNM

The story that oil trains have a magic ability to cause or find track defects is male bovine excrement. Mac McCulloch

 

 

Dismissing actual experts' speculative thoughts with a vulgarity reflects poorly on your contention.

 

 I dunno.  I work in the construction industry.  Like the railroad industry, the construction industry has a fair amount of vulgarity common in communication.  While that doesn't make for pretty prose, it does make comments less prone to misunderstanding.  Mac seems to be expressing his feelings about speculation quite honestly don't you think?

     Speculation is speculation.  Just like opinions are opinions.

[dehusman]

schlimm

Interesting how on here the suspicions of the Canadian Safety Board experts and others are questioned and/or dismissed.

 

Actually we both said the same thing, the oil trains are finding the defects in the track, they aren't causing them, they are stressing the track (heavy unit trains) and the track fails due to those stresses.  Also don't have any issue with what the fellow from the maintenance workers union said , basically it was the same thing.  Unit trains are hard on the track.  Known issue for the last 30-40 years.

 

I have not seen any definition on what the amount of sloshing is or any description of how its derailing trains or damaging track.  30k gallons of oil would weigh about 213,000 lbs (7.1 lbs/gal).  A 111 car could carry about 200,000 lbs (based on info from Googling stats on DOT 111 tank cars).  So there would be a void that would be the equivalent of 13,000 lbs, or 1800 gals or about 240 cu ft.  Assume a linear slosh that would mean that one end of a car could be filled to full shell capacity which would be a load of half of the 213,000 lds, so that would be an increase of 6500 lb or 3.25 tons, less than 1 ton per wheel.  I don't think that is that much of an extra load. 

[PNWRMNM]

Murphy Siding

 

 

This quoted from the article is what I am describing above.  It is the higher dynamic loads on track due to weight transfer when the oil load surges to one end of the tank car:

“Tank cars are only partially filled with oil, allowing for expansion if the temperature increases. The tanks have internal baffles, but the liquid can still slosh as the cars move, causing higher dynamic loads, said Bill Keppen, an independent rail safety expert. “Sloshing increases the stress on the track,” he said.”

 

Here is a reference to Bill Keppen:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-keppen/19/765/122

 

 

 

 

 Dude!  You're quoting and replying to yourself now!  Don't those voices in your head talk to each other?

Anyone who claims that there are internal baffles is tank cars has proved himself to NOT be an expert about tank cars. I dealt with tank cars for 13 years. I have been inside tank cars. There are no baffles in tank cars.

Mac

[Euclid]

dehusman

... the oil trains are finding the defects in the track, they aren't causing them, they are stressing the track and the track fails due to those stresses. 

It seems to me that oil trains are finding defects in the track and causing them.  You say that oil trains are stressing the track and the track fails due to those stresses.  Wouldn’t that amount to causing a defect?

It has been said that oil are generally heaviest trains, and thus the most likely to find any defects.  So if they are causing defects, as you say, they are finding them as well. 

[schlimm]

PNWRMNM

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

 

This quoted from the article is what I am describing above.  It is the higher dynamic loads on track due to weight transfer when the oil load surges to one end of the tank car:

“Tank cars are only partially filled with oil, allowing for expansion if the temperature increases. The tanks have internal baffles, but the liquid can still slosh as the cars move, causing higher dynamic loads, said Bill Keppen, an independent rail safety expert. “Sloshing increases the stress on the track,” he said.”

 

Here is a reference to Bill Keppen:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-keppen/19/765/122

 

 

 

 

 Dude!  You're quoting and replying to yourself now!  Don't those voices in your head talk to each other?

 

 

 

Anyone who claims that there are internal baffles is tank cars has proved himself to NOT be an expert about tank cars. I dealt with tank cars for 13 years. I have been inside tank cars. There are no baffles in tank cars.

Mac

 

And you are right.  There are no internal baffles in railroad tank cars as there are in highway tankers.  The 'expert' Euclid quoted from the article was wrong.   However, the other sources said nothing about baffles.  Maybe RR tank cars should have them too to reduce sloshing?

[Murphy Siding]

PNWRMNM

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

 

This quoted from the article is what I am describing above.  It is the higher dynamic loads on track due to weight transfer when the oil load surges to one end of the tank car:

“Tank cars are only partially filled with oil, allowing for expansion if the temperature increases. The tanks have internal baffles, but the liquid can still slosh as the cars move, causing higher dynamic loads, said Bill Keppen, an independent rail safety expert. “Sloshing increases the stress on the track,” he said.”

 

Here is a reference to Bill Keppen:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-keppen/19/765/122

 

 

 

 

 Dude!  You're quoting and replying to yourself now!  Don't those voices in your head talk to each other?

 

 

 

Anyone who claims that there are internal baffles is tank cars has proved himself to NOT be an expert about tank cars. I dealt with tank cars for 13 years. I have been inside tank cars. There are no baffles in tank cars.

Mac

 

 Maybe he was just speculating the existence of baffles. 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

It has been said that oil are generally heaviest trains

286,000 pounds is 286,000 pounds whether it is oil or coal. Why do you say oil trains are the heaviest? Math failure?

[BaltACD]

Norm48327

Euclid

It has been said that oil are generally heaviest trains

286,000 pounds is 286,000 pounds whether it is oil or coal. Why do you say oil trains are the heaviest? Math failure?

Coal trains on most Class 1 carriers are running at 120 to 130 cars and sometimes larger.  Oil trains are normally held to 100 cars.

[dehusman]

Ore and sand (frac sand) trains to be the heaviest TRAINS, followed by coal, then grain, then oil and ethanol and other unit trans behind that.  Its driven by whether the cars are 286 or not and how many cars in a train.  Frac sand and ore trains are lots of short heavy cars.  Coal trains run in the 110-150 car ranges.  Grain trains are in the 100-125 car range.  Oil trains around 100 cars.

[dehusman]

Euclid

 

dehusman

... the oil trains are finding the defects in the track, they aren't causing them, they are stressing the track and the track fails due to those stresses. 

 

 

It seems to me that oil trains are finding defects in the track and causing them.  You say that oil trains are stressing the track and the track fails due to those stresses.  Wouldn’t that amount to causing a defect?

Every train and every car stresses the track and causes wear.  Wear will eventually cause defects.  My take is that it has been implied that operating oil trains over track uniquely causes track failures, above and beyond the factors of normal wear.  Because they are unit trains the loaded train will stress the track more.  But so will any heavy unit train.  About the only unique thing I know of regarding a tank car is that the tubular design makes the car structure more rigid (and a lot of the "armored" tank car designs that have been thrown out here in threads previous would make that worse).  So, yes several million ton miles of oil trains will probably cause more problems than several million ton miles of general freight trains.  But I haven't read of any mechanism that would cause an oil train to spontaneously spawn track defects in its wake.

[M636C]

dehusman

Ore and sand (frac sand) trains to be the heaviest TRAINS, followed by coal, then grain, then oil and ethanol and other unit trans behind that.  Its driven by whether the cars are 286 or not and how many cars in a train.  Frac sand and ore trains are lots of short heavy cars.  Coal trains run in the 110-150 car ranges.  Grain trains are in the 100-125 car range.  Oil trains around 100 cars.

The point I was trying to make was that oil trains might operate on lines that had not seen unit trains before, since the oil traffic is essentially new and heading to refineries previously fed by pipelines or marine tankers. 

While any general freight can have a car or a number of cars with a 286 000 lb gross weight  only unit trains will have identical cars with the same all up weight, and the repetitive effect on a weak point in the track, be it a rail flaw, a dipped joint with a cracked web or poor ballast.

I spent several years looking at high class track being destroyed by heavy unit trains where every car was identical. We never had to worry about the empty trains but it didn't help that the loaded cars tended to be heavier on the lead truck.

M636C

[Euclid]

Norm48327

 

Euclid

It has been said that oil are generally heaviest trains

 

 

286,000 pounds is 286,000 pounds whether it is oil or coal. Why do you say oil trains are the heaviest? Math failure?

 

Norm,

If you read what I said, you can see that I went out of my way to NOT state it in absolute terms.  I did not say:  “Oil trains weigh more than any other type of trains.”  When I used the qualifier, “It has been said,” I was referring to one of those two Canadian oil train wrecks that happened about a year ago.  Some official from the FRA, TSB or the railroad said that the heaviest trains find the defects as a way of explaining what happened.  As I recall that person also did not clarify what he meant by implying that oil trains were the heaviest, and we had the same argument here to get to the bottom of his comment. 

The same point has been made in this thread by others.  Maybe I should have said that the oil trains are in the class of the heaviest trains, but then you would be quibbling about what weights define that class.  The problem is that if you make every post read like a contract for deed, nobody will get the point. 

We are talking about oil trains being harder on track than mixed trains, and thus oil trains being more likely than mixed trains to cause a week spot in the track to fail.  My point was to respond to the issue of whether oil trains were causing track defects or finding them, and had nothing to do with proclaiming which trains were the heaviest.  I hope that clears it up for you.

[schlimm]

dehusman

Ore and sand (frac sand) trains to be the heaviest TRAINS, followed by coal, then grain, then oil and ethanol and other unit trans behind that.  Its driven by whether the cars are 286 or not and how many cars in a train.  Frac sand and ore trains are lots of short heavy cars.  Coal trains run in the 110-150 car ranges.  Grain trains are in the 100-125 car range.  Oil trains around 100 cars.

 

100 cars of 286,000 # or 125 isn't the issue.  Heavy unit trains put the greatest stress on rails.  Individual heavy cars in mixed trains also exact a toll, but not as great because it isn't repetitive.  Unit intermodal trains by contrast are much easier on track.  The concern is with unit oil trains because if they derail, the consequences can be far deadlier than a coal or grain train, obviously.

In my purely personal, non-expert opinion, the railroads have been short-sighted in going for increasingly heavy cars and longer, relatively slow trains in their effort to reduce labor costs.  The cost is deferred onto track that becomes unsuitable for the growing time-sensitive intermodal market.

[mudchicken]

schlimm

 

In my purely personal, non-expert opinion, the railroads have been short-sighted in going for increasingly heavy cars and longer, relatively slow trains in their effort to reduce labor costs.  The cost is deferred onto track that becomes unsuitable for the growing time-sensitive intermodal market. 

Reality Check:

(1) The shippers have more than just a little to do with the heavy cars. The slow part is part steel on steel physics (you have to be able to stop) and part economic reality (fuel economy)....Odd, the trucking industry finds itself in a similar situation, pushed by similar forces. (Have fun dodging doubles and triples on the freeway on a windy day?) Shipper whining about not complying with their double standard, almost always based on cheap instead of reality, is a constant issue. Spending OPM to force a false economy in a free market ? Get real. The shortline industry is struggling still with a 263K plant that is trying to survive the accelerated decay caused by 286K-315K loadings. (The issue is getting worse, not better - even though most are not hearing about it.) A lot of this sounds like the 70's and 80's Powder River Coal Boom revisited (what's green & white and goes kaboom in the night?) earlier poster got that right about the rapid shift in traffic and tonnage to lighter lines that could not change fast enough.

(2) Common carriers are driven by the market, railroads cannot deny the traffic [TIH issue is already here]... We could always go back to the mess of the pre- Staggers 1960's-70's which would make today's track conditions issue seem mild.

(3) Intermodal trains are hardly light and have their own issues. (remember the center bound truck and bearing plate lubrication issues?)

[dehusman]

schlimm

In my purely personal, non-expert opinion, the railroads have been short-sighted in going for increasingly heavy cars and longer, relatively slow trains in their effort to reduce labor costs. The cost is deferred onto track that becomes unsuitable for the growing time-sensitive intermodal market.

Lower capacity cars and shorter trains = more trains.  A train is a train as far as the dispatching and signal system is concerned.  Whether the train has 10 cars or 100 cars it still uses the same crew and occupies the same slot on on the railroad.  More trains = a slower railroad.

Higher capacity and longer trains  = fewer trains.  Fewer trains = a faster railroad.

If you don't believe that more vehicles  = slower operation, drive across a major city at 5:00 pm and then try it again at 1:00 am.

Intermodal operations require a faster railroad.  If  a railroad has the luxury of moving non-premium traffic to a different route, great.  If a railroad has to use the same route for all its commodity mix, then fewer trains is better.

[schlimm]

dehusman

 

 

schlimm

In my purely personal, non-expert opinion, the railroads have been short-sighted in going for increasingly heavy cars and longer, relatively slow trains in their effort to reduce labor costs. The cost is deferred onto track that becomes unsuitable for the growing time-sensitive intermodal market.

 

 

Lower capacity cars and shorter trains = more trains.  A train is a train as far as the dispatching and signal system is concerned.  Whether the train has 10 cars or 100 cars it still uses the same crew and occupies the same slot on on the railroad.  More trains = a slower railroad.

Higher capacity and longer trains  = fewer trains.  Fewer trains = a faster railroad.

If you don't believe that more vehicles  = slower operation, drive across a major city at 5:00 pm and then try it again at 1:00 am.

Intermodal operations require a faster railroad.  If  a railroad has the luxury of moving non-premium traffic to a different route, great.  If a railroad has to use the same route for all its commodity mix, then fewer trains is better.

 

I'm sorry, but that simply does not jive with the reality of what one can easily observe in Germany.  There you see shorter freights (with lighter cars) running frequently at very fast speeds (75-100 mph) along with passenger trains (90 mph and up).  The freights are scheduled so that industries can rely on timely deliveries and use the "just in time" system.

Faster trains = more capacity.  If you need corroboration, ask Juniatha.

[BaltACD]

schlimm

dehusman

schlimm

In my purely personal, non-expert opinion, the railroads have been short-sighted in going for increasingly heavy cars and longer, relatively slow trains in their effort to reduce labor costs. The cost is deferred onto track that becomes unsuitable for the growing time-sensitive intermodal market.

Lower capacity cars and shorter trains = more trains.  A train is a train as far as the dispatching and signal system is concerned.  Whether the train has 10 cars or 100 cars it still uses the same crew and occupies the same slot on on the railroad.  More trains = a slower railroad.

Higher capacity and longer trains  = fewer trains.  Fewer trains = a faster railroad.

If you don't believe that more vehicles  = slower operation, drive across a major city at 5:00 pm and then try it again at 1:00 am.

Intermodal operations require a faster railroad.  If  a railroad has the luxury of moving non-premium traffic to a different route, great.  If a railroad has to use the same route for all its commodity mix, then fewer trains is better.

I'm sorry, but that simply does not jive with the reality of what one can easily observe in Germany.  There you see shorter freights (with lighter cars) running frequently at very fast speeds (75-100 mph) along with passenger trains (90 mph and up).  The freights are scheduled so that industries can rely on timely deliveries and use the "just in time" system.

Faster trains = more capacity.  If you need corroboration, ask Juniatha.

What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads.

[edblysard]

To add to Dave's analogy,

Imagine all those rush hour cars having to use just two lanes, one in each direction, and all of them trying to get into the same two or three parking lots at the same time. 

Why do folks insist on comparing the European model of railroading to the American model, when they face two completely different geographic obstacles/ regions, and vastly different distances, and two different political models?

[n012944]

schlimm

 

Faster trains = more capacity.  

 

 

 

[Deggesty]

edblysard

To add to Dave's analogy,

Imagine all those rush hour cars having to use just two lanes, one in each direction, and all of them trying to get into the same two or three parking lots at the same time. 

Why do folks insist on comparing the European model of railroading to the American model, when they face two completely different geographic obstacles/ regions, and vastly different distances, and two different political models?