wanswheel BaltACD Could this be a PTC CAUSED derailment? Excerpt from news article, Jun. 4 An auto-pilot system called Positive Train Control is currently being installed system wide, but it is not in Oregon yet, according to sources. Espinoza couldn’t say if positive train control would’ve prevented this derailment without yet knowing what caused it.
BaltACD Could this be a PTC CAUSED derailment?
Excerpt from news article, Jun. 4
An auto-pilot system called Positive Train Control is currently being installed system wide, but it is not in Oregon yet, according to sources. Espinoza couldn’t say if positive train control would’ve prevented this derailment without yet knowing what caused it.
The way her story keeps changing, she should be a spokeswoman for a politician.
Norm
BaltACDCould this be a PTC CAUSED derailment?
Euc - you catch more Red Herring than the crabbers on Deadliest Catch catch crab.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Officials say a bolt that fastens the rail to the railroad ties may have been at fault. But, they say a final determination of the cause hasn’t been made.”
If 100 Acme model 342718 dash 2 bolts failed but they were all Acme model 342718 dash 2 bolts the statement made would still be true. They did have a failure of a bolt. The "a" could mean one single type instead of one single bolt.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Here are a couple of experts who agree with me in finding the U.P. explanation of the wreck cause to be puzzling. That is the cause blamed on a rail fastener.
http://kuow.org/post/industry-experts-question-railroad-explanation-mosier-derailment
But more puzzling to me is this from the link:
“The 96-car Union Pacific train was carrying Bakken crude oil to a refinery in Tacoma, Wash., when it had an “undesired emergency application” of its brakes. Sixteen tanker cars derailed in Mosier, resulting in a fire and an estimated 42,000 gallons of spilled oil.”
So this is another reference to the “braking issue” that was mentioned in other links. Once again the reference fails to close the loop with a clarification of whether the derailment occurred immediately upon the occurrence of the “undesired emergency application.”
Even if the two events were nearly simultaneous, it leaves the UDE as either a possible cause or a possible effect of the derailment. It depends on whether the UDE preceded the onset of the derailment or followed it. This may be impossible to establish.
However, if the UDE preceded the derailment it would be the 600-pound gorilla of probable cause of the derailment. If it was not the cause of the derailment, then it would be a profound coincidence to have a UDE and unrelated derailment to occur at the same moment.
So, until the details of this UDE are resolved, I have to wonder why all the focus on the possible fastener problem.
Now this is just my opinion, but it sounds to me like the fastener problem has been cooked up by U.P. as a red herring to take the focus off of the 600-pound gorilla UDE. That would explain why they trotted out the fastener problem so early that they were not even able to confirm it.
U.P.’s problem with the UDE is precisely that it is a braking issue, and one that is all but eliminated with ECP brakes. When the new tank car rules were announced, the railroad industry staked their opposition to an ECP mandate to their claim that braking performance had almost nothing to do with oil train safety.
Euclid Here are a couple of experts who agree with me in finding the U.P. explanation of the wreck cause to be puzzling. That is the cause blamed on a rail fastener. http://kuow.org/post/industry-experts-question-railroad-explanation-mosier-derailment But more puzzling to me is this from the link: “The 96-car Union Pacific train was carrying Bakken crude oil to a refinery in Tacoma, Wash., when it had an “undesired emergency application” of its brakes. Sixteen tanker cars derailed in Mosier, resulting in a fire and an estimated 42,000 gallons of spilled oil.” So this is another reference to the “braking issue” that was mentioned in other links. Once again the reference fails to close the loop with a clarification of whether the derailment occurred immediately upon the occurrence of the “undesired emergency application.” Even if the two events were nearly simultaneous, it leaves the UDE as either a possible cause or a possible effect of the derailment. It depends on whether the UDE preceded the onset of the derailment or followed it. This may be impossible to establish. However, if the UDE preceded the derailment it would be the 600-pound gorilla of probable cause of the derailment. If it was not the cause of the derailment, then it would be a profound coincidence to have a UDE and unrelated derailment to occur at the same moment. So, until the details of this UDE are resolved, I have to wonder why all the focus on the possible fastener problem. Now this is just my opinion, but it sounds to me like the fastener problem has been cooked up by U.P. as a red herring to take the focus off of the 600-pound gorilla UDE. That would explain with they trotted out the fastener problem so early that they were not even able to confirm it. U.P.’s problem with the UDE is precisely that it is a braking issue, and one that is all but eliminated with ECP brakes. When the new tank car rules were announced, the railroad industry staked their opposition to an ECP mandate to their claim that braking performance had almost nothing to do with oil train safety.
Now this is just my opinion, but it sounds to me like the fastener problem has been cooked up by U.P. as a red herring to take the focus off of the 600-pound gorilla UDE. That would explain with they trotted out the fastener problem so early that they were not even able to confirm it.
My carrier now has PTC operational on various sub divisions across the property, including two on my territory. With all the radio communications that has to take place between track switches, CADS computer and engine PTC computer we are having multiple incidences of a switch not properly reporting it's position and thereby initiating at PTC brake application, which because of a 'kicker' in the train ends up being a UnDesired Emergency brake application. The sub divisions on my territory that are now operating under PTC carry a high volume of chemical traffic and both subdivisions are Dark territory.
I would expect that if my carrier now has PTC operating on specific territories to test it, that the other Class 1's are also testing their PTC systems in specific locations. Could this be a PTC CAUSED derailment? Just a WAG with no basis in fact of how UP is operating this sub division?
Euclid http://kuow.org/post/industry-experts-question-railroad-explanation-mosier-derailment
Thanks for the link Euclid. Dig that '49 Caddie!
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/x_large/public/201503/2014.49.010-054-0111.jpg
http://koin.com/2016/06/07/bolt-could-be-at-fault-for-oil-train-derailment/
“Officials say a bolt that fastens the rail to the railroad ties may have been at fault. But, they say a final determination of the cause hasn’t been made.”
Excerpt from The Oregonian, Jun. 8
[Reporter Rob Davis interviewed Fire Chief Jim Appleton]
Q. What had you thought about oil trains?
A. I was agnostic – they're a necessary evil and there's not much I can do. If they have to be here, let's be reassured by Union Pacific's safety record. This incident, everything was the way Union Pacific wanted it. And it still happened. If we'd had the same fire on a windy day, we would've had a crown fire in a forest in two or three minutes that would've shot embers God knows where. We would've had wildfire spotting for miles. What's at stake? Do we want to test the abilities of a small town again to respond to Armageddon? Or just understand, it's not worth the risk. It ain't worth shareholder value. I know the railroad's argument. But we need to tell them: You can't ship that cargo.
Q. Has this changed your calculus?
A. Absolutely. I'm going to do everything I can. This is going to be the end of Bakken unit trains – I think that's low-hanging fruit. I don't know if it's an administrative decision, but you should be able to declare that unsafe. I think the Vancouver terminal is low-hanging fruit. I can make a strong argument there ought to be no crude oil – particularly because of the environmental damage it can do – in a unit train. I don't see how anyone can make an argument for safety or acceptable risks after this. The track had just been inspected, the train had just been inspected. They do everything they can to avoid these accidents and yet it happened – and it almost took out my town. Bakken unit trains are unsafe at any speed. I'm committed to spending whatever effort it takes. It should not be a hard choice at this point.
Q. Tell me where you were Friday when you first became aware something was wrong.
A. In Hood River. I got a text message I couldn't quite read because I left my reading glasses at the office. I could see it said "fire on overpass." I saw the column of smoke coming up, pretty good sized, but I've seen many like it. This column is basically rising straight up, which to me is usually a lazy fire. If it's a car fire, I'm not too concerned. I'm thinking about what we'll have to do to prevent a small wildland fire. From the freeway I couldn't see anything. I came over the overpass, looking down on the derailment. That was how I first discovered what was going on. The true scary moment was looking to the left and seeing a line of oil cars, end to end, running through my town with the fire on the upwind side. The fire didn't look too bad. But the exposures, what it's going to go to next, are explosive. I'm thinking of the videos of Bakken crude exploding. That was truly my worst nightmare coming true. Thinking of those cars exploding and the hell that would've caused.
Q. Was anybody on scene when you got there?
A. There were members of the public fairly close but no other responders. We had an engine coming, but they were still suiting up.
Q. Did you know what to do?
A. My training tells me to pull back to a minimum of a quarter-mile and begin thinking about evacuations. We did nothing to engage that fire immediately. Two things came into play that made a huge difference in the first two hours. We had a mutual aid pact in place that ties together all the resources in five counties and two states. We made one phone call and all night long water trucks just kept showing up. Three years ago (before the pact) we would've run out of water trucks very quickly. What a difference that made.
Q. When you and I spoke before, you told me your department had 40 gallons of foam for oil fires. Did you think you were prepared for this?
A. The funny thing is – I'm prepared. The conventional wisdom is foam, foam, foam, foam. Foam doesn't have any effect until you can put it on a liquid oil fire instead of hot metal. The real weak link is water. I have everything that was used to put out this fire except for 2.5 million gallons of water. They used 25 gallons of foam.
Q. How did you immediately warn people?
A. Very quickly we made a command post and made a plan for the evacuation of Mosier Manor and the school and got it underway in 10 or 15 minutes. That went very smoothly. I've had enough training in oil response that I knew what I needed to do.
Q. Is that expertise you had four years ago before oil trains started moving?
A. I'm more aware because oil trains are here and we talk about it. The way we felt the benefit of that training wasn't so much in knowing what to do as it was in knowing who to call. Everyone had everyone on speed dial.
Q. How long did it take to learn that it was Bakken crude?
A. We knew pretty quickly. We were getting excellent information from Union Pacific in an extremely timely way. That part was fantastic. Union Pacific did everything right here.
Q. Did the tank cars explode? About four hours in we saw a large fireball.
A. The KGW footage? That was a flare up. No rail cars exploded in this incident. it was purely an oil incident. That was by far the least dramatic of the flare-ups we saw. The Bakken oil is now treated – it reduces the volatility – so that it's much less explosive. It's still as flammable as gasoline.
schlimmI understand spill clean up (if any) is billable. What about putting out the fire?
Billable.
Police coordination -- bottled water -- evacuation costs...
Some contributions, the Red Cross DRTs being one area, may be provided without intent to be reimbursed. But those, too, would be billable if desired.
I'm not sure why this argument has gone on as long as it has. Is there some deeper point, or agenda, that is supposed to be brought out? If so, just make it and go on with the discussion, such as it is.
MidlandMike schlimm greyhounds schlimm Who pays for containing the fire and the spill? The Union Pacific pays. Could you expand upon that? In environmental law the responsible party pays for clean-up. Causation is the primary factor in determining who that is. There may be multiple responsible parties. The railroad, maybe the owner of the oil and possibly a crude transport company. Environmental law details vary by state.
schlimm greyhounds schlimm Who pays for containing the fire and the spill? The Union Pacific pays. Could you expand upon that?
greyhounds schlimm Who pays for containing the fire and the spill? The Union Pacific pays.
schlimm Who pays for containing the fire and the spill?
The Union Pacific pays.
Could you expand upon that?
In environmental law the responsible party pays for clean-up. Causation is the primary factor in determining who that is. There may be multiple responsible parties. The railroad, maybe the owner of the oil and possibly a crude transport company. Environmental law details vary by state.
I understand spill clean up (if any) is billable. What about putting out the fire?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And you can bet that the lawyers will be lining up to file cases.
schlimmWho pays for containing the fire and the spill?
wanswheel Excerpt from Northwest Public Radio, Jun. 7 Mosier fire chief Jim Appleton says in the past, he’s tried to be a mediator between the Union Pacific railroad and his neighbors in town who oppose oil trains. “Assuring the community that they’ve got a great safety record, and chances are miniscule. But it happened in our town.” Now Appleton says he’s changed his mind. “I hope that this becomes a death knell for this mode of shipping this cargo. I think it’s insane.” The disaster didn’t take any lives and caused minimal property damage. In Appleton’s view, that was a matter of luck. “If the same derailment had happened 24 hours earlier, there would have been 35 mph gusts blowing the length of the train, so the fire could have spread to some or all of the 96 cars behind.”… Emergency responders in communities along rail lines in the Northwest have struggled to prepare for a possible disaster. Departments have also tried to stockpile critical equipment needed to fight oil fires, including a special type of fire suppression foam. But Appleton said that foam was of relatively little use for the first 10 hours after the fire started in Mosier. It couldn’t be directly applied to the main rail car that was on fire. “The metal is just too hot, and the foam will land on the white-hot metal and evaporate without any suppression effect.” To fight the fire, crews had to cool down the hot metal rail cars filled with explosive oil. Hour after hour, they sprayed the tankers with 1500 gallons of water a minute.
Excerpt from Northwest Public Radio, Jun. 7
Mosier fire chief Jim Appleton says in the past, he’s tried to be a mediator between the Union Pacific railroad and his neighbors in town who oppose oil trains.
“Assuring the community that they’ve got a great safety record, and chances are miniscule. But it happened in our town.”
Now Appleton says he’s changed his mind.
“I hope that this becomes a death knell for this mode of shipping this cargo. I think it’s insane.”
The disaster didn’t take any lives and caused minimal property damage. In Appleton’s view, that was a matter of luck.
“If the same derailment had happened 24 hours earlier, there would have been 35 mph gusts blowing the length of the train, so the fire could have spread to some or all of the 96 cars behind.”…
Emergency responders in communities along rail lines in the Northwest have struggled to prepare for a possible disaster.
Departments have also tried to stockpile critical equipment needed to fight oil fires, including a special type of fire suppression foam.
But Appleton said that foam was of relatively little use for the first 10 hours after the fire started in Mosier. It couldn’t be directly applied to the main rail car that was on fire.
“The metal is just too hot, and the foam will land on the white-hot metal and evaporate without any suppression effect.”
To fight the fire, crews had to cool down the hot metal rail cars filled with explosive oil. Hour after hour, they sprayed the tankers with 1500 gallons of water a minute.
It is understandable and rational that responsible officials and residents of towns these trains pass through would be increasingly leary of the dangers the cargo poses to their lives and properties, as well as the cost. Who pays for containing the fire and the spill?
Coincidentally, on the same day as the derailment:
http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jun/03/oil-train-safety-focus-of-ecology-hearing/
Note the DHS comments regarding fire control.
Coincidentally, around 8pm the night before the derailment, this same train made a very abrupt stop right behind my house in northern Idaho after a very long horn blast approaching a crossing.
Does the author of that statement fully understand the differences between "explosive" "flammable" and "combustible"? I will concede that Bakken crude is more flamable than othere crudes, but I don't believe it could be classified as explosive unless it were in a BLEVE situation where an itact tank car was heated to the point of releasing considerable vapor.
schlimm Euclid [said]: My first reaction is to wonder if anyone else has reported a “braking issue.” So far, the media is faithfully running with the “track problem” explanation that they were fed by the U.P. I suggested it could be a track problem well before the UP started "feeding" anyone. I would suggest your biases cause you to challenge the legitimacy of any theory or explanation besides your own.
I suggested it could be a track problem well before the UP started "feeding" anyone. I would suggest your biases cause you to challenge the legitimacy of any theory or explanation besides your own.
Why do you say that? I have no theory as to the cause of the derailment. I have never stated one, so how can I be biased against other theories?
I know that you speculated on track based causes, and that's fine with me. It might well have been a broken rail, or even a sun kink. I do think the U.P. explanation about track fasteners is odd. I think that because one track fastener failure will not derail a train, and a large number of fasteners failing in one area without being noticed seems unlikely. It is also odd that U.P. would tell us about this theory without explaining their evidence, and then tell us that they are not sure yet.
Likewise the "braking issue" mentioned in some sources is odd in that the wording makes it impossible to determine whether this is being offered a cause for the derailment or just an event that preceded the derailment.
My only interest is to learn what the cause was. I have no preference bias for a cause of this derailment.
EuclidMy first reaction is to wonder if anyone else has reported a “braking issue.” So far, the media is faithfully running with the “track problem” explanation that they were fed by the U.P.
dehusman Euclid Why would you conclude that the report is in error?
Euclid Why would you conclude that the report is in error?
Okay, so the authoritative source says a track screw may have failed and caused the derailment, but they are not sure yet.
EuclidWhy would you conclude that the report is in error?
Because the UP report is from an authoritative source and the BBC report has no source.
Euclid Norm, Why would you conclude that the report is in error? I certainly agree that any or all news reporting could be wrong either due to incompetence or to an agenda, but what is so hard to believe about a “braking issue” causing the derailment (if that is what the words actually mean)? Why would you dismiss that and conclude that it is only said to advance an agenda? A report of “braking issue” seems no odder than spokesperson Raquel Espinoza saying that “A failure of the fastener between the railroad tie and the line was likely the problem…” She is certainly not presenting an anti-oil agenda. My first reaction is to wonder if anyone else has reported a “braking issue.” So far, the media is faithfully running with the “track problem” explanation that they were fed by the U.P.
Norm,
Why would you conclude that the report is in error? I certainly agree that any or all news reporting could be wrong either due to incompetence or to an agenda, but what is so hard to believe about a “braking issue” causing the derailment (if that is what the words actually mean)? Why would you dismiss that and conclude that it is only said to advance an agenda?
A report of “braking issue” seems no odder than spokesperson Raquel Espinoza saying that “A failure of the fastener between the railroad tie and the line was likely the problem…” She is certainly not presenting an anti-oil agenda.
My first reaction is to wonder if anyone else has reported a “braking issue.” So far, the media is faithfully running with the “track problem” explanation that they were fed by the U.P.
Reread my post, and stop analyzing everything down to the last period. End of discussion.
While I won't dispute the possibility of a "dynamiter" setting the train into emergency and causing the derailment, I won't give that article much credence. It appear to have been written by someone with an agenda to stop crude oil transit by rail.
True journalism has been forsaken, and the content of many articles appear to have come from the mind of the writer and intended to stir emotions in the reader. Facts be damned. Get the story out.
This is the first I have heard of a “braking issue” being related to the derailment. I thought it was the track that is said to be the possible cause for the derailment.
http://www.opb.org/news/series/oil-trains/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-oil-train-derailment-along-the-columbia-river/
From the link:
“What Happened
The 96-car Union Pacific train was carrying Bakken crude oil headed for Tacoma, Washington, when it is believed to have experienced a braking issue and derailed near Mosier, Oregon, about 70 miles east of Portland.”
tdmidgetIn addition, AFFF is expensive and has a shelf life. That's good for training but the costs of AFFF that is never used may be tough on a small town.
We carry five gallons of class B foam (which would be necessary for this type of incident) on our pumper, with an eductor. It does the job for small class B fires and spills, but even a fuel tanker would challenge us. The fire would either burn itself out or we'd call on the nearby military airfield for assistance.
There might be another 10 gallons at the station - I'd have to check. Most departments around here would be in the same boat.
We actually keep more class A foam available, as we're more likely to use it (and do). Our brush truck has a built in tank and eductor for it.
AFFF prices depend on concentration, ranging from $80 to $120 for a five gallon pail. Shelf life can be 10 years, but in a small department, it's still possible that even a small stockpile would expire.
Airport truck can carry up to 80 gallons of foam concentrate, and depending on the concentration, can use it all in just a couple of minutes.
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...
wanswheelRaquel Espinoza, a spokeswoman with Union Pacific, said preliminary findings lead the company to believe there was an issue with the tracks. “It appears a fastener that connects the rail tie with the rail could’ve contributed to the cause, but we are still looking at different pieces of evidence,” she said… Some industry experts said they are skeptical that that alone could be the cause of a derailment that size. Thomas Frederick, an officer with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in Seattle, said it sounded implausible.
“It appears a fastener that connects the rail tie with the rail could’ve contributed to the cause, but we are still looking at different pieces of evidence,” she said…
Some industry experts said they are skeptical that that alone could be the cause of a derailment that size.
Thomas Frederick, an officer with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in Seattle, said it sounded implausible.
It makes no sense at all that the U.P. would volunteer a suggestion that the cause of the derailment was track related while admitting that they do not know for sure. Why would they make such a statement? Normally, they take months to reach a conclusion and refuse to speculate at all until they know for sure.
I assume that the U.P. knows more about the cause of this derailment than what they are telling us. If not, why on earth would you suspect a rail fastener device? Why even start with the assumption that the cause was related to track?
That seems rather odd when they also seem to be going out of their way to tell us that the track had been recently inspected several times, and it passed those inspections.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.