I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.
If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about. Politics is one thing, but business is business.
He's long gone, but consider this. Back in 1973 when the Arab oil embargo (Remember that? I do) was in full swing, then-President Nixon, who a lot of people considered the devil incarnate, was advised to stop food shipments to the OPEC countries taking part in the boycott to retaliate. He refused to do so, although he would have made many, many people sweating out gas lines very happy if he did.
Honestly, I refuse to play "The Devil Incarnate" game anymore, no matter who's in the White House, Democrat or Republican.
Falcon48But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.
It is never too early to start lobbying the Green New Deal people, and others in the 'blue wave' House, to get them to start revisiting common-carrier obligations with an eye toward furthering socialist safety by banning hazardous material on the rails. A really good first step would be amending those obsolete old common-carrier requirements for railroads disinterested in paying current market insurance rates to do so ... and then carefully being sure that the insurance providers get their ducks in a row to start so billing the carriers. And set up Amtrak-like liability caps for any incident that occurs in the brave new system.
Hey, the free-market action alone ought to result in a major decrease in actual hazmat, or an effective increase in the price shippers pay to move it that is commensurate with the greater public safety (and covers any 'surcharge' for the increased insurance costs). Then earmark any 'windfall profits' due to the much higher shipping rate for safety improvements such as progressive ECP kit conversion of critical hazmat equipment...
If Obama could classify clothing as a medical expense, there's no reason we can't classify grain as an explosion hazard.
Falcon48 I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB.
RE: My earlier note
Here's an example of a railroad's attempt to limit its handling of high hazard hazmat traffic (chlorine) and STB's response to it (STB shot it down):
https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/39995.pdf
Up here in the Upper Midwest, running all over the place, we have propane trucks and anhydrous ammonia trucks and chlorine trucks and CNG trucks and you name it on the highways.
The idea of LNG on the rails seems to be less of a danger than what I am rolling next to in my F-150 on my way in to work every day.
Flintlock76If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about
Was that the one where Al Capone is walking around the table carrying a baseball bat?
kgbw49The idea of LNG on the rails seems to be less of a danger than what I am rolling next to in my F-150 on my way in to work every day.
I keep an ERG in the truck (volunteer fire chief) - and yes, it will scare the daylights out of you.
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...
What is an ERG?
Convicted One Flintlock76 If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about Was that the one where Al Capone is walking around the table carrying a baseball bat?
Flintlock76 If they pay the bills on time they'll have nothing to worry about
Huh?
The only time Capone used a baseball bat (that I know of) was when he offed a couple of rat finks. Maybe. Could be an urban legend.
Falcon48 Falcon48 I've been retired from the rail industry for over a decade, so i don't have any insights into current rail management thinking. But I have to wonder if the railroads themselves are particularly anxious to transport this stuff. Undoubtedly, from a grand safety perspective, it's safer to transport it by rail than by truck. But the downside to a railroad if there is an accident is devastating (not to mention the downside to those in the area). Recall that some railroads tried to limit their common carrier obligation to transport chlorine some years ago, only to get shot down by STB. RE: My earlier note Here's an example of a railroad's attempt to limit its handling of high hazard hazmat traffic (chlorine) and STB's response to it (STB shot it down): https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5E59A6C2D2A853A2852575D2004B8A7B/39995.pdf
Lest we forget the explosive power of isobutane, Decatur.
https://herald-review.com/news/local/years-later-memories-of-the-decatur-rail-yard-explosion-remain/article_3d388703-f1fa-5b00-af72-df91f84cef7c.html
Lithonia Operator What is an ERG?
Lithonia OperatorWhat is an ERG?
Emergency Response Guide. Advises what to do when you've identified the hazarduous materials or situations you face. The PHMSA 'Orange Book' conveniently puts the ID material on the left-hand page and the Rx on the right, so everything is together and right at hand when something happens.
(PS: I believe you can get a version of this as a free phone app or download PDF from PHMSA, and I think everyone who is concerned with hazmat or potential 'encounter' with it should have a copy and read it.)
Isobutane is 2-methylpropane, which can be thought of as a kind of LPG. Its shipping pressure is relatively low (probably little more than 30psig) and since the boiling point is about 10 degrees F it will 'find its own equilibrium pressure' to stay liquid without inert-gas pressurization. (Compare this to straight propane which is about 320psig at the same temperature)
None of the reports, or reported damage, is consistent with a double explosion involving a BLEVE, which makes this one of the grandmothers of all critical-mixture explosions. The flammable limit is under 9% rich, but only over about 1% lean, so probably only a comparatively short time between ignition at cloud edge and turbulent carburetion to limit within the cloud itself.
To put this in somewhat different perspective, 2-methyloxirane (which would presumably be a common rail borne 'thing' only a few years later with the rise of urethanes in production) which is a strained-ring and slightly self-oxygenated analog, is a favored fuel for thermobaric devices.
OvermodOvermod wrote the following post 2 hours ago: Lithonia Operator What is an ERG? Emergency Response Guide. Advises what to do when you've identified the hazarduous materials or situations you face. The PHMSA 'Orange Book' conveniently puts the ID material on the left-hand page and the Rx on the right, so everything is together and right at hand when something happens. (PS: I believe you can get a version of this as a free phone app or download PDF from PHMSA, and I think everyone who is concerned with hazmat or potential 'encounter' with it should have a copy and read it.)
There are indeed apps for your phone, and the download PDF. There is another app, called WISER, which provides similar information. I keep both on my phone. Both are also searchable, which can save a lot of time vs scrolling through looking for what you're looking for.
If you're friendly with your local fire department, see if they have an old copy you can have. There isn't much change from issue to issue.
The ERG also includes illustrations of placards and other information (including rail cars).
The intent of the ERG is to provide responders with initial guidance for dealing with a hazmat incident. I've heard it said that it's good for the first ten minutes or so.
Substances are listed by UN number, then alphabetically by name, then the appropriate actions, and finally by special information on TIH (toxic by inhalation) chemicals, including appropriate evacuation distances.
You can download the ERG app on your phone. The next update is 2020. It's upated every 4 years.
BaltACDDepends upon who occupies the Office of President of the United States we are finding out.
The Russians always communicate who they think the weak POTUS is via military moves on the ground during that specific administration.
I know what you mean on the ERG and what to do when stuff is on fire. I have to keep one on me at all times at work since I work at a Hazmat certifed carrier. You want to talk about fun times. We play worst case scenerio at times when bored at work. You know what could be the worst ever accident we could recreate in a standard MVA that could happen on the road. The joys of gallows humor at work.
SOTC: Your reference to worst case scenario brought up a thought - would there be any restrictions on handling LNG through long tunnels? I would be very wary of routing an LNG train through a tunnel in an urban area as it could re-create the Cleveland LNG incident.
[quote user="Lithonia Operator"]
[/quote]
Emergency Response Guide:
Here is a PDF for a current publication: Should be an updated version due in about 2020,
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/ERG2016.pdf
They are generally carried by first responders in their own(POV) vehicle;
or in their Official Response Vehicles.
Activated for you.
Erik_Magwould there be any restrictions on handling LNG through long tunnels? I would be very wary of routing an LNG train through a tunnel in an urban area as it could re-create the Cleveland LNG incident.
It would be little more dangerous to route LNG through a tunnel than any compressed gas, whether liquefied under its own vapor pressure or stabilized over liquid like acetylene. The problem in Cleveland was the existence of sewers in which a critical mixture could be established, and this is not nearly the problem in a railroad tunnel that it would be in, say, a subway tunnel under residential properties (or a gasoline pipeline under houses, but I digress) unless the tunnel drainage system ran into either storm sewers or residential sewers, or enough LNG in liquid form ran down out of the tunnel to pour into street drains. That's likely to be a LOT of LNG over a comparatively long time, left unrecognized until the gas can form a critical mixture in an appropriately large or 'tuned' confined space (which is what would take it from essentially deflagration to detonation).
There's also a consideration for tunnels that, unlike those at most summits, have downward curvature like the ex-PRR Hudson River tunnels. In those the liquid would pool at the center of the tunnel and likely have pretty good heat-transfer to vaporize; I'm not sure if any fire would propagate as periodic 'puffs' before settling down to a roof plume with combustion air flowing in at low level, or indeed going out due to oxygen exhaustion and continuing chill close to the "pool fire". Surely someone somewhere has done testing on this...
So in brief: yes, I'd keep LNG trains out of urban tunnels, certainly to the extent the tunnels already have a 'gas restriction' for prompt leakage hazards (as in the 'bottled gas' prohibitions in some trans-Hudson tunnels). I suspect there are some comparatively common-sense actions that could be taken to reduce 'liquid leakage' problems to a minimum for LNG, some of them similar to how you would keep storm surge out. Some of these also have the effect of restricting atmospheric mixing, although you might still want to incorporate one-way and self-closing explosion doors in them.
SOTC"
Shouldn't that be a bit different -- "STCO", for example? Were you thinking about Ford 427s...
Overmod SOTC" Shouldn't that be a bit different -- "STCO", for example? Were you thinking about Ford 427s...
A bit dyslexiated....
Side oiler? Hmmm, such as in a GT40? (May have got that one wrong, ISTR that one version of the mid 60's GT's used a side oiler).
I was in Berkeley in 1978 when the horrendous tanker truck accident happened in the Caldecott tunnel. IIRC, the truck was carrying gasoline, but anything more volatile than JP-7 (AKA Lockheed Lighter Fluid #1) could have caused similar damage. One state legislator had proposed a bill to ban tankers from vehicular tunnels in response to that accident and I remember the weekend PBS press show criticizing that effort. Seemed reasonable to me.
I also recall that propane cylinders were prohibited from either Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station.
I live very near a proposed LNG plant and railcar loading site. Here in the Marcellus Shale gas field getting poduct to market is the limitting factor in gas production.
One key market that is unreached is New England. Gas demand there is greater than current pipeline capacity can supply and importing CNG from overseas is the current solutuon. Additional pipelines from PA to New England have been proposed, but the State of New York has blocked construction, strangling growth in the New England states.
The CNG rail transport solution will see daily 100 car trains travelling up the old D&H from Binghamton, NY through Albany, NY and on to an unloading facility somewhere along the old B&M. I hope the NY politicians enjoy the sight of those trains rolling ith eyesight of their offices.
Vern MooreI live very near a proposed LNG plant and railcar loading site. Here in the Marcellus Shale gas field getting poduct to market is the limitting factor in gas production. One key market that is unreached is New England. Gas demand there is greater than current pipeline capacity can supply and importing CNG from overseas is the current solutuon. Additional pipelines from PA to New England have been proposed, but the State of New York has blocked construction, strangling growth in the New England states. The CNG rail transport solution will see daily 100 car trains travelling up the old D&H from Binghamton, NY through Albany, NY and on to an unloading facility somewhere along the old B&M. I hope the NY politicians enjoy the sight of those trains rolling ith eyesight of their offices.
Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
Gas is usually burned off in an oil field because the economics are not there to construct pipelines, or the gas is sour (H2S) and the economics are not there to bulid a sweetening plant. They usually need permission from state regulators to flare the gas. Even if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant.
CMStPnPMissed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
Our regional landfill used to flare off the methane produced by the contents of said landfill.
Now they capture the gas and use it to run generators, selling the power to the utility.
There was talk of using the waste heat from the genset so air condition greenhouses. The manager of the landfill told me that a similar set-up in the Buffalo area supplies something like one-fifth of the hothouse tomatoes in NY.
Seems to me like that would be an option for the oil fields...
MidlandMikeEven if they build a gas liquifying plant, they still need to gather the gas thru pipelines from a sufficient number wells to feed the gas plant.
And even if you build a small-scale liquefaction plant (which is a 'thing', and could be subsidized as a matter of policy) you'd have to arrange periodic access to it to transfer the liquefied product. Not impossible, but the infrastructure for LNG handling and eventual re-gasification has to be well advanced to permit it economically.
See some of the implementations of a hydrogen carrier infrastructure for things like iLINT for ideas.
tree68 CMStPnP Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States. Our regional landfill used to flare off the methane produced by the contents of said landfill. Now they capture the gas and use it to run generators, selling the power to the utility. There was talk of using the waste heat from the genset so air condition greenhouses. The manager of the landfill told me that a similar set-up in the Buffalo area supplies something like one-fifth of the hothouse tomatoes in NY. Seems to me like that would be an option for the oil fields...
CMStPnP Missed by many in this thread was the fact that many oil fields currently flare off the gas. What that means is they burn it onsite without attempting to capture it. The LNG export market and shipment by rail will give a margin incentive to capture the gas and sell it vs just burning it off. Why some on here think that is a huge travesty is beyond me. If anything it uses the gas productively instead of wasting it at the well head. Produces more tax revenue for the United States.
In the old days, lease gas incendental to oil production, was sometimes given to the landowner. Oil wells need lots of maintenance and sometimes shut down by themselves, so they are not always a reliable gas supply. There have been cases where the landowner tried to restart the well, with bad results. Malfunctions at the well facility may send oil or water down a lease gas line. There have been a lot of safety reasons why oil companies have discontinued the giveaway.
MidlandMikeIn the old days, lease gas incendental to oil production, was sometimes given to the landowner.
As I wrote that, I invisioned the oil company itself doing the whole genset thing, not a third party.
I would imagine it would come down to dollars and cents - if keeping gas supplied to the genset is more expensive than the yield in electricity, it's not worth the effort.
Landowners were generally using the free gas to cook and heat homes. Some lucky people had the free gas in their mineral lease, and when a gas storage company aquired the leases, people would take advantage of the fact they could heat the house and any attachments. They would attach garages, workshops, barns, and in one case, an indoor pool.
tree68I would imagine it would come down to dollars and cents - if keeping gas supplied to the genset is more expensive than the yield in electricity, it's not worth the effort.
You're forgetting by far the most expensive part of the exercise -- the capital cost of the genset and its connected equipment, and wiring, isolation arrangements and switchgear to connect it to an electric-power network or grid.
Back at the relative dawn of dual-fuel studies, we did some calculations indicating that the du Pont house 'Patterns' could get effective HVAC via a couple of fairly simple 350cid IC engines, on skids driving refrigerant compressors and generators. Subsequently the York company actually designed and manufactured a ceramic engine for this application at smaller scale (driving a typical home-sized heat-pump compressor directly and recuperating heat from the combustion exhaust). It didn't sell well, though I admired the hell out of the design and the company's willingness to develop it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.