Trains.com

1OO UNIT ETHANOL TANKER TRAIN

4267 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2006
  • 344 posts
1OO UNIT ETHANOL TANKER TRAIN
Posted by chicagorails on Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:10 PM

WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING  HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRYPirate [oX)]

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 2,434 posts
Posted by gabe on Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:21 PM

Isn't there a 40 mph restriction for hazardous chemicals, such as ethonol?

Also, there was a recent derailment of an NS unit ethenol train.  Although 9 cars did catch fire, the whole train did not go.

Gabe

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:49 PM
     I seem to recall DM&E derailing an ethanol train a couple of years ago(?) around Lake Benton, MN., and that wasn't the end of the world as we know it.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:09 PM
NS derailed an ethanol train outside of Pittsburgh a couple of months ago. A few of the cars caught fire and they just let them burn themselves out.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:12 PM
I would have more concerns about LPG.  One car of that stuff going makes several cars of ethanol look like a campfire.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:17 PM
 chicagorails wrote:

WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING  HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRYPirate [oX)]

Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels.  Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol.  And pipelines don't derail!

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: heart of the Pere Marquette
  • 847 posts
Posted by J. Edgar on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:22 PM

 

 

 bio-desiel is where its at.....100 car unit train of used french-fry oil.....safe for everybody

i love the smell of coal smoke in the morning Photobucket
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: heart of the Pere Marquette
  • 847 posts
Posted by J. Edgar on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:23 PM
 J. Edgar wrote:

 

 

 bio-desiel is where its at.....100 car unit train of used french-fry oil.....safe for everybody

 

 *diesel...........sorry

i love the smell of coal smoke in the morning Photobucket
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:39 PM
 futuremodal wrote:
 chicagorails wrote:

WHAT IF A 100 ETHANOL LOADED TANKER TRAIN DERAILED GOING 50 MPH?? and a dozen or so derailed,and caught fire and exploded ........would this cause a chain reaction and all hell break loose or are their safeguards to keep this from hapening?? THERE IS GOING TO BE THOUSANDS OF THESE TANKERS ON RAILS WHEN THE NEW 100 PLANTS COME ON LINE NEXT YEAR PRODUCING  HIGH FLAMIBLE GASSES...REAL SCARREY HARRYPirate [oX)]

Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels.  Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol.  And pipelines don't derail!

Pipelines don't derail....they just leak or break or get damaged in construction projects and spew their contents into the enviornment or into the local ground water.  There is no perfect transportation medium.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:40 PM
 futuremodal wrote:

 Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels.  Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol. 

I thought that was you demonizing coal-to-liquids, or at least the involvement of BNSF in a proposed Montana endeavor.

Dale
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:49 PM

The speed limit for haz-mat (key) trains is 50 mph.

Plenty of other dangerous stuff gets transported by rail, (800,000 carloads a day) why worry about this now?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:35 PM
 nanaimo73 wrote:
 futuremodal wrote:

 Too bad we have all this endorsement of ethanol while continuing to demonize the less expensive (and more plentiful) coal-to-liquids fuels.  Synthetic diesel at least can move by pipeline, unlike ethanol. 

I thought that was you demonizing coal-to-liquids, or at least the involvement of BNSF in a proposed Montana endeavor.

On the contrary, I am all for coal to liquids.  In fact, it is one of the cornerstones of my energy policy wish list.

As for that BNSF/Montana thing....

1.  I questioned why the Montana Guv would present the idea to BNSF rather than an energy company, and...

2.  I questioned why BNSF actually is engaging the Guv in discussions on that proposal.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:10 PM

Would BNSF be the 2nd largest user of diesel in the USA, after UP ? I believe BN was 2nd, behind the US Navy, 20 years ago.

Could they produce enough diesel from Montana coal to meet all of their needs ? 

Dale
  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Mt. Fuji
  • 1,840 posts
Posted by Datafever on Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:22 PM
I remember reading something just last week that BNSF was the nation's largest user of diesel (behind the Navy, of course).  If you'd like, I can see if I can find the source for that, but I suspect it came from BNSF's web site.
"I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..."
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 2,849 posts
Posted by wabash1 on Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:28 PM
I know nothing about a 40mph restriction i run them 50 mph just like the other stuff.  and I never seen a 100 car tank train. most i pulled was 70 cars. I really dont think the things would go up that quick. but if it does there is no polution from it. that stuff burns clean. and clear no color just heat.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Chicago, Ill.
  • 2,843 posts
Posted by al-in-chgo on Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:02 PM
As for me, I worry about anhydrous ammonia a lot more. Angry [:(!] -- al-in-chgo
al-in-chgo
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:16 PM

Yes, a unit ethanol train is limited to 50 mph per DOT.    No, it would not be a chain-reaction unless you had multiple cars open and or explode.   As long as the fumes remained inside the cars, no flammability.  Now if an adjacent car was burning, and heated up the next car, the vent may cause fumes to be released.   This is why they mist and try to deluge the cars involved in such a situation to prevent that.  

 As a commodity, it has a decent safety record so far, outside of the NS incident in the last four years.  We get an occasional bad top seal, but the plant comes out within a few hours and repairs same.  Our District handles hundreds of loads a day, without incident.

I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • 225 posts
Posted by markn on Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:56 PM
Not being a wise acre, but I worry more about that semi tanker truck doing 75 to 80,  ten feet off my rear bumper! .. in the rain.. at night...
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Winnipeg, Mb
  • 628 posts
Posted by traisessive1 on Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:27 PM

I base my posts upon CN here in Canda ...  

Unless its a ceratin type of car ... all dangerous cars are track speed .. 65mph max unless they are special dangerous where they can't go faster than 35mph in areas with more than 50000 people.  A special dangerous is good for 65mph anywhere where there is 0-49,999 people.

Some railroads have speed restrictions on unit trains ... but CN got rid of that.

10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ... 

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 5,134 posts
Posted by ericsp on Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:29 PM
 RRKen wrote:

Yes, a unit ethanol train is limited to 50 mph per DOT.    No, it would not be a chain-reaction unless you had multiple cars open and or explode.   As long as the fumes remained inside the cars, no flammability.  Now if an adjacent car was burning, and heated up the next car, the vent may cause fumes to be released.   This is why they mist and try to deluge the cars involved in such a situation to prevent that.  

 As a commodity, it has a decent safety record so far, outside of the NS incident in the last four years.  We get an occasional bad top seal, but the plant comes out within a few hours and repairs same.  Our District handles hundreds of loads a day, without incident.

If I remember correctly, LPG tankcars were required to be insulated after the Kingman, AZ BLEVE. I don't remember if this also applies to tankcars that carry flammable liquids, if so, then it would take a little while for the ethanol to heat up.

"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: SE Wisconsin
  • 1,181 posts
Posted by solzrules on Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:35 PM

 markn wrote:
Not being a wise acre, but I worry more about that semi tanker truck doing 75 to 80,  ten feet off my rear bumper! .. in the rain.. at night...

 .......souped up on no-doze...over the weight limit....4 RED on the NFPA diamond.....that thing is basically a missle on wheels.

You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in.....
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, January 15, 2007 1:40 AM

In the grand scheme of hazardous materials, ethanol is a relative yawner.  It is a Flammable Liquid, not a Flammable Gas.  In practical terms this means that even in a hot fire it does not have the vapor pressure to cause the car to fail violently. 

 

Design burst pressure on a 111a100w1 tank car is 500 psi.  If the tank material in the vapor space is heated hot enough it will loose its tensile strength.  In rare cases effective burst pressure will fall below actual internal pressure, which is limited to 82.5 PSI by the safety valve.  If this happens a two or three foot long tear will open, usually parallel to the axis of the tank.  The tear will allow the pressure in the tank to drop to atmospheric and the rest of the liquid will burn off. 

 

Mac

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, January 15, 2007 7:38 AM
Alchohol (Ethanol) does NOT expolode, it burns.  As stated above, LPG, ammonia, chlorine and other materials are a lot more dangerous than ethanol.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Monday, January 15, 2007 8:10 AM

I do not know about the 40MPH limitation cause I caught it at Daggett whizzing by. While I did not have a radar gun for sure it was doing more then 40MPH. I also caught another at the double diamond at Colton & it to appeared be movong faster then 40MPH also

 

 

 gabe wrote:

Isn't there a 40 mph restriction for hazardous chemicals, such as ethonol?

Also, there was a recent derailment of an NS unit ethenol train.  Although 9 cars did catch fire, the whole train did not go.

Gabe

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Vicksburg, Michigan
  • 2,303 posts
Posted by Andrew Falconer on Monday, January 15, 2007 9:38 AM

In the current issue of TRAINS there is an article about the Tank Car of the Future.

The new tank cars are to be highly resistant to damage and leaking for Hazardous Chemicals. I saw no mention if these standards will apply to Ethanol Tank Cars.

Andrew

Andrew

Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 15, 2007 2:14 PM

Ohhh...what if  a tank car full of ethanol derailed, then fell into a coal mine and exploded...catching the mine, then the entire Appalachian range on fireunderground, therefore acting like a huge oven and causing an extreme amount of global warming, which then causes palm trees to grow in the Antarctic?

Frozen Daiquiris on demand?

Is there any training on how to handle that much frozen Daiquiris?

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Mt. Fuji
  • 1,840 posts
Posted by Datafever on Monday, January 15, 2007 2:20 PM
Ed, there seems to be no end to your ingenuity.  Captain [4:-)]
"I'm sittin' in a railway station, Got a ticket for my destination..."
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 PM
If your gonna party, then party hearty!Cool [8D]

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, January 15, 2007 3:11 PM
 edblysard wrote:

Ohhh...what if  a tank car full of ethanol derailed, then fell into a coal mine and exploded...catching the mine, then the entire Appalachian range on fireunderground, therefore acting like a huge oven and causing an extreme amount of global warming, which then causes palm trees to grow in the Antarctic?

Frozen Daiquiris on demand?

Is there any training on how to handle that much frozen Daiquiris?

If palm trees grow in the Antarctic, I do not think the Daiquiri's will be frozen, but all the penguins will be drunk.  Nothing like a pie-eyed penguin for entertainment.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, January 15, 2007 4:40 PM
Yeah, and they all think they can dance, too!Big Smile [:D]

23 17 46 11

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy