CN derailment

 All I can say is the FRA better get started on some sort of research on safer ways of shipping these products,newer design on cars or weight ,better or more frequent track inspection over the shipping route,I don't know

 

 But these type of derailments are happening to often.

I work in the railcar industry (and I play with toy trains). Trust me, the FRA is aware and has offered recomondations - along with PHMSA who handles the transport of hazmats - on the issue of railcar safety. That's all I can say right now. Ever since the Lac Megantic accident, the media has been hyper-vigilant in reporting derailments involving tankcars. There are just as many derailments as there has always been. As an aside, the number of NAR's (non accidental release of product from tankcars) are actually on the decrease.

I've been in that area. Thankfully it is sparsely populated, and with the weather, darn cold right now. I wonder if that contributed to it?

Perhaps this is a completely unworkable idea, given traffic density, but perhaps oil trains should operate at restricted speeds through populated areas?  (yes, I know the area of this CN derailment is remote......but the next derailment might be in the Chicago suburbs, where I see oil trains boogeying through at 35-40 mph)

This will just accelerate the demand for the respective governments of Canada and the US to "do something."  It can't go well in the long term.

 Jeff I agree there may overall be a decrease in " releases " but I work in the transportation part of the rail industry and I think I've noticed an increase in derailments with these type of shipments.

 

 And yes more are being reported by the main stream media as of late,but derailments " I fill "seem to be increasing in general with crude oil and ethanol shipments.

 

 I don't personally fill that it has anything to do with lack of training or operational methods in the T&E depts. ,but the lack of better designed equipment offered to the rail industry.

 

 I've always heard the railroads were the last to adopt technology .Maybe it's time they try to get ahead of the game . 

Further to Jeff's comments; new tank cars built for crude oil and ethanol are required to meet a higher standard now.  Specifically, full head shields, rollover protection of top side fittings and recessed bottom outlets.  These requirements are similar to what was put in place for TIH cars a few years back.  These modifications, along with building cars to 286 capability are considered to be the best technology available for tank cars.  Despite this, even the FRA will admit all these improvements will only make the car resistant to breaching at derailment speeds of up to 24 miles per hour.

To go beyond this standard today would require building a tank car so heavy it would lose its economic viability.

The other issue is what to do with existing tank cars in crude and ethanol service that don't meet the higher standards.  One proposal the PHMSA is considering would require a retrofitting of all existing DOT 111 tank cars in flammable services.  I have seen numbers that this could involve somewhere between 90 and 100,000 tank cars.  Alternatively cars could be shifted to non flammable services.  The two nearly insurmountable hurdles associated with either is lack of capacity to build new tank cars (current backlog for new construction has deliveries pushed out to September 2015 in some cases) and a lack of shop capacity to handle retrofits. 

Over the next two to three years there are a tremendous number of tank cars that were built during the ethanol boom in 2004-2006 that will be coming due for HM201 inspections.  There simply aren't enough shops to handle that bubble along with all the normal work that needs to be done like repairs and re linings.  Additionally, I'm not aware of any engineering work being done by the tank car leasing companies that would determine if retrofitting tank cars is even structurally feasible. 

All in all, it's a heck of a predicament and having elected politicians banging on drums, won't resolve it any quicker.

Curt

Curt,

 

Thanks for writing everything I didn't have time to type. Excellent synopsis! We seem to be in the same industry. We've probably passed each other at the same tank car committee meetings?

 

 

Jeff:

It's likely.  I work for a chemical company and tank cars are my ticket to retirement, as it were.

Curt

 So are the current cars up to date with the what the railroads are demanding as far as the volume that's being asked of them,or are they still needing up grades to satisfy that demand ?

 

 I just go forward and backwards ,but haul this stuff 

Before I offer this "food for thought" I freely admit that there may be dozens of possible factors contributing to these incidents. And also, that I have no railroad experience.

 

Noting that there is an apparent up-tick in the number of incidents involving tank cars, I have to ask if these liquid carrying cars are baffled? I wonder, whether baffled or not, if harmonic rocking gets the liquid moving to such an extent that the cars are subject to turning over? A moving liquid would accentuate this effect much more so than that which is reported occurring in grain hoppers.

 

Just another wild idea......

Colin:

Some are.  I believe cars built for crude or ethanol within the last 12-18 months meet the higher standard. 

The AAR has been at the forefront in calling for these higher standards to be required on all flammable service tank cars and in recommending a retrofit or change in service for older 111 tank cars not meeting the standard.  The Class 1's themselves have been fairly quiet on the topic, kind of allowing the AAR to advance the argument.  I suspect it is being handled in this manner so as to avoid direct confrontation with what has suddenly become some of the railroads largest and most profitable customers.

Owen, these crude cars would not normally have baffles.

Curt

Seems these are happening to often..Or more frequent..