New developments in Canada rail accident

In a related development, friday the Quebec government announced that it would be seeking compensation from Canadian Pacific RR(as the originator of the oil shipment), and the oil brokerage/shipping firm that contracted CP (and thus the MM&A) to ship the oil. CP is, of course, going to fight this.

   Interesting points Rick about the chemical composition of the crude-----

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette this morning had a small clip on this.  Rail company still Running. The Canadian Transportation Agency has granted the railroad rights to operated through Oct 1, 2013 based on adequate third party insurance.  A reverse of the  August 13 order to halt operations.

ER, the accident occured while the train was on a rail line which was once part of CP.  And does Quebec know who is the CEO of CP? 

Of course...blame it on fracking!    You knew it was only a matter of time !

Thanks for the link, Rick.

 

It's an interesting read, but I think the points they are pursuing are so far down the "cause" list as to make them arguable almost laughable...a looong reach at best. But then, the article is more about increasing durability thus safety. I'd like to see their cause and effect anaysis.

 

I see the mention of DOT-111 tank cars again and their "lack" of safety. The photos taken at the wreck showed at least one tank car with a rail piercing it's end. I find it hard to imagine designing a tank car that would survive that kind of rupture without it weighing more than its cargo.

 

There are so many strange incidences leading up to that event, I can't wait to see what the investigators discover.

 

Neil     

Sometimes there is no logic to laying blame.  Several years ago on the Parkway North, Pittsburgh, I 279, the HOV lane was opened at the Pittsburgh end by an attendant allowing entrance from both ends at the same time. The solution to the resulting catastrophe had no logic, IMO.  Eventually the bill was taken from a company's General liability Insurance, where the employee had gone home for lunch, who was traveling in the right direction at the time in his own vehicle. I believe the largest pool of money available.   IMO, it would appear, here also the legal where-with-all is looking for larger pools of money.  IMO.   

Mike:

 

I think you have "nailed" it.  With MMA in bankruptcy, the question has moved beyond who should pay and is now centering around who can pay.

 

Curt

I agree this is somewhat of a "fishing"expedition for deep pockets. However, as the new story states, a pipeline company refused transit of a batch crude oil because the oil tested had too great a concentration of Hydrogen Sulfide and was deemed unsafe to transit the pipeline company's network. Now, we are not talking about "greens" or wide-eyed environmentalists here we are talking about a business refusing business when the company deemed the risk outweighed the financial reward. So there may be something to this.

 

Rick

Huh?

Sorry I've been away.  Yes that's what happened.  Also note the that Pennsylvania was only liable to a million, which prompted the search for more.  

 

Recently in Vermont, talk to some Canadians familiar with this tragedy.  Apparently there was a night club center of this small town where the major loss of life occurred.  I didn't catch that on the news.   Small town 4,000 to 5,000.  

 

Mike, I believe Rich is saying that it's hard to understand what you wrote. What does this mean, exactly:

 

"Eventually the bill was taken from a company's General liability Insurance, where the employee had gone home for lunch, who was traveling in the right direction at the time in his own vehicle."

 

"Employee going home for lunch?" "A company's general liability insurance?"

 

Are you saying that the money came from the employee's car insurance?

I think he is referring to the "deep pocket" theory of legal action, in which whomever has the most assets that can pay out will be targeted in a lawsuit.  It sometimes doesn't even matter if said party wasn't actually at fault as long as they have the most cash or biggest insurance policy.  If I'm reading Mike's comments correctly, they went after the employer's insurance because that was the biggest policy available.

 

 

Yes, that is what happened.    Most likely the same thing is happening related to the Canadian derailment.  50 Deaths is a lot of liability, there was 8 death in the I279 HOV lane accident that I mentioned.

Just saw this on Google news-The FRA in conjunction with the Pipeline and hazardous Materiels safety Administration have been carrying out spot inspections of the rail shipments of crude from the Bakken Shale fields. Article states that Officials were surprised that the crude exploded & burned because the crude involved was not supposed to be "likely to ignite". So these inspections are being done to determine that the crude being transported is actually what the shipping papers state it is.

 

The amount of crude being shipped by rail in the US is huge compared to 2009: 178,000 carloads in the first 6 months of 2013-- 33 times more. In Canada, the Canadiens estimate 140,000 this year, versus 500 carloads in 2009.

 

The P&HMSA is meeting now to consider new regulations in regards to the DOT-111 cars to retrofit them to address the safety concerns. also up for consideration is whether to require RR's to have 2 person crews for Hazardous Materiels trains. The FRA emergency order stopped short of requiring 2 person crews.

 

Latest news TSB Canada says it wasn't crude but a much more flammable oil with a flashpoint similar to gasoline. The shipper labeled it as crude.

This was the sticking point for me. I am not an expert, but I was struggling to understand how crude oil could have exploded like that under those conditions. This would seem to make logical sense. Was it the above mentioned chemicals that altered the crude and made it more volatile? Or did someone knowingly falsify paperwork? Either way it's not good.

Could we have a similar scenario just waiting to play out here in the US? I hope they get to the bottom of this soon.

The trucking firms that transported the crude from to the shipper where it was loaded into the tank cars had the proper labels regarding the flash point of the material they were hauling.  The company that loaded the stuff into the tank cars downgraded the material to a less flammable classification.  It's not clear why this was done (ignorance, stupidity, duplicity or a combination of any of those).  It is a federal (Canadian) to mislabel the cargo and they could be subject to penalties/punishment plus it may affect their insurance coverage if they misrepresented the material being handled.

 

From the Globe and Mail:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...ays/article14239877/

 

This is possibly the best summary of what happened but there is still little in the way of why.  It is from the National Post.  All of the earlier reports and photo's led me to believe the train rolled backwards into town and the engines were pulled?  This shows the train was pointed down hill at the town with the engines in the front.

 

Chuck, can you post a link to that graphic or post it as a larger size? I couldn't find it in the link you posted and it is too small to read. Thanks.

Found a link to the graphics.

 

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpo...tic_c-rjweb2400h.jpg

Thanks, Chris.  

 

I can never get the photo/image stuff to work properly.  Sometimes it zooms and sometimes it doesn't.

No.  Thank you for posting it!  It was a very interesting read.

 

One thing I'm confused about is why shutting down the engine would release the airbrakes?  I though the whole idea of Westinghouse airbrakes was that their normal state was closed and that they required air pressure to release. 

 

 

I remember that.  It had to be back in the 1990s when I still lived there (and drove that road to work).  Didn't the attendant do some time for that piece of stupidity?

George

This sounds like some of the stuff that came out of the NSTB article in the TRAINS special TRAIN ACCIDENTS.  Not one thing caused this disaster, but a chain of events.

 

But this leaves a very special question:  How many haz mat containers do not have the proper markings?  In case of a spill or fire, a lot of people, especially first responders, could be badly hurt or killed, because they did not have the correct info.

Excellent question.

George

Chris

I highly recommend a new book on train crashes.  Train Wreck:  The Forensics of Rail Disasters by Bibel, George.  It goes into great detail about the Westinghouse type safety brakes.

 

All train braking system lose air.  The fittings all leak to a different degree.  It is a factor in the distributed power choices of mid and end engines that help keep the system filled.  The brakes work on the differential pressure between the train system psi and the reserve tank psi on each car. And if not continuously supplied it all goes to 0 psi., the main and the reserve tank.  Your graphic shows the mechanics. The leaking is the problem, and the number of hand brakes that were set or not set. The Train Wreck book has a great explanation along with drawings, plus many other interesting information.  I really appreciated your link, I wondered what happened to the engines.

Buzz

 

The cars were tagged but they had the wrong flammability rating.  The fire crews that responded indicated that there would not have been much difference in what they would/could have done.  It was more an issue of whether the stuff should have been transported in those quantities re the size and number of cars and whether the railroad should have altered their crew/shutdown procedures (aka not leave a potential bomb parked on main line track unattended and unmanned).  This does seem to explain why the cars exploded.  That wasn't "normal" crude oil in them.

 

Re the brake failure possibly caused by the shutdown.  That's a really good question.  I didn't think the air brakes would release that quickly (aka 1 hour) or that completely.  It was a long heavy train but the engines apparently did have their hand brakes set.  Was the train so heavy that the weight overcame the friction?  Would the brakes have worn down so much for a train to reach those speeds in that short a period of time?

NOT to be morbid but I wonder if this story will be on an episode of "Seconds from Disaster"?

When engaged, the brakes are only "on" while there is enough air pressure to keep them in the applied position, if that pressure leaks off, nothing is left to keep them applied and holding the shoes tight.

You are obviously talking about the air brakes ONLY on the diesel locomotives. The Independent brake system on locomotives, both steam, electric, and diesel, are essentially "straight air" systems, i.e. put air pressure into the system and the locomotive brakes come on, take air pressure out of the system and the locomotive brakes release.

 

The air brakes on train cars is a completely different system design.

George / Dominic:

 

I've not seen any statistics to indicate the percentage of hazmat shipments that are either mis-classified as to packing group or improperly placarded.  However, as a hazmat shipper, I can state that the FRA and DOT both conduct random audits and spot checks of shipper records and rail shipments to determine if the proper descriptions, packing groups and placards are being used.  The fines for just one violation can be sizeable.

 

The petroleum folks have their own industry association but, the chemical manufacturers typically are members of the American Chemistry Council or ACC.  The ACC has, for years now, sponsored a chemical industry initiative called Responsible Care.  The ACC member companies, along with many trucking companies and railroads are active participants in the Responsible Care program.  One of the principle tenets of Responsible Care is to encourage shippers and the carriers to handle every aspect of a hazmat transportation move by the book.  Responsible Care has a rigorous qualification process and requires periodic audits to confirm that proper practices continue to be maintained and adhered to.

 

Curt

He asked about the engine. As for the train we have no idea what was or was not set. If the hand brakes were set on the engine, did the wheels roll or slide?

As an oilfield worker for the last decade:

Acids are not used to "frac". Ever in Alberta. Not only will it destroy the formation, but it's also illegal. The more likely cause of the sulphuric acid is high water in oil ratio or in the case of a processed crude oil, condensation in the tank cars mixed with the hydrogen sulphide content of the oil. H2S + H2O =H2SO4. Sulphuric acid. If the tank cars are coated, however, it's not an issue. We coat high sour content pipelines and it holds up pretty well.

Explosivety of "crude" oil: Drop a match in a bottle or jug or drum of crude oil (or any other kind of oil) it won't explode. Guaranteed. This may have been a really light highly volitile oil called "Petroleum Condensate" or drip gas. When left unstabalized, it has a tendency to boil and flash off explosive gases. In the case of this, Bakken oil isn't very heavy. Petroleum Condensate and Petroleum Crude also hold the same dangerous goods classification: UN 1267 Class 2 Flammable product.

just my $.25

1) As I recall, NO hand brakes were applied on the locomotive consist, ONLY the independent brakes were set.

 

2) No automatic air was set on the train, according to reports.

 

3) Many hand brakes were set on the train cars, however NOT a sufficient amount of hand brakes were set, i.e. the Engineer did NOT do a "release all brakes, and see if the train rolls" type of test.

 

4) With insufficient amount of hand brakes set on the train, when the lead locomotive's engine was shut down, due the fire, the independent brakes eventually leaked off, and then the heavy train rolled down the pretty steep grade (1.2%?).

If it is assumed that the main reservoir pressure was about 130 psi, the brake pipe was 90 psi and the independent brake feed valve was set about 50 psi when the fire department shut the single running locomotive off. Leakage will result in the main reservoir pressure to start decreasing. When the main reservoir pressure leaks below 90 psi, brake pipe leakage should start setting the train brakes. When the brake pipe gets to about 65 psi the train brakes will be fully set. The independent brake should not start loosing braking force until the main reservoir gets below 50 psi. In an 80 car train and 5 older locomotives there should have been some brake pipe leakage. Question is why did not the train brakes apply and hold the train if the run-a-way was the result of a loss of air pressure caused by shutting off the one running unit?

What you state is all true, except,,,,,,,it takes MUCH longer than the 50 minutes that elapsed for those main reservoirs to decay below the 90psi brake pipe setting. 

I agree.I guess that's why we have the four hour rule on cars not maintained with air here in the U.S.  .

 

quote:

What you state is all true, except,,,,,,,it takes MUCH longer than the 50 minutes that elapsed for those main reservoirs to decay below the 90psi brake pipe setting. 

Depending on what kind engines they are, they can leak down pretty quick. Air leaks are inherent in so many places on locomotives. Some being tighter than others. I've been on many a new unit where when they shut down automatically, you could watch the main reservoir leak down to restart pressure (100psi or so) in 10 min or less. Then continue to leak down close to 90 psi while the unit was going through its restart cycle.

 

quote:

2) No automatic air was set on the train, according to reports.

I haven't seen this. Where did you read this?

From private eMails from some folks that are "in the know".

Something which I noticed has not been asked about the accident.  When the lead locomotive was shut down why wasn't one of the other locomotives started up to maintain the brake line pressure?

 

Stuart