# Railroads back retrofitting flammable liquid cars



## CHamilton (Nov 14, 2013)

Some of the current cars were implicated in the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
Railroads back retrofitting flammable liquid cars



> OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — U.S. railroads are supporting new safety standards for rail cars that haul flammable liquids to address flaws that can allow crude oil, ethanol and other substances to leak during accidents....
> 
> Safety experts say the soda-can shaped car, known as the DOT-111, has a tendency to split open during derailments and other major accidents.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 17, 2014)

From Politico's Morning Transportation Report of 1/17/14:



> *NEW VOLUNTARY TANK CAR STANDARDS: *Kathryn reports on more fallout from the string of fiery derailments of trains carrying oil: "Freight railroads and the American Petroleum Institute have agreed to new voluntary standards on rail safety in response to the recent spate of explosions by oil-carrying trains, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced Thursday. The standards will address issues including the design of the rail cars and the routes they travel. They don't address longer-term questions about whether crude oil produced using hydraulic fracturing is inherently more flammable than oil produced using conventional means. ... Foxx told reporters that the purpose of the meeting 'was to reiterate our safety mission and to call on the industry to take voluntary steps in the short term to help us ensure that this material is moving around the country as safely as possible.'"


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 17, 2014)

Isn't a "voluntary standard" some sort of oxymoron? It's a standard, but only as long as they agree to voluntarily participate? You can blow us up, you can kill us, you can spill your fuels and other chemicals all over the place, and all we'll ask in return is that you try to do better next time. Hilarious.


----------



## Alice (Jan 17, 2014)

Not really, ANSI standards are voluntary. "Standards Boost Business" (dot org).


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 17, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Isn't a "voluntary standard" some sort of oxymoron? It's a standard, but only as long as they agree to voluntarily participate? You can blow us up, you can kill us, you can spill your fuels and other chemicals all over the place, and all we'll ask in return is that you try to do better next time. Hilarious.


That's exactly what I was thinking. I think these should be mandatory, not voluntary.


----------



## Paulus (Jan 20, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't a "voluntary standard" some sort of oxymoron? It's a standard, but only as long as they agree to voluntarily participate? You can blow us up, you can kill us, you can spill your fuels and other chemicals all over the place, and all we'll ask in return is that you try to do better next time. Hilarious.
> ...


It will be mandatory eventually, but, for generally good reason, it takes some time for a Federal rule to be promulgated and in force, barring absolutely exceptional circumstances. This doesn't rise to the level of exceptional circumstances, so the voluntary standard is the private industry trying to get things done quickly. Of course, it also helps to shape what the Federal rule will be too.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 24, 2014)

From this NTSB press release:



> January 23
> 
> The National Transportation Safety Board today issued a series of recommendations (see Safety Recommendation Letters R-14-001-003 and R-14-004-006) to the Department of Transportation to address the safety risk of transporting crude oil by rail. In an unprecedented move, the NTSB is issuing these recommendations in coordination with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 24, 2014)

Paulus said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Devil's Advocate said:
> ...


So, exactly how much death and destruction has to occur before you're willing to call it an "exceptional circumstance?"


----------



## Paulus (Jan 28, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Needs to do more than muss up our hair, at least twenty million killed.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 28, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Well, how long did it take seatbelts to become universal? At the same time, you've still got far more fatalities from train-vehicle collisions, and that's after something like 30 years of the Class Is working to close every grade crossing they can. Fixing a large-scale problem is almost never going to be both cheap and quick, and often it won't be either.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 30, 2014)

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has issued an executive order for a crude oil transport safety review.

The 'whereas' details are in this link.


----------



## FriskyFL (Jan 30, 2014)

As long as it's cheaper to settle lawsuits, don't expect any American corporation to do the right thing.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Ispolkom (Jan 30, 2014)

I like the circular finger-pointing in this situation. The railroads think that the tank cars should be strengthened, since that wouldn't cost them anything. The tank car owners say that if the railroads were run better, there wouldn't be derailments, and the strength of the tank cars wouldn't be an issue (and not accidentally a focus on rail operations would transfer the costs to the railroads). The oil companies point to both the railroads and the tank car owners, but you know they ship however it's cheapest.


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 30, 2014)

Seatbelts aren't the proper analogy. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, I am putting myself at risk, not others. Flying through my windshield at 70 mph doesn't threaten the lives of hundreds/thousands of people and/or cause millions of dollars in property damage.

A better argument would be child safety seats. If an adult doesn't put their child in an approved child safety seat, they are choosing to risk their child's life. I really don't care what an adult does with their own life, but as soon as their decision affects my safety and/or their/my child's safety, I'm going to have a problem.

That's why I think the seatbelt law is kind of stupid, but I'm completely and fully supportive of strict DUI laws. You want to drive without a seatbelt and kill yourself? Fine. You want to drive drunk and kill me? Nope. Not okay. Your right to do whatever you want ends the second my life (or others' lives) is/are threatened.

So, as far as these tankers are concerned, I think "voluntary" is ridiculous, given the amount of liability these tankers have.


----------



## RRUserious (Feb 10, 2014)

Ispolkom said:


> I like the circular finger-pointing in this situation. The railroads think that the tank cars should be strengthened, since that wouldn't cost them anything. The tank car owners say that if the railroads were run better, there wouldn't be derailments, and the strength of the tank cars wouldn't be an issue (and not accidentally a focus on rail operations would transfer the costs to the railroads). The oil companies point to both the railroads and the tank car owners, but you know they ship however it's cheapest.


Possibly true, but no matter what the railroads do, circumstances will test the integrity of tank cars. That is why they must be capable of dealing with some sort of accident. They travel on the surface, and lots of other things (like other trains) are in proximity. No matter how you look at it, tank cars must not be easily burst. I think there's a history of engineering in other vehicle categories dealing with this already. I haven't looked up planes, but I know at least race cars took care of this eons ago.


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 21, 2014)

BNSF plans purchase of 5,000 new crude oil tank cars



> SEATTLE - BNSF Railway is planning to buy its own fleet of up to 5,000 new crude oil tank cars with safety features that exceed the latest industry standards, the company disclosed Friday.
> 
> The new cars would have thicker walls, a thermal protection system and other improvements designed to minimize the possibility of fire or explosion in case of a derailment, said BNSF Railway spokesman Steven Forsberg.
> 
> He called the purchase of the new cars "an important milestone in the improvement of safety standards for the transportation of crude by rail." A request for proposals from major railcar manufacturers has already been sent out, he said.


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 21, 2014)

Press release

Freight Railroads Join U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx in
Announcing Industry Crude By Rail Safety Initiative


> WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 21, 2014 – The nation’s major freight railroads today joined U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in announcing a rail operations safety initiative that will institute new voluntary operating practices for moving crude oil by rail. The announcement follows consultations between railroads represented by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), including the leadership of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
> 
> The announcement today covers steps related to crude by rail operations. Additional issues relating to the safe transport of crude oil, such as tank car standards and proper shipper classification of crude oil, are being addressed separately....
> 
> ...


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 22, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> Press release
> 
> Freight Railroads Join U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx in
> Announcing Industry Crude By Rail Safety Initiative
> ...


Point one, the reduction of speeds, does not bode well for anyone who travels via passenger rail on a freight railroad line through one of those 47 areas. Just looking at the list, for ALL the West Coast Short-Distance routes this spells potential trouble; the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Pacific Surfliner and Cascades. Of course it goes without saying for the Long-Distance routes. Time will tell how badly the OTP suffers in the name of safety. (Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY safety oriented! But there is a point at which becoming "safer" works in the opposite direction.)

Point two, on the amount of money spent nationwide for emergency response training. $5 Million may sound like a lot. But when you're talking about the thousands and thousands of both small and large (and let me tell you, the large departments will gobble up at least 60% of it) agencies this applies to across the USA, this is embarrassingly low. A small department may as well have take-out pizza delivered, much like Chevron/Texaco did for that town in Pennsylvania this week as a "good gesture" for the disaster the company was responsible for.

Sorry about this, but my cynic is showing.


----------



## RRUserious (Feb 22, 2014)

Funny how they run this story and refer to the loss of life in Quebec. Those trains weren't speeding. They were supposedly sitting idle waiting for something. But a yard crew or the rail crew got confused about the brakes. What does ANY of this do for such situations? Granted, the very existence of these trains is a threat to every place they pass through. But I have a feeling that everybody involved in the response is relying on public gullibility. Lots of activity! Press releases! "Something is being done" Enough to quiet the fears of the mass of the public. Take the pressure off the politicians. Meanwhile the danger continues to exist. I also notice a court has blocked the Keystone solution. Not sure how permanent that will be, but there is an essential problem here of a Canadian company running dangerous liquids through American territory. Something of a compact between a government and lots of big companies who hope to prosper, pretty much at the expense of everybody who is excluded from their discussions. I'd love a court to mandate all discussions be 100 percent on the public record. That'd be a promising first step. And no texts, emails, private phone calls in place of face-to-face discussions. I, too, an cynical this will happen.


----------



## Crossover (Mar 15, 2014)

Comment removed .


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jun 5, 2014)

From today's (6/5/14) morning transportation report from Politico:



> Yesterday the Greenbrier Companies and Watco Companies announced a new joint venture - GBW Railcar Services - that will create North America's largest network of independent railroad tank car repair, retrofit and maintenance shops. With an eye on the upcoming formalization of new safety standards, the companies are aiming to lay the groundwork for plenty of business once those standards are set. In an interview, Greenbrier CEO Bill Furman told MT that the railroad, shipping and supply industries are "all united in a circle of value, delivery and performance that requires safety be a paramount thing." The huge spike in energy shipments has been a "paradigm shift," Furman said, adding later that "it's not your mother's railroad anymore." GBW's network of 38 facilities around the country will help get railroad fleets into shape, and Watco Executive VP Ed McKechnie noted that "the downside of not having a network is that customers have to take longer to get rail cars back into service."


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 5, 2014)

I recently read that Canada actually banned the cars in question while the US chose to "advise" the railroads that blowing up innocent Americans due to poorly designed railcars might be bad for business. Seeing as how these fleets are often intermixed US citizens should still benefit despite the lack of legally binding regulations south of the border.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 5, 2014)

States balk at keeping oil train info from public



> ILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. railroads forced to turn over details of their volatile crude oil shipments are asking states to sign agreements not to disclose the information. But some states are refusing, saying Thursday that the information shouldn't be kept from the public....
> The disclosures due Saturday at midnight include route details, volumes of oil carried and emergency-response information for trains hauling 1 million gallons or more of crude. That's the equivalent of 35 tank cars.
> BNSF, Union Pacific and CSX are seeking agreements that the information won't be publicly shared. They said the information is security sensitive and releasing it could put them at a competitive disadvantage.
> State emergency officials said communities need to know about the trains, and the proposed agreements would violate open-records laws.
> ...


----------

