Mention has been made that the only quick solution to lessen the rash of dertailments of trains carrying Bakken crude oil (in terms either the frequency or severity) may be to slow the trains down to speeds in the 25-35 mph range. However, doing so would severely slow velocity for other traffic carried over the same routes.
Could the “DO SOMETHING NOW” reaction of the Federal Government result in designation of a single primary route for all loaded crude oil trains from North Dakota to a point east of the Mississippi to carry the majority of the traffic at a reduced speed?
It might be done on a rotating-route basis to spead the impact (both operationally and politically)- but if a railroad knew well advance that a route of their choosing would be effectively slowed to 25 mph while eastbound oil loads were operating over them for, say, a ten-day period, a long range plan could be developed to minimize the effect on the more time-sensitive cargo.
I don’t know if it could result in a single primary route, but I think it could result in an executive order by President Obama to stop shipping Bakken oil by rail until it can be proven to be safe.
Right now, there are two things happening. One is the alarming frequency of oil train wrecks with each one faithfully producing spectacular fireballs that are scaring the public.
The other thing that is happening is the sudden realization that the industry has failed to deliver the tank car safety that was promised as a means to end the fireballs.
Both of these factors are combining to produce a crisis that calls for immediate action that might radically modify the developing Federal specifications for tank cars. Secretary Foxx has recently said that he now thinks that we need an entirely new type of tank car. That sounds like a big change in direction. A couple more fireball wrecks, and an even greater change might occur.
Designated routes? It could happen. Years ago in his autobiography Captain Eddie Rickenbacker said “NEVER underestimate the power of hysteria!” He was referring to the public reaction to a series of crashes by an airliner of the time called the Lockheed Electra, but we could very well see the same hysteria develop over oil train wrecks.
The best thing the railroads can do is demonstrate an immediate, agressive response to the derailments. It can be more intense and rigid track inspections, specialized training for head-end crews in handling oil trains, possibly shorter oil trains to ease handling, and so on. They have to show the public they’re doing SOMETHING, because if they don’t Washington will.
“Don’t just do something, sit there!” isn’t a prevailing philosophy in DC. The last thing anyone needs is knee-jerk legislation from the blind heavy hand of government. As the old saying goes, “Hard cases make bad laws.”
Even Fred Frailey says oil trains are starting to make him nervous. That tells you something.
If they push all the oil to one route, I am going back to school to be a lawyer, because there will be thousands of lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court. Lawyers have steady jobs for decades.
The price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what? Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market. Keep in mind that this hysteria over oil train safety is a perfect tool serving the interests of the anti-oil agenda. Public safety is their perfect pretext. They want public hysteria, and the oil trains are delivering it.
No, but if it rises enough, it will further damage a fragile economy. You accuse the green left of hysteria, but you do the very same thing in this forum. It’s not just the “green left” causing panic, but the majority of people who have no clue about anything outside their own little circle. Oil trains can be seen. They’d rather have a pipeline under their feet. Out of sight and all that.
This, and the one in WV about 2 weeks ago, (and the other derailments that have made news, and thses Forum Discussions)… While the POTUS (will still/has vetoed) a bill on the Keystone pipeline… When was the last time you saw a story about a pipeline jumping the rails, and causing such a conflagration, or polluting a river? &
I am not advocating a ban. All I am doing is reading the tea leaves and commenting on where I think this is headed. If I am creating hysteria, it would have to be in the oil/rail industry, and I think they are immune to hysteria. Short of banning oil trains, I don’t see a solution to the problem, or an end to the problem. I think that is where we are at. So I am left to wonder if such a radical solution as a ban mi
I think Euclid has it right. The industry can not continue with the current “fireball of the week” scenerio for long before the public gets whipped into a frenzy by those who have a bigger agenda than public protection from those exploding trains. The industry may have been lucky in the last few wrecks occuring in unpopulated areas, but that can’t go on forever. We can lay the blame (in part at least) for Lac-Megantic on a shoestring organization with sloppy procedures; but it seems if the current situation continues, it is just a matter of time until one of the major railroads repeats it.
The price of gasoline has become something of an economic and political barometer for those who don’t pay attention to the world outside their field of vision. Politicians that are perceived as being the ones pushing the price way up are the same ones perceived as needed to think about future career options.
And even with the wrecks, I have yet to see much of a frenzy whipped up. Just people pushing for the Keystone XL pipeline, many of which have very little understanding of where it will actually run. I swear half the populance of Pennsylvania (the Keystone State) think it will run through here.
I will clarify what I meant when I said: “The price of gasoline would definitely rise, but so what?”
It really needs the context that includes the next two sentences: “Do you think that would stand in the way of banning Bakken shipping by rail? The green left would love to price fossil fuels right out of the market.”
I do not mean “so what?” as though I do not care if the price rises. I mean it as though the fossil fuel opposition does not care if the price rises. They have long complained that we do not pay enough for gasoline, and if we did pay more, we would use less of it, and the earth would be better off because of it. They say that if the market won’t dive up the price of gasoline, the government should raise the price by adding more taxes. Their whole point is to get us to stop using gasoline. So when I said “so what?” I was speaking for them, not for me. I want cheap gas. I also want a strong economy. I am just illustrating what we are up against.
It’s possible that the railroads might choose to keep the existing trains on the current routes and just run 'em at 25mph - but the thought of what a slug of 25mph trains would do to the flow of traffic on the NS and CSX mains east of Chicago is not pretty. By concentrating the slow trains on one route for a relatively brief period of time, the feds would be able to say they did something to lessen the potential danger, while rails how have the ability to plan around it and recover.
Of course, they might choose to use different routes for the them (NS is supposeded routing some along the old PRR Chicago-Pittsburgh line, which has potential to serve as a “slow main”). My thought, though, is that the towns that get =all= the trains on a full-time basis would kick like mules.
Well, rerouting oil trains to less sensitive areas is a plan on the table. But I think the devil is in the details. As you point out, nobody who is threatened by the prospect of being annihilated by an exploding oil train is going to agree that they are in a less sensitive area.
Incidentally, Transportation Secretary Foxx, in conjunction to developing a better tank car design, is developing a plan to control the routing and speed of oil trains.
Oil trains run from ‘well head’ to refineries or export terminals. There are many refineries and export terminals across the country - not in a neat and clean ‘alley’.
Those refineries and export terminals are not going anywhere in the short term. Suprisingly, most of them are located in population centers where their existance provides substansial employment opportunities for the inhabitants of those population centers.