We seen to be retreading the same territory again and again.
Rerouting to “less sensitive areas” tends to mean rerouting to secondary routes. Since most of the derailments that weren’t caused by human error seem to have been caused by track, rail or subgrade issues, the idea of rerouting oil trains onto secondary routes which do not have the same inspection or maintenance regimien that the primary routes have would seem to be a counterproductive move. After all, the worst incident on record happened on just such a secondary route through a less sensitive area (the MMA and Lac Megantic). If the idea is to reduce incidents, then why would anybody intentionally putting them on routes that would be more likely to have incidents?
A number of the recent derailments of oil trains involve basically new tank cars.
It is unlikely that these tank cars were the cause of the derailments.
That leaves track conditions as the most likely cause.
The axle loads in the USA are higher than in most other countries, yet the track is often not maintained to a high enough standard to take these heavier loads.
Presumably it is a commercial decision to run heavier axle loads while not upgrading track and this decision is looking a bit unwise.
There is a “unit train problem” where a train of identical heavily laden vehicles can cause track problems because every car has the same effect on a weakness in the track. Intermodal trains are fast, but individual cars can vary in weight and length and don’t have the same repetitive effect.
Coal trains have the unit train problem, but coal rarely catches fire, even in a serious derailment (although it is good to keep it out of rivers).
If you are going to select a route, it should have new 136lb rail on concrete ties with 24" of ballast with no contamination. Then you can start blaming the tank cars if something goes wrong.
I have no idea whether tank sloshing is a problem. However driving a TT tanker half full is no picnic. But why are the RR tank cars built with a greater volume capacity than its weight limit?. Are the cars built to carry the least dense product possible and what would that product be ?
The Bakken now comprises a little over 10% of domestic crude oil production. Last I knew, a majority went by rail. There is no way this will be shut-off until an alternative transport option is in place. It is a basic political fact of life.
The Yellowstone River has been polluted a couple of times by broken pipelines recently - Laurel, MT in 2011 and Glendive, MT in the last couple of months. The 2011 incident was memorable as I had driven across the US-212 bridge a few hoours before the break.
There have been several incidents of pipeline conflagrations…
Last time I looked, no major railroad had or wished to have facilities to produce complete railcars anymore.
So when you say “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” you seem to be indicating
Not at all. But what happens when a politically motiviated STB slaps a 25mph limit on loaded oil trains? You won’t have crews laying around - they’ll all be sitting in Retzenberger vans at a grade crossing in Indiana waiting to dogcatch oil trains, coal trains, containers, vehicle trains and everything short of the track inspector’s Hi-Railer.
Since ‘fuel’ trucks can’t stay shiny side up and dirty side down - they should also be restricted - that will really help the flow of traffic on the Interstates.