Brian A. Kenney
GATX Corporation
222 West Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Friday, July 12, 2013
Dear Mr. Kenney,
We have all been stunned by the disaster at Lac-Mégantic, and as brutal as this wreck was, it also demonstrated the strength and resilience that a modern tank car maintains in protecting its lading and the environment. What can be done to make the car better, I do not know. I am a rail fan and a model railroader, and can lend no expertise to the construction of rail cars.
But I am a fan of New York City Transit, and model subway trains, and I have been considering the possibilities of making the whole train safer. I think that GATX is in an ideal position to look more deeply at this and to move rail safety in a direction that is industry based rather than what may or may not be legislatively based.
My suggestion therefore would to be to use transit type couplers between the tank cars. These would connect air and electrical, power and data circuits right in the coupler. I am told that the N2a type coupler is just as strong as conventional couplers and have no slack or buff forces on the face of the coupler. These couplers are already approved and are in use on LIRR and Metro North passenger cars.
Clearly using such equipment on tank cars offers some advantages, but also some problems. I think it is necessary to provide equipment that can run on any train at any time and with any crew regardless of specialized training in the use of this coupler and safety system. Since unit tank trains require a buffer car between the lading and the locomotives, this car would be the transition between the standard couplers and the N2a type couplers, and it could contain electronic equipment that monitors the condition of each and every tank car in the consist. Some of the basic parameters monitored would include temperature and pressure of the lading, the condition of t
It certainly would be nice to have all the extra features, however, transit cars cost millions of dollars apiece, and I am guessing the coupler and connecting electrical systems would be quite a sticker shock to a tank car builder. I am guessing there will be new regulations regarding leaving hazardous unit trains unattended, that would reduce much of the need for a new coupler system.
Great ideas! Clearly and concisely written. Please post their response!
Mike, the reason subway cars are so expensive is that engineering is spread out over a small number of vehicles. With the oil rush, thousands of tank cars are being built, and the couplers are already developed. The only issue I see at a glance is when a bad ordered car needs to be set out. Then an adapter would be needed to transfer the car to a shop.
That is an excellent letter. I too would like to hear what they say.
The thought of powered, simultaneously acting parking brakes popped into my head when we were discussing applying hand brakes to hold the oil train. It is interesting to learn that they have such powered parking brakes. My first thought was to use a closed system with a hydraulic brake under each car. But I can see a wide variety of possible mechanical, hydraulic, or pneumatic arrangements to provide this type of fail safe, positive, powered, single control brake system. I am guessing that are probably many different patents on such art.
The adapter car would in essence be a computer set up and WI-fi would have to be used in the system, that would open up the system to be hacked or hijacked. Granted, that WI-fi systems use encryption, but there would be so many different codes that it would be hard to separate the systems and be able to access them when needed. If a car needed set out, that would then open another issue which would need to be worked out. Definitely this is an interesting concept, but redundancy is needed to be sure of operation. That is where the weakness would be the Achilles Heel of the set up.
I for one would support a spring-loaded based parking brake setup, similar to what modern big trucks use. There must be at least 60 (or more) PSI to compress the springs enough for the truck to even roll, and 60 PSI would be enough to stop if necessary. Most trucks run in the 110-120 PSI range. There’s 2 air lines that run to the trailer(s), the red “emergency” (or “Supply”) line is charged when movement is desired, and stays charged at all times, until “parking” is desired. When discharged, the air against the springs is released, allowing the springs to apply the brakes. For normal stopping, the blue “service” line comes into play. This is the one use for variable air pressure, which is supplied when normal stopping is desired. Typically between 5-20 PSI is all that’s needed for a light to moderate brake application, depending on load, grade, available stopping distance, type of road surface, weather, etc.
Railcars would need 2 air lines as well, and a redesign of the brake valves, redesign and addition/replacement of spring loaded brake cylinders, but could use existing reservoirs (and even train line, I expect). Operation would be in a similar manner, charge the “Supply” line, and at 60+ PSI you’re ready to go. Something breaks the supply line, and just like things are now, the train goes into Emergency. On the other hand, using the new “service” line does not change the supply line pressure, and brake release/recovery times are greatly reduced.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of this is fully automatic parking brake protection. No need to set xx% of handbrakes, just dump the supply line and you’re done. Since the parking brakes are spring loaded, there’s no chance of air pressure leaking away and brakes releasing (though there’s the issue of the springs aging and breaking, but that’s what car repair crews are for.)
I can see the advantage of springs holding the parking brakes set. It needs to be a system that cannot leak off. The whole design for such a system is an exciting challenge. It would be interesting to look at the existing state of the art for transit systems. It would be nice to just flip a switch and have the entire train locked against movement. Then that switch could be tied into communication and security systems.
Actually, I think there will be a convergence or “perfect storm” of necessity to dramatically improve the safety and efficiency of oil unit trains. I don’t know what improvements will be adopted, but I think the industry will suddenly be more receptive to looking at new ideas than at any time in history.
The runaway in Canada is going to spawn a runaway of new regulations for oil trains. And that is going to force radical safety improvements. For starters, we will need fireproof, explosion proof, and leak proof oil trains.
I remember that TRAINS once ran an article on a proposal for tank cars that were rectangular instead of cylindrical. The idea was to fill up the rectangular clearance diagram with a rectangle rather than a circle.
Obviously you would not put these on every tank car, but rather would make (and lease–that is what they do) unit trains. Obviously they are configured for the needs of the shipper who leases the cars, some will, most will not. A cut of 25 cars might be handled as a single car within a train.
Everything needs to be as simple as possible, but be whatever it takes to get the job done. I would say that new regulations are coming that will require more to get the job of moving crude by rail done. There is no doubt that oil trains can be made safer, but it is a matter of cost. Right now shipping oil by rail is generally competitive with pipeline. But it would not take much in the way of new regulations to price rail out of the oil moving business. This is the strongest card in the Greens’ deck.
Their power has killed the XL pipeline. They thought they had the upper hand, but much to their chagrin, rail has moved in to take up the slack. It is like plugging up one hole only to spring a leak in another spot. So ladling on new safety regulations for oil trains will plug that leak. In other words, the motive of the Greens will not be to make trains safer. It will be to price them out of the oil hauling business.
So the railroads are going to have their backs against the wall as they face Congress. They are going to face the biggest challenge ever to comply with the safety mandates, or lose the oil business. It is going take some intense creativity to come up with radically new hardware to meet this challenge. If they are successful, the oil trains of tomorrow will look nothing like they do today.
Too many regulations on rail shipment of oil could possibly result in thousands more tanker trucks on the highways – so which is less of a hazard? People living along highways that have to absorb all that extra truck traffic would then be in peril of a catastrophic accident.
It’s an attractive idea, but it has one big flaw. Assume for a moment that the spring device is actually strong enough to apply the brake effectively for its particular shoe(s). What happens if, for ANY reason, that device deploys while the train is moving?
Whether or not it locks the wheels in question, it ain’t making the train stop. But it will certainly contribute to one of two problems: unexpected derailment, and lots of heat and sparks underneath … flammable oil cars?
Having had the fun of following a gasoline tanker off the George Washington Bridge with exactly this situation occurring with the spring brake, flames billowing out of the trailer bogie and having to flag him down ASAP to prevent enormous disaster on a very-heavily-trafficked road, I would say this is far more an issue of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.
I believe the idea of automatic spring brakes is very, very old (see White’s volumes on history of railroad cars) and this same sort of issue dogged their acceptance ‘back then’. Safety devices that actually cause wrecks unexpectedly may not be the best answer to deploy in statistically-significant numbers…
Yes, your point about an unintended spring application is well taken. All that is needed is a way to guarantee that air brake leak-down cannot release the brakes. I would accomplish that by adding a form of deadbolt or cam action to the linkage system coming out of the air brake cylinder.
To set the parking brake, you set the air, and then set a mechanical lock to hold the linkage in the set position. This mechanical lock could be held in release by the air, and set by spring force.
That way if you are running the train, and the brake lock release air fails, and the spring tries to set the lock, it can only insert the lock when the air brakes are fully set. It cannot insert the lock when the air brakes are released and the train is underway.
So there is no way that an inadvertent setting of the brake lock can cause a derailment by locking the brakes when they are released.
Railway cars are more robust beasts than are highway trailers.
LION thinks to keep it simple (as if LIONS were ever simple!)
Putting an N2a coupler on the car (with sensor package) connects all air, power, communications, and data in one simple coupler. Automatic parking brakes are a separate device, but once you have electrical connections then parking and service brakes can take on a whole new dimension.
It needs to be kept simple. If a car needs to be set out, the crew can operate these couplers with an electrical switch. If they need to move this car with the locomotive the iron-to-iron adapter is mounted (on LIRR and on MNCR on the locomotive) right next to the coupler. You’d not want to run the train on that thing, but you can handle the car and LIRR does use that thing to pull stranded trains out of the tunnels, passengers and all. If LIRR crews can do it anybody can do it, but to qualify ALL of your engineers and conductors, car knockers and brakeman on a new coupler is quite an undertaking.
This is why the LION proposed that they be introduced into unit trains with a buffer car between these and the locomotives. A whole cut of cars can be handles as a single car.
But you have to start your innovation somewhere, and I wrote to GATX because I figured that they could best get the ball rolling if there was a marketable reason for doing so.
I suppose I could do it all by myself. I could start the ELIAS OIL TRANSPORT COMPANY, and I could lease say 1000 such tank cars and then look for customers. I do not think that the Abbot would let me do it even in HO scale, but all it really takes is the money and the desire to do it.
Having been in the trucking industry for over 20 years, and having a good understanding of how OTR brake systems work, I will agree there is the possibility for failure. One
Great letter Lion! I’d like to find out what feedback you get from GATX as well.
As an aside, one thing we should keep in mind is the oil is going to be moved, one way or another, irregardless what the Greens say. It’s too vital a commodity. The Green’s political allies may say one thing in public, but in the back rooms and out public view I can well imagine them saying “Grow up! We need this stuff, the economy depends on it! We’ll support you just so much and no more.” The usual rule is ideology goes out the window when the welfare of the country is at stake.
There are two huge obstacles that must be overcome.
First, it is a heavily regulated industry. Permission from the regulating agencies would be required. The documentation and testing would take years and would require stress testing coupler systems to destruction.
Second, rail cars have a very long lifespan. The cost of modifying the existing fleet would be astronomical.
Then there is the issue of training all the maintenance people…
All the more reason to start now! All the more reason to design something yourself than to let somebody else design it for you.
N2a Couplers are already approved, I do not know about the automatic brakes which of course are in use but FRA does not regulate NYCT. Build some samples and send them on out to Colorado for testing. As you perfect it get some demonstrators out on the road. GATX deals with shippers, not railroads, if a shipper wants 1000 cars with special safety features, GATX will assemble them and lease them to them. By putting standard connections on a buffer/transition car the whole cut will handle as if it were just one car. Set the hand brakes on the transition car, and you have set them on the entire cut.
No is easy to say, The more you tell me no, the more solutions I will look for, so keep up the good work.