[quote user=“samfp1943”]
My take is sort of contrarian to this problem, and is something we will face around here more and more. Political Impacts on a industry we all have our own field of interests in, and perspectives. This whole ‘situation’ could be said to exist because of ‘politics’’ Influences, Good, Bad or otherwise…
Prior to the last national elections the rail industry was rolling along as it had for years, lean years, followed by periods of reexamination of all aspects ( Capital issues for the RRs)… Railroads did their ‘thing’ and the pipelines as well. The nation was rocking along. ‘Fracking’ was not a particularly hot issue on the National scene, and the Canadian Tar Sands were there as well, as the ‘New’ Bakken Oil Shale deposits.
Along came a proposal to build a pipeline, a normal, pretty innocuous proposal in the scheme of things. As we were already as a Nation crisscrossed by thousands of miles of ‘safe’ pipeline.
But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major ‘cause celebre’ in the Activist segment of our society. And as they say " The fight was joined’" . Every aspect of the involvement of the pipeline in things became a talking point to the Media., to be dissected according to the point of view of the ‘writer/ reporter’. But Commerce being what it is, the oil was still used by the Petroleum Industry and needed where it could be processed. They remembered how in " Olden times’ the railroads used tank cars to deliver most of their products in bulk wherever it was needed. The " Luddite’ activists went crazy; seeing their efforts thwarted by Capitalism. Then inevitably, their were incidents ( accidents?) and they were Front Page news, The "Battle was joined!’
Believe me, I am very, well aware of the ‘turns off the tracks’ that some Threads have made around here, and it usually done in a volley of ad Hominem attacks.
I purposefully couched my response to attempt NOT to poke fingers in to individual political sympathies; (to be partisan on one side or the other of this issue.).
My feelings are that this is an issue that many are interested in, and can contribute their insights to that discussion. Yes! I said it is deep in political agendas, and regulatory functions. I would just hope that we could talk about it without wearing our own feelings on our shirt cuffs. The Industry is going to have to get out in front of what I would perceive as a coming tide of regulations that is going to drag the future down by the weight of those regulations.
The current problem in ‘changing tank car regulations’; is not directly about the regulations being changed - it is about it is time for the regulators to ‘doo doo or get off the pot’ when it comes to specifying the ‘new’ regulations for tank cars. Car owners know the regulations are going to change - they just want to know what the final specifications will be.
Tank car owners need to make financial plans to determine if they can retrofit their existing fleet to the new regulations at a acceptable ROI or if they will have to buy new cars. The longer the regulations exist in limbo, the more uncertainity stalls investment in better cars and a increased level of safety.
My point was that your post is partisan and inflammatory in its tone and language. Sure, you avoid the names of political parties, but partisan politically also refers to issues and groups.
But then the Keystone XL pipeline became a major ‘cause celebre’ in the Activist segment of our society. And as they say " The fight was joined’" . Every aspect of the involvement of the pipeline in things became a talking point to the Media., to be dissected according to the point of view of the ‘writer/ reporter’. But Commerce being what it is, the oil was still used by the Petroleum Industry and needed where it could be processed. They remembered how in " Olden times’ the railroads used tank cars to deliver most of their products in bulk wherever it was needed. The " Luddite’ activists went crazy; seeing their efforts thwarted by Capitalism. Then inevitably, their were incidents ( accidents?) and they were Front Page news, The "Battle was joined!’
Railroads were founded in politics, from the B&O in 1827, and exist every day in the political world and for every action they take there is a political entity that must be ‘coddled’ for them to carry through on their intents.
At various points in time railroads have crossed swords with every political persuasion known to man on one topic or another.
The thought of separating railroads from politics it preposterous.
It is not politics we must and want to avoid, it is sword and flame throwing, name calling, insults, and the absence of facts that accompany such discussion that cause the problems in so called “political discussions”.
The forum policy has been to exclude politics. You want to change it, take it up with the Kalmbach forum moderators.
The use of the term “Luddites” in the poster’s remarks is an example of “sword and flame throwing, name calling, insults, and the absence of facts.”
sam’s post also implies some rather unsavory or illegal activities, albeit as a snarky comment:
The " Luddite’ activists went crazy; seeing their efforts thwarted by Capitalism. Then inevitably, their were incidents ( accidents?) and they were Front Page news, The "Battle was joined!’ [my emphasis]
On March 6, 2014, Senator Heitkamp participated in a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing about rail safety - which she called for after the December 2013 train derailment near Casselton. Here is a portion of the exchange.
In this discussion, Senator Heitkamp focuses on the issue of getting the DOT-111 tank cars out of service quickly. She seems unconvinced that the phase-out is moving quickly enough. Mr. Searles describes what I believe would be considered diminishing returns of safety for each increment of tank car improvement. I would interpret that to mean that a completely safe tank car is unattainable because of rising cost and diminishing returns.
Senator Heitkamp says, “This is not a tradeoff of economics versus safety. We have to make the transportation of this material as safe as humanly possible.”
I would say that there will have to be a tradeoff of economics versus safety in order to not price rail transportation out of the market.
What exactly is the dispute that Senator Heitkamp is referring to when she says this is shaping up to be a regulatory fight? I guess the dispute will be whether the impending new tank car specifications need to exceed the standards of the 1232 tank cars.
There will be those who feel that even with the improvements on the spec for the 1232 cars they still aren’t safe enough.
Disregarding those who feel the products in question shouldn’t be moved at all, we’re always going to see folks who feel that things should be “safer.” I’d put such folks in the same group as parents who don’t think junior should ever get a scrape while playing outside.
I agree with the diminishing returns comment. Eventually you’ll reach the point where incremental improvements will increase the cost on a logarithmic scale.
As long as the product has to be transported from A to B, there will be some risk involved. Only so much can be done to reduce that risk. It’s not possible to completely eliminate it.
As for the regulatory fight - based on the video, I only see that happening if outside parties try to force conditions that the major players find excessive. It actually sounds like the AAR, API, and whoever that other guy was are pretty much on the same sheet of music. In some ways, I’d view the senator’s comment as a threat.
The Keystone XL Pipeline involves Tar Sands oil production which has a higher environmental impact than conventional oil, which puts it on the environmental activist top priority. The fact that it crosses an international border is the only thing that gave the story legs, because it was then subject to national political permitting scrutiny. Keystone has no bearing on the Bakken or domestic pipelines or pipelines crossing into the US carrying conventional oil, all of which continue to be planned or built.
Most big pipeline companies also own or use crude hauling trucks, and some have built rail loading facilities. They are in the crude transporting business, and will use the most cost effective means. If they don’t, their oil company customers will look for some one else to move their oil. The oil companies will use the most efficient and reliable means of transportation: pipeline, rail, boat, whatever. Railfans should accept that the public spectacle of the rail/crude accidents are the drivers behind tougher regulations.
That is the way I read her too. I watched that video several times just to study her comments. It almost seems like her tone communicates more than her sentences. And her tone is highly adversarial, particularly in regard to her suggestion that the industry is pulling a fast one by claiming a falling percentage of 111 tank cars when that falling percentage is due to adding new tank cars to the fleet rather than removing 111s from it.
She acts like the industry is violating a commitment or requirement to take 111 tank cars out of service while misleading the public to portray that they are taking the 111s out or service.
I do not know the facts of what the industry is legally bound to; or has committed to do voluntarily regarding the retirement of 111s. But Senator Heitkamp’s closing point sounded like she believed that she had caught the industry lying.
Mr. Searle defended against her insuation of bad faith on the part of the industry by saying that the 111s
The Keystone Pipeline is virtually a political game right now as the stuff is moving in trains which has awakened the oil and gas companies to the fact that rail is more user friendly in that shipments can be rerouted en route as needed to where needed with minimum delays and maximum choices. Therefore only the politicians need Keystone Pipeline at the moment.
But as for the tank cars: they are the purview of the shippers to provide either by lease or by ownership and be up to the standards required for the product shipped and they must assures the railroad that what is in the shipment is acceptable to the cars being used. Otherwise, the railroad will not be required to accept the load for shipment.
So, the politicians have a side show to look like they are not obstructing anything while drawing our attention away from matters which we can do something about.
But-- is somebody really playing with numbers? If Senator Heitkamp would have finished her sentences rather than let them trail off into vague accusation; maybe we could understand why she thinks the public is being deceived by the number expressing the quantity of DOT-111 tank cars in service.
On the face of her expressed concern, I completely fail to understand what her grievance is. Clearly she believes that the railroad industry is being deceptive by claiming that the percentage of DOT-111 tank cars is falling. I would like to know how she constructs that argument.
Because DOT 111 is the ONLY number that politicians know and in their minds and in their pronouncements it is the domestic version of a IED ready to explode at any time loaded or empty with any commodity.
The number of 111 tank cars in service is a useless number. The number of 111 cars hauling hazmat might be a good number to track but the number of all 111’s in service doesn’t really tell you anything about the risk (other than the potential total risk) since some of those cars could be hauling lube oil or corn oil.
I assume that Senator Heitkamp is referring only to the 111s engaged in hauling crude oil. She says that she has been told that the percentage of 111s engaged in hauling crude oil is decreasing, and is now at 40% of the total tank car fleet engaged in hauling crude oil. She says that implies a reduction in the number 111s when (she says) it is not a reduction in that number.
This is because the falling percentage of 111s is due to an increase in the total number of cars in the crude oil tank car fleet. Therefore the actual number of 111s in crude oil service has not fallen, and Senator Heitkamp seems to feel that this is a bad faith failure of the oil and rail industry.
My question is this: What is it that would require the industry to be reducing the number of 111s in crude oil service? Senator Heitkamp apparently knows the answer to that question, but she did not disclose it during the discussion.
Assuming that the total number of 111A’s in service has not, in fact, dropped, but instead the percentage has been reduced by the number of new cars placed in service (as the Senator implies), I would opine that it’s because there is a call for those cars to meet a shortage thereof.
If that’s the case, then the total inventory of 111A’s will not drop until such time as they become surplus to the needs of the industry.
Meanwhile, there have been how many incidents involving the 111A’s since ND?