I believe Bucky’s audience has left the theater.
May 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. and Canada rolled out new oil railcar standards on Friday that require a new car design to be phased in and introduce more stringent speed limits and enhanced braking for tank cars to reduce damage in derailments.
Under the regulations, tank cars built after Oct. 1 must have thicker hulls, full-height headshields, thermal protection, and improved pressure valves. Existing tank cars must be retrofitted with these components.
The rule requires replacing tank cars known as DOT-111 for crude by rail within three years.
http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/final-rule-on-safe-rail-transport-of-flammable-liquids
Wanswheel,
Thanks for posting that new information about the finalized tank car rules. They told me yesterday that the rules would be released “soon,” but they would not say when.
So ECP brakes for oil trains are now mandated with a phase-in period. I was expecting that.
It is interesting that the DOTs’ reasoning for ECP brakes is to mitigate damage after a derailment begins. That sounds familiar.
The industry cited that as a reason to reject ECP brakes, claiming that fitting tank cars with ECP brakes would not prevent accidents, but merely limit the number of cars that derail in an accident. But a
Excerpt from the NY Times
On Thursday, seven senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, unveiled a bill that would seek to impose a $175 per shipment fee on older cars to speed up their removal from service.
Senator Schumer said Friday’s announcement gave railroads too much time to remove older cars from service…
The Association of American Railroads said it backed the new tank car requirements but objected to a requirement that railroads should adopt new electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, or E.C.P., starting in 2021 for oil trains.
“The D.O.T. couldn’t make a safety case for E.C.P. but forged ahead anyway,” Edward R. Hamberger, the president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement. “I have a hard time believing the determination to impose E.C.P. brakes is anything but a rash rush to judgment.”
The AAR statement on the new federal mandate requiring ECP brakes on oil trains:
FOR
Hamberger also said, " The DOT’s study is flawed and [electronic] brakes do not significantly improve safety and are unreliable. "
Do not underestimate the impact of “unreliable”!
Following the release of the new tank car rules Friday, this sums up the large disagreement between the AAR (quoting Ed Hamberger) and the USDOT (quoting Anthony Foxx) regarding the ECP brake mandate included in the rules. It’s in this link followed by quotes in dark green:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/obama-safety-regulations-train-oil-derailments-117550.html
Looks to me like Ed is setting the stage for a lawsuit here. The AAR has successfully sued FRA over regulations before.
I’m not sure of the legal status of this regulation as there was no ANPRM or NPRM, does it still need to pass the OMB required cost/benefit analysis?
[quote user=“Euclid”]
Following the release of the new tank car rules Friday, this sums up the large disagreement between the AAR (quoting Ed Hamberger) and the USDOT (quoting Anthony Foxx) regarding the ECP brake mandate included in the rules. It’s in this link followed by quotes in dark green:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/obama-safety-regulations-train-oil-derailments-117550.html
“The DOT couldn’t make a safety case for ECP but forged ahead anyhow,” railroads association President Ed Hamberger said in a statement. “This is an imprudent decision made without supporting data or analysis. I have a hard time believing the determination to impose ECP brakes is anything but a rash rush to judgment.”
The best arguments in the world are two engineers on different sides of the same fact - they will argue it to their deaths. Since Foxx is a politician first it automatically takes 10 points away from whatever argument he proposes. Cost/benefit analysis needs to be performed on any mandated appliances. How many US lives have been lost, how many serious injuries have been caused in oil train derailments because of the lack of ECP on oil trains.
Lots of knowledgeable folks questioning the ECP requirement.
[But] CN does not support the implementation of ECP brakes for high-hazard flammable trains as the rail industry is of the opinion this technology has not proven to provide a meaningful safety benefit. CN also has serious concerns about interoperability and the reliability of the technology in Canada’s harsh winter weather." — CN officials
On the other hand, we are deeply troubled by the requirement for ECP brakes, a braking technology that is still in development and not proven in regular service. This requirement could dramatically and widely slow railroad operations and impair railroads’ ability to serve customers in all sectors of a growing economy. With respect to sharing shipping information and supporting community readiness, CSX has long recognized the need for balance between national security interests and public agencies’ need to know about the products moving through communities." — CSX Corp. officials
NS has been experimenting with ECP brakes on a small number of coal trains since 2007, but it is not widely used on our system. We stand with the AAR and question the benefits and consequences of this rule. We will evaluate the new ECP rule to determine how it will impact our operations and work with the owners of the tank cars to determine the best way forward." — Norfolk Southern Corp. officials
"ECP brakes do not prevent derailments from happening; rather, this technology has some limited potential to mitigate the severity of a derailment. The Railway Association of Canada believes this marginal safety benefit must be weighed against the considerable operational challenges of implementing this technology, and the additional risk posed to employee safety. RAC believes that the new tank car standard recently announced by Transport Canada will deliver the most meaningful results i
I am referring to the objective question of whether ECP brakes can reduce stopping distance by 70%, or whether they do not reduce stopping distance at all. It seems like that is the pivotal question. I am surprised that it seems to have no answer at this point in ECP development, testing, and application.
Old news (March 11, 2015) from OilPrice.com:
After a slew of oil train derailments over the past month, the Obama administration is under assault…from lobbyists that is.
A barrage of lobbying has descended upon the White House as it considers new regulations on trains carrying crude oil. And the petitioning is coming from all sides. EnergyWire reported that a day after a 105-railcar train jumped the tracks in Illinois and caught fire – which in turn came only two weeks after a massive train explosion in West Virginia – lobbyists from the rail industry visited the White House for private meetings.
According to White House logs, representatives from CSX, BNSF, Canadian Pacific Railway, Kansas City Southern, and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) – the rail industry’s trade group – met with officials from the executive branch. The brass from the rail companies wanted to head off new regulations from the Department of Transportation that would require trains install new high-tech brake systems intended to reduce the chance of a derailment. The regulations are currently under review by White House officials.
Much as I hate to post on this thread again.
ECP dumps all the cars at once.
On a mile long train with distributed power, doing so will take all of three seconds. Big difference? For a train doing 40 MPH, I think not…
One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. All brakes activated. Actual application may take up to ten seconds longer…
I agree that it does not seem like a few seconds would make any significant difference in total stopping time. This seems obvious when you consider that total stopping time might be a minute or more. And yet, there are published claims of reductions in stopping distance of up to 70% with ECP brakes. The Secretary of Transportation himself has cited the reduced stopping distance in practical terms that implies significant difference in stopping distance between the two brake types. It is hard to believe that such a claim would be made in total error. So what is the explanation?
Anybody besides me notice that virtually all the people who design, build, own, repair, use, operate or physically have to deal with tank cars or trains were against the ECP and all the people in favor of them were regulators, environmental or civic groups?
The AAR’s report was developed by the foremost transportation research center in the US that has had a hand in testing most of the new developments in railroad safety for the last several decades. Railroad safety and vehicle dynamics is what they do every day. If anybody would know about train dynamics it would be them.
[quote user=“Euclid”]
tree68
wanswheel
Current brake systems occur sequentially, car by carMuch as I hate to post on this thread again.
ECP dumps all the cars at once.
On a mile long train with distributed power, doing so will take all of three seconds. Big difference? For a train doing 40 MPH, I think not…
One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. All brakes activated. Actual application may take up to ten seconds longer…
I agree that it does not seem like a few seconds would make any significant difference in total stopping time. This seems obvious when you consider that total stopping time might be a minute or more. And yet, there are published claims of reductions in stopping distance of up to 70% with ECP brakes. The Secretary of Transportation himself has cited the reduced stopping distance in practical terms that implies significant difference in stopping distance between the two brake types. It is hard to believe that such a claim would be made in total error. So what is the explanation?
[quote user=“Buslist”]
Euclid
tree68
wanswheel
Current brake systems occur sequentially, car by carMuch as I hate to post on this thread again.
ECP dumps all the cars at once.
On a mile long train with distributed power, doing so will take all of three seconds. Big difference? For a train doing 40 MPH, I think not…
One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. All brakes activated. Actual application may take up to ten seconds longer…
I agree that it does not seem like a few seconds would make any significant difference in total stopping time. This seems obvious when you consider that total stopping time might be a minute or more. And yet, there are published claims of reductions in stopping distance of up to 70% with ECP brakes. The Secretary of Transportation himself has cited the reduced stopping
[quote user=“Euclid”]
Buslist
Euclid
tree68
wanswheel
Current brake systems occur sequentially, car by carMuch as I hate to post on this thread again.
ECP dumps all the cars at once.
On a mile long train with distributed power, doing so will take all of three seconds. Big difference? For a train doing 40 MPH, I think not…
One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand. All brakes activated. Actual application may take up to ten seconds longer…
I agree that it does not seem like a few seconds would make any significant difference in total stopping time. This seems obvious when you consider that total stopping time might be a minute or m