As I mentioned in another recent thread, the Bakken represents about 10% of domestic crude production. There is no legal pretext or precident to shut that down. An economic hurdle, such as tank car fleet rebuild would take years to implement. The Lac Megantic disaster only resulted in rerouting the CBR around that vicinity, more stringent enforcement of existing rules (including North Dakota codifying Bakken volatile seperation parameters), and regulatory review of ways to upgrade tank cars.
A little more ‘economic throughts’ on the BNSF $1,000 per car surcharge:
- It may be vulnerable to challenge because of its ‘blanket’ or ‘overbroad’ nature - which seems to be the exact same amount and not ‘tailored’ to the need, such as regardless of the length of haul, the routing (through cities, or around them ?), and the explosiveness (or not) of the cargo (the articles are not clear on this - molasses crude vs. Bakken crude, etc.). Also, does BNSF have an actuarial study (risk and loss analysis) to support that flat rounded amount, as opposed to a more precise figure - e.g., $895 or $1,328.16, etc. ? Otherwise, is it just another version of a fuel surcharge ? (to shippers, about much the same as airline ‘fees’ are to the rest of us)
- At $1,000 per car, that would be $100,000+ per train; if BNSF completes runs of 10 such trains a day (a low figure, I suspect), that would be $1 million a day, $365 million per year; double that for 20 trains per day, etc. That would be a good figure to add to the bottom line if there are no wrecks; and if there are, it would well cover the vast majority of them. However, it would not be enough if one blew up in Minneapolis, etc. - see the DOT study that I referenced a couple weeks ago in another thread - I’m recalling that estimated about 10 wrecks a year (note: nationwide - not just on BNSF), and a ‘worst case’ one at about $5 Billion in damages. Again, is there a mathematical or logical connection between that study and BNSF’s amount ? (Note that at 20 trains per day = $730 Million per year, about 7 years would provide a $5 Billion fund.)
- From the car owner’s / shippers perspective, each trip costs $1,000 more. If the cars gets 2 round-trips per month, that’s $24,000 per year. After 4 or 5 years, that would be enough to replace the car with a newer, stronger one at $100,000 o
More shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don’t exist.
About oil trains, the president of A.A.R. wrote a letter to the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/americas-freight-railroads-are-investing-in-safety.html
and an article for the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-r-hamberger/want-improved-crude-oil-s_b_6896082.html
LION,
It is nice to see your comments in Progressive Railroading. I agree that the solution to the problem lies in developing very advanced trains for this crude oil application. The mission to solve the problem by strengthening tank cars seem way inadequate. It cannot succeed quick enough, if it can succeed at all. I think that preventing derailments can help, and it can begin to happen fast, but still take a lot of time to fully develop with detectors, inspections, etc. There is also the option of taking the volatility out of the crude before shipping it. If this could be done, it would be the 100% solution, but I simply have no idea if this is possible or if it will happen. So the best remedy at this point appears to be fate.
Specialized trains could also be part of the solution by mitigating the forces that pile
I bet they’d add less weight than thickening the entire wall.
How often do they clean tank cars now? Do oil tank cars sometimes carry different types of cargo? I would expect that they’re dedicated to oil, so why would they need to clean them?
You really must be gentle on your LION, him is not a rail expert of any sort, but ewe knew that.
We have to shoot in the dark, because there is no light on the subject. Like designing an airplane. You re-enforce this place, and the weak spot moves over there.
LION likes the idea of transit couplers. The newer ones are fully FRA approved, or so I am told by a locomitive engineer, and are fully up to the task. LION would make sticks of 50 oil cars with one “buffer car” at the end to serve as a transition between conventional couplers and the transit type couplers.
The reason why the LION likes his transit couplers is among other reasons is to put all kinds of sensors on the oil cars: weight, lading, pressure, presence of gas, the ballance on the trucks and the condition of the wheels and brakes. Perhaps more information, LION is not a petrolium engineer either. THIS IS DATA from which new generations of equipment can be made.
The LION would run two such “sitcks” of cars back to back so that there is a transition-buffer car at each end. What the heck, the car manufacturer or the oil shipper can have a technician on the buffer car keeping an eye on everything.
The buffer car would have track inspection gear on it, like continiously inspecting the track. If there is a developing condition on the rails the train can be slowed down.
LION also borrowed the idea of track brakes, electric or otherwise, to be used in emergency and in parking conditions, but not in normal braking conditions. Such a contrivance could apply emergency brakes evenly across the entire train. It would also help to apply service brakes evenly across the entire train. This will take the buff action out of the train and would minimise the effects of a derailment, least wise the LION thinks that this
I will give credit to the Lion. That would solve all problems associated with the oil trains.
–
Mainly by making it so expensive that no more oil could ever be moved by rail.
[quote user=“BroadwayLion”]
dehusman
More shooting at targets in the dark. Solutions that are ineffectual, counterproductive or pointed at problems that don’t exist.
You really must be gentle on your LION, him is not a rail expert of any sort, but ewe knew that.
We have to shoot in the dark, because there is no light on the subject. Like designing an airplane. You re-enforce this place, and the weak spot moves over there.
LION likes the idea of transit couplers. The newer ones are fully FRA approved, or so I am told by a locomitive engineer, and are fully up to the task. LION would make sticks of 50 oil cars with one “buffer car” at the end to serve as a transition between conventional couplers and the transit type couplers.
The reason why the LION likes his transit couplers is among other reasons is to put all kinds of sensors on the oil cars: weight, lading, pressure, presence of gas, the ballance on the trucks and the condition of the wheels and brakes. Perhaps more information, LION is not a petrolium engineer either. THIS IS DATA from which new generations of equipment can be made.
The LION would run two such “sitcks” of cars back to back so that there is a transition-buffer car at each end. What the heck, the car manufacturer or the oil shipper can have a technician on the buffer car keeping an eye on everything.
The buffer car would have track inspection gear on it, like continiously inspecting the track. If there is a developing condition on the rails the train can be slowed down.
LION also borrowed the idea of track brakes, electric or otherwise, to be used in emergency and in parking conditions, but not in normal braking conditions. Such a contrivance could apply emergency brakes evenly across th
As well as creating ghettos all across the country.
I would start out with dedicated consists having solid, semi-permanently connected drawbars and ECP brakes. From there I would add derailment sensors. At the very least, the sensors could set the brakes as early as possible in the derailment process.
There is no slack action in transit type couplers.
You do not need to go into the shop to uncouple cars. It can be done in the field by the train crew without any tools.
ROAR
I suspect it would be done multiple times in the field with the slack action of a 100 car, 14300 ton oil train operating in undulating terrain.
There is no slack action in a transit coupler. It is the same as a draw bar until you unlock it.
ROAR
At transit loadings - several hundred tons at most.
Rather than “NO” slack action in a transit coupler I think it more correct to say “MINIMAL”. What is effectively zero in a 6 or 8 car transit train, with power distributed throughout, will become measurable as you get further back in a long oil train. I also suspect the typical transit coupler will have difficulty coping with the drawbar stress of 10-12,000 tons. Ergo, instant uncoupling and done multiple times as per BaltACD.
John
I am struggling to understand the obsession with making oil train have equipment which is in compatible with the rest of the national railroad fleet. Obviously none of the advocates have managed rail car fleets. What happens when a transit coupler car goes bad order r route and has to go to a shop for repairs?
What benefit to an oil train is no slack action?