Join the discussion on the following article:
Report: Derailed oil train had newer tank cars
Well, back to the drawing board or the 3D printer.
Unless they are designed to withstand a Bunker Busting Bomb impact , we will continue to have these problems. Everything we design today is aimed toward lighter weight with newer stronger metal. Obviously the newer tanks cars aren’t any better!!! We need to think way outside the box or consider just how strong it may have been built in 1920 if the problem had existed then.
I remember a couple articles in a different industry publication a year or so ago touting these new cars and how superior they were to the DOT-111. Interestingly enough, this same publication just published an article this month touting how great E Hunter Harrison is, and now CP has gone on strike.
The cars are an issue, but more important is the extreme volatility of Bakken crude.
Expecting any type of freight car to overcome the physics of a train wreck is a pretty tall order. The problem is going to have to be solved through manpower. Two crewman on the front of a mile line train of explosive oil is not enough. Either put a forward facing camera or a man at the rear of the train.
This operational logic is much like placing security guards at only the front door of a facility then deeming it secure.
Here’s what I don’t get, the Wheeling & Lake Railway had an incident, 6 newer tank cars were slammed from behind, derailed and not one of them blew up and none of them spilled anything, look it up. How did Trains miss that? Not a single peep outta this publication.
Are there any openings at Trains magazine?
During World War II, a lot of oil was moved via railroad tank cars. Were there many incidents back then and, if so, were they reported or hushed up due to WWII censorship
Responding to my own comment, I just received my copy of that other publication today, and it ironically has another article discussing these new tank cars and notes that they are still better than the DOT-111’s, but still can’t sustain coupler impacts above about 17mph without puncturing.
Mr. Cole makes a good point. My guess is that there were so many more employees to watch for problems both on and off the trains. Today, great distances can be covered while never seeing a fellow employee.
Commenting about the comments…
Mr. Cole, I’d really like to know the answer…
Mr Norton, it ain’t gonna’ happen. one person can only watch one side at a time, another to watch the other side, and probably best, would be to watch behind the train, the ties for score marks from derailed wheels. What’s that ?..3 people…ain’t gonna happen.
Mr. Bell, you’ve asked the A1, Top Prize, Best-In-Show, most significant question I think. Virtually “castrating” the Bakken crude prior to transport solves any risk or chance.of…BOOM!
.
Mr Reid, “slammed from behind.” Refer please, to the velocity and mass of the"slammed (slamming) from behind" freight cars?
Mr. Shock (when talking about “impact,”, how appropriate a name can there be) I’d like to be recorded saying that about 5 or 6 mph is the upper limit of frt car contact for “impact.” My non-scientific opinion is that 17 mph is a crash…obviously an impact, also.
It is nice to know that the comments are being read before being posted. Thx IGN
Mr. Carlin: It only takes seeing one side of a freight car to know its coming off the tracks!
Great question! Here’s a topic for an in-depth Trains article that would make absolutely fascinating reading. Does Trains have a correspondent knowledgeable on this aspect of railroad history?
Is there any word if the new tankers themselves were damaged?