Join the discussion on the following article:
Trains News Wire EXCLUSIVE: Finger-pointing permeates NTSB crude and ethanol by-rail forum
What I find interesting is this paragraph:
“Calls to retrofit the entire fleet of 111s does not make sense. We repeatedly said you’ve got to keep the cars on the tracks,” Dinneen says. “Unless you address the root causes of accidents, tank car designs will not be effective.”
This is the system we regulate railroad equipment in this country: it has to meet impact and crash standards. Here that system, set up by the government and the railroads over the past 100+ years is being used against the railroads! And Dinneen seems totaly oblivious to the speed restrictions, tracks standards, and other rules governing railroads and operations. This is more comical than I had expected.
Well said Mr. Sommers. The problem is that Mr. Dinneen’s members and the various shippers of crude oil own the tank cars. The railroad only provides track and power. Now I would be totally shocked if any railroad would do anything to make any train or portion thereof jump the tracks and cause widespread destruction. Thus we have shippers and carriers pointing fingers at each other. You are right, this is more comical that I expected.
Someone is going to have to cough up big money and they don’t like it!
Gentlemen:
Someone is going to be coughing up big money and it will be you, me and other consumers.
Unless all trains carrying flammable products were speed restricted to 25 mph or less, even the AAR version of an “ideal” tank car would be susceptible to breaching in a derailment. Fact is, to make a tank car that could withstand a derailment at normal freight speeds of 40-50 miles per hour, the car would be so heavy it would not be economically viable to use for transportation.
Mr. Dineens’s comments about identifying and addressing the root cause of the derailments is spot on.
Would it be unreasonable to reqire the shippers to pay for the costs incurred from upgrading cars. The carriers should be required pay for track and signal improvements. The former recieves millions in tax breaks. The latter is making profits hand over fist from this traffic, and needs the added capacity track and signal improvements would provide as oil traffic is clogging the mainlines like fried food in a fatman’s arteries. (Mmmm- do I smell some fish and chips?)
One or two more major derailments and explosive fires particularly if in a populated area such shipments will simply be banned. Why not do it before the next disaster?
It would be unwise to ban those shipments on the rails. It would only move them to trucks and putting more trucks on the road. How many millions or billions of gallons of crude oil is shipped every year by rail? Now think how many trucks would be on the road to haul the same amount.
Just built double walled cars, spouts that dont tear off in a derailment…and you will be fine.