Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF to buy it's own fleet of oil tankers

Hot off the press: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/us-bnsf-crude-rail-idUSBREA1J1BE20140220

If BNSF starts a trend towards self ownership of "approved" tank cars, it occurs to me as though they will begin to lobby heavily against building the Keystone Pipeline and any other pipelines which would divert oil shipments away from the rails. They would be reluctant to expend millions of dollars on tank cars only to have them sitting empty parked on some branch line rusting away!

TomPlatten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If BNSF starts a trend towards self ownership of
> "approved" tank cars, it occurs to me as though
> they will begin to lobby heavily against building
> the Keystone Pipeline and any other pipelines
> which would divert oil shipments away from the
> rails. They would be reluctant to expend millions
> of dollars on tank cars only to have them sitting
> empty parked on some branch line rusting away!


Warren Buffett already has a big stake in Union Tank Car. Rail shipment of oil is in his interest regardless of who owns the rolling stock.

TomPlatten Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If BNSF starts a trend towards self ownership of
> "approved" tank cars, it occurs to me as though
> they will begin to lobby heavily against building
> the Keystone Pipeline and any other pipelines
> which would divert oil shipments away from the
> rails. They would be reluctant to expend millions
> of dollars on tank cars only to have them sitting
> empty parked on some branch line rusting away!

You can bank on it!! Let's hope that with this oil tank purchase the BNSF won't have much capital left to buy off mainline cities' politicians that could enact oil tank train movement safety legislation.

70ACE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TomPlatten Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If BNSF starts a trend towards self ownership
> of
> > "approved" tank cars, it occurs to me as though
> > they will begin to lobby heavily against
> building
> > the Keystone Pipeline and any other pipelines
> > which would divert oil shipments away from the
> > rails. They would be reluctant to expend
> millions
> > of dollars on tank cars only to have them
> sitting
> > empty parked on some branch line rusting away!
>
> You can bank on it!! Let's hope that with this oil
> tank purchase the BNSF won't have much capital
> left to buy off mainline cities' politicians that
> could enact oil tank train movement safety
> legislation.

Mainline cities can hold their breath until they turn blue, but they cannot enact anything like regulations on oil trains. That is a Federal matter, not one for every local yokel to get involved in.

I wonder if BNSF will destroy a few in testing to see just what it takes to crack one open?

Well seeing at the NE Courts have ruled against the XL pipeline again (http://www.npr.org/2014/02/20/279956111/nebraska-court-ruling-voids-approval-for-keystone-xl-pipeline) tank cars sound like a good investment.

rsanchez Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well seeing at the NE Courts have ruled against
> the XL pipeline again
> (http://www.npr.org/2014/02/20/279956111/nebraska-
> court-ruling-voids-approval-for-keystone-xl-pipeli
> ne) tank cars sound like a good investment.

First of all, I want to say that I support the Keystone XL Project, but I see the Nebraska court decision as justified. The governor tried to sidestep the proper procedure for the pipeline's approval and like the proverbial hand in the cookie jar, got it slapped back. I always find it funny when a project's like this afraid to go thru the normal steps required and instead get special treatment, then wonder what people see the project as suspect. Its the same for environmentalist that feel the need to exaggerate the figures to make there claims look better. It just makes them look back. I don't care if you are for or against a specific project, it should stand on its own merits and go thru the proper channels.

Has ANY US railroad ever previously owned a fleet of tank cars, other than service equipment?

-John Stein aka Larry Doyle

In the past SP had some revenue-service tank cars in both general and sugar service.

I can't think of any current examples, but north of the border a Canadian shortline in Quebec (Chemin de fer Lanaudière) has a small fleet of LPG cars:

http://freight.railfan.ca/cfl/cfl1000.jpg

CN's tank train operation in Quebec also uses leased cars with CN logos but GATX (initially) and CGTX (currently) reporting marks.

Doug Stark

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has ANY US railroad ever previously owned a fleet
> of tank cars, other than service equipment?
>
> -John Stein aka Larry Doyle

The only railroad-owned petroleum tank cars I can think of were in company (diesel fuel) service.

The article is correct that (tank) cars have historically been owned by shippers or leasing companies, because for the most part particular tank types are designed for specialized commodity service. It was a briefly happy circumstance for shippers that when the ethanol boom petered out, those tanks happened to be a good size for crude oil, although those are also the cars that are now needing retrofits to satisfy the volatility concerns with Bakken crude.

I put "tank" in parentheses above, though, because that detail is omitted in the article. Railroads historically have provided railcars for other kinds of cargo, for example dry-bulk commodities (grain, sand, etc.), coal, paper, lumber, and steel that travel in covered hoppers, open hoppers, boxcars, flats, and various gondola types.

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has ANY US railroad ever previously owned a fleet
> of tank cars, other than service equipment?
>
> -John Stein aka Larry Doyle

I believe some railroads in the Southern Plains "oil patch" owned some for oil service. Think Katy, Texas & Pacific, etcetera.

Posted from iPhone

Keystone pipeline would move a relatively small amount of ND crude oil.
howard

howard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keystone pipeline would move a relatively small
> amount of ND crude oil.
> howard


Yes. That point was made by Harold Hamm and others as they began building their own pipeline west to Montana and Wyoming to catch existing pipes with capacity out there.

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has ANY US railroad ever previously owned a fleet
> of tank cars, other than service equipment?
>
> -John Stein aka Larry Doyle

BNSF has a sizeable fleet of tank cars with either BN, ATSF, or BNSF markings which are used to transport company diesel fuel to locomotive servicing facilities.

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has ANY US railroad ever previously owned a fleet
> of tank cars, other than service equipment?
>
> -John Stein aka Larry Doyle

In the early sixties, Southern Railway acquired a fleet of around fifty tank cars for hauling, IIRC, phosphoric acid. For a while the railroad turned a passenger train into a mixed train by picking up the stuff at Jesup GA from the ACL with its Brunswick GA - Atlanta - Birmingham train no. 8-7. Some of you might remember that train, a remnant of the Kansas City - Florida Special, as having the last assigned Pullman heavyweight line in the country, overnight between Atlanta and Brunswick.

What a train to model! Like a little acid behind your heavyweight?

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/02/oil_train_accidents_prompt_bns.html#incart_river

this article seems to suggest, toward the bottom, that BNSF will order tank cars
with hulls thicker than the current 2011 standard and with pressure relief valves.

"Among the added safety features being sought by the company are ½-inch thick steel shields that would go on either end of the tank cars to help prevent them from cracking open during accidents. The new cars also would have pressure-relief valves capable of withstanding an ethanol-based fire and a tank body made of thicker steel than existing cars."

The article does not differentiate between the pre 2011 tanks and the post 2011 tanks in the "existing car" definition.

Should they have center sills? Interesting that tanks chosen for fuel tender service all have center sills, because it is known that they can take greater buff and draft forces, but most newer tanks rely upon tubular rigidity which have been known to break from in-train stresses from metal fatigue after a period of service. Seems like center sills, or side sills would be safest. Heck, permanently mount tanks into surplus single doublestack well cars. Low center of gravity, room on the ends for crumple zones, and heavy side sill protection. Just brainstorming... === === = === JLH

highgreengraphics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should they have center sills? Interesting that
> tanks chosen for fuel tender service all have
> center sills, because it is known that they can
> take greater buff and draft forces, but most newer
> tanks rely upon tubular rigidity which have been
> known to break from in-train stresses from metal
> fatigue after a period of service. Seems like
> center sills, or side sills would be safest. Heck,
> permanently mount tanks into surplus single
> doublestack well cars. Low center of gravity, room
> on the ends for crumple zones, and heavy side sill
> protection. Just brainstorming... === === = ===
> JLH

Several good ideas in there. Using the well cars has a lot to recommend the idea, in particular.

Supposedly when the new Tesoro facility at the Port of Vancouver opens they will require these new heavy duty tank cars and BNSF will be using these cars to serve the Tesoro facility with up to four loaded trains a day.