Western Railroad Discussion > "Require BNSF to hook up a hazmat car..."

The ongoing debate over the proposed Port of Vancouver, WA crude oil by rail terminal has become both emotionally and politically charged. Here's a letter to The Columbian from a gentleman who thinks he has some answers:

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/17/letter-trade-bridge-terminal/



Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/14 22:21 by bradleymckay.

Appalling ignorance...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

While this idea does sound a bit goofy, it probably on the right track. Think trade offs. In exchange for a terminal the city gets elevated street crossings..or something substantial to improve traffic...for example. Its done all the time.
Roger Beckett

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While this idea does sound a bit goofy, it
> probably on the right track. Think trade offs.
> In exchange for a terminal the city gets elevated
> street crossings..or something substantial to
> improve traffic...for example. Its done all the
> time.
> Roger Beckett

Of course Washington residents would scream when their gas prices were raised to cover the increased cost of the crude oil.

Ship it to Texas. We'll bypass the goofy politicians, and handle the business! Damn I'm glad to be here!

His points are mute . Assuming BNSF meets all cuurent lawful safety requirements .

I am actually surprised that no one (as in a government agency) has tried to force the railroads to place certain things in the buffer cars that all crude oil trains have been locomotives and cars. I doubt anything short of a Star Trek style containment forcefield would do any good, but that has never stopped the politicans before. As far as ideas go, yeah this guy's might not fly but at least he is thinking about creative solutions. We have heard of much more wild and crazy ideas than this!

I think that it would be a great idea, and stop making snarky comments because it is, as all letters to the newspaper proposing stuff are, just a dream. A brand-new Portland-Vancouver bridge funded by an oil terminal, plus reinforced oil train safety (that one is just to please the worrywarts, as it can't get much safer, but slapping a hazmat car on the train would create an illusion of security), would be a splendid idea.

Tor in Eugene

Surprised nobody has yet commented on his "demand BNSF upgrade their tracks" comment. While I don't live in the PNW I'll make an educated guess and say the mainline tracks are probably the best shape they've ever been in. For whatever reason the general public still seems to believe that railroad infrastructure is dilapidated. That (along with bridge safety) is a common theme among those against crude oil by rail.



Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For whatever reason
> the general public still seems to believe that
> railroad infrastructure is dilapidated.


I'm with you on that. People act as though every train through town derails when they see it on the news once every 9 years. Nevermind the MILLIONS OF SHIPMENTS PER YER THAT ARRIVE WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT WHATSOEVER.

Pump

I'm all for a new I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland, but it won't do a whole lot of good unless more lanes are added on the Oregon side.

I've been in parking lots that move faster than I-5 traffic in Portland.

Posted from iPhone

Ok I'll play this game, let me get this correct, trade a new bridge for a new oil terminal? Let's go one step farther then, a bridge for an oil terminal on bother sides of the river and a coal terminal... Once the bridge is paid no more moving the environmental goal posts, what laws are on the books can not ever be changed cause a certain small group doesn't like the commodity!!! So, lets build a brdge!!!!!

Posted from Android

Washy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok I'll play this game, let me get this correct,
> trade a new bridge for a new oil terminal? Let's
> go one step farther then, a bridge for an oil
> terminal on bother sides of the river and a coal
> terminal... Once the bridge is paid no more moving
> the environmental goal posts, what laws are on the
> books can not ever be changed cause a certain
> small group doesn't like the commodity!!! So, lets
> build a brdge!!!!!
>
> Posted from Android

Yes I agree, build a bridge so they can get over it!

Hauling accident equipment in the buffer cars is already in use on MRL. The boxcar used as a buffer on the Gas Locals between Missoula and Pipeline, MT carry all kinds of stuff that might be needed if those trains derail and a car is punctured. I believe that includes floating barriers for water since both MRL routes between those locations are mostly along rivers.

Paul Birkholz
Sheridan, WY

I kind of like the idea of trading something for something because it then means safety is not the issue. Reminds me of the time I was flying with a guy that had been a union negotiator at a previous airline. The union was fighting hard to put flight engineers on Boeing 737's when they first came out. Even though it was a 2 man airplane and the Engineer would have to sit on the jump seat and do nothing. The union was arguing that they needed him for the extra set of eyes for safety reasons up until the point that the company said that they had planned to give the Engineer's salary to the pilots. He said that the next thing out of the union negotiator's mouth was "we don't need that SOB anyway".

milepost180 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The union was arguing that they
> needed him for the extra set of eyes for safety
> reasons up until the point that the company said
> that they had planned to give the Engineer's
> salary to the pilots.

Well, that doesn't make any economic sense from the company's standpoint unless the air carriers are far more benevolent than the rail carriers are.

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> milepost180 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The union was arguing that they
> > needed him for the extra set of eyes for safety
> > reasons up until the point that the company
> said
> > that they had planned to give the Engineer's
> > salary to the pilots.
>
> Well, that doesn't make any economic sense from
> the company's standpoint unless the air carriers
> are far more benevolent than the rail carriers
> are.

agreed, but there may be more to it.

In addition to salary many companies budget 25% to 35% more than that for benefits. Company paid pension, medical plans, vacation time, personal leave time, uniforms, etc. All kinds of stuff. It may be cost-effective to cut the flight engineer, second, and third brakemen, fireman, etc to get out from under the benefit costs.

And there's no way they'd give the whole salary to the captain and first officer. But it gets them thinking about how to slit the third guy's throat. Not unlike the SMART proposal.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chico43 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > milepost180 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The union was arguing that they
> > > needed him for the extra set of eyes for
> safety
> > > reasons up until the point that the company
> > said
> > > that they had planned to give the Engineer's
> > > salary to the pilots.
> >
> > Well, that doesn't make any economic sense from
> > the company's standpoint unless the air
> carriers
> > are far more benevolent than the rail carriers
> > are.
>
> agreed, but there may be more to it.
>
> In addition to salary many companies budget 25% to
> 35% more than that for benefits. Company paid
> pension, medical plans, vacation time, personal
> leave time, uniforms, etc. All kinds of stuff. It
> may be cost-effective to cut the flight engineer,
> second, and third brakemen, fireman, etc to get
> out from under the benefit costs.
>
> And there's no way they'd give the whole salary to
> the captain and first officer.

Yes, thank you very much. My point exactly. But when it comes to crew down-sizing, the rail carriers don't concede those kinds of conditions easily. That's up to the organizations to battle for.