Western Railroad Discussion > .

.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/17 00:37 by darkcloud.

I was in a convoy of Hulcher equipment heading south through La Crosse, WI here at 5pm. Guess that explains where they where headed. Does not look good and chances of a second main through the swamp are going up in smoke. DNR may have given approval but Corp still needs to give their blessing. If they do I can guarantee there will be legal action.

NUTS!

Looks like the switch right at Galena got it. Crew reported safe.

NOT GOOD! (webcam)
http://chestnutmtn.com/live/mountaintop.cfm



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/15 16:16 by pyroman.

Looks like the crew of that double stack train has a much better front row seat than they may have wanted to have!

Rob

Redesign the tank cars for more perimeter protection, lower center of gravity and rollover protection. Think of a tank mounted inside a doublestack well car, which has end crumple zones. === === = === JLH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/15 06:03 by highgreengraphics.

Curious if this is a Bakken Crude train, which would bring up the Hydrogen Sulfide question again. From previous discussions, the tank cars are not designed for Hydrogen Sulphide. Do a Search through the TO archives for Hydrogen Sulfide.

There's really no reason that couldn't be done, you might give up a little capacity but
the offset against the current derailment fires would be much in favor of the new design.

Out

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curious if this is a Bakken Crude train, which
> would bring up the Hydrogen Sulfide question
> again. From previous discussions, the tank cars
> are not designed for Hydrogen Sulphide. Do a
> Search through the TO archives for Hydrogen
> Sulfide.

Yes this a Bakken train.

Bring on the new rules... And for christ sake, new tank cars.

TheGrande Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bring on the new rules... And for christ sake, new
> tank cars.

It'll take years for new cars to be designed, tested, and approved. Once that's done, how many years (or decades) will it take to replace the current fleet of cars? I hate to say it, but maybe buying crude from traditional sources is preferable until we can fix this.

Just saw a work train heading past the house at 295 south out of La Crosse with the "Oh Sh** Train" (track panels and ballast).

Is the camera being downloaded off the stack that was waiting?

pyroman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just saw a work train heading past the house at
> 295 south out of La Crosse with the "Oh Sh**
> Train" (track panels and ballast).


Good one.

There's a decent amount of experience with chemicals etc in sealed tanks in the frame which allows them to be loaded on a well car. My understanding is they are in the 5,000 gallon range, which is a huge discount from a 31,000 gallon tank car, even if four of them are in a well.

Ultimately, it comes down to costs and the still very rare incidence of rail derailments.

Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the volatility of the crude before it is loaded into the railcars? Would it be possible to use a centrifuge to separate the gaseous components from the less volatile solids?

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

As I understand it the state of Texas mandates the removal of
the volatiles pre shipping.
Why cant the US govt mandate this be done EVERYWHERE ???
I mean enough is enough of these rolling pipe bomb trains.
The public deserves a LOT Better than this.
--- Daniel

====================================
fbe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the
> volatility of the crude before it is loaded into
> the railcars? Would it be possible to use a
> centrifuge to separate the gaseous components from
> the less volatile solids?
>
> Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

daniel3197 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand it the state of Texas mandates the
> removal of
> the volatiles pre shipping.
> Why cant the US govt mandate this be done
> EVERYWHERE ???
> I mean enough is enough of these rolling pipe bomb
> trains.
> The public deserves a LOT Better than this.
> --- Daniel
>
> ====================================
> fbe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the
> > volatility of the crude before it is loaded
> into
> > the railcars? Would it be possible to use a
> > centrifuge to separate the gaseous components
> from
> > the less volatile solids?
> >
> > Posted from Windows Phone OS 7


I believe North Dakota has required the removal of certain highly volatile elements from crude, but there are plenty of dangerous elements remaining.

Money talks. I understand the railroads get about a $1 per gallon to transport and that amounts about a million per train from origination to destination?

Also, did you notice how the female reporter said the accident happened "IN" Galena rather than near Galena for the maximum effect?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/15 20:18 by wabash2800.

daniel3197 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand it the state of Texas mandates the
> removal of
> the volatiles pre shipping.
> Why cant the US govt mandate this be done
> EVERYWHERE ???
> I mean enough is enough of these rolling pipe bomb
> trains.
> The public deserves a LOT Better than this.
> --- Daniel

That sounds easy, but it isn't. The problem becomes what to do with the volatiles. There are probably uses for the stuff in Texas. In North Dakota, it is nothing but hazardous waste. Ship the volatiles somewhere for processing? Yeah, that would solve a lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/15 20:30 by radar.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Money talks. I understand the railroads get about
> a $1 per gallon to transport and that amounts
> about a million per train from origination to
> destination?
> (snip)

Depends on where the cargo is going, how long the trip, etc. I understand that Bakken to the east coast is usually in the $9 to $12 a barrel range for rail. Good money but a lot less than a buck a gallon.

The spot prices for international oil, the domestic prices for US oil, and transport costs for each are converging. That makes for some interesting choices in sourcing oil.

HGG ----
That sounds like a great idea! THAT
is how all new crude oil tank cars should
be designed! I wonder why none of the
designers have done that? Probably because
of -- you guessed it! MONEY! They probably
thought cars like that would be much to
expensive to build -- but the RRs need to consider
the cost of all the lawsuits they will have to
pay out, not to mention the onerous government
regulations they will have to obey.