Western Railroad Discussion > Need help and info on a UP Coast Line debate...

Last few years I've taken some interest in city services.   In doing so, I've come involved with neighborhood issues.   Currently, there is a conflict taking place between L.A.'s Metro and the city of Northridge regarding their plan to add double tracking between Van Nuys and Chatsworth.   There have been several meetings with all, and the arguement is the added track will encourage freight train frequency.   And the latest now is some report the LA Times ran exposing UP's plan to run oil trains (bomb trains) on this line to Los Angeles.   Once the nearby residents heard about that, all heck broke loose.   I too live near the tracks in this region, but I am all for the addition of a second rail.    Mainly because I feel adding a second track will increase safety, by allowing trains to pass themselves and reduce the chances of head-ons (Chatsworth wreck, circa 2008).

So I am uniformed.   Or at least I thought I knew what I should know.   Somehow, through checking T.O. nightly for the past seven years, I never once heard about any plan for UP to add another oil train on the Coast Line south of SLO (Wunpost). So did I miss something?   Did UP say they are trying to get more traffic going here, and oil being one of the new comodities?     I already know about the lack of crews on the Coast, and it's been made very clear UP favors the I-5 corridor for most freight movements.    Before I make my reply in our community letter, I want to have all the facts.    Is the L.A. Times report bogus?   Or is UP hoping to one day get oil and increased traffic over our lines down here?

Thanks for any info.
Jason

the main item in reducing the chances of headons is crews and dispatchers abiding by the rules ... i've seen incidents/accidents happen on single track, double, double track, multiple track and the main reason was rule violation by train crews ... in my opinion it doesnt add or decrease the chances of headons ...

  I would aggre that a second track neither adds nor detracts from safety. I will say that the UP will run what it wants to run, regardless of how many tracks there are, and nobody's gonna stop them. But, if anything, having a second track might reduce the time that a train dwells in somebody's neighborhood.

  The houses across the street from me back up to the coast line. One of the neighbors is all up in arms about oil trains. I told her that, given the proximity of her house to the tracks, it really doesn't matter if it's oil or a carload of sponges, if there's a derailment, she's screwed!

OK, here's the poop. 

#1.  People are idiots.  all the oil hysteria was fueled mosty by the Lac Megantic diseaster, which was a diseater waiting to happen.
Also there was a lot of assumption around the RR industry that the bakken crude was a whole lot less flamible than it actually is....

#2. Conoco Phillips in Nipomo, CA (Calender siding on the coast just north of guadalupe), has applied to construct an 80 car yard and loop
track and their current facility, to unload crude oil .  Not Bakken crude.  But the nibys are out in full force.  And they are totally uninformed and
hysterical as usual.  This all has nothing to do with the Wunpost to Delores crude Oil operation.

#3  The double track project for Van Nuys  to Strathern is to relieve a bottleneck in current operations. Dispatchers are reporting that
if one train gets off schedule in this area, the cascade effect results delays to trains continuing for hours.  This has nothing to do with more oil
trains, which, if they ever happen, might come down from the north, who knows.

Fizzboy7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Currently, there is a
> conflict taking place between L.A.'s Metro and the
> city of Northridge regarding their plan to add
> double tracking between Van Nuys and Chatsworth.

> Jason

No such thing as the City of Northridge, not in California anyways.

Fizzboy7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last few years I've taken some interest in city
> services.   In doing so, I've come involved with
> neighborhood issues.   Currently, there is a
> conflict taking place between L.A.'s Metro and the
> city of Northridge regarding their plan to add
> double tracking between Van Nuys and Chatsworth.
>   There have been several meetings with all, and
> the arguement is the added track will encourage
> freight train frequency.   And the latest now is
> some report the LA Times ran exposing UP's plan to
> run oil trains (bomb trains) on this line to Los
> Angeles.   Once the nearby residents heard about
> that, all heck broke loose.   I too live near the
> tracks in this region, but I am all for the
> addition of a second rail.    Mainly because I
> feel adding a second track will increase safety,
> by allowing trains to pass themselves and reduce
> the chances of head-ons (Chatsworth wreck, circa
> 2008).
>
> So I am uniformed.   Or at least I thought I knew
> what I should know.   Somehow, through checking
> T.O. nightly for the past seven years, I never
> once heard about any plan for UP to add another
> oil train on the Coast Line south of SLO
> (Wunpost). So did I miss something?   Did UP say
> they are trying to get more traffic going here,
> and oil being one of the new comodities?     I
> already know about the lack of crews on the Coast,
> and it's been made very clear UP favors the I-5
> corridor for most freight movements.    Before I
> make my reply in our community letter, I want to
> have all the facts.    Is the L.A. Times report
> bogus?   Or is UP hoping to one day get oil and
> increased traffic over our lines down here?
>
> Thanks for any info.
> Jason

Phillips 66 wants to add a crude oil by rail unloading facility at the refinery at Callendar (Nipomo Mesa), just north of Guadalupe.  P66 has already stated "no Bakken oil to be delivered" but that hasn't stopped the hysteria, because now the opponents are crying about the possibility that Alberta oil sands crude could be delivered, which is possible.  The price is right.

So how does this effect the southern end of the Coast Line?  There is a possiblity, if the facility is built, that crude oil from the Permian Basin of west Texas could be delivered, so it would go up the Coast to Callendar.  What are the chances of that happening?  At best, remote.  The Callendar refinery is suited to process medium and heavy grades of oil...most likely they will want to blend locally pumped oil with a medium grade to meet new CA refinery emission standards.  My educated guess is P66 is looking to bring in mostly crude oil from Colorado and Wyoming and maybe some Alberta tar sand crude to make up for the slow decline in local oil production.  But they could bring in a medium grade from the Permian Basin and that possibility is in the EIR (apparently the locals in SF Valley haven't read it).  I don't see that happening long term, nor do I think they will use Alberta oil sands crude long term because it means more petroleum coke produced via the refinery coking unit.  They already produce enough pet coke from local oil production.  P66 has to pay UP to have it shipped, for export, to "Metro Steve" at the Port of Long Beach.  I do not think they are interested in shipping more of it due to transportation costs and the declining market.

The question then becomes why does P66 want to build the unloading facility at Callendar and not at their main No Cal refinery at Rodeo??  Well, for one, the Callendar refinery is not a large facility so it sends the Rodeo refinery, via pipeline, an unfinished product called "gas oil"...the Rodeo refinery then further refines the "gas oil" into useful products.  However they have the land available at Callendar to build a crude oil by rail unloading facility.  I was told they do not have the space at the Rodeo refinery to build such a facility since they are hemmed in by San Francisco Bay on one side and hills on the another.   Having been by the Rodeo refinery many times I would say that is correct.  So by default Callendar has to be the spot.  One very important aspect is the Callendar refinery is land locked...they cannot receive oil by ship/barge, so it limits P66 to local sources of oil.  The problem is the above mentioned refinery emissions situation...they are becoming increasingly stringent.  One of the main ways to meet new emission standards is to increase blending of different crude oils.  Each refiner has developed a unique blending method that fits a particular refinery.  P66 has stated this is one of the reasons why they need the facility built...after all it is the state of CA that is forcing the issue on refinery emissions.

Now can unit oil trains carrying heavy and medium grades of crude oil instead of a light or ultra light grade really be called "bomb trains"?  I think not.  That's where the hysteria has gotten out of control.  Opponents tend to lump oil into one basket...different grades of crude oil mean nothing to them.  It's all bad.  But it's also not reality.  Chances of a unit train of Alberta tar sands crude blowing up or catching fire is very, very low especially if heated tank cars are used.  

Look at it another way:  any marine oil tanker delivering a load of imported light "sweet" crude oil could be called a "bomb ship"...


Allen

 



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/15 07:58 by bradleymckay.

Brad: thnx for your rational discussion. too bad there are too many elements to it for green brains to comprehend(they'd rather scream "Danger" than think anyway).

Steve Donaldson
Pacific Grove, CA

The past several years the Santa Maria Valley Railroad has experienced service failures with the LOF67 Gemco to Guadalupe hauler, especially when the train is to long.  The past four years traffic has increased significantly on the SMV and increased service levels has been requested to Union Pacific.  UP has stated that the problems lie with Metrolink as Gemco is in Metrolink territory controlled by Metrolink dispatchers. 

SMV was told by UP that Metrolink needs to be approached to get the south end of the Coast Line double tracked to increase capacity to get both longer trains through the corridor and more frequent service if needed. 

Of course, the UP COULD resume running  RVDO and DORV trains.  even if it was 3 days a week SB and 3 days NB.  pickup and set out at
newark, San Jose, Watsonville jct, Guadalupe, OXR, and Gemco.  Seems like there is enuf traffic for this train these days.  its not 2008 anymore.
plus all the traffic from/to the north wouldnt have to waste 2 days going thru colton.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, here's the poop. 
>
> #1.  People are idiots.  all the oil hysteria
> was fueled mosty by the Lac Megantic diseaster,
> which was a diseater waiting to happen.
> Also there was a lot of assumption around the RR
> industry that the bakken crude was a whole lot
> less flamible than it actually is....
>
> #2. Conoco Phillips in Nipomo, CA (Calender siding
> on the coast just north of guadalupe), has applied
> to construct an 80 car yard and loop
> track and their current facility, to unload crude
> oil .  Not Bakken crude.  But the nibys are out
> in full force.  And they are totally uninformed
> and
> hysterical as usual.  This all has nothing to do
> with the Wunpost to Delores crude Oil operation.
>
> #3  The double track project for Van Nuys  to
> Strathern is to relieve a bottleneck in current
> operations. Dispatchers are reporting that
> if one train gets off schedule in this area, the
> cascade effect results delays to trains continuing
> for hours.  This has nothing to do with more oil
> trains, which, if they ever happen, might come
> down from the north, who knows.


You know, PDT, I usually never agree with you on your posts. BUT, this time ALL of your points are spot on.  One of my neighbors put out her "Stop the oil train" signs in her front yard. As soon as she did I walked over and started talking to her. Isaid" Marty, tell me about this sign". So into her tirade she goes, about the "Bomb" train and what was going to happen if it came through our county. I told her an oil train already comes through SLO  county. "Oh no it does'nt" was her reply. "Really?" I asked. I told her all those nights I got up in the middle of the night to operate the oil train from SLO to Los ANgeles must have been a dream, to which she just looked at me like a deer's eyes in the headlights.

PDT, you are right, people are STupID.



V

SLOCONDR

U usually never agree with me?  I am devistated!   Just cause I bad mouth the UP all the time.   I will say....Ive been listening to
DS58 bay area feed, and they do a really nice job up there. Pass trains don;t get delayed. Even 11 and 14 are handled well.

Down here on the coast n of slo...its like the bermuda triangle or something.  maybe 4 trains a day, and seems they can never figure it out.

We must keep in mind that just because the oil may come from Alberta tar sands it can still explode. Just look at the 2 or 3 derailments CN has had in the last year.
It is true that the Alberta tar sand oil is very heavy and doesn't burn easily. However much of this oil is diluted at the place of production so that it can flow without heating into tanks and rail cars. The liquid used to dilute the oil (mixture of natural gas liquids usually) is similar to kerosine so it is very flammable and can be as much as 30% by volume of a railcar. So if something goes off the rail and the product is spilled it can catch fire and there can be the large fireballs the news media loves so much.
Now as the poster above touched on if heated tank cars are used and the oil isn't diluted then the risk is low that a derailment would cause a fire.

Posted from iPhone

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We must keep in mind that just because the oil may
> come from Alberta tar sands it can still explode.
> Just look at the 2 or 3 derailments CN has had in
> the last year.
> It is true that the Alberta tar sand oil is very
> heavy and doesn't burn easily. However much of
> this oil is diluted at the place of production so
> that it can flow without heating into tanks and
> rail cars. The liquid used to dilute the oil
> (mixture of natural gas liquids usually) is
> similar to kerosine so it is very flammable and
> can be as much as 30% by volume of a railcar. So
> if something goes off the rail and the product is
> spilled it can catch fire and there can be the
> large fireballs the news media loves so much.
> Now as the poster above touched on if heated tank
> cars are used and the oil isn't diluted then the
> risk is low that a derailment would cause a fire.
>
> Posted from iPhone


P66 has said over and over that the oil coming into the P66 plant at Callender is the same heavy sour crude that comes out of Wunpost now. Thhey ARE NOT set up to refine the light seet crude.




V

SLOCONDR

SLOCONDR Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------
>
> P66 has said over and over that the oil coming
> into the P66 plant at Callender is the same heavy
> sour crude that comes out of Wunpost now. Thhey
> ARE NOT set up to refine the light seet crude.
>
>
>
>
> V
>

Who said anything about Light sweet crude? Earlier posters stated that Alberta crude was a possibility to meet production as the local supply is slowing. Alberta crude is anything but light or sweet.

It's interesting that P66 wants more and more. Right now they've got my street torn up because they're running a new pipeline from Price Canyon to the P66 Callendar refinery. People are going to go ape**** once they start tearing up Oak Park Road. They'd probably prefer the bomb train at that point vs the traffic delays. Those stupid "bomb train" signs are all over Arroyo Grande. It's ridiculous.

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLOCONDR Wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > P66 has said over and over that the oil coming
> > into the P66 plant at Callender is the same
> heavy
> > sour crude that comes out of Wunpost now. Thhey
> > ARE NOT set up to refine the light seet crude.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > V
> >
>
> Who said anything about Light sweet crude?
> Earlier posters stated that Alberta crude was a
> possibility to meet production as the local supply
> is slowing. Alberta crude is anything but light
> or sweet.

One of the enviro's biggest complaints is the light sweet crude that is flammable. That's what I was referring to.

LA City council jumped into the frey today. Passed opposing it.

15-0002-S82  To Council 
Chief Legislative Analyst report 15-08-0602, dated August 31, 2015, relative to a Resolution to include in its 2015-16 State Legislative Program its position for administrative action urging the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission to deny approval of the Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Expansion Project
The whole puppy:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=15-0002-S82

RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, any official position of the City fools Angeles with respect to legislation, rules, regulations or policies proposed to or pending before a local, state or federal government body or agency must have first been adopted in the form ofa Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and WHEREAS, a proposed Phillips 66 Company Santa Maria Refinery Rail Spur Extension Project is pending before the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the project would enable 5 unit trains (400 tank cars) per week, each unit train stretching 1 4-miles in length and carrying 2 million tons of oil, to transport crude oil through Santa Maria, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, traversing the San Fernando Valley and traveling along the LA River and through areas of South Los Angeles toward Colton, CA, or the Port ofLos Angeles; and
WHEREAS, the environmental documents for the project indicate that there would be unmitigated significant hazard impacts associated with the transport of crude oil by rail, including from a possible derailment of trains carrying crude oil; and
WHEREAS, this project has significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, public services, and water resources; and WHEREAS, homes, schools, parks and businesses are located in the corridor through which trains would travel, and a billion-dollar federal investment in the LA River area to return it to a more natural state and provide much-needed green space is in progress; and
WHEREAS, in the event of an incident involving an oil unit train from this project, it could be necessary to close multiple rail crossings and potentially require evacuation of homes, businesses and offices and/or result in serious injuries, deaths, and environmental devastation, overwhelming police and fire emergency response capabilities; and
WHEREAS, numerous disasters involving transportation incommode oil by rail have occurred, with derailments resulting in oil spills, fires, and explosions near populated areas in the US and Canada; and
WHEREAS, there is ample reason to believe that an increase in oil train traffic from this project poses an unacceptable risk to our City of four million people; NOW' THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by adoption of this resolution, the City ofLos Angeles hereby includes in its 2015-16 legislative advocacy program SUPPORT for administrative action URGING the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to DENY APPROVAL of the Phillips 66 facility expansion project, inasmuch as it is far too dangerous to public safety and presents far too many environmental risks.

Up north the NIMBYs in San Jose, especially the downtown areas, are also up in arms about this possible shipment of oil, as it would come through San Jose on the Coast Line also. 

RESOLUTION
"WHEREAS, any official position of the City fools Angeles with respect to legislation, rules, regulations or policies proposed to or pending before a local, state or federal government body or agency must have first been adopted in the form ofa Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and WHEREAS, a proposed Phillips 66 Company Santa Maria Refinery Rail Spur Extension Project is pending before the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the project would enable 5 unit trains (400 tank cars) per week, each unit train stretching 1 4-miles in length and carrying 2 million tons of oil, to transport crude oil through Santa Maria, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, traversing the San Fernando Valley and traveling along the LA River and through areas of South Los Angeles toward Colton, CA, or the Port ofLos Angeles"


OK, so what do they mean by 1 4-miles?  An 80 car unit oil train, with the power, is probably close to a mile long. 

Notice they screwed up big time:  Santa Maria is not a county.  That's supposed to be Santa Barbara County.  Also they give the impression that the oil is going to Colton or the Port of Los Angeles and will pass through South Los Angeles.  Wrong!   The current oil train from Wunpost to Wilmington does go through South LA but in the trench, not through neighborhoods at street level.  Does the City of LA even know about this??

Not only is this very poorly written it's an almost sudden hysterical reaction and embarrasing to read.  But of course the uninformed local resident doesn't know the difference.  I expect someone from Phillips 66 will be calling the mayor on these mistakes. 


Allen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/15 21:40 by bradleymckay.

myjbh1989 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's interesting that P66 wants more and more.
> Right now they've got my street torn up because
> they're running a new pipeline from Price Canyon
> to the P66 Callendar refinery. People are going to
> go ape**** once they start tearing up Oak Park
> Road. They'd probably prefer the bomb train at
> that point vs the traffic delays. Those stupid
> "bomb train" signs are all over Arroyo Grande.
> It's ridiculous.

One thing to remember:  at some point within the last 8 years the SLO County planning commission OK'ed then Conocco Phillips (now Phillips 66) plan to expand "through-put" at the refinery.  I can no longer find the project EIR on the web but I believe this pipeline project was part of that plan. 

The upgrades to the facilities in Price Canyon cannot be discounted.  They've done a tremendous amount of re-piping,  something that was badly needed.


Allen