Eastern Railroad Discussion > Railroads under the gun for haz-mat routing

The NY Times has an article today about growing concern in state legislatures over federal and railroad secrecy in routing of hazardous materials, especially crude oil. The article is one of a growing series about how unprepared rural and urban first responders are to threats in their communities.

The railroads aren't doing their cause much good, however. PanAm Railways threatened to arrest a mayor and fire chief when they entered a derailment area to see exactly what was on the train. Fires in rural areas like Casselton and Lac Megantic have called into question the security railroads apply to haz-mat cargo, and the ability of local responders to put out the problem.

The article notes that Department of Homeland Security considers some routings tobe matters of national security, as the railroads may decide that a direct routing through a big city on good track is better than a circuitous route around the city on poor track.

The railroads require towns etc to sign non-disclosure agreements limiting the ability to share information with the public. In some cases, individual citizens have set up monitoring and videotape facilities to review and record what cargo is on the move through their towns.

Not surprising, the railroads say there's no need for regulation, they're fine with what they have. Others disagree. One leading Washington State lawmaker is calling for strict reporting and an end to double secret confidentiality agreements.

subscription site, but content may be open

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/business/despite-spills-hazards-ride-the-rails-in-secret.html?hp&_r=0

Does anybody want to take a crack at how ANY first responders, let alone those in small communities like Casselton and Lac Megantic could possibly be prepared for such big accidents? Knowing how to fight certain types of fires and having a general evacuation plan ready to go would be good, but exactly HOW would knowing specific details about which trains are carrying crude oil etc. going to help anybody? "In some cases, individual citizens have set up monitoring and videotape facilities to review and record what cargo is on the move through their towns." And HOW exactly does THAT help? A railroad would likely be more than willing to provide a general list of the types of potentially hazardous commodities that are handled in general terms, but any new or different product can an likely WOULD show up at any given time. Accidents in transporting hazardous materials always have and always will happen, it's just a byproduct of the world we live in, and no amount of whining and complaining by these authorities is going to change that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/14 08:27 by junctiontower.

"The railroads aren't doing their cause much good, however. PanAm Railways threatened to arrest a mayor and fire chief when they entered a derailment area to see exactly what was on the train"


I'm confused on how a RR could stop a First Responder from entering a derailment site. I admit i may be rather ignorant to derailment jurisdiction (Local, NTSB, FRA ect.) but i would guess that a fireman/medic and or police officers have the right to be there.

Hysteria reigns.

I guess railroads are being singled out because of a couple of predictable catastrophes. But until they have every truck, barge and pipeline do the same things they are asking railroads to do, then this is a big yawn.

I'll give you one for a laugh. I met someone who stated that he thought it would be a very good idea to have the class one railroads carry a special firefighting car along with these types of trains. He said it should be behind the locomotives and be a combination of a fire tanker with a pump that could spread foam like used at airports. I asked him who he thought should pay for this and his reply is the oil companies who are making all the money.

There are already 28 comments to the article. Some are of the predictable goofy variety, but the reader's choice selections are pretty good.

--we don't know what's in the cargo, and we don't trust the railroads to do what's right for us
--we need more pipelines, now
--the government lets the railroads and oil business call the shots
--doesn't matter which party is in power, we know who pulls the strings

ClubCar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll give you one for a laugh. I met someone who
> stated that he thought it would be a very good
> idea to have the class one railroads carry a
> special firefighting car along with these types of
> trains. He said it should be behind the
> locomotives and be a combination of a fire tanker
> with a pump that could spread foam like used at
> airports. I asked him who he thought should pay
> for this and his reply is the oil companies who
> are making all the money.

Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea. Maybe one every ten cars or so, fully automated with spray directed toward heat sources. The tanks not touched off could be used by the local fire department to further suppress the fire.

Stepping back a bit, this article is very consistent with a growing point of view in the US.

Oil shipments are increasing.
Testing the oil, etc before shipment to determine volatility is a good idea and should be done.
Shipping the oil in tank cars or pipelines which are hardened against punctures is good.
Having enhanced protocols for haz-mat trains is good (controlled speed, limited use of sidings, etc)
Having in place rapid response fire suppression points along regular oil routes is a good thing.
Keeping oil etc out of crowded down towns is a good thing where possible.

I doubt you could find even a few people who would disagree with any of these points. Especially not the railroaders who have to handle these cargos every day.

You know as well as I do that no matter what route a train takes, it's going to pass through at least one heavily populated area, not to mention many small towns. Sure, though there are fewer railroads now, there are many operable connections for reroutes but it's still impossible to bypass everyone's "backyard".

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt you could find even a few people who would
> disagree with any of these points. Especially not
> the railroaders who have to handle these cargos
> every day.

I was talking with a neighbor, an N.S.conducter, who told
me he had just worked a "bomb train." I asked the meaning.
He said it was ethanol.

Thanks

Mark

How'd we ever get it done in World War II?

rev66vette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How'd we ever get it done in World War II?

with an amount of compulsion that would be unacceptable in today's society, for one thing.

--rounding up and imprisoning people because their parents were Japanese wouldn't work today
--seizing land for military plant construction by executive order wouldn't work either
--imposing a "temporary" withholding tax on incomes, too
--laying the "big inch" and "little inch" pipelines by executive order, no environmental studies or any hearings
--a military draft of young men (only)
--rationing of food and fuel

Ok folks, that's think about this:

If we ship this freight by rail, we endanger our towns and cities.
If we ship this freight by barge, we endanger our waterways and wildlife.
If we ship this freight by air, we endanger our air and anything else in its path.
If we ship this freight by truck, we endanger other trucks, cars, and people.

Shipping this freight by rail makes the MOST economic sense.

I guess I will NEVER understand....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/14 14:15 by ns1000.

ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok folks, that's think about this:
>
> If we ship this freight by rail, we endanger our
> towns and cities.
> If we ship this freight by barge, we endanger our
> waterways and wildlife.
> If we ship this freight by air, we endanger our
> air and anything else in its path.
> If we ship this freight by truck, we endanger
> other trucks, cars, and people.
>
> Shipping this freight by rail makes the MOST
> economic sense.
>
> I guess I will NEVER understand....


It makes the most sense, therefore it must be BAD!

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rev66vette Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How'd we ever get it done in World War II?
>
> with an amount of compulsion that would be
> unacceptable in today's society, for one thing.
>
> --rounding up and imprisoning people because their
> parents were Japanese wouldn't work today
> --seizing land for military plant construction by
> executive order wouldn't work either
> --imposing a "temporary" withholding tax on
> incomes, too
> --laying the "big inch" and "little inch"
> pipelines by executive order, no environmental
> studies or any hearings
> --a military draft of young men (only)
> --rationing of food and fuel

Nice try, but I was only referring to the shipment of millions of tons of dangerous materials and oil by rail in light of all the shipping lanes being closed or limited due to submarine activity. The social and economic issues are for another topic for the debating class! :)

rev66vette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rev66vette Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > How'd we ever get it done in World War II?
> >
> > with an amount of compulsion that would be
> > unacceptable in today's society, for one thing.
> >
> > --rounding up and imprisoning people because
> their
> > parents were Japanese wouldn't work today
> > --seizing land for military plant construction
> by
> > executive order wouldn't work either
> > --imposing a "temporary" withholding tax on
> > incomes, too
> > --laying the "big inch" and "little inch"
> > pipelines by executive order, no environmental
> > studies or any hearings
> > --a military draft of young men (only)
> > --rationing of food and fuel
>
> Nice try, but I was only referring to the shipment
> of millions of tons of dangerous materials and oil
> by rail in light of all the shipping lanes being
> closed or limited due to submarine activity. The
> social and economic issues are for another topic
> for the debating class! :)


How about putting aside safety rules in many situations? Ordering African American sailors to load ammo ships in very dangerous conditions. And, covering up an explosion which killed many of the port Chicago workers. After 300 sailors were killed, the remainder refused to work until their white officers allowed safety changes.

That didn't happen. The instigators were arrested, tried in secret court for mutiny, and sentenced to 50 year prison sentences. The remainder were forced back to work. Many were released with dishonorable discharges in the late 1940s.

The alternative is to build small chemical plants on site where needed, or to concentrate the population where the oil and chemicals are. Impossible!!!

The article shows that people and legislators have a bias against railroads. Railroad carriers should get to the root of that problem and address it.

Highways are built and maintained with public money at great expense. Legislators and wealthy contractors love highways for that reason.

Railroads get very little public help, and each dollar they spend goes a long way. They get a few grants here and there, but even the Heartland Corridor and National Gateway didn't cost the public much money. Railways are far more durable than paved highways. The Sunset, Overland and Transcon carry huge volumes of freight without tearing up the tracks. Can you imagine how much public money would be spent to carry all that on highways?

NYC6001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The alternative is to build small chemical plants
> on site where needed, or to concentrate the
> population where the oil and chemicals are.
> Impossible!!!
>
> The article shows that people and legislators have
> a bias against railroads. Railroad carriers should
> get to the root of that problem and address it.
>
> Highways are built and maintained with public
> money at great expense. Legislators and wealthy
> contractors love highways for that reason.
>
> Railroads get very little public help, and each
> dollar they spend goes a long way. They get a few
> grants here and there, but even the Heartland
> Corridor and National Gateway didn't cost the
> public much money. Railways are far more durable
> than paved highways. The Sunset, Overland and
> Transcon carry huge volumes of freight without
> tearing up the tracks. Can you imagine how much
> public money would be spent to carry all that on
> highways?

The natural gas people are doing something similar with their series of TV commercials on America's Natural Gas. Clean, safe, and putting Americans back to work.

Straightforward message, attractive spokeswoman, good website.

It would be a good idea for the railroads to pick up on the message that America's railroads take 200,000 (etc)trucks a day off your highways as they move a ton of a freight 300 mile on one gallon of fuel...

There's one thing you all might be missing: When an entire train of tank cars of a flammable wrecks, it can be a hell of an explosion that can wipe out a whole town (and has). A semi with a tanker might cause mayhem but not like an entire train of tankers (potentially if more than one car goes up in flames). But this is not new. Remember the wreck that wiped out a town on the TP&W in Illinois some years ago?

Okay, but factories and grain elevators blow up, mines explode, planes crash, ships sink, barges rupture and pipelines leak. It is the price of having heat, running water and nice things.

Some 35,000 are killed in highway accidents each year. That is a small city's worth of people. Yet, nobody says we should put more limits on driving cars and trucks.

RR's are safer now than at any point since their very infancy.

I can think of one very big BLEVE in Illinois. But that might not have been the fault of the RR.