Eastern Railroad Discussion > Ahh, The Ironies of Oil Panic

Here we are an hour or so ago, on a pedestrian footbridge over the "concrete canyon" in downtown Albany, NY, watching a meet on CP's former Delaware and Hudson.

On the right hand main in the background is a loaded train of black tank cars carrying Bakken crude, waiting to enter the unloading facility at Kenwood. It will wait for a while--there's no room at the unloading racks, and the power's been cut off so it won't be going anywhere soon. In the local imagination, this is the daily doomsday--a Lac Megantic waiting to happen, sure to devastate downtown Albany in a huge fireball.

On the left, however, coming at us is something that sensible people would judge a bigger hazard. The long string of white tank cars are full of gasoline, recently unloaded from a barge and headed for Burlington, VT. It's basically northern Vermont's gas ration for a day or two. Ahead of them is what appears to be a loaded chlorine tanker, probably headed for a paper mill in New England or northern NY. I didn't get a read on the placard, but Cl tankers are pretty routine here.

Chlorine is a toxic inhalation hazard, so all you need is a moderate sized leak to make a big, big problem that travels far from the source. No sparks or fire required. Arguably,that single chlorine car represents a bigger threat to life and health than the rest of the photo combined. And those interconnected gasoline cars are far easier to ignite than the oil, and are a far bigger inhalation hazard as well.

But there's something in human psychology that makes us fear the newly identified hazard far more than the familiar ones. And the chlorine traffic and gasoline traffic has been passing this way for decades, so that gets tuned out.

I doubt there's a single person in Albany that doesn't use gasoline, fuel oil, propane, or any of the other flammable hazards that pass this way daily. Likewise with the chlorine. Even if you don't use bleached paper (and that's very unlikely), the moment you take a drink at a water fountain or flush the toilet, you're using chlorine.

---

Used to be if you took a dip in any pool you were immersed in diluted chlorine!!
But now that isn't always true any more as some pools use Sodium Chloride (Salt) to keep the water clean.

Thanks for the picture and the background info. Always helpful.

The former D&H HQ building looks great. That's a lovely building.

And once again, the local paper hits the nail squarely on the thumb. Today's editorial page:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Relocating hundreds of city residents from a public housing complex that sits by the tracks that carry crude oil trains to the Port of Albany is a rather extreme step.

A frustrated Albany County Executive Daniel McCoy, in making the proposal last week, said it’s the best way to protect the residents from the potential peril of an accident involving an oil train like the runaway tankers in Quebec last year that exploded in a populated area and left 44 people dead. Some of the Albany housing units are mere steps from the track that can carry hundreds of tank cars full of crude oil on a single day.

Mr. McCoy’s dramatic solution caught Albany city officials by surprise. Mayor Kathy Sheehan correctly argues the remedy should come instead at the expense of the rail industry, and not the city or the residents of the city’s Ezra Prentice Homes. Even if a suitable and affordable alternative could be found for the Albany families, what about the countless others living or working near the remaining 1,600 miles of track that stretch from to North Dakota, where the Bakken crude oil shipments originate?

The real solution is to make some progress in getting the railroad companies to install technology that would reduce rail accidents. Such a system, Positive Train Control or PTC, is a proven technology that closely monitors the speed and real-time positions of trains. If the train operator fails to take proper steps such as slowing down on curves, PTC kicks in to do that automatically. Because human error is the cause in roughly 40 percent of train derailments, having PTC could make a substantial difference.

Since the National Transportation Safety Board first proposed PTC 45 years ago, there have been 138 crashes in the U.S. that the board classified as PTC-preventable. These resulted in 284 deaths, 6,500 injuries and nearly $300 million in property damages, according to federal records examined by Hearst Newspapers.

After a horrific commuter train crash in 2008, Congress mandated PTC technology be put in place by the end of 2015. Instead of meeting this deadline, the flourishing rail freight industry has spent nearly $47 million lobbying Congress to delay implementation until at least 2020.

Even other safety measures proposed last week by the U.S. Department of Transportation to require oil trains to simply slow down while traveling through urban areas won’t kick in for another 14 months. The much-touted phaseout of older, more accident-prone tank cars will wait another year after that.

We share County Executive McCoy’s frustration, but we agree with Mayor Sheehan. The railroad industry needs to dramatically step up its implementation of long-proposed safety measures instead of dragging its feet and spending millions to push for further delays. We must compel our representatives in Washington to not let the rail transporters off the hook.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What, precisely, does PTC contribute to safety in a YARD? That's the real concern in Albany--there's a public housing project so close to Kenwood that if spit out a second story window you might hit a tanker when the wind's just right. Well, it contrubutes precisely nothing.

I support PTC, acknowledge that it is a big lift from a technological standpoint, and thus we need to cut the industry a limited amount of slack in implementing it. But to invoke it here, as if it has anything to do with the local safety issue, is either evidence of total incompetence or a deliberate effort to change the subject. As a reader, either of these explanations, (or both) are viable.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here on whether or not the residents should be relocated, or maybe a wall could be erected between the yard and the project (kind of like the noise walls that are now popular along suburban interstates). Maybe the unloading facility could be reconfigured so that car storage occurs in the Port of Albany complex itself, away from the residents. Maybe nothing can be done. But wouldn't it be a good start to actually identify the relevant issues and address them like grownups? Or should we blame everything on a boogie-man argument about a tricky, high tech system that nobody has been able to make work yet?

Rant concludes here. for now...

The short term storage of in movement oil trains is a very valid concern. Parking loads adjacent to a housing project doesn't seem like a good idea when other facilities are available nearby. Bring them in when there's space, but don't leave the loads out in the open. If that requires a little more planning on the railroad's part, then so be it.

I'd hate to see County Manager McCoy take over the oil train dispatching and security planning for the Port. Likely would make things less efficient.

CSX routinely holds oil trains in Selkirk awaiting slot space in Philly, as well as at the Port of Albany. No reason CP can't do the same, somewhere other than the middle of downtown, or adjacent to a housing facility.

Excellent post and thanks for sharing it.

I continue to be amazed by the oil by rail stink (mostly perpetuated by anti fossil fuels groups) while these same groups rarely ever mention other flammables moving by rail. While they are all alarmed at the volume of oil moved by rail there are other products, like chlorine, that are extremely dangerous in even small amounts. If these groups were truly serious about public safety they should be asking that chlorine be moved in newer tank cars not the DOT-111's...yet I haven't heard a peep from the the Sierra Club or the NRDC suggesting this should be done.



Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent post and thanks for sharing it.
>
> I continue to be amazed by the oil by rail stink
> (mostly perpetuated by anti fossil fuels groups)
> while these same groups rarely ever mention other
> flammables moving by rail. While they are all
> alarmed at the volume of oil moved by rail there
> are other products, like chlorine, that are
> extremely dangerous in even small amounts. If
> these groups were truly serious about public
> safety they should be asking that chlorine be
> moved in newer tank cars not the DOT-111's...yet I
> haven't heard a peep from the the Sierra Club or
> the NRDC suggesting this should be done.
>
>
>
> Allen


That's probably because Tom Steyer, the billionaire who is funding the anti-pipeline and some of the anti-coal and oil efforts doesn't stand to make any money by stopping chlorine, etc.

(Steyer was outed as a beneficiary of large coal mine properties in Australia and Indonesia developed with investments from his firm. Although he's now inactive, the developments began while he was an active investor, and have continued to give him payments.

For some reason, the US media don't see this as worthwhile news, although the financial press has reported on the contradiction / hypocrisy.)

The gasoline is certainly more dangerous than the Bakken crude and, as you point out, the chlorine is probably the most dangerous. Just ask the folks who had the misfortune to be working in the Avondale mill in Graniteville, SC, when an NS freight in dark territory was diverted into an industrial track, collided with the local's engine which had been tied down for the night, and 1 tank car of chlorine ruptured. The gas flowed into the mill and killed 8 workers. A 9th person died a few days later after driving through the chlorine cloud. While 16 of the train's cars derailed, only 1 chlorine tank car ruptured, resulting in 9 deaths.

Railroads have to handle hazardous materials. They're not allowed to say no to a shipment, the only method of transportation forbidden from saying no.

Nice pic!!!

The Bethlehem Steel plant at Sparrows Point (Baltimore) used to get chlorine by the tank car to treat their cooling water supply. Whether it came in by B&O or PRR/PC it traveled several miles over secondary track some of which was pretty rough. If any of the local activists were around back then they would have had a cow.

Yeah, I worked on a geotechnical job in Detroit back in the late 80s, where we were drilling a big temporary caisson right next to a "seldom used siding". Nobody really wanted to pay attention to it, until somebody pointed out the nature of the occasional use. It was used every couple of weeks to deliver chlorine to the muni sewage treatment plant. The idea of tipping a chlorine load into an excavation, which led to an active tunneling project, got everybody's attention and suddenly we had lots of geotechnical engineers figuring out how to add extra support to the excavation.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the picture and the background info.
> Always helpful.
>
> The former D&H HQ building looks great. That's a
> lovely building.

Agree, that D&H HQ Building looks like something from Disneyworld.

The implication that people who are currently concerned about transport of oil by rail are either much less or not at all concerned about other potentially hazardous substances shipped by rail is incorrect. See these three links:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1130/New-Jersey-derailment-How-safe-are-hazmat-rail-shipments-video

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/11/06/re-routing-trains-carrying-hazardous-materials/3452769/

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/26/toxic_chemicals_crude_oil_radioactive_material_ride_the_rails_through_toronto.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/14 18:40 by RuleG.

Speaking of people ignoring everyday hazards, Dihydrogen Monoxide(dhmo) is more deadly than any of the mentioned chemicals. Railroads are fortunate in the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is not a large traffic base for them. Begrudgingly the railroads do carry it from time to time but prefer not to as they lose money when they do haul it. I have been trackside when I have seen freight cars with dihydrogen monoxide dripping from them.


Some of the affects are(from the dhmo.org website):

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

As a matter of fact, this past week dihydrogen monoxide was a contributing factor in three deaths here in just the Metro Atlanta area. Another person on vacation in Key Largo, FL was also killed by it. Yet the media continues to ignore the issue.

But I digress, I am off my soapbox now.

Jay--heading to grab a glass of water ;-b

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea implication that people who are currently
> concerned about transport of oil by rail are
> either much less or not at all concerned about
> other potentially hazardous substances shipped by
> rail is incorrect. See these three links:
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1130/New-Jersey-
> derailment-How-safe-are-hazmat-rail-shipments-vide
> o
>
> http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013
> /11/06/re-routing-trains-carrying-hazardous-materi
> als/3452769/
>
> http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/26/toxic_c
> hemicals_crude_oil_radioactive_material_ride_the_r
> ails_through_toronto.html

Not incorrect at all.

It might concern some in the media and a few in the environmental community but to the majority of anti fossil fuel members only one thing matters: stopping "man made" climate change. To do that you stop all fossil fuel use.

You need to read all their blogs like I do. Newspaper articles don't count...


Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The implication that people who are
> currently
> > concerned about transport of oil by rail are
> > either much less or not at all concerned about
> > other potentially hazardous substances shipped
> by
> > rail is incorrect. See these three links:
> >
> >
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1130/New-Jersey-
>
> >
> derailment-How-safe-are-hazmat-rail-shipments-vide
>
> > o
> >
> >
> http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013
>
> >
> /11/06/re-routing-trains-carrying-hazardous-materi
>
> > als/3452769/
> >
> >
> http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/26/toxic_c
>
> >
> hemicals_crude_oil_radioactive_material_ride_the_r
>
> > ails_through_toronto.html
>
> Not incorrect at all.
>
> It might concern some in the media and a few in
> the environmental community but to the majority of
> anti fossil fuel members only one thing matters:
> stopping "man made" climate change. To do that
> you stop all fossil fuel use.
>
> You need to read all their blogs like I do.
> Newspaper articles don't count...
>
>
> Allen

Yes, I understand that some interests object to transport of oil by rail are motivated by an agenda of reducing oil usage. However, your interpretation of this trend is overly reductionist.

Major concern about oil being shipped by rail is barely one year old following the Lac Megantic tragedy. Concern about other hazardous materials being shipped by railroads dates back to at least 1978 when a derailed tank car loaded with 2,000 gallons of propane exploded in a ball of fire setting downtown Waverly afire killing 11 people and injuring another 145. Since that time, environmental organizations (such as the Sierra Club) and others (including elected officials) have been very concerned about hazardous materials. I provided three citations of this. I don't know why the sources of information are irrelevant to you, but they strike me as reasonable evidence about significant public concern about shipments of hazardous materials by rail.

I work for a living and do other things with my free time and do not have time to read the blogs of all organizations pursuing what you call an anti-fossil fuel agenda.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/14 18:44 by RuleG.

RuleG Wrote:

> I work for a living and do other things with my
> free time and do not have time to read the blogs
> of all organizations pursuing what you call an
> anti-fossil fuel agenda.


I work for a living too, but here, I'll help you out. Check out this blog from ForestEthics. It's typical...a token mention is made of other flammables, but without question Bakken crude oil tops the list because they are anti fossil fuels. Hopefully this clarifies my point:

http://forestethics.org/blog/feeble-fiery-and-frustrating-top-10-reasons-hate-obama%E2%80%99s-new-standards-explosive-oil-trains


Allen

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
>
> > I work for a living and do other things with my
> > free time and do not have time to read the
> blogs
> > of all organizations pursuing what you call an
> > anti-fossil fuel agenda.
>
>
> I work for a living too, but here, I'll help you
> out. Check out this blog from ForestEthics. It's
> typical...a token mention is made of other
> flammables, but without question Bakken crude oil
> tops the list because they are anti fossil fuels.
> Hopefully this clarifies my point:
>
> http://forestethics.org/blog/feeble-fiery-and-frus
> trating-top-10-reasons-hate-obama%E2%80%99s-new-st
> andards-explosive-oil-trains
>
>
> Allen

All you did is reinforce my acknowledgement in yesterday's post that some interests object to transport of oil by rail are motivated by an agenda of reducing oil usage. But what your avoidance of the points rest in the rest of post suggests that you refusing to acknowledge that many people who are concerned about hazardous products being shipped on rails have for a long time been concerned about substances other than petroleum.