Canadian Railroads > Rupture-Prone Oil Trains Keep Rolling After Quebec Cras

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-03/rupture-prone-oil-trains-keep-rolling-after-quebec-crash.html


“Our regulators have got to figure out whether they’re working in the interest of the American people or the oil industry.” Weisner is co-chairman of the TRAC coalition, a group of communities that are lobbying for rail safety enhancements, including sturdier cars.

Tank car owners like GATX Corp. (GMT) are resisting some of the proposals to strengthen or phase out the cars quickly while railroads including BNSF Railway Co. balk at slowing train speeds. That means the trains keep barreling ahead, hauling the booming production of North Dakota -- where daily output has surged in eight years to 937,000 barrels from 4,300 barrels -- through Aurora and other cities.

"About 100,000 trains carrying oil and ethanol will pass through Aurora by the end of this year, according to the town’s Fire Department. In 2007, there were about 25,000."

from the story gave me plenty to chew on. Could it be that there were 68 oil and/or ethanol trains daily through Aurora seven years ago and today it's a few hundred? Methinks not.

BobE

Count (100,000 vs 25,000) is probably tank cars rather than trains. Some reporters, and perhaps even some firefighters, don't understand the distinction.

Haven't the rupture prone pre-1232 cars been banned from haz-mat use in Canada? I thought June 30 was the go south date.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Haven't the rupture prone pre-1232 cars been
> banned from haz-mat use in Canada? I thought June
> 30 was the go south date.

I'm not at all familiar with any of these cars, but i somehow I don't remember a lot of tank car accidents, a la the Lac Magantic disaster, before the current ban on pre-1232 cars kerfuffle.

Tank cars have been moving petroleum around safely since I was a boy -- and that's a long time ago.

It seems to me that the tank cars themselves weren't the approximate cause for the conflagration at Lac Megantic. An unattended, runaway train going 70mph unable to negotiate a turn right in the middle of town at anything approaching that speed was.

Can someone please refresh my memory

Fritz in HSV, AL

navy5717th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not at all familiar with any of these cars,
> but i somehow I don't remember a lot of tank car
> accidents, a la the Lac Magantic disaster, before
> the current ban on pre-1232 cars kerfuffle.

Here's one from the same general area (Quebec) in 1999 (different causes, but lots of burned product):

http://66.203.200.38/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1999/r99h0010/R99H0010.asp

There have been others.

Ray

navy5717th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Haven't the rupture prone pre-1232 cars been
> > banned from haz-mat use in Canada? I thought
> June
> > 30 was the go south date.
>
> I'm not at all familiar with any of these cars,
> but i somehow I don't remember a lot of tank car
> accidents, a la the Lac Magantic disaster, before
> the current ban on pre-1232 cars kerfuffle.
>
> Tank cars have been moving petroleum around safely
> since I was a boy -- and that's a long time ago.
>
> It seems to me that the tank cars themselves
> weren't the approximate cause for the
> conflagration at Lac Megantic. An unattended,
> runaway train going 70mph unable to negotiate a
> turn right in the middle of town at anything
> approaching that speed was.
>
> Can someone please refresh my memory
>
> Fritz in HSV, AL


Here's the background on the (Canadian) ban. All pre-1232 cars will be phased out of oil, ethanol etc transport in Canada by 2017. About 5,000 cars have already been deemed unacceptable for loading in Canada. Another 15,000 will be banned by the end of the year, and so on. Many of these cars will likely be moved into US service, observers believe.

The US has not implemented a wide ranging ban similar to Canada's, which will ban all pre-2011 build date tankers from loading or hauling oil etc in Canada. As mentioned in another post, the railroads, car leasing companies, refiners etc would prefer no rules or a more gradual phase in to allow more time to build more cars. The builders are full out, with order books into 2016.

WONK

Simply banning cars from service while they still have time on their depreciation clock would cause significant financial pain to the investors, banks, financial institutions, refineries, etc which hold the paper. There's an assumption the cars will be in motion, earning money, almost continuously. So, the political process being what it is, the folks who attend $25,000 a plate fund raisers aren't going to let that happen in the US. There will be some rules, and lots of hot air, but the pre-1232 (2011) cars will still be rolling well into the future.

Here's Reuters' report, other services have similar stories:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/railways-regulations-canada-idUSL2N0NF0LS20140423

And the safety of the public be damned.

NormSchultze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the safety of the public be damned.


And this surprises you how? It's been the standard since the first locomotive pulled the first train...

Doesn't surprise me at all.

NormSchultze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't surprise me at all.


Same process that gives you Pinto fuel tanks, GM ignition, Goldman Sachs bailouts, etc.

Best government money can buy, I tell you.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NormSchultze Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Doesn't surprise me at all.
>
>
> Same process that gives you Pinto fuel tanks, GM
> ignition, Goldman Sachs bailouts, etc.
>
> Best government money can buy, I tell you.

It's not just the Yanks either...

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NormSchultze Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Doesn't surprise me at all.
> >
> >
> > Same process that gives you Pinto fuel tanks,
> GM
> > ignition, Goldman Sachs bailouts, etc.
> >
> > Best government money can buy, I tell you.
>
> It's not just the Yanks either...


Nope, gotta agree with you!
The reason Canada was able to impose the ban was because the public outcry overwhelmed the big money, which is more interested in a pipeline.

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

I'm told by friends out on the line of road that the "banned" cars are regularly in the consists that cross the border both empty northbound and loaded southbound. They say the "ban" looks good on paper for the politicos but so far is not being observed on the ground???

Ross Rowland

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm told by friends out on the line of road that
> the "banned" cars are regularly in the consists
> that cross the border both empty northbound and
> loaded southbound. They say the "ban" looks good
> on paper for the politicos but so far is not being
> observed on the ground???
>
> Ross Rowland


probably true.

The directive creates several classes of pre-1232 tank cars, with only a small slice of the group supposed to be already off the tracks. I'd be surprised if the actual lists of banned cars have been created and distributed.

Absent a list, you load the cars presented to you...

Lackawanna484 Wrote:

> probably true.

Besides, the current government in Ottawa has been caught out on a number of their heavily-promoted/heavily-advertised programs where investigation revealed little or no actual activity behind the facade.

Ray

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
>
> > probably true.
>
> Besides, the current government in Ottawa has been
> caught out on a number of their
> heavily-promoted/heavily-advertised programs where
> investigation revealed little or no actual
> activity behind the facade.
>
> Ray

Why actually "do" something when you can just make it sound or look like you are doing something

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON