Eastern Railroad Discussion > Coal on the ground...

Hi to Eastern Board friends. This is a topic also posted over on the Western Board.

Out here in Washington State, there is widespread objection to a new western coal port. Concerns about the public health effects of offshore use of U.S. coal are a major plank of the anti-port platform -- China burns it, and eventually we breathe it.

To paraphrase the movie "Airplane!" -- that's not important right now.

The perceived danger from the trains which carry the coal is what has my attention, because the "threat" of increased operation of trains is being pulled into the central debate about whether we should be selling and using coal. Opponents add fear of derailments to the usual citizen's mix of objections to increased rail traffic. Anti-coal-port public education efforts commonly cite what some are calling "an epidemic" of coal train derailments to support the platform. The worries even include a layman's description of DPU-caused incidents.

I have a friend and colleague who is volunteering to create an anti-coal-port television and web commercial. He gave me a list of 37 "coal train derailments" as proof that coal trains are increasingly leaving the rails. I immediately wondered: how does this list define "derailment", and were any of these incidents actually a threat to public health and safety resulting in injury, evacuation, environmental damage, or death from coal transport?

If TO members are personally familiar with what happened in any of these Midwestern, Southern, and Eastern examples, I'd truly appreciate a brief synopsis. I've done and will do what research is available by searching the place and date. But firsthand knowledge by the rail community is what will help me respond to my friend.

And can we set the terms here? This isn't about the coal argument. This is only about this list of derailments and what happened. Did coal present a health or injury risk -- or simply look bad for trains and coal -- in these places at these times?

Thanks in abundance for keeping this on point. Really. I'm truly hopeful about that. :-)

~ Bob Z.

Painstville, KY – November 2012
Ashby, NE – October 2012
Oktaha, OK – September 2012
Ellicott City, MD – August 2012
Raleigh, WV – August 2012
Saline County, KS – July 2012
Havelock, NC – July 2012
Jefferson County, KS – July 2012
Princeton, IN – July 2012
Northbrook/Glenview, IL – July 2012
Portageville, MO – June 2012
Junction City, KS – June 2012
Collins, MS – May 2012
Montrose, IA – December 2011
Topeka, KS – November 2011
Peetz, NE – October 2011
Charleston, WV – October 2011
Emmett, KS – September 2011
Denison, IA – July 2011
Omaha, NE – July 2011
Bloomington, IN – July 2011
Surveyor, WV – April 2011
Kearney, NE – September 2010
Quantico, VA – August 2010
Ferry Farm, VA – July 2010

The only one on this list that I recognize off the top of my head is Ellicott City, Maryland. In that derailment, two 19-year-old women trespassing on a bridge were killed when the train derailed right next to them and buried them in coal.

I've got to imagine that many of these were very minor, or else I'd remember at least a few others.

Coal, when spilled, generally makes a mess but it is not a public-health hazard in terms of requiring evacuations or other immediate containment response.

Edited in response to Howeld: Oh yes, the Northbrook, IL one also made big news because of the motorist fatalities. But that and Ellicott City are exceptions, not the rule, in terms of public hazard.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/12 14:37 by toledopatch.

I found this list as clickable links to articles about each incident:

http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/coal-train-derailments

As one random example, the "Quantico, VA – August 2010" one consists of dumping 5 cars more or less in line and tearing up some track. (in other words, no big deal)

It's the anti-train site in question and some of their propaganda is amusing. Nothing like letting facts get in the way of a good hate campaign...

I could go on a rant about the stupidity level of it all, but it'd be a waste of time since they're clearly not interested in any kind of logical discussion so much as a distortion/scare campaign to advance their particular viewpoint.

Edit to add:

And back to the specific question asked, ;) no, coal itself did not cause any of the derailments or significantly add to any consequent problems. It's not particularly toxic and pretty easy to clean up. Even in the example Toledopatch mentioned, any other type of train derailing there would have killed the trespassers just as much as the coal train did. The only argument they could make would be "no coal = no trains = no derailments / damage, etc." but my answer to that would take this decidedly off topic... ;)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/12 14:11 by MDH.

A lot would depend upon what one means by "increasingly." Is there a trend for increasing coal train derailments per ton mile, or per mile traveled? Are coal trains more likely to derail than are other trains? Or are there more coal train deralments simply because there are more coal trains? Your friend's list of derailments doesn't mean much by itself.

Edit MDH beat me to it.

Your list can be found at http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts. Each location and date is a click-able link to a news story or website about each derailment. The "facts" at that website are highly suspect but i digress....

The Northbrook IL derailment was a bad one where the train derailed on or near a bridge and buried a man and woman who were driving under the bridge. It took a day or two to even realize that there was a car buried under the coal.

The girls who where killed in the MD derailment were drinking and trespassing on a bridge. They shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The newest derailment that isn't on your list but on the other list had a length of rail enter a house where a child was sleeping. No injuries.

All this being said coal trains are no more likely to derail than any other train and I would rather a coal train derail by my house than any other type. No chance of 30,000 gal of propane leveling a city block or any other of the many hazardous materials that railroads haul.

People get too worked up over the stupidest things. Its a trainload of rock, its not going to attack.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/12 14:19 by howeld.

Thanks for these on-topic replies!

The list my buddy sent was embedded in an email, but once I saw that, it led me to the site that you... cited. :-)

Indeed, it's a train full of rocks... that's basically my argument too. I think it's valid for objectors to raise questions about coal power and public health. But I hate to see them conflate that with "train danger" -- it's an incongruous argument at best.

Appreciate the thoughtful remarks!

~ BZ

The Northbrook/Glenview one in July resulted in at least 1 death as the train came crashing down as the bridge it was passing over collapsed as a result of the derailment, and a vehicle was underneath at the time.


Several things off the top of my head to point out to your friend...

1. Most likely most of these derailments could have happened to ANY train, they just happened to be a coal train. Of these, one should find out IF being a coal train was a primary cause (doubtful in most of them, I'm sure).

2. One should compare the amount of coal train derailments vs. the number of overall derailments in this timeframe and see the percentage of them that are coal. I'd guess it's pretty low.


Obviously those two points above would require someone to look at the facts objectively, which I doubt your friend or his group would be willing to do, especially since they think there's an "epidemic".

Tom

EDIT: I read the OP and immediately felt compelled to respond, not realizing that there were already responses. So it looks like I didn't add much here! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/12 15:29 by zchcsse.

Yeah, what I hope to do is detach the "generic train traffic fears" from the argument my friend is making against coal as a commodity for export. I doubt I'll be successful, but I think it's worth trying. Some objectors to coal power are rational people capable of nuanced thought and non-emotional analytics! :-)

~ BZ

I don't know what the percentages would be, but for every carload of coal transported, the percentage that don't make it to their destination is probably nil. It's just when there is a derailment it's usually a mess. But it gets cleaned up and I guess technically the coal could still be burned after some of the dirt is filtered out. It's not like a load of propane that blows up and burns at the site.

I saw a figure not long ago about chemical transportation that stated 99.998% percent arrived at it's destination with no problems.
You don't hear how many car loads of coal that criss cross this country with no incident. Most of the time it's only when they have an incident that you hear anything.
Mike

Notch16 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, what I hope to do is detach the "generic
> train traffic fears" from the argument my friend
> is making against coal as a commodity for export.
> I doubt I'll be successful, but I think it's worth
> trying. Some objectors to coal power are rational
> people capable of nuanced thought and
> non-emotional analytics! :-)
>
> ~ BZ

Oh Good Lord! Well if we ban coal trains then we need to look at other dangers lurking everywhere. Airplanes fall out of the sky all the time. A train stays on its tracks and you can stay out of its way. But an airplane can fly over you at any time at anyplace whether you are awake or sleeping under your bed. They don't even need your permission.

Car need to be banned, they crash into buildings all the time. between the two postings one on the Western Board and this one there are 36 derailments cited over a 29 month period. Cars crash into building at least weekly. So there is a much greater danger. Not to mention that the car can come hunt you down like a rabid dog. So clearly the Automobile is a killer and must go now.

What's China going to do with all that coal, burn it to make electricity! Are you aware of home many people die from electricity every day! Who okayed the use of this killer, they even put it in my home for Pete's sake! Oh the humanity! There is just no two ways about it, ELECTRICITY MUST GO AND NOW!

But that is not all Natural Gas in quite the killer. Pipelines, storage tanks, houses, even building next to day cares are destroyed by Killer Natural Gas. Where is the President, where is Congress, they need to act! My life must be totally risk free while I smoke my cigarettes, drink my beer and eat what's left of my Twinkies.

Seriously life is risky, even if we live in a cave wearing stitched together oak leaves there are still storms and earthquakes. Two things I know for sure; life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition, and Mother Gaia is a mean ole b*tch!

Thanks to all the responders who addressed the coal train relative-safety issue, and who offered suggestions to dispel the unsupportable arguments against trains posed by our local coal objectors.

Confusing and conflating issues is the way political arguments are advanced these days. Pressing emotional buttons, whether they relate or not. Keeping the argument against coal exports from spilling over into a fight against trains is what this thread originally was about, and thanks to all who responded in kind. Much appreciated.

~ BZ

A hundred years ago, many homes had coal bunkers in their basements. When my wife was a child, her dad (who happened to have a stationary engineer license) had to shovel coal into the furnace so the house (in New England) wouldn't freeze up. When I was a lad (in Southern California) one of my uncles went into the Navy and left a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines behind. I remember reading articles about how to get the most out of your coal-burning heating system and wondering what it was like to live "back east". Imagine! Coal! In peoples' homes! Where they sleep! With this nasty stuff mere feet away from the living areas! Egad!

DNRY122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A hundred years ago, many homes had coal bunkers
> in their basements. When my wife was a child, her
> dad (who happened to have a stationary engineer
> license) had to shovel coal into the furnace so
> the house (in New England) wouldn't freeze up.
> When I was a lad (in Southern California) one of
> my uncles went into the Navy and left a stack of
> Popular Mechanics magazines behind. I remember
> reading articles about how to get the most out of
> your coal-burning heating system and wondering
> what it was like to live "back east". Imagine!
> Coal! In peoples' homes! Where they sleep! With
> this nasty stuff mere feet away from the living
> areas! Egad!


Coal still works. Love my coal-fired stoker boiler, even if it's a dinosaur of sorts!

John R -- CP Spring
Carlisle, PA

I think I've read elsewhere that this planned coal terminal would be on the Columbia River between Vancouver and Longview, WA. Now, the largest grain exporting terminal on the west coast is at Kalama. How is coal that much different than grain? Grain trains have derailed too, and are slightly more susceptible to derail because many of the cars are older and have a higher center of gravity.

Also one of the largest coal exporting terminals in North America is only about 250 miles north at Roberts Bank, BC just across the WA/BC line. Now if BNSF has access to this facility, and a Columbia river export terminal is thwarted, the state of WA may still see the coal trains anyway, especially if BNSF routed them via Vancouver and Tacoma and up, the low grade route. 100-200 miles of circuity means little on a very long haul.

Finally, if the coal wants to get to China and US markets decrease, it will find a way. It will get to Roberts Bank, or go to the Mississippi to huge barge tows to ships around New Orleans. Or it could come east to Baltimore or Hampton Roads, which already export coal to China. It could be dumped into the huge Valemax ships that can reach China via the expanded Panama Canal. I'll hope for the latter; we are not afraid of coal trains in the East.