Eastern Railroad Discussion > Canada derailment with explosion

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/07/06/quebec-train-derailment-fire.html

Crude oil train derailment, some cars exploded

Also here, with another link: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?15,3119915

Looks like a major incident:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/massive-explosions-strike-quebec-town-after-train-carrying-oil-derails/article13050578/#dashboard/follows/

Perhaps the best coverage including aerial images of the train and partially destroyed town

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357352/Breaking-news-Canadian-town-center-wiped-freight-train-carrying-hundreds-tons-crude-oil-derails-explodes.html

Do you read what I did. They say there was no engineer and the train was running on "Auto Pilot"!!!!! Says the conductor got off, then the train rolled away??? No mention of an engineer getting off with the conductor. Then they say the engineer did everything possible to stop it. Very strange reporting.

I can hear the new rules being written as I speak.

santafe49 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you read what I did. They say there was no
> engineer and the train was running on "Auto
> Pilot"!!!!! Says the conductor got off, then the
> train rolled away??? No mention of an engineer
> getting off with the conductor. Then they say the
> engineer did everything possible to stop it. Very
> strange reporting.

The Canadian TO members spoke at some length of single person crews. However, KG reported that the train had 2 man crews, was left on a siding, for re-crewing, but started to roll after the crew was transported.

Hope it's not one of these situations:

"Did you tie the train down?"

"No, I thought you did"



Allen

AmHog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can hear the new rules being written as I speak.


my first rules examiner use to say "THAT"S WHAT THE EMPTY PAGES ARE FOR"

1. It was on the MMA. not CN or CP. Draw your own conclusions.

2. Exploding crude oil? Either it was REALLY light crude oil, or there was something else in that train too.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. It was on the MMA. not CN or CP. Draw your own
> conclusions.
>
> 2. Exploding crude oil? Either it was REALLY
> light crude oil, or there was something else in
> that train too.

Purportedly, the train was a runaway and likely collided with some LPG cars in the small yard near the town center. Those are likely what caused the explosion.

hoydie17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pdt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. It was on the MMA. not CN or CP. Draw your
> own
> > conclusions.
> >
> > 2. Exploding crude oil? Either it was REALLY
> > light crude oil, or there was something else in
> > that train too.
>
> Purportedly, the train was a runaway and likely
> collided with some LPG cars in the small yard near
> the town center. Those are likely what caused the
> explosion.

I thought about that, too. Forgot about the possibility of LPG cars on a siding, thought the pileup might have taken out a gas station. Whatever it was, it wasn't oil that blew up like that -- it just provided fuel for the fire afterward.

My understanding is that crude oil doesn't explode... and that trains don't move by themselves. Seems like another case of needing a lot more info before things fit together. But a lot of damage has been done.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that crude oil doesn't
> explode... and that trains don't move by
> themselves. Seems like another case of needing a
> lot more info before things fit together. But a
> lot of damage has been done.

It sure burns. I would bet that as an intact tank car gets heated up, volatile components would be converted to gas and the pressure would build up. When the tank bursts under heat and pressure, I think you would get a great explosion.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TCnR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My understanding is that crude oil doesn't
> > explode... and that trains don't move by
> > themselves. Seems like another case of needing
> a
> > lot more info before things fit together. But a
> > lot of damage has been done.
>
> It sure burns. I would bet that as an intact tank
> car gets heated up, volatile components would be
> converted to gas and the pressure would build up.
> When the tank bursts under heat and pressure, I
> think you would get a great explosion.

Maybe so, but there would have to be a time lag for the fire to burn before a BLEVE incident occurred -- and that time lag would have provided time to evacuate the nearby buildings. The description of this crash suggests much more immediate explosions, meaning that whatever blew up was much more volatile than crude oil -- if not LPG, then gasoline.

I suspect the US National Transportation Safety Board will be watching the investigation very closely. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were invited in for a close look at the investigation.

It wouldn't take a big step for the pipeline safety people to become additional rule makers for US crude, ethanol, gasoline, LPG etc transport by rail.

Or ethanol. I too was surprised that crude oil would explode. Remember in the first Bush Iraq war how the Iraquis bombed some tankers at dock in Kuwait? They didn't explodes but sure burned like crazy until all the crude burned off or was put out. The ships were then scrap. A tank car holds 700 barrels. Those tankers were probably Suezmax (1,000,00 barrels) or VLCC's, 2,000,000 barrels.

I also asked a friend who is a chemist and wrote a reference book on polymers. He said a far as he knows crude oil cannot explode. But if the cars were less than full, and the car was heated up by an outside source, that the air in the space could heat up so high that that the car would rupture or possibly explode. And an explosion might well occur if the crude contained higher than usual amount of small and volitile molecules like methane or propane.

I think they fill the cars as much as possible to avoid sloshing, but an engineer friend who switches the Westville, NJ oil cars say they do slosh a bit. Also, some tank cars are stenciled something to the affect that they need a 'inert blanket' of some commodity, maybe to fill the void. i'm not sure if crude cars have that stencilling. But I'd really would like to know if the tank cars in the MMA wreck are placarded 1267. Someone suggested the derailing crude cars went into LPG cars on a siding. If that happened and a loaded propane car was punctured on the side where there is less protection, then you would have a big explosion, and any released crude would fuel the fire. Only a long, thorough, investigation will solve this.

Even ethanol is not volatile enough to explode this violently from collision impact. It burns vigorously and will explode when heated in a confined vessel, but it does not have explosive vapors like gasoline or LPG do.

A friend in a regular email who has a photo enlarger can read the placard on the end of a tank car at the road crossing photo...it is 1267 crude oil. So the reporting is correct, so we either learn more about the volatility of crude oil or seek another source for such violent explosions. I see your post Toledopatch, and I'm no chemist, but I have been told that ethanol is a lot more volatile than crude oil. Four bad train wrecks have show how easily it burns. Afterall, it will 'explode, mixed with gas' in the pistons of your car. I bet crude would not do that. We need some petroleum chemists on this forum.

I believe it's been established there were LPG carriers on a siding at the foot of the hill, at the explosion site.