Eastern Railroad Discussion > Liquified Natural Gas rail transportation on the FEC?

I thought this article was interesting.  I hadn't considered the transport of LNG via rail car I guess.  Calling them "bomb trains" is a bit over the top!  You have to love an activist media.

Biden moves to slow use of trains to haul hazardous LNG, but Trump’s permits let LNG ‘bomb trains’ roll on FEC tracks

https://www.floridabulldog.org/2021/11/biden-moves-to-slow-use-of-trains-to-haul-hazardous-lng-but-trumps-permits-let-lng-bomb-trains-roll-on-fec-tracks/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/21 19:27 by mpe383.

Well, if you've ever seen a LNG tank rupture, followed by the resulting extremely fast moving (and expanding) cloud of gas, coupled with an ignition source, followed by an ENORMOUS BLAST, you'd agree they truly are "bomb trains."

Just Google lng accidents and watch the video of a Chinese 18 wheeler carrying LNG that crashes and punctures its LNG tank. When the escaping LNG forms a huge vapor cloud and it reaches a guy smoking a cigarette the resulting explosion vaporizes everything and everyone in sight. That's an 18 wheeler carrying maybe 5,000 gallons of the stuff.

    Hard to envision the total nightmare of a disaster that would result from a unit train of this stuff wrecking.

    It should NEVER be carried by rail.

    IMHO-Ross Rowland 

Oh boy, here we go again.

The "transport" of LNG by FEC is simply, for want of a better description, the fuel tenders for the trial program using natural gas rather than diesel fuel. There are a jillion photos of these units, what's essentially an ISO container in a well car.

The manufacturer, Chart Industries and its predecessor companies have been making cryogenic equipment for forty years. Cryogenic tanks produced by several US manufacturers have been used in the transportation of liquid oxygen, nitrogen and argon for a hundred years. The metallurgy and physical properties of these fluids are well understood. Every day hundreds of cryogenic trailers pulled by road tractors deliver these products, plus liquid hydrogen to thousands of stationary tanks in the US. The same model exists in Europe and the rest if the world. One of my former employers transported liquid carbon monoxide over the road for twenty years or more.

All the stationary inner tanks in the US are manufactured to rigid ASME specifications, likewise the over the road units must meet a series of DOT design and inspection requirements. Both require regular periodic inspection including the inspection and testing of relief valves and all pressure relief devices. All tanks and relief valves require nameplates, serial numbers, etc., so that any potential flaw discovered during inspection can be communicated quickly and any suspect piece of equipment can be identified and isolated.

All these tanks, trailers and ISO containers aren't perfectly insulated. There is heat leak between the inner tank and its surroundings, the tanks do build pressure very slowly over time. Generally these containers now in LNG and hydrogen service have limits on "over the road" time duration. You may have seen transports of liquid oxygen or nitrogen "weeping" very cold gas with a small vapor cloud, this is controlled venting to maintain the pressure limits of the tank.

To another earlier comment, the possibility of unit trains of LNG containers or tank cars at this time really isn't much of a possibility... it's far simpler and less expensive to rely on the gaseous pipeline network and only liquefy at the export terminals or at peak shaving locations to support surge demands near consuming utilities and their customers.
 

Everything Rich M says above is correct. There's also no doubt that using today's technologies we can build an LNG railroad tank car that will safely transport the stuff and 99.99999% of the time do it incident free.
   
    It's the 00.00001 % that's the key. If even one 30,000 gal. tank car of LNG dumped its hyper cold, heavier than air LNG on account of derailing the resultant vapor cloud ( remember LNG is heavier than air vs. compressed natural gas which is lighter than air) that cloud is almost sure to find an ignition source and when it does EVERYTHING in or near that cloud will be vapoized. Gone.

    Impossible to imagine the carnage that would result in a unit train of LNG tankers wrecking amidst a heavily populated area. . It would make the awful wreck in LacMegantic Canada look like a walk in the park. 

   This stuff should NEVER, EVER be transported by rail.

    IMHO-Ross Rowland 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/21 09:52 by co614.

I will again chime in on this topic. I was a volunteer firefighter for 32+ years before retiring. I've taken many haz-mat classes over the years. IMHO LNG (natural gas) is no more dangerous than LPG (propane). LNG is lighter, not heavier than air, LPG is heavier than air. If a vessel carrying either ruptures you can have a vapor cloud and it can ignite if it finds and ignition source. However the vapor from the LNG is going to evaporate more quickly again, because of the vapor density. Ross, I wouldn't put too much stock in a video from China. We don't know for sure what was on that truck. There are far more dangerous goods transported by rail (chlorine, acids, poisons) than LNG. Those roll through our towns everyday but we don't get upset about it. After all, life is about accepting some risk. We could be hit by lightning,a tornado, hurricanes (I live in FL now where that is an accepted risk) or we could get hit my a piece of space junk. I think we should all chill out for a while and let some reason prevail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/21 13:59 by KY_Railfan.

AAR/FRA ran impact tests on the new LNG DOT 113 Specification tank car. At The test center in Pueblo and the results show the cars can withstand high impact accidents. Shipping LNG by is safe and in fact there is now a DOT 113 training car in the fleet of the firefighters enducation and training foundation safety train #1
This cars was designed to train railroaders and 1st responders on the DOT 113 SPEC car and LNG. As a hazmat responder and trainer for over 40 years LNG is safe to transport by rail. Before people say irs not safe look at the real facts and not the hype . FRA test data on the DOT113
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/full-scale-shell-impact-test-dot-113-tank-car-surrogate

FEC users uses a special fuel tender cars for the LNG fueled locomotives they are not hauling LNG in regular service this are custom built tanks in an intermodal well car. The major builder of these types of transport vessels is CHART industries .
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/21 11:47 by cctgm.

Ky-Railfan you are 100% wrong. LNG is stored as a super cold liquid ( minus 260 F) and if the container it's in is punctured it will spill out on the ground ( again it is heavier than air) and immediately commence a violent boil off back into gas form creating an ever expanding vapor cloud. 

    When that cloud finds an ignition source ( cigarette, electrical appliance spark etc.) there will be a super violent explosion and EVERYTHING within or near that cloud will be vaporized.   Gone !!!

    This stuff should NEVER be shipped by rail.   IMHO-Ross Rowland 

I don't know where you are getting you information about the vapor density of LNG. Yes, it's a liquid, so is propane. If a propane tank is punctured it can release liquid, which immediately vaporizes. The tanks that transport gas are pretty tough. Years ago I responded to a 18 wheeler transporting 10,000 gallons of LPG that had overturned in a ditch (and to add some spice to the mix,underneath a 69kv power line). The shell of the tank was severely dented from the impact, but there was no release of product.I also want to clear something up; liquids do not burn. What burns is the gas coming of the liquid. Just like gasoline, it has to be turned into a vapor before it can be ignited. It seems to me you are describing a Boiling Liquid
Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE). A BLEVE occurs when a vessel containing liquid above its normal boiling point and under pressure fails catastrophically.The damage is caused by the pressure wave from rapid expansion of the released vapor. However this doesn't happen instantly. It takes prolonged exposure to heat for that to occur. It doesn't happen instantly because again, liquids don't burn.
The emergency response for LNG is the same for LPG and other flammable gasses and cryogenic liquids. just look it in the Emergency Response Guide under guide 115. Response Guide 115 - ERG 2016 (noaa.gov). If we use your reasoning, we should stop transporting all hazardous cargo by rail. As I said before, life carries risk.
You are entitled to your opinion, but please do some research.

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ky-Railfan you are 100% wrong. LNG is stored as a
> super cold liquid ( minus 260 F) and if the
> container it's in is punctured it will spill out
> on the ground ( again it is heavier than air) and
> immediately commence a violent boil off back into
> gas form creating an ever expanding vapor
> cloud. 
>
>     When that cloud finds an ignition source (
> cigarette, electrical appliance spark etc.) there
> will be a super violent explosion and EVERYTHING
> within or near that cloud will be vaporized. 
>  Gone !!!
>
>     This stuff should NEVER be shipped by
> rail.   IMHO-Ross Rowland 

As I said LNG is stored as a super cold liquid. If the vessel it is being carried in ( which would be a VERY HIGH likelyhood in a derailment at speed) is ruptured it flows out as a heavier than air liquid, instantly boils off into an explosive gas ( watch the videos) forming a vapor cloud. When that cloud finds an ignition source it instantly explodes and vaporizes everything within it or near it. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

   This stuff should NEVER,EVER be shipped by rail.   Ross Rowland 

I cannot argue with Ross on this.  Aviation is also safe 99.999% of the time... 

However getting that to areas without a pipeline is indeed problematic.  Is pipeline construction and operation as disruptive as an accident?  Probably not, but there are those that would argue that point, too

Hidden in all the uninformed rhetoric...read the press...there's answer.

Here in the USA - not China - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W88v5tMWJ0

The video just shows what I said. BLEVE happen when there is prolonged fire impingement on the pressure vessel. LNG is heavier than air,until it's exposed to air at which time it is it becomes vapor lighter than air. Ignition of the gas itself isn't going  to cause a BLEVE. You will have fire but not a BLEVE.
LV95032 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here in the USA - not China -
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W88v5tMWJ0

I was trying not to jump into this again...

Ross, love you to death, appreciate everything you've done to preserve railroad history... and it's measuring the risk you're comfortable with.

You rode in the cab of steam locomotives with boilers 40+ years old, that relied on inspection procedures  that might be appropriate for fired boilers that were in regular use, without sitting dormant for 20+ years.

Thanks to all the firefighters who have been trained to respond to these emergencies, and who have more that a cursory working knowledge of cryogenic tank operations.

I'm jumping to a conclusion that most of the readers aren't as familiar with this type of equipment as I am, so forgive me, I'll continue the description of the equipment (and this has been a part of my business for 40+ years)... the basic construction of any cryogenic tank relies on a double walled design. There's an inner tank that's typically 1/4" 316 stainless steel that's inspected by x-raying the welds and then pressure tested according to DOT regulations. this tank is fitted within an outside carbon steel shell, also as specified by DOT. The annular space is filled with perlite and evacuated to minimize heat gain. There are relief valves sized to allow controlled venting in the event of a vacuum failure. Over long periods of time (10+ years) occasionally the perlite settles and cold spots are apparent on the outer walls. Regular DOT mandated inspections cover this, along with external corrosion, relief valve testing, valve operation and pipe leakage.

To have a catastrophic failure of the inner tank, more than a roll-over or an outer tank puncture is necessary. In the distant past, there have been cryogenic tank failures, and that's led to certain methods of construction being modified or disqualified, and tanks made prior to the changes in regulations being taken out of service and scrapped.The current DOT 113 specifications are based on more than 75 years of tank construction and experience.

As others have identified, every day probably hundreds of carloads of propane, propylene, chlorine and ammonia are moving by rail around the country, and while smaller in number, dozens of cars of other flammable and toxic chemicals are rolling out there as well.

I'm more concerned about a distracted or impaired driver causing an accident with a gasoline transport within ten miles of my home than a catastrophic rail accident.
 

Rich M makes good points. I'd be the first to agree that the new DOT tankers are very well built and the chances of them being in a wreck bad enough to puncture through to the inner vessel and thus release the LNG are extremely unlikely. It would take an awful lot of unlikely events happening in tandem ( like a broken rail at 40 mph that derails the following car and the third car behind that causes the broken stub to puncture it through to the other side ?) for a catostrophic LNG incident to ever happen.   

    Maybe my earlier percentages were overly pessimistic. Let's say the odds of a unit train of LNG ever being in a catastrophic event were 00.0000000001. Trust me, you do not want to be ANYWHERE nearby when the 00.0000000001 comes home to roost. 

    This stuff should NEVER, EVER move in quantity by rail.

    Ross Rowland 

I am guessing Rowland has some money tied up in moving LNG that is not rail related.

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich M makes good points. I'd be the first to
> agree that the new DOT tankers are very well built
> and the chances of them being in a wreck bad
> enough to puncture through to the inner vessel and
> thus release the LNG are extremely unlikely. It
> would take an awful lot of unlikely events
> happening in tandem ( like a broken rail at 40 mph
> that derails the following car and the third car
> behind that causes the broken stub to puncture it
> through to the other side ?) for a catostrophic
> LNG incident to ever happen.   
>
>     Maybe my earlier percentages were overly
> pessimistic. Let's say the odds of a unit train of
> LNG ever being in a catastrophic event were
> 00.0000000001. Trust me, you do not want to be
> ANYWHERE nearby when the 00.0000000001 comes home
> to roost. 
>
>     This stuff should NEVER, EVER move in
> quantity by rail.
>
>     Ross Rowland 

In my humble opinion it is good that your humble opinion really doesn’t matter in this situation. As your case is without merit and is therefore void of any real substance or value. What do you think would happen with a solid, volatile crude oil train or propane train that derails at speed in a major city. Or better yet the highly radioactive waster or spent nuclear fuel that is shipped by rail through major cities. The chance of a that happening is small but could happen.
Hope springs eternal.
Johny 5

Posted from iPhone

           Too dangerous to haul by rail but NOBODY seems to mind the hundreds of trucks hauling through towns, down interstates and of course to thousands of homes where it is unloaded. I have a 500 gallon tank outside my shop and I am not worried one tiny bit. I pass those trucks on the hiway daily, no problem.

Mr Rowland cites what is called tail risk. An event with a very low chance of happening, but an extremely high negative outcome if it does happen.

Any veteran investor knows that you need to be aware of the tail risk, and assure you have assessed it properly.

You may choose to place the risk at zero, but it isn't zero. Builders of tall buildings in the late didn't expect that jumbo jets might plow into them. Pancaking the floors.

Exceptionally low risk, but not zero. Transport of oil, gasoline, propane, etc is very safe. But nothing is perfect.

Posted from Android

Nothing is risk free....

For you non railheads, crude oil trains are not a picnic either.