Coombe Barton Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31492659 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 And the one in Canada a day or two ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Canadian one - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/transportation-safety-board-probes-cn-derailment-1.2958601 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsp3970 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Also CP had oil cars derail at Frank in the Crowsnest Pass early on Saturday morning. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/train-cars-hauling-crude-derail-in-crowsnest-pass-1.2236461 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I note that only 2 cars were not oil tanks out of over 100 cars. I wonder if there is any characteristic of oil tanks in extra long trains that makes them any more prone to derailment on the move? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 17, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 17, 2015 I note that only 2 cars were not oil tanks out of over 100 cars. I wonder if there is any characteristic of oil tanks in extra long trains that makes them any more prone to derailment on the move? I wouldn't have thought so - anything will derail if the track is a bit iffy (a condition known as cyclic top - the RAIB reports into the various incidents are quite good for understanding the specifics) and we have had quite a few in this country over the past few years (mainly involving container trains, but i believe HAA hoppers were pretty susceptible too). The big difference as regards the USA and Canada can be summed up in two words - "Shale oil". The USA in particular has seen an massive expansion in the amount of oil being moved as fracking has really taken off over there. If you have more oil being moved about then it stands to reason that (assuming the tracks are being maintained to the same standards as previously) there will be more derailments involving oil tankers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I note that only 2 cars were not oil tanks out of over 100 cars. I wonder if there is any characteristic of oil tanks in extra long trains that makes them any more prone to derailment on the move? Block oil trains will have a barrier car between the locos and the oil tanks, so typically one non-tank car at each end. The number of derailments in the news is almost certainly due to the increase in traffic and the fact that derailments with no spectacular results or hazardous substances barely get reported. The big issue is that they are prone to puncturing in a derailment and the Bakken crude seems to be somewhat more volatile than other forms of crude oil. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 More fodder for the Stop Oil Trains brigade, of which there are many over here. For sure when they do go off, its spectacular and the media loves it but when the number that go on their destinations safely with no problem, its no news. Exactly the same with coal trains; same arguments, same people complaining! They moan when the price of petrol is high but when the price comes down, they moan about the solution. Build a pipeline instead? They'll moan about that as well! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The account suggests that the loco(s?) derailed and one (perhaps more) went through a house, killing the occupant. Although one wants to be a bit wary of drawing anything much by way of conclusion from these immediate reports, that account is not consistent with the "cyclic top" derailments. The reports on those I recall reading seem to show a pattern of a wagon or two in the train itself derailing, running derailed until a coupling breaks and the train comes to a stand as the brake pipes part. The train forward of the derailment remains on the track, including the loco. The increase in oil traffic on rail as a result of fracking makes some sense. As far as I know (and am open to correction) a fracking site is somewhat more transitory than an oil well so there is little point in running a pipeline to it, so the product would have to be moved by alternatives, and in these quantities over US distances, that is railway (or perhaps, given the location, "railroad"). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 No fatalities in any of the reports on the WV derailment I've read? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Should have been more specific perhaps. The pipeline runs from Canada to the Gulf coast for refining and export. Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 More fodder for the Stop Oil Trains brigade, of which there are many over here. For sure when they do go off, its spectacular and the media loves it but when the number that go on their destinations safely with no problem, its no news. Exactly the same with coal trains; same arguments, same people complaining! They moan when the price of petrol is high but when the price comes down, they moan about the solution. Build a pipeline instead? They'll moan about that as well! Brian. One thing that won't help is that the cars involved, according to Reuters quoting a CSX spokesman, were newer and supposedly stronger. Details and fair use quote at http://http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=158902 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted February 18, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 18, 2015 I was going to suggest that if building a pipeline to every 'fracking' site was not viable why not move it a shorter distance by rail to a suitable pipeline transfer facility but it seems that this is what was happening in this case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 One thing that won't help is that the cars involved, according to Reuters quoting a CSX spokesman, were newer and supposedly stronger. Details and fair use quote at http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=158902 Nobody claims the improved one's were indestructible, that's just an impossible ask. What we may find out is that we have 14 breached cars instead of 30 (or whatever)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 I realize that the cars were not intended to be nor could be indestructible. The way this will be interpreted by people who wish these trains to stop will be that even with the improved cars there are still going to be accidents, spills and even worse, therefore the trains should cease. I realize this isn't going to win much support on here, but looking at the list of accidents quoted on this thread alone, they may actually have a point. I would be concerned if this type of train was running through my neighborhood. With the Lac Megantic tragedy you could say that it was all the fault of a cheapskate operator running a shoestring operation and that there was nothing inherently unsafe about the operation. But if major railroads can't keep the damned things on the track, I'd say there is good cause for concern. Andy asked whether there was anything special about these cars that would lead to problems. They haven't been identified as especially prone to harmonic rock problems. I wonder if there is something happening with the lading sloshing about in the tank. There are plenty of comments on various sites from engineers relating to this issue, though mostly to do with chemicals rather than crude oil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 As far as I know (and am open to correction) a fracking site is somewhat more transitory than an oil well so there is little point in running a pipeline to it, so the product would have to be moved by alternatives, and in these quantities over US distances, that is railway (or perhaps, given the location, "railroad"). Most of the fracked oil comes from the Bakken formation, which spans bits North Dakota, Montana, Saskachewan, and Manitoba. Most of the oil extraction is in north-west North Dakota, so the source is fairly concentrated. The big issue has been the time, cost, and political hurdles of building or re-purposing pipelines. Just Google Keystone XL if you want to see the sorts of issues (albeit for a pipeline for Alberta bitumen to get to the Texas coast refineries). The big thing with Bakken crude is that, as well as adding a huge revenue stream to the railroads, it has revitalized a number of east coast refineries, thus providing more employment and economic activity in the east, as well as in the oil fields. The Delaware City, DE (south of Wilmington, DE) refinery is one of the big refiners of Bakken crude - it had been close to being closed for good. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Andy asked whether there was anything special about these cars that would lead to problems. They haven't been identified as especially prone to harmonic rock problems. I wonder if there is something happening with the lading sloshing about in the tank. Given the lead loco is reportedly off the road as well, I doubt the cause of the derailment will be related to the freightcars in any way. Unless the cause of the derailment is known, it's of little use speculating. Most railroads traverse mountainous terrain and with hills/mountains come rock- and mud slides. These are known to have derailed trains in the past. And given it was in the middle of a huge snowstorm, so have snowdrifts, or ice/snow build up in crossing or switch flangeways, or broken rails due to extreme cold, or.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Doing some digging - there are some fallacies floating round, presumably from media reports - so, here's what I can gather with some cross-checking of reports and image searching.Loco's didn't derail, so clearly they couldn't have gone through anybodys house (I don't believe any of the freightcars did either, though parts conceivably may have as the derailment was right behind the house on an embankment - the house was totally destroyed in the fire)No cars ended up in the river - all seem to be (more or less) on the ROW. There does appear to be a drainage ditch at the bottom of the bank, but calling that a river is a stretch. Some product does appear to have reached the river.Nobody died, one person (house owner) was treated for smoke inhalation and has since been released from hospital.Train was two loco's and 109 loads, including the two barrier cars loaded with sand (so 107 loads of oil)Cars 3 through 28 derailed, (so 26) - reportedly the fire eventually involved circa 19 of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 This web page provides some insight into why the Bakken crude is so volatile http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/11/north-dakota-s-meaningless-new-regulations-will-keep-bomb-trains-rolling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Harrap Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I note that only 2 cars were not oil tanks out of over 100 cars. I wonder if there is any characteristic of oil tanks in extra long trains that makes them any more prone to derailment on the move? Sorry Andy, oil tanks or any other cars usually only derail when on the move. Earthquakes etc excepted. Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Sorry Andy, oil tanks or any other cars usually only derail when on the move. Earthquakes etc excepted. Brian. I now see that "extra long" is not a difference that you are familiar with Brian. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Sorry Andy, oil tanks or any other cars usually only derail when on the move. Earthquakes etc excepted. Brian. I agree that cars 'usually' derail only when on the move. However, there have been occasions when cars have derailed when standing in yards, where the state of the ties and fastenings has been such that they have failed under the weight of the cars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Cyclic top ? Watch this video, UK freight train, I bet the photographer had kittens as the last cars bounced past. Concentrate on the white handwheels between the cars to see the bouncing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ntnt4DL60 Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The RAIB actually referenced that video in the Lydney accident report. The last wagon is the most suseptable to derailment as it has only one adjacent wagon to stabilise it, you can see that the last wagon in the video bounces more than the others, and I suspect the heavy banging it makes as it passes could well be the wheels leaving the rail, but falling back on this time. For once the youtube title is no exaggeration! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I am assuming, and please correct me if I am wrong, that "cyclic top" is something like what is called harmonic rock in the US. There are certain car types (e.g., high sided covered hoppers with a high center of gravity) that are susceptible to it, especially when there is a degree of wear in the truck. There is a good description of the problem at http://www.transportationu.com/articles/hrr_01.html Now, before people find a need to point it out, I am NOT suggesting that this was a factor in this accident. There have been a couple of questions about whether or not tank cars as a type, or tank cars in a long train, are more susceptible to derailment than other car types. I've never seen anything to suggest that loaded tank cars are particular problems with harmonic rock or are more affected by track conditions than other types of car. But harmonic rock is a known issue on stick rail. Harmonic rock is usually dealt with by improving the track to the point where speeds can be higher than the range where the condition occurs, or throwing in the towel and having trains creep around at 10mph or less (e.g., most of Pan Am's division 1 up in Maine). As long as the shippers will accept long transit times, it's not a bad solution to the problem. Of course Pan Am also solves the problem by having trains spend a lot of time not actually moving at all as their crews outlaw and don't get relieved very quickly. But I digress. One thing I would like to see some information on is sloshing of the contents of tank cars. If you google around a bit, you can find quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about problems with handling long cuts of tank cars as the contents surge. It can be very dangerous attempting to set brakes on a train that is surging back and forth, and there have been cases where the forces are sufficient to nudge the engines forwards. There is anecdotal evidence at http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,946873 That does not necessarily apply to these crude oil trains though, the cases quoted are presumably less dense fluids or partially loaded cars. But I would still be interested in seeing if there is any research about, say, the interaction of slack action and a sloshing effect on the lading. It appears to be emerging that this type of crude is not as heavy as might be expected, so maybe there is an issue here. Again, I am NOT suggesting this was a cause in any of the accidents referenced in this thread. People have asked if these cars are a special problem, I wonder if the industry is looking at anything in that area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.