Battle Over New Oil Train Standards Pits Safety Against Cost

The federal government's new rules aimed at preventing explosive oil train derailments are sparking a backlash from all sides.
The railroads, oil producers and shippers say some of the new safety requirements are unproven and too costly, yet some safety advocates and environmental groups say the regulations aren't strict enough and still leave too many people at risk.
Since February, five trains carrying North Dakota Bakken crude oil have derailed and exploded into flames in the U.S. and Canada. No one was hurt in the incidents in Mount Carbon, W.Va., and Northern Ontario in February; in Galena, Ill., and Northern Ontario in March, and in Heimdal, N.D., in May.
img_4919-edit_custom-d942d497c765bd42c267ba4557d2eaee20252f69-s600-c85.jpg
i
Stephanie Bilenko of La Grange, Ill. (from left), Paul Berland of suburban Elgin and Dr. Lora Chamberlain of Chicago, are members of a group urging more stringent rules for the oil-carrying trains.

David Schaper/NPR

But each of those fiery train wrecks occurred in lightly populated areas. Scores of oil trains also travel through dense cities, particularly Chicago, the nation's railroad hub.
According to state records and published reports, about 40 or more trains carrying Bakken crude roll through the city each week on just the BNSF Railway's tracks alone. Those trains pass right by apartment buildings, homes, businesses and even schools.
"Well just imagine the carnage," said Christina Martinez. She was standing alongside the BNSF tracks in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood as a long train of black tank cars slowly rolled by, right across the street from St. Procopius, the Catholic elementary school her six-year-old attends.
"Just the other day they were playing soccer at my son's school on Saturday and I saw the train go by and it had the '1267', the red marking," Martinez said, referring to the red, diamond-shaped placards on railroad tank cars that indicates their contents. The number 1267 signifies crude oil. "And I was like, 'Oh my God.' Can you imagine if it would derail and explode right here while these kids are playing soccer and all the people around there?"
[h=3]Business [/h] [h=3] U.S., Canada Announce New Safety Standards For Oil Trains[/h]


[h=3]Around the Nation [/h] [h=3] Safety Changes Are Small Comfort When Oil Trains Pass[/h]



New federal rules require stronger tank cars, with thicker shells and higher front and back safety shields for shipping crude oil and other flammable liquids. Older, weaker models that more easily rupture will have to be retrofitted or replaced within three to five years. But Martinez and others wanted rules limiting the volatility of what's going into those tank cars, too.
Oil from North Dakota has a highly combustible mix of natural gases including butane, methane and propane. The state requires the conditioning of the gas and oil at the wellhead so the vapor pressure is below 13.7 pounds per square inch before it's shipped. But even at that level, oil from derailed tank cars has exploded into flames.
And many safety advocates had hoped federal regulators would require conditioning to lower the vapor pressure even more.
"We don't want these bomb trains going through our neighborhood," said Lora Chamberlain of the group Chicagoland Oil by Rail. "Degasify the stuff. And so we're really, really upset at the feds, the Department of Transportation, for not addressing this in these new rules."
img_4901-edit_custom-9a9dbb2d53b9eebd21a28d2e4337ce7fe562c82a-s600-c85.jpg
i
Oil trains sit idle on the BNSF Railway's tracks in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.

David Schaper/NPR

Others criticize the rules for giving shippers three to five years to either strengthen or replace the weakest tank cars.
"The rules won't take effect for many years," said Paul Berland, who lives near busy railroad tracks in suburban Elgin. "They're still playing Russian roulette with our communities."
A coalition of environmental groups — including Earthjustice, ForestEthics and the Sierra Club — sued, alleging that loopholes could allow some dangerous tank cars to remain on the tracks for up to a decade.
"I don't think our federal regulators did the job that they needed to do here; I think they wimped out, as it were," said Tom Weisner, mayor of Aurora, Ill., a city of 200,000 about 40 miles west of Chicago that has seen a dramatic increase in oil trains rumbling through it.
Weisner is upset the new rules provide exemptions to trains with fewer than 20 contiguous tank cars of a flammable liquid, such as oil, and for trains with fewer than 35 such tank cars in total.
"They've left a hole in the regulations that you could drive a freight train through," Weisner said.
At the same time, an oil industry group is challenging the new regulations in court, too, arguing that manufacturers won't be able to build and retrofit tank cars fast enough to meet the requirements.
The railroad industry is also taking action against the new crude-by-rail rules, filing an appeal of the new rules with the Department of Transportation.
In a statement, Association of American Railroads spokesman Ed Greenberg said: "It is the AAR's position the rule, while a good start, does not sufficiently advance safety and fails to fully address ongoing concerns of the freight rail industry and the general public. The AAR is urging the DOT to close the gap in the rule that allows shippers to continue using tank cars not meeting new design specifications, to remove the ECP brake requirement, and to enhance thermal protection by requiring a thermal blanket as part of new tank car safety design standards."
AAR's President Ed Hamberger discussed the problems the railroads have with the new rules in an interview with NPR prior to filing the appeal. "The one that we have real problems with is requiring something called ECP brakes — electronically controlled pneumatic brakes," he said, adding the new braking system that the federal government is mandating is unproven.
"[DOT does] not claim that ECP brakes would prevent one accident," Hamberger said. "Their entire safety case is based on the fact that ECP brakes are applied a little bit more quickly than the current system."
Acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg disagreed. "It's not unproven at all," she said, noting that the railroads say ECP brakes could cost nearly $10,000 per tank car.
"I do understand that the railroad industry views it as costly," Feinberg adds. "I don't think it's particularly costly, especially when you compare it to the cost of a really significant incident with a train carrying this product."
"We're talking about unit trains, 70 or more cars, that are transporting an incredibly volatile and flammable substance through towns like Chicago, Philadelphia," Feinberg continues. "I want those trains to have a really good braking system. I don't want to get into an argument with the rail industry that it's too expensive. I want people along rail lines to be protected."
Feinberg said her agency is still studying whether to regulate the volatility of crude, but some in Congress don't think this safety matter can wait.
"The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll," U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement. "It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to address the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars."
Cantwell is sponsoring legislation to force oil producers to reduce the crude's volatility to make it less explosive, before shipping it on the nation's rails.
 
Okay, I've had enough of this. casanova419, I've got one question for you:
Why are almost all your recent threads are all negative?
I shall list a few:

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?120480-Mechanical-problem-fire-on-Metra-train-halt-morning-service-on-BNSF

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?120334-Californian-killed-by-train-may-have-been-attempting-videotaped-stunt

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?120335-Derailed-freight-train-falls-from-bridge-onto-Texas-highway

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119452-Train-Strikes-Atlanta-City-Bus-Stuck-on-Railroad-Tracks

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119336-A-train-just-derailed-outside-of-Pittsburgh

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119332-Amtrak-fire-in-Milwaukee-prompts-train-evacuation

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119152-Train-Carrying-Crude-Oil-Derails-Sparks-Huge-Fireball-heimdal-north-dakota

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119027-NTSB-Train-worker-likely-to-survive-if-he-hadn-t-jumped

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118985-TRAIN-FALLS-OFF-TRACKS-IN-HIGH-WIND-AT-THE-NEW-ORLEANS

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118980-Amtrak-train-hits-car-in-Four-Oaks-N-C

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118984-Officials-South-Shore-Line-affected-after-freight-train-hits-bridge-CN-derailment

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118668-CN-Rail-grain-train-derails-in-Alberta-no-injuries

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118473-LIRR-Derailment-will-affect-Ronkonkoma-line-commute-Wednesday-morning

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118171-Woman-try-to-beat-Amtrak-at-a-crossing-and-lost

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118043-Amtrak-train-truck-collide-in-North-Carolina

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118066-Freight-train-derails-in-San-Jose-no-injuries-reported

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?118004-CN-Rail-train-carrying-oil-derails-in-Ontario

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?117972-Another-Crude-Oil-Train-Derails-In-Gallena-Ill

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?117638-West-Virginia-train-derailment-sends-oil-tanker-into-river
 
That aside, I think it's a worthy topic for discussion, and certainly much better forum content than can be said for some other people lately. Forget EP brakes or high tech blankets, why are these trains derailing in the first place? Bad track, bad cars, bad driving?

Over here, trucks carrying explosive liquids are hard-limited to 60kmh/37mph. The faster you go, the higher chances of derailing from minor effects like defects in the track or poor train handling. And speaking of train handling, if such large trains are getting out of control, split them up or something. I still see mile long American tank trains doing 50, 60, 70 in youtube videos with maybe 1 or 2 DPUs on the end if any. All it takes is a coupler run-in on a downhill curve with maybe some wobbly ballast and you're setup for disaster.
 
Last edited:
That aside, I think it's a worthy topic for discussion, and certainly much better forum content than can be said for some other people lately. Forget EP brakes or high tech blankets, why are these trains derailing in the first place? Bad track, bad cars, bad driving?

Over here, trucks carrying explosive liquids are hard-limited to 60kmh/37mph. The faster you go, the higher chances of derailing from minor effects like defects in the track or poor train handling. And speaking of train handling, if such large trains are getting out of control, split them up or something. I still see mile long American tank trains doing 50, 60, 70 in youtube videos with maybe 1 or 2 DPUs on the end if any. All it takes is a coupler run-in on a downhill curve with maybe some wobbly ballast and you're setup for disaster.

It isnt as simple as any one of these things that is why. There are more than a few things at play here. For one example, we have many more unit oil trains now and when one crashes and a car leaks/causes a fire (it is usually only 1-3 cars that even get damaged enough to leak) it gets more media attention tonnage than the train could ever carry. To me this is far more dangerous than the resulting fire. I have seen almost nobody in the media who has even a remote understanding of what is even happening on the railroads or can even accurately describe a train or what they do. This is causing much public misinformation and hardly anyone steps up to correct this problem. This makes the public anxious and causes them to stand around with completely stupid signs like shown above.
 
I had this idea once for safer oil ships, could the oil be cooled enough to let it solidify? Would that prevent some accidents?
 
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that a tank car, because it is cylindrical, has a higher centre of gravity than a gondola carrying the same weight hence greater chance of a roll-over.

Peter
 
This makes the public anxious and causes them to stand around with completely stupid signs like shown above.

Justin, it doesn't matter if 3 cars derail or 30. A derailment is a derailment. I don't understand how dangerous goods trains can be allowed to derail 5 times in 5 months? We're not talking about branchline locals running on 80-year old track.
 
Justin, it doesn't matter if 3 cars derail or 30. A derailment is a derailment. I don't understand how dangerous goods trains can be allowed to derail 5 times in 5 months? We're not talking about branchline locals running on 80-year old track.

I was not attempting to say otherwise. I just see a large misinformed public outcry. The railroads involved obviously don't want to wreck tank cars and burn things - that just isn't good business sense. It isn't the speed - these derailments have occurred in relatively low speed situations. Personally I would agree that it is awful strange that so many oil trains have derailed in such a short period however I don't see it as railroad carelessness, bad infrastructure, bad traincars, or bad train operating. There is an answer somewhere but many many more move safely with no issues. imo it is just more sensational media.
 
One thing that doesn't get mentioned is that a tank car, because it is cylindrical, has a higher centre of gravity than a gondola carrying the same weight hence greater chance of a roll-over.

Peter

And really, the only reasonable way to lower it is with a whale belly sort of design, and those were already banned a while ago, presumably because they put the most highly stressed part of the car that much closer to the railhead.
 
I was not attempting to say otherwise. I just see a large misinformed public outcry. The railroads involved obviously don't want to wreck tank cars and burn things - that just isn't good business sense. It isn't the speed - these derailments have occurred in relatively low speed situations. Personally I would agree that it is awful strange that so many oil trains have derailed in such a short period however I don't see it as railroad carelessness, bad infrastructure, bad traincars, or bad train operating. There is an answer somewhere but many many more move safely with no issues. imo it is just more sensational media.

I agree. The problem too is the regulators, meaning the FRA are not doing their job either. Instead of pushing for safer conditions as an impartial government body, they apparently are siding with the railroad and looking the other way when it comes to enforcing the rules on better infrastructure. The reason all boils down to spending money... and no one, especially the stock holders and management do not want to spend anything more than they have to.

The 1987 Guilford Transportation accident in Lawrence MA yard, the one that put that railroad into a strike, was the future.... The company had not only cut crews, but also deferred maintenance on equipment and the rail infrastructure to a point there were standing derailments and runaway freight cars, along with engines burning up and dying on the road, and engines actually running out of fuel on the road. In this case someone was killed by a locomotive attempting to catch a runaway. Going forward, the deferred maintenance had continued to a point where the mainline was down to 10 mph or less for no other reason other than not to spend money on it. There were so many slow orders, it would take well over crew limits to go from Rugby, or North Maine Jct. ME to Mechanicsville, NY, and they would probably make it one-third or less of the way before outlawing. Eventually NS stepped in with their Pan Am Southern partnership and rebuilt the western end as far as Ayer, MA. The Connecticut River line too was brought down so far that Amtrak pulled its trains from there and ran via the New England Central until recently when Massachusetts purchased their portion. So now Amtrak runs via Greenfield and Northfield pm the B&M instead of Amherst. Other than the state-owned tracks, or those under the PAS partnership, the lines are in poor shape.

What I am also getting at is the government body, that is supposed to regulate the safety standards of the railroads, allows this to happen. There is no reason for infrastructure to deteriorate because it's not in the stakeholder's interest to spend money. Infrastructure deterioration hurts everyone and will eventually affect the bottom line. In some ways this is why our highways are in the shape they are as well. No one wants to invest in something that would benefit all because there is no money in it for the stake holders directly. Without making this a full political statement, this is not how our country was built in the first place...

The problem is the media doesn't mention this. Instead they pick up on the sensationalism of an accident, and because they have no clue on how things are supposed to operate, keep feeding disinformation on railroads. They have no idea, or clue, or probably a willingness to actually do real investigative reporting. So instead of getting real facts, they always misconstrue things and only confuse the public into coming up with these misconceptions.

John
 
I'm not a conspirator or anything, but I think the public to an extent is intentionally being misinformed. For a while Oil train accidents were being publicized left and right when the Keystone Pipeline was in the talks. They shot Keystone down once, and the oil train sensation went away, until recently again where talks of bringing the Keystone back up is in the works again. They want people to believe the pipeline will bring jobs, and for a temporary time, it will. Issue is, that about 50 jobs after it will actually be permanent postitions. It will actually make labor costs cheaper in the end, not helping us, just helping big oil companies who really don't need anymore money,

"Well just imagine the carnage," said Christina Martinez. She was standing alongside the BNSF tracks in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood as a long train of black tank cars slowly rolled by, right across the street from St. Procopius, the Catholic elementary school her six-year-old attends.
"Just the other day they were playing soccer at my son's school on Saturday and I saw the train go by and it had the '1267', the red marking," Martinez said, referring to the red, diamond-shaped placards on railroad tank cars that indicates their contents. The number 1267 signifies crude oil. "And I was like, 'Oh my God.' Can you imagine if it would derail and explode right here while these kids are playing soccer and all the people around there?"
I like this complete disaster. Oh my god, could you imagine how much more serious it would be if a Metra train using the same tracks derailed, and hit the school causing more casualties than probably the oil train could? I would have to ask for somebody to do the research here. How often do Metra trains derail? I don't think very often. If Metra uses the same track and doesn't derail, then how magically is an oil-train 100000000000000000000000000x's more likely using the same track? It just doesn't work like that. Worse off, the idea being spewed here is that these trains are just magically hitting the ground without an explanation. No, trains just don't roll down the line perfectly, and then some kind of voodoo magic appears and 5 cars jump the tracks. There is only one derailment where operator error has actually been proven, so where else is left to place the blame? Infrastructure by a long shot. FRA and the Feds are letting huge holes in the infrastructure go without notice. You can't do that, because eventually, those loopholes are going to get exposed, and something more catastrophic than what we've seen already will occur, whether it be an oil-train or some other train. Slowing the trains down is not going to solve the issue. I've seen just as many trains derail at 20 MPH as I have at 60MPH, when a train derails, it derails. Slowing them down is just going to hurt the economy by making prices go up (Yea, I bet those people are probably not thinking about how much of US products are actually shipped by rail) and cause more back-log on an already clogged system. Why not invest more in infrastructure than a pipeline? Doing that will create far more permanent jobs than a pipeline will. Plus you've increased the capacity for the future, something that we can all be proud of.
 
Infrastructure, you mean, like a pipeline?
I know, it was a complete english break down... Such shame for an English major LOL! I meant infrastructure like roads, highways, bridges, and of course, Railroads. Just about all of our infrastructure is lacking a lot.
 
Hi everybody.
I realise that this topic is in regard to a particular problem affecting American railroads. However, as someone who works in industrial safety here in the UK, I hope those who have posted onto the thread will allow me to contribute as a forum member with those credentials and also viewing the problem from a more “stood back approach”.

A number of the postings in this thread have referred to the media and press as a body hounding and not understanding the railway industry. What has to be realised in my opinion, is the foregoing bodies always follow what they see as public opinion in regard to many organisations across industry and the public services. If the press and media perceive that an organisation is unpopular, they will play up to that unpopularity by highlighting reports that denigrate the industry, as that is what sells newspapers, magazines and attracts advertising to news sites on the web.

In the above, it is for any organisation (especially when involved in transport) to ensure that it promotes its image in a positive manner to the general public. Here in the UK, Network Rail (a government agency which oversees track maintenance and the overall performance of the train operating companies) has in recent years spent much time and effort in bringing to the attention of the public all that the organisation has achieved by way of improved safety since its formation.

In recent weeks Network Rail has received great acclaim from the media in its quick and efficient handling of two major safety incidents which involved drivers overriding train protection systems. One driver received a jail sentence of three months (suspended for two years) the other has yet to come to court.

In the above I would ask forum members to compare that action against a thread that was raised on this forum approximately 1 year ago, which related to an American train operator leaving a 30 car freight train parked across the major road crossing for over a week. Local town residents living in the area surrounding the crossing had to make a five-mile detour each time they wished to get to the opposite side of town.

The town’s residents and local authority complained loudly to the press regarding the train operators actions (or lack of it) only to be met with a comment from the train company stating that “it had a legal right to leave the consist on the crossing”. The company further stated that the train could not be moved as there was “insufficient track space for the freight cars in the local yard. Unfortunately, the train company’s actions were supported by several on this forum who seem to feel that railway companies and their personnel can do no wrong.

In the foregoing, I have to say that when train operating companies act in the above manner they cannot expect sympathy from members of the public or the media when they encounter problems. Those bodies will be all over the rail company(s) as in the present debate on the safety of transporting crude oil by rail.

Snip~ The railroads involved obviously don't want to wreck tank cars and burn things - that just isn't good business sense. It isn't the speed - these derailments have occurred in relatively low speed situations. Personally I would agree that it is awful strange that so many oil trains have derailed in such a short period however I don't see it as railroad carelessness, bad infrastructure, bad traincars, or bad train operating. There is an answer somewhere but many many more move safely with no issues. imo it is just more sensational media.~snip

norfolksouthern37, I would agree with your comments on what should be the train operating companies attitude to crude oil derailments. As you state there has to be an answer somewhere as to why these derailments are occurring. It is often stated that transportation accidents can only occur in one of three ways, that being equipment design, equipment maintenance or human error. In the foregoing there is one simple fact that has to be borne in mind, that being, it is always human error which causes any incident. If an incident is caused by equipment design failure, then it is human error involved in the design of that equipment. If an incident is caused by maintenance (or lack of it) then it is human error in the maintenance planning or the actual carrying out of the maintenance. Along with the two foregoing causes there are always incidents which occur through human error or negligence in operating equipment.

In the above there is a very old but very true adage in industrial safety circles which states “there is no such thing as an accident, somebody, somewhere is always responsible”. Therefore, how do you find who is responsible for any incident and in the same manner of thought, how do you find what is causing the crude oil freight car derailments.

It has always been that legislation preventing accidents/incidents in an industrial setting instructs the need on full and comprehensive risk assessment of all operations that are to be regularly carried out. If the foregoing is carried out by trained and competent persons, the chances of any incident occurring is greatly reduced in any context. When an incident does occur however, investigating those risk assessments (or in many cases lack of them) will in the vast majority of cases lead those investigating the incident to the cause and through that the person(s) responsible.

It may well be that insufficient risk assessment has been carried out in regard to the design, maintenance and operation of crude oil tank cars and the rail infrastructure they are running on. It would certainly be the first place I feel that the UKs Network Rail would be looking, and I am wondering if the FRA have comprehensively carried out anything similar.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Back
Top