Dual Mode Locos Dangerous in Tunnels ?

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=27414

MONTREAL – Town of Mount Royal Mayor Vera Danyluk wants assurances the Agence métropolitaine de transport's plan to run locomotives carrying diesel through the tunnel under Mount Royal won't endanger the lives of commuters. "What we're looking for is to be reassured that people are going to be safe if there is a fire in the tunnel and people have to be evacuated," Danyluk told The Gazette yesterday. "There's a danger of fire or even smoke. You don't even need a big fire.

SS

[you must provide a brief quote of the article you link to - omv]

Interesting article from Bombardier's home town about Montréals AMT using the dual modes in the Mont Royal tunnel.

Everyone: I understand that ventilation could be a potential problem but after reading the article it sounds more like NIMBY apprehension to me. MACTRAXX

Noticed how no one makes a stink with the P32AC-DM's running through the East River and Empire Connection Tunnels.

The ALP-45DP fuel tanks will be compartmentalized not exceeding 400 gallons each compartment, with a max capacity of 1600gals. The ALP-45DP will also be equipped with a fire suppression system.

MACTRAXX wrote:Everyone: I understand that ventilation could be a potential problem but after reading the article it sounds more like NIMBY apprehension to me. MACTRAXX

I dont think it has anything to do with NIMBY's. The tunnel has been operating for almost 90 years. Ventilation is a serious problem in case of fire, there are no emergency escape paths, and there is no water available in the tunnel. I dont think it unreasonable to ask for the details of the studies to be released to the public. TMR is the towne directly north of the tunnel portal, not the one that the tunnel lies beneath. The mayors only concern seems to be for passenger survival in the event something happens.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a "danger of fire" even with all-electric operation.

Also, diesel fuel (Number 2 fuel oil) has a very high flash point, at 143°F. Electric discharge wouldn't cause a fuel-air explosion.

drewh wrote: I dont think it has anything to do with NIMBY's. The tunnel has been operating for almost 90 years. Ventilation is a serious problem in case of fire, there are no emergency escape paths,

Weehawken Exit Shaft and 11th Avenue Exit Shaft, plus the numerous cross passageways between the north and south tubes?

and there is no water available in the tunnel.

Fire extinguishers are stationed at regular intervals on the tunnel walls.

We I'll be yelled at but I say electrify the whole entire system. Commuter trains really should be all electrified but that's just my opinion. JC

PullmanCo wrote: Also, diesel fuel (Number 2 fuel oil) has a very high flash point, at 143°F. Electric discharge wouldn't cause a fuel-air explosion.

I'm not sure what causes diesel fires, and maybe the locomotives in question here will handle it adequately, but a vivid example to me was the Sunset Limited derailment in the 1990's. Even though the train went into a river, and I assume the locomotives' fuel tanks went under water, there was a diesel fire, and 50 fatalities, some of whom I would expect were fire related.

jimzim66 wrote:

drewh wrote: The tunnel has been operating for almost 90 years. Ventilation is a serious problem in case of fire, there are no emergency escape paths,

Weehawken Exit Shaft and 11th Avenue Exit Shaft, plus the numerous cross passageways between the north and south tubes?

jimzim66 , I assumed drewh meant the Montreal tunnel, aren't you talking about exits in a New York area tunnel?

The article also mentioned, as I remembered from long ago, 'the tunnel has been used by locomotives carrying diesel fuel in the past, though that practice was stopped in 1990. "Since then, there has been the recognition that there is a need for more safety." '
I believe the practice was probably stopped because of service reductions, not necessarily because of safety concerns, whether those concerns are valid or not. If I remember correctly those trains were VIA Rail Canada long distance trains which no longer run. An electric locomotive towed the trains uphill from Central station to the portal, Going downhill to the station the diesel just coasted and they didn't bother putting an electric locomotive on.

If I remeber correctly the GG-1's used a oil fired steam boiler for train line steam heated coaches.

gardendance wrote: jimzim66 , I assumed drewh meant the Montreal tunnel, aren't you talking about exits in a New York area tunnel?

If thats the case, I retract my statement, but he never said what tunnel, and the last one mentioned was the North River Tunnels...

The GG1 carried fuel oil for its steam heated coaches but the fuel oil boiler wasnt running in NY or the tunnels. It also wasnt carrying as much fuel as a diesel locomotive.

And if they are worried about fires look at what happens to electric locomotives? How many times have we had a AEM-7 go up in flames. We had at least one ALP44 do it on the coast line, the 4413 went up in smoke. So I dont see how thats much different other than the fuel oil can burn for a longer period of time.

jimzim66 wrote:

drewh wrote: I dont think it has anything to do with NIMBY's. The tunnel has been operating for almost 90 years. Ventilation is a serious problem in case of fire, there are no emergency escape paths,

Weehawken Exit Shaft and 11th Avenue Exit Shaft, plus the numerous cross passageways between the north and south tubes?

and there is no water available in the tunnel.

Fire extinguishers are stationed at regular intervals on the tunnel walls.

We're talking about the Mont Royal tunnel not the Penn Station tunnels.

PullmanCo wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a "danger of fire" even with all-electric operation.

I'm not gonna prove you wrong, but I will support you with an example from SEPTAland last night:

Blaze on R2 train to Delaware contained
by Robert Moran
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

A small brake fire forced a short delay tonight for a SEPTA regional rail train headed toward Newark, Del., a spokesman said.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090 ... ained.html

Now, I don't know what the standards are on diesel tanks, but what would happen if something like this occurred with a Dual-Mode loco?

Various fires happen I don't wanna say all the time, but are not uncommon, on any kind of trains, both passenger and freight. There are a lot of fires in the fall because of all the leaves blowing around adn getting into places they shouldn't. They accumulate, and then a tiny spark from a wheel or brake shoe, and the truck is on fire. Not a real big deal, it gets put out, inspected and goes on its way, and maybe a brake shoe or a hose replaced.

Also, a lot of times, they go out all by themselves and just burn themselves out.

I know the Mount Royal tunnel might not have ever had diesels running through it, but its not like this is the first tunnel that would ever have a diesel locomotive running through it. It seems like, and maybe its the way im reading it, that it seems to be being presented that way by those folks.

Maybe modifications would be needed for the tunnel, with ventilation fans, and more standpipes or whatever, but like mentioned above, there is a fire risk with both electric and diesel locomotives, and unfortunately, both can and do catch on fire. And it would be the same with dual modes. there is always a risk of a fire on anything that travels in a tunnel, and anywhere for that matter.