Oil Trains (RJMA / MARJ, OI-x, etc)

Only a matter of time with track conditions up there. Of course, we will need to wait until the final report, but my guess is with almost brand new tankers this isn't a mechanical defect.

Perhaps they won't half ass the track work in the spring.

KSmitty wrote:doublestack-They could work out some type of haulage agreement. The problem is MM&A has a lack of engineers/conductors. There are only so many people qualified on the NMJ-Brownville line. So crews will be tight. As far as I know Pan Am crews wouldn't be able to run that section, at least not without a qualified guide.

Make's sense to me. Thank's, Kevin for the feedback.

newpylong wrote:Only a matter of time with track conditions up there.

Those were the exact words to pop into my head as soon as I heard the news this morning. :-\


I guess I would file this under "bound to happen eventually" and also "it could have been much worse."

newpylong wrote:Only a matter of time with track conditions up there. Of course, we will need to wait until the final report, but my guess is with almost brand new tankers this isn't a mechanical defect.

Perhaps they won't half ass the track work in the spring.

When I saw the train Tuesday they were SHPX 222XXX cars. That set has been kicking around lately, most of the build dates were 10 or 11-2012. So some of them aren't even 6 months off the production line yet.

The rail in the area is all older. Most of it was 100# from 1922-1938 if I remember right. There were stretches of 85# that was a little older (1915-1925) and at least here its been freeze-thaw, freeze-thaw the last week or so. Makes a good case for old rail snapping...The new ties and tamping was great and all, but when you're running on rail quickly nearing the century mark its only a matter of time before something breaks.

Heres hoping for a mega track blitz this summer-Keag to Rigby. New rail, new rock, more new ties...

KSmitty wrote:This has potential to really bottle things up. Unlike their usual "oops" they cant just bulldoze the ROW clear and pickup the pulp and paper later. Hazmat/Oil needs to be cleaned up ASAP. Wreck train, if at Deerfield, is 24 hours out and there isn't great road access around this mess. Additionally, with no in service sidings north of Old Town things will be more complicated. Reroutes possible, will have to wait and see.

Kevin,

It shouldn't be hard at all. My guess is if it really is only 3 gallons the Fire Department would have been able to clean up the entire thing themselves. Just absorb using sorbent pads and then shovel any contaminated dirt into plastic trash bags. No big deal. I've dealt with large spills from overturned utility trucks and that was directly into a stream! DEP will certainly fill out an incident report etc. but at the end of the day really "No big deal". The more important question is not "What?" (very small crude oil spill from derailment) but "Why?" or "How?"

gokeefe wrote:

necr3849 wrote:Loaded Crude(RJMA) came into Northern Maine Junction late this afternoon with CSX 345, BNSF 4368 and a CSX GEVO. The crew canned at NMJ. A following POSJ was to be dropped at Carmel with their crew taking over the RJMA after being taxied to it. THEN, a relief crew from Waterville would be taxied out to the POSJ to recrew that! Crazy. To add to that, an SJPO was in Enfield. Its status was unknown when breaking off the crude job, but would assume they'll make NMJ later. Busy afternoon in D1.

Is this really all that unusual? Has this been the pattern lately since the oil trains started running?

If you're talking the thing with jumping crews, more like since PAR/GRS began!

Like Newpylong said, it was a matter of time. That's especially now that the ground has had time to thaw a bit. Just lucky they didn't dump any of the visiting power.

To clear up some points, just because track is 'old' doesn't mean it is bad. The web of the track is still good on most of that stuff and I don't believe a broken rail was the cause for this wreck. Seen rail used from 1900's before (Not mainline I'll give you that)

Also, there was no half-a$$ing of the work done up there this summer, believe me those crews did good work given the amount of time they had to do it.

Consider that FRA inspectors have been on the line (Whether you have seen them or not, trust me they've been there) multiple times before, during and after work done. Lastly, look at recent weather conditions, rain, rain, rain, and rain. My friends, this adds up to a classic case of ground movement under the roadbed. Factoring in the forces of moving the loads at the speed it is at (<10MPH), I'm going to highly doubt it was a broken rail (Aftermath pics may show broken rails but that is the result of the derailment, not the cause). While I'm not saying it couldn't have been a broken rail, I highly doubt it was. And oh yeah, they have been running track cars everyday on all the lines to look for things like this. Once again, I'm going to put my money on shifting ground under the roadbed, which regardless of track condition you really can't do much about (Maybe a culvert).

Sorry if I come off as defensive, but the claim that this is from deferred maintenance doesn't jive with me here. Considering the number of inspections done weekly by Pan Am crews and inspections done by the FRA this year, as well as the work they put in this summer, I don't believe it was the cause. Its possible a fractured rail web caused this derailment, but given the looming spring conditions, I'm gonna say that wasn't it.


Also howabout this, lets create a simple safety ratio of crude oil trains on Pan Am thus far.... Let's assume they have run 12 a month since September, and 4 a month from April to end of August. Then, let's assume that each train is average 90 cars (Some have been 100, some 80).

12x6 = 70
4x5 = 20

Approximately 90 trains x 90 cars = 8100 crude oil car loads since inception. Now divid 8100 by 15 (cars derailed today) = .00185 and subtract that from 1 = .99815 or a 99.815% safe handling rate since inception. Compare this to the industry average of 99.997 % and also factor in the amount of hazardous spillage was here (3 gallons). Not saying they dodged a bullet, I'm saying they have been operating safely and doing a good job of preventing accidents on par with industry standards.

The real question is, how do you keep the supply line going? I'm sure they can move over the MMA at NMJ, simply requires a pilot which can be a foreman or manager. Doesn't need to be an engineer. And oh yeah, MMA will make some $$ off of it. It is possible you could see movements shift over the MMA as far west as Chicago where they could ship loads to CP. I would imagine BNSF could simply do that. Also, I could image that CSX could shift NBSR traffic over to MMA as well via Palmer, MA. Or, if PAR wants to really handle it, they can try handing over at NMJ, but I am concerned about the layout of the interchange for crude oil trains. General merch will be a piece of cake but the long crude trains will be a huge challenge. Like I said before, you could possibly see BNSF hand off traffic to CP at Chicago instead of CSX. Time will tell.

CN, your assumptions are just that. I have seen rail move 6 inches vertically in the mud and things stay together. Very well could be soft ground, but I am more apt to think a rail or joint bars broke under the flexing. Then the old ties couldn't hold the gauge.

Considering they replaced about every 4th or 5th tie this summer, I disagree. Could be broken rail but I'm thinking its a load shift due to a soft spot.
Also I've viewed the property many times this year and last up that way. From what I've heard from crews, things were a lot better.

They replaced from 300 to 800 ties per mile, depending on what was needed, some stretches were worse than others but averaged 500/mile. Tie spacing in that area works out to about 2000/mile so they replaced one quarter of the ties. In theory thats every fourth tie, in practice it was "this one looks bad, this one looks bad, ok these 6 are good, theres another bad one..." A can of orange spray paint decided each ties fate. Fascinating operation to follow down from the Keag.

Lack of rock in some areas does make a good case for soft ground, especially considering the rain. Freeze-Thaw over the last week or 2 also makes a good case for weakened steel and a broken rail or joiner. Be interesting to see a report, if one is ever available publicly.

"Also, there was no half-a$$ing of the work done up there this summer, believe me those crews did good work given the amount of time they had to do it. "

I agree with that 100%. They did a remarkable job, especially considering they were short crewed by a handful. The work was quality and quantity. No they didn't do enough to raise speeds. But they did do enough to open the line for 6 packs and keep things rolling through most of the winter. No one is denying that this wasn't a patchem up job. But just because it was a band aid doesn't mean it was sloppily applied. Say what you want about the company, the employees do a great job with pride in their work. They put out quality work, be it Waterville Shops, track gangs, or Train and engine crews.

CN,

I'm with you most of the time, but come on here. You didn't see many six-packs rolling up this way consistently until the ground was nicely frozen. Even after the tie project, four axles were leading most crudes until the freeze. No way that "track blitz" last Fall was even close to what needs to be done in the grand scheme of things. Wow, they re-tied! How about the rest of the sequence? A drop of ballast here, a couple extra spikes there. Yes they flew considering the time they had, but that's the whole thing. They crammed in what they could since they knew six packs and a crude rush was imminent. I'm totally not on the MOW here. I think management dropped the ball with starting things. They should have had all season to work the trackage to Waterville.

As for other things, soft ground(mud) usually means the actual earth needs to somehow be firmed up... like re-engineered or even elevated with substantial fill of some sort. Sure, it's cheaper in the immediate future to patch work, but you see how it can catch up. Three derailments on the Bucksport Branch last year even after a huge re-tie project the Autumn before, one by EMMC not too long ago, now this one. The quotes from the folks who live near this last one say it all. "No surprise, it happens all the time."

How long can people say "That 1912 85lb rail should hold things even with the rail dipping 6" in mud under a crude job's wheels." REALLY?! Hate to see your type in charge of an MOW operation! Spring can't get here soon enough if PAR plans to prove their worth with a second wave of trackwork.

I think you are all missing my point. The majority of you are blaming the accident on the railroad, I am not. I believe the accident was cause of softground beyond the RR's control.

Trust me, you'd be surprised what other railroads are running 'big six-axles' on small rail. DME consistently ran some big stuff on 100lb, and even 85lb for years. Even some CN lines up in Canada still had 85lb (siding) and 100lb (mains). I'm not convinced the main at Keag was 85lb and I'll have to verify with MOW guys but it could be. The six-pack ban was an old MEC rule from the ages and in all honesty, they probably could have gotten away with some six-packs before the tie/tamping/ballast work they conducted this summer.

At least this summer they're going to drop welded rail between Bangor and Keag... oh did I say that out loud

The Buck is a whole different mess of worms, they need to rip out the tracks and rebuild the roadbed. That's half the problem with the RR, its not the track, its the roadbed underneither!

I respect your point of view and your observations, but I'm not sure if I would agree with the soft ground being "beyond their control." It's their ground. They own it. By definition, it's under the railroad's control. There's been just as much freeze/thaw/freeze/thaw on the District 2 mainline and yet we don't see oil trains and Downeasters going off the rails down here. There's a reason for that, and you're correct that it's not about rail weight, it's about roadbed condition.