CN Derailment in NB

[Dick H]

CN Derailment and Fire in New Brunswick, near Maine Border

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... -1.2487977" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CN9634]

What worries me here is that the train went into emergency because of a broken hose. However, that part doesn't worry me because that isn't uncommon to happen. What worries me is that the train went into emergency and derailed... It is no surprise that the CN 'mega-trains' have been running across the Maritimes for quite a few years, but if they can't put a train in emergency without derailing it, that is an issue. CN was very particular to tell the press that the train was 122 cars long, however, they did not tell anyone the tonnage and the length. As we all know, not all car lengths are the same, so if there were say autoracks on that train, some of the cars would be at least 89' long. While, I know they are running DPU as well, the geography and the speed of the rail line obviously can not handle a 122 car (unknown length in ft) DPU train going into emergency. Now, I'm almost willing to bet one of the intermodal trains would have stayed on the rails, unless there is some other fault with the rails up there (Which I don't believe so based on preliminary reports from both the press and CN).

Next, I think all oil should run as unit trains, not mixed into general freight. While it may sound crazy, handling a unit train of a consistent weight and length, is much different than running general merch freights will a whole mix of other things. An engineer told me once running an oil train was actually pretty smooth. If they ran a unit train with DPU, you keep the slack forces down and the train would run well. Even if you slapped on a 30MPH speed limit for unit oil trains, I think you'd have no issues. BNSF has been doing that from the get go (Not sure about the speed restriction but they also run on much flatter terrain) and they have only had one accident that happened when a seperate train derailed into their crude oil train. The only issue there was the DOT-111 tank puncturing pretty easily, but still that could have happened with LPG tanks. And think, BNSF runs more oil trains than anyone else and that was their only large accident to date.

Summary:
Run oil as unit trains only
Run oil with speed restrictions based on geography and grade %
Run oil trains with DPU

Result: Greater control and safety of oil trains

[MACTRAXX]

CN and Everyone: I literally just found out about this derailment and I like your three ideas for running oil trains - and I will add that perhaps a special tank car design specifically for these trains may be in order...

What this is going to do is to put more pressure on railroads from those individuals and groups that are opposed to hauling crude oil by rail...

MACTRAXX

[Gilbert B Norman]

Indeed I fear, Mr. MACTRAXX. the Wapske NB incident shows once again, that HAZMAT derailments are not limited to (sorry) shoestring roads like MM&A, but rather can also involve well run roads like CN and BNSF - the latter referring to Casselton.

Funny how a Wall Street Journal reporter suggested that handling oil in unit trains is part of the problem; I agree with you - and somehow I think our collective railroad industry knowledge exceeds that of whatever cub reporter some editor assigned the story to.

But the fact remains that oil handled by rail is going BOOM all too frequently; pipelines of course are hardly foolproof for they have had incidents of BOOM themselves; they also have their leakage issues which are often undetected until somebody wonders why Fido is all caked in oil.

I sincerely hope these safety issues can be addressed by the railroad industry before there is a public outcry to build pipelines to remove this traffic from 'those unsafe railroads'.

[CN9634]

Indeed I fear, Mr. MACTRAXX. the Wapske NB incident shows once again, that HAZMAT derailments are not limited to (sorry) shoestring roads like MM&A, but rather can also involve well run roads like CN and BNSF - the latter referring to Casselton.

Funny how a Wall Street Journal reporter suggested that handling oil in unit trains is part of the problem; I agree with you - and somehow I think our collective railroad industry knowledge exceeds that of whatever cub reporter some editor assigned the story to.

But the fact remains that oil handled by rail is going BOOM all too frequently; pipelines of course are hardly foolproof for they have had incidents of BOOM themselves; they also have their leakage issues which are often undetected until somebody wonders why Fido is all caked in oil.

I sincerely hope these safety issues can be addressed by the railroad industry before there is a public outcry to build pipelines to remove this traffic from 'those unsafe railroads'.

Why does everyone act like railroads never handled stuff like this pre-2009? They have and the only difference here is the frequency and volume -- oh and of course the fact that it is fracked oil from Bakken. Wonder why so much media attention comes to these trains but they put an ethanol train or two on the ground and have it explode and you get half the attention (minus the fact they have less causualties than Lac Megantic with all the ethanol accidents they've had). It's a political game and call me crazy, but I'm quite certain pipeline companies are lobbying the Gov't to get this stuff off the rails and the media is a great tool to fight 'crude by rail'. Just look at the comments people are posting about pipelines... But pipelines are realistically years off. And for the most part, when they do decide to build pipelines, at least the railroads will get to haul the pipes... I wonder how many loads of pipes will sit in railyards or get 'misrouted'.

At the end of the day, this stuff is too valuable to let sit in the ground and pipelines aren't going to be built in a day. It's going to move by rail, but railroads need to at the least, publically appear as though they are treating it differently than other trains. As I posted above, if that means moving no single or strings of loads and moving it at 30MPH, who cares, they still have the monopoly on the traffic. In all honesty, Pan Am put 13 on the ground last March at 10MPH and no explosion or leaks (Which they may have gotten extremely lucky) so maybe they should run these trains a bit slower (10MPH may be too slow though).

[Dick H]

While more details on both the BNSF oil train derailment and
this CN derailment will be forthcoming, I believe both trains
had a DPU on the rear. How quick these units stopped pushing
could be a factor. Was there even the slightest delay in the
disabling of the DPU from the lead unit?

[Gilbert B Norman]

Inevitable:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1635384130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brief passage:

• Currently, there is about $1.5 billion liability insurance available for a big North American railroad, Mr. Beardsley says. The worst-case accident scenario "is multiples of that," he says.
  
  Railroads are required by law to transport hazardous materials, which include crude oil. And when they haul it, they are liable for it.
  
  Recent events underscore the perils. In the past two months, there have been three fiery oil-train derailments besides that in Lac-Mégantic: one in Alabama in November, one in North Dakota at the end of December and one just Tuesday at Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, near Maine.
  
  Though these didn't involve injuries, they showed another peril, an unexpected volatility in crude-oil cargoes. And two of the three involved not small railroads like the one that derailed in Lac-Mégantic but major railroads.
  
  Says E. Hunter Harrison, chief executive of Canadian Pacific "I've been through this for 50 years. When the phone rings at 3 o'clock in the morning, I get jumpy. Even when I get calls after hours on the weekends, I say, 'Don't tell me.' "
  
  The recent accidents aside, rail transport is generally considered safe; more than 99% of hazardous rail shipments arrive safely. Indeed, it is this very safety that keeps railroads from being able to refuse to carry hazardous cargoes. They have a legal "common carrier" obligation to haul cargoes that barge and truck lines can turn down. Railroads haul 150 million tons of hazardous materials a year, a growing amount of it crude oil.

While Fair Use limits my quotation to that comprising a Brief Passage (actual term used within USC), this is interesting material. It even suggest that a Class I coul be 'tapped out' of insurance coverage.

note: this material is X-posted at several topics relating to handling of crude oil.

[CN9634]

The culprit

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/ ... 594501893/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dick H]

"Another CN Derailment in NB".

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/27 ... 71778.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;