Railroad Forums 

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

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

 #1327116  by gokeefe
 
CN9634 wrote:Or they can focus on pre-treating the product before they move it... probably will take some kind of legislation to force companies to cough up $$ to do that....
This is the strange part in the situation here. Pre-treatment is standard practice everywhere else, Texas, Oklahoma, you name it.
 #1327274  by BandA
 
How about putting firefighting / containment equipment on the front & the back of these big unit trains? In the occasion where something happens it is unlikely that the locals have a foam tanker nearby.
 #1327313  by gokeefe
 
BandA wrote:How about putting firefighting / containment equipment on the front & the back of these big unit trains? In the occasion where something happens it is unlikely that the locals have a foam tanker nearby.
We have foam and a lot of it. No problem there.
 #1327315  by CN9634
 
gokeefe wrote:
BandA wrote:How about putting firefighting / containment equipment on the front & the back of these big unit trains? In the occasion where something happens it is unlikely that the locals have a foam tanker nearby.
We have foam and a lot of it. No problem there.
In my limited amount of firefighting experience (All from family no self) and from reading things on the internet (credible I know).... this would be highly costly (both equipment installation & maint. wise as well as training for proper use) and about as useful as using a fire extinguisher on a 4 alarm fire....

Remember the price volatility of this stuff and think that any small adjustments will dramatically change the economics of this vs. foreign sources.
 #1329025  by fromway
 
Was in St. John this weekend. Irving had oil cans all over the place. All rails along Rt. 1 were packed as well as the racks at the Irving download facility. It looked like they were filling two tankers at a time. NBS was busy moving MTs and loaded cans around, along with Potash hoppers for another freighter.
 #1339391  by KSmitty
 
WN&P wrote:Irving says no more oil train movements in maine:

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/07/14/n ... egionstate
Big difference between "no plans" and "not gonna happen."

I'd wager if Brent prices climb and Bakken is comparably cheaper like it was in 2011-2012-2013, we'll see either/both CMQ or PAR pick up some oil business again. Or if we get a really cold winter again, to the point Albany has ice issues again.
 #1339424  by MEC407
 
I agree.
 #1339427  by WN&P
 
At the peak of traffic a few summers ago what percentage of St. John bound oil was going via MMA and PAR? With it coming from the Bakken area it seems strange that they wouldnt do all oil over a completely Canadian route to avoid Chicago plus multiple interchanges
 #1339429  by MEC407
 
From the Portland Press Herald:
Portland Press Herald wrote:Pan Am, whose trains travel through Portland, carried just 15,545 barrels of oil in all of 2014, according to records the company filed with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. In 2015, Pan Am has carried 37,128 barrels. All those shipments occurred in February, the last month the railroad delivered oil to the Irving refinery, according to the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting.
Read the rest of the article at: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/15/i ... ugh-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 #1339451  by newpylong
 
“I’d like to believe that’s true,” she also said. “We’re paying attention, and if they change their minds about that, we plan not to make that an easy process for them,” meaning, she said, “creating a lot of public discourse.”

Who do these people think they are? Getting in the way of Interstate commerce.

None of these people have a problem that they get most of their crude by ship?
Last edited by newpylong on Wed Jul 15, 2015 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
 #1339463  by NHV 669
 
newpylong wrote:Who do these people think they are? Getting in the way of Interstate commerce.

None of these people have a problem that they get most of their crude by ship?
Chances are these are the same clowns that think that protesting something by sitting in the middle of the interstate is a wise idea. Low IQ, and minimal-to-none going on in the common sense department. Of course they've got nothing better to do, they're likely unemployed as well, because jobs are "oppressive".
 #1339466  by Hux
 
newpylong wrote:“I’d like to believe that’s true,” she also said. “We’re paying attention, and if they change their minds about that, we plan not to make that an easy process for them,” meaning, she said, “creating a lot of public discourse.”

Who do these people think they are? Getting in the way of Interstate commerce.

None of these people have a problem that they get most of their crude by ship?

Well, given the propensity for these things to end up under smoke and flame, I don't doubt there will be a great effort put forth to stymie movements through New England. Until the oil in the Bakken is less volatile and/or the tanks are upgraded, it doesn't make sense to drag a unit train of the stuff through densely populated areas.
  • 1
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66