Another oil train explosion

[Pete from Boston]

Still burning and pouring cars and oil into the Kanawha River in West Virginia:

http://wvmetronews.com/2015/02/16/oil-train-derails-in-fayette-county-causing-explosion-tanker-cars-in-kanawha-river/

This seems to be happening a lot.  Is oversight just lacking for the amount of oil being shipped these days? 

[cpzilliacus]

[Full disclosure:  I know this reporter - personally]

McClatchy Washington Bureau: West Virginia, Canada derailments renew focus on tank cars

A train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire Monday in West Virginia, less than two weeks after the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a package of new rail safety regulations to the White House for review.

The CSX train was traveling on the same route as another crude oil train that derailed and caught fire 10 months ago in downtown Lynchburg, Va. It was the second derailment in as many days of a train loaded with crude oil. Early Sunday, a Canadian National train loaded with crude oil derailed in northern Ontario. At least seven cars burst into flames.

In Monday's derailment, residents of two small towns east of Charleston were evacuated, and at least one tank car fell into the Kanawha River, according to the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety. The river supplies drinking water for several local communities, and residents were urged Monday to conserve water.

Another oil train derails, ignites fire in Canada

Another train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in Canada early Sunday, potentially putting pressure on the White House to accelerate its review of new regulations intended to improve the safety of hazardous rail shipments throughout North America.

The 100-car Canadian National train left the tracks in a remote part of Northern Ontario around midnight, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported Sunday. Of the 29 cars that derailed, at least seven were on fire, the newspaper reported.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is sending investigators to the scene, but they likely will face difficulties assessing the damage because the area is not easily accessible, and the temperatures are well below zero.

Oil train regulations hit final stage

A much-anticipated regulation to improve the safety of crude oil and ethanol trains was sent to the White House for review Thursday, the final stage in a process some lawmakers and industry officials say has moved too slowly.

The U.S. Department of Transportation submitted the rulemaking package to the Office of Management and Budget nearly a week after its self-imposed deadline of Jan. 30.

The move came a day after a train carrying ethanol derailed along a remote stretch of the Mississippi River in Iowa, igniting a fire and spilling a yet-to-be-measured quantity of the flammable liquid into the river.

Among other issues, the regulation would require a stronger construction standard for the DOT-111 tank car, a workhorse in use for decades but one known to fail in derailments.

No one was injured in this week's derailment in Iowa, but the incident put broader issues surrounding crude oil and ethanol transportation back in the spotlight, including the crashworthiness of the tank cars, as well as track and equipment inspection and maintenance and operating practices.

[vdeane]

Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?

[Pete from Boston]

Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?

Wouldn't be surprised.  Lac-Mégantic was a horror.  People woke up in flames.

However, it was the new cars that blew up yesterday.

[Dr Frankenstein]

Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?

Yes and no. It's going to take many years to replace all those cars.

[cpzilliacus]

Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?

Yes and no. It's going to take many years to replace all those cars.

Correct.

The flimsy DOT-111 cars are weak in part because the walls are too thin, but also because there is no center beam (unlike older tank cars) to make them more rigid.

[02 Park Ave]

A caboose, with a permanently assigned crew member aboard, would be of great benefit.  He could sense any abnormality in train stability caused by sloshing in the tank cars and then would notify the train driver.  The train driver would then respond accordingly.

[Pete from Boston]

A caboose, with a permanently assigned crew member aboard, would be of great benefit.  He could sense any abnormality in train stability caused by sloshing in the tank cars and then would notify the train driver.  The train driver would then respond accordingly.

One of the damning criticisms of the disaster in Lac-Mégantic was that the Montréal, Maine, & Atlantic had gone to single person operation of its trains as a cost-saving measure.  This left no second set of eyes to check or second-guess the engineer.

[Brandon]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

[NE2]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

In the same way as seatbelts are safer on the Titanic.

[Brandon]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

In the same way as seatbelts are safer on the Titanic.

Considering that pipelines do not suffer catastrophic collisions they way that long trains of tanker cars can, your comparison with the HMS Titanic is highly invalid.

[Brian556]

This caboose idea is a good thought. Maybe they should be once again required, but only on high-risk trains, like oil trains.

There is a big problem with companies getting cheaper and cheaper and greedier and greedier.

Planes require two or more people for a reason. A good reason.

[US71]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

Sure! Just ask Mayflower, Arkansas.

[kkt]

Considering that pipelines do not suffer catastrophic collisions they way that long trains of tanker cars can, your comparison with the HMS Titanic is highly invalid.

They don't, but sufficiently stupid operations can cause explosions in pipelines too:

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5468

BTW, it's RMS Titanic.  HMS is for Navy ships.  RMS is for fast ocean liners that have the contract to carry the mail.

[Stephane Dumas]

They don't, but sufficiently stupid operations can cause explosions in pipelines too:

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5468

BTW, it's RMS Titanic.  HMS is for Navy ships.  RMS is for fast ocean liners that have the contract to carry the mail.

We can add also, the San Bernardino train disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster where a pretrolum pipeline was damaged by earth-moving during the crash clean-up by a train wreck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW2KSTkHuA8&index=1&list=PLAAC4B901D27645D6

[roadman]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx

You might change your opinion once you read a few of these reports.

[NE2]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

In the same way as seatbelts are safer on the Titanic.

Considering that pipelines do not suffer catastrophic collisions they way that long trains of tanker cars can, your comparison with the HMS Titanic is highly invalid.

I'm comparing the climate to the Titanic.

[Brandon]

This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.

In the same way as seatbelts are safer on the Titanic.

Considering that pipelines do not suffer catastrophic collisions they way that long trains of tanker cars can, your comparison with the HMS Titanic is highly invalid.

I'm comparing the climate to the Titanic.

Nice, but the proper term would be "human-influenced climate".  Climate change would still happen whether we're here or not.  Check the geologic record for more.

[NE2]

Yes, nice of you to admit humans are causing climate change.

[SP Cook]

If you believe that your life is harming the earth, feel free to end it.

[NE2]

Oh, it's Sippy Kook.

[Brandon]

Yes, nice of you to admit humans are causing climate change.

I've never denied that humans influence it (and that's the proper term - the causes of it are multiple, learn some science, SPUI, instead of spouting Green talking points).

If you think your existence is harming the planet, then may I suggest unplugging yourself from all that creates any and all greenhouse gases?  You use a computer, or plug in a phone, right?  The electricity made (as you are in Florida) comes from coal or natural gas.  Stop using it.  You ride a bicycle, right?  The bike was made using processes that release greenhouse gases.  Stop using it.  In fact, strip naked as your clothing even used greenhouses gasses to be made.  Stop using soap and shampoo for the same reason.  Hell, even stop using the municipal water supply and sewer system.  Both use processes that make greenhouse gasses at the power plant.  As far as I see it, you're nothing but a hypocrite, and please do us all a favor and fuck off.

[NE2]

And Brandon's a kook too.

[Brandon]

And Brandon's a kook too.

Whatever, fear-mongering fucknut.

[US 41]

And Brandon's a kook too.

Sorry, but if you think climate change is such a big deal then why are you on a roads forum. Transportation is probably the number 1 source of greenhouse gases. Cars use fuel, they make pavement somehow, and the roads in a lot of places are lit up by street lights at night. However I don't think climate change is that big of a deal.