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?
[
Full disclosure: I know this reporter - personally]
McClatchy Washington Bureau: West Virginia, Canada derailments renew focus on tank cars (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/17/256891/west-virginia-derailment-renews.html)
QuoteA 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIn 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 (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/15/256709/another-oil-train-derails-ignites.html)
QuoteAnother 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteThe 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 (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/06/255781/oil-train-regulations-hit-final.html)
QuoteA 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteAmong 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.
QuoteNo 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.
Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
Didn't Canada outlaw the cars that blow up?
Yes and no. It's going to take many years to replace all those cars.
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on February 18, 2015, 08:59:52 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 17, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 19, 2015, 10:31:01 PM
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.
This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2015, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
This is why pipelines are far safer for oil (and other similar liquid) transport.
Sure! Just ask Mayflower, Arkansas.
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
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 (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.
Quote from: kkt on February 20, 2015, 05:18:12 PM
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 (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
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2015, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2015, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 20, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
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.
Yes, nice of you to admit humans are causing climate change.
If you believe that your life is harming the earth, feel free to end it.
Oh, it's Sippy Kook.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 08:07:28 AM
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.
And Brandon's a kook too.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 09:55:06 AM
And Brandon's a kook too.
Whatever, fear-mongering fucknut.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 09:55:06 AM
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.
I could go for some global warming right now. We had a foot of snow, followed by record low temperatures (-32 in one location about an hour from me), followed by more snow and wintry precip.
Funny how it used to be called "global warming" until the lid got blown off that concept; now they call it "climate change" which can mean either warming or cooling.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 21, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
I could go for some global warming right now. We had a foot of snow, followed by record low temperatures (-32 in one location about an hour from me), followed by more snow and wintry precip.
Funny how it used to be called "global warming" until the lid got blown off that concept; now they call it "climate change" which can mean either warming or cooling.
It didn't get blown off; that's still the underlying concept. It's just that people were getting confused by the name, thinking it would mean winters would go away, so they changed the name so that people wouldn't stop believing in the phenomenon when their observation didn't match the concept. I guess they forgot to take into account the fact that the mere act of changing the name would engender as much doubt as the misleading old name.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 21, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Funny how it used to be called "global warming" until the lid got blown off that concept; now they call it "climate change" which can mean either warming or cooling.
I am pretty convinced that excessive CO2 emissions are impacting the global climate (and the (relative) warmth of the Atlantic Ocean off the U.S. coast has contributed to the heavy snowfall in eastern New England).
What I am
not convinced about are the remedies. Smart Growth and light rail projects will do little (if anything) to reduce carbon emissions.
Any project purporting reduction in CO2 emissions must be priced so that only the cheapest (and implicitly the most cost-effective) are implemented. One of the cheapest ways is to displace coal-fired electric generation (especially older and usually the dirtiest power plants) with other technologies such as natural gas (still has some CO2 emissions) or nuclear power (zero emissions).
Quote from: Brandon on February 21, 2015, 09:16:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 08:07:28 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 09:55:06 AM
And Brandon's a kook too.
Quote from: Brandon on February 21, 2015, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 21, 2015, 09:55:06 AM
And Brandon's a kook too.
Whatever, fear-mongering fucknut.
I've noticed a common thread that runs among those of a certain extreme political persuasion. They seem to think that humans are parasites upon the earth, much like fleas on a dog or tapeworms in a cat. They believe that the earth would be better off if humans weren't here. The only problem is, without humans, there is no purpose for the earth. I realize that many of these same extremists have no religious beliefs, but the earth was created to sustain us, not the other way around. The resources were put here for us to use. They do us no good if they remain buried underneath the ground.
Can I delete a thread I started?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 21, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.tickld.com%2Flive%2F1152585.jpg&hash=9e5f0e5b68f7e4d986c837fb425216c28e5dc46c)
Locking thread since the subject got lost in the shuffle of... randomness. Please read the rules about politics and flaming