Tag Archives: Amtrak

Railroads oppose some oil train safety measures

Repost from Politico

Documents: Railroads want to hit brakes on some oil train safeguards

By KATHRYN A. WOLFE | 6/13/14 5:08 AM EDT
A fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment in Casselton, North Dakota, on Dec. 20, 2013.
The report previews what the administration may be considering to stop crashes. | AP Photo: A fireball goes up at the site of an oil train derailment in Casselton, North Dakota, on Dec. 20, 2013.

The railroad industry is warning the White House against some potential safety rules for trains carrying explosive crude oil, saying freight and passenger rail traffic could be disrupted for years if companies must obey 30 mph speed limits, install more sophisticated brakes and keep the trains manned at all times.

The arguments, contained in documents posted after a meeting this week between railroad officials and the Office of Management and Budget, also offer a preview of what steps the Obama administration may be considering in response to oil train crashes that have struck the U.S. and Canada in the past year. Those include a disastrous July 6 explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, after an engineer left a train packed with North Dakota crude oil parked on a steep incline with brakes that may not have been properly set.

The Department of Transportation declined to comment on the documents. DOT submitted a draft rule proposal to OMB in April but has offered no details about what’s in it.

Companies represented at Tuesday’s OMB meeting included the four major freight railroads — BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX — as well as other industry groups and Amtrak, according to White House records.

While Amtrak doesn’t haul crude oil, a BNSF handout arguing against lower speed limits said the passenger rail’s travel schedules on one 1,815-mile route could be lengthened by two hours if oil trains’ top speeds are lowered to 30 mph from 50 mph. That route stretches between Aurora, Ill., and Spokane, Wash., which BNSF called its primary route for crude oil.

Slowdowns would cause “severe” impacts for the railroad’s operations, including both oil and grain shipments, BNSF said in the handout, calculating six-hour delays for freight trains along the same route. All told, the railroad said it would have to spend $2.8 billion to rebuild its lost shipping capacity during the next four years, while facing $630 million in additional annual expenses such as additional crew wages and lost productivity.

The Association of American Railroads, the freight railroad industry’s main trade group, offered a similar document on the speed limit issue.

None of the documents address the main issue people are expecting the DOT rule to address: increased safety requirements for the tanker cars that carry the oil.

Oil train traffic across the U.S. has increased 40-fold since 2008 because of booming production in places like North Dakota and western Canada. It’s also become an increasingly contentious issue for communities from California and Washington state to Albany, N.Y., and Lynchburg, Va.

The documents may not accurately reflect DOT’s undisclosed draft — the railroads may have been blindly making a case for what they don’t want to see happen. But they reveal that industry insiders have given thought to potential regulations that would go much further than the mostly voluntary measures DOT has imposed so far.

Earlier this year, DOT announced that railroads had voluntarily agreed to restrict some oil trains to 40 mph in certain populous areas.

But lowering the speed limit to 30 mph would harm “delivery capability” for BNSF’s oil customers, the railroad said in the document. To keep up with demand, it said, it would have to add an additional 11,280 tank cars to its crude oil fleet.

In the other documents posted on OMB’s website:

— A handout from CSX argues against requiring electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems, saying the technology is “expensive and only works if the entire train is equipped.” The company says the brakes would have “limited use and minimal safety impact.”

As part of an existing voluntary agreement between the industry and DOT, railroads agreed to equip all trains pulling 20 or more carloads of crude oil with other types of advanced braking systems — either distributed power or two-way telemetry end-of-train devices.

— And a final handout, whose authorship is unclear, argues against requiring that crude oil trains never be left unattended. It says “attending crude oil trains from origin to destination will increase congestion, require additional handling, and significantly drive up costs,” including $96 per hour for a two-person crew.

It also says that “appropriate securement and security measures are already in place to ensure safe movement of crude oil shipments.”

Bakken rail network is one big traffic snarl – crushing delays for AMTRAK

Repost from MOTHERBOARD
[Editor: The author of this article, Michael Byrne, lives within sight of a major rail throughway, and offers first-hand observations about the “crushing delays” on passenger rail service.  – RS]

The Oil Boom Is Putting the Squeeze on America’s Passenger Rail Network

Written by Michael Byrne  |  April 19, 2014
OilTrain(Motherboard)
Image: BNSF oil train/Roy Luck

I’ve boasted about my front yard proximity to the northern United States’ dominant freight rail line on Motherboard before. It’s just right there, across a patch of grass and down an embankment: the Northern Transcon, pushing miles and miles of connected freight carriages to and from the Pacific Northwest’s port cities. It’s a real-time view of America’s goods economy as it breathes in and out. That economy, as revealed by my Transcon neighbor, is currently hyperventilating, and the flow of traffic is often nearly continuous, at least within the boundaries of single track (single lane) line.

The flood of trains traveling over the Northern Transcon in the year 2014 has a lot to do with oil. The line, the property of the BNSF railroad, connects with the Bakken formation oil fields in North Dakota, where the railroad has been dumping money lately in a race to upgrade and expand its local capacity/network: a North Dakota oil boom has brought with it a North Dakota rail boom. Oil trains, now buffered at each end by an empty box car for safety, exit the Bakken zone heading for Great Lakes ports and refineries to the east and, to the west, the export terminals around Seattle and Portland. It’s reasonable to say that the oil boom would only be possible with the railroad.

In the late-’90s BNSF reopened a third route connecting the Midwest (including the now booming oil fields) and the Northwest, the once-mothballed Stampede Pass over the Cascade Mountains. Overall, the railway’s been booming like crazy since then. 2014 should be a record for the railroad, thanks largely to crude oil shipments. But, after this past winter, the Bakken fields’ associated rail network is one big traffic snarl, and the railway is pouring money and manpower into the region to untangle it: 500 locomotives, 5,000 railcars, 300 new crew members. Of course, the company’s interest is in getting oil out of the region, but a cruel side effect of the jam is crushing delays within the United States’ passenger rail system.

Those systems, dominated by state-pseudo-owned railway Amtrak, typically run on tracks owned by freight railways—leasing trackage rights—except in a few special areas, like California, the Northeast Corridor, and parts of Michigan and New York state. Elsewhere, particularly across the country’s midsection, passenger trains are at the mercy of private freight-hauling corporations. If you’ve ever made a cross-country rail trek, you are most likely already aware that on-time performance just isn’t a relevant concept. Last month, the Empire Builder, the Amtrak route that travels from Chicago to Portland and Seattle via BNSF’s Northern Transcon, was on-schedule 17.4 percent of the time.

We’re not talking about minutes either. The westbound Empire Builder is scheduled to pass through here at eight in the morning; usually, it shows up mid-afternoon, if not eveningtime. Finally, at the beginning of this month, Amtrak took the rare step of admitting defeat. It changed the schedule, padding an extra three hours onto the eastbound train schedule and an hour on the westbound (which is still hardcore wishful thinking or a total delusion). The pleasure of spending nine hours at a lonesome Midwestern rail station in the dead of winter for a late train is a distinctly American feeling (or Siberian, perhaps), putting the shitty microwaved cafe car food and overpriced Heineken into perspective, if the train isn’t out of both already.

Perhaps even more pressing is the situation in Minneapolis, as BNSF delays hit the Twin Cities’ local commuter line, the Northstar. Freight delays have put not only the entire existence of the (relatively new) service in jeopardy, but a forthcoming light-rail line as well. As is typical, the BNSF response is petulance. From a recent Minneapolis StarTribute editorial: “As BNSF Vice President Bob Lease points out, the conflict with commuter rail is almost unavoidable; the system is built for freight, which tolerates a degree of delay that commuters cannot abide.”

Unfortunately, as much of a shrug as Lease’s comment is, he has a point. Passenger rail service shouldn’t have to rely on freight rail companies being nice. Passenger rail needs public investment—new, faster tracks—and it needs the teeth to punish its corporate landlords for 17.4 percent on-time performance, when that performance is nigh entirely at the whims of said landlord.

Sacramento officials concerned, will meet with Area Council of Governments

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: Excellent article by Bee reporters Bizjak & Tate.  It’s encouraging that Sacramento is waking up to the threat of catastrophic accidents.  We will want to keep an eye on the April 22 meeting of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.  – RS]

Refinery plans to ship 100 train cars of crude oil through Sacramento

By Tony Bizjak and Curtis Tate, The Sacramento Bee
Published: Wednesday, Apr.  2, 2014

A Bay Area refinery’s plan to run up to 100 train cars of highly flammable crude oil daily through Sacramento is prompting a late push by area leaders to protect cities on the rail line.

Sacramento officials say they only recently learned that a proposed rail terminal at the Valero company’s refinery in Benicia could dramatically increase the number of trains carrying crude oil through the region, including through populated downtowns. They say they are scrambling to fashion a joint statement to Valero officials expressing concerns.

The trains would travel on the Union Pacific line that runs through both the Roseville and downtown Sacramento railyards, as well as through downtown West Sacramento and Davis. Those are the same tracks that carry Capitol Corridor passenger trains between Sacramento and the Bay Area.

The Valero rail terminal is one of several being proposed by refineries responding to a major shift in how crude oil is transported nationally. Currently, the Benicia refinery receives most crude via pipeline and ships. But Valero and other companies are moving quickly toward more rail transport to align with the boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in inland areas like North Dakota, where much of the new oil is a lighter, more flammable type from the Bakken oil fields.

“These rail shipments are the wave of the future,” Sacramento city official Fran Halbakken said, “but there is not much information out there.”

Data compiled by the California Energy Commission shows crude oil shipments into the state via rail from other states jumped from  1 million barrels in 2012 to more than  6 million in 2013. Local fire officials, who would be the first responders in case of crashes or derailments, say they do not receive detailed information on how many of those train cars come through Sacramento.

“We’re trying to figure what is the baseline that comes through now,” said Davis city official Mike Webb. “All jurisdictions would want to know.”

Union Pacific officials say their company, one of the major rail transporters in California, shipped less than 1,000 carloads of crude oil statewide on a monthly basis last year – or 33 cars a day. A UP spokesman declined this week to say how much of that goes through Sacramento. “We are not currently breaking out how much crude we move through a specific community,” UP’s Aaron Hunt said. “We are only giving out our state number.”

BNSF, the other major rail transporter in California, also declined to discuss crude oil routing information.

Valero’s terminal project description offers a brief but clear statement on plans for major shipments through Sacramento: “(Union Pacific Railroad)-operated locomotives would haul up to 100 crude oil rail cars a day from the UPRR Roseville railyard to the refinery,” the report states.

And more rail shipments could be on their way: Phillips 66 says it intends to begin deliveries of crude by rail sometime next year to its coastal refinery in Santa Maria. Union Pacific would deliver as many as five 80-car trains a week of oil “from a variety of sources in North America.” One route could pass through Sacramento.

Officials with the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response say refineries around the state may ultimately have the capacity to process up to 143 million barrels of crude shipments via rail a year, far more than the  6 million shipped last year.

Last year, a train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in a Quebec town, sparking a massive fire that killed 47 people and leveled the town center. Subsequent derailments in Alabama and North Dakota, though not fatal, caused fires and evacuations and showed that disaster could strike again.

While such incidents are rare, local fire officials say the pressure is on to be more prepared for that possibility.

“Any time you increase numbers, you increase the probability of problems that would come with that,” said Sacramento City Interim Fire Chief Dan Haverty.

Last week, The Sacramento Bee reported that McClellan Business Park is being used as a transfer station where oil, including Bakken crude, is being moved from rail cars to tanker trucks. Local safety officials told The Bee they knew little about the McClellan operation.

Valero and Benicia officials are expected to publish a draft environmental impact report later this month on the company’s planned rail terminal next to Interstate 680 just north of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Sacramento officials say they likely will issue a joint statement to Valero on what they think should be done to increase safety in “up-line” cities.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments is planning a meeting of its 32 local cities and counties on April 22 to discuss the issue.

West Sacramento Fire Chief Rick Martinez said officials may ask that Valero be required to finance extra emergency training and safety equipment for up-line communities, and that there be tight rules on when or whether trains are allowed to sit on track sidings.

He said the emerging national discussion about rail safety may provide a platform for cities to push for other safety improvements, such as better “real-time” information on what materials are coming through town, so fire and hazardous materials crews know what they are getting into as they head to a call.

“As they look at this Bakken oil, is there a way through technology to get more information to local agencies?” Martinez said. “We are trying to take advantage of the interest to pose the questions that may guide” future regulations.

Aides to Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, say she has begun exploring the issue as well. Matsui’s office issued a statement this week, saying “it is imperative that the rail cars are safe and that local agencies are prepared for the increased risk.” Aides said Matsui sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security recently, “seeking additional federal funding for first-responder training, arguing that the increased risk posed by these oil cars warrants additional federal funds.”

Although the federal government regulates rail shipments, federal rules haven’t caught up to the surge in oil traffic on the nation’s rail network. That’s left local leaders and community activists in cities around the country at the forefront of pushing for changes in state and federal laws.

Last week, the city councils of Berkeley and Richmond voted to oppose crude shipments on rail lines through their cities. The resolutions call for state lawmakers and members of Congress to seek tougher regulations.

Several environmental groups filed a lawsuit last week against pipeline operator Kinder Morgan and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The groups said the agency quietly issued a permit to Kinder Morgan for a crude-by-rail facility in February without reviewing potential environmental and health impacts.

“We don’t accept that as a foregone conclusion,” said Diane Bailey, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups in the lawsuit.

A group of community activists in Benicia and Martinez has been trying to stop Valero and another refiner, Tesoro, from expanding their crude oil deliveries by rail. And they’re pressing local, state and federal officials to push for tougher oversight of crude oil shipments by rail.

“People are afraid that anybody along the rail line could become the next (Quebec),” said Andres Soto, a community activist in Benicia.

Oil industry officials say fears of derailments and fires are overstated. The Association of American Railroads, an industry group, says 99.997 percent of hazardous materials shipped by rail reach their destination without incident.

Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, dismissed the movement to oppose new terminals and additional rail shipments, saying “you’re always going to see the anti-fossil fuel mentality in California.” He said, given the cost savings, “the vast majority of Californians will be happy to get Bakken crude.”

Oil trains delay Amtrak trains

Repost from The Hill

Oil shipments blocking Amtrak trains

By Keith Laing
January 29, 2014, 06:02 pm
              Getty Images

Freight trains carrying crude oil shipments are blocking Amtrak trains in the northwest United States, according to complaints from the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP).

The passenger railway advocacy group wrote in a letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx that oil-by-rail shipments are blocking trains on Amtrak’s Empire Builder route, which runs from Chicago to Portland and Seattle.

Crude oil train shipments have come under fire after a series of derailments. The railroad passenger association said trains that stay on the tracks are also causing problems for Amtrak passengers.

“Delays of up to eight to ten hours have plagued the Empire Builder, inflicting extreme inconvenience—often at considerable personal expense—to literally thousands of Amtrak passengers and their families,” NARP President Ross Capon wrote to Foxx.

“While severe weather has played a contributing factor, the delays are in large part due to the logjam of rail congestion caused by hundreds of additional freight trains transporting crude oil extracted in North Dakota to refineries in other parts of the U.S.,” Capon continued.

Capon said NARP “recognizes the key role that America’s freight railroads play in fueling economic activity in the U.S.”

But he said that Amtrak and the freight rail company that operates the tracks the Empire Builder line runs on should be able to work out a better scheduling agreement.

“Amtrak and host railroad BNSF Railway Company must come together to ensure that the Empire Builder’s passengers have continued access to adequate, reliable public transportation,” he said. “The Empire Builder serves communities in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington State, and Oregon, with some 18.8 million people living within 25 miles of an Empire Builder station. The train acts as a vital transportation link for hundreds of rural communities to essential services in urban population centers.”

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline have said there would be less crude oil shipment by rail if the controversial project was allowed to be built. The Obama administration has resisted calls for constructing the pipeline, citing environmental concerns, even as it plans to ramp up its regulation of oil trains.

Capon said it was particularly important for officials to figure out a way to make service reliable on Amtrak’s northwest line because it travels through several smaller states that have sparse air service.

“Amtrak’s Empire Builder carried 536,400 passengers in fiscal year 2013 along a 2,256 mile corridor that has little in the way of transportation alternatives, and regularly experiences extreme winter weather conditions that close down airports and road networks,” he said. “Without a fully functioning rail service, many of these Americans will be effectively stranded.”

Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari told The Hill that the company is dealing with the oil train-induced delays by shipping stations in Grand Forks, Devil Lake, Rugby, N.D. to make up time on its overnight cross country trip.

Magliari said Amtrak was negotiating with BNSF Railway for an equitable solution.

“We met two weeks ago with BNSF,” he said. “This dates back well before current winter weather blast. They told us they are making capacity improvements, but we should not expect to see an improvement in how our trains managed with their tracks until later this year.”

Magliari said the detours around trains that are carrying crude oil “requires passengers to disembark in Fargo, N.D. at 3:35 a.m. to get on chartered buses to take them to the three missing stops.

“We’re going to keep working with BNSF to try to mitigate these delays and inform our passengers what’s going on, but we’re concerned about this for our passengers and for our business,” he said. “This is our most popular, by ridership, overnight route in the country. It’s going to celebrate 85th anniversary later this month.”

Amtrak acquired the Empire Builder route from a private rail company when it was created by Congress in 1971.

A BNSF spokeswoman told the Grand Forks Herald newspaper that it was “working” with Amtrak to find a solution to the delays.

The company blamed the train backup on winter weather in the midwest U.S.

“BNSF service is being impacted by extreme cold and winter weather conditions across the Midwest,” BNSF spokeswoman Amy McBeth told the North Dakota paper.

“The extreme cold and snow are presenting significant operating challenges for our operations,” McBeth continued. “To recover, we are operating our westbound trains on our route through New Rockford and eastbound traffic through our Devils Lake route. We will continue working with Amtrak as our network recovers.”