Category Archives: DOT-117

Bakken Crude, CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, DOT-111A, DOT-117, Electronically controlled pneumatic braking (ECP), Oil stabilization, Train braking systems

Railway Age Magazine: The importance of little accidents

Repost from Railway Age Magazine
[Editor: At every turn, when an article mentions the North Dakota requirement for crude oil “stabilization,” I must remind the reader that North Dakota does NOT require crude oil “conditioning” as is required in Texas.  Conditioning would make the oil much safer.  – RS]

The importance of little accidents

By  David Schanoes, July 20, 2015 
You know the kind I mean: the ones where nobody gets hurt, nothing blows up, and nobody shows up, except you.

You get there. There’s no press, no NTSB “go team,” no competing reflectorized vests with initials like FBI, DHS, ATF, PHMSA, DEA, FRA, NTSB. No senators expressing shock and dismay and demanding that heads will—as the cameras do—roll.

There’s just you. The wreckmaster is on the way. The track supervisor too. The local fire department is there, and the cops. Everybody is thinking, “What a mess.” And looking at you.

And you know what? It’s better this way. We might actually be able to learn something. Less noise, more signal.

We’ve had a couple of the little ones recently.

First, on July 16, a BNSF unit crude oil train derailed 22 cars near Culbertson, Mont. Three tank cars ruptured, spilling approximately 35,000 gallons of crude. No fire, no explosion, no headlines, none of that stuff I listed above and that I would be happy to never list again.

Now, if I were BNSF, or the NTSB, or FRA, or DOT, or PHMSA, I’d be very interested in this no-fire, no-explosion derailment. BNSF hasn’t identified the source of the crude, but since the train was loaded by Savage Bakken Oil Services in Trenton, N. Dak., I think it’s safe to assume that the contents of this train was Bakken crude.

Last April, North Dakota required that Bakken crude be stabilized (reducing its volatility) prior to transport. So I’d be very interested in knowing if this train was transporting the stabilized crude.

Even more recently, USDOT has established new specs for tank cars handling unpressurized flammable materials, replacing DOT 111 and 111A specs for those cars with the new 117 classification. Another “interim” car, CPC 1232, is currently in service.

So I’d be very interested in knowing if the three cars that ruptured were 111, 111A, or 1232 models. ’d also be very interested in knowing if other cars that did derail but did not rupture are 111, 111A, or 1232 models.

DOT has also stipulated that CBR trains be fitted for ECP, electro-pneumatic braking, meaning of course, that the CBR tank cars must be fitted for ECP braking.

ECP braking is not a new concept. It’s been around for at least, what, 60 years? Instead of using changes in air pressure traveling throughout the entire length of the train to signal for the application of brakes, electro-pneumatic braking sends an electronic signal to receivers on each car’s air brake apparatus to initiate braking. “Lag time” is virtually eliminated; brakes set up simultaneously, smoothly, with dramatic reduction of in-train forces. Great idea—for passenger trains, where all the cars share common electrical connections with the locomotive.

ECP may be a great idea for freight trains. It’s definitely an expensive one, as the 90,000 or so tank cars currently more or less captured in hazmat/CBR transport have no electrical connections to anything.

So I’d be interested in knowing, with ECP braking, how many of the 22 cars that did derail would not have derailed. I’d be interested in knowing if the three tank cars that ruptured after derailing (a) wouldn’t have derailed to begin with and (b) would not have been subject to “rupture forces” due to additional impact from following cars if ECP braking had been installed.

Sounds like a job for TTCI, if you ask me.

And we had a second little accident on Friday, July 17, 2015, right here in New York City. Initially reported as a “sideswipe,” it was in fact a collision between two LIRR passenger trains. A westbound train was stopped at an interlocking signal at HALL. An eastbound train violated a signal displaying “stop,” and proceeded to collide with the stopped train. You can see a summary of the accident on, where else? YouTube. The summary begins around 3:31 into the video.

Again, no injuries, no fires, no explosions. But a lot to learn, because at 13:50 into the video, the president of the LIRR says that because this stop signal violation and resulting collision took place in the interlocking, “PTC isn’t going to help.”

This is startling news, and I hope it’s just a misunderstanding, as LIRR’s approved PTCIP (PTC Implementation Plan), available in public docket FRA-2010-0031, states:

The LIRR PTC system will enforce a stop at every Home Signal displaying a Stop aspect. Transponders provide the onboard computer with the information that the train is approaching a Home Signal and the distance to that Home Signal. The onboard system uses this data to generate a speed profile with a 0 mph target speed at a target point in approach to the signal. . . .

Now, back in the day, “home signals” meant the extreme outer opposing signals of an interlocking. Signals within the interlocking might be referred to as intermediate signals, although the requirements for complying with a stop indication from such a signal within the interlocking limits was exactly the same as that for the home signal.

The distinction between “home” and “intermediate” interlocking signals has operating significance only in defining the geographical boundaries of the interlocking in which all the interlocking rules apply, including stop at every signal displaying stop.

In addition 49 CFR 236.1005(a)(1)(i) (“Requirements for Positive Train Control systems) requires at interlockings where PTC routes intersect that PTC enforce “the stop on all routes.”

It’s the little things that mean the most, sometimes, so I’m looking forward to the little answers.

Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, DOT-112, DOT-117, Ethanol, Explosion, Tank car design, Tank car retrofit

New Brunswick derailment: some tank cars fared better than others

Repost from McClatchy DC News

Tank car upgrades effective in derailments, Canadian report shows

By Curtis Tate, McClatchy Washington Bureau, June 19, 2015

Tank car improvements required by the U.S. and Canadian governments last month should cut the risk of spills and fires in oil train accidents, Canadian investigators have concluded.

The finding came from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s investigation of on a derailment in January 2014 in Plaster Rock, New Brunswick.

While the report pinpointed a broken wheel as the cause, the derailment provided a rare side-by-side comparison of the performance of two different types of tank cars in use for decades on the North American rail system.

A type of tank car called the DOT-112 survived the Plaster Rock derailment with no impact damage, according to the report, released Friday. Four such cars carrying butane derailed.

In contrast, two DOT-111 cars carrying crude oil sustained punctures, spilling more than 60,000 gallons. The spilled oil caught fire.

The DOT-112 cars have features very similar to the new DOT-117 standard unveiled by regulators on May 1. Both include half-inch thick shields that fully protect both ends of the car, thicker 9/16-inch shells and thermal insulation around the tank shell enclosed with an additional layer of steel.

Typically, the DOT-111 cars have 7/16-inch shells and none of the other protections.

As McClatchy reported last year, the DOT-112 was beefed up after a series of catastrophic tank car explosions in the 1970s that killed railroad workers and firefighters and caused extensive property damage. After the 112 was upgraded, the accidents subsided.

But the DOT-111 fleet remained unchanged, even when railroads began hauling larger quantities of ethanol a decade ago, followed by crude oil five years ago.

The Canadian report lists 13 other rail accidents involving crude oil or ethanol since 2005 that illustrate the vulnerabilities of the DOT-111. Three of those derailments took place this year, including two in Ontario and one in West Virginia.

The list also includes the 2013 disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in 47 fatalities. The families of the victims and their attorneys earlier this month unanimously ratified a proposed $350 million settlement package.

The U.S. Department of Transportation last month required that new tank cars carrying crude oil and ethanol meet the DOT-117 standard beginning in October. Tank car owners, which are typically railcar manufacturers, financial firms and energy companies, must comply with a series of retrofit deadlines for DOT-111 cars that are spread out over a decade.

The oil industry says the timeline is too short, while environmentalists say it’s too long. Both have since taken the department to court.

Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-117, Explosion, Federal pre-emption, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Hazmat notification, Tank car retrofit, Train braking systems, Volatility

New rules for rail tankers face years of debate, delay

Repost from The State, Columbia, SC

New rules for rail tankers face years of debate, delay

By Curtis Tate, McClatchy Newspapers, May 2, 2015

The U.S. and Canadian governments have unveiled a long-awaited new standard for the tank cars used to transport crude oil and ethanol that includes numerous safety improvements.

But it is far from the final word on efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic derailments, such as the one that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, nearly two years ago. And industry and environmental groups are bracing for a court fight over portions of the regulations announced Friday that they don’t like.

Most of the current tank car fleet that doesn’t meet the new requirements will be allowed to carry ethanol and some types of crude oil for eight more years. Environmental groups and some lawmakers objected Friday to the extended timeline.

It will be two years before the Energy and Transportation departments complete a study on the properties of crude oil and how they affect the way it reacts in derailments. While the rail industry supports the new tank car standard, it opposes the requirement for an electronic braking system on certain trains.

The regulation also expands the amount of information about rail shipments of flammable liquids that will be available to emergency responders, but incorporates it into an existing regulation that would exempt it from public disclosure.

In Washington on Friday, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and his Canadian counterpart, Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt, rolled out the new regulations, which are generally in sync on both sides of the border, given the seamless nature of the North American rail system.

“Tank cars cross the border every day,” Raitt said in a news conference with Foxx, “so it’s important that the regulations apply equally in both countries.”

The new tank car, called the DOT-117, will have features that are designed to prevent it from puncturing in a derailment and to better withstand prolonged exposure to fire.

The regulation requires that beginning Oct. 1 new tank cars built to transport flammable liquids have thicker shells, full-height shields on each end of the cars and a layer of thermal insulation on the outside. The new standard also requires more protection for valves and outlets.

The railroad industry supports the new tank car design but opposes the requirement that certain types of trains be equipped with electronically controlled brakes by January 2021.

Since the late 19th century, trains have operated with mechanical air brakes. The Federal Railroad Administration has said that electronic brakes would enable trains to stop more quickly and could prevent the accordion-shaped pileups characteristic of recent oil train accidents.

In a phone call with reporters Friday, Ed Hamberger, the president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, a leading industry group, criticized the braking requirement, saying it wouldn’t prevent accidents.

The industry could avoid the requirement by operating the trains it applies to at 30 mph or limiting them to 69 cars. Either way, Hamberger said, it would be costly and disruptive.

The industry is taking a look at its options to challenge the requirement, Hamberger said

Foxx said the electronic braking was reliable technology and that he hoped the railroads would accept it. He was also confident that the regulation would withstand a court challenge.

The rule might also face a challenge from environmentalists, who object to the retrofitting timeline. There have been four major oil train derailments since the beginning of the year, and environmental groups fear there might be more before the new requirements kick in.

CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, DOT-117, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fire, High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs), Rail Safety, Tank car design

NY Times: U.S. Sets New Rules for Oil Trains – Sen. Schumer: DOT gave railroads too much time to remove unsafe cars

Repost from the New York Times

U.S. Sets New Rules for Oil Shipments by Rail

By Jad Mouawad

An oil train in Everett, Wash. There have been five explosions and spills involving oil trains this year, four in the United States and one in Canada. Credit Elaine Thompson/Associated Press

Ending months of delays and uncertainty, federal regulators on Friday disclosed new rules for safer transportation of crude oil by trains, introducing a new tank car standard and mandating the use of new braking technology.

The regulations, more than two years in the making, followed a spate of derailments, oil spills and fiery explosions involving oil trains around the country that have highlighted the risks involved in shipping large quantities of explosive material on rails through cities.

The rules state that the oldest, least safe tank cars should be replaced within three years with new cars that have thicker shells, higher safety shields and better fire protection. A later generation of tank cars, built since 2011 with more safety features, will have to be retrofitted or replaced by 2020.

It is the second time in weeks that the Department of Transportation has announced new rules for rail shipments to instill public confidence. Last month, it set lower speed limits for oil trains going through urban areas.

There have been five explosions and spills this year alone, four in the United States and one in Canada. In July 2013, 47 people died in Canada after a runway train derailed and exploded in the city of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.

“I am hopeful the rail industry will accept this rule, and will follow this rule,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said at a news conference in Washington. He appeared with Canada’s transport minister, Lisa Raitt, who said Canadian and American regulation would be aligned.

There has been growing pressure from local governments, members of Congress, safety experts and environmental advocates for federal action. The question before the administration was to determine what level of protection the new generation of cars should have and how quickly to roll them out.

The new rules create a new standard, “high-hazard flammable trains,” defined as “a continuous block of 20 or more tank cars loaded with flammable liquid or 35 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid dispersed through a train.”

By 2018, the rule would phase out older tank cars, DOT-111s, long known to be ill suited for transporting flammable material. A newer generation of cars, known as CPC-1232, would have to be retired or refitted to meet the new standard, DOT-117, by 2020.

All cars built under the DOT-117 standard after Oct. 1, 2015, will have a thicker nine-sixteenths-inch tank shell, a one-half-inch shield running the full height of the front and back of a tank car, thermal protection and improved pressure-relief valves and bottom outlet valves.

Regulators retreated from a provision that would have forced railroads to notify communities of any oil train traffic. Instead, railroads will be required to have a “point of contact” for information related to the routing of hazardous materials.

Some critics asserted after Friday’s announcement that the regulations would do little to prevent another spill or explosion while older cars remained in operation.

On Thursday, seven senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, unveiled a bill that would seek to impose a $175 per shipment fee on older cars to speed up their removal from service.

Senator Schumer said Friday’s announcement gave railroads too much time to remove older cars from service.

“The good news is that the standards are predictable, but the bad news is that the phaseout time is too lenient,” he said. “Our railroads are changing, and are getting much busier because of all this oil business, and they will have to adapt. They can’t do it the old way.”

The Association of American Railroads said it backed the new tank car requirements but objected to a requirement that railroads should adopt new electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, or E.C.P., starting in 2021 for oil trains.

“The D.O.T. couldn’t make a safety case for E.C.P. but forged ahead anyway,” Edward R. Hamberger, the president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement. “I have a hard time believing the determination to impose E.C.P. brakes is anything but a rash rush to judgment.”