End view of likely the last loco with no tank cars still attached
Picture (taken well before this incident) of lead locomotive (MMA 5017) with a remote control system in the converted caboose.
%20MMA%20(BAR)%20Brownville%20Jct.,%20ME%20002%20(2).JPG)
Posted on 07/10/2013 10:47:48 AM PDT by thackney
As the smoke clears (literally) in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, after a runaway train packed with crude oil tankers crashed July 6, the oil industry is coming to terms with a business that has perhaps grown too far too fast. The Lac-Megantic accident is shining an unwelcome spotlight on the lack of regulatory oversight on oil by rail in both the US and Canada. The fact that the rail cars (belonging to the Maine, Montreal & Atlantic rail company) that crashed and exploded were considered unfit to carry hazardous materials sharpens that focus.
Getting landlocked crude out of newer fields in North Dakota, Canada and other far flung parts of North America has become an obsession with producers, traders and refiners, the latter group looking lustfully at the cheaper feedstock.
The oil rush has changed the face of rail in North America. In a country where passenger and cargo-bearing rail was largely replaced by the car and large 18-wheel trucks half a century ago, the speed with which new railroad lines, railcars and loading facilities are being built is simply astonishing.
Today around one million barrels per day of crude oil is moved via rail across the US and Canada. To put that into perspective, it equates to more than the total daily output of the UK North Sea, which fell below 1.0m b/d last year. Or to roughly four VLCC’s worth of crude oil every week. In other words, it is a lot of oil.
And this is set to grow. In the US alone, crude by rail shipments are expected to reach to near 1.10 million b/d at the end of 2014, up from about 718,000 b/d this month and about 156,000 b/d in January of 2012, according to Bentek Energy, a unit of Platts.
The Railway Association of Canada estimated that as many as 140,000 carloads of crude, totaling about 91 million barrels, will be shipped on Canadian tracks this year, compared with 500 carloads, or about 325,000 barrels, in 2009.
But the headlong dive into crude by rail may have just been stopped short by the Lac-Megantic incident. And, just as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 spelled the end of single-hull oil tankers coming to the US (and banned them worldwide in 2010), the Lac-Megantic crash would spell the end of using DOT-111A railcars. And it could herald a new rash of regulation for the rail industry.
A US National Transportation Safety Board study in 2012 said that 69% of tank cars are DOT-111A. In Canada, these are known as CTX-111A, and comprise 80% of the fleet, according to Canada Transportation Safety Board’s chief investigator Donald Ross.
Ross said that changes as a result of the MM&A investigation could include thicker steel or shields for the tank cars. The American NTSB had already changed the specifications of DOT-111 from October 2011 to include thicker shells and a ½ inch thick head shield. But there is no rule on retrofitting existing cars, which have a long service life.
Like the single-hull tanker post-Exxon Valdez, DOT-111As could be the next casualty of the oil rush in North America.
But there are other issues raising their ugly heads, including the state of some of the railroad tracks around both countries. While the oil industry is spending billions on railcars and loading/unloading facilities, who is spending the money to maintain and upgrade the railroads?
As Avrom Shtern, a rail-transport policy representative with Montreal-based Green Coalition, said in Platts Oilgram News July 9, Canadian government’s budget cuts have left the rail industry to police itself. “That’s unacceptable. You can’t just write rules and expect the railways to police themselves,” he said.
Also, questions are rife over the capital adequacy of smaller gathering and distribution companies such as World Fuel, which owned the oil on board the MM&A train. Will they have the financial stability to survive a lawsuit?
The crash was only a few days ago, so most of these questions will be answered over time. Crude by rail has come a long way in a short time. But the Quebec accident could slow the pace and the way in which the industry grows going forward, in both Canada and the US.
My local ABC, NBC & CBS all include the story at their web site.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/channel?section=news/national_world&id=7102517
http://houston.cbslocal.com/world-news/
http://www.click2houston.com/news/nationalnews
Found so far:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/transys.pdf
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/etudes-studies/sr9401/sr9401.asp#a3
Can someone with more direct train knowledge provide information or speculation on the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Nine black tanker cars filled with crude oil still stand silently in the town of Nantes.
They remained behind when the rest of the train they were attached to broke away and began rolling early Saturday down an incline, seven miles uphill from Lac-Megantic.
...
His engineer reported having deployed the hand brakes on a number of tanker cars and on the engines. The brakes on the locomotives eventually held, he said.
They stopped a quarter of a mile away from their original parking spot in Nantes, he said. They did not make it to Lac-Megantic.
He could not explain what happened with the brakes on the 72 oil cars that did.
- - - - - - -
Please ping those that might be able to explain more how cars might separate in such an event.
I was being semi-sarcastic about the “Greens”; I wouldn’t put it past them to cause an environmental disaster to prove that they are right in their opposition to whatever technology they are currently against.
This wreck was created.
1. locomotives have a deadman switch which must be disengaged to let the engine move.
2. When train cars are unintentionally separated, all brakes on the train are automaticaly engaged.
3. It is surprising that tank cars filled with crude oil would explode is surprising as the stuff is not very volatile.
2. The tank cars only separated from the train at the derailment point.
3. Crude can have all sorts of hydrocarbons present. Where does straight run gasoline come from? Also look up BLEVE.
I don’t believe that there are any normal circumstances that would cause the cars to break away from each other. The couplings must have been released. I’m thinking teenagers pulling a tragic prank.
I believe you are talking about moving by the engine, not a gravity roll as happened here.
2. When train cars are unintentionally separated, all brakes on the train are automatically engaged.
Yes, each car has an air reservoir tank that provides pressure to engage the brakes on loss of main air supply. But those tanks don't last forever. They are intended to give the train operators time to set the hand brakes. They are not intended to hold the train indefinitely while unattended.
3. It is surprising that tank cars filled with crude oil would explode is surprising as the stuff is not very volatile.
The tank cars were DOT-111 design which US National Transportation Safety Board has advised these, when used to carry ethanol and crude oil, be reinforced to make them more resistant to punctures if trains derail.
The tanks didn't initially explode, but several did leak and a large pool fire started. Several tanks that did not rupture but sat in the burning pool eventually did explode after being heated and building up significant pressure.
You might want to look at the link in post #16 where the Chairman of the railroad operating this train talked about the engineer who left the train unattended did not appear to set sufficient hand brakes.
Thank you. The little I know about them seemed to require some intention action, rather than a loss of power, pressure, etc.
There could have been some attempt during the first fire (when the engine was shut down) to separate the cars, but that is only my speculation; I haven’t read anything like that.
Actually, some few cars, including the engines I think, separated prior to the derailment and stopped on the grade. I don't understand this part.
See post 23 for link.
The train was parked near the top of a ~1% grade. One locomotive was left running and the regular (whole) train brakes were left on (air pressure from the loco's compressor to make up for the normal leakage). The locomotive brakes were likely applied in some fashion. The mechanical "park" brakes on a few tanks cars were set in some fashion. The (one man) train crew caught a cab to town for the night.
The front locomotive had a fuel leak and the locomotive caught fire.
A Nantes resident was driving by and saw the fire. Nantes FD was called. They shut off the locomotive per procedure and put out the fire. The Nantes FD contacted somebody associated with the railroad. One or more RR reps showed up. The FD left. The RR reps did who knows what and left.
Eventually the brake forces reduced and the train started to move.
By the time the train reached Lac Megantic it was doing something like 40 to 60 mph. The train entered the town's rail yard where the typical speed is 10mph to be able to negotiate the switches and curve.
At least the locomotives and maybe some tank cars made it through the yard. Approximately 50 cars derailed near the first switch and piled into each other disconnecting from the front of the train which kept going. 9 to 13 cars at the end of the train remained on the tracks.
Ruptured tanks spread the crude which caught on fire from some unknown ignition source. The fire swept through parts of the town as some of the crude flowed downhill towards the lake.
The intense fire at the pileup caused 4 to six of the tank cars to achieve a BLEVE explosion.
During the fire the engineer (who was now in town at his hotel) grabbed a rail car moving vehicle and removed the intact tanks cars from the rear of the train and pulled them away from the blaze. A day or so later the RR came and hauled the 9 to 13 intact tank cars back up to Nantes.
The locomotives and possibly a few tank cars came to a stop somewhere on the other side of town as there were still brakes applied, the grade was now level or rising and the mass of the train was now much less.
During the fire the engineer (who was now in town at his hotel) grabbed a rail car moving vehicle and removed the intact tanks cars from the rear of the train and pulled them away from the blaze. A day or so later the RR came and hauled the 9 to 13 intact tank cars back up to Nantes.
I had not seen this part. If you come back across the link, I would like to read it. Not doubting, just trying to learn more.
Cheers!
How do you know that part? I ask because it is the crux of this who incident.
Lac-Mégantic timeline
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/M%C3%A9gantic+fire+timeline/8626739/story.html
11:25 p.m.: An engineer from the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) parks a train carrying 72 tankers, each carrying thousands of litres of crude oil (roughly 100,000 litres), and five locomotives in Nantes, approximately 11 kilometres outside of Lac-Mégantic. According to the MMA, he had stopped for a crew change and then retired to a nearby motel for the night.
11:30 p.m.: A resident in Nantes calls 911 after seeing a parked locomotive on fire between Nantes and Lac-Mégantic. Firefighters arrive on the scene and are able to extinguish the blaze.
11:42 p.m.: 12 firefighters arrive on the scene. Nobody (from MMA or otherwise) was there.
SATURDAY
12:12 a.m.: Fire in locomotive is extinguished.
12:13 to 12:15 a.m.: Two MMA employees arrive on the scene. Firefighters leave soon after establishing that the situation is under control.
1:15 a.m.: The first explosion in Lac-Mégantic is reported, followed by at least two others. Initial reports suggest 30 buildings are destroyed. Much of downtown is flooded with crude oil and fire. Patrons of a crowded bar flee. Many remain unaccounted for.
- - - -
more at link above
From: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/world/americas/canada-runaway-train/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
"Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railways chair Ed Burkhardt said the engineer found a Trackmobile, a vehicle that can pull several cars at a time, and went to the rear of the train.
He hooked up several cars, all the lightweight vehicle for hauling rail cars can pull, and moved them away from the wreckage, Burkhardt said.
He returned once more, pulling a total of nine from the disaster site, where explosions over the course of several hours killed a confirmed 13 people, with almost 50 still missing."
I on-line "chatted" with some Star "reporter" who was apparently in town. I asked him questions about the location of the locomotives and he only gave evasive answers because apparently he was not really there to look around, he was there to interview victims and regurgitate the voicings of the authorities.
Thank you!
From that same article (which I had previously read and missed/forgoten) I had found:
The engines and nine other cars remained behind when the rest of the train broke away sometime later. They stopped a quarter of a mile away from their original parking spot in Nantes.
The source was likely some red hot wheels and brakes. One of the eyewitnesses leaving the MusiCafe remarked about some of the wheels being red hot -- probably the ones whose manual brakes had been set and were dragged all the way down the hill.
End view of likely the last loco with no tank cars still attached
Picture (taken well before this incident) of lead locomotive (MMA 5017) with a remote control system in the converted caboose.
The eyewitness also described sparks (from wheel flanges grinding on the rails?). Could have also come from sparks associated with later cars still crashing into each other. Smokers out on the porch?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.