# Changed my mind on pipelines



## sags (May 15, 2010)

For environmental reasons, I have pretty much been against building new pipelines, but the recent rash of crude train derailments has changed my mind.

After listening to the CEO of CP Rail Hunter Harrison, when he explained how the different loads affect the physics of trains, it becomes clearer that rail transport isn't the solution.

He said there are only one set of tracks, built basically to carry grain trains. The banked elevations built into the track around curves were determined to provide trains that travel at the speed of grain trains to use centrifugal force to remain on the tracks. (the same affect as some amusement rides at the local fair) The slower crude trains mess up the physics and have the danger of sliding down and off the track.

Train tracks were also built close to and through major urban centres. We don't want highly explosive crude trains traveling through major urban areas, beside schools and playgrounds and behind people's back yards. It is bad enough to have trains carrying other loads through the area. The danger with crude, and I would assume with other volatile liquids is that they shift around inside the railcar, which shifts the weight and affects the centre of gravity.

I thought, it was a pretty simple and effective argument he put into the debate, and it appeared that although the trains earn more profits by carrying crude oil..........they would rather not, as the liabilities are too high, both in cost and public perception of the railroads. 

Under the Common Carrier Act they don't have a choice. They are required to open rail shipping to all kinds of producers and can't pick and choose.

Pipelines may leak, but the leaks are less dangerous than rail car accidents. 

I think we are going to need to build pipelines, until there is a better solution to energy than oil.

The inherent dangers, as explained by Mr. Harrison are just too great, not to do so.


Opinions ?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Glad to finally have you onboard (heh)!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

With the recent rash of crude oil rail accidents in the US and Canada, it is *only a matter of time *until another Lac Megantic disaster occurs somewhere in the US or Canada. 

The recent crude oil derailment in a remote part of Northern Ontario is just another example that it will again, At least this one (and the previous ones in Canada in Alberta), has pressured the Feds (Transport Canada) 
to start thinking about new legislation to outlaw those old thin wall DOT-111 tankers that rupture easily and catch fire with the lighter shale oil they are carrying.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/03/11/canada-minister-oil-train-rule-timing-may-differ-from-us


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

My opinion ... new pipelines can be built, but without legislation railroads will continue to transport as much, if not more, oil. For the next while it's about getting the oil from anywhere NA to refineries, tankers ...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I'm just surprised that in these days issues like at Lac Megantic happen, with all the technology we have today how do you have a runaway train?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Because oil by rail is so new, it will take lots of spills and fires (and death) to swing the sentiment towards pipelines.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I am not against pipelines or oil in general, but building more infrastructure instead of making a real switch to alternative energy sources is the problem.

Think about a barrel of oil. People burn about a barrel of oil a month in their car, plus a little natural gas for heating. Once its burned, its gone forever and whatever carbon is released and that it. Its like blowing your paycheck on hookers. Done and gone.

Now take that barrel of oil and build a solar panel from that energy. That solar panel will collect free energy for 25 years. Its like investing your paycheck for future returns.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes but you are ignoring the political realities. Ignoring such constraints always makes new initiatives easier.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

cainvest said:


> I'm just surprised that in these days issues like at Lac Megantic happen, with all the technology we have today how do you have a runaway train?


Megantic was the result of a combination of events/operator error. Train was "parked" on a slight incline on the main line with the diesel running and dynamic braking on. As long as the unattended diesel was running, the dynamic (electrical braking system) kept the train from beginning to roll down the incline. 

But then a fire developed inside one of the diesel-electrics, and the local volunteer firefighters had somebody shut down the diesel to put out the fire. The handbrakes on each tanker car were not manually set..so the train at that point didn't have the brakes applied and slowly gravity would take over..the rest is history now.

Now in the case of the *recent tanker train accidents,* it's hard to say what caused the derailments leading to the fire.

All you need is a "hotbox" situation..what they call an overheated axle bearing causing the axle to seize and derail one tanker car, which then crashes into another tanker car, and the overheated axle/bearing sets fire to the thin shale oil they are transporting. 
Once the oil ignites, the result high temperature fire continues out of control in a chain reaction as the tanks exploding in turn, until it finally burns itself out, with sometimes catastrophic results.

Derails are not uncommon but most of the time, a few cars derail and it's just a big mess for the railway to clean up.

However, dangerous goods, such as chlorine (as in the Mississauga derailment back in 1979) can affect an entire city .

About 25 tank cars went off the rails and exploded. liquid propane, caustic soda, toluene and one tanker of chlorine.
The liquid propane tank cars exploded, and then the chlorine tanker started to leak releasing a cloud of deadly
chorine gas in a major part of the city, prompting a massive immediate evacuation around the affected area.

The cause of the derailment was later determined to be a "hotbox'...the axle had disintegrated into two at the massive bearing in the journal that held the huge bearing. These bearings have to routinely greased as part of routine maintenance (friction) due to the extreme weights that they carry over long distances.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> For environmental reasons, I have pretty much been against building new pipelines, but the recent rash of crude train derailments has changed my mind.
> 
> After listening to the CEO of CP Rail Hunter Harrison, when he explained how the different loads affect the physics of trains, it becomes clearer that rail transport isn't the solution.
> 
> ...


what took you so long ? pipelines are a much better way to move petroleum


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

The answer is very simple. Use less oil. Done.

I use very little oil, I've chosen a lifestyle where I don't need a car much, I rent them and use the local car share.

Tax oil/gas so that people use less oil. Pretty simple really.

Yes, there is no free lunch.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Hunter Harrison, the CEO for the railway, is more concerned about terrorist threats than about derailments.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cp-...ck-a-bigger-concern-than-derailment-1.2979127


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ using less oil would solve that too! Funny.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

carverman said:


> Megantic was the result of a combination of events/operator error. Train was "parked" on a slight incline on the main line with the diesel running and dynamic braking on. As long as the unattended diesel was running, the dynamic (electrical braking system) kept the train from beginning to roll down the incline.


Exactly the kind of situations that can be easily managed with smart devcies placed onto trains. The average car nowadays has way more safety devices than trains that can carry hazardous goods, doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

none said:


> The answer is very simple. Use less oil. Done. I use very little oil, I've chosen a lifestyle where I don't need a car much, I rent them and use the local car share. Tax oil/gas so that people use less oil. Pretty simple really. Yes, there is no free lunch.


That's great that you can live without a car (nearly). Around us it seems like anyone in a house over sixteen has their own vehicle. I'm not sure if tax would make much difference since it didn't seem like the high pump prices a year ago were doing much to constrain vehicle use, and the worse thing to do would be to let the government take a bigger share because they will always pi$$ it away. 
Remember, just because you don't drive a car much doesn't mean you don't use much oil - oil products are deeply embedded within manufacturing and the economy. For example, it looks like you live on Vancouver Island and I doubt that everything you use and eat floats up to the beach, or that you row over to the mainland.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. Megantic was the result of a *combination of events*/operator error.
> 2. The *handbrakes* on each tanker car were not manually set....


*1.* Doubtlessly. One of the factors for the tragic accident [out of 18], had been poor training as per the TSB report. 

*TSB chief:* “If you take any one away, this accident might not have happened that evening.”

No latest technology in the world will prevent human error, speaking of which, I'm reminded of one of Spain's worst high-speed train accidents a couple of years ago that killed about 80 people and injured dozens; it happened because the driver had been speeding, but regardless of fault, some tried putting the blame on the train because it was programmed to simply give warnings and stop it at only 200km+ [it derailed at 180km in a 80km zone]. Even the ones programmed with automatic stops need drivers. 

*2.* 'The engineer applied hand brakes on all five locomotives and two other cars, and shut down all but the lead locomotive. Railway rules require hand brakes alone be capable of holding a train, and this must be verified by a test. That night, however, the locomotive air brakes were left on during the test, meaning the train was being held by a combination of hand brakes and air brakes. This gave the false impression that the hand brakes alone would hold the train.'
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054-r-es.asp

The list of rail accidents in just the last 5 years is rather long, with the US topping the list in 2015 so far. Wonder if Obama is even aware. :hopelessness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_(2010–present)

*fatcat:* better late than never. :wink:


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> No latest technology in the world will prevent human error


Maybe not, but it likely can reduce the number of simple accidents.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

none said:


> The answer is very simple. Use less oil. Done.


Skip that, I often drive for fun .... I want my oil and want it cheap!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> just because you don't drive a car much doesn't mean you don't use much oil - *oil products are deeply embedded within manufacturing and the economy.*


Indeed.

In fact, the list of items is about 6,000+. How many such items in your house alone, bubble gum, board games? :biggrin:

Mini-video per category.
http://www.oilandgasinfo.ca/oil-gas-you/products/

*cainvest:* no argument on the reduction of accidents [which had not been my point].


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> *
> No latest technology in the world will prevent human error, speaking of which, I'm reminded of one of Spain's worst high-speed train accidents a couple of years ago that killed about 80 people and injured dozens; it happened because the driver had been speeding, but regardless of fault, some tried putting the blame on the train because it was programmed to simply give warnings and stop it at only 200km+ [it derailed at 180km in a 80km zone]. Even the ones programmed with automatic stops need drivers. *


*

Apparently, from what I heard on the media, he was speeding and talking at the same time on his cellphone...distracted driving.




2. 'The engineer applied hand brakes on all five locomotives and two other cars, and shut down all but the lead locomotive. Railway rules require hand brakes alone be capable of holding a train, and this must be verified by a test. That night, however, the locomotive air brakes were left on during the test, meaning the train was being held by a combination of hand brakes and air brakes. This gave the false impression that the hand brakes alone would hold the train.'

Click to expand...

The air brakes and the air reservoir to keep the brakes applied would be from the running diesel. The diesel caught on 
fire and was shut down. Only the lead tanker handbrake was applied and lone engineer didn't go back and apply
enough hand brakes to keep the rest of the train from rolling? However, what actually happened after is anyone's
guess. My question is that the engine that had the fire survived the catastrophe was found (unscathed) down the track further on the other side of the fire zone....hmmm? You don't suppose somebody was playing with the train?*


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Exactly the kind of situations that can be easily managed with smart devcies placed onto trains. The average car nowadays has way more safety devices than trains that can carry hazardous goods, doesn't seem right to me.


The railway industry is still operating in the last century. The Ottawa O-train on it's inaugural run last week stopped dead in it's tracks...because of bad signals.

The same thing ( repetitive signal malfunctions)has plagued the VIA rail crossing in Barrhaven where 5 people
died on the double decker bus OC Transpo over a year ago. Lawsuits from the victims families have been filed.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> ...
> Under the Common Carrier Act they don't have a choice. *They are required to open rail shipping to all kinds of producers and can't pick and choose.*
> 
> Opinions ?


 ... how many disasters/tragedies are required to have that Act changed so they will be able to choose what to carry or not? I know nothing about that Act but would they be required to carry "radioactive" materials say, if requested?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It can be perfectly safe to ship oil by rail if we wanted to, but its better to ban or over regulate everything as usual hoping to over come incompetency.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Skip that, I often drive for fun .... I want my oil and want it cheap!


Yup! At least you're honest about it!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Skip that, I often drive for fun .... I want my oil and want it cheap!


Buy oil stocks to hedge against your lifestyle  The divvies fuel my thirty turbo just fine.

I think we should just modernize the tracks already. It's long overdue and modern rail is safe and efficient and far more versatile than pipelines. Some pipelines are already being used in reverse of the original intent. We will always have a use for trains. I don't understand how Bombardier makes some of the best trains in the world yet Canada has an old dilapidated railway? We could reduce the long haul trucks on the roads as well that congest the highway through cities like Montreal. Who wants to be in one of those car pileups in the winter with so many transport trucks? Our roads are constantly being rebuilt and modernized but our tracks are extremely neglected.

The rail companies are profitable. There is money to pay for better tracks.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i believe entirely new track has to be laid for the proposed windsor-quebec city high speed rail corridor, though.

i thought sags' extract from the CP rail speech was fascinating. I never knew that the original track (the historic track! the last spike! the train that built confederation!) was mostly built for grain cars, not the weight of oil tankers.

probably canada needs new track from sea to shining sea. The mind swoons at the cost. I'm not sure what they're doing in the US about this, i've read that US railbeds are old & in dismal disrepair. Yet i remember a bunch of us in september 2008 all saying enthusiastically that newly-elected obama was going to Rebuild the rail industry in america, Stop car pollution & Put an End to the senseless burning of irreplaceable gasoline ...


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> Buy oil stocks to hedge against your lifestyle  The divvies fuel my thirty turbo just fine.


Yup, already done and if we get another big dip I'll grab some more.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... how many disasters/tragedies are required to have that Act changed so they will be able to choose what to carry or not? I know nothing about that Act but would they be required to carry "radioactive" materials say, if requested?


Beav, apparently the railways can carry toxic waste ...should you be worried? 
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._material_ride_the_rails_through_toronto.html

As far as nuclear fuel waste in Canada, due to strict regulations, the spent fuel from the CANDU reactors
is stored on site in temporary storage facilities. They are still trying to come up with a safer long term
storage solution..somewhere in the bedrock of the Canadian shield. When the decisions are finally made,
the transport of this spent radioactive fuel to the long term storage facility, deep underground, will be more than likely by special permit and escorted on the highways by police escort. 

I doubt that they will take a chance to ship it by rail as the spent nuclear fuel container is of a special heavy duty lead lined cylindrical design .


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

+1 on buying more carverman!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Beav, apparently the railways can carry toxic waste ...should you be worried?
> http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._material_ride_the_rails_through_toronto.html
> 
> ...


 ... would it make a difference to the law-makers if I or the average Joe/Jane Canadian do worry about this? We would just be considered collateral damage in the bigger scheme of doing business this way.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> Apparently, from what I heard on the media, he was speeding and *talking at the same time on his cellphone...distracted driving*.


You're right, I had forgotten that detail. 

While a combination of factors were involved in the Lac-Mégantic crash, human error often is one such factor, which cannot be eradicated, no matter how modern the trains/systems may be. 

'In Canada, the transportation system is generally considered to be very safe. Even for shipments of toxic or flammable products, Transport Canada estimates that 99.997% of the tens of millions of these shipments carried every year arrive at their destination without incident. Nonetheless, the devastation wreaked in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec in 2013 by a runaway train hauling crude oil drew worldwide attention to the potential consequences of accidents involving dangerous goods, however unlikely they may be.'

2015 transportation review with 10 recommendations:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...34953/412_TRAN_Rpt04_PDF/412_TRAN_Rpt04-e.pdf


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> You're right, I had forgotten that detail.
> 
> 2015 transportation review with 10 recommendations:
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/C...34953/412_TRAN_Rpt04_PDF/412_TRAN_Rpt04-e.pdf





> According to Transportation in Canada, 2013, approximately 70% of all dangerous
> goods were transported by road, 24% by rail, 6% by vessel and less than 1% by air
> in 2011.
> 
> ...


Good enough for me, if they came up with accurate numbers of 99.997%....that means that 0.003% or 3 in "tens of millions" of hazardous shipments? .. or are they including shipments in this percentage that are NOT hazardous?

I doubt that there has been "tens of millions" of crude oil shipments to date. 

(Note that the percentage claimed in this document is not supported by real shipments numbers) because they probably don't know..and that percentage is arrived at as an estimate of all shipments in Canada via
train...tens of millions = 10,000,000? shipments or 20,000,000 shipments?, not very accurate IMO.

Any shipment *could* have some kind of derailment issue, not necessarily due to human error in the locomotive, but for other reasons...such as:

- Level crossing crashes
- Lack of Adequate maintenance, resulting in journal wheel bearing seizures or "hotbox" as the railway term 
for it applies.




> A hot box is the term used when an axle bearing overheats on a piece of railway rolling stock.
> The term is derived from the journal-bearing trucks used before the mid-20th century. The axle bearings were housed in a box that used oil-soaked rags or cotton (collectively called "packing") to reduce the friction of the axle against the truck frame. When the oil leaked or dried out, *the bearings overheated, often starting a fire that could destroy the entire railroad car (and cars coupled to it) if not detected early enough*.


Hence, the invention of the hotbox detector technology implanted somewhere on the tracks in strategic places to warn the crew (engineer in the locomotive) , that a hot box condition has been detected. 

The crew are supposed to stop the train, and call the railway to perform maintenance before the axle cracks and the truck (steel wheels) fall off...causing a derailment.

Hard to say what happened in Northern Ontario..it could have been that specific cause, or something else entirely. At least this time, a small town and some of it's inhabitants were not engulfed in the explosions that resulted from the punctured DOT111 (thin tank cars) that were carrying crude.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I wonder how the failure rate of pipelines compares to train transport?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The railroads were built and communities sprung up around them.

It made sense when the trains were hauling grain and other none lethal goods from place to place.

Today, you can sit at a rail crossing in the middle of our city and watch a train load of toxic chemicals pass by.

Pipelines may not have a better safety record, but at least they are usually located in areas further away from populations.

Although I do believe there are some pipelines that pass right through populated areas in Southern Ontario already.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If I have to stop at a RR crossing I always stop well back. Many derailments happen because of debris in the tracks at crossings. With all the oil fires I think I will stay back even farther.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> probably canada needs new track from sea to shining sea. The mind swoons at the cost. I'm not sure what they're doing in the US about this, i've read that US railbeds are old & in dismal disrepair. Yet i remember a bunch of us in september 2008 all saying enthusiastically that newly-elected obama was going to Rebuild the rail industry in america, Stop car pollution & Put an End to the senseless burning of irreplaceable gasoline ...


Well if Elon Musk knows what he's doing the US can jump straight to the Hyperloop. Maybe the Canadian government would buy in on a Bombardier-rebranded-Hyperloop.. like the Iltis. It would sprint Quebec city to Toronto before Via gets half way to Trois-Rivières. Maybe JD Irving ltd. could run NBM-Hyperloop from the maritimes to Maine.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

cainvest said:


> I wonder how the failure rate of pipelines compares to train transport?


not sure about rail...but here is some info on pipeline...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/5893#h-3-2


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

dubmac said:


> not sure about rail...but here is some info on pipeline...
> 
> http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/5893#h-3-2




in general i would support pipelines over rail cars, but that citation from Natural Resources canada does appear to be heavily spin doctored.

what does "between 2011 and 2013" mean? does it mean the year 2012 only? does it mean a span across all three years, namely from jan 2011 to dec 2013?

in any event, cherry-picking a year or even 2 or 3 years with clean low-spill records does not provide sufficient evidence imho.

in no way can a one-to-three year record be taken to prove that "99.999% of the crude oil and petroleum product transported on federally regulated pipelines arrives safely," as Nat Resources canada claims.

in canada, the oldest pipelines must be heading now towards the 3/4 century mark, the trans canada itself was built in the 1950s.

in recent years the US seems to have had more than its fair share of pipe breaks but these may have simply received greater media attention due to the success of the anti-Keystone publicity lobby.

in canada, the CBC & possibly other media have done an investigative series of stories on pipeline breaks. Because these have occurred in remote areas, fewer people were harmed, so the news stories have mostly been ignored.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pipel...tions-about-transcanada-inspections-1.2521959

below is a link to an example of somewhat biased anti-pipeline journalism coming from the Council of Canadians. But i for one am always glad to see articles like this one, as well as the greater number of articles & commentaries that seriously question oil transport by railcar tanker, because i believe that canadians should discuss this issue. Exactly the way this thread is discussing the issue.

http://canadians.org/blog/transcanada-has-third-catastrophic-pipeline-leak-9-months

possibly what we need to face are the higher costs of better pipeline maintenance. We, the consumers, will need to pay more for gas & oil in order to renew corroded pipe in remote areas faster. We need to do this in order to keep the dangerous rail tanker cars out of our cities & towns.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> possibly what we need to face are the higher costs of better pipeline maintenance. We, the consumers, will need to pay more for gas & oil in order to renew corroded pipe in remote areas faster. We need to do this in order to keep the dangerous rail tanker cars out of our cities & towns.


i am a lot less worried about corroded pipes in remote areas and more worried about trains moving through towns large and small no matter _what_ they are carrying, i would put money there first along with a "first response"protocol to remediate pipeline spills as fast and efficiently as possible

the simple fact at present is that very-extremely-catastrophically hazardous train loads are carried through thousands of cities and towns all across north america every day

i agree with pie, what we aren't facing (for good reason since we are talking in the trillions) is we need to upgrade our entire energy infrastructure from almost, but not quite, from top to bottom


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> i am a lot less worried about corroded pipes in remote areas and more worried about trains moving through towns large and small no matter _what_ they are carrying




cat i'm counting on you as a civilized canadian to remember who are the people who are living in the remote areas.

the cbc video i linked showed a serious explosion & fire over many hectares that destroyed an entire hunting & fishing habitat for the Dene people of the region. The article says this Peace River pipe zone is particularly subject to corrosion from bacteria action.

many of the much-ignored pipeline leak/explosion articles show incidents that could have been prevented by better maintenance. There was said to be inadequate pipeline monitoring.

yes the railways were built to serve our cities & they run right through our downtown cores, so now we need to keep toxic material shipments away from the cities, even out of railway shipping in some cases (the transport of spent nuclear rods as described upthread by carverman is a good example of this.)

but this doesn't mean, in the year 2015, that we can now foist toxic transmission systems into northern or remote lands that we used to imagine, decades ago, were "empty." The first nations live there. These are their homelands. This means intrude very, very, very, very carefully, if at all.

in addition to pipe aging, corrosion from bacterial attack, valve failures & other pipeline malfunctions, we now have the problem of potential terrorist attack. Probably canada needs drone surveillance of all northern installations, especially pipelines & airports ...

ouf. $$$.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

fatcat said:


> the simple fact at present is that very-extremely-catastrophically hazardous train loads are carried through thousands of cities and towns all across north america every day
> 
> what we aren't facing (*for good reason since we are talking in the trillions) is we need to upgrade our entire energy infrastructure from almost, but not quite, from top to bottom*


Aint gonna happen.

The railroads are squeezed for profits, and they are not going to spend that kind of money for
just the safety factor (derailments and explosions due to hazardous chemicals or crude oil transport in inadequate containers alone. They will only do what they are forced to do by Tranport Canada, and
that is phasing out the inadequate thin walled tanker cars DOT111 in the next 2-3 years. 

Upgrading thousands of kms of infrastructure installed two centuries ago when oil shipments by train was unheard of is doubtful. What the railroads need is smarter transportation of oil shipments and hazardous chemicals.

Hauling oil trains of up to 100 tanker cars is just asking for trouble. These trains need to be better equipped to prevent disasters such as Lac Megantic or Mississauga back in the early 70s... .propane and chlorine together close to each other in the same shipment..obviously thinking minds were not present when they assembled that train, but as a result new legislation was put in place to prevent that kind of disaster
from happening again...until Lac Megantic. 

What the Federal gov't needs is to force the railroads to change their rolling stock to safer construction, provide better maintenance on these oil trains and ensure that "buffer cars" are placed between crude oil tankers to prevent chain reactions and explosions should derailment occur...but this means less crude oil
in each shipment which reduces the profit margins of the railroads. 

The document (above) that tells us that in "tens of millions of shipments" 99.997% arrived without incident...while that may be true, tell that to the towns where the derailment occurred and there was a terrible loss of life as a direct result of the derailment.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

why spend mega-billion $$$ refurbishing rail cars?

why not spend the $$$ repairing, restoring & expanding TRP's Mainliner? it's already 3 dual-purpose oil/gas pipes, i'm sure the terrain could support a 4th pipe without much environmental uproar. 

then expand the pipeline via Energy East from montreal to the port of saint john NB.

less expensive than railways & the problem will be settled for the next 30-40 years. Done.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

carverman said:


> The document (above) that tells us that in "tens of millions of shipments" 99.997% arrived without incident...while that may be true, tell that to the towns where the derailment occurred and there was a terrible loss of life as a direct result of the derailment.


But it is about the "99.997% arrived without incident", regardless of localized losses. Most of us fly or drive cars, we accept the risks associated with those means of transportation. Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't stop looking for ways to make things safer and more cost effective.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> less expensive than railways & the problem will be settled for the next 30-40 years. Done.


I agree with your ideas but Keystone is 6 years into "Done". Like rust, protesters never sleep.

hboy43


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well here it is from the "horse's mouth"..the TSB..
I guess it sounds like we can expect more crashes than the 99.997% Transport Canada is saying gets delivered without incident. 



> Canada's transportation investigator says track infrastructure failures may have played a role in three recent derailments involving oil-laden trains in northern Ontario.
> The Transportation Safety Board says it wants Transport Canada to review the risk assessments for a stretch of track known as the CN Ruel subdivision following the fiery derailments in Gogama and Minnipuka.





> It says trains have already been ordered to travel slowly on the Class 4 welded rail track due to "various infrastructure and track maintenance issues," but that heavily l*oaded tank cars often exert "higher than usual forces" on the track.*
> The board says that exposes weaknesses in the track and makes it more susceptible to failure.


http://globalnews.ca/news/1887224/t...ay-have-played-a-role-in-3-train-derailments/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That's pretty much what the CEO of CP Rail said. 

It isn't about the safety of the rail cars alone. The tracks themselves, the banked corners etc., were not designed to carry the shifting weight of crude oil.

One has to wonder if the bridges and overpasses were engineered to take the weight of the heavy loads as well.

And there is the fact that much of the rail infrastructure is getting old and may suffer from age stress and fatigue.

Canada could embark on a national rail program, and build an additional rail line dedicated to hauling oil and toxic chemicals, but no politicians are talking about such grand ventures.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

It probably doesn't help that some of the crude oil being shipped apparently had a lower than usual flashpoint ... similar to unleaded gasoline.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ar-to-unleaded-gas-tsb-finds/article17345523/


Cheers


----------

