Rail cars on fire after crude train derails in Ontario, CN says
Source: Bangor Daily News
TORONTO — Seven rail cars were on fire in northern Ontario after a train carrying crude oil derailed late on Saturday night, Canadian National Railway said on Sunday.
The train, heading from Alberta to eastern Canada, derailed shortly before midnight about 50 miles south of Timmins, Ontario, a CN spokesman said. Canada’s largest rail operator said 29 of 100 cars were involved and seven were on fire.
“The derailment occurred in a remote wooded area and there are no reports of injuries. There is a fire at the scene,” Patrick Waldron said in an email.
Investigators from the Transportation Safety Board have been sent to the site, the agency said on Sunday.
<more>
Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2015/02/15/news/world-news/rail-cars-on-fire-after-crude-train-derails-in-ontario-cn-says/
= new reply since forum marked as read
have reached deals with local municipalities to transport crude by rail all in secret. It isn't the tracks that are the problem, with shale gas boom they have been pushing the supply as fast and as much as they can. They have already disregarded regulations and out regulators have looked the other way. By rail is successful about 99% of the time but they're pushing so much cargo that we've had a record number of derailments.
At speeds greater than 25 MPH it usually broken or damaged wheel or something off in the track geometry no keep in my mind cracks the human eye can't see can cause a train to derail it doesn't take much but the wrong combination of mass, speed, force, turn etc is all it takes not slowing down or switching when appropriate. The switch signal operator asleep. There are so many variables, congestion up ahead, air brakes leaking, how much slack there is between the rail carts.
Deficiencies in track geometry are often checked for with Nondestructive and repaired with a wielding, railroad ties, or other fixes but signals or the operator has to be prepared to not go too fast or have just a little too much friction. With westward expansion, our sturdiest & strongest rail that is better able to handle to this kind of non-stop supply (North Dakota trains head west going who knows where but finds its way to the Southeast states, I think they hit refineries in the mid-west) is out west near to the Rockies & the Pacific states.
Basically, agreements were struck in secret to transport basically as much as they went through all these towns & coastlines so the public really hasn't had an opportunity to say slow it down or avoid the potential disasters but oil companies will take the 9 derails per 1000 trips. They won't even slow down to upgrade to the somewhat safer rail carts, instead staying with the DOT-111 because they'd rather push more trips than halt & upgrade. They have been fighting oil safety & regulations where the White House has delayed looking at new rules before recently proposing regulations, their "regulations czar" is an economist by trade so he balances the necessary regulations with a "cost-benefit" analysis but the administrative post was created by Reagan and has a "reputation" to say the least.
OIRA consists of 55 people, mostly economists, whose main function is to review regulation drafts and proposals from various federal agencies. The office doesn't get much coverage in the media, but it's incredibly powerful—reporting right up to the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget. In 10 years, OIRA altered a whopping 84 percent of EPA rule submissions, undermining protections that the agency is trying to implement. Citing a number of studies, the report notes that "OIRA almost exclusively weakens agency rules." When Obama took office, he appointed Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein—a buddy of his from their days teaching at the University of Chicago Law School—as OIRA's head. As "regulatory czar," Sunstein is at the forefront of the government's rule-making operation—and yet he has a hefty reputation for being anti-regulatory.
Industry players—from corporate entities to lobbying firms—participate heavily in OIRA's review process.
Consider this table: -----
OIRA consists of 55 people, mostly economists, whose main function is to review regulation drafts and proposals from various federal agencies. The office doesn't get much coverage in the media, but it's incredibly powerful—reporting right up to the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget. In 10 years, OIRA altered a whopping 84 percent of EPA rule submissions, undermining protections that the agency is trying to implement. Citing a number of studies, the report notes that "OIRA almost exclusively weakens agency rules." When Obama took office, he appointed Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein—a buddy of his from their days teaching at the University of Chicago Law School—as OIRA's head. As "regulatory czar," Sunstein is at the forefront of the government's rule-making operation—and yet he has a hefty reputation for being anti-regulatory.
A few examples of OIRA's meddling: Although smog pollution—which has been linked to asthma and other lung conditions—has been steadily rising, OIRA struck down the EPA's efforts to tighten regulations that would have reduced it. When a faulty ash pond in Kingston, Tennessee, led to a coal ash spill that was, in quantity, larger than the BP spill, the EPA wrote stricter regulations for coal ash storage—but once OIRA got the draft, it watered the regulations down to the point that they were effectively useless. In both cases, OIRA backed its changes by citing industry concerns that, the report explains, are based on incomplete research and contradict the thorough reviews conducted by the EPA.
This is not how OIRA is supposed to work. The executive order under which the group operates—EO 12,866—says this cohort of economists should focus on "economically significant" rules. And yet for years, only about 100 of the 500 to 700 rules reviewed by OIRA annually have classified as "economically significant" under EO 12,866. On top of all this, OIRA does its work in near-total opacity, even though EO 12,866 requires that the group disclose "all documents exchanged between OIRA and the agency during the review by OIRA."
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/obama-bush-environment-oira
Cass Sunstein, the only time I ever read his name is never in a good context
Here is what I'm talking point, note the bold section
The plan conceived by the Transportation Department would largely satisfy Canadian safety demands and fulfill the goals of two former DOT officials who shepherded the proposal for much of last year: former Federal Railroad Administration chief Joe Szabo, who left last month, and Cynthia Quarterman, who stepped down as the head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last year.
"With this braking system, we will be booking safety benefits for decades to come," said Szabo.
Under the DOT plan, large rail shipments of ethanol, a gasoline additive made from corn, must largely comply with the same rules as oil trains, sources said.
The proposal would also keep existing speed restrictions for large fuel deliveries, 40 mph in many heavily populated areas and 50 mph elsewhere.
A DOT spokesman declined to comment on the proposal.
The proposal is now with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the clearinghouse for federal rules, which is due to have a final say in May.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-usa-railroad-tankers-idUSKBN0LG2SP20150212
I re-read and notice rail technology is an area you're familiar with. Easier to leave post as is but at-least when it comes to the US, the necessary & required government agency has made recommendations but its like you have to check with the fox guarding the hen house if these changes are OK & oil companies -- follow the oil money it will take you places that go beyond ignored rail regulations.
