Canadian Tragedy

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was saddened to read this morning that a train with a load of crude oil derailed and caught fire in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, and I started writing this post. I heard during the afternoon there was one person killed, and more may still be found. In addition, the oil spilled into the Chaudière River. And most curiously, the derailment wasn’t from overspeed or failed brakes or a crash or the usual stuff. Instead, the train took off on its own and committed suicide … go figure.

The train had been parked and the conductor was not aboard when “somehow, the train got released,” Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, Inc Vice President Joseph McGonigle said on Saturday.

“We’re not sure what happened, but the engineer did everything by the book. He had parked the train and was waiting for his relief,” McGonigle said. The Star

railroad tank car explosion canadaFigure 1. Derailed tank cars, Canada SOURCE

In addition to the human compassion we all feel for the folks to whom these tragedies occur, plus hoping that no train workers or hobos were hurt, the crash sparked off a boatload of thoughts about the absolute need for storable transportable energy; about the inherent dangers of concentrated stored energy; and about how we move stored energy around the planet.

First, energy is synonymous with development. Our civilization requires huge amounts of it. Without the ability to extract, move, and store immense amounts of energy, we’re literally back to the Bronze Age, where wood melted the bronze and cooked the food. I’ve tried living at that level, it’s not my idea of a good party. Plus, if everyone burns wood for energy the world will look like Haiti … so we’ll take the need for some kind of storable energy as a given.

Next, stored energy is inherently dangerous. If you accidentally drop a wrench across the terminals of a car battery, it could cost you your life … and that’s just a car battery, not a railroad tank car full of crude oil. If stored energy gets loose, it is immensely dangerous.

The materials in which the energy is stored are also often, as in this case, a danger to the environment. If you think electricity solves the problem, crack open a car battery and consider the toxicity of the chemicals and heavy metals involved.

Finally, there are more dangerous and less dangerous ways to transport energy.

Arguably the least dangerous way to transport energy is in the form of electricity. We move unimaginably large amounts of energy around the world with only occasional injuries and fatalities. Don’t get me wrong, a 440,000 volt power line is not inherently safe. But we are able to locate our electric wires in such a way that we don’t intrude into their space, and vice versa.

But that’s just moving electrons. If you have to move the molecules, the actual substance itself, things get more hazardous.

In terms of danger, railroads aren’t the most dangerous. That’d be the fuel trucks carrying gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and propane on the highways. Plus of course the stored energy in the fuel tanks of the cars and trucks involved in every crash. If you consider an electric power line transporting energy running alongside a freeway, with each vehicle transporting stored energy in the form of liquid fuel, and how often lives are lost or damage done from the power lines, versus how much damage the stored energy does when a tanker truck crashes and catches fire on the freeway, you’ll get a sense of what I’m talking about.

I’d put railroads as the second most dangerous way to move energy. This for a couple reasons. One is because people built along the railroad tracks, and cities grew up around the rail hubs. This means you’re moving things like crude oil and gasoline, each of which stores huge amounts of what was originally solar energy, through highly populated areas.

Another is that a railroad tank car stores a huge amount of energy. A tank full of crude oil hold about 820 barrels of oil, which conveniently has about the same energy as a thousand tons of TNT. Of course, normally this energy is released slowly, over time. Even if the tank ruptures and the fuel pours out, the release of energy occurs over tens of minutes.

However, the fuel is contained in enclosed tanks. As in this case, if fire is raging around an intact tank car, it heats the tank until the contents start boiling. Depending on the fuel involved, if the vapor pressure of the contents is high enough, the tank can rupture in what is called a BLEVE. That stands for “Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion”, and it was the cause of death in boiler explosions in old-time Mississippi steamships. When a boiling liquid under pressure suddenly experiences an instantaneous pressure drop, the entire body of the liquid can directly flash into vapor. With a steam engine the liquid is water, and the resulting steam from an exploding boiler was incredibly lethal and destructive. Now, consider a BLEVE of a flammable liquid … instead of making an expanding ball of steam, you get an expanding ball of fire.

At that point, the “kilotonnes of TNT” is no longer a metaphor.

So what is safer than a railroad? Well, on land there are pipelines, and at sea there are tankers. The tankers are dangerous for the environment, but given the amount of energy moved per year, the spills are not numerous. Obviously, as a sailor and a commercial fisherman I’d prefer there’d be no spills … but energy is synonymous with development, and stored energy is inherently dangerous. So all we can do is continue to improve the safety of the tankers, and stay aware of the dangers. Having worked in the industry, I know the many safety regulations surrounding tanker ships. These regulations are indeed numerous and cover the situation well … and despite that, there is always more to learn.

On land, pipelines have an excellent safety record. People are generally unaware of how many pipelines there are in the US. Here are the trunklines that just move crude oil, including from Canada:

crude oil trunk pipelinesFigure 2. Crude oil trunklines SOURCE 

Figure 3 shows the major pipelines for “refined products”, meaning gasoline, diesel, and the like:

major refined products pipelinesFigure 3. Pipelines carrying refined products. SOURCE

Finally, Figure 4 shows the pipelines carrying gas, both within and between the states:

major gas pipelinesFigure 4. Gas pipelines, from the EIA

Considering the very large number and length of the pipelines, the number of accidents per year is very, very small. Like electrical lines, we generally don’t notice (or even know) that these pipelines exist, but they move huge amounts of many kinds of both crude and refined products all over the US.

Which brings me to the final thought brought up by the Canadian train derailment.

There is a proposed expansion of the KeystoneXL Pipeline, to handle an increased amount of heavy crude from Alberta. Opponents of the expansion think that stopping the pipeline expansion will somehow stop the flow of Canadian heavy crude into the US. This is not true for two reasons.

First, the existing Keystone pipeline is already bringing Alberta heavy crude into the US. The expansion will just, well, expand that amount.

More to the point, however, is the fact that large amounts of Alberta heavy crude is also being moved into the US by railroad. And not by just any railroad. It’s mostly coming in on the Burlington Northern Railway.

And by what can only be considered an amazing coincidence, the Burlington Northern Railway is owned by a major Obama donor. And by an even more amazing coincidence, the major donor bought the BNR just three years ago.

And this was not just any major Obama donor, but Mr. Warren Buffett, a key money supplier for the Obama re-election effort …

Now of course, the longer that Mr. Obama can delay approving the Keystone Pipeline, the longer the oil will be moved by Mr. Buffet’s railroad. I’m sure you can predict what Mr. Buffet wanted for his investment in the Obama campaign, those guys don’t pitch in the big bucks without wanting something …

And very likely Buffett learned early on, during Obama’s first administration, that Obama would block the pipeline, which is probably why he bought it. Buffett is many things but he’s no fool. Will we ever be able to prove that chain of events? Don’t be naive, Buffett is  immensely wealthy for a reason. He doesn’t leave tracks, he doesn’t show his cards, he plays everything close to the vest. We won’t find any smoking guns on this one.

I find it quite amazing. In the late 1800s, the railroads were major players in the political scene, and no one made an important decision without first kissing the rings of the railroad barons.

And now, more than a hundred years later, we still have a President kissing the ring of a railroad baron before making his decision.

So … don’t expect any quick resolution by President Obama of the Keystone Pipeline issue. Every day it is delayed, hundreds of thousands of dollars flow into Warren Buffet’s pockets.

And US politics continues to fashion in the old, time-tested way … money talks. And even in this modern time of emails and smartphones, I’m glad to know some of the most valuable hoary, ancient US political traditions have been kept alive.

And when I say valuable traditions … I mean very, very valuable. These days, being a friend of Obama is worth big bucks.

Finally, we see that the claims by the opponents of the pipeline that they are trying to “protect the environment” are simply not true. If they were really concerned about the environment, they’d want the KeystoneXL pipeline expansion. It is much more dangerous to the environment to move the Alberta heavy crude by railroad tank car than by pipeline … and the tragedy in Canada is an excellent example of why.

And a happy Independence Day weekend to all,

w.

PS—In any case, if the pipeline is blocked, the Alberta heavy crude will still be burned, either shipped to China, or shipped to the US and Buffett will be even richer, or burned in Canada, but it will be burned. That’s the crazy part—the opposition to the pipeline, even if successful, will achieve nothing … welcome to the crazy world of modern environmental NGOs and their followers …

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
198 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. de Haan
July 7, 2013 3:12 pm

Gail Combs says:
July 7, 2013 at 11:52 am
R. de Haan says: July 7, 2013 at 9:07 am
Gail, watch the video I posted about Exlplocontrol. This stuff really works. Take a gasoline or even an LPG tank, put it in a pool fire, no explosions.
The guy who developed this solution is from Spain.
I’ve secured all my fuel tanks (car and plane) with this material.
If you put this material on the floating roof of a jumbo storage tank you can have BBQ party on it.

A. Scott
July 7, 2013 3:52 pm

Codetech (and others commenting on 777 at SFO) … the NTSB released a preliminary stmt today … and it largely aligns with the review a number of pilots have done here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html
This was pretty clearly a mismanaged approach by the air crew. The airport is undergoing runway improvements and the instrument landing system has been out for some weeks. The weather was severe clear visibility unlimited and aircraft were landing under visual flight rules.
ATC at SFO supposedly has a tendency towards “slam dunk” approach clearances that leave pilots high and close to the runway. It takes some effort to dump altitude and get on glideslope.
Us private pilots often experience this if landing at large airports. The ATC direction “maintain speed on final – heavy following” tells us to fly the aircraft at normal speed during the final approach, and only slow down and config for landing at last minute – which takes a fair amount of experience to do quickly. “Heavy’s” hate being forced to go around because a light aircraft slowed them down. Not to mention a go around costs thousands of dollars (or more) for them.
In this case radar Flightaware radar data shows the aircraft initially high and that they were descending at 1300+ feet per minute (>1,000 fpm I believe is typcial) to get to the glideslope. Their speed at last segment of the approach was considerably slow as they continued to attempt to bleed altitude. The engines were at flight idle through the descent.
The NTSB noted the engines were operating and did respond to flight controls – the crew apparently realized their problem, calling for more speed appx 7 seconds before impact. NTSB noted the stick shaker activated (warning pilots of imminent stall) appx 4 seconds before impact, and pilots initiated a “go around” appx 1.5 seconds before impact.
At this point they also appear to have significantly increased the AOA (raised the nose) and applied full power. They were far too late to do so, and the increased AOA caused the landing gear and tail to strike the rock sea wall at end of runway, almost cleanly shearing the tail from the aircraft.
Crash debris seems to show how slow the aircraft was moving (and potentially indicating a high vertical rate of descent at impact) – with the elevators and tail coming to rest within what appears a few hundred feet from impact. The rest of the aircraft rotated sideways and lifted into air almost blowing over (which would have been catastrophic) before settling back to ground and coming to a stop nearly intact. The right engine appears to have broken away at impact and ended up far past the airframe down field – which would seem to make sense as it was spooling up to full thrust at impact .
CNN just released amateur video of the entire crash which seems to confirm the NTSB’s statements and the comments from experienced others. An excellent discussion is avail here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco.html
You can see the aircraft was approaching fairly low. You can see the nose rotate upward at last minute and the camera guy noting it was unusual.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes.html
Ironically – my speculation only – but it at least appears that had the crew not raised the nose so far at the last few seconds, losing further airspeed and expsoing the tail to impact – they might have been able to “drive on” to the runway – it would have probably been a very hard impact at a higher speed and may have had other repercussions, but they might have been able to maintain control of the aircraft.
There is discussion at PPRUNE that many pilots today, and perhaps more so pilots from certain areas (due to their culture and mindset), are not entirely competent to manually land the aircraft. Most companies require autopilot engagement down to 500 feet or lower. And every large commercial aircraft pretty much has auto thrusters that should engage automatically if the aircraft gets below certain parameters/speeds – if it gets in trouble – however in certain modes the auto thrusters are disengaged.
My gut feel is this will be simple pilot error. These pilots flew appx 11 hours I believe (although they shared duties among 4 pilots during that time). They should have known the instrument landing system was out at SFO and been prepared for a manual approach. They were given a fairly typical for SFO, but higher workload approach and landing clearance. Add it all up and they likely it would seem committed the cardinal sin – they got “behind” the aircraft and could not catch up. And did not react until too late.
Had they initiated go around even 15-20 second earlier they would likely have made it. Had they simply applied power 5 – 10 seconds earlier the result may well have been different. Why they did not – why they let a deteriorating situation go on so long without taking action will be the real question of the day.

Luther Wu
July 7, 2013 4:16 pm

Hey Roger Sowell… this is a special link just for you:

July 7, 2013 4:18 pm

Roger Sowell says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm
….
There, he confesses that he writes to educate and entertain those in the cheap seats. Seriously, that’s what he said. So, now we know.

The word that comes to mind for your behaviour is ‘Boorish’.
Being able to write informative and entertaining articles on scientific and technical issues is a rare talent. As someone who considers themselves no slouch with the written word, IMO Willis is one of the best I have come across. As far as I can tell, your grievance is that Willis can do something you can’t.

Claude Harvey
July 7, 2013 4:47 pm

Re: Roger Sowell says:
July 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm
It’s been said that a man should be judged by the caliber of his enemies. By that standard, Roger Sowell is dragging down your average, Willis.

A. Scott
July 7, 2013 4:55 pm
rogerknights
July 7, 2013 5:29 pm

One point that should be made during the Keystone controversy is to remind the public of all the exaggerated or false alarmist claims that greenies made in opposition to the Alaska pipeline.

kramer
July 7, 2013 7:13 pm

The train had been parked and the conductor was not aboard when “somehow, the train got released,”
I wouldn’t be surprised if this ‘mechanical failure’ turns out to be a green socialist.

PK
July 7, 2013 7:38 pm

i would love to point out that the citizens of the state of alaska wanted a railroad and cars to haul the alaskan crude to stateside (i.e. lower 48) not for safety or economics but because they could haul other cargos to the state during the winter heavy snow conditions. even today commercial traffic is pretty much barge work during snow time.
C

Susan S.
July 7, 2013 7:53 pm

From what has been mentioned on the news here in Canada, there was a fire previously on that train in Nantes. So the locomotive was powered down, then thinking the site was secure by the fire department, when they should have left someone on site, not sure if they did. Sounds like they thought the fire was out, but any one with common sense would have left a person to watch the train, even if the fire was out. It seems the locomotive was on fire again before it rolled into the community of Lac Megantic. Story is here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/train-endured-flames-prior-to-derailment-fire-chief/article13053347/

numerobis
July 7, 2013 8:16 pm

Death toll now at 5, with “about 40” missing. News reports show pictures of a row of buildings that are just gone — businesses with apartments on top.
One thing you don’t touch on in your arguments about safety is the idea of trying to get more useful work out of every ounce of high-density energy storage we do transport dangerously. For example, if you double the fuel efficiency of cars (as is currently planned under the new CAFE standards), you reduce the volume you need to transport. This is largely orthogonal to the question of how you transport it.

Richard Todd
July 7, 2013 8:24 pm

I xray pipeline construction welds for “big oil” in Canada. We adhere to very stringent standards and review. No welds are buried until three qualified people take a look. I would sleep very comfortably with an “oil sands pipeline” running through my front yard rather than truck or rail.

KevinK
July 7, 2013 8:45 pm

Lots of interesting comments / supposition here.
Just to clarify a few things, train air brakes in N. American are “charged” with air from a locomotive. Each car has a little ”can” (technically a reservoir) that is filled with air from the locomotive. Later when the train is moving the engineer can apply/release the brakes by using the “train line”. By reducing the pressure in the train line a simple little valve (the “triple valve”) causes the air in the little “can” to apply/release the brakes on that car. This was invented by George Westinghouse a while back. It is fundamentally different from a tractor trailer brake where a spring applies the brakes and is controlled (braking force removed) by air pressure.
The Westinghouse Air brake system is quite ingenious especially given the technology available at the time (~ 1880’s). It is not however totally failsafe. It is not designed to control a “parked train” without an engineer present. A “parked” train is susceptible to leakage. After a time the air in all the little “cans” on the cars can bleed off through the gaskets and hoses in the system. Once this happens the cars of the train have NO braking force available.
A secondary device, the “hand brake” exists on each car to provide braking force when the car is “parked”. The “hand brake” actually preceded the air brake historically and was originally used to stop trains. Hence the origin of the term “brakeman”, his (historically there were no “brakewoman”) job was to run along the top of the train and apply the hand brakes by turning the brake wheel. This was a simple wheel/chain/pulley/lever arrangement that forced the brakeshoes against the wheels. Very dangerous work.
So when you park a train it is very important to “set” enough handbrakes to keep the train in place. Once the air bleeds off there is NO BRAKING force present beyond the hand brakes. This bleed off may take tens of minutes to hours depending on the condition of the equipment. Most employee “book of rules” state something like; “Sufficient hand brakes will be applied to control the train”. But this is a judgment call on the part of the employees.
The other factor to consider is that this train was stopped when it was being pulled under power up a hill. This likely had the effect of “bunching up the train” as the stopping force starts at the front of the train and propagates backwards to the rear. Think of the leader of a Conga Line stopping and everybody bumping into the person in front of them.
So what likely happened is this (just informed speculation on my part);
1) The train was stopped with the air brakes while pulling hard up a hill.
2) This bunched up all the cars close together.
3) The departing crew applied several hand brakes on the cars closest to the locomotive; they likely thought 10 or 15 hand brakes were sufficient. Applying each hand brake takes about 5 minutes or so.
4) The air brakes on the rest of the cars slowly bled off and the cars at end of the train (without hand brakes applied) started to roll downhill.
5) As these cars gained momentum from rolling down hill they started to pull the few cars with hand brakes applied along for the ride (60 cars with no brakes can EASILY slide the braked wheels on 10 cars over the steel rail).
6) The momentum of ~60 cars rolling and ~10 cars sliding downhill without sufficient braking force snapped the coupling between the cars and the locomotive. This coupling is known as the “drawbar” and is only rated for about 150,000 pounds of force. Railroad crews routinely carry extra drawbars to fix unexpected events on “the road”.
7) The sliding wheels on the few cars with handbrakes applied caused sparks and was reported as “the train was on fire”.
So, it appears to be an unfortunate railroad accident not unlike other accidents in the past.
My thoughts and condolences to all involved, living with easily available energy is indeed difficult, but living without it is far worse.
Of course a thorough investigation will hopefully determine the cause and maybe help prevent it from happening again elsewhere.
Cheers, Kevin.

martha durham
July 7, 2013 9:33 pm

Trouble ahead trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind
Always thought Obama and Chicago style political machine was waiting for highest bidder to approve Keystone.
Never considered highest bidder had already been found.

A. Scott
July 7, 2013 10:15 pm

As I understand it – braking is applied by bleeding air – and brakes are released by pressure from the locomotive. Thus a “fail safe” – any LOSS of air pressure APPLIES the brakes – as it should be.

July 7, 2013 10:40 pm

Roger Sowell says: July 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Do me and everybody else a favor, please … p’off, your taking up screen space and wasting our time.

CRS, DrPH
July 7, 2013 10:44 pm

Outstanding post, Willis! Thank you! When I started my career in the oil patch of Oklahoma, I was amazed what I learned about the incredible oil pipeline system we have in this country. This is good information for interested readers: http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/energy-pl.html

JohnC
July 7, 2013 11:07 pm

RE: Energy content TNT vs bbl of oil. It does seem counter-intuitive, but TNT carries both fuel and oxidizer, oil is just fuel. So on a per weight basis, there’s more fuel (100%) in the oil. That quick release of energy you get from high explosive is because the fuel & oxidizer are already mixed at the molecular level and only need a good push to collapse. The “price” is that only about 30% of the total weight is fuel, and the quick reaction isn’t the most efficient one. A ton of TNT is only about 30% fuel (600lbs) vs a barrel of oil (300lbs). If the TNT detonation is as much as half as efficient as burning oil in oxygen, then the energy content is about the same, This is one of the advantages of a FAE (fuel air explosive) or its progeny, more boom per pound.

Paul Vaughan
July 7, 2013 11:42 pm

Quebec disaster: Oil shipments by rail have increased 28,000 per cent since 2009
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-disaster-oil-shipments-by-rail-have-increased-28-000-per-cent-since-2009-1.1357356

Mr Green Genes
July 8, 2013 1:24 am

KevinK says:
July 7, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Kevin, I respectfully disagree with one of your statements (“After a time the air in all the little “cans” on the cars can bleed off through the gaskets and hoses in the system. Once this happens the cars of the train have NO braking force available.”).
Brakes are normally “on” i.e. applied. When the compressor on the locomotive energises it charges up the system and, when the pressure reaches an appropriate level, the brakes are resleased. The pressure is many times greater than atmospheric for obvious reasons – such as a coupling breaking. The pipe severs and all train line pressure is lost which results in an emergency brake application. Pipe leakage therefore cannot cause the brakes to ease off. The only way to release brakes under these circumstances is to isolate the affected wagon(s) from the rest of the system – I do not know the operating requirements in Canada for this but in the UK there is a procedure to be followed, and woe betide the train crew if it isn’t followed properly.
The rest of your post makes sense to this retired railway engineer except for one point. It has been reported that the locos were found at a stand some 800m from the derailment.
It is possible that the train was marshalled as distributed load haulage. This means that one or more locos were actually in the middle of the train. This is not uncommon in North America because the length of freight trains means an unaccptable delay in brake application to the wagons at the rear of the train – the locos in the middle are remotely controlled from the leading loco and the brakes on the wagons behind them are operated by the centre locos.
If it wasn’t marshalled that way, to me it implies 2 things. Firstly that they were at the west end of the train and secondly that they ran away with the wagons, as I postulated above. Having had a chance to find out the origin and destination of the train (it was running from North Dakota to New Brunswick), I am at a loss to work out why the locos were at the west end of the train. As far as I can ascertain, the train should have been running from west to east i.e. down from Nantes (where it was stabled for the crew change) towards Lac-Mégantic. Under those circumstances the locos should have been at the east end.
There could be several reasons why the locos were at the “wrong” end of the train e.g.
They were shunted away during the fire incident – my thought would have been to get a burning loco away from a train full of a volatile substance as soon as possible;
The train was taking an exotic route, not apparent to this observer from rural England;
It was being shunted for another reason; etc.

Gary Hladik
July 8, 2013 1:28 am

From the article cited by Willis: ‘The train had been parked and the conductor was not aboard when “somehow, the train got released,” Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, Inc Vice President Joseph McGonigle said on Saturday.’
Where’s Denzel Washington when we need him?
A. Scott says (July 7, 2013 at 1:34 am): “A Boeing 777 crashed today at SFO – with miraculously almost all passengers walking away.”
Where’s Denzel Washington when we need him?
Probably Denzel Washington shouldn’t make a film about a nuclear power plant accident…
Willis continues: “And by what can only be considered an amazing coincidence, the Burlington Northern Railway is owned by a major Obama donor.”
As long as politicians have the power to make us rich (or poor), it will be worth somebody’s effort to buy them.

Patrick
July 8, 2013 2:27 am

“Mr Green Genes says:
July 7, 2013 at 7:04 am”
The Deltic, a true classic in engineering, a bit of a rotter for cold starts though. Not bad for a cylinder head-less engine the basis of which was used in a torpedo boat in WW2. Shame emission standards killed it off. There are people I have talked with who claim the braking system used on UK locomotives and rolling stock was rubbish! I don’t recall a large scale freight crash like this ever occurring in the UK.
With the HST’s, my first trip on one was in 1978, London to Fishgaurd. Then regularly for a while commuting between Newbury and London in the early 1990’s. But then in about 2001 I was standing in the station in Wellington, NZ, waiting for my train home to be shunted along the platform. Right there was the “Kapiti Connection” (I think it was called) waiting to depart. I notice the cars and thought “That looks like an old BR HST car.” Sure enough, it was along with all the others, just painted in TranzRail livery and NZ running gear fitted (3ft6).
With the 777 crash, it’s looking more and more like a combination of factors, including pilot error sadly.