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
Figure 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:
Figure 2. Crude oil trunklines SOURCE
Figure 3 shows the major pipelines for “refined products”, meaning gasoline, diesel, and the like:
Figure 3. Pipelines carrying refined products. SOURCE
Finally, Figure 4 shows the pipelines carrying gas, both within and between the states:
Figure 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 …
Patrick says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:27 am
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.
We’re in danger of going a bit OT here but if you were to be commuting frm Newbury in the early ’10s, guess what type of train you’d be catching??!
Some of them even stop at Hungerford nowadays 🙂
I didn’t know they’d got to New Zealand but I know they were (still are, I believe) running around parts of Australia as the XPT.
A. Scott, thanks for the links and info.
I was merely speculating that there might have been a problem with the plane for the simple reason that NO airline is going to put a rank rookie in the pilot seat of a 777. From what I’ve seen and read at airliners.net (I’m a regular reader there, LOTS of pilots and lots of airline pilots frequent the forums there) it would appear that particular airline might have.
SFO has the steep descent profile as part of their noise abatement. I’m sure that someone used to just riding the autolander in might have had a challenge doing it by eye, but it is truly mind boggling that someone who didn’t know what they were doing would be in charge of that descent.
As a former frequent flier, I guess I just want to think that the pilot of a heavy passenger jet has more experience than that.
Good article this morning from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/07/us-train-rail-analysis-idUSBRE9660KZ20130707
Death toll climbs to 5, about 40 people still missing in wake of Quebec train explosion
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/07/news/state/quebec-train-explosion-death-toll-at-3-expected-to-rise/
Police were investigating the disaster, and would talk to everyone involved.
“Every time the Surete (Quebec police) needs to investigate, we need to rule out any foul play,” spokesman Benoit Richard told reporters. “Right now we cannot say it is a criminal act. We can only say we are looking at it as if it was.”
@Janice Moore says:
I know that I am nitpicking, but “chalk” will not hold a locomotive
but a “chock” might. ;^) (just a spelling error)
@Willis
If he told you that for new construction the cheapest was offshore wind, he was … well … let me call him “the opposite of right” without touching on his motives.
Wellllll….. this is a guy who regardless of his “motives” has been involved in energy infrastructure most of his professional life. He didn’t express any opinion regarding climate change, or any particular enthusiasm for one type of energy over another. He emphasised that it was not a one size fits all situation. He stated that for new build off-shore was cheaper than thermal, but it depended entirely on the location.
From the link you posted: “U.S. average levelized costs (2011 $/megawatthour) for plants entering service in 2018″ would suggest a specific locale, no? This guy is involved in projects all over the world, France, Africa, Nepal etc.
He also said that compared to an existing brown-coal thermal power station, off-shore wind is not cheaper over its life time, but where no infrastructure exists, it was (and his speciality is developing infrastructure). He also said de-commissioning costs were regularly over-looked as part of the total life-time cost, and the most significant cost of all was transmission lines, implying proximity to energy source was important. His arguments were entirely from a commercial cost-effective point of view – I didn’t get any sense of an agenda being pushed.
I personally feel deeply skeptical about low density power generation such as solar and wind. I do not like wind as an energy solution, much preferring the possibilities of Thorium Liquid Salt and Electrostatic Inertial Fusion, and at least in the short term, natural gas, and I put this to him. But he said just from a pure cost-effectiveness point of view, it really was horses for courses (words to that effect) with regards to currently available technology.
Look, I share your skepticism. But I try to keep an open mind about these things at all times. He absolutely was no eco-warrior, or grant grubbing, enviro-mentalist, and what he said gave me pause for thought. I’d really like to know a little more. One thing I didn’t ask him, where was the money for the infrastructure coming from? How was it financed and were there political strings attached to how it was spent?
Some details:
– the train was heading towards Nantes and from there to the Irving refinery in Saint John, NB
– there were 5 locomotives; 4 were shut down and one was left running in the normal practice to keep the air brakes charged; MM&A says the hand brake was set
– someone unauthorized tampered with the locomotive and turned it off (using inside and outside controls, according to railway, after examination), then the train started rolling
– so 5 non-running locos; all 5 de-railed before fast-moving train reached Lac-Mégantic (this allowed them to be examined for tampering, preserving that part of the crime scene)
– there were 72 or 73 tanker cars (depending on source) and dozens of them blew and burned
– the group that blockaded same rail line in Maine on June 27th promised more ‘direct actions’ in a ‘fearless summer’
– 5 confirmed dead and at least 40 more believed to have perished, in bar, on street, in their beds
– possibly most deadly act of eco-terrorism ever in North America
– I learned all of the above and more from http://www.NewsWatchCanada.ca which is also how I found this article; that news aggregator made connection to the Maine blockade on Saturday
been thinking all along about those locos position and, while kept to myself, figured someone tampered with stuff. from the newswatch article linked just above by Dan Cummings it looks like I was right 🙁
sadly.
Agnostic says:
July 8, 2013 at 7:45 am
Oh, please. Just admit the guy was wrong and move on. Your claim was that
which is total bullshit anywhere on the planet. Yes, the link says “US average levelized costs” … is it your claim that offshore wind is magically cheaper elsewhere?
I swear, people go through such contortions to claim that they were right, it’s embarrassing. Either your man got the facts wrong or you misunderstood him, but either way, my advice would be to admit the claim about offshore wind being “the cheapest” is total hogwash and move on. You’re trying to defend the indefensible, and losing points doing it …
w.
Here’s Bloomberg’s story on the rail-vs-pipeline debate that is shaping up.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-07/quebec-disaster-spurs-rail-versus-pipelines-debate-on-oil.html
I think Sowell was alluding to your conjecture that Buffett was tipped off about the pipeline blockage in 2008. (Which I think was a plausible conjecture.)
Willis:
$50 and I have a repeat loop dash cam in my car.
AS DO ALMOST ALL RUSSIANS these days.
I’d say a MANDATE to have a “DASH CAM” in all control cabs, aircraft AND trains and tractor trailer rigs is in order.
NO REASON NOT TO to help track down “pilot”, “Human” errors.
ALSO radio control, “emergency stop” should exist.
Cost? Probaby $10K per locomotive.
But worth it.
Max
I wonder how much Hansen’s death train rhetoric had to do with this.
Codetech … It was not the “pilot” that had low hours, it was the FO (First Officer, or copilot) … and the FO was not a low hours pilot – he had 10,000+ total hours if I recall. He was only low time in “type” – having 43 hours in a 777. There are some reports he was flying for the landing, but this really should be immaterial. You still had the pilot, and there were two other relief pilots on board, at least one of which supposedly also should have been on the flight deck. A minimum of TWO and possibly 3 pilots – two with much experience in type, were responsible.
And the co-pilot would have been thru an extensive “type” training program with simulator time and a check ride to achieve his rating for the 777.
This was a severe clear day – light winds, unlimited visibility … this should have been a simple landing for any experience pilot. It is not unusual for co-pilots, even with limited time in type, to fly the aircraft.
The approach was made slightly more difficult by the instrument landing system glideslope portion (altitude guide) being out while they upgraded the runway to add a larger safety zone at approach end. But 100′s of flights, including this company’s, have landed without incident. The pilots were made aware thru NOTAM’s the equip was out.
They had several alternative on the aircraft they could have used, but in reality the best and easiest should have been simply looking out the window… pick a bug splat on window – line it up with the landing zone – then manipulate attitude (with the control yoke) and altitude and airspeed (with the throttles) to keep the bug splat lined up with landing zone.
Comparison with the prior days Flightaware radar tracking data flight path …
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_26actSzzJJUzVialpIZm1kdWM/edit?usp=sharing
… shows they apparently were given a “slam dunk” approach by controllers – which is dumping them into final approach at a higher than normal altitude and fairly short distance from the runway. Not unusual at SFO. The pilots successfully bled off that altitude and on short final – if you look at the 2nd to last segment before landing – they appear to show a very similar approach profile to the prior days successful flight.
When they begin the final segment as shown in Flightaware however it all goes wrong. This is the point where the pilot will begin raising the nose to slow for landing. Video shows this is exactly what the crashed flight does. However, there should also be application of power at that point as well – one to control altitude, as the change in attitude, the increased angle of attack, will slow the aircraft and cause loss of altitude without power (exactly as we see on the Flightaware profile), and second, because you want to have power – have the engines already spooled up, in case you need execute a go around .
Here the engines were at flight idle until 7 seconds before landing. Speeds according to NTSB were substantially below the target of 137knots. The aircraft increased its descent rate – all consistent with an increased angle of attack without a paired increase of power.
Why would these highly experienced pilots miss such a basic step? Two possible contributing factors. One, these companies (and the industry) discourage hand flying – they want the automated functions (autopilot etc) used wherever possible to increase safety and efficiency. That however means hand flying skills can deteriorate – which can lead to mistakes – mistakes which can be exacerbated when you add other factors – such as a glide slope – which provides them electronic information on whether they are on correct glide slope – and which allows the auto pilot to all but land the aircraft.
And two – it takes a different configuration of settings in the aircraft to hand fly – especially without glideslope information. On the 777 as with most transport aircraft, they have auto thrusters – which have the ability to automatically control power settings, especially convenient on landings. However, one of the auto pilot settings, FLCH mode, which it appears is one that might be selected during a manual landing, apparently takes the auto thrusters offline.
Speculation is the pilots – used to and encouraged to auto land as much as possible – expected the auto thruster to provide power as they flared for landing, not remembering that they were off line in that particular mode. And by the time they realized the error – 7 seconds before contact – they simply did not have enough time to recover… the stick shaker, warning of a stall, engaged at 4 seconds and at 1.5 seconds they initiated a go around, but it was too late by then, as they hit the end of sea wall ending the flight.
rogerknights says:
July 8, 2013 at 11:30 am
Sadly, Roger, what you and I might think Sowell was alluding to doesn’t matter. Only when he answers my direct question will we know what direction his thoughts were taking.
I used to do what you are doing, try to guess what the person was talking about. So then I’d go fix that or respond to what I thought they meant, and they’d say no, they were talking about something totally different … so I gave it up. If a man wants a citation for something, point it out. If I have one I’ll post it. If not I’ll admit it.
From all appearances, Sowell Esq. doesn’t want to get a missing citation. Instead, he wants to bitch about a missing citation.
Finally, Roger, if Sowell was “alluding to [my] conjecture” about Buffett, I clearly identified my conjecture about Buffett as that—a guess, and possibly a coincidence. Are you thinking he’s wanting a citation to my guess? How would that work?
The guy is a disgrace to the name Roger in my book … but that’s just me. Of course, now he’ll likely pop up to complain that I haven’t given a citation to my book … like I said, Court Jester, but always good for a laugh.
w.
A. Scott:
I was sorta trying to avoid hijacking this thread with the SFO incident so my response was terse.
However, all that you said was covered at airliners.net, so I didn’t repeat it here. It appears the FO was flying the plane, a total of 4 pilots were in the cockpit. Originally someone said the FO had 10,000 hours on 737s, but that has been corrected to 747s, which means he had valuable experience with heavies. And you’re right, it’s immaterial who was actually flying the plane, there was enough experience in the cockpit that someone should have been keeping better watch on what was going on.
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, and am not arguing. There are a lot of “should haves” in all discussions about this incident. I still use the phrase “mind boggling” at what appears to have been a tragic set of circumstances leading up to the crash. It just plain shouldn’t have happened, and yet it did.
I also concur with what many are saying: the 777 appears to have held together extremely well in circumstances that might have shredded a lesser aircraft.
“- someone unauthorized tampered with the locomotive and turned it off (using inside and outside controls, according to railway, after examination), then the train started rolling”
Actually, according to latest reports, the “someone” was the local fire brigade who put out a fire in the engine, but who failed to realise the consequences of the engine being powered down (the brakes would fail).
“The train had been stopped at the neighbouring town of Nantes at the time.
Nantes fire chief Patrick Lambert told Reuters the crew switched off the engine as they extinguished a “good-sized” fire in the engine, probably caused by a fuel or oil line break in the engine.”
(from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-09/firemen-may-have-cut-power-to-runaway-trains-brakes/4807576)
If that is the case then some of the posters here proposing conspiracy theory explanations have been guilty of premature ejaculation in a big way.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
July 8, 2013 at 3:10 pm
If the engine is powered down, the brakes go on, not off … at least that’s my understanding.
w.
[a] “… ‘chalk’ will not hold a locomotive
but a “chock” might. ;^) (just a spelling error)” [Alberta Slim]
Thank you, Slim, for helping me out. Learning all the time. #[:)]
It was nice to know someone read what I wrote! Say….. that gives me an idea….. . [:)]
PLUS, in addition to getting to know that my comments are read, I can claim that all my mistakes were designed to do just that! LOL.
A. Scott said on July 7, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Another discussion on the 777 at SFO:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5809207
*********************************
THAT WAS ONE COOL SET OF THREE THREADS over there. Apologies for going OT, but, I just had to re-publish that excellent link. Your analysis, BTW, A., was first-class reporting. Thank you.
Willis : “If the engine is powered down, the brakes go on, not off … at least that’s my understanding.”
Actually, now that you mention it, that is what I thought as well, but…
“But Ed Burkhardt, the chairman of Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, says the engine had been left on by the train’s engineer to maintain pressure in the air brakes.
He says as the pressure gradually “leaked off”, the air brakes failed and the train began to slide downhill.`”
So there is something I don’t understand about train brakes.
Re above : It seems train brakes are compression brakes, not vacuum brakes,so they do fail if the compressor is turned off.
http://www.tarorigin.com/art/Jbentley/
I heard the authorities felt the brakes were tampered with? Or was it a case of driver error?
No gentlemen not quite so.
In trains the pneumatic Continuous Automatic Brake [CAB] depends on the creation of a differential pressure on either side of a piston in each vehicle to apply force through some mechanical linkage to the braking mechanism of that vehicle.
The pneumatic pressure is carried along the entire length of the train by pipe with flexible connectors between vehicles. This is called the train line.
Today the Westinghouse positive pressure system is almost universal although it has many variants and the British stuck to their vacuum CAB until almost the end of the 20th century.
No matter the principle is the same.
The difference in pneumatic pressure across the brake piston is produced by opening the train line to atmosphere which actuates the brake. The brake is called Continuous because the air pressure, or vacuum, passes along the length of the train by the train line so the brakes come on in every vehicle when called for by the driver opening his vent valve and opening the train line to atmosphere.
Likewise the brakes are described as Automatic because in the event of malfunction they will come on throughout the length of the train without human intervention. The classic example is a coupling failure causing a train to break in half which disrupts the train line so the brakes come on in both halves of the breakaway preventing the rear section from either running back on an ascending gradient or overrunning the front section even on a descending gradient.
The drawback with the pneumatic CAB is that power must be continuously used to pump the train line without which inevitable leakage over time will eventually prevent the creation of differential pressure across the brake piston so the brakes come off.
To deal with this all vehicles have some kind of mechanically operated brake which can be pinned down to stop the vehicle moving: such as when it is in freight [marshalling] ] yard.when the brake can manually released as required to move the vehicle.
This is a very simple explanation the details are more complex but I hope it serves to clarify matters.
Safety and operating practices vary so widely across the world it is not proper for me to comment further on what happened here beyond expressing my condolences to the victims of the disaster.
The inquiry will tell.
Kindest Regards
Codetech – agree with you … just wanted to make sure people understood it was not a rookie pilot with few hours. A more important issue may be cultural … “seniority” is very important in these cultures – and rarely does one question another more senior. The “trainee” pilot it has been reported apparently had some type cultural seniority over the primary training pilot.
There was alos at least one other relief pilot on the flight deck. They all allowed the aircraft to get low and slow – and run out of ‘inertia’
New info today showed speeds at various points – their target speed should have been 137 … normallt the auto thruster should have kicked in when speed got too low, but in the mode (FLCH) apparently reqd for fast descents auto thruster speed protection is not engaged.
This was exacerbated as noted by raising the nose as it became clear they were in trouble.
FDR of Asiana Airlines Flight 214
Autopilot were disengaged at 1600 feet
1400 feet Airspeed 170 knots
1000 feet Airspeed 149 knots
500 feet Airspeed 134 knots
200 feet Airspeed 118 knots
125 feet Airspeed 112 knots
3 seconds before impact Airspeed 103 knots
Impact Airspeed 106 knots
Vref 137