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 …
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?
No it’s not my claim, it was Dave’s, the engineer I spoke to. He emphasised that point.
My understanding is the same as yours, and I am just as skeptical. But given that it’s what he does for a living, and he focused solely on cost-effectiveness rather than Eco-grand standing, he ought to know better than both of us. I think the point is transportation of energy, very relevant to your recent articles, and decommissioning costs. Does the table you linked to factor in those costs? Do they account for the variability of fuel costs? Maybe that’s what he has to do, take a conservative view of the costs of tranportation of, say, natural gas to the location, the gas itself, and ultimately the decommissioning costs of the plant at the end of its life.
Maybe too, (and I didn’t really get to the bottom of this although I did fish) the reason it is cheaper from his point of view of establishing infrastructure is because of policies that artificially encourage it. He’s an engineer. He doesn’t really care about how the deck of cards got that way, he just deals with the hand he gets.
And Willis, don’t shoot the messenger! I’m skeptical too – especially about low density power generation. This was a conversation at a party after quite a few bottles of tasty Australian white, but I have had to reassess my certainties so often now that until I know more i will have to keep an open mind.
Agnostic says:
July 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Let me start by saying I didn’t realize you were the messenger. I thought you believed him. So my bad.
Here’s the thing, Agnostic. Imagine if you will the difficulty of putting a modern wind turbine up on top of an 80-metre tower, to accommodate the 60-metre blades. Now suppose you climb up to the top and you realize you forgot your wrench … you have to climb back down and get it.
Now imagine doing the same thing at sea … which one will be cheaper?
So I just can’t imagine how anyone could claim that offshore wind was cheaper even than onshore wind …
Now, if it’s cheaper because of local subsidies in some given location, I can understand that. But in general? I’ve spent a lifetime on the ocean. It’s a bitch to work there. It’s hard to build anything there. And the marine environment is among the most corrosive natural environments for machines to work in. As a result, the actual lifetimes of the installed turbines have often not been anywhere near the design lifetimes.
Which is among the reasons why, after solar thermal electric, it has the highest levelized cost of all forms of generation. You ask:
Yes, that’s the whole point of “levelized” costs, they reflect the costs of generation over the lifetime of the plant, including capital costs and fuel. It’s another reason that offshore wind is costly, the lifetime is shorter than other types. Not sure about decommissioning costs, though.
w.
jimmi_the_dalek writes “Re above : It seems train brakes are compression brakes, not vacuum brakes,so they do fail if the compressor is turned off.”
According to the earlier posters and the Wiki its the other way around and low air pressure causes the brakes to come on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_air_brake
I wrote “According to the earlier posters and the Wiki its the other way around and low air pressure causes the brakes to come on.”
But having said that and reading it a bit closer, the system still relies on there being sufficient air in the cylinders to actually cause the brakes to be applied. So in that sense its a positive air effect of braking initiated by a low air effect in the control line. It actually strikes me as being a poor system and I would have thought if there was zero pressure in the cylinders and the train was stationary, then spring locking clamps should be applied.
Several errors in assumption expressed including overlooking the fact that these cars also have manual ‘parking’ brakes?
Do not confuse the ‘operational’ air brakes (with their special operational characteristics) with the mechanical parking brake intended to secure cars that are ‘parked’ for period of time.
Further extrapolate the issue of spring-loaded brake application in day-to-day use where *problems* would arise due to absence/failure of air supply and would also be unnecessary in say a simple switchyard environment where the switch yard engine can supply all the braking function necessary intrinsically; their are operational issues in scenarios that have not been considered when problem arise bearing directly on the choice of ‘braking’ actuation technology.
Perhaps a ‘deeper’ review of the reason, the how and the why (the complete history) behind the Westinghouse airbrake is needed?
.
Eco-Terroism? They want to shut down all possible ways to move Shale Oil and shut this new boom down. The have tied Keystone XL into knots, so the industry says, “Okay, we will ship it safely by rail car”…..therefore, we need a spectacular de-railment incident to sway public opinion against this “dangerous” form of transporting evil oil. A train doesn’t just simple pull away on its own, there are too many interlocking safeguard systems (anybody see the movie Unstoppable?). Either the engineer was stupendously negligent, was bribed to do it, or someone go on the train unnoticed.
I thought this post and article excerpt did the best to sum it all up put all this in a bit of historical perspective from a man-power/human-factor aspect:
“Air Brakes are supposed to be “fail-safe”. So what caused the Lac-Megantic disaster?”
http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/what-caused-train-disaster-not-brake-failure.html
Excerpt:
“Quebec firemen cut power to runaway train’s brakes, railway says”
http://www.trust.org/item/20130708201632-hx5vg
BTW, later news accounts put representatives of the railway line at the scene before the fire dept responding to the fire call left … whether that is true or not we shall be finding out when the inquiry is released.
.
How does this work, Ron?
Once, say, half the liquid has boiled away through the over-pressure valve the tank area ABOVE the liquid begins to soften and eventually ‘gives way’ resulting in the BLEVE …
You do understand that is what happens in a BLEVE?
As long as liquid is in contact inside with the ‘walls’ or surface of the container the temperature of the ‘wall’ stays reasonably close to just the boiling point of the liquid rather than continuing to climb (with continued exposure to an external flame or fire) where at some point it will begin to soften, expand then ‘blow’ open due to internal pressure …
Bleve Demo, softening tank metal above the liquid (e.g. LPG) – http://youtu.be/sl-JgyQA7u0
.
These days, being a friend of Obama is worth big bucks.
———————-
Yeah, just ask Jon Corzine
FYI everyone……
Train tampering according to Canadian rail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358932/Canada-train-blast-Was-oil-tanker-tampered-with.html
Jim writes “Do not confuse the ‘operational’ air brakes (with their special operational characteristics) with the mechanical parking brake intended to secure cars that are ‘parked’ for period of time.”
I’m not confusing the fact. Its likely to be the case manual brakes weren’t applied or I think its fair to say the tradgedy wouldn’t have happened (unless it was sabotage). We’re looking at fail safes with train braking and its particularly interesting to me that the default “train stopped” position of train brakes isn’t particularly secure when it could be. Its not like the car stopped position where a person must be physically pushing on the pedal and so therefore must be physically present.
Beyond that for a car the manual handbrake must be used.
Gentlemen
I repeat again.
The dangers of leaving a train parked and unattended on a gradient even as shallow as one in one thousand and depending only on the pneumatic Continuous Automatic Brake [CAB], the air brake in American parlance, to prevent a runaway are so well known and understood that around the world most Railway Company’s Rulebooks forbid the practice: and in such circumstances require that the locally controlled mechanical brakes on each vehicle are manually locked down to prevent a just such a runaway.
Unfortunately runaways are still all too common although usually the resulting accident is nowhere near as serious as this one was.
The rest is entirely up to the inquiry and Canadian law about which I cannot comment, beyond saying that if it had occurred in the UK it would have led to serious criminal charges.
Kindest Regards
Just to clarify few things about train operations in North America;
1) A train cars only braking force when moving is the air brakes, that, and occasionally the dynamic braking in the locomotive(s) (turns motors into generators and “pushes back” against the train cars)
2) The air brake force is supplied by air “charged” into the car by an operating locomotive before the car is moved (very similar to a battery operated tool, can’t do s—t if it ain’t charged)
3) With no air in the car the air brake is useless
4) There is a spring inside the air brake cylinder (the mechanism that converts air pressure to mechanical force) which releases the brakes when air pressure is removed/absent
5) The hand brake is similar to a parking brake on an automobile, it is only meant to hold a stopped car in place
6) The hand brake is almost useless above a few MPH
7) Air brakes are normally applied to all 8 wheels on a typical car
8) Hand brakes are usually only applied to 2 wheels (1 axle)
9) Hand brakes have about 1/10 (or less) the braking force provided by an air brake
10) The air brake application (assuming there is air in the reservoirs on each car) is controlled by the “train line”, a hose/pipe that runs the length of the train. Reducing the pressure (“I made a 10 pound application”) actually reduces the train line pressure which causes that much pressure to flow from the reservoir to the air brake cylinder.
11) It is only possible to “recharge” the air in each car when the brakes are released, on long steep grades it is possible (less likely these days) to “run out of air” if you apply/release/apply/release the brakes too many times
12) The Westinghouse air brake is not totally failsafe, Failure modes include;
The accidental blockage of the “trainline” by a kinked hose (Happened at Cajon Pass in CA), or a valve on one of the train cars being bumped to the “off” position (Caused a passenger train to run into (literally) Washington DC Union Station)
Excessive use of the brakes on a long downhill grade (less common these days since modern locomotives have huge air compressors)
14) A “parked” locomotive with diesel engines running attached to a train can (if properly equipped, most likely these days) make up for “leakage” and keep the brakes applied with a steady force
15) Correct practice when applying hand brakes on a train parked on a hill is to apply them to the “downslope” end of the train, if the “upslope” part of the train loses its air brakes the “downslope” part “should” hold the train in place (assuming it does not get above 1 MPH or so). The crew parking this train may have applied hand brakes to the portion closest to the locomotive (upslope) because the other end was about ¾ mile away (~73 x 65 foot cars)
16) The “blackbox” on the locomotive will not tell us anything about the condition of the hand brakes, there is no connection available to permit this
17) If, as I suspect, the down slope portion of the train lost air brakes (a combination of the locomotive being turned off by the fire department and elapsed time) the cars on the upslope portion of the train should show “flat spots” which occur when wheels are slid along the rail head. There was at least one witness report of “screeching sounds” from the train as it left its parked location, this would coincide with some of the train wheels being slid (dragged without rotating) along the rail surface.
18) Charging the train with air can take a considerable amount of time (upwards of 30 minutes) for the large trains operated in N. America
19) Train crews are often tempted to “save the air” when doing switching (shunting) operations along the main line. This has caused (on more than one occasion that I know of) the train “to get away”, in these cases the crews had to stop switching operations and “go after” their train.
I know this is a lengthy list, but it seems some folks would like to better understand all the details of how trains are operated (with a remarkable safety record) in N. America.
So, sadly it seems the train crew “parked” the train using the normal rules assuming that a relief crew would be along shortly. Then the locomotive caught fire and the fire crew shut it down (easy to do, most locomotives have a big red FUEL SHUTOFF button on the outside) as part of the normal firefighting operations. Then nobody realized that the air brakes would “bleed off” and think to check if enough hand brakes where applied.
A terrible accident, I would wager that everybody involved is racking their brain right now wondering; “what if I had only double checked this or that…….”
FYI, My father worked for 49 years as a locomotive engineer for a large railroad in the Northeastern US. So I learned all of this at an early age. And I have volunteered at a railroad museum and actually worked with/on this equipment.
I cannot speak too much about how it is done elsewhere, but railcars (freight and some passenger) routinely travel all across Canada, Mexico and the USA using identical systems.
Cheers, Kevin.
Not sure if this has been posted but, criminal investigations are being launched into the tragedy.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/09/police-launch-unprecedented-criminal-investigation-into-lac-megantic-train-disaster/
Les Johnson says:
July 7, 2013 at 3:50 am
One of the reasons I love this place are little tidbits of information such as Les shared with us.
How often do we hear about environmentalists who have motives as pure as the wind blown snow wanting to stop fossil fuels, and the way of life based on those fuels? Then we find out the motives are not quite as pure.
Buffet is a beneficiary of the capitalist system in place today, all of which is driven by fossil fuels. Good for him and I wish him every success. But why does he get a pass in all this? Doesn’t everyone realize the Dairy Queen he owns is dependent every day on the expenditure of fossil fuel? Electricity to keep his ice cream cold, fuel to haul the dairy products to his stores, fuel for his employees’ transportation to and from work, etc.
I know the answer to all this is politics, but why can’t people see everyone has an agenda?
Also, again, people who really know what they are talking about will offer observations on this blog not to be found anywhere else in the world.
Once again, thanks to everyone making this a place to visit on a regular basis.
Final toll appears to be 50 dead. Authorities have found 20 bodies so far, only one of which they have identified; according to earlier statements, they don’t seem to expect to find many more. The rest are reduced to ashes.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Businesses+open+mayor+grateful+support+M%C3%A9gantic/8640087/story.html
Thanks to the railway experts who contributed to this thread. As a public education exercise, it has been awesome. There is no way that I (and many other readers) would have learned so much about locomotive and train braking systems otherwise.
Clearly, some of the best minds over a long period devoted themselves to railway engineering.
In regards to the comments on train brakes,
The only addition I would like to make that I learned on another website was that trains in America use a reverse system on there braking system in which the brakes are “always on” by use of a spring in the braking system ( I assume spring is on the calipers of the brakes if similar to autos)
In this american system the “brakes are held in the off position, or operational, by the air pressure” (opposite of canadian systems) but if air pressure is lost completely then all the brakes apply themselves, a failsafe in which the spring being mechanical keeps the brakes on because its better a train stop and not move then be a runaway!
Had this american system been used on these railcars this accident would never have happened.
Hope this helps a bit, otherwise great reading on the braking system on trains.
Your source of info on this is ??? A patent number, a website link, a name (like Westinghouse Airbrake or Railway air brake) … anything?
PS. Specifically, please cite the source referencing “springs”. Your source may be in error …
.
This is a very good article. There is a lot of information and facts with sourcing and seemingly accurate information. There is only one objection I have. In the case made for the for the Keystone XL pipeline, it is stated that the only concerns are petroleum usage period. I feel the pipeline will be built but it is very good thinking to slow down and find the safest route with the fewest possible future problems. This does take time but is much better than just charging ahead without thinking.
Canada investigators want rule changes after deadly rail crash
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96I0OO20130719
(Reuters) – Canadian investigators issued their first recommendations on Friday after a devastating train wreck in Quebec, urging that trains hauling dangerous goods not be left unattended, and pushing for stricter guidelines on railway braking systems.
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) investigators probing the July 6 disaster in the lakeside town of Lac-Megantic said the “braking force” applied to the train, which was hauling 72 tanker cars of crude oil, was insufficient to hold it in place….