Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Oil Train Safety Megathread. Updated July 30, 2023 [View all]mahatmakanejeeves
(60,962 posts)16. The war over electric brakes
The war over electric brakes
Posted by Fred Frailey
on Wednesday, May 06, 2015
....
Now come electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, better known as ECP. The U.S. Department of Transportation told railroads that crude oil trains of more than 69 cars must have ECP braking by 2021 or it will restrict these trains to 30 mph at all times. At this, the normally unflappable Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads, went haywire. First and foremost, the DOT has no substantial evidence to support a safety justification for mandating ECP brakes, which will not prevent accidents, Hamberger said. The DOT couldnt make a safety case for ECP but forged ahead anyhow. Expect the AAR to challenge this rule in court.
....
So Ill make the case for ECP. (By the way, the standards were developed two decades ago by the same AAR that now vigorously opposes their implementation.) A train equipped with electronic braking is hard-wired, allowing instant communication from airbrake handle in the locomotive to every brake valve on the cars. The principal advantages are that all brakes instantly apply and release at the same time, the air supply is continually charged, engineers can gradually release and reapply brakes, and undesired emergency braking (dynamiters, theyre called) virtually disappear. In-train forces, such as slack roll-in and roll-out, are greatly reduced, and that lessens the risk of derailment. Moreover, stopping distance is reduced 40 to 60 percent, permitting higher train speeds and higher speeds approaching restricting signals. Longer trains are possible. Longer trains run at higher speeds increase the capacity of the railroad network. Because air is always charging, braking power is inexhaustible; plus, a train can stop and instantly restart. Brakes, draft gear, wheels, and bearings require less maintenance. Existing federal regulations would allow train inspections every 5,000 miles instead of the present 1,500 or 1,000 miles.
Those are a lot of advantages. In a report commissioned by the Federal Railroad Administration in 2005, the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton estimated the cost of full implementation of ECP at $6 billion and the measurable savings (not including added network capacity) at $650 million a year. Booz recommended that ECP conversion begin with coal trains loaded in Wyomings Powder River Basin, then to other types of unit trains (presumably including intermodal trains), and finally the rest of the car fleet all in a 15-year time frame. As applied to western coal service, its report stated, the business case is substantial, with a recovery of all costs within three years. ... And yet, a decade later, nothing has happened, and probably at the urging of his member railroads, Ed Hamberger is fightin mad and probably on his way to federal court.
Several things are going on here. Silos are one. Nobody is looking at the big picture, just his or her little piece of it. The boys in the Mechanical Silo could care less about increased network capacity. The occupants of the Finance Silo dont want to divert cash flow away from share buybacks, their favorite toy. Most of those in the CEO Silo didnt come up on the operating side and are probably bored by the subject. In a conservative, mature business like railroading, risk taking and even forward thinking are not rewarded. And the cost of hard-wiring the car fleet would primarily be borne by shippers, who own most of the equipment, whereas railroads would reap the benefits. How to share the benefits with car-owning shippers leads to very difficult negotiations.
on Wednesday, May 06, 2015
....
Now come electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, better known as ECP. The U.S. Department of Transportation told railroads that crude oil trains of more than 69 cars must have ECP braking by 2021 or it will restrict these trains to 30 mph at all times. At this, the normally unflappable Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads, went haywire. First and foremost, the DOT has no substantial evidence to support a safety justification for mandating ECP brakes, which will not prevent accidents, Hamberger said. The DOT couldnt make a safety case for ECP but forged ahead anyhow. Expect the AAR to challenge this rule in court.
....
So Ill make the case for ECP. (By the way, the standards were developed two decades ago by the same AAR that now vigorously opposes their implementation.) A train equipped with electronic braking is hard-wired, allowing instant communication from airbrake handle in the locomotive to every brake valve on the cars. The principal advantages are that all brakes instantly apply and release at the same time, the air supply is continually charged, engineers can gradually release and reapply brakes, and undesired emergency braking (dynamiters, theyre called) virtually disappear. In-train forces, such as slack roll-in and roll-out, are greatly reduced, and that lessens the risk of derailment. Moreover, stopping distance is reduced 40 to 60 percent, permitting higher train speeds and higher speeds approaching restricting signals. Longer trains are possible. Longer trains run at higher speeds increase the capacity of the railroad network. Because air is always charging, braking power is inexhaustible; plus, a train can stop and instantly restart. Brakes, draft gear, wheels, and bearings require less maintenance. Existing federal regulations would allow train inspections every 5,000 miles instead of the present 1,500 or 1,000 miles.
Those are a lot of advantages. In a report commissioned by the Federal Railroad Administration in 2005, the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton estimated the cost of full implementation of ECP at $6 billion and the measurable savings (not including added network capacity) at $650 million a year. Booz recommended that ECP conversion begin with coal trains loaded in Wyomings Powder River Basin, then to other types of unit trains (presumably including intermodal trains), and finally the rest of the car fleet all in a 15-year time frame. As applied to western coal service, its report stated, the business case is substantial, with a recovery of all costs within three years. ... And yet, a decade later, nothing has happened, and probably at the urging of his member railroads, Ed Hamberger is fightin mad and probably on his way to federal court.
Several things are going on here. Silos are one. Nobody is looking at the big picture, just his or her little piece of it. The boys in the Mechanical Silo could care less about increased network capacity. The occupants of the Finance Silo dont want to divert cash flow away from share buybacks, their favorite toy. Most of those in the CEO Silo didnt come up on the operating side and are probably bored by the subject. In a conservative, mature business like railroading, risk taking and even forward thinking are not rewarded. And the cost of hard-wiring the car fleet would primarily be borne by shippers, who own most of the equipment, whereas railroads would reap the benefits. How to share the benefits with car-owning shippers leads to very difficult negotiations.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The stuff was getting scattered. I was impressed by progree's analysis
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2015
#2
One year after Lynchburg train wreck, booming Bakken still fuels concerns
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2015
#12
EIA: Rail delivered 52 percent of East Coast refinery supply in February
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#14
FRA freezes on tank car sloshing; DOE oil volatility bombshell drops like a dud
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#20
Vancouver (Washington) Columbian Three-Part Series About Port Oil Terminal Deal
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#22
UW-Madison researchers hope frac-sand impact study will help railroads improve ballast maintenance
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#26
Canadian Pacific asks judge not to approve Lac-Megantic derailment settlement
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#29
FRA Announces Final Rule to Prevent Unattended Trains from Rolling Away
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#32
Federal Railroad Administration to RRs: Notification of Crude Oil Trains to States Must Continue
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#33
Officials: Broken rail missed on 2 inspections caused fiery West Va. train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2015
#34
Federal Railroad Administration Issues Final Rule to Improve Rail Flaw Detection {January 2014}
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2015
#36
Washington state transportation commission adopts crude-by-rail safety rules
mahatmakanejeeves
Feb 2016
#45
NTSB report: Broken rail likely caused 2014 Lynchburg train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2016
#46
Minnesota legislators want railroads to open books on emergency response
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2016
#47
Oil-by-rail safety concerns likely to reignite after Oregon derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
#49
2 ND rail inspectors receive certification from the Federal Railroad Administration
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2016
#51
NTSB releases dashcam videos of December 30, 2013, Casselton, North Dakota, oil train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2017
#52
Wilmington News Journal - Delaware Online: Rail safety questioned as fuel shipments likely to go up
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2017
#53
National Academy Study Touts Oil-by-Rail Safety But Supports Weakening Regulations
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2017
#55
Tar Sands Crude Shipments Quietly Increased In Oregon, With Regulators In the Dark
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2019
#66
Hazardous Materials: Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2019
#67
BNSF says it can handle more crude-by-rail shipments if Dakota pipeline is shut
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2021
#70
Moffat Tunnel lease could become part of fight over Uinta Basin Railway
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2023
#74
6 months after the East Palestine train derailment, Congress is deadlocked on new rules for safety
BumRushDaShow
Aug 2023
#76