One of our Ashland neighbors has provided the following additional information to do with the meetings on November 1st.
11:00 am Ashland Theater, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC – CTB and DRPT will be giving a presentation on High Speed Rail and their visit to Ashland. Then, Jim Foley, R-MC President Lindgren and a representative from the County will briefly speak (5 minutes each.) Next there will be a Q&A between the CTB and Town and County representatives… there will be NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
The group of officials will then walk from Lee Street (Library) north to College Ave where they will ride a bus up Center to Ashcake to check out a potential new rail station location. Then, as I understand it, they will drive along the Western Bypass route before leaving for their 4:00 meeting in Fredericksburg.
Let’s show them how much we love our Town… Come to the meeting at the Ashland Theater, beautify your properties for them to see, be out and about Town during their visit and please come to Fredericksburg for public comments during CTB meeting!
Commonwealth Transportation Board Meeting
Tuesday, November 1 @ 4:00
Germanna Community College,
Center for Workforce Development and Community Education 10000 Germanna Point Drive Fredericksburg, VA 22408
There are already a few people planning on attending/speaking at this meeting, so if you would like to car pool contact kjamkjam at comcast dot net.
On September 27th 2016 somewhere between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. a CSX locomotive caught fire in Ashland. Here is what is known so far:
The train was being hauled by three locomotives. It was the third locomotive that had the fire.
The locomotive was located in the region of West Patrick St., adjacent to the Randolph-Macon tennis courts.
The train was heading south.
The fire was extinguished and the locomotive was removed.
The train consisted of coal wagons only.
There are no reports of injuries or damage to other property.
It is possible that the cause of the event was unburned fuel caking up on the turbocharger and catching fire.
We are continuing to research this event in order to find more details.
The background is that we are analyzing safety issues to do with the proposed High Speed Rail project. The current situation with regard to safety is, in our judgment, unacceptable. Here are some basic facts.
Approximately 62 freight trains a day travel through Ashland.
6% of the cars carry Highly Hazardous Chemicals (HHCs) — chemicals that can explode, burn or release a vapor cloud of toxic gas. (“Empty” cars generally contain 3% of the original contents and can actually be more hazardous than full cars.) Some of the most severe chemicals used in American industry travel through our town.
We can analyze the effect of a leak (large or small) using EPA-authorized software.
A preliminary risk analysis indicates that we are above the threshold of “acceptable risk”. However, we live with the situation because “That’s the way it’s always been” (just as we live with the fact that the current track spacing does not meet code). However, adding more trains, many of them with many more cars, will create a safety situation that is not acceptable.
The following posts provide information on some of the safety analysis work that we have done so far.
I plan of speaking at the Board of Supervisors Citizens’ Time on July 27th. Since my input is quite detailed I have prepared a White Paper to provide background. Its title is High Speed Rail Options, Hanover County, Virginia; it can be downloaded here. It has already been sent to the members of the Board.
The White Paper makes the following recommendations.
DRPT and CSX provide the public with a plan for coordinating their projects.
DRPT provides a thorough analysis as to why the I-95 option was rejected.
DRPT demonstrates that they have studied the on-going challenges of the California project and that they have a plan to ensure that their own project will not suffer similar difficulties.
DRPT demonstrates that they have thoroughly evaluated new technologies such as hyperloop trains.
I also suggest that the Board of Supervisors set up a task force of specialists to provide objective advice and analysis.
Third Rail, 3-2-3 and Hanover
I started blogging about the High Speed Rail project last year (my first post was on Christmas Eve 2015). Since then I have published 66 posts. My principal goal has been to demonstrate the folly of putting a third rail through the Town of Ashland.
Trying to squeeze a third rail through the already congested Ashland corridor is unacceptable for the following reasons:
The plan as proposed by DRPT is in violation of code. Not only does the new track have to meet modern code, so do the existing tracks. There is insufficient space to insert a third track while meeting those requirements.
We already have 50 freight trains moving through town every day. Approximately 6% of the cars are carrying “Highly Hazardous Chemicals’, i.e., chemicals which, were they to be released, could explode, burn or form a toxic vapor plume. Adding a third rail and increasing freight traffic would cross a safety threshold.
The loss of irreplaceable historical buildings and the impact of the college campus would be immense.
The project would be highly disruptive to the town’s economy.
About five months ago the DRPT added a new option: 3-2-3. It would have three tracks to the north and south of Ashland but would retain two tracks through town. For reasons similar to those just discussed this option would also appear to be in violation of code. It is also unsafe and destructive.
At this point there is not much more that I can do challenge the Third Rail and 3-2-3 options. I am seeking legal help regarding the interpretation of code and regulations and I am also chatting to seasoned railroad people, including CSX management, regarding changes in railroad freight traffic.
Many organizations in Hanover County, including the Supervisors, the Town Council and the Main St. organization have expressed a desire to come up with options that address the concerns of the broader Ashland community. I have been asked to help develop those options. My response is the White Paper referenced above.
One of the difficulties that we have had in following the High Speed Rail project is that there are actually two projects: High Speed Rail and Increased Freight Capacity. Each has its own goals, budgets and schedules but, because they are happening at the same time and same place, they have become entangled with one another, leading to confusion. (We are all on a learning curve as to what is going on. Communications from both DRPT and CSX could have been better.)
It is vital to stress that these two projects are going to happen. Merely wishing that they will not take place is not an effective response. This means that it behooves the citizens of Hanover to understand what the goals of both DRPT and CSX are, and to help those organizations achieve their goals, while protecting our community.
Define the Customer
In earlier posts such as Controlling the Narrative and Selling Nothing we suggested that those who oppose the DRPT proposals would achieve greater success were they to express their opposition in terms of the project’s customer — the passenger traveling along the east coast corridor. We even created a fictional business lady who travels from Richmond to D.C. We expressed some of her thoughts and disappointments as she learns more about the realities of the DRPT project. It makes similar sense to understand the goals of CSX and DRPT.
The Passenger Project
To further complicate an already foggy situation there are actually two phases to the HSR project. Phase I — which is what we are seeing now — is basically an increase in capacity. Phase II is true High Speed Rail.
Phase I — Increased Capacity
The DRPT refers to its project as the ‘Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor’. And the term ‘High Speed Rail’ is widely used to describe what they are doing. But, as pointed out in our post HSR, use of these words is misleading. To summarize that post’s analysis, journey times from Staples Mill Rd. to Washington Union Station will be reduced from 2 hr 20 min to 2 hr and the train’s average speed will increase from 45.1 mph to a mere 52.5 mph. For most passengers, it will still be quicker to use I-95 — particularly if point-to-point times are considered.
The reality is that the current proposal to add a third track along the eastern corridor is not about ‘high speed’passenger service; what DRPT and Amtrak want is a more reliable service — one that will attract more travelers because those travelers are more confident that they will arrive at their destination on time. The third rail will help them achieve this goal because passenger trains will be less likely to be stuck behind a slow-moving freight.
Phase II — True High Speed
If the current project is something of a stopgap, then the question becomes, “What is the long-term goal?” We have virtually no authoritative information on this topic but we do hear that some long-term planning is going on. Clearly Amtrak would like to have a true high speed service from Boston to Miami.
They probably have a vision of something like the current Acela service running all that way. If that is their vision then we suggest that they are making a mistake. Current high speed rail technology such as Acela is old, very old. New methods of moving people far more quickly have been developed and are surprisingly mature. Moreover, if we could jump straight to these new technologies we could not only whisk our fictional business lady from RVA to D.C. in 20 minutes — we could do this with less disruption to the people of Hanover County.
In the White Paper we make the following points:
One of the new technologies — hyperloop trains — is being developed. Trains run at up to 650 mph. Hence the journey time from RVA to DC goes from 2 hr 20 min to just 20 minutes.
The new trains are much lighter than old-fashioned high speed trains (no locomotive, no track, no wheels). And there is no overhead catenary. Hence the structural and civil engineering challenges associated with building a hyperloop train along the I-95 corridor are much reduced.
There is already competition among the nations of Europe to become the leader in this technology. Currently Finland/Sweden and Hungary/Slovakia are out front. It would be great if the United States could become one of the challengers.
My favorite quotation in this context is from one of the Swedish managers,
Expanded to all of Sweden the hyperloop makes high speed railways look ridiculous.
Let’s adapt that quotation,
Expanded to all of the United States the hyperloop makes High Speed Rail look ridiculous.
Obviously these concepts are futuristic. But a key part of the technology — electromagnetic levitation — is already in commercial use in Japan. Those trains travel at at well over 300 mph.
The situation regarding freight is difficult to follow. CSX projects 2% per annum growth in its traffic over the next 30 years. (Freight traffic actually declined somewhat during the last 12 months.) Yet they are currently taking actions that would seem to lead to a much bigger increase along our east coast corridor. These actions include:
Expansion of the Virginia Avenue tunnel in D.C to two tracks. Once it is finished CSX will be able to run double-stacked container trains all the way from Chicago to the south-east. This could have a huge impact on the traffic through Hanover.
Expansion of the east coast ports in Virginia and North Carolina which will put many more containers on the eastern corridor. This growth will be fueled in part by the recent expansion of the Panama canal.
Potential closure of the C&O line due to reduced coal traffic.
We have been informed that CSX does not see themselves as a leader in our current project — they are merely picking up on the benefits that the DRPT project would offer them. Others are more skeptical. This is clearly a topic that merits further communication.
This post summarizes some of the points made in the White Paper. Other issues — including the troubled California HSR project and the lack of information to do with the I-95 option — are not discussed here.
High Speed Rail — in some form — is coming.
The current ‘High Speed Rail’ project is actually a ‘More Reliable Rail’ project.
It is likely that we will see much more freight traffic along the eastern corridor in coming years — although details are frustratingly hazy.
It makes sense for those opposed to the current project to understand the needs and goals of the passengers who will be traveling on the new trains, and of the freight companies using the tracks.
Current ‘High Speed Rail’ technology is very old. Its time is over — the trains are too slow. The use of modern technology will dramatically reduce travel times and will lessen the impact on the communities through which it travels.
Early in my career I was appointed lead engineer on a project for a chemical plant in Texas. The project was to take a small unit operation consisting of a distillation column, two heat exchangers and a pump and to adapt it for a new service. Here are the parameters:
The equipment had been built and installed in the 1940s.
Since then it had operated safely and efficiently with no incidents.
The equipment did not comply with the latest pressure vessel and heat exchanger code.
The new service for this equipment was less stringent, i.e., pressures and temperatures were lower than before and the new chemicals being processed were no more hazardous than the old ones.
Nevertheless we had to cancel the project because a fundamental change in service meant that the “grandfather clauses” that had allowed us to keep operating were no longer usable and we could not justify the cost of a major upgrade to the equipment.
Now fast forward to Ashland’s railroad.
In the posts to do with the proposed “High Speed Rail” project we have repeatedly pointed out that the Third Rail option is a code violation. Let us summarize the logic.
The existing tracks were laid down in the years 1843 and 1903, long before the introduction of codes to do with track beds.
The existing tracks are in violation of modern code in two regards. First the spacing between the tracks is too narrow. Second, there is insufficient space between the edge of the tracks and the public highway (see DRPT Basis of Design).
Current operation of the tracks is permitted under the concept of a “grandfather clause”.
Adding a third rail means that all the tracks, not just the new one, have to be upgraded to modern code.
The fact that there has been only one major derailment in the Ashland area in recent years is immaterial. The codes’ requirements have to be followed.
Based on the maps published by DRPT the proposed expansion is in violation of code.
Hence the Third Rail option does not meet the requirements of Federal law.
Hence the Third Rail option cannot go forward.
Let us apply the same logic to the 3-2-3 option.
The project has two justifications. The first is to provide High Speed Passenger train capability. The second is to allow for a 95% increase in freight traffic and a 71% increase in the number of tank cars carrying Highly Hazardous Chemicals following the expansion of the east coast ports.
Both of these rationales constitute a fundamental change in the operation of the tracks. This is analogous to the engineering analogy which started this post.
Hence the grandfather clauses that apply to the existing tracks no longer hold.
Hence the 3-2-3 option does not meet the requirements of Federal law.
Hence the 3-2-3 option cannot go forward.
Two final thoughts.
It is possible for the project team to ask for a variance from a safety code. But few regulators or engineers will ever do so for what should be self-evident reasons. That option was never on the table as we decided what to do with regard to our little engineering project.
The project may be able to meet code by destroying and existing homes and businesses. But doing so is not part of the published option. If the project team changes the scope of work then there are many more new options to be considered.
To close out the anecdote that started this post; when I presented the results of the engineering analysis to the project manager I was not exactly the most popular person in the room because it resulted in cancellation of the project. But never at any time was there any question that we had made the right decision.
As discussed in previous posts we are writing a White Paper entitled The Ashland Third Main-Line: Unsafe, Destructive and Costly. Details are available here and here. Part of that White Paper includes a review of train incidents that provide lessons learned for the Rail project. One of those incidents was the derailment and fire that occurred in the Texas Panhandle on June 28th 2014. Unlike the Lynchburg event this tragedy resulted in three fatalities and one injury.
This Panhandle incident was caused by a head-on collision between two BNSF freight trains in northwest Texas. Because the event is so recent very little authorized information as to its causes are available. As agencies such as the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) publish their reports we will update this post.
Here is what we know so far.
The event occurred on June 28th 2016 in the morning. It was daylight; weather conditions were normal.
The location was about 25 miles northwest of Amarillo, Texas.
It is reported, but not confirmed, that the speed limit in the area was 70 mph.
Neither train included chemical tank cars. Nevertheless the diesel fuel in the locomotives caught fire and burned for hours. From pictures of the event it appears as if the freight cars also burned. Freight cars were scattered quite a long way from the tracks.
Each locomotive had two crew members. Three of them died, the fourth jumped from the train before the impact and survived.
It is reported that the fire fighters did not have the foam systems needed to suppress a diesel fire, which is why the fire burned for so long.
We are looking at these events to see what lessons can be applied to the proposed third rail project.
As can be seen from the pictures, the event took place in a sparsely populated area. Had it occurred in Ashland there would have been major property damage and a significant chance of injury or even fatalities to members of the public.
Although chemical tank cars present the greatest risk, fire is a major hazard to do with any train.
Clearly the existing situation in which trains travel through a densely populated area on tracks that were built long before modern codes were promulgated poses a high level of risk. Adding a third rail to this already congested area and then increasing the number of freight trains by nearly 100% over the next 30 years increased risk to an unacceptable level.
One final thought about this incident is to do with personal safety. If you yourself are close to an event such as this what should you do?
In our post Immediate Response to a Vapor Release we described what to do if you are exposed to a leak of toxic gas from a ruptured tank car (move across, not down wind). This Panhandle event provides another lesson — if an emergency is about to happen run away. The only survivor of this event was the locomotive operator who jumped out before the impact.
In general if you are involved in an event such as this get away from the scene. You can do little to help and you are a distraction to the trained emergency responders.
As discussed in yesterday’s post we are writing a White Paper entitled, The Ashland Third Main-Line: Unsafe, Destructive, Costly.
We have prepared an Executive Summary, a copy of which is shown below. We encourage you to send this document — or your version of it — to the project managers. (Go to http://www.save-ashland.org/join/ to learn how to easily do this.)
You can also download this summary in either .docx or .pdf format.
It is planned to increase the number of trains traveling along the eastern rail corridor. One option is to build a third line through the town of Ashland. This suggestion is unacceptable for the following reasons.
Safety: Toxic, Flammable, Explosive Materials
Approximately 50 freight trains pass through Ashland each day. Most of these trains include tank cars carrying ‘Highly Hazardous Chemicals’ — chemicals that are toxic, explosive and flammable. A leak from one of these cars would likely result in many fatalities and/or the destruction of homes and businesses. Squeezing a third rail through town would make an already unsafe situation much, much worse, particularly as the number of tank cars is likely to increase by over 70% and the number of cars on the roads by 80% during the 30 year life span of the project.
The substantial increases in freight and rail traffic will result in enormous traffic congestion through the town. This congestion will be much, much worse during the time that they are actually building the track. It will also make it harder for emergency services to move quickly.
It is not possible just to “add a third rail” to the existing two tracks. They were built long before the modern codes were introduced; they are too close to one another and have insufficient buffer space between them and the public highway. Were a third track to be installed not only would it have to meet modern code so would the existing tracks. The footprint would be so wide that many of the homes and businesses in the center of Ashland would have to be destroyed. These buildings are often of great historical value — some of them going back to the Civil War.
For many years the town of Ashland has been successfully building its “Center of the Universe” economy. The number of restaurants, shops and activities such as Strawberry Faire has been steadily rising. The third rail would wipe out much of that — the town’s economy would wither.
Any attempt to put in a third rail would lead to ceaseless chaos during the years of construction activity. Traffic flows would be endlessly disrupted, Amtrak service would be curtailed, business activities would dwindle and the chance of an accident would go up immensely.
The capital cost associated with building a third rail while trying to keep existing rail traffic moving is very high.
The motivation for this project is to provide more capacity for freight trains (there will be no “High Speed” passenger train service — journey times will be the same as they are now). Even though the freight trains are operated by a private company the project will be funded by tax payers.
In my discussions to do with the Highly Hazardous Chemicals that are being transported through Ashland it has become evident that many people are not aware of the immediate actions to take should there be a release of a toxic gas such as chlorine.
Here are some thoughts as to what to do in such a situation.
Move Across the Cloud
As the gas escapes from the release point it forms a cloud such as that shown in the sketch above. Inside the cloud boundary the concentration of gas is high enough to have an unacceptable effect on human health — outside the boundary the gas may be detectable but it should not affect have a long-term effect on the health person involved.
This means that, if you are inside the toxic envelope, the best thing to do is not to move downwind as many people think but to move at 90° to the cloud — that way you leave the affected area as quickly as possible.
If you are in a near a building a good response is to move indoors, close all doors and windows and turn off the air conditioning. A rule of thumb is that a normal building will reduce the concentration of gas by a factor ten. So, if the concentration of the gas outside is 100 ppm (parts per million) it can be as low as 10 ppm indoors. Then wait for say 20 minutes.
In this clip we see a release of chlorine gas — evidently from a ruptured hose. The gas affected people many hundreds of yards away, although there do not appear to have been fatalities.
As part of our White Paper The Ashland Third Main-Line: Unsafe, Destructive, Costly we are compiling a list of the toxic and flammable chemicals that travel through our town by rail by tank car. The cars have a red placard on them (see picture) with two numbers. I would be grateful if people could jot down the numbers on the placards that they see and send them to me.
Below is an example that I saw a few minutes ago.
The number ‘1987’ means (industrial) ethanol. The number ‘3’ means that the material is flammable.
Ethanol has a flash point of 16.6 °C (61.9 °F) which means that it will ignite if exposed to an ignition source (such as a car engine) at ambient temperatures. Evidently it is not possible to extinguish an ethanol fire with either water or normal foam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxRU0QLt3vc).
Once more, please jot down the numbers that you see and send them to me.
I have been asked about the toxic and flammable chemicals that move through town on tank cars. The go-to document is the “2012 Emergency Response Guidebook” published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (co-published by Transport Canada.) It can be downloaded at no cost here: http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Hazmat/ERG2012.pdf.
It is a lengthy document (392 pages) but actually quite readable — if you like that kind of thing. It provides guidance on the meaning of the safety placards that we see on tank cars. As time permits I will try and publish a shorter version of this document that we can all use.