Protecting Buildings from Train Car Explosions 4

[KootK]

Link

Recently, a train car explosion wrought havoc in a community in Quebec, Canada (see link). Developers in my area are now wondering if steps should be taken to mitigate potential disasters of this sort (blast walls etc.). Is this common practice anywhere in North America? Have any of you provided train blast protection for any of your building projects? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks for the help.

KootK

 

[ACtrafficengr]

A current buzzword with the FHWA is systemic safety. The idea is to determine which road geometry and traffic control conditions have the highest crash rates, such as sharp curves after long tangents, and treat them. They contrast this with systematic safety, or trying to treat the whole roadway system, or reactive safety improvements which are taken after crashes occur.

I'm not a railroad person, but I suspect this sort of systemic approach would be cheaper than lining all urban railrioads with blast walls. The FRA and equivalent agencies in other countries could look into derailments and determine what geometric design features and rail conditions tend to have frequent derailments, then fix those first. If for some reason, the geometry can't be fixed, then it might be a candidate for blast walls or whatever.

 

[moltenmetal]

Edit: the rail cars were designed for high flash point material (i.e. low volatility, few flammable vapours), but were filled with much lower flash point material (more volatile, more flammable vapours).

 

[LittleInch]

Moltemetal, do you know something we don't?. I have been puzzled by this accident since I first heard it as it was always described a "crude oil". I don't know what type of crude is normally railed about in Canada, but if it was stabilised crude cooled after a long night on the train, it should not "explode" , like it clearly has. Burn yes, but not explode in an unconfined area.

Was there something else in the crude?, was there other fluids in the middle of this train?

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[KENAT]

Why concrete blast walls?

Most of the explosive storage/handling sites I've been to relied more on earthen banks/berms/holes in the ground...

So, where the track isn't already in a cutting, then if feasible add berms which could also double for sound abatement etc.

However, most of the above comments still stand.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[77JQX]

I'd think in snowy territory a wall or trench would tend to create snow drifts, increasing the likelihood of a derailment.

 

[miningman]

Littleinch , I think that what Moltenmetal knows that you are apparently not aware of, is that according to reports in the Canadian media, the contents of the rail cars originated from the Bakken field in North Dakota. The gas produced from these fields is apparently quite wet with hi value condensates and the like. This I believe was what was being transported and yes, more than one individual has already remarked that to show the contents as crude oil on the manifests was less than accurate.

 

[LittleInch]

Ah, that makes more sense. So what we had here was a train full of "condensate", that all encompassing word for some highly volatile stuff. No wonder it exploded.

Thanks for the info.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[KootK]

Thanks for all the great discussion guys.

I'm now looking to assemble a list of significant projects that have trains running next to or beneath them. Or over them I suppose... I'd like to share the list with my client in order to increase their comfort level with the situation at hand. So far, thanks to this thread, I've got:

1) The Alamodome
2) The Dallas Convention Centre
3) The Georgia World Congress Centre

Can anyone help me expand my list?

Thanks again,

KootK

 

[dhengr]

KootK:
Almost every industrial area with railroad track running through it, particularly those with main line tracks, much switching and waiting/standing trains. Main line trackage from and to RR switching and sorting yards, very high traffic. Lines into and out of major industrial complexes such as refineries. Every major port and the neighborhoods around them. Los Angeles and its ports actually have an open-cut tunnel system of main line tracks which keeps the train traffic separated form the surface traffic and activity. As I said in my earlier post, ‘when you think of the millions of ton/miles or gallon/miles which are shipped by rail, it is actually a pretty darn safe transportation system.’ We have never really tried to do anything to contain this type of event; rather have improved safe train handling; improvements in tank car designs such as head shields, F-type couplers, valve and fittings protections, etc. I don’t think anyone has been able to justify the risk vs. cost of doing much more. Without a doubt, there may be a situation where someone would want to (be willing to) pay the cost to protect something they valued enough. And, I don’t mean to downplay the tragedy or significance, to the people immediately involved, when something like this happens. It’s just that you can’t afford to put every mile of RR track in an enclosed, explosion proof structure/tunnel. They do control the routing of nuclear waste, and the like, and the containers in which it is shipped. But, you could never afford to ship a bulk product that way.

 

[KootK]

Thanks dhengr. I agree that there are endless examples of railways next to buildings. I'm just trying to demonstrate to our design team that there lots of precedents for high profile public buildings next to railway lines.