|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2016 6:09:19 GMT
yes, it was. as I said above, there's an RV park in that area my parents like to use for a waypoint when they go that direction.
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 22, 2016 16:51:17 GMT
I watched this with friends yesterday, and they were saying there's been some changes to tanker car regulations recently that might have made getting the cars easier -- apparently it would be cheaper to replace older tanker cars than bring them up to new code. Anyone else heard this?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 23, 2016 1:06:37 GMT
I watched this with friends yesterday, and they were saying there's been some changes to tanker car regulations recently that might have made getting the cars easier -- apparently it would be cheaper to replace older tanker cars than bring them up to new code. Anyone else heard this? that is plausible.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 23, 2016 10:07:24 GMT
I watched this with friends yesterday, and they were saying there's been some changes to tanker car regulations recently that might have made getting the cars easier -- apparently it would be cheaper to replace older tanker cars than bring them up to new code. Anyone else heard this? that is plausible. Not quite sure how far yo may be behind on ADR regulations, but there was some hefty brake issues, in that all "cars" must be able to independently brake if disconnected from the train, that happened over here some years back. This was supposed to prevent roll-aways. Also dont know what other issues were bought in.So yeah, plausible... Byt then again, I am going out on a limb here and suggesting that buying a car in "reasonable" condition that maybe had failed other issues other than the main tank would be what they were after... having the tank fail because of "something else" would have been an expensive fail for the program?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 23, 2016 13:50:29 GMT
Not quite sure how far yo may be behind on ADR regulations, but there was some hefty brake issues, in that all "cars" must be able to independently brake if disconnected from the train, that happened over here some years back. This was supposed to prevent roll-aways. Also dont know what other issues were bought in.So yeah, plausible... Byt then again, I am going out on a limb here and suggesting that buying a car in "reasonable" condition that maybe had failed other issues other than the main tank would be what they were after... having the tank fail because of "something else" would have been an expensive fail for the program?. having the brakes set on their own is almost as old as railroads here. but it does seem there are new rules in place for flammable liquids cars - so perhaps that is why these were decommissioned. www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/final-rule-on-safe-rail-transport-of-flammable-liquidsit still leaves the question of whether they would allow Adam inside a car that had been used for flammable liquids, but maybe if they steam cleaned it first.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2016 23:03:41 GMT
Am I the only one who's confused by the "Plausible" verdict on this one?
When SD can go on YouTube and find two videos of it happening, one of which is by a company that makes tanks for both truck and rail and specifically tells you 5 different KNOWN reasons why this might happen, that's a "Confirmed" in my book!
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 25, 2016 23:06:38 GMT
Am I the only one who's confused by the "Plausible" verdict on this one? When SD can go on YouTube and find two videos of it happening, one of which is by a company that makes tanks for both truck and rail and specifically tells you 5 different KNOWN reasons why this might happen, that's a "Confirmed" in my book! it got plausible because while they demonstrated that there are conditions under which it CAN happen, there is nor record that it actually did. - and the circumstances included defeating safety mechanisms and compromising the structural integrity of the tank. edit: remember the scenario is that it was an accidental occurrence of a crew steam cleaning the tank and then sealing it up, which was apparently not standard procedure. - so unless they can document the accident happening, it is not confirmed. that has been the result in other episodes as well.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 25, 2016 23:25:20 GMT
Am I the only one who's confused by the "Plausible" verdict on this one? When SD can go on YouTube and find two videos of it happening, one of which is by a company that makes tanks for both truck and rail and specifically tells you 5 different KNOWN reasons why this might happen, that's a "Confirmed" in my book! it got plausible because while they demonstrated that there are conditions under which it CAN happen, there is nor record that it actually did. - and the circumstances included defeating safety mechanisms and compromising the structural integrity of the tank. edit: remember the scenario is that it was an accidental occurrence of a crew steam cleaning the tank and then sealing it up, which was apparently not standard procedure. - so unless they can document the accident happening, it is not confirmed. that has been the result in other episodes as well. Maybe it's never been documented that a steam cleaning could do it, but it's certainly been documented that a collapse caused by a vacuum inside the tank has happened. Here's something I found on Google (pdf file): www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/H88_26_27.pdfShort version: Tanker truck was filled with mono-isopropylamine at 70-80 oF and the truck then made it to an area where the outside temp dropped radically to just 10 oF. The drop in temperature meant the volume of the substance decreased so dramatically that the internal pressure went from a recorded 19.7 psi when it was loaded to just 10.8 psi. The resulting vacuum inside the tank made it collapse while the truck was on the road.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2016 0:11:16 GMT
it got plausible because while they demonstrated that there are conditions under which it CAN happen, there is nor record that it actually did. - and the circumstances included defeating safety mechanisms and compromising the structural integrity of the tank. edit: remember the scenario is that it was an accidental occurrence of a crew steam cleaning the tank and then sealing it up, which was apparently not standard procedure. - so unless they can document the accident happening, it is not confirmed. that has been the result in other episodes as well. Maybe it's never been documented that a steam cleaning could do it, but it's certainly been documented that a collapse caused by a vacuum inside the tank has happened. Here's something I found on Google (pdf file): www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/H88_26_27.pdfShort version: Tanker truck was filled with mono-isopropylamine at 70-80 oF and the truck then made it to an area where the outside temp dropped radically to just 10 oF. The drop in temperature meant the volume of the substance decreased so dramatically that the internal pressure went from a recorded 19.7 psi when it was loaded to just 10.8 psi. The resulting vacuum inside the tank made it collapse while the truck was on the road. vibration from travel was one factor that was never even seen in the mythbusters episode. - and it could be an unreported factor in such an incident. question I have, that wasn't clear from the text - were the internal pressure readings positive pressure above atmospheric pressure, or were they pressure above hard vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 26, 2016 0:47:02 GMT
question I have, that wasn't clear from the text - were the internal pressure readings positive pressure above atmospheric pressure, or were they pressure above hard vacuum? Far as I can tell, no actual measurements were made on scene, so I couldn't tell you. The vacuum effect was calculated after the fact, but as the report clearly states, there's no question it was implosion/collapse due to a vacuum in the tank under otherwise normal working conditions that was the cause of the accident. The only question left open in the report was exactly why the vacuum arrester failed. It's worth noting that in the video SD provided, faulty valves were given as a known point of failure. I can't help but think that when you can put up as many as 5 known points of failure in a video like that (and even tell the viewer that the list isn't exhaustive), it's hard to believe that each and every one of those 5 points are inferred/calculated and not a single one of them is known from actual experience. If it's never happened and you believe your design is strong enough that it never will, why warn against it? That would be like selling spoons with warning labels saying, "Caution! May spontaneously fly away!" You know they won't, so why waste time and paper on the warning?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2016 1:03:30 GMT
question I have, that wasn't clear from the text - were the internal pressure readings positive pressure above atmospheric pressure, or were they pressure above hard vacuum? Far as I can tell, no actual measurements were made on scene, so I couldn't tell you. The vacuum effect was calculated after the fact, but as the report clearly states, there's no question it was implosion/collapse due to a vacuum in the tank under otherwise normal working conditions that was the cause of the accident. The only question left open in the report was exactly why the vacuum arrester failed. It's worth noting that in the video SD provided, faulty valves were given as a known point of failure. I can't help but think that when you can put up as many as 5 known points of failure in a video like that (and even tell the viewer that the list isn't exhaustive), it's hard to believe that each and every one of those 5 points are inferred/calculated and not a single one of them is known from actual experience. If it's never happened and you believe your design is strong enough that it never will, why warn against it? That would be like selling spoons with warning labels saying, "Caution! May spontaneously fly away!" You know they won't, so why waste time and paper on the warning? It was puzzling me, because most pressure readings are taken in ambient pressure, and so a tire is, for example, 32 PSI above ambient pressure. yet if the tank was 10PSI above ambient pressure, the vacuum relief valve would be irrelevant. - but the starting pressure was shown as under 20 PSI - which I was remembering as being below atmospheric pressure. - note I did not remember correctly. 1 atmosphere is between 14 and 15 PSI - so having both pressures measured above vacuum is consistent with everything.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 26, 2016 8:36:45 GMT
Note, in the trade there are notices warning and other documentation that warns you that after steam cleaning a tank you must allow it to vent to prevent pressure damage.
On the scale that there are notices to warn you not to use a hair dryer in the bath, you must assume they are tombstone technology, therefore, "The trade knows" these things happen. Perhaps they happen before Internets?... They happen before photography....
On the score of Habeas Corpus, we donts have the body, because the body of that experiment fed the Iron worms many many lifetimes ago before this was needed?...
I have "Something" somewhere that when the Atmospheric Steam engine was invented by Thomas Newcommen (SP?) when testing the cylinders, the phrase "Your going to need a bigger one" was borrowed in that he discovered that thickness of cylinder walls was dependant on how soon they would fail, and thick walls prevented damage by atmospheric pressure on a steam generated vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Feb 2, 2016 4:37:13 GMT
The cars were being scrapped under rule 90( as stenciled on the sides of the car)
"AR Rule 90 - Cars and/or car parts prohibited in interchange
A. Cars
1. Cars more than 40 years old as measured from the year of original construction except as otherwise provided for in rule 88. a. In the case of tank cars with separate built dates for tank and underframe, the underframe built date will govern for determining prohibition in interchange. b. Section 1a above will apply for both tank and underframe for AAR specification tank cars with separate built dates for tank and underframe."
They just timed out even though if in otherwise good condition.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2016 4:45:36 GMT
The cars were being scrapped under rule 90( as stenciled on the sides of the car) "AR Rule 90 - Cars and/or car parts prohibited in interchange A. Cars 1. Cars more than 40 years old as measured from the year of original construction except as otherwise provided for in rule 88. a. In the case of tank cars with separate built dates for tank and underframe, the underframe built date will govern for determining prohibition in interchange. b. Section 1a above will apply for both tank and underframe for AAR specification tank cars with separate built dates for tank and underframe." They just timed out even though if in otherwise good condition. good eyes. I tried to find an image I could enlarge, but couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 18, 2016 9:49:45 GMT
I have had another thought. In the Video of the last pages, note, the tankers from 2008 were significantly "different" from the ones sourced by Mythbusters.
Questions have been raised by some guys at work, that set us thinking....
The tanks used by MB's were obviously Pressure rated possible gas transport, LPG transport in thick steel pressurised tanks.... they stated so much in that they defeated the pressure release valves?...
Versus Modern (ish) Liquid transport tanks in thick Aluminium, banded to strengthen, but not designed to be more than is required for bulk liquids....
Bulk Liquid transport possibly for other non fuel use, NOT designed to be pressurised as they will never be used for Liquid Gas transport, against stronger ADR rated possibly bulk LPG transport.
Non Fuel or Non hazardous good transport tanks dont require excessive strengthening?.. "Fit for use", but not overly so?...
"Now there is your problem".
The consensus has been that they used older thicker steel tanks that have probably gotten past their sell-by date (Hence scrapped as too old) that were possibly built before Aluminium banded for strength light-weight tanks had been invented.
All my Transport mates sort of ask for a re-do with modern tanks....
Plus, as a small knock with a brick DID cause the collapse, perhaps a tank with minor knock damage that no one thought was serious was "the one" that caused the myth anyway?... perhaps that was why it was being cleaned thoroughly, so it could be inspected?...
|
|