As documented on DeSmog, the new oil-by-rail regulations contain major concessions to the oil and rail industries as the result of relentless lobbying during the rulemaking process. One logical safety measure that the rail industry failed to block from the new rules was a requirement for modern braking systems know as electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.
However, the rail industry has a Plan B to avoid modernizing their braking systems and so far it is working quiteย well.
In late June, the Republican-controlled Senate Commerce Committee approved a measure to drop theย ECP brakingย requirement and instead order years of new research, a delay tactic favored by Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF)ย railroad.
Of course, no research is needed to review the existing air braking systems because they were invented in the 1860s, and in the past 150 years their limitations have become wellย known.
โAnytime you put the air on, youโre subject for something to go wrong,โ explained Dana Maryott, director of locomotive and air-brake systems at the BNSFย Railway.
In the above statement, the phrase โput the air onโ refers to applying braking on freightย trains.
โWeโve had long trains where the engineer released the brake and started pulling a little bit too early, while the brakes were still set on the rear of the train,โ explained Maryott, โAnd coming around a sharp radius, weโve literally pulled the train off theย track.โ
Maryott was explaining some of the risks of air braking systems for a 2009 article for the engineering publication the IEEEย Spectrum.
That article explained how ECP brakes were a modernized and superior brakingย system.
In a 2010 Progressive Railroading article about rail braking and safety, Larry Breeden, general manager of operating practices for Union Pacific railroad, gave his positive opinion on ECPย brakes.
โThe effectiveness of the brakes is advanced. It gets instantaneous braking, plus I can graduate the release. It gives better train control and reduced fuel consumption. You also get better brake shoe and wheelย life.โ
Breeden then compared another safety advantage of ECP brakes over air brakingย systems.
โIf something goes wrong, you wouldn’t know it with an air brake. With ECP, you have a display that will tell you if something begins toย fail.โ
To be fair, they didnโt have โdisplaysโ back in the 1860s when air brakes were invented so it isnโt really an apples-to-apples comparison.
But these positive reviews of ECP braking by employees of the two major rail companies, BNSF and Union Pacific, provide a clear indication that they understood the benefits of ECP brakes yearsย ago.
Regulators Past and Present Agree ECP Brakes Are โMore Important Than the Tank Car Itself,โ and โA Quantum Improvement in Railย Safetyโ
Cynthia Quarterman was in charge of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for the majority of the multi-year process when the new oil-by-rail regulations were developed, and based on that process she believes ECP brakes are a topย priority.ย
โThe more I think about it, the more I think that the ECP brakes may be more important than the tank car itself,โ Quarterman told USA Today. โBecause it would stop the pileup of the cars when there’s a derailment or when there’s a need to brake in a very quickย fashion.โ
Quarterman has plenty of company when it comes to thisย position.
In 2006, Joseph Boardman, the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) explained why ECP brakes were superior.
โECP brakes are to trains what antilock brakes are to automobilesโthey provide better control.โ He also is on record saying that ECP braking โoffers a quantum improvement in railย safety.โ
And the FRA stands by these earlier statements, as Matt Lehner, communications director for the administration, recently toldย DeSmog.ย
โECP brakes are a proven technology that will reduce the number of train derailments and keep more tank cars on the track if a train does derail. Delaying the adoption of ECP brakes seriously jeopardizes the citizens and communities along our nation’s freightย network.โ
Despite Evidence of ECP Braking Benefits, Senate Republicans and Industry Prefer Statusย Quo
Judging by all of the above quotes and analysis, it seems there is plenty of research and wide support for the benefits of ECPย braking.
So why did the Senate Commerce committee just pass a measure to overrule the new PHMSA regulations that would require oil trains to use ECP brakes starting inย 2021?
Because that is what BNSF and the rail industry now wants so they can maximize profits from the booming oil train business โ a commodity business that didnโt much exist back in 2006 when the FRA began recommending ECP brakes based on existingย research.
Buffett’s BNSF Ready to Fight ECP Brakes, Safetyย Requirements
BNSF isnโt coy about its intentions to fight the regulations requiring ECP brakes on oil trains. At the U.S. Energy Information Administration annual conference last month, BNSF CEO Matthew Rose delivered a keynote speech in which he repeatedly criticized the ECP requirement in the regulations.
Rose made it clear that BNSF had plans to get the rules changed saying, โthe only thing we donโt like about it [new regulations] is the electronic brakingโ and โthis rule will have to be changed in the futureโ and โour role is to articulate where they went wrong with it and get itย fixed.โ
So, what has changed with ECP braking that BNSF is now against it and the new regulations need to beย โfixedโ?
Nothing. Other than the fact that outfitting the oil trains with ECP brakes would cost money. Money the rail industry doesnโt want toย spend.
In order to justify this position, the industry has to make the case that ECP brakes arenโt safer. The American Association of Railroads is currently running ads on Google saying that โSafety data doesn’t support use of ECPย brakes.โ
Image: Screen capture of Google ad from American Association ofย Railroads.
So, the rail industry is employing the exact same approach that the oil industry is using to avoid making the oil safe to transport in the first place โ arguing that the effectiveness of ECP brakes hasnโt been proven, and that they need to do more research, despite the fact that plenty of research confirms the plain benefits of ECP over airย brakes.
When questioned about the Senateโs effort to remove ECP braking requirements, Frederick Hill, the committee’s Republican spokesman, said that ECP brakes could be required โshould new research demonstrate the technology’sย benefits.โ
Apparently they are ignoring the existing research, including a study commissioned by the FRAย a decadeย ago.
In 2005, theย Federal Railroad Administrationย commissioned consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton to study the benefits and costs of ECP brakes for the U.S. freight-rail industry. Released in 2006, the firm’s report (PDF) stated that the brakes are a โtested technologyโ that offers โmajor benefitsโ and could โsignificantly enhanceโ railย safety.
In 2010, Mark Schulze, a vice president of safety and training at BNSF, summed up the companyโs position on ECPย brakes.
โIf you had a magic wand and could implement it with one fell swoop that would beย great.โ
Unfortunately there is no magic wand to implement ECP braking. But it appears that Matthew Rose of BNSF and others are working their own special lobbying magic to influence Congress to remove the ECP requirements from the new oil-by-railย regulations.
And while it may not be a magic wand, so far it is working like aย charm.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts