November 9, 2007
Coal Train Derails Over Anacostia River UPDATED
The Associated Press is reporting that seven cars of a freight train have derailed over the Anacostia River.
No injuries have been reported. Six of the seven cars are in the river, and another is hanging off the trestle. Coal and some hydraulic fluid and oil ended up in the river, but the fire department says it's been contained.
We'll update again when we learn more.
UPDATE 4:45 p.m. Thanks to an anonymous reader who sent us this photo of the derailment, taken on their phone.
UPDATE 5:20 p.m. Better photos added. NBC4 is reporting that witnesses said they heard a loud explosion and then saw the cars plunge into the river. They said the train appeared to be traveling at a slow speed.
|
Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Gee-now just imagine if that train was hauling hazardous waste, which is perfectly legal because CSX fought for it. Keep in mind that tracks run a scant 10 blocks from the white house and it's a mystery why CSX is still allowed to route hazmat traffic through DC...
Gee-now just imagine if that train was hauling hazardous waste, which is perfectly legal because CSX refused to stop. Keep in mind that tracks run a scant 10 blocks from the White House and it remains a huge mystery why CSX is still allowed to route hazmat traffic through DC...
So hazardous materials through DC is bad...but through, say, Hagerstown is OK?
Compare the population of DC vs. Hagerstown and their respective densities and get back to me.
Okay, and you compare the relative densities of every other city in the country to DC and get back to the rest of us . . . these hazmat trains go through all kinds of cities, many even larger and more dense than DC.
At least as I remember this issue from a few years ago, the argument for not routing trains through DC seemed to primarily be "we're more important because the government's here, and those tracks go too close to the Capitol."
DC is not just about population densities. An accidental spill in any city would be terrible, but consider the huge opportunistic terrorist target DC would be and the completely demoralizing effect that would have on the country. If it happened in NYC it would really suck, if it happened when congress was in session near the Capitol, it would wreak havoc on the entire country.
The second case is a terrible tragedy. The first case is a monumental disruption to our entire society.
Yeah, I'd say DC is pretty damn important and running hazmat trains within 10 blocks of the White House is a stupid idea.
Damnit, now I guess I'm not gonna get any stocking-stuffers this Christmas. Oh well, there's always 8 days of lighting-up for Chronukkah...or something like that. But clearly, hookah is out of the picture now, too.
Ok, those are all the coal jokes I'm able to furnace right now. Wonder if I came up hot or coaled with those...I think they were at least a bithumorous.
Warning: my ethanol jokes are even cornier.
Redline- At first I read your post as "Compare the population of DC vs. Hagerstown and their respective denstinies and get back to me."
And I totally agreed with the rationale there.
a train that blows near the Capitol and takes out a 1 mile radius of the city
As far as I know, there has never been an incident on that scale in the entire history of rail transport, and I can't imagine what hazardous material a train would be carrying that could cause one. They're not carrying nuclear warheads, for cryin' out loud. You can come up with plenty of horrifying scenarios without basing them on possible events that are so unlikely as to effectively be nearly impossible.
Also, I should point out that I didn't express an opinion on the legitimacy of the idea that DC's population is more important, you can make a pretty good case that it is. I was just responding to chrisafer's comment which seemed to tag density as the most important variable.
Foxnews says terrorism, I say CSX crappy infrastructure maintenance. Its a manner of time before the Potomac bridge either completely biodegrades or gravity takes over, hell that bridge hasn't been painted since the last return of the century.
Oh, you mean like people simultaneously hijacking four planes with the intent of destroying buildings in two of the East Coast's major cities and killing thousands of people in the process? Yeah, that was unlikely too.
It's a combination of CSX's crappy infrastructure maintenance and old rolling stock. And I don't especially enjoy getting off the subway next to rail cars labled "molten sulphur" thanks.
More to the point: imagine what a hazmat spill would do to both the ecosystem and our water supply if it happened over say, oh, the Potomac. It would just be DC proper that was totally screwed.
Indie: Hush up w/ the EtOH jokes 'fore someone takes a switch(grass) to your ass.
Damn you Faux News! You totally stole MY snark! I was soooo going to go: ZOMG! Ter'rists!Eleven1one
If the Washington was struck I don't think it would be demoralizing. People would probably rejoice. No one cares what happens here except the people that live here. Washington, DC is a four letter word in pretty much every corner of the country.
Nate:
You really dont think trains carry materials that have the potential to cause catastrophic harm? Really?
How do you think hazardous materials get transported in the US?
For example, many in the chemical and safety industries think a couple of railcars of chlorine exploding in an urban area would kill tens of thousands, over a mile or more radius.
Hillman: Could you point out to me where I said that "trains [don't] carry materials that have the potential to cause catastrophic harm?"
And while you're coming up with nightmare scenarios, keep trying to find one that actually involves an explosion that destroys a one-mile radius of the city, which is what the previous commenter had hypothesized and what I was reacting to with skepticism, rather than an incident where the casualties result from poison gas release.
woodstock: Hazmat materials need to be transported around the country.. there really can be no debate on that point.
Transport by truck greatly increases the chance of a release. Granted, a tank truck can only hold 6,000 gallons or so and a tank car holds 20,000 gallons or more (x 00s of cars per train), but long freight trains do not travel at great speed and derailments typically involve fewer than 10 cars. A catastrophic scenario involving a whole train is extremely unlikely. If we're going to structure our lives around that kind of disaster, we might as well go back to living in caves.
Rail freight is safer and much more fuel efficient than trucks. I'd much rather have a freight train running through my backyard than a tanker going 80 on the beltway in the lane next to me.
This stuff does happen. The following accident (a collision, not a derailment) occurred in the town of Aiken, South Carolina a few years ago. A chlorine gas spill is serious business. It was a tragedy in Aiken. It could be a major disaster should it involve a few more tanks of chlorine in the middle of a city like Washington, just a few blocks from the seat of our national government.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/06/train.collision/
Area residents were taken to hospitals after complaining of breathing difficulty and eye irritation, Frank said. Two decontamination and shelter sites were set up, one at a high school and another at the University of South Carolina-Aiken.
About 70 people sought treatment at hospitals, Frank said, and about 20 were admitted, some of them in critical condition in the intensive care unit, he said. One person died at the hospital, Frank said.
Another 25 people were decontaminated at USC-Aiken and then taken to Medical College of Georgia, in Augusta, he said. A hospital spokeswoman said it had received a total of 27 patients in the aftermath of the accident.
Of the eight who were admitted, two were in critical condition, one was in serious condition, four in fair condition and one in good condition, a spokeswoman said.
Residents were told to stay inside, shut ventilation systems, close doors and windows and monitor news reports regarding the spill. "No one needs to be alarmed," Frank said. "They just need to be aware of the situation."
It looks like we're arguing semantics. I'd argue that everyone dead within a mile radius qualifies as 'taking out'. But, no an explosion actually destroying buildings and such within a square mile would be unlikely. Of course, that'd be little consolation to the dead people.
Interesting how you got from an urban hypothetical that "would kill tens of thousands, over a mile or more radius" to one that leads to "everyone dead within a mile radius" within just a few posts. I'm sure that you can come up with a "perfect storm" of weather conditions, people in the streets, and precise placement of the explosion to come up with casualty statistics as high as you'd like, but given the fact that the actual "train accident leading to major chlorine gas release" incident described in the comment directly above yours didn't actually kill anybody, I'm going to remain skeptical.
Nate: That CNN article is poor. The incident killed 9 people, 8 from gas.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-10-04.asp
Not to belittle the unfortunate deaths that did occur, but it is a far cry from the 9/11-type scenarios that some commenters are hypothesizing. No one is claiming that hazmat transportation by rail is completely risk-free.
Politburo: You had to bring up the beltway [g]
Yeah, hazmat transport has to happen but like everything else it's so poorly regulated that its mere existence has become a danger. Hazmat transport is one of the few things we don't have the luxury of "doing over" because we were too cheap or lazy or stupid to do it right in the first place.