Finally able to get out there today and take a look at the Underside of the Bridge that was Hit. One of the Griders the First one on the West side is Totally Comprimised and will have to be Replaced. Bent at an Approx 80Degree angle. Called a buddy of mine Retired State trooper of mine he called a friend of his that handles DOT accidents and would be current on all DOT regs on movement of Ovfersize Regulations and IL rules. IL rules are the Driver is to Stay on all Permitted rules and the State is Responsible for making sure that all Cleareances are Correct when it comes to Movement of Oversize LOADS. The Load in Question he checked was Not OVERHIEGHT it was over width at 9 feet 4 inches wide. The State SCREWED the POOCH here. The trucking company is not going to have to pay BNSF a penny for the damages that the bride took it is the State of IL.
You have grade separted fields all through there are you going to Pay the Farmers for their Fields that your going to RUIN with building a Shoo fly on that side. One of them your looking at about at the max close to 15 feet in Fill in height then have your going to have to remove all the Ceoncrete and both sides of the Bridge are sitting on SOLID concrete footings there. IIRC from pics I have seen they are over 2-3 feet thick into that dirt bank and about 60 fedet in total width to hold the dirt back.
Then you have the issue of raising the roadbed on a Busy and I mean Busy state Highway. Rt 17 is a Primary St road around here that Farmers hell e veryone uses to get to towns when all the other roads in the area are 3 ton weight limits except for Rt 18 which has four 90 degree turns in a Downtown area of Streator that are tight and also has 2 Bridges that can not take any traffic over 120K lbs GVW. The one Bridge on RT 17 that crosses the Vermillion by Woodland School can handle 180K safely.
Then you have the deal with the Natural gas Storage area in the Fields in that area that have enough Natural Gas underground that in 1990 the Santa Fe moved a 1.1 Million lb Compressor to the area so that they could raise the Pressures that it is kept at from 75 to 200 PSI. Yep in the Sandstone all around that area is Natuarl gas stored at 200 PSI that you do not want to release if so you would remove about 50% of the ready to USE Natural gas Supply from the USA.
Lastly you have the Costs of doing this who would pay for it all the State of IL is broker than Broke with more than 8 BILLION in unpaid bills the Trucking Companies Insureance company is not going to cover it if it turns out the bridge was under height especisally with 2 other lawsuits already Pending against the state on that. So that leaves the BNSF. They willing to spend the cash needed to do this then wait for the State to reimburse them even if it takes them 3 years to do so.
Sam - Understood. I also used to get permits for multi-state Wide Load moves of ballast tampers and regulators, and yes - issuance of the permit is NOT a guarantee or representation that your load will clear (even though back then they checked the 'book' - and now the computer - to try and make sure you weren't asking for a route through a construction zone with tight "cattle chutes" or over a bridge with a too-light weight limit, etc.). I too drove each route myself and looked for such things and tight corners, etc. and measured more than a few clearances.
But that kind of move is the exception, and there the burden is properly placed on the hauler & co. iN contrast, maintaining and signing the standard "unrestricted" clearance for normal vehicles ought to be the 'norm', and the state ought not to be able to duck responsibility for that basic function, in my opinion.
- Paul North.
Yeah, I kinda thought the drainage/ water table issue (2 sides of the same coin) was the 'show-stopper' to going any lower with the road, unless big sump pumps are installed.
It looks like both tracks are on the same structure - it's not 2 separate bridges, 1 for each track - is it ?
Even so, if the abutments are good and not all cast-in-place concrete, they might be able to be modified so the existing bridge could be removed and a new one craned or rolled into place during a short curfew.
if not, then why can't a shoo-fly and a temporary bridge over IL Rt. 17 go on the southeastern side, between the existing track and parallel N 379 E Rd. ? No obstructions there, and since it's slow-speed anyway, it could "hump up" a little to provide clearance over the ascending part of Rt. 17 there. Many grade crossing elimination projects are done that way - takes about 2 construction seasons - and lots of $$$$ ! See K.P. Harrier's "Sunset Route Two-Tracking Update" thread for some examples, such as the Magnolia Ave. overpass on page 107 of 116 or so.
Thanks again for the responses and information, Ed.
Paul_D_North_Jr Money for repaving but not for remeasuring ? They can't even perform a simple, non-discretionary task like that ? (That's a lawyer 'set-up' for governmental liability - breach of or failure to perform a mandatory, clear, no-judgment-required duty, which failure directly causes forseeable damages, etc.) Around here the roadway under and on each side of the bridge is usually milled down before the repaving, so that the underclearance is the same or greater afterwards. Wonder if the railroad will take a self-defensive posture by measuring the bridge clearances itself and posting its own signs ??? Would sure be less expensive than fixing bridges and delaying trains on a key route. Or maybe this is the state's not-so-subtle way to let events coerce/ convince the RR to put up the funds needed to replace or raise that bridge for better clearances, on the same rationale ? - Paul North.
Money for repaving but not for remeasuring ? They can't even perform a simple, non-discretionary task like that ? (That's a lawyer 'set-up' for governmental liability - breach of or failure to perform a mandatory, clear, no-judgment-required duty, which failure directly causes forseeable damages, etc.)
Around here the roadway under and on each side of the bridge is usually milled down before the repaving, so that the underclearance is the same or greater afterwards.
Wonder if the railroad will take a self-defensive posture by measuring the bridge clearances itself and posting its own signs ??? Would sure be less expensive than fixing bridges and delaying trains on a key route.
Or maybe this is the state's not-so-subtle way to let events coerce/ convince the RR to put up the funds needed to replace or raise that bridge for better clearances, on the same rationale ?
Paul, I know you approach this kind of situation from a practicable, solid engineer's point of view, While Ed Benton, myself, and others in the OTR game who come here view it from a cynical, realistic view.
Early on im my career the lesson of trust, but verify, was drive home in my mind when I was confronted with a new paving job on US Hwy 70 just west of Nashville( about 1969), Tn. Went IN to my delivery over a newly paved road and cam out the same way. The area under the offending bridge had been paved, but due to TnDOT quality control who said the pavement under the bridge was too thin, required the contractor to come back and apply another 2-3 inches of pavement to meet spec.
At about 1700 when I was headed westbound, and home. I hit the bridge at speed and folded up that virtually brand new trailer. WE were told that it was not a State Problem, but one for our insurance company.Needless to say I was never informed of the outcome of that incident.
Low bridges are always problematic- The reason why some Escort Drivers for Oversized loads have that 'feeler on their vehicles. Even on a State permited and specified route, the clearance is always an issue for the driver and Company if damage is done. It really sucks, but that is the general policy im most of those situations.
I ma sure Ed B and others have some real horror stories about bridge marking around Chicago and other cities.
I know it would seem that a State/County or city could keep up with proper signage, but it seems that they cannot ( or won't). Sure makes a lot of business for Wrecker Services and Trailer Repair mechaniics.
:
Why can't it be lowered simple Sub soil issues aka Water Table. Around here you start to get into the Water table at around 20 feet below grade due to the river in the area. That Structure is a part of the Underground Natural Gas Storage area in the area and another Reason that they can not lower the road. Route 17 used to be an at Grade Crossing til the IIRC the 60's when it was made into the current configaration. When they made it into what it was they wanted to make it 16 fet high byut could not due to water issues that is why it is not higher. Raising the trackage plus Cutting the BNSF Transcon to raise a Bridge 1 foot I doubt the BNSF even considers doing that. Here is what they would have to do since the Bridge can not BE Bypassed with a Shoofly they are screwed. Put all the traffic on the old CB&Q to Galesburg then back on the ZTRanscon til they get the line back in service. I doubt it since they handle 80 trains a day on this line and at most 30 trains a day on the other line and it is not even Double tracked all the way. It could not handle all the traffic.
OK, I see that Reading is about 3-1/2 miles south-southwest of Streator, and the bridge over IL SR 17 is about 0.3 mile SSW of the middle of Reading.
Aerial photos available to my are pretty coarse - is there some non-obvious reason the roadway under the bridge couldn't be lowered by a foot or two ? Wold there still be enough 'fall' it to drain into the Moon Creek a little ways to the north ?
What's the structure/ business in the NW quadrant of that over-crossing ?
Are the other 3 crossings of that line in and around Reading all at-grade ? [east-west Co. Hwy. 16 = E 3050 N Rd. to the north, east-west 3040 N Rd. in the middle of town, and north-south N 379 E Rd. to the south side of town)
Even if they are, there might be enough distance to raise the track a foot or so instead, esp. if the last crossing above can also be raised a little bit, like about a foot. Then the added grade would be only about 0.3%, which is pretty minimal.
Better yet would be a bigger project to eliminate all 3 of the grade crossings in the vicinity. Since the other roads likely can't go down below the RR far enough for the RR to bridge over them and still drain to Moon Creek by gravity, the other alternative is for the local roads to "jump over" the railroad. So pick one of those crossings - or more likely, a new location out in the fields on one side of town or the other where the right-of-way can be acquired fairly cheaply, pile up a big fill, and then install a bridge over the RR with plenty of clearances. Close all 3 crossings in town, raise the clearance under the Rt. 17 bridge - and/ or replace it, too - and call it "Done !".
Going to be fun to Raise the ROW since on the North side of the road is a Small town called Reading in that area along with a Crossover and Grade Crossing all within 400 feet of that area. To the South is a Control Point Natrual Gas Storage areas and the other half of the Corssover another Grade Crossing and Farmers Fields up the Wazoo. http://maps.google.com/ type in reading il and look at the Bridge you can see it has been hit many times before.
The BNSF Transcon overpass over IL Rt 17 was hit by a truck Yesterday June 16th and Damaged. My nespaper says all trains are stopped trust me they are running but at Restricted Speed. Found out a couple nice Tidbits from a few Buddies of mine at the local compaines. 1st is that the State respnsible for measuring the Bridge for Clearances after a Repaving job has not done so in 15 Years. Second is that there are 2 pending Lawsuits already for the State not Remeasuring that Bridge Clearance. See Rt 17 is the Preferred way for an Oversize load to be routed in the sticks why except for this one Bridge No low Clearance Issues and NO TOWNS with tight turns. RThe Cargo that has smacked it recently included IIRC 2 Bulldozers and multiple Normal Van and reefer Trailers all that actually Measured LESS than the Standard 13-6
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.