DelDot cited Trains as a source on the last page of their history of the local area.
http://deldot.gov/archaeology/bridge1-651/pdf/ph1_invest/hist_ov-1.pdf
http://deldot.gov/archaeology/bridge1-651/pdf/ph1_invest/hist_ov-2.pdf
http://deldot.gov/archaeology/bridge1-651/pdf/ph1_invest/hist_ov-3.pdf
wanswheelThere’s a blank space on Pierson’s projects page. Did they delete something?
No, it looks like they added something (between December 2011 and August 2013). When the Winslow Conservancy item was added (at upper left) it made the other items shift down and wrap, and since there is an odd number of projects there is only one-half a new line (still with One Meridian listed last).
wanswheel 6 of 7 bids were from Delaware companies and the winner wasn’t. Wow, $200 an hour for maintenance of railroad traffic. http://deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicFinalBidtabDisplay&id=T200707401 http://repierson.com/services.php?p=1
6 of 7 bids were from Delaware companies and the winner wasn’t. Wow, $200 an hour for maintenance of railroad traffic.
http://deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicFinalBidtabDisplay&id=T200707401
http://repierson.com/services.php?p=1
The scanners are out there, but picking points out of a cloud is still hugely a drain on processing and storage. Union Pacific's DoMaps/PMV equipment runs this way with some serious filtering going on. The weak part of the UP system is the autonomous rtk GPS that the PTC folks are now pulling their hair out over, for the same reason (The HARN/CORS coverage just isn't there yet - the second you move, all reliability is a roll of the dice*....optical scanner data pretty good, but exactly where the heck are you?) Optical digital photogrametry with a measurement frame is what Sperry does best (Think Aerial photogrammetry turned 90 degrees and taking an image every few ft intervals.)
UP has known for years that the relative precision of the collected data is good, but don't try to lay the current run over the previous runs....That uncertainty creates a "blur"...(Precision yes, accuracy NO)
There’s a blank space on Pierson’s projects page. Did they delete something?
http://repierson.com/projects.php
mudchickenLine clearance measurements have been going on for a long, long time. (DC and I both dealt with ENCLOG and the "bamboo peacock" on our railroad).
Wasn't ENCLOG supposed to be like the UMLER of clearance data?
And what's the current way that a 'bamboo peacock' style clearance car would read the deflection of one of the 'feathers' - presumably some sort of angular optical encoder, with the translation to distance measurement in the attached processor system?
Is there any current validity to using 'pointcloud' systems with optical measurement in doing clearance measurements at higher speed? Or is that technology still too much of a 'work in progress' to be trustable in the real railroad world?
(1) Line clearance measurements have been going on for a long, long time. (DC and I both dealt with ENCLOG and the "bamboo peacock" on our railroad). What has changed is processing time, digital photogrametry and now reliable scanners tied to faster computer processors which now allows people to check iterative measurements without a huge effort.
*** To Balts comment about "maintenance occurs", you might add that CSX has leased UP mobile scanner technology known as PMV for almost 10 years now and still frequently has UP PMV vehicles and staff on the R/W regularly along with the Sperry type clearance vehicles. (Wonder if this plays a part?)
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring05articles/union-pacific.html
(In the past 6 years, the mobile mapping technology, using scanners, GPS and GIS has made some terrific jumps in precision, accuracy and reliability... with UP being pretty much state of the art in the US railroad industry.)
(2) Normal surfacing won't raise a track 6" or so in one pass. Between consolidation and ballast degradation the level of track all using the same datum won't change much at all. To change 6" might take decades or a small change of grade for something else. Rare for that to happen.
Like PDN, I am witnessing stooopid arrogance at an unheard of level. Don't blame the surveyors or the contractors, the problem goes much deeper. Maybe DelDOT needs to change it's name to Dept. of "Rubber Tired Things". They certainly can't railroad. [Colorado, along with many other states, has the same problem. At least Nebraska is honest and calls their agency "Dept. of Roads".] What happened here at a professional level is unacceptable.
Designing to an absolute minimum dimension in a dynamic world of bridge and track movement that is common knowledge is reckless and irresponsible. Clinton Viaduct, The Enid Can-Opener and 11Ft8.com's bridges are understandable to a point even with dumb truckers, this new bridge is not.
tree68 I'm guessing that either CSX only gave the drawings a quick once over ("looks good to me"), didn't see them at all, or assumed the highway people knew what they were doing (oops...). Or, maybe the drawing correctly represented what needed to be done, but the on-site people misunderstood what it all meant... Or something else entirely. As has been mentioned, maintenance occurs. The procedings started in 2003? Perhaps the drawings themselves are out of date and don't reflect changes in the profile of the roadbed. But, I'm guessing here.
I'm guessing that either CSX only gave the drawings a quick once over ("looks good to me"), didn't see them at all, or assumed the highway people knew what they were doing (oops...).
Or, maybe the drawing correctly represented what needed to be done, but the on-site people misunderstood what it all meant...
Or something else entirely.
As has been mentioned, maintenance occurs. The procedings started in 2003? Perhaps the drawings themselves are out of date and don't reflect changes in the profile of the roadbed.
But, I'm guessing here.
CSX has been operating a electronic clearence car in recent years to get definitative measurements on ALL possible clearance implicated objects - bridges, buildings, signals, block signs and ANYTHING else that may have a bearing on handling a clearance load. I suspect these measurements are also being compared against all contracted bridges and anything else that was erected with a specified clearance dimension - and where negative variances are found, legal proceedings begin.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68or assumed the highway people knew what they were doing (oops...).
You know how assume breaks down, an ASS, a U, & a ME. So if you assumed, you make an ass out of U and ME. Assume nothing, trust but verify. Measure twice, cut once. All the cliches apply.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I still say that no matter what, CSX HAD to approve the plans. Why did they miss the error? You cannot just go build over a RR without their knowledge and approval.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Based upon some dealings in these matters, I'd say, "none of the above." Someone assumed the elevation they were given was all that was needed without question. Probably no-one in charge understood the variable nature of railroads. They assumed since the track has been there for decades, it's always been 'right there', without moving.
It also sounds like CSX inherited a white elephant. (if they do actually own those bridges for some convoluted reason.)
"surveyors mistakenly measured the clearance from the ground up, rather than from the top of the track's steel rails, said Barry Benton, DelDOT's state bridge engineer"
Has anyone explained what this means? How did they actually position the overpass?
When you're pouring concrete for a bridge abutment, you pour until it's X feet higher than... well, for sure not X feet higher than the top of the rail. You pour until it's X feet higher than some benchmark you have previously set in a convenient position off the track, out of harm's way. You have showed the railroad guys your benchmark, and asked them: how much higher than the benchmark is the top of rail allowed to get? Today the top of rail is, say, 1 foot above the benchmark; can we overpass-builders assume the top of rail is never going to be more than 1.5 feet above the benchmark? Or 2.0 feet, or what?
Once the railroad has promised not to raise the top of rail more than Y feet above the benchmark, then you know how many feet above the benchmark the top of your abutment has to be.
So what part of the plan didn't get done?
CSX sued DelDot about the previous Newport Rd. bridge, and 3 other old B&O bridges, when DelDot said CSX should pay for repairs.
Excerpt from U.S. District Court for District of Delaware, Dec. 12, 2003
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Chambers/OtherOpinions/KAJ/Opinions/Dec2003/03-756.pdf
DelDOT alleges that all four of the bridges are owned by CSX.2 In the July 7, 2003 letter, DelDOT claimed that it was forced to close three of the bridges in December 2002 due to their deteriorated condition, and that the fourth bridge was then restricted to vehicular traffic not exceeding three tons. DelDOT stated that CSX’s “consistent disregard for its responsibility to inspect, maintain, and upgrade these bridges” has endangered the traveling public, resulted in traffic detours that have prolonged emergency response time for fire, ambulance, and police personnel, and caused incalculable public convenience.
DelDOT also offered two options for resolution of the impasse. Under the first option, CSX would fund the design, inspection, and reconstruction of three bridges to the appropriate standards, and would further fund removal of the fourth bridge. DelDOT would accept ownership of the bridges, as well as responsibility for all future inspection and maintenance. Under the second option, CSX would contribute to restoring three bridges, using modern design parameters and construction materials, and would fully fund removal of the fourth bridge. DelDOT would contribute sufficient funds to increase the load bearing strength of each of the three repaired bridges, to comply with modern standards. CSX would retain ownership of the bridges and would continue to be responsible for future inspections and maintenance.
On July 24, 2003, CSX filed a Complaint seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the scheduled hearing violated its procedural due process rights under the Constitution, that DelDOT is without authority as a matter of law to cause CSX to repair, reconstruct, or replace the bridges, and that CSX has no obligation to repair, reconstruct, or replace them. CSX filed a motion for preliminary injunction on July 25, 2003, but after a teleconference with Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson on July 28, 2003, DelDOT canceled the hearing and CSX withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction. CSX filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2003, dropping the procedural due process argument. However, CSX maintains that DelDOT lacks authority to cause CSX to repair, reconstruct, or replace the bridges, and that CSX has no obligation to repair, reconstruct, or replace them.
2CSX does not claim that it owns the four bridges in dispute. However, it does not state that it does not own the bridges and also states that its predecessors-in-interest constructed the bridges.
Price to raise bridge seems excessive. When Ga DOT raised a bunch of bridges on I-85 south of Atlanta. The bridges were all raised about 18 inches for an overlay of the interstate. Price was about $150,000 per bridge. Of course it was in a rural areas and all that had to be added were steel columns on top of bents and paving new ramps to new heights. .
SV:
(1) Somehow when the plan says 21'-6", it should not be 21'-1". I do not think the DelDOT bridge design people are off the hook. (From what we get to see checking designs for my clients, this is not an isolated case. Frequently get the grumble from the design engineer (and the State DOT rubber-tired folks of the technical persuasion) that the railroad comments in red ink are arbitrary (hardly) and they are just trying to be difficult (hardly, but the lack of professional thought around railroads by highway people is almost expected anymore).
(2) What bright bunny had DelDOT policing itself? It's happening more and more as state governments try to streamline. The 1974 decision to pull railroad regulation out of the Delaware PSC and give it to DelDOT predictably backfired.
(3) CSX was told 21'-6" and expected 21'-6" or better. Damn right they balked at 21'-1". (CSX and AECOM are most certainly looking at what happened and reviewing procedure. CSX - JAX is already a tough customer with just about anything that crosses them, especially utilities which get really arrogant in their own right... After this, I think CSX and the other railroads will really dig in and DEMAND that the highway bubbas get it right.
Like Paul, I cannot grasp why these supposebly tech savvy folks cannot handle the concept of a clearance envelope. Bewildering.
mudchicken RME mudchicken Palming the blame off on the surveyors is arrogant chickencrap.... And why is the bridge NOT built to 23' as CSX standards indicate? Isn't the extra there so that a few cycles of 'ballast regulation' and lining/surfacing won't lift the track into potential interference? 6" of that 23ft. is "insurance" from the model law of the 1950's that specifies 22'-6"....some states back east allow lesser separation based on older standards which have already caused some severe headaches in the eastern states. As to how you fault a bridge contractor's employee's for designed deflection under load ...probably bit into the PTC fairy tale too.
RME mudchicken Palming the blame off on the surveyors is arrogant chickencrap.... And why is the bridge NOT built to 23' as CSX standards indicate? Isn't the extra there so that a few cycles of 'ballast regulation' and lining/surfacing won't lift the track into potential interference?
mudchicken Palming the blame off on the surveyors is arrogant chickencrap....
And why is the bridge NOT built to 23' as CSX standards indicate? Isn't the extra there so that a few cycles of 'ballast regulation' and lining/surfacing won't lift the track into potential interference?
6" of that 23ft. is "insurance" from the model law of the 1950's that specifies 22'-6"....some states back east allow lesser separation based on older standards which have already caused some severe headaches in the eastern states.
As to how you fault a bridge contractor's employee's for designed deflection under load ...probably bit into the PTC fairy tale too.
This time it was the State of Delaware's DOT that got the Official "Smooched the Pooch" Award. It is stunning how often the "Rubber-tire'd Bubbas make mistakes in Measuring 'Stuff' that they should know can be critical to their operations. ie- a 4" asphalt over-lay under a bridge that was previously marked at 13'6", just removing the white warning sign for 13'6" DOES NOT automatically, make that clearance OK. A state saving money by building bridges at the absolute minimum for highway clearance, does not relieve them from having to consider the new clearances AFTER the surface has been overlain with an asphalt surface renewal. Neither does a City save money by using white-faced warnings of absolute height clearances; by replacing them with yellow- faces signs of height clearances (such a sign indicates height measurement is an approximation). The lawyers for the City of Chicago 'used this' pretty effectively, for a lot of time... Contact with a bridge at any speed can get really expensive for the offending trucker!
Thank you for the insight Mr. North and Mudchicken ..
Found a link to the "Jacking Plan" for the span on the DelDOT website.
https://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/bridges/br_1-651/vw/index.shtml
Paul_D_North_Jr . . . "A man's got to know his limitations" (by Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" in one of those movies). - Paul North.
. . . "A man's got to know his limitations" (by Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" in one of those movies).
- Paul North.
Magnum Force. It's my favorite Dirty Harry movie.
Similar thing happened here for the pedestrian walkway over a RR track, from a parking garage to the new library. The architect and construction folk were let off the hook because the RR signed off on the design and it was built to that design. The problem here was that the RR did track/ballast refurbishment between the time the design was approved and the construction was completed.
So I have a question here... didn't CSX sign off on the design??? I would not be so critical of the DelDOT designers... CSX bears some responsibility for this!
My question is, DDot paid CSX a ton of money to review their plans before granting a license for the work. AECOM in Philly was who CSX always foisted this review work on on my projects. No one in this review process for CSX caught the bad design before they approved these plans?
Words fail me - my mind can't wrap around this - time doesn't allow me - to digest this and comment in proper form right now. I couldn't invent this stuff. April Fool's was almost 2 months ago ! This is almost as bad as the cartoon of the tracks where the left rail joins with the right rail, and the opposite rails are hanging free and unconnected to anything . . .
MC has addressed all the important points. It's a design error - probably rooted in a failure to understand 'railroad', compounded by failure to provide adequate directon and review to ensure the quality and method of measurements from the surveyors (see LeMassena's essay on "Numbers" in Trains many years back). I will add one comment - from the linked article:
"Benton said a new DelDOT policy requires surveyors to take three measurements when judging clearances from railroad tracks — one on each side of the rail, and one on top of the rail."
To me, that's still 2/3 wrong. Instead, 'shoot' the elevations of the tops of both rails, and forgot the 'on each side' part except as a check: the rail section height + tieplate thickness - tieplate cutting will give a better value faster; and if it's concrete ties, then where the heck do they measure on all those sloped and angled surfaces ?
Somewhere in the professional licensing regulations is a requirement to not practice in a discipline in which you're not qualified . . . "A man's got to know his limitations" (by Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" in one of those movies).
mudchickenPalming the blame off on the surveyors is arrogant chickencrap....
What do you call palming it off on the construction crews not compensating for the effect of the deck on the precast beams, as he did a little later?
I too will be interested to see what PDN has to say about this.
PDN: Where art thou?
Congrats to CSX for sticking to their guns on 21'-6" (Maybe the rubber tired-bubbas ought to design to 23'-0", CSX's general requirement? What they would have seen if they had properly gathered all the required/suggested design guidelines before they started guessing at a solution? CSX makes it abundantly clear that they will share requirements (current) with any structural designer for the price of an e-mail.
(1) Pretty clear that it isn't the surveyors. The project design engineers pooped in their own nest. Designing to the absolute MINIMUM standard is just plain stupid. (No allowance for normal railroad surfacing is just plain nuts) The engineers detail what data is supposed to be collected for an engineering topo on a project like that. If they had any quibbles, a survey crew would have been sent back out to collect that data. Palming the blame off on the surveyors is arrogant chickencrap....que up Strother Martin, please.(Cool Hand Luke)
(2) State of Delaware has a problem in that it buried in its regulations (an obscure DelDOT design Memo of 3-22-83) DELDOT VIOLATED ITS OWN STATE RULES! Like the failure in Iowa with the pedestrian bridge (Cedar Rapids ?), make the statute rules a little more accessable for da button pushers. Otherwise, they will guess and blunder their way to a finished project. (Fairly common for highway bubbas to screw-up around railroads - see it plenty often where I'm at... Railroad design almost became a lost art in recent history.)
(3) Funny the newspaper journalists newsworkers running off to quiz ASCE on the clearance issue. They should have talked to AREMA Committee 28 (ASCE has had little to do with the common carrier freight railroads for over a century - The industry basically fired them over a century ago after a series of ASCE mis-steps and clashes between practical railroaders and the academics (long story, look up the beginnings of AREA, AREMA's predecessor.))
(4) The doublestack height minimum reporting of 21'-6" is a fairy tale. (almost 2 feet too much, dependent on design cushion and protecting railroad employees.)....Part of issue here is design economics vs. practical reality (DelDOT's design team needs an accountability refresher course. Cheap and stupid is not the way to go.)
(5) for those saying drop the track, do you savvy the concept of profile runoff and how far back that would have to go? Highways can do that in a shorter distance and you don't have the drainage and utility protection issues to deal with.
rdamonSeems like lowering the tracks would be easier .., but they were probably there first
That's probably implicit in the 'waiver' that DelDOT requested from CSX: the idea that lowering the track as for tunnel clearance might be less expensive than jacking the bridge and reprofiling the pavement.
Aside from the time and lost capacity to do that, however, is the problem when a sag is introduced at a given point. The amount of additional fuel burn is probably not that great; the difficulty is the load coming on and off the couplers and draft gear, especially when changing speed or conducting hard braking.
Wiser to change the bridge, even if it were possible to get more than usual 'goodwill' out of Delaware with the track accommodation...
DelDOT employees ...
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/05/23/newport-bridge-too-low-deldot-must-correct-mistake/84553084/
Lowest bidding surveyors, who knew nothing about basic clearance facts?
Johnny
Seems like lowering the tracks would be easier .., but they were probably there first
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.