BaltACDThe trigger for NTSB involvement in investigations is normally death. Numerous aircraft accidents happen - unless someone dies the NTSB doesn't get involved and the same applies to the other modes of transportation.
Actually, they do for aviation:
From the NTSB's own page:
The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline." (-emphasis mine, zug)
I know they are around every time someone runs his ill-maintained puddle jumper off the runway and into Farmer Bob's back porch.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
cx500 Euclid tree68 The locomotive event recorder(s) will show at what point the brake pipe pressure went to zero. When you refer to the point where the brake pipe pressure went to zero, are you referring to a point in time or a point in physical location? The answer to your question is yes to both, one directly, the other easily calculated. And the fact you even have to ask the question just illustrates the extent of your ignorance and the senselessness of much of your speculation. The mass media is usually just as ignorant, and usually misinterprets much of what they are told by the time it gets reported, either through carelessness, attempted over-simplification, or sensationalism. Using that as the sole source is for speculation is even more stupid. The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation. Perhaps you should also consider the possibility it was a UFO landing and grabbing a tank car to refuel their craft, and the railroad and government are covering it up.
Euclid tree68 The locomotive event recorder(s) will show at what point the brake pipe pressure went to zero. When you refer to the point where the brake pipe pressure went to zero, are you referring to a point in time or a point in physical location?
tree68 The locomotive event recorder(s) will show at what point the brake pipe pressure went to zero.
When you refer to the point where the brake pipe pressure went to zero, are you referring to a point in time or a point in physical location?
The answer to your question is yes to both, one directly, the other easily calculated. And the fact you even have to ask the question just illustrates the extent of your ignorance and the senselessness of much of your speculation.
The mass media is usually just as ignorant, and usually misinterprets much of what they are told by the time it gets reported, either through carelessness, attempted over-simplification, or sensationalism. Using that as the sole source is for speculation is even more stupid. The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation.
Perhaps you should also consider the possibility it was a UFO landing and grabbing a tank car to refuel their craft, and the railroad and government are covering it up.
I guess the event controller is set up to measure time and distance from a master station point on the line. That way, it would know the time and location of all events.
So what needs to be determined is the location where the derailment began and the location where the UDE occurred.
EuclidI guess the event controller is set up to measure time and distance from a master station point on the line. That way, it would know the time and location of all events.
The event recorder is little different from the odometer in your car. All it measures is distance, while recording a number of other parameters (brakes, power, etc). You can look at your car's odometer and know that you travelled X miles since last time you looked. Same principle.
Thus the investigators can look at the event recorder and know it travelled "X" distance since the brake pipe went to zero (or any other event that is recorded).
The event recorder does not measure time or distance from any reference point, aside from when it was first installed and was thus probably set to zero.
With the proliferation of GPS, it's possible that the actual location (lat, lon) might be noted, subject to the accuracy of the GPS. I have no idea of any specifics along that line regarding specific railroads or equipment.
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...
zugmannActually, they do for aviation: From the NTSB's own page: The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline." (-emphasis mine, zug) I know they are around every time someone runs his ill-maintained puddle jumper off the runway and into Farmer Bob's back porch.
Well, sometimes. They generally do not get involved in general aviation accidents unless there is a fatality involved. Transport category airplanes (airliners) OTOH get closer scrutiny. The key word there is "accident". Many mishaps below a certain threshold of property damage are classified as "incidents". Those simply get investigated by the FAA or the appropriate agency.
Norm
tree68 Euclid The event recorder is little different from the odometer in your car. All it measures is distance, while recording a number of other parameters (brakes, power, etc). You can look at your car's odometer and know that you travelled X miles since last time you looked. Same principle. Thus the investigators can look at the event recorder and know it travelled "X" distance since the brake pipe went to zero (or any other event that is recorded). The event recorder does not measure time or distance from any reference point, aside from when it was first installed and was thus probably set to zero. With the proliferation of GPS, it's possible that the actual location (lat, lon) might be noted, subject to the accuracy of the GPS. I have no idea of any specifics along that line regarding specific railroads or equipment.
Euclid
A signifigant number of locomotives are GPS equipped and report various data back the the owners headquarters on a routine basis. In addition to reporting the specific location at the time of the report, multiple other data points concerning the operation of the locomotive area also reported - I suspect (but don't know for a fact) that a continuing log of data is contained on the GPS unit on the locomotive and it gets downloaded whenever there is a incident that needs investigation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 Euclid I guess the event controller is set up to measure time and distance from a master station point on the line. That way, it would know the time and location of all events. The event recorder is little different from the odometer in your car. All it measures is distance, while recording a number of other parameters (brakes, power, etc). You can look at your car's odometer and know that you travelled X miles since last time you looked. Same principle. Thus the investigators can look at the event recorder and know it travelled "X" distance since the brake pipe went to zero (or any other event that is recorded). The event recorder does not measure time or distance from any reference point, aside from when it was first installed and was thus probably set to zero. With the proliferation of GPS, it's possible that the actual location (lat, lon) might be noted, subject to the accuracy of the GPS. I have no idea of any specifics along that line regarding specific railroads or equipment.
Euclid I guess the event controller is set up to measure time and distance from a master station point on the line. That way, it would know the time and location of all events.
Okay thanks for that explanation. So in the case of this derailment, they would find the UDE in the event recorder, and the present cumulative distance reading of the event recorder. Then they read the distance traveled between the occasion of the reading and the occasion of the UDE. Then they measure that distance back from the event recorder where it was read, and that would find the geographical location of the UDE.
So if that indicates that the UDE occurred say 100 feet ahead of the point of derailment, it would leave open the possibility that the UDE caused the derailment. It would also rule out the possibility that the derailment caused the UDE.
EuclidIt would also rule out the possibility that the derailment caused the UDE.
Or it might prove that the air dumped because of the derailment, which is more likely.
Maybe a wheel broke...
tree68 Euclid It would also rule out the possibility that the derailment caused the UDE. Or it might prove that the air dumped because of the derailment, which is more likely. Maybe a wheel broke...
Euclid It would also rule out the possibility that the derailment caused the UDE.
Right, if the UDE occurred say 100 feet after the point of derailment, then the UDE did not cause the derailment, and most likely the derailment caused the UDE.
schlimm cx500 The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation. The UPRR does not employ "experienced railroaders" then, since they and the FRA report are the source for the failed track bolt theory?
cx500 The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation.
The UPRR does not employ "experienced railroaders" then, since they and the FRA report are the source for the failed track bolt theory?
But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report. I also note one of the postings quotes another source indicating experienced railroaders (not just the ones on this forum) found the theory implausible.
If it is a joint bar most of the bolts, not just one, must have failed for the joint to open up enough to start derailing. But instead it is described as a track bolt connecting the rail to a tie. Again, the rail will still be held in gauge by all the adjacent ties. It will require multiple consecutive tie/bolt failures before the rail will have freedom to move laterally or turn over. Perhaps that is the case, but that is not what has been reported. Rail seat abrasion sometimes had the same effect but I believe that problem, once identified, came under control.
I suppose one failed track bolt might (by a considerable stretch of imagination) cause a derailment if somehow it managed to jump out of its position at the base of the rail and land on the railhead.
Anyway, we have no reliable information, and the little bits we have heard are second hand at best. And that description of a (singular) track bolt causing the derailment seems highly improbable.
cx500But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report.
1. An official UP spokesperson.
2. Overmod posted this link to an FRA track inspection:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2852027/Cortex-Inspection-4-27-16.pdf
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
cx500 schlimm cx500 The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation. The UPRR does not employ "experienced railroaders" then, since they and the FRA report are the source for the failed track bolt theory? But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report. I also note one of the postings quotes another source indicating experienced railroaders (not just the ones on this forum) found the theory implausible. If it is a joint bar most of the bolts, not just one, must have failed for the joint to open up enough to start derailing. But instead it is described as a track bolt connecting the rail to a tie. Again, the rail will still be held in gauge by all the adjacent ties. It will require multiple consecutive tie/bolt failures before the rail will have freedom to move laterally or turn over. Perhaps that is the case, but that is not what has been reported. Rail seat abrasion sometimes had the same effect but I believe that problem, once identified, came under control. I suppose one failed track bolt might (by a considerable stretch of imagination) cause a derailment if somehow it managed to jump out of its position at the base of the rail and land on the railhead. Anyway, we have no reliable information, and the little bits we have heard are second hand at best. And that description of a (singular) track bolt causing the derailment seems highly improbable.
You may be onto something. It's difficult to see on Google Earth, but about 400 ft west of the road bridge appears to be a signal mast and control box. If that is true there would likely be an insulated joint there.
As far as the young lady spokeswoman, would you expect her to know the difference between a joint bar bolt and a rail fastener?
I guess we'll just have to wait for more information.
Norm48327 cx500 schlimm cx500 The experienced railroaders on this forum have recognized that the report of "a failed track bolt" makes little sense but in the absence of real data don't go off on wild speculation. The UPRR does not employ "experienced railroaders" then, since they and the FRA report are the source for the failed track bolt theory? But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report. I also note one of the postings quotes another source indicating experienced railroaders (not just the ones on this forum) found the theory implausible. If it is a joint bar most of the bolts, not just one, must have failed for the joint to open up enough to start derailing. But instead it is described as a track bolt connecting the rail to a tie. Again, the rail will still be held in gauge by all the adjacent ties. It will require multiple consecutive tie/bolt failures before the rail will have freedom to move laterally or turn over. Perhaps that is the case, but that is not what has been reported. Rail seat abrasion sometimes had the same effect but I believe that problem, once identified, came under control. I suppose one failed track bolt might (by a considerable stretch of imagination) cause a derailment if somehow it managed to jump out of its position at the base of the rail and land on the railhead. Anyway, we have no reliable information, and the little bits we have heard are second hand at best. And that description of a (singular) track bolt causing the derailment seems highly improbable. You may be onto something. It's difficult to see on Google Earth, but about 400 ft west of the road bridge appears to be a signal mast and control box. If that is true there would likely be an insulated joint there. As far as the young lady spokeswoman, would you expect her to know the difference between a joint bar bolt and a rail fastener? I guess we'll just have to wait for more information.
Why not? She works for the UP so they should provide her the info. That's how it works.
"In a sense, the track report I provided (the .pdf link is here) may itself be a bit of a red herring, in that it shows the existence of known or tolerated defects but not necessarily of the kind that would contribute to this particular kind of derailment."
- Somebody is not living in the real world with statements like that. (Defective logic?) After reading the track inspection report and the above comment, I'm sure of it.
Regarding the insulated joint comment in CWR territory, 95% chance on UP in CWR main track territory, that insullated bonded joint is Huck Bolted together 6-8 times, cannot be adjusted and the chance of a blind insulated joint in CWR territory is incredibly small. (The endposts would wear our way ahead of huckbolt failure)....Nearest exception was some six tenth (0.6) miles from the location of the derailment. Random loose bolts and fit of a switch point to a stock rail in CWR turnouts in a common turnout are a mechanical fact of life. Might as well try controlling the weather.
Everybody chill.
I don’t find anything in that inspection report that pertains to failed track fastening screws.
I heard nothing in the Spokesperson’s comments that indicated she was referring to track joint bolts.
If it is a matter of track screws, what would be a possible form of failure with them? Would it be that they break? If so, what has been a typical cause for breaking of the screws? How else could they fail?
As Dave Husman said earlier the U.P. Spokesperson’s reference to a failure of a track screw may be referring to a class of track screws and not just to a single track screw. If so, the obvious inability of a failure of a single track screw to cause a derailment would be irrelevant. But still, there needs to be an explanation of how say 100 track screw could be okay when one train goes by, but fail by the time the next train arrives.
I have not seen any reference responses to this failed track screw theory that did not doubt it. And I have heard no plausible explanation for the theory.
And also, the Spokesperson did say that the theory may not pan out. So the whole story seems weird. What was the point of telling us about it?
mudchickenRegarding the insulated joint comment in CWR territory, 95% chance on UP in CWR main track territory, that insullated bonded joint is Huck Bolted together 6-8 times, cannot be adjusted and the chance of a blind insulated joint in CWR territory is incredibly small.
I stand reeducated. Not familiar with UP's joints. Now I know.
Schlimm: Ah yes, I had forgotten about that FRA inspection report, mostly because it is irrelevant. Part of it deals with turnout components, and I have seen no suggestion that the derailment occurred at a switch. The remainder mentions vegetation close to the track.
The official UP spokesperson, like any big corporation, is concerned with putting the best possible face on what happened to the general public. That typically means the bare minimum of facts, and anything that might be considered to be embarassing will get glossed over if possible. If there was a switch involved, then that may be the key piece of data intentionally left out. The media and the public do not have the understanding to see what is missing. Nor do railfans who watch trains from lineside have that deeper understanding that comes from being involved in the dirtier side of day-to-day
schlimm cx500 But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report. 1. An official UP spokesperson. 2. Overmod posted this link to an FRA track inspection: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2852027/Cortex-Inspection-4-27-16.pdf
cx500 But are they the source, or is it the media reporting how they interpreted what may have been said? Unfortunately railroad media personnel often have rather more expertise in the media than with the realities down trackside. And could you please indicate where you find reference to an FRA report.
railroading.
Only one thing seems clear. We will all need to wait for an authoritative explanation, hopefully from and investigation conducted by an impartial body. Speculation by anyone is fruitless.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/industry-experts-question-railroads-explanation-for-derailment-cause/
There is nothing in that inspection report that pertains to this oil train derailment in Mosier. In connection with the statement about a track problem causing the Mosier derailment, U.P. has said nothing pertaining to the loose frog bolts, loose guard rail bolts, loose rail joint bolts or any other defect listed in the inspection report.
What they said about the Mosier derailment is this:
“Union Pacific said the preliminary indications from its investigation are “the failure of a fastener that connects the rail to the railroad tie,” according Justin Jacobs, a railroad spokesman.”
I assume they are referring to Lag Screw Fasteners as an alternative to cut spikes to secure rails to the ties. Perhaps they are suggesting that the Mosier derailment resulted from the same basic cause as this CN derailment that occurred on 1/21/12.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/r12e0008/r12e0008.asp
From the report:
“In this occurrence, a number of lag screws in the vicinity of the POD broke off in the tie. The breaks, which occurred over a considerable period of time, were due to fatigue at the transition point between the shank and the threads, where the cross-sectional area is reduced. Even with broken lag screws, there was little indication that the curve was under stress, as track gauge was maintained by the lag screws that did not break. The remaining intact lag screws experienced much higher lateral curving forces. The derailment occurred when the remaining screw fasteners were insufficient to resist the lateral curving forces; the high rail then rolled under the train, resulting in wheels falling into gauge at the east end of Fabyan Bridge.”
schlimmSpeculation by anyone is fruitless.
That's never stopped us before.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington schlimm Speculation by anyone is fruitless. That's never stopped us before.
schlimm Speculation by anyone is fruitless.
It won't stop speculation, no, but that speculation is certainly not bearing any fruit, other than sour grapes, perhaps.
After reading the TSB report of the CN derailment that I posted above, I have to wonder about this comment in the article on “railroad industry experts” doubting the suggestion that rail fasteners failed:
“Multiple railroad industry experts have said they find it unlikely a fastener failure could cause a derailment of that size.”
Why is it unlikely? It derailed 31 cars in the CN wreck that I posted above when multiple fasteners failed simultaneously under a passing train. When you read about the details, there is nothing unlikely about it whatsoever.
The one thing that is misleading these experts is that they are assuming that the reference to a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener. They say a derailment is unlikely to be caused by the failure of one fastener. However, the U.P. did not say that the failure was with just ONE fastener. They said that indications are “the failure of a fastener that connects the rail to the railroad tie”. It is sloppy writing that obviously intends to mean the failure of a type of fastener that connects the rail to the tie.
Demonstrating just how this would happen is the CN derailment in which 74 of these screw spike fasteners failed over a long period of time. They broke inside of the tie where the break could not be seen or detected. Many inspections failed to find the problem, with the last inspection made just a couple days prior to the derailment.
By that time, so many screw spikes had broken in the tie that the remaining unbroken ones could not handle the side force on the rail in the curve. When that point was reached, all of the remaining, unbroken fasteners broke simultaneously under a passing train, and the rail tipped over.
That is how the failure of a fastener derails a train. The failure consists of a series of fasteners failing individually in a long progression over time; just as a rail flaw grows worse over time with the passing of each train.
I speculate that this is what happened with the Mosier derailment. It fits perfectly with the meager evidence indicated by U.P., and I can’t think of any other explanation that would fit that stated evidence.
Euclid obviously intends to mean the failure of a type of fastener
obviously intends to mean the failure of a type of fastener
Brilliant, and thanks for crediting your reader for an ability to recognize the obvious.
Excerpt from The Oregonian op-ed column by Jim Hall, Jun. 9
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/phase_out_rail_shipments_of_cr.html#incart_river_home
In my seven years as chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), I saw firsthand the results of warnings unheeded. Carrying crude oil by rail is just not a good idea.
EuclidOkay thanks for that explanation. So in the case of this derailment, they would find the UDE in the event recorder, and the present cumulative distance reading of the event recorder. Then they read the distance traveled between the occasion of the reading and the occasion of the UDE. Then they measure that distance back from the event recorder where it was read, and that would find the geographical location of the UDE.
This is the danger of inexperienced people trying to figure stuff out. The event recorder tell you where the ENGINE was. Not where the derailment or the UDE happened. The time it records is when the UDE reached the engine, not when the UDE happened.
Derailment investigators will look at all the evidence. They know where the derailment happened because there are marks on the track followed by a pile of cars. If there is physical evidence of a defect that couldn't be caused by a UDE, they don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where the UDE was. The oil train that derailed on the broken rail for example. Once you find the broken rail, the the UDE isn't a suspect any more. The first thing you go for is the physical evidence. Once you can't find any physical evidence that points to something else, then you start looking at the edge cases (and a UDE derailing a loaded unit train moving at speed with the slack stretched and no brakes applied (based on the media reports so far) is really, really, really an edge case.)
EuclidSo if that indicates that the UDE occurred say 100 feet ahead of the point of derailment, it would leave open the possibility that the UDE caused the derailment. It would also rule out the possibility that the derailment caused the UDE.
I rather doubt that you will get that level of precision. You are grossly over simplifying things.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Euclid a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener.
a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener.
Excerpt from KATU Portland, Jun. 11
http://katu.com/news/local/officials-multiple-broken-fasteners-led-to-mosier-oil-train-derailment-explosion
Union Pacific officials told KATU News Friday night they believe multiple loose fasteners on the track led to the crash.
wanswheel Euclid a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener. Excerpt from KATU Portland, Jun. 11 http://katu.com/news/local/officials-multiple-broken-fasteners-led-to-mosier-oil-train-derailment-explosion Union Pacific officials told KATU News Friday night they believe multiple loose fasteners on the track led to the crash.
Thanks wanswheel. That is what I expected. Although, just to clarify, the quote you show from me is NOT what I expected.
So now we have the UP spokesperson (who must be getting this from UP experts) saying what some of us non-experts have been saying?
dehusman Euclid Okay thanks for that explanation. So in the case of this derailment, they would find the UDE in the event recorder, and the present cumulative distance reading of the event recorder. Then they read the distance traveled between the occasion of the reading and the occasion of the UDE. Then they measure that distance back from the event recorder where it was read, and that would find the geographical location of the UDE.
Euclid Okay thanks for that explanation. So in the case of this derailment, they would find the UDE in the event recorder, and the present cumulative distance reading of the event recorder. Then they read the distance traveled between the occasion of the reading and the occasion of the UDE. Then they measure that distance back from the event recorder where it was read, and that would find the geographical location of the UDE.
schlimm wanswheel Euclid a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener. Excerpt from KATU Portland, Jun. 11 http://katu.com/news/local/officials-multiple-broken-fasteners-led-to-mosier-oil-train-derailment-explosion Union Pacific officials told KATU News Friday night they believe multiple loose fasteners on the track led to the crash. So now we have the UP spokesperson (who must be getting this from UP experts) saying what some of us non-experts have been saying?
Yes, us non-experts can cover a lot of ground quickly with our freedom to speculate.
I would like to know what type of rail/tie fasteners are in use on this stretch of the U.P. line through Mosier. Does anybody here know? If it is the Lag Screw Spikes like the ones that failed in the CN wreck in 2012 that I linked above, I wonder how U.P. could have been blindsided by the same problem.
Just to clarify, I said this:
The one thing that is misleading these experts [the ones quoted in the article about experts doubting the fastener theory] is that they are assuming that the reference to a failed fastener is referring to ONE fastener. They say a derailment is unlikely to be caused by the failure of one fastener. However, the U.P. did not say that the failure was with just ONE fastener. They said that indications are “the failure of a fastener that connects the rail to the railroad tie”. It is sloppy writing that obviously intends to mean the failure of a type of fastener that connects the rail to the tie.
U.P. is now confirming that the failure was with multiple fasteners as I speculated above.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.