The BNSF derailment at Doon, Iowa

10961 views
433 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October, 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by cx500 on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:15 AM

Murphy Siding
When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?

I understand it has occurred a couple of times on CPR lines within the past decade, but as far as I know there was no standing water around (maybe some down in the parallel ditch of course).  Probably just deformed subgrade strata retaining elevated moisture levels after a wetter period.  I won't go into geotechnical explanations; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as shown by certain amateurs here.

  • Member since
    December, 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 899 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:41 AM

This fatal accident was caused by a section of saturated subgrade becoming weak and unstable after the water level dropped, due to a downstream beaver dam rupturing:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1992/r92t0183/r92t0183.pdf

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,692 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:38 AM

SD70Dude
This fatal accident was caused by a section of saturated subgrade becoming weak and unstable after the water level dropped, due to a downstream beaver dam rupturing:

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1992/r92t0183/r92t0183.pdf

If all else fails - blame it on the beavers!  Oops - Sign

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:49 AM

Liquefaction requires certain conditions of soil saturation, ground vibration, and soil type.  

https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=icrageesd

 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,282 posts
Posted by dehusman on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:18 AM

Murphy Siding
When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?

The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated?

You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public.

Dave H. Painted side goes up.

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:37 AM

dehusman
 
Murphy Siding
When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?

 

The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated?

You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public.

 

  I'm just wondering how common it is since that keeps getting thrown out there as a possible reason for the derailment in question. If it's a very rare occurrence then it seems quite plausible that the derailment was caused by something a lot more common and the water was a non-factor.

 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:26 AM

Deleted

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 8:28 AM

Murphy Siding

 

 
dehusman
 
Murphy Siding
When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?

 

The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated?

You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public.

 

 

 

  I'm just wondering how common it is since that keeps getting thrown out there as a possible reason for the derailment in question. If it's a very rare occurrence then it seems quite plausible that the derailment was caused by something a lot more common and the water was a non-factor.

 

 

Liquefaction is a rare occurrence because the necessary conditions have to be present at one time and place.   Two of the conditions are saturated roadbed and ground vibration.  Certainly, the ideal ground vibration for inducing liquefaction was present.  The third necessary condition is soil type.  This third condition will allow saturation and also directly contribute to a loss of soil particle cohesion.  Saturated roadbed also requires high water inundating the supporting soil, which most certainly was present. 
 
Also, the Doon derailment seems to rule out most forms of soil erosion because that happens before a train arrives, and so the locomotives either derail or at least produce a sensation of support loss.  That sensation may have happened, and we have not been told about it.
 
However, that type of erosion is also visible, and with the constant monitoring that was probably occurring, the erosion would have been detected.  But the conditions for liquefaction are not visible or readily detectable during inspection and monitoring.  Indeed, it would require the train to produce the liquefaction.
 
So not only were the conditions for liquefaction at least somewhat present, but also, it is about the only type of roadbed failure that fits the circumstances.  Therefore, I strongly suspect that the derailment was either caused by liquefaction or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.    
  • Member since
    November, 2013
  • 1,238 posts
Posted by VOLKER LANDWEHR on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:01 AM

dehusman
Before everybody gets too excited about the flood gauge data, a significant detail is that the flood data is not updated on a real time basis, it is generally updated about hourly with a little lag.

The USGS gage data is updated every hour with the current discharge and levels. The delay is about 5 to 10 minutes. Example: Most recent instantaneous value: 1410 07-11-2018   08:15 CDT displayed at 8:21 CDT

As the update is at the same time hour for hour your delay is max. 15 minutes if you know when to look.

dehusman
Since it takes several data points to determine a trend, it could take several hours to even detect that something was shifting in the water levels. If it was a short term event, like a sudden rise and drop, over a short period, lets say 3-4 hours, it could be over by the time the event was detected.

When I read you post I get the impression that this is rocket science. This is observation and simplest mathematics.

Upriver: On June 21, 2018 0:00 am there had been a rise of about 3 ft within the last 10 yours upstream. At about 10 am there was another 5 ft rise. After a few hours pause there was a rise of additionally 3 ft crossing the Major Flood Mark.

Down river: On June 21, 0:00 am there had a rise of 2 ft within 10 hours. In contrast to upriver the level rose constantly without pause by 8 ft within the following 24 hours.

So there was early warning, more than the 3-4 hours you talked about. Everything else is constantly watching.

dehusman
The downstream gauge is a lagging indicator, it tells you what happened, not what is going to happen, plus it lags the upstream gauge by probably an hour or more, being several miles away. By the time you could confirm that there was a difference in the trend and see a change in the downstream gauge, it would be somewhere over 3-4 hours.

the gage is about 4.5 miles downstream but it showed the same tendency at the same time! So there was no delay. For me that indicates that a lot of water came into Rock River after the upriver gage.
Edit: The upriver gage still rose at the time of the accident, so no need to think the situation at Doon was much different than Rock Valley.

dehusman: There are also several tributaries from multiple directions feeding into the main river, in any case you would expect the downstream flow to be larger than then upstream flow, since there aren't gauges on all the tributaries it is pure speculation to assign the majority of it to one tributary.

There are a number of tributaries. Looking at their watershed areas makes my assumption that majority of the balance of the discharge an adjucated guess. 

dehusman: This is all really cool for monitoring an event over a period of days or weeks (done that), but its not real handy for predicting something short term on a real time basis.  After you get 6-12 hours of trend, you can make some pretty good guestimates of where it might go.  They do provide forecasts, but like all weather forecasts they are estimates and they can be off by time and elevation (seen that too).

About 3.5 hours before the accident the Rock Valley gage 4.5 miles south of Doon showed a near record level with a discharge only exceeded twice in 70 years. Do you need more indication that this is not the typical yearly spring flood?

There was ample warning, there was enough time to observe and even a last warning shot 3.5 hours before the accident.

dehusman: Its pretty easy to figure out what caused car crash after the event, but what the railroad's situation is trying to figure out if there will even be a crash, when and where it will happen, before it happens, all while riding in the car.  Higher degree of difficulty.

I have tried to show what information about the flood should have been known at BNSF as basis for their decision how to operate the oil train. I did it afterwards but what I found is available online almost simultanously with event.

I don't try to find the reason for the accident. I think the appropriate care and more Rule 1.1.1 especially with an oil train would have reduced the aftermath. It is an opinion and I might be wrong. I went into this detail as some posters here tried to play down the high water despite the facts.

One can value facts differently, an the BNSF apperently did.

The railroad might have had all the information and come to the conclusion there was no reason to reduce the speed. Hopefully the results of the internal investigation will show up.
Regards, Volker

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 9:48 AM

Euclid
Therefore, I strongly suspect that the derailment was either caused by liquefaction or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.



     Uff Duh! How could you get any more ambiguous? You're covering all your bases with custard pie or something else unrelated to the discussion.Dinner

     You could just as easily have strongly suspected that the derailment was either caused by aliens from outer space or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc. Alien

 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:19 AM

Murphy Siding

 

 
Euclid
Therefore, I strongly suspect that the derailment was either caused by liquefaction or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.

 



 

     Uff Duh! How could you get any more ambiguous? You're covering all your bases with custard pie or something else unrelated to the discussion.Dinner

     You could just as easily have strongly suspected that the derailment was either caused by aliens from outer space or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc. Alien

 

 

What in the world do find ambiguous in just two completely objective and practical explanations?  Everybody has been reminding us that the wreck may have been caused by something other than the flood.  That cannot be discounted, so naturally I include it as a possibility.  And yes, that option does include aliens from outer space, but so what?  If it was not caused by the flood, it was caused by something else.  Do I have to list those infinite possibilities of non-flood cause?  

If the cause is flood related, I cannot see any possible cause other than liquefaction.  That is unless the railroad was as dismissive of high water as all their defenders seem to be.  But the defenders tell me that the railroad is just loaded with precautionary monitoring and inspection routines in cases such as this.  So I can't see how they could have been blindsided by the high water; unless of course they were caught off guard by that pesky surge.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:22 AM

dehusman: Its pretty easy to figure out what caused car crash after the event, but what the railroad's situation is trying to figure out if there will even be a crash, when and where it will happen, before it happens, all while riding in the car.  Higher degree of difficulty.

VOLKER LANDWEHR
I have tried to show what information about the flood should have been known at BNSF as basis for their decision how to operate the oil train. I did it afterwards but what I found is available online almost simultanously with event. I don't try to find the reason for the accident. I think the appropriate care and more Rule 1.1.1 especially with an oil train would have reduced the aftermath. It is an opinion and I might be wrong. I went into this detail as some posters here tried to play down the high water despite the facts. One can value facts differently, an the BNSF apperently did. The railroad might have had all the information and come to the conclusion there was no reason to reduce the speed. Hopefully the results of the internal investigation will show up. Regards, Volker

Yes Volker, perfectly said. Yes

  • Member since
    June, 2011
  • 718 posts
Posted by NP Eddie on Thursday, August 09, 2018 1:42 PM

ALL:

The NTSB is investigating the Doon, Iowa derailment. It will be interesting to see what they say caused this derailment. One can read the preliminary report on the NTSB website.

Ed Burns

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 2:26 PM

NP Eddie

ALL:

The NTSB is investigating the Doon, Iowa derailment. It will be interesting to see what they say caused this derailment. One can read the preliminary report on the NTSB website.

Ed Burns

Here is the link:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HMD18LR002-preliminary-report.aspx

There is no determination of the cause, but it does say that the train went into emergency braking application at 48 mph while the speed limit is 49 mph.  So that refutes the speculation that the train may have indeed slowed down as the rule stipulates or just for a precautionary measure on the part of the crew. 

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 09, 2018 4:16 PM

     This might be a clue.From the link>

"The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track..."

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,060 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 09, 2018 4:37 PM

I'm not really sure you need to know too much more than is visible in this photo from the NTSB report page:

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 5:20 PM

Regarding this sentence in the report:

“The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”

Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location?  Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?

If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? 

Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? 

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 610 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 09, 2018 7:20 PM

Euclid

Regarding this sentence in the report:

“The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”

Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location?  Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?

If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? 

Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? 

 

Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer.  Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 8:00 PM

charlie hebdo
 
Euclid

Regarding this sentence in the report:

“The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”

Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location?  Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?

If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? 

Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? 

 

 

 

Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer.  Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.

 

The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site.  In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location.  Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location?  Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area."

The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows. 

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 14,692 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 09, 2018 8:51 PM

Note AREA.  Area has no specificity.  Over the past serveral months in my 'area'.  There as been the 8 inch deluge that flooded Ellicott City for the send time in two years - the flooding was in the Tiber Creek watershed which used Main Street as it's actual path to the Patapsco River and the flooding was several feet UNDER the CSX right of way which bridges Main Street.  Ellicott City is about 10 air miles from my home.

Tuesday the Middle River section of Baltimore County had a T'storm cell camp over that localized area dumping about 7 inches of rain and create many road closures account flooding as well as hundreds of flooded homes.  Amtrak operates through Chase which is in the area of the flooding, however it is on a fill through the area.  Middle River is about 30 airline miles from my location.

Nothing in the NTSB 'pre-report' addressed what, if any, flood warnings had been issued to BNSF.  If a flood warning was issued to BNSF, there was no mention of what if any actions took in response to the flood warning.  In the report NTSB did not voice any exceptions to the train operating 48 MPH in a normla 49 MPH zone.  The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:03 PM

Regarding the sentence from the report that I quoted above in red:  Where did the track get washed out?

I don't recall that information being reported right after that rain.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 610 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:04 PM

Euclid

 

 
charlie hebdo
 
Euclid

Regarding this sentence in the report:

“The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”

Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location?  Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?

If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? 

Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? 

 

 

 

Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer.  Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.

 

 

 

The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site.  In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location.  Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location?  Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area."

The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows. 

 

Read, please.  The figure is the derailment site.  You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track?  The investigation is about  this track, so they woud not mention other trackage.   "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"  

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:11 PM

charlie hebdo
 
Euclid

 

 
charlie hebdo
 
Euclid

Regarding this sentence in the report:

“The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”

Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location?  Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?

If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? 

Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? 

Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? 

 

 

 

Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer.  Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.

 

 

 

The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site.  In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location.  Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location?  Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area."

The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows. 

 

 

 

Read, please.  The figure is the derailment site.  You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track?  The investigation is about  this track, so they woud not mention other trackage.   "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"  

 

Yes, I have read it many times and I fully realize that Figure 1 is the derailment site shown in the photor of the wreck.  And it is precisely because the investigation is about finding the cause of that wreck that makes me curious as to why they make such an oblique reference to a track washout. 

 

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:14 PM

charlie hebdo
Read, please.  The figure is the derailment site.  You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track?  The investigation is about  this track, so they woud not mention other trackage.   "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"  



Broken down sentence for euclidian clarity:

 "....washing out track....... adjacent to the derailment location."

 " ...flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River....adjacent to the derailment location."

 "flooding ... farm fields adjacent to the derailment location."

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:40 PM

Murphy Siding
 
charlie hebdo
Read, please.  The figure is the derailment site.  You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track?  The investigation is about  this track, so they woud not mention other trackage.   "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"  

 



Broken down sentence for euclidian clarity:

 "....washing out track....... adjacent to the derailment location."

 " ...flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River....adjacent to the derailment location."

 "flooding ... farm fields adjacent to the derailment location."

 

 

Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean?  Notice that nowhere does the report say that a washout actually caused the wreck.  They don't say anything about the actual cause of the derailment even though they go into extensive detail about the train, its speed, location, mileposts, number of cars, tonnage, etc, etc. 

They only mention that heavy rain in the area washed out track. The sentence does not say the track was washed out at the derailment sight.  It is clearly written in a way that may or may not mean that. 

Don't you think that if the NTSB had determined that a track washout derailed this oil train, they would speak a little bit more directly to that detail?  I sure do.  Usually, if a track is washed out, a train does not leap the gap and run for a few thousand more feet.  But maybe they mean the track was only undermined by washing, and the track grew weaker as the train began to cross over it.  Did the crew report seeing a washout?  Or did NTSB pick through the muck and wreckage and find the telltale evidence of a washout?  Or is the NTSB merely assuming that it had to be a washout that caused the derailment because the water was so high and they believe the track failed? 

  • Member since
    January, 2014
  • 4,956 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, August 09, 2018 9:56 PM

BaltACD
The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.

Well according to this report, the track was washed out, and the crew spotted it and tried to stop, but could not stop in time.  I would never imagined that it happened that way.  This is indeed new information that was not revealed in the past.  Yet they new this all along since the derailment. 

But this is from the Siouxland News.  They cite the NTSB report.  Where in that report does it say that the crew spotted the track washed out and could not stop in time?

https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill

DOON, Ia — The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report into June's train derailment near Doon that led to a spill of thousands of gallons of oil.

That report reveals that the BNSF railway train was not speeding at the time and that engineers tried to stop the train once they noticed a section of track had been washed out by recent flooding on the Little Rock River. 

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 09, 2018 10:46 PM

Euclid
Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean?  Notice that nowhere does the report say that a washout actually caused the wreck.  They don't say anything about the actual cause of the derailment even though they go into extensive detail about the train, its speed, location, mileposts, number of cars, tonnage, etc, etc.  They only mention that heavy rain in the area washed out track. The sentence does not say the track was washed out at the derailment sight.  It is clearly written in a way that may or may not mean that.  Don't you think that if the NTSB had determined that a track washout derailed this oil train, they would speak a little bit more directly to that detail?  I sure do.  Usually, if a track is washed out, a train does not leap the gap and run for a few thousand more feet.  But maybe they mean the track was only undermined by washing, and the track grew weaker as the train began to cross over it.  Did the crew report seeing a washout?  Or did NTSB pick through the muck and wreckage and find the telltale evidence of a washout?  Or is the NTSB merely assuming that it had to be a washout that caused the derailment because the water was so high and they believe the track failed? 



     And so on, and so on,.... What part of "preliminary report" are you having trouble grasping?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, August 09, 2018 10:51 PM

Euclid

 

 
BaltACD
The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.

 

Well according to this report, the track was washed out, and the crew spotted it and tried to stop, but could not stop in time.  I would never imagined that it happened that way.  This is indeed new information that was not revealed in the past.  Yet they new this all along since the derailment. 

But this is from the Siouxland News.  They cite the NTSB report.  Where in that report does it say that the crew spotted the track washed out and could not stop in time?

https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill

DOON, Ia — The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report into June's train derailment near Doon that led to a spill of thousands of gallons of oil.

That report reveals that the BNSF railway train was not speeding at the time and that engineers tried to stop the train once they noticed a section of track had been washed out by recent flooding on the Little Rock River. 

 

"Where in that report does it say that the crew spotted the track washed out and could not stop in time?"

     Maybe you should contact them and ask them. You have a track record of contacting the big-hitters in small town Iowa media. Give it a shot and report back to us.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 610 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Friday, August 10, 2018 8:38 AM

Murphy Siding

 

 
charlie hebdo
Read, please.  The figure is the derailment site.  You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track?  The investigation is about  this track, so they woud not mention other trackage.   "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"  

 



Broken down sentence for euclidian clarity:

 "....washing out track....... adjacent to the derailment location."

 " ...flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River....adjacent to the derailment location."

 "flooding ... farm fields adjacent to the derailment location."

 

 

Thank you for the clarification.  If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.

  • Member since
    May, 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 12,006 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, August 10, 2018 9:30 AM

charlie hebdo
Thank you for the clarification.  If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.



     To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. 

     For example:

     "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean?  ...... They don't say anything ...."

Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox? Whistling

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy