Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tree68"]As I've noted, there was a rapid spike in the river level that likely caught folks unaware. Had that spike level been the product of a gradual rise, I would imagine warnings would have been posted.[/quote] The first spike at the gage 10 miles upriver from the accident site was 16 hours before the accident. You can get alerts from the Iowa Flood Center. If BNSF got surprised by the water level or the flood itself they should reconsider their warning system. Alone <a href="http://ifis.iowafloodcenter.org/ifis/app/?c=Doon_(Rock_River)">http://ifis.iowafloodcenter.org/ifis/app/?c=Doon_(Rock_River)</a> gives warning enough if you click through the offerings. The table at the right hand top states that upriver watershed area is 910 sq mi and the travel time 2 days. And they send alerts if you ask for. Others say correctly that we don't know if the high water level was a cause or contributing factor to the accident. I think if the train had slowed down the accident aftermath would have been much more less severe. And if I consider this discussion, is Rule 6.21 realy needed? Common sense might suffice. Regards, Volker
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag