Speaking of bridges even though this was not a railroad bridge it was built by a a railroad. Several years ago I was on James J. Hill's former Farm up in Northcote, MN. Now this was no ordinary farm, as it was 25,000 (a whole township) acres in the rich red river valley back when Hill bought it for his son to support his farming and ranching interests. I think his son's name was Walter Hill. Well this farm had everything including Dutch dairy farmers brought over to run a proper dairy operation who soon left because they didn't like the extreme cold. Most of the numerous buildings are gone now, but it even had a large greenhouse. The grain silos were some of the biggest around at the time, There was even a minature James J. Hill House on the property. Well when the local farmer who owned part of the property showed us around, we drove over a bridge crossing a small river that had been built by Hill's engineering department from the railroad. We asked if the bridge was safe to drive over since it was over 100 years old. His response was that when the county came out and inspected the bridge it received the highest rating of any bridge in the county. The bridges on the GN must have been built well also.
Bucyrus wrote: The public sector always strives to enlarge itself by taking over activities of the private sector. It creates special interest advocacy groups who publish studies highlighting safety threats, and feed them to the news media. Without even realizing that they are being used like a tool, the news media broadcasts the safety threat to the public. The public is predictably alarmed, so they turn around and besiege their representatives to do something about the safety threat. So even though most of us are skeptical of this issue because we understand railroad bridges and the reasonably reliable motives of the railroads to properly inspect them, 99% of the viewers will just lap this up. So the larger objective to put the government in charge of railroad bridge inspection by getting the public to demand it will have been furthered. Meanwhile KSTP news will merely believe they are enhancing their ratings by protecting us like children on an inside tip they got from a special interest (with no agenda) suggesting they look into railroad bridge safety.
The public sector always strives to enlarge itself by taking over activities of the private sector. It creates special interest advocacy groups who publish studies highlighting safety threats, and feed them to the news media. Without even realizing that they are being used like a tool, the news media broadcasts the safety threat to the public. The public is predictably alarmed, so they turn around and besiege their representatives to do something about the safety threat.
So even though most of us are skeptical of this issue because we understand railroad bridges and the reasonably reliable motives of the railroads to properly inspect them, 99% of the viewers will just lap this up. So the larger objective to put the government in charge of railroad bridge inspection by getting the public to demand it will have been furthered. Meanwhile KSTP news will merely believe they are enhancing their ratings by protecting us like children on an inside tip they got from a special interest (with no agenda) suggesting they look into railroad bridge safety.
Bucyrus, you do a great selling job with your complex and persuasive rhetoric, I'll give you that.However, regarding your extremely strong, broad,sweeping statements and terms i've highlighted, what are your sources for these staetments and statistics, to support your contentions? Convince me.
Chico
CNW 6000 wrote: Welcome to the Forum UK2007!Lots of good info here and in the other forums on the site.
Welcome to the Forum UK2007!
Lots of good info here and in the other forums on the site.
thanx i hope to learn alot from here
Kathi Kube wrote:. The subject is interesting, and bridge safety does need to be addressed on some railroads. The trick is finding the slackers among the 500+ railroads in the U.S. Kathi
Thankyou, voice of reason!!
Clearly, the topic is a sensitive one for many people, And one can no more conclude that all RR bridges are safe, than you can the contrary.
In any situation where entities are allowed to be self supervising, you are going to have saints as well as sinners. Better to have concern now before something really bad happens that will dictate the inevitable 'firestorm' of attention after it's too late.
jchnhtfd wrote: I won't say that railroad drainage structures (culverts and small trestles) never fail. They do. Rarely.That said, however, when was the last time you heard about a major railroad bridge falling down? Uh...And when was the last time you heard about a major highway bridge falling down?End of story...
I won't say that railroad drainage structures (culverts and small trestles) never fail. They do. Rarely.
That said, however, when was the last time you heard about a major railroad bridge falling down? Uh...
And when was the last time you heard about a major highway bridge falling down?
End of story...
WELL SAID!! The RR's seem to do a better job of inspection and maintenance - sad to say, but recent events prove it.
Kathi Kube wrote:But, when the General Accounting Office analyzed results from previous safety surveys and discussions with several short lines and regionals, it found that many of the smaller roads were lacking in some way with their bridge inspections or documentation. Kathi
True.but a short line or regional being lax with bridge inspections and/or documentation does not directly translate into its bridges being dangerous, right? I can't wait to read your piece.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD wrote:My biggest concern is for bridges on lines that have been sold to Short Line operators. Class I's sell their various lines to Short Line operators for a variety of reasons, traffic volume being one, but another one is the volume of maintenance that the line will require in the future which includes the fixed plant items such as bridges and tunnels. Most Short Line operators are not well capitalized and, I suspect, do not have the financial wherewithall to undertake major repairs and reconstruction of significant bridges their lines may have.
I would figure the purchaser of a short line (or the banking entity which is going to hold the paper) would have someone do a thorough inspection and appraisal of all property before the closing. That would also be necessary to determine value compared to the sale price.
Just like I wouldn't buy a home without a certified home inspector going over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any RR infrastructure needing immediate repairs would trigger a credit off the sale price. I doubt operating RRs are sold "as is" with out buyer inspection.
excellent point!! some of the shortlines I've seen created around lines that class ones were eager to dispose of, are pretty creaky looking.
I guess if the price of entry is low enough, and a potential to become a self sustaining entity is anticipated, some guys will plow mud for a living.
And then there are the leased lines....these might be the most suspect of all. i.e. Suppose a class 1 has a surplus line acquired thru merger, that it leases to a regional...in essence placing the line in mothballs as far as the class 1 is concerned. And the Lessee will only go so far to improve someone else's asset. So, you end up with a situation where neither involved entity sees the property as one they want to sink a whole lot of money in...so things go unnoticed, perhaps not entirely by accident.
Steam Is King wrote: Bucyrus wrote: The public sector always strives to enlarge itself by taking over activities of the private sector. It creates special interest advocacy groups who publish studies highlighting safety threats, and feed them to the news media. Without even realizing that they are being used like a tool, the news media broadcasts the safety threat to the public. The public is predictably alarmed, so they turn around and besiege their representatives to do something about the safety threat. So even though most of us are skeptical of this issue because we understand railroad bridges and the reasonably reliable motives of the railroads to properly inspect them, 99% of the viewers will just lap this up. So the larger objective to put the government in charge of railroad bridge inspection by getting the public to demand it will have been furthered. Meanwhile KSTP news will merely believe they are enhancing their ratings by protecting us like children on an inside tip they got from a special interest (with no agenda) suggesting they look into railroad bridge safety. Bucyrus, you do a great selling job with your complex and persuasive rhetoric, I'll give you that.However, regarding your extremely strong, broad,sweeping statements and terms i've highlighted, what are your sources for these staetments and statistics, to support your contentions? Convince me. Chico
Chico,
I understand your point. My statements are only my opinion, based upon my own observation. My hope is that by making them broad and sweeping, others will be able to see the larger picture, evaluate the detailed evidence themselves, and make their own determination as to the accuracy of what I am saying.
Because the scope of these issues is so vast, the details are endlessly refutable from both sides of the arguments. All the details can obscure the big picture, so it can become a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Within the limits of the forum, I can only hope to paint a picture of the forest. I have my opinions about the TV news media, and I test them for accuracy by predicting what their take will be on a story that I expect them to cover. Tonight's railroad bridge story will be a perfect opportunity to see if my expectations about it will come true.
I have seen a television presentation in the past that focused on railroad safety and hazardous cargo. They partially made their case for alarm by pointing out "defects" such as ties with end checking, and tie plates that did not have a spike in all eight holes.
Poppa_Zit wrote: BaltACD wrote:My biggest concern is for bridges on lines that have been sold to Short Line operators. Class I's sell their various lines to Short Line operators for a variety of reasons, traffic volume being one, but another one is the volume of maintenance that the line will require in the future which includes the fixed plant items such as bridges and tunnels. Most Short Line operators are not well capitalized and, I suspect, do not have the financial wherewithall to undertake major repairs and reconstruction of significant bridges their lines may have. I would figure the purchaser of a short line (or the banking entity which is going to hold the paper) would have someone do a thorough inspection and appraisal of all property before the closing. That would also be necessary to determine value compared to the sale price.Just like I wouldn't buy a home without a certified home inspector going over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any RR infrastructure needing immediate repairs would trigger a credit off the sale price. I doubt operating RRs are sold "as is" with out buyer inspection.
Hate to differ with you here PZ, but "as is, where is" is exactly the way that railroads are sold or more commonly leased these days. You get as much inspection as the seller will allow and count yourself lucky if you get a fraction of the records you should. Your concept of a credit off the purchase price is the way you might buy a house, but there the similarity ends. Remember that often a short line operator is only one of several bidding on a particular line. If he rocks the boat, the seller will simply move to the next bidder. The disparity in bargaining power between the buyer and seller in these deals is HUGE and most often a "take it or leave it situation".
With that said, most short line sales/leasing processes will include a hirail trip and a look at the records concerning track and structure inspections, to the extent such are available. This is still a long way from the type of thorough inspection you have in mind. What most people forget is that the short line is saving the line from the fate of abandonment and scrapping in most cases and the efforts and investment that many short lines invest is far more than most of these lines have seen in years. Bridges are incredible capital hogs and just about anybody with more than a few 100+ year old structures will be happy to tell you how much even the basic maintenance costs. It is not unusual to spend tens of thousands annually for a mere inspection by a structural engineer. The repairs cost a LOT more. Like most things in life, it is a MUCH more complex process than one might imagine. Just remember, when you are dealing with anything pertaining to a railroad, none of the "normal" rules apply. Everything about railroads is counterintuitive...
LC
Limitedclear wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: BaltACD wrote:My biggest concern is for bridges on lines that have been sold to Short Line operators. Class I's sell their various lines to Short Line operators for a variety of reasons, traffic volume being one, but another one is the volume of maintenance that the line will require in the future which includes the fixed plant items such as bridges and tunnels. Most Short Line operators are not well capitalized and, I suspect, do not have the financial wherewithall to undertake major repairs and reconstruction of significant bridges their lines may have. I would figure the purchaser of a short line (or the banking entity which is going to hold the paper) would have someone do a thorough inspection and appraisal of all property before the closing. That would also be necessary to determine value compared to the sale price.Just like I wouldn't buy a home without a certified home inspector going over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any RR infrastructure needing immediate repairs would trigger a credit off the sale price. I doubt operating RRs are sold "as is" with out buyer inspection.Hate to differ with you here PZ, but "as is, where is" is exactly the way that railroads are sold or more commonly leased these days. You get as much inspection as the seller will allow and count yourself lucky if you get a fraction of the records you should. Your concept of a credit off the purchase price is the way you might buy a house, but there the similarity ends. Remember that often a short line operator is only one of several bidding on a particular line. If he rocks the boat, the seller will simply move to the next bidder. The disparity in bargaining power between the buyer and seller in these deals is HUGE and mosty often a "take it or leave it situation". With that said, most short line sales/leasing processes will include a hirail trip and a look at the records concerning track and structure inspections, to the extent such are available. This is still a long way from the type of thorough inspection you have in mind. What most people forget is that the short line is saving the line from the fate of abandonment and scrapping in most cases and the efforts and investment that many short lines invest is far more than most of these lines have seen in years. Bridges are incredible capital hogs and just about anybody with more than a few 100+ year old structures will be happy to tell you how much even the basic maintenance costs. It is not unusual to spend tens of thousands annually for a mere inspection by a structural engineer. The repairs cost a LOT more. Like most things in life, it is a MUCH more complex process than one might imagine. Just remember, when you are dealing with anything pertaining to a railroad, none of the "normal" rules apply. Everything about railroads is counterintuitive...LC
Hate to differ with you here PZ, but "as is, where is" is exactly the way that railroads are sold or more commonly leased these days. You get as much inspection as the seller will allow and count yourself lucky if you get a fraction of the records you should. Your concept of a credit off the purchase price is the way you might buy a house, but there the similarity ends. Remember that often a short line operator is only one of several bidding on a particular line. If he rocks the boat, the seller will simply move to the next bidder. The disparity in bargaining power between the buyer and seller in these deals is HUGE and mosty often a "take it or leave it situation".
No, no, LC ... you're not "differing" with me. I have absolutely no knowledge of how these things go down. I was only "figuring" how such a sale should transact in a normal world. [Everyone insert your own punchline here]
Bucyrus wrote:Well, the program just ran. It does sound like a big push to get the government involved in regulating railroad bridge safety at the very least. They cited one example where freight cars fell off of a bridge after derailing from bad rail on the bridge approach, and suggested that the government should inspect tracks. There was even an implication that the government (Homeland Security) should oversee the movement of hazardous cargo. They cited a government report that "suggests" railroad safety problems such as bridges being used past their projected life. It would be interesting if somebody could track down that report and link it here.
Bucyrus, you give TV too much credit for being able to implement change.
In response, let me say I just watched a "documentary" about the alien autopsies they did at Area 51 following the Roswell thingy. It called for the government to open all of the "top secret" files on the incident and come clean with the "truth" about UFOs.
Na-noo, na-noo, and may The Schwartz be with you.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Na-noo, na-noo, and may The Schwartz be with you.
FOFLMAO
I don't think you have to be a UFO enthusiast to read between the lines and see what this is all about. This is a total propaganda piece right out of the handbook of creating an artificial crisis and putting the government in charge of solving it. I would call it the Bird Flu Epidemic of railroad public safety. They even used the 35W bridge collapse as fuel for the danger of railroad bridges.
I do not believe that this piece was written by KSTP news. They obviously produced the video, but the script must have been handed to them by the proponents of an agenda. It is way too much like a slick campaign commercial.
When they ran the piece last night, KSTP did mention that they have been besieged with phone calls from private citizens who (after seeing the promo) were scared of railroads and wanted to know how they could get involved in helping make them safer.
I expect that we will see similar railroad bridge safety pieces on ABC, CBS, or NBC rather soon.
Here is the program video plus the text synopsis:
Bucyrus wrote: I do not believe that this piece was written by KSTP news. They obviously produced the video, but the script must have been handed to them by the proponents of an agenda. It is way too much like a slick campaign commercial.
An all too familiar formula these past several years...fear mongering designed to exploit concern for the unknown, ambitioned toward making the clapping seals among us spend money they otherwise wouldn't spend, and fight battles they otherwise wouldn't fight.
allegations of mass corrosion, in other words
Well, just force the FRA to get involved in regulating bridges (even they don't want to do it) and see how fast the rail system grinds to a halt. Oh, and don't even get me started on the cost of rating the bridges, repairing or rebuilding the bridges and the resulting delays in traffic and raised prices to the shippers to cover this cost. You can rest assured that the existing bridges won't be quite good enough for the standards. And don't ever get DHS/TSA involved, they have absolutely no knowledge of railroad construction and safety and given their history to date with security (not to mention jurisdictional battles with FRA) their regs will keep things confused for decades.
Here is the 71-page GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07770.pdf
I have a pretty good memory when it comes to recognizing writing styles, phraseology and word patterns. In the post below, the term "clapping seals" jumped right out:
Convicted One wrote:An all too familiar formula these past several years...fear mongering designed to exploit concern for the unknown, ambitioned toward making the clapping seals among us spend money they otherwise wouldn't spend, and fight battles they otherwise wouldn't fight.allegations of mass corrosion, in other words
That rang a bell. I did a search of all of the forums here for that unusual term and found it used only three other times in over 870,000 posts written by over 43,000 members:
TheAntiGates wrote:The lampoon I abstractly reference comes from the fact that the system makes up what ever story it wants, and the clapping seals in this country accept it blindly. (in the name of patriotism, in the name of belonging, whatever)
TheAntiGates wrote:My bet is that the same people railing the loudest for the demise of Amtrak are at the whim of those expecting to swoop up the NEC "cheaply".I suppose it's wrong to be so suspicious, but I sure wasn''t born this way, I've been trained well over the years.The mechanism that seems to work out so well for this sort of game play, is that the clapping seals seem to have a very short attention span. Anything over 5 years back, is "ancient history" and too much trouble to re learn, so they don't even see the connection the lions share of the time.
I suppose it's wrong to be so suspicious, but I sure wasn''t born this way, I've been trained well over the years.
The mechanism that seems to work out so well for this sort of game play, is that the clapping seals seem to have a very short attention span. Anything over 5 years back, is "ancient history" and too much trouble to re learn, so they don't even see the connection the lions share of the time.
TheAntiGates wrote:The populace is duped into believing the new strongman is on their side, and intends to "clean up" the problem that so torments them.So they believe the lies and vote the guy in like so many clapping seals waiting for their turn to balance the ball on their noses.....chanting nonsense such as"if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about"
So they believe the lies and vote the guy in like so many clapping seals waiting for their turn to balance the ball on their noses.....chanting nonsense such as"if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about"
_________________________________________________________________________
Convicted One wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote:I knew you'd come back, AG. Try though they might, FM and MS can't fill your sandals. sowwey, try again
Poppa_Zit wrote:I knew you'd come back, AG. Try though they might, FM and MS can't fill your sandals.
sowwey, try again
OK, TheAntiGates/ConvictedOne/Dweezil or whoever you are today.
Aren't the MN DOT the same people who said they could not adequately inspect the 35W bridge because of the pigeon poop and the spiders? Of course, no one has found any document produced pre-disaster that warned of that. Now another branch of the government (the GAO) can't find enough paperwork to satisfy themselves that the railroads have overcome the pigeon/spider problem and actually taken a look at their bridges.
Essentially, the argument is that if we just put the FRA in the bridge safety business, they will ensure enough paper is generated to prevent a bridge disaster.
I think I would prefer the railroads spent the money monitoring and repairing their structures.
Dakguy201 wrote: Aren't the MN DOT the same people who said they could not adequately inspect the 35W bridge because of the pigeon poop and the spiders? Of course, no one has found any document produced pre-disaster that warned of that. Now another branch of the government (the GAO) can't find enough paperwork to satisfy themselves that the railroads have overcome the pigeon/spider problem and actually taken a look at their bridges. Essentially, the argument is that if we just put the FRA in the bridge safety business, they will ensure enough paper is generated to prevent a bridge disaster.I think I would prefer the railroads spent the money monitoring and repairing their structures.
And the taxpayers will end up paying for all that paper, personnel, government bureaucracy, waste, fraud, and abuse that will flow from yet another encroachment into the private sector as the camel continuously tries to gets its nose under the tent.
Not to mention the probability that more railroad bridges will fail because the inspection responsibility has been transferred to the public sector, which ultimately bears no responsibility.
And this particular railroad tent that the camel is nosing around involves a whole lot more than bridges.
There is a fair amount of truth to this. Given that a single bridge reconstruction of any size can easily range between $300,000 to $20 Million or more and the classification of a short line as a Class 3 railroad indicating gross revenues of under $20 Million annually it is easy to see how this could be the case especially after you factor in the deferred maintenance present when the Class 1 railroads spin off lines. Many lines have a lot more than one bridge and decisions are made to spin off lines based in part upon the future maintenance costs. Some in Congress have noticed this and we can expect more pressure on railroads during spin off transactions which has already begun in the STB.
Bucyrus wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: Aren't the MN DOT the same people who said they could not adequately inspect the 35W bridge because of the pigeon poop and the spiders? Of course, no one has found any document produced pre-disaster that warned of that. Now another branch of the government (the GAO) can't find enough paperwork to satisfy themselves that the railroads have overcome the pigeon/spider problem and actually taken a look at their bridges. Essentially, the argument is that if we just put the FRA in the bridge safety business, they will ensure enough paper is generated to prevent a bridge disaster.I think I would prefer the railroads spent the money monitoring and repairing their structures. And the taxpayers will end up paying for all that paper, personnel, government bureaucracy, waste, fraud, and abuse that will flow from yet another encroachment into the private sector as the camel continuously tries to gets its nose under the tent.Not to mention the probability that more railroad bridges will fail because the inspection responsibility has been transferred to the public sector, which ultimately bears no responsibility. And this particular railroad tent that the camel is nosing around involves a whole lot more than bridges.
Politics, politics, politics. Democrats are mad at the big railroads for nailing the unions and supporting Republican causes. That is the reason for the Safety Bill and a lot of other of Rep. Oberstar's monkeyshines IMHO.
As to bridges, if this does happen it won't be the Feds inspecting the bridges any more than they do now (with the exception of the fact that Oberstar is seeking to double the number of FRA inspectors in the Safety Bill) however, this will be one HUGE unfunded mandate as the railroads will be required to load rate bridges (a complex inspection and report including complete calculations by a structural engineer on each bridge) many of which have never been load rated at significant cost in addition to likely new requirements for annual inspections and perhaps even regulations detailing exact repair or rehabilitation methods. This will be an absolute NIGHTMARE for many railroads.
Poppa_Zit wrote: I have a pretty good memory when it comes to recognizing writing styles, phraseology and word patterns. In the post below, the term "clapping seals" jumped right out:
My my my, you sound like a man obsessed to me. Tell me, how did you manage to type all that with such tightly clenched fists and gnashing teeth ?
And regardless, it doesn't make my comment any less true, whether you approve, or not.
Convicted One wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: I have a pretty good memory when it comes to recognizing writing styles, phraseology and word patterns. In the post below, the term "clapping seals" jumped right out: My my my, you sound like a man obsessed to me. Tell me, how did you manage to type all that with such tightly clenched fists and gnashing teeth ? And regardless, it doesn't make my comment any less true, whether you approve, or not.
Don't pretend to know me. I have far better things to do than be obsessed with someone like you. Actually, if anything, I'm amused by you.
It's just a kinda fun little game you started. AG puts on a couple of masks to be mysterious and start play, and I guessed right. I just wanted to you to know you can't fool everyone. As AG, you used to engage in debate and at some point declare yourself the winner. Not this time.
BTW, what's wrong with just using the AG identity?
Convicted One wrote: Bucyrus wrote: I do not believe that this piece was written by KSTP news. They obviously produced the video, but the script must have been handed to them by the proponents of an agenda. It is way too much like a slick campaign commercial. An all too familiar formula these past several years...fear mongering designed to exploit concern for the unknown, ambitioned toward making the clapping seals among us spend money they otherwise wouldn't spend, and fight battles they otherwise wouldn't fight.allegations of mass corrosion, in other words
Wouldn't surprise me, the fastest way to get action from the general public on any issue is to scare them in some way. What better way to do that than with the equation "Questionable railroad bridge safety + tank cars of hazardous materials = Citizens screaming for government action"
And pretty soon, as stated above, we will have a bunch of government bureaucrats going where they are not wanted, and inspecting things they know nothing about, writing empty-headed, serious sounding reports that will make their way to the news media, who will in turn report it in their best fear mongering style, inciting more public reaction, and more demands for government action...... In other words, the camel will be in the tent.
Limitedclear wrote: the railroads will be required to load rate bridges (a complex inspection and report including complete calculations by a structural engineer on each bridge) many of which have never been load rated at significant cost in addition to likely new requirements for annual inspections and perhaps even regulations detailing exact repair or rehabilitation methods. This will be an absolute NIGHTMARE for many railroads.LC
the railroads will be required to load rate bridges (a complex inspection and report including complete calculations by a structural engineer on each bridge) many of which have never been load rated at significant cost in addition to likely new requirements for annual inspections and perhaps even regulations detailing exact repair or rehabilitation methods. This will be an absolute NIGHTMARE for many railroads.
I have to ask, if these bridges were not load rated, how did the builders know if they will support the load they were designed to carry?
During a proper inspection, the engineer will review the original design calculations (if the paper hasn't turned into dust) and compare them with the current traffic they are carrying before passing judgement. The only real concern should be corrosion and whether it is affecting the strength of structural members of a particular bridge. (let's hear it for CSX's unpainted bridges) Let's not overlook the fact that a lot of bridges carrying rail traffic were built before or during the time of steam locomotives. Big steam was as heavy or heavier than today's locomotives and therefore bridges built for them will still have a lot of "useful life" left in them as they are carrying loads less than what they were designed for.
It makes no sense to transfer the responsibility for bridge inspections from those who have a direct (profit) motovation to see them intact (i.e. the railroads using them) to a group who have no vested interest and no financial repercussions (i.e. government inspectors).
This is another shameless power-grab by the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" crowd.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.