I'm a newbie here.Not sure of the exact date.CSX had a bridge washout with a train on the bridge. The diesel was in the washout nose first. A large hydraulic crane,sideboom's and a diesel on the remaining track were used to rescue this unit. Anybody have pictures,video's of this rescue. This happened probably at least 5yrs ago. I've tried Rail Pictures and looked some of the Train mags I have,I saw it somewhere. Thanks Bob.
I remember that, too, although I don't have any pictures or video. Nevertheless, as a starting point here's a link to a news report from July 23, 1997 about a CSX coal train that was caught in 10 inch rainfall from the remnants of Hurricane Danny in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, and washed out a trestle over the Little Sugar Creek and dumped 5 "cars" - the report's word, not mine - and some diesel fuel into the stream:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/164346
Most of those facts sound about right, except I was thinking it might have happened in the 2001 - 2003 time frame instead - or maybe it happened more than once ?
Anyway, I also remember the photo that you refer to appearing in Trains - in about the 1st 20 pages - of one of the fall issues of whatever year it was, because I showed it to my cousin who had just moved up to the Northeast from the Carolinas. So check out the Oct. and Nov. issues of each year, and let us know what you find !
- Paul North.
Are you talking about the Trinity River bridge collapse, where a CXS locomotive was left stranded in mid air?
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1119856736034755993jdfcoM
If so, the CSX motor was the second locomotive...the train was a UP, with the CSX repaying power hours....
23 17 46 11
Paul_D_North_Jr I remember that, too, although I don't have any pictures or video. Nevertheless, as a starting point here's a link to a news report from July 23, 1997 about a CSX coal train that was caught in 10 inch rainfall from the remnants of Hurricane Danny in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, and washed out a trestle over the Little Sugar Creek and dumped 5 "cars" - the report's word, not mine - and some diesel fuel into the stream: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/164346 Most of those facts sound about right, except I was thinking it might have happened in the 2001 - 2003 time frame instead - or maybe it happened more than once ? Anyway, I also remember the photo that you refer to appearing in Trains - in about the 1st 20 pages - of one of the fall issues of whatever year it was, because I showed it to my cousin who had just moved up to the Northeast from the Carolinas. So check out the Oct. and Nov. issues of each year, and let us know what you find ! - Paul North.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
An excerpt from another report the next day from the same source:
"More than 6 inches of rain fell in Charlotte Wednesday, causing a motorist's death and the collapse of a railroad bridge over Little Sugar Creek. The lead locomotive of a 90-car CSX coal train plunged into the creek after the three-person crew evacuated. Two other cars derailed." [emphasis added - PDN.]
The link to it is at: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/164378
I'll look in Trains. Thanks for the replys,this has been an on-off search. The accident was a washout with the loco nose first in the mud.The back end was against the bank,the loco was completly down in the washout.The hydraulic crane was set up in the washout area after a leveling with a dozer. the sidebooms and other loco were up on the track.It has puzzled me how the lift went because that crane would have to take the complete weight then slide it back on the track at the height with the other loco pulling it back. Bob
I tried using Trains reference typing CSX,washout, Little Sugar Creek. Anybody direct me if I'm not doing something right? Thanks Bob
SDBOB I tried using Trains reference typing CSX,washout, Little Sugar Creek. Anybody direct me if I'm not doing something right? Thanks Bob
I doubt if anything from that far back is generally available on-line, at least at this website. You might want to contact the Trains staff specifically to ask.
Alternatively, try using "Charlotte", "North Carolina", "flash flood", "Hurricane Danny", "July 1997", singly or in various combinations. If it is on-line, I doubt if it is indexed or referenced under "Little Sugar Creek" - that seems way too detailed to me. Also, I believe one of those reports called it simply "Sugar Creek", so you might want to try that too. Good luck !
SDBOB I'll look in Trains. Thanks for the replys,this has been an on-off search. The accident was a washout with the loco nose first in the mud.The back end was against the bank,the loco was completly down in the washout.The hydraulic crane was set up in the washout area after a leveling with a dozer. the sidebooms and other loco were up on the track.It has puzzled me how the lift went because that crane would have to take the complete weight then slide it back on the track at the height with the other loco pulling it back. Bob
Oh, OK, maybe what you're really asking is a "rigging"-type question, which I don't have any great knowledge of - other than to leave it to the real experts, and keep out of the way !
That said, I'll nevertheless speculate that the sidebooms were also lifting as well - probably the upper end of the loco closest to them. As you describe the scene, they would have been in a good position to do that - their cables would be nearly vertical, just extended pretty long. Even if they could only take part of the load, that might have been enough to allow the crane to do the rest at its end. Otherwise, why else would the sidebooms have been there and part of the lift ? I think you're right about the other locomotive being used to provide the horizontal force to move the downed loco away from the hole as it was lifted.
Keep in mind, for safe crane (and side boom) operation the cables have to be pretty much in alignment line with the boom's axis, at least for the big pulls. For light loads, yeah, they can be skewed or angled sideways a little bit, and no harm done; for more than that, get something else to do it - likje the winch that's usually down on the back end of the sidebooms. This also illustrates a principle to these things - don't just tie a bunch of cables on and lift away and expect it to work. Instead, figure out the tasks that are needed to be done, and then assign a machine that's suitable to that function, and that function only. That way, they're all covered, and there are no divided responsibilities, or offset or skewed loads (or other things !).
Here, it seems as if the crane was assigned to lift the downhill end (only) of the loco, which would have been about 100 tons' worth (more or less), which seems OK and reasonable for most big hydraulic cranes, particularly if it could get in close for a small lifting radius and a solid base as you describe. Next, assign 2 (or more) sidebooms to lift the upper end, which would be about 50 tons each - again, that seems good, since I understand that it only takes 2 of them to move a typical 100-ton car. Now that the lifting task has been taken care of, it needs to be moved sideways back onto the track. Well, the locomotive would be good at that, so let's use it. And that about covers the basics.
Also, it probably was not done in a single huge lift. More likely, it was done a few feet at a time, with the cables and the lifting positions being checked and adjusted or reset as needed to keep everything in line as it went. These adventures are always "one-of" and very ad hoc - you kind of have to depend on the skill of the crew to figure it out and improvise as they go.
For an analogy, imagine a sofa being moved up a stairway by a big burly guy at the lower end, and two petite women at the upper end. As long as they [Edit - the two petite women] can lift and guide their end just enough to keep it up from snagging on the steps or handrail, etc., then the big guy probably has enough lifting power at his end to boost it up, even if it's only a step or two at a time. (At least that's how I do it . . . ).
Finally, check out a couple of photos and the following comments that somehow wound up in a completely unrelated recent thread - at the top of Page 2 of 2 of the "Re: trough train" thread at:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/142040.aspx?PageIndex=2
In particular, look at the post by Kootenay Central on 11-24-2008 at 5:00 PM at the top of Page 2 of 2, and his intro to them:
"Because of their power, Lidgerwood Winches were often used in conjunction with Auxiliary Cranes to retreive locomotives that had gone astray."
There then follows two photos of 2 cranes and an apparently out-of-sight Lidgerwood Winch retrieving a Canadian Pacific F-unit that was in the same predicament. You might want to study the rigging in these photos. In the top photo - it looks like the 2 cranes are lifting - or at least holding - the locomotive, with the far crane attached to the nose and the near crane attached to the rear. The horizontal cable in the foreground - from the Lidgerwood ? - appears to be used to drag the loco horizontally, towards the camera. See also the subsequent comment by Bucyrus at 11:31 PM (same date) regarding that:
"That first of those two posted photos of picking up that Alco is particularly interesting when you blow it up. There is a lot of drama and tension, both in the cables and in the workers making decisions. That guy with his hand on that cable seems to know what he is doing, but I would not be hanging onto that cable or that close to it during the pull. If that knuckle or knuckle pin happens to break, he could get quite a bruise."
In the bottom photo, it appears as if the Lidgerwood Winch - out of sight to the left of the view - is doing all of the heavy lifting - I don't see that either the main or auxilliary hooks of either crane is attached to or under load with anything visible. Note that probably this lower photo was actually taken first - the F-unit looks to be further down the slope in this one than in the top one.
Hope this is helpful. Next time I see that photo I'll have to look at it a little more closely to observe and take note of what you saw.
Thanks again for the info.My father and I had a small construction business and we have had equipment stuck so I know what you mean. I work somewhere with benefits and steady pay now so I have time for hobbies(the wife encouraged this move).I do think looking back that it was for the best however I do/did like construction.Bob
SDBOB The accident was a washout with the loco nose first in the mud. The back end was against the bank,the loco was completly down in the washout.The hydraulic crane was set up in the washout area after a leveling with a dozer. the sidebooms and other loco were up on the track.It has puzzled me how the lift went because that crane would have to take the complete weight then slide it back on the track at the height with the other loco pulling it back. Bob
Thinking about this a little further, esp. in view of the CPR photos referenced above, you do have a pretty good question. (By the way, note that the caption said it was an Alco, but I called it a F-unit - I think I'm right - can anyone confirm ?)
Here's why: If the loco was more or less horizontal, its weight would be distributed and lifted about equally at each end (depending on the arrangement and weight of its internal equipment and the balance of same, of course). Any slight variation in the lifting rate of the crane/ sidebooms at either end wouldn't matter much - it would just get slightly out of level, and the natural flexibility of the lifting cables would "give" enouyh to adjust and compensate for that.
In the nearly vertical or steeply sloped position that you described and that the CPR loco is in, the same is true - theoretically. The practical problem is that if the lifting rates are not carefully controlled and matched, then the crane at whichever end is being lifted the fastest will all of a sudden find itself carrying a whole lot more of the load - the lifting cables on the other end will simply be under somewhat less tension and go a little slack when that occurs. Further, this isn't often self-regulating - as the cable goes slack it doesn't necessarily reel in faster or otherwise keep a constant tension or weight on itself. The next result will likely be that the crane will start to tip over - how far it goes depends on how quick the controls and reactions of the crew are, how bad the imbalance gets before they can correct the situation by adjusting the load, and how good the support is under the crane's outriggers.
What brought this to mind was looking at the top CPR picture with that weight distribution, and thinking about the load on the closer crane's cables. That crane is turned somewhat to the side, and is attached to and lifting at the rear of the locomotive, which is well downhill and with an awful long lifting radius. In that position and configuration, it can't really lift the full weight of it's end of the F-unit - if it tries, it's either going to stall or tip over, as they just don't have that capability. As a result, the best that can be done with that end of the loco is to slide it further up the slope - let the other crane and the Lidgerwood do most of the lifting and dragging - until it is closer within reach, so to speak.
Edit: In contrast, in the CSX situation you describe the crane and the sidebooms are each attached must closer to themselves. Although the same unequal loading can still occur, each set will at least be able to start out by taking their respective halves of the load without tipping, unlike the nearer CPR crane above. After that, the lift would have to have been closely coordinated. That'a another reason to do it just a few feet at a time, slowly, and just above the embankment - if anything goes wrong, it's only a couple of feet to set it down (or for it to fall down)before it can rest on something more solid, and everybody can assess the situaiton, regroup, and try again.
As I said above, this is really a subject for experts. If any are reading this, I'd appreciate their comments and insights as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.