State of California investigating Evil Monster UP Intermodal Train

[Bruce Kelly]

...and 47 miles instead of 27.

[Bruce Kelly]

...and Apex instead of Colton.

[Railway Man]

igoldberg

The grade for Beaumont Hill is 1.99% for 27 miles westbound from Yuma, AZ to Colton, Ca.

I think you meant to type Indio, California, instead of Yuma, Arizona.

RWM

[caldreamer]

The grade for Beaumont Hill is 1.99% for 27 miles westbound from Yuma, AZ to Colton, Ca.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

PNWRMNM

  Paul,

Two points.  First your TPOB calculation is in error.  I do not have my UP system Special Instructions instantly available but IIRC a five well stack car counts as 2.5 operative brakes.  If such a car weighed 250 tons, it would be 100 TPOB.  Numbers selected for ease of calculation.

[snip]

Mac

Yep, my TPOB calcs were indeed based wrongly.  Jeff / jeffhergert and Carl / CShaveRR got me straightened out on the TPOB calculations for multi-platform well cars over on the other thread on this train - "Re: UP running 18000 foot intermodal train on Sunset Route Dallas west to Long Beach" - at the bottom of Page 3 of 4 and the top of Pge 4 of 4 [currently] - which are at - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/166689.aspx?PageIndex=3 and  http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/166689.aspx?PageIndex=4

 In brief, it appears that a 3-well car counts as 2 'brakes', and a 5-well car counts as 3 'brakes'.  As a result, this train was about 82 TPOB.

There is also some discussion of the grades there.  The data from the April 2004 Trains profile of some of this route and RWM's comments confirm that Beaumont Hill was the major obstacles, and that the ruling grades were so long that momentum would not have helped this train over them, nor was it long enough to have also extended over a summit or onto a lesser grade at the same time.  diningcar and BaltACD also had some comments about the 'hogbacks' making life hard on the engineer, near the bottom of Page 4 of 4.

- Paul North.

 

[Falcon48]

gabe

Is the State even allowed to regulate such things?  The only Supreme Court case that I can think of where this issue came up struck down a state statute (from Arizona) constricting the size of trains. 

I know there is some types of regulation that is allowed, but wouldn't most of it be preempted by the feds? 

Gabe

Yes.  Regulation of train length and any other aspects of a "long" train I can think of should be entirely preempted by Federal law. 

The Arizona case you mention (SP v Arizona) is a pre-FRA case.  You are correct that it held that a state could not limit the length of a freight train (because such regulation was contrary to the commerce clause of the US Constitution).  There were also other pre-FRA Supreme Court cases holding that states could not regulate matters covered by the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act and the Hours of Service Act.  There may have been decisions covering some of the other pre-FRA rail safety statutes administrered by the ICC (Signal Inspection, Safety Appliance), but I couldn't say for sure without some research,

When the FRA was created, the underlying statute (the Federal Railroad Safety Act) had (and still has) a specific provision governing when state safety regulation is permitted and when it is not.  Without going into a lot of detail, here are the general principles:

(1) A state can regulate a rail safety or security matter where a DOT or DHS agency have not "covered" the subject.  The question of whether one of these agencies has "covered" a subject is a little complicated, since the Feds can "cover" things in different ways than a state might.  Also, the Feds can "cover" something by affirmatively deciding that no regulation is needed.  As a rule of thumb, however, if the subject of a state regulation is something addressed by existing FRA or DHS rule, the state can't regulate it.  For example, FRA track and signal rules address maximum train speed, and these rules have generally been held to "preempt" state attempts to regulate train speed, even if based on criteria different from those specified in the FRA rules. State attempts to get around the Arizona decision by regulating the amount of time trains can occupy a grade crossing have been struck down on the basis that the regulation is either a regulation of train length or speed, both of which are "preempted." Similarly, if a state regulation would cause the railroad to violate a Federal rule (for example, by requiring a train to be moved before FRA required brake tests have been performed),  the state regulation will fall. On the other hand, FRA rules generally do not address what kind of warning systems are required at grade crossings, so state regulation of this subject is generally not preempted (subject to some exceptions which I won't bore you with).  

(2) If the Feds have "covered" a subject, the state can only regulate the subject to the extent necessary to address a "local safety hazard".  As interpretted by the courts, this is a very narrow exception.

(3) There are separate provisions in the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act which limit states ability to regulate hazardous materials movements by rail.  These apply in addition to the provisions described above. 

There have been Federal appeals court decisions on California PUC's ability to regulate train operations in connection with regulations the state tried to impose in the aftermath of the Dunsmuir derailment.  I don't have the decisions at hand but, as I recall, the courts struck down most of the California regulations on the grounds that they covered matters that were already covered by Federal regulations.  The state was, however, able to require the railroad to comply with its own train makeup rules.

One of the other posts in this thread says that states are pretty much free to regulate intrastate commerce (ie., traffic moving between two points in the same state).  That is not correct.  A state's ability to regulate intrastate commerce by rail (whether safety, security or economic regulation) is subject to the same limitations as its ability to regulate interstate commerce by rail.  Since railroads are instrumentalities of interstate commerce, the Feds have constitutional authority to fully regulate both intrastate and interstate rail traffic handled by rail.  Historically, Federal law permitted states to regulate intrastate commerce, particularly in the economic area, but that is no longer the case.

As the fates would have it, the FRA just issued a very comprehensive discussion of the extent to which states can and cannot regulate rail safety in its recent passenger equipment safety standards rule. See the following link in the unlikely event you want more information on this subject:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31411.pdf, pp. 1206-1216. 

 

[tbdanny]

greyhounds

if 15 eastbound trains leave El Paso for Dallas on a single track line spaced an average of 96 minutes apart and travel at an average speed of 55 MPH while another 15 westbound trains leave Dallas for El Paso in the same 24 hour period and travel at an average speed of 50 MPH on the same single track, at what point in Texas does the dispatcher loose his/her mind? 

At the point where the dispatcher's office is located, of course 

[BaltACD]

Murphy Siding

     In a situation like this, are the crews specially selected?  Are there any extra sfills neccesary, or extra training required to haul a long train like this?

I would expect it would be just a regular pool crew in most cases, however I am certain the Road Foreman of Engines for each territory and the Senior Road Foreman for the appropriate Division would be on the run.  Whatever skills and training that the RFE's may have been educated with would be passed onto the operating crew.  However, the normal reality of such 'test' trains is it is learning on the move in real time as they are moving.

[doghouse]

greyhounds

blue streak 1

greyhounds

Another possible solution is to run longer trains.  (They'd have to build the siding capacity to handle the longer trains.)   Think about it.  If they were running 30 trains a day over the old T&P single track route through Texas each train would have to meet 15 trains a day.  That's an average of one meet every 96 minutes.  It will produce increased congestion and slow down transit times.

OOPS!!  Wouldn't you meet 30 trains in a 24 hour period? You are not standing still but running at the same speed in the opposite direction? Average of one every 48 minutes?

 

Well, I can't see how it's an OOPS! 

If 15 easbound trains leave El Paso for Dallas in a 24 hour period a westbound train will meet 15 eastbound trains in a 24 hour period.  There just aren't anymore trains than that to meet.

'Course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  (I use that line a lot at work.)  Let's see, if 15 eastbound trains leave El Paso for Dallas on a single track line spaced an average of 96 minutes apart and travel at an average speed of 55 MPH while another 15 westbound trains leave Dallas for El Paso in the same 24 hour period and travel at an average speed of 50 MPH on the same single track, at what point in Texas does the dispatcher loose his/her mind? 

Ozona?  Ft. Stockton maybe?

[greyhounds]

blue streak 1

greyhounds

Another possible solution is to run longer trains.  (They'd have to build the siding capacity to handle the longer trains.)   Think about it.  If they were running 30 trains a day over the old T&P single track route through Texas each train would have to meet 15 trains a day.  That's an average of one meet every 96 minutes.  It will produce increased congestion and slow down transit times.

OOPS!!  Wouldn't you meet 30 trains in a 24 hour period? You are not standing still but running at the same speed in the opposite direction? Average of one every 48 minutes?

 

Well, I can't see how it's an OOPS! 

If 15 easbound trains leave El Paso for Dallas in a 24 hour period a westbound train will meet 15 eastbound trains in a 24 hour period.  There just aren't anymore trains than that to meet.

'Course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  (I use that line a lot at work.)  Let's see, if 15 eastbound trains leave El Paso for Dallas on a single track line spaced an average of 96 minutes apart and travel at an average speed of 55 MPH while another 15 westbound trains leave Dallas for El Paso in the same 24 hour period and travel at an average speed of 50 MPH on the same single track, at what point in Texas does the dispatcher loose his/her mind? 

[Railway Man]

 Manager of Operating Practices, aka, Road Foreman of Engines, Traveling Engineer, etc.

RWM

[Murphy Siding]

     What's an MOP?

[jeffhergert]

Murphy Siding

     In a situation like this, are the crews specially selected?  Are there any extra sfills neccesary, or extra training required to haul a long train like this?

The times they tested 10000 + stack trains with DPU across Iowa, the crews were just taken in the normal rotation of the board.  Same with Amtrack detours or business car trains.

When they tested the bullet train a few years back, that crew was specifically chosen.  Partially because the Iowa crew was taken to the Chicago terminal (don't remember where exactly it originated) so they could change crews without stopping at Clinton.

This one probably had whoever was next in line with an MOP riding. 

Jeff   

[Murphy Siding]

     In a situation like this, are the crews specially selected?  Are there any extra sfills neccesary, or extra training required to haul a long train like this?

[zugmann]

igoldberg

Trains that originate within a state and stay within that state fall under SOME state regulation.  The majority of the regulation is still Federal.  Since this train originated in Texas and ran interstate. California has NO justiction on it what so ever.  It falls strictly under federal jusristiction.

This game has been tried over and over again.  The latest being the CN takeover of EJ&E.   The STB says who runs where and the FRA regulates and investigates all saftey issues.   Read section of the Code Of Federal Regulations and the legislation that created the ICC and later the STB.

There's more regulation than that.  Tell that to one of our (PA) PUC inspectors that visits my yard quite regular.  By the time he leaves, the next crew gets to set out 10-30 shopped cars. 

States do have regulatory powers. 

[RRKen]

zugmann

I'm just recalling all the "big" trains I've had in my limited road crew.  Here's a couple:

 Those are quite valid points Zug, all of which I agree with.  After going through a week or so of sub-zero weather, and having trains limited to 3,000 or less,  I cannot imagine who long it would take to build and air test such a monster in the northern climes.  

Case in point.   100 car grainer out of Joice, IA.   Being the second crew to try and pull it and having the car department out there, it took 10 hours.  we left behind 28 cars that refused to set up.      We traded crews after having to set the air 10 pounds.  Train never recovered.  That crew died.   Car Department came back again, worked with a new crew, finally got the leakage down where it would pass an air test again.

 Ya, bring on them long buggers.  See how far they get.

[caldreamer]

Trains that originate within a state and stay within that state fall under SOME state regulation.  The majority of the regulation is still Federal.  Since this train originated in Texas and ran interstate. California has NO justiction on it what so ever.  It falls strictly under federal jusristiction.

This game has been tried over and over again.  The latest being the CN takeover of EJ&E.   The STB says who runs where and the FRA regulates and investigates all saftey issues.   Read section of the Code Of Federal Regulations and the legislation that created the ICC and later the STB.

[blownout cylinder]

zugmann

Passing would involve whether the containers can be delivered to any sort of a schedule, and whether other trains are adversely affected. And whether the intermodal yards can handle these trains on a regular basis.

Are there any intermodal yards equipped to handle them? Where could they be split otherwise?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reference to crossings, depending on how the emergency preparedness exercises are handled, the probable thing may be doing a multi county exercise which may give them solutions to some of the issues. Here in London ON we have two major hospital campuses and ambulance stations set up--one north and one south. Fire services are done via stations scattered throughout. CP does cut through the northern edge of central London. There are 3 bridge/underpasses around the downtown--but they are far enough apart that one can be driving out of their way if the train is either switching or waiting for clearence-----

[jeffhergert]

I was reading an exerpt from an e-mail between UTU locals on the BNSF posted on another list.  They were watching what the UP was doing.  I don't know where they got , or how true their information is, but supposedly the thing went into emergency in Texas blocking a town.  They also had info that if it works, the UP would like to run 5 of these per week.  Again, don't know the validity of that info.

I would like to know how long it took to put the thing together.  I know at Boone putting together some 9 to 10 thousand foot manifests (2 trains being combined) with mid-train DPU it took anywhere from 2 to 6 hours.  For some of that time, most of town was blocked.

For my own , the savings out of one pocket will be probably be eaten up by costs out of another.  It just depends which pocket they want to highlight.

Jeff    

[zugmann]

blownout cylinder

zugmann

Sorry, but I don't consider a single train a successful test.  With a single train you have tons of attention paid to it, with various memos circulating around stating "make sure there are no delays: see no failure to comply".  These memos are passed around to anyone that has any importance in the entire railroad.   

Let's see how these 18000 foot trains run without supervision holding it's figurative hand. That will be the real test. 

If one test run is not enough--methinks that one is a small number here---then maybe what we need is at least a few years worth of runs. Another thing is who is qualified to pass something like this as a pass? Is FRA even involved here?

Of course the only problem with that is that California would not want to be a guinea pig------

Passing would involve whether the containers can be delivered to any sort of a schedule, and whether other trains are adversely affected. And whether the intermodal yards can handle these trains on a regular basis.

[blue streak 1]

greyhounds

Another possible solution is to run longer trains.  (They'd have to build the siding capacity to handle the longer trains.)   Think about it.  If they were running 30 trains a day over the old T&P single track route through Texas each train would have to meet 15 trains a day.  That's an average of one meet every 96 minutes.  It will produce increased congestion and slow down transit times.

OOPS!!  Wouldn't you meet 30 trains in a 24 hour period? You are not standing still but running at the same speed in the opposite direction? Average of one every 48 minutes?

 

[blownout cylinder]

zugmann

Sorry, but I don't consider a single train a successful test.  With a single train you have tons of attention paid to it, with various memos circulating around stating "make sure there are no delays: see no failure to comply".  These memos are passed around to anyone that has any importance in the entire railroad.   

Let's see how these 18000 foot trains run without supervision holding it's figurative hand. That will be the real test. 

If one test run is not enough--methinks that one is a small number here---then maybe what we need is at least a few years worth of runs. Another thing is who is qualified to pass something like this as a pass? Is FRA even involved here?

Of course the only problem with that is that California would not want to be a guinea pig------

[greyhounds]

zugmann

 

I know UP is adding infrastructure to handle monster trains, and it may work as long as towns aren't bisected by railroad crossings.  But if something happens, the longer the train.... the more time it will take.  Fact of life.  

PS. when I hired out, we were busy.  Running balls-to-the-walls 150 car trains whenever possible.  As a result, 50-60-70% of your on-duty time was spent in the origin or destination yard either assembling or putting the train away.  Our tracks in the NE just aren't long enough for huge trains.  And withe veryone making 12 hours every trip, you just couldn't keep the extra lists stocked enough to have rested employees.  Then the economy crashed.  Trains were 30-60 cars.  It was amazing seeing how fluid the RR ran.  Whether intentional or not, these were the train lengths the tracks and yards seemed to be designed for.  12 hour days were a thing of the past.  Most OT was a thing of the past.   It just ran flawless.  You didn't have the dispatcher telling you "hold up at MP ###, I have a huge train coming with nowhere to put him".

All based on design, I guess.  But don't expect me to walk a 18,000' train in 20 minutes.   

 

In conclusion, maybe they can make it work.  But you need more than one train to call it a success.  Sample size is everything.

 

I think you're right.  "Maybe" they can make it work.  They don't know, you don't know, and I don't know.  But they'd be dang fools if they didn't try to find out if they can make it work.

You've hit on a good point with the railroad being congested at pre-recession business levels.  For the first time in a century the US railroads do have the cash available to generally expand capacity where needed.  Doing this is a significant business risk, but thanks to deregulation the railroads are now in a position to evaluate, and more importantly, actually take some prudent business risks.  They can't just throw money at a problem, but they can do things such as double track the Sunset Route.  Such investment is risky because you can't recover it if the projected traffic doesn't materialize.  But it's "Prudent Risky" because the projected traffic likely will be there.

Some day the US will may return to pre-recession level economic activity.  When that happens do you just want to accept the fact that the railroad will become congested again?  Or do you want the managers to actually come up with solutions?  Longer trains may be one practical solution.  Do you hold that such an option should not even be considered or evaluated?

It is impractical to have a crew member do a seven mile walking round trip on anything but a "once in a blue moon" frequency.  They'll have to solve that problem, as they will have to solve the terminal capacity problems you cited.  Is it worth the money and effort to implement the required solutions?  That's what they're trying to figure out.  But first, they had to see if such a long train could be successfully operated. 

I believe they have established that such a train can be successfuly operated.  Now on to the next questions. 

[greyhounds]

zugmann

Sorry, but I don't consider a single train a successful test.  With a single train you have tons of attention paid to it, with various memos circulating around stating "make sure there are no delays: see no failure to comply".  These memos are passed around to anyone that has any importance in the entire railroad.   

Let's see how these 18000 foot trains run without supervision holding it's figurative hand. That will be the real test. 

Well, it was a "Test".  And the train "Successfully" completed its run in good time.  If you don't want to call that a "Successful Test", I'm not going to argue sematics with you.

As I specifically said, these trains will introduce new problems while curing some old ones.  The railroad is going to have to evaluate whether the cure is worth its cost.  To do that they've got to identify just what will need to be changed to allow these operations.  That was one purpose of this train. 

[BNSFwatcher]

Short train:  I was watching our BN (pre-merger) Shelby (MT) section working on the switch at Shelby East, where the Hi-Line goes from 2MT to single track, EB.  The radio squaked.  The crew scattered and the foreman cleared his "track-and-time".  Down the hill came a SD40-2, at track speed, with one huge boxcar in tow, headed west.  It zoomed thru town.  I asked, but no one knew what was in the boxcar.  Guesses went from "Atom Bomb", ad rediculoso.  Methinks it was an aircraft section, headed for Boeing in Seattle.  Maybe New Jersey was moving Jimmy Hoffa's body.  Sweet duty, for the crew!  Labor making money off of management's back.  Things tend to even out, brother.

[BNSFwatcher]

Q:  does the UP have 18,000'+ sidings on that route, or is it all 2MT?  Q:  does the UP limit the number of operable dynamic brake axles on a train's power?  The BNSF does.  Would dynamic braking have been a factor on the UP route?  Q:  how was the power distributed?

Methinks it is a bit of "overkill" to run a train that long, but it may have given the brotherhoods a wake-up call.  Hope so!

Hays

[tree68]

That's why they call 'em tests.

I recall seeing an IC southbound empty hopper train.   Actually, it was two trains, as it was twice as long as the usual unit trains I regularly saw.  All I can figure was a motive power shortage on the north end (Chicago) since there were only two locomotives at the head of just short of 200 hoppers.  They were on their knees coming into Rantoul and took forever to clear town.

[BNSF_Conductor11]

zugmann

I'm just recalling all the "big" trains I've had in my limited road crew.  Here's a couple:

150 car junk freight (actually had one of these regular for awhile).  Cold temperatures (maybe not so much of a concern of SoCal) + not very tight trainline = 45-60 minutes just to get 75 lbs on the rear for the brake test.  Of course we weren't DPU, but we did have our head-end outside of yard limits onto the main.  You could hear the dispatcher's head explode over the radio.  

another 150 car junk train.  Train dumps.  Too bad we just passed the siding.  I walked to the rear, and there's a hot shot intermodal train staring at our marker.   Give them a wave, turn around and walk to the front again.  Now think how long it would take to walk a 18,000 foot train????  Call the recrew now. 

12,000 intermodal (I think this was my longest, and all pulled by a pair of GP60s).  Lot of single-stacks though.  Got to near its destination, but way too long to do anything with.  Re-crew had to chop it into several pieces to yard it, lest they tie up the whole RR. 

155 car empty gondola train (actually was 2 trains combined into one).  Somehow it didn't dump (don't think we used the air on it) but couldn't go to its destiantion RR.  They could only handle 80 car trains.

I know UP is adding infrastructure to handle monster trains, and it may work as long as towns aren't bisected by railroad crossings.  But if something happens, the longer the train.... the more time it will take.  Fact of life.  

PS. when I hired out, we were busy.  Running balls-to-the-walls 150 car trains whenever possible.  As a result, 50-60-70% of your on-duty time was spent in the origin or destination yard either assembling or putting the train away.  Our tracks in the NE just aren't long enough for huge trains.  And withe veryone making 12 hours every trip, you just couldn't keep the extra lists stocked enough to have rested employees.  Then the economy crashed.  Trains were 30-60 cars.  It was amazing seeing how fluid the RR ran.  Whether intentional or not, these were the train lengths the tracks and yards seemed to be designed for.  12 hour days were a thing of the past.  Most OT was a thing of the past.   It just ran flawless.  You didn't have the dispatcher telling you "hold up at MP ###, I have a huge train coming with nowhere to put him".

All based on design, I guess.  But don't expect me to walk a 18,000' train in 20 minutes.   

 

In conclusion, maybe they can make it work.  But you need more than one train to call it a success.  Sample size is everything.

 

 

 

First off, here here zug, secondly like zug said if i were the one that had to walk this train it would easily take at least 2-3 hours one way, not to mention the walk back and yes it did work i suppose, but how about when it got to the ports of los angeles and long beach where i work, we dont have tracks nearly long enough to handle something of this size. They had to break it into 3 6,000 foot sections and put in 3 different holding locations, so where they are where they are saving money by running this ridiculous train on crews it take 3 to 4 times as long to put away and you need 3 to 4 crews to do it. I personally am happy the union is fighting this, in an economy where many people are out of work the greedy corporate machine is trying to make more money off of labors back, IMAGINE THAT! Good for California to be upset about this train because when it does go into emergency in the middle of a city and it blocks the entire city for hours on end including emergency vehicles and people coming from or going to work maybe the people will realize that this so called efficient train is very good after all. One more thing, if this thing does become the normal length, which I'm sure it will, hopefully it never goes on the ground because if it does it will a huge disaster.

[zugmann]

I'm just recalling all the "big" trains I've had in my limited road crew.  Here's a couple:

150 car junk freight (actually had one of these regular for awhile).  Cold temperatures (maybe not so much of a concern of SoCal) + not very tight trainline = 45-60 minutes just to get 75 lbs on the rear for the brake test.  Of course we weren't DPU, but we did have our head-end outside of yard limits onto the main.  You could hear the dispatcher's head explode over the radio.  

another 150 car junk train.  Train dumps.  Too bad we just passed the siding.  I walked to the rear, and there's a hot shot intermodal train staring at our marker.   Give them a wave, turn around and walk to the front again.  Now think how long it would take to walk a 18,000 foot train????  Call the recrew now. 

12,000 intermodal (I think this was my longest, and all pulled by a pair of GP60s).  Lot of single-stacks though.  Got to near its destination, but way too long to do anything with.  Re-crew had to chop it into several pieces to yard it, lest they tie up the whole RR. 

155 car empty gondola train (actually was 2 trains combined into one).  Somehow it didn't dump (don't think we used the air on it) but couldn't go to its destiantion RR.  They could only handle 80 car trains.

I know UP is adding infrastructure to handle monster trains, and it may work as long as towns aren't bisected by railroad crossings.  But if something happens, the longer the train.... the more time it will take.  Fact of life.  

PS. when I hired out, we were busy.  Running balls-to-the-walls 150 car trains whenever possible.  As a result, 50-60-70% of your on-duty time was spent in the origin or destination yard either assembling or putting the train away.  Our tracks in the NE just aren't long enough for huge trains.  And withe veryone making 12 hours every trip, you just couldn't keep the extra lists stocked enough to have rested employees.  Then the economy crashed.  Trains were 30-60 cars.  It was amazing seeing how fluid the RR ran.  Whether intentional or not, these were the train lengths the tracks and yards seemed to be designed for.  12 hour days were a thing of the past.  Most OT was a thing of the past.   It just ran flawless.  You didn't have the dispatcher telling you "hold up at MP ###, I have a huge train coming with nowhere to put him".

All based on design, I guess.  But don't expect me to walk a 18,000' train in 20 minutes.   

 

In conclusion, maybe they can make it work.  But you need more than one train to call it a success.  Sample size is everything.

 

[eolafan]

Seemingly we have a classic cunundrum here...YOU CAN'T RUN SUCH A TRAIN WITHOUT HAVING TESTED IT FIRST, AND YOU CAN'T TEST IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T RUN IT BEFORE TESTING IT! Dumb or dumber?

Perhaps the producers and writers of the film "2012" had the right idea when it came to those scenes showing California? Oh, wait a minute, the scenes showing California weren't caused by anything like an earthquake, they WERE caused by the derailment of a U.P monster train...no wonder nobody there wants U.P. to run such a train!  NOW...now I get it!