UP derails coal train on bridge

[edbenton]

3 Derailments where the Bridge has Collasped in all 3 trust me the Lawyers are going to have a Field day with this one.  With one less than 3 years ago the Attys are going to rake teh UP over the Coals.  They are going to look at Everything from how they rebuilt the Bridges to how the tracks are Maintained in that area.  Trust me the UP is about to see the Lawyer Version of a Proctologist and he or She is going to be DIGGING DEEP.  UP not obeying a Court Order in the Chicago Area IS NOT GOING TO HELP THEM AT ALL ALSO.  Yes it was a State Court aka County Court Order but in the Chicago Area you DO NOT SCREW AROUND WITH those Judges.  I have seen them Throw DA's in the County Jail for not Listening to them.  Trust me those ATTYs are in trouble BIG TIME.  Let alone anyone that is named as a Defendant. 

[CNW 6000]

Interesting - from the link:
"A Federal Railroad Administration spokesman declined to comment on preliminary findings, referring most questions to Union Pacific officials. "We are in charge of (approving) the track on the bridge, not the bridge itself,'' agency spokesman Michael England said. The agency delegates many inspection duties to the railroads. In the case of the Shermer Road rail overpass, Union Pacific employees inspect the bridge and their report is turned over to the Federal Railroad Administration."

So...the RR could (in theory) build the bridge out of 2x4 timbers and if the ballast & rails looks ok the FRA says "OK"?  I realize that's a bit simplistic but wouldn't the bridge design and structure be important relative to the tracks?

[Anonymous]

BaltACD

"We ruled out the bridge failing and then the train derailing (by being driven off the tracks,) based on the discussion with the train crew'' as well as viewing the images from a camera on the train, Davis said.

I am highly suspicious of this conclusion due mainly to the fact that they volunteered it within hours of the derailment.  Usually it takes a year or two for them to be ready to explain the cause.  To publicaly "rule out" a major element of the wreck as being part of the cause strikes me as incredibly suspect.  I get the impression that they want to rule out a bridge failure as the cause. 

 

[caldreamer]

I am not worried about the UP and the lawyers.  They have been through many court fights andcan screw a lawyer big time.  As for the judges in  the Cicagoe area.  A bribe goes a long way in their decisions.  They are so crooked that a cockaroach has trouble following all of their twists and turns.

 

[BaltACD]

edbenton

3 Derailments where the Bridge has Collasped in all 3 trust me the Lawyers are going to have a Field day with this one.  With one less than 3 years ago the Attys are going to rake teh UP over the Coals.  They are going to look at Everything from how they rebuilt the Bridges to how the tracks are Maintained in that area.  Trust me the UP is about to see the Lawyer Version of a Proctologist and he or She is going to be DIGGING DEEP.  UP not obeying a Court Order in the Chicago Area IS NOT GOING TO HELP THEM AT ALL ALSO.  Yes it was a State Court aka County Court Order but in the Chicago Area you DO NOT SCREW AROUND WITH those Judges.  I have seen them Throw DA's in the County Jail for not Listening to them.  Trust me those ATTYs are in trouble BIG TIME.  Let alone anyone that is named as a Defendant. 

UP didn't get to be UP by getting tripped up by minor league judges and attorneys of Chicago - and I am certain they have the knowledge and abilities to get the Chicago political machine to work for their benefit. 

[edbenton]

Hate to tell you this Balt I have had to Deal with the Cook County Court Civil System before and it is a PITA that makes getting a Root Canal done with NO pain Meds or for the Women here Giving Birth WITHOUT any Pain Meds seem like FUN. 

 

See the Atty that the UP Killed in this Accident was a Big Donor for a few People in the Cook County Area like Mike Madigan Rahm Emanuel and a few Other Big time Chicago Machine Democrats.  You think the Outside Attys are going to have a Prayer when the Chicago Machine is in this Case.  This will be tried in the papers let alone the courts and if UP wants anymore State Money to Upgrade ANYTHING in IL they better play NICEY NICE to King MIkes Friends hiers or they are going to be Screaming from how PETTY he can be. 

 

Here is something to consider the Owner of the CUBS he can not get the Mayor of Chicago on the Phone because his DAD is a MAJOR GOP DONOR.  That tell you how Petty Chicago and their Judges and Politicans can and WILL BE.  They see your from out of State or from south of Cook County in IL they treat you like a Second Class Citizen. 

[CShaveRR]

Dwight Branch, I wouldn't think that the presence of a DPU would have much effect.  As soon as the train went into emergency, the unit would drop to idle, thanks to the PC switch (Pneumatic control).

Mr. Beaulieu, I had assumed that the "shoofly" was put on the same alignment as the original track.  But what you say makes sense--when material is ready for a complete replacement of the bridge, it would be nice to start work on the proper alignment without having to disrupt anything for too long.

(They replaced a viaduct in Lombard that way many years ago--shifted things southward by one track, with a new temporary track on the south edge, then built the new bridge one track at a time from north to south.)

Those attorneys who don't believe in sun-kinks are just wasting everyone's time.  I'm sure the railroad realizes that a wrongful-death settlement would be in order, and would be willing to negotiate it.

[Chris30]

Ed Benton wrote, "UP not obeying a Court Order".

Which court order was that? According to the story in the Chicago Tribune today (7/6/12), “[j]udge William Maddux issued the order, stopping all work for 36 hours. The attorneys delivered the order to workers at the scene around 1:30 p.m., but they had already been notified of the order and had stopped operations.”

 

 

The full story on the Trib's website which covers the lawsuit filed:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/northbrook/chi-couple-found-in-wreckage-of-train-derailment-identified-20120706,0,5846788.story

 

 

Union Pacific had already cleaned / removed / moved most of what the lawyers wanted stopped before the order to stop working was given. "Union Pacific spokesman Tom Lange said everything at the scene that could be considered evidence — including the old track — has been preserved' as quoted from the same Trib article.

 

 

[Chris30]

“I wouldn't think that the presence of a DPU would have much effect.  As soon as the train went into emergency, the unit would drop to idle, thanks to the PC switch (Pneumatic control).”

Carl, if the DPU drops to idle it’s still rolling / pushing forward. I’m not the engineer, but I’m assuming that when you said the train goes into emergency the DPU also goes into emergency braking. Can someone please confirm this.

Thanks,

CC

 

[CShaveRR]

Chris, even if nothing else initiated the emergency application in the DPU, the broken train line would.  Yes, the application would trigger the PC switch and the DPU would drop to idle, just as it would in the lead units.

True, it would still be "pushing forward," thanks to the momentum of its 38-mph (according to the recorder) speed before things went kitty-wompus (technical term...ask any CNW Chicago guy).  But it would be the same as any other car in that respect, until the brake application took hold.

[spokyone]

Thanks for the info on the DPU PC switch, Carl. Someone asked me about that on Friday.

[CShaveRR]

I was just corrected on this.

The PC switch would function as advertised, but the radio controls from the lead units by then would probably have relayed the command to idle the DPU and drop the load, in response to what it was doing.  From the position of the derailment in the train, this would probably be several seconds before the emergency application would cause this to happen. 

(I suspect that had the derailment happened closer to the hind end of the train, the process would work in reverse...the DPU would be the first to get the emergency application and would instruct the lead units to shut down.)

___________________

Same guy (a longtime friend of mine, and possibly known indirectly to lots of folks here) also wrote on Trainorders.com that UP had long wanted to replace this bridge, but had their hands tied by Northbrook and Glenview, who didn't want this vital road closed for as long as it would take.  That might be an interesting detail for the lawyers to pursue.  It wouldn't have prevented this derailment (okay, maybe it would if our conspiracy-theorists are to be placated), but a solid design of the type that we're likely to see there in the future might have kept the derailed cars above the roadway.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Some further thoughts/ questions on this:

Which track was the coal train on ?  Was this train running 'wrong main', or in the opposite direction of the normal current of traffic on that track ?  If so, that might have tended to push the CWR in the same direction as the train - opposite to the normal direction - which in turn might have 'bunched' the rail at the approach to the bridge. 

Was there any settlement of the embankment/ subgrade approaching the abutment/ backwall of the bridge ?  If so, that would have resulted in the ties and track being 'loose' or less restrained from buckling than would normally be the case, hence more susceptible to a 'heat kink'. 

Similarly, the slight raising up of the rails and track under the middle of the moving railcars, between the trucks - inevitable and unavoidable in any elastic beam such as a rail, regardless of how well the track is maintained and tamped - would likewise tend to 'unload' the weight of the track from the ballast, and make it more susceptible to moving and kinking out of line.

At the risk of seeming cold-hearted and pouring gasoline onto a fire, I'll nevertheless suggest that UP may not be quite so liable for wrongful death damages as might be commonly thought.  "Strict liability" wouldn't normally apply - running coal trains is not generally viewed as an ultra-hazardous activity, and since the deceased were not passengers, UP didn't owe them any special duty of care, either.  Hence, the doctrine and principles of ordinary negligence apply.  Assuming that the 'root cause' of this chain of events was (perhaps admittedly) inadequate track maintenance/ monitoring* ==> heat kink ==> train derailing ==> bridge collapsing ==> death of couple, I think there's room to make an argument that a heat kink causing their deaths was not "foreseeable" and hence not a proximate cause of their deaths (see the ancient leading case of Palsgraf vs. Long Island RR, opinion by Judge Benjamin Cardozo).  Had they been trapped directly under the derailing train, that's reasonably forseeable - but the bridge collapsing was a highly unusual event (no, Shermer Rd. is not the "Bermuda Triangle" of railroad bridge collapses, despite that apparently happening 3 times there - what was the actual cause in each instance ?).   But that being said, an equally good argument could be made that it can be reasonably foreseen that any heat kink could derail a train and cause a disaster that would kill people, and the precise sequence of events and mechanisms doesn't need to be anticipated and predicted.    

*As I, the mudchicken, and perhaps a few others here are well aware, being able to measure and know the exact state and amount of compressive stress in Continuous Welded Rail that would cause it to buckle is an elusive and not-yet-attained goal in the practical world - there are too many variables, some of which I've noted above.  UP can argue they took all reasonable steps - "Slow Order" account of heat, twice-daily inspections, etc. - and even with all that, they still couldn't prevent the heat kink from occurring.  It's not like UP saved any money or gained anything by having that heat kink occur - UP will lose a ton of money in costs and damages, so it's interest is the same as everyone else's in preventing those from happening.

- Paul North.     

[edbenton]

However Paul the big issue is why a Bridge that was ONLY 1 Year old still failed and the Design will be made an Issue.  Why has that one Location had 3 Collaspes in less than 40 Years and 2 in 3 years.  Trust me a Smart Atty for the Plaintiffs will get the UP in Trouble in Court.  See there is a Pattern here and No ONE Did anything to stop it after the 2nd one now we have had 3 Look for the Replacement to be a NEW Design.

[schlimm]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/northbrook/chi-family-friends-mourn-burton-and-zorine-lindner-couple-found-dead-after-train-wreck-20120708,0,7199327.story

Perhaps there was no actionable negligence by the UP; however, that will not be decided here, but by our legal process, possibly including a court of law.   Railroad crossing accidents seem to be judged the fault of the vehicle's driver or the pedestrian.  But it is difficult to not feel some sympathy for that couple, apparently very loved in their community.  Probably they thought it was reasonable to assume it safe to drive under the rail overpass.  Guess not.

[Anonymous]

Paul,

You bring up an interesting point about the transition from the normal roadbed to the bridge deck.  It is my understanding that this type of transition is somewhat more problematic than just the same length of average track.  My guess is that this has something to do with differing support structures between the track on roadbed and track on the bridge deck.   

[CShaveRR]

Pictures of the "salvaged" steel from the bridge look like it was the same old center pier, giving the lie to the statement that the "bridge was a year old".  The abutments looked newer than the Google Street View, so I don't know what all had to be done to the bridge after the 2009 derailment (by the way, Paul, that one was switch related).  However, this is not a new bridge.  If it had the center pier, it was the same deck girder design that UP wanted nothing to do with.  A new bridge would have been a through girder design, no center pier. 

Let's see....UP has some pretty funky bridges in the Proviso area yet.  If they "arrange" to collapse these bridges, there might be something to this conspiracy theory.  Otherwise, these guys should leave the wild statements to the Forum theorists and let the railroad fix things properly.

[Boyd]

When they rebuild this section of track, is there a way to lay it in cement or some thing else? So in the case of another heat related expansion of rails that wiggle out of gauge that it doesn't happen on or withing 800 or so feet of this bridge and that it happens in another area?

[gabe]

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Short course and selected readings on the leading cases about the legal doctrine/ principle/ concept in negligence law of "proximate cause" and "foreseeability" - also known as the "public policy" of how far the law will hold people and corporations responsible for the 'far-out' consequences of their negligently wrongful acts - for those who care or are interested; the rest can just skip all this.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/palsgraf-long-island-railroad.html 

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/ryan-ny-central.html 

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/indiana-american-cyanamid.html (Indiana Harbor Belt RR)

Interestingly, they all involve railroads . . .

"Your Mileage Results May Vary", depending on the particular jurisdiction (state) you're in. 

- Paul North. 

[benburch]

You know, I can't see how any negligence is exposed here, but I think we can see something different between now and 50 years ago;  The weight of the cars.

If a train of 40-ton hoppers derailed, it would have been unlikely for enough of them to get onto the bridge to cause it to fail.  150+ ton hoppers are a different story in that respect.

I'm not sure, however, what could be done about that.

[AgentKid]

Paul_D_North_Jr

*As I, the mudchicken, and perhaps a few others here are well aware, being able to measure and know the exact state and amount of compressive stress in Continuous Welded Rail that would cause it to buckle is an elusive and not-yet-attained goal in the practical world - there are too many variables, some of which I've noted above.

I wanted to get back to this statement sooner. I found it very interesting that even today the science of rail "kinks" is still not well understood. Paul's post, as well as the second paragraph of Balt's post, made last Thursday at 11:35 PM EDT, brought to mind some situations that occurred along the CPR mainline in western Saskatchewan in the late '70's and early '80's. This was when CP's head office was still in Montreal, QC.

Both derailments occurred after the engines and some cars had already passed the derailment point without incident. Trying to find out the cause of these wrecks proved to be a very bitter and acrimonious affair. The engineering types decided that the Section Men had not inspected the tracks correctly, and head office at first agreed with this assessment. However, the Section Men, who were nothing if not extremely hard core individuals, objected to that finding, and blamed the engineering types who had set up the track plan in the first place, as the problem, as the engines had very clearly made it past the defective point.

Eventually head office, out of operational necessity, decided that the Section Men were not to blame, but had to admit they did not understand how these wrecks were caused. And now Paul says that even in the 21st Century, faced with a similar situation, still might have to come to the same conclusion.

For the benefit of the younger members of the audience, Section Men are now known as MOW workers.

Very interesting, indeed

Bruce

 

[Falcon48]

Maybe I'm missing something but, based on the local news stories I've seen (I live in the Chicago area) , UP complied with the "stop work" court order, even before they were formally served with it.

I think you're going to find that, once all of the railroad and government investigations are completed, there will be a pretty good picture of what actually happened.  An accident like this will leave plenty of forensic evidence.  You can bet both the railroad and the government inspection personnel were looking for it during the cleanup.    

[Falcon48]

CNW 6000

Interesting - from the link:
"A Federal Railroad Administration spokesman declined to comment on preliminary findings, referring most questions to Union Pacific officials. "We are in charge of (approving) the track on the bridge, not the bridge itself,'' agency spokesman Michael England said. The agency delegates many inspection duties to the railroads. In the case of the Shermer Road rail overpass, Union Pacific employees inspect the bridge and their report is turned over to the Federal Railroad Administration."

So...the RR could (in theory) build the bridge out of 2x4 timbers and if the ballast & rails looks ok the FRA says "OK"?  I realize that's a bit simplistic but wouldn't the bridge design and structure be important relative to the tracks?

Under "old" FRA rules, a bridge had to be capable of supporting track geometry under load.  FRA rules didin't  dictate the actual bridge design, but they required the end result.  FRA adopted additional bridge rules in 2010, requiring calculation of bridge capacity, and adoption of management programs for inspection and maintenance (49 CFR Part 237).  These rules became effective as to Class I roads in March 2011.  Again, these rules don't dictate actual bridge design.  Rather, they require the calculations of capacity to be made by a qualified bridge engineer, and then require the railroad to comply with the engineer's determinations.    

 

[CNW 6000]

Falcon48

CNW 6000:

Interesting - from the link:
"A Federal Railroad Administration spokesman declined to comment on preliminary findings, referring most questions to Union Pacific officials. "We are in charge of (approving) the track on the bridge, not the bridge itself,'' agency spokesman Michael England said. The agency delegates many inspection duties to the railroads. In the case of the Shermer Road rail overpass, Union Pacific employees inspect the bridge and their report is turned over to the Federal Railroad Administration."

So...the RR could (in theory) build the bridge out of 2x4 timbers and if the ballast & rails looks ok the FRA says "OK"?  I realize that's a bit simplistic but wouldn't the bridge design and structure be important relative to the tracks?

 

Under "old" FRA rules, a bridge had to be capable of supporting track geometry under load.  FRA rules didin't  dictate the actual bridge design, but they required the end result.  FRA adopted additional bridge rules in 2010, requiring calculation of bridge capacity, and adoption of management programs for inspection and maintenance (49 CFR Part 237).  These rules became effective as to Class I roads in March 2011.  Again, these rules don't dictate actual bridge design.  Rather, they require the calculations of capacity to be made by a qualified bridge engineer, and then require the railroad to comply with the engineer's determinations.    

 

That's about what I was getting at, more formally written.  I believe that the last sentence will be one of the key factors in any litigation.  A little digging found a date of November 1, 2009 for the last derailment (http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=302580&nseq=9#remarks) which suggests to me that the rule you mentioned would not apply.  Would this bring into question the legal wisdom of "grandfathering" things along, if true?  Any engineering studies & recommendations specific to this site (if they exist & I'm guessing they do) would also be interesting to read.

[rdamon]

schlimm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/northbrook/chi-family-friends-mourn-burton-and-zorine-lindner-couple-found-dead-after-train-wreck-20120708,0,7199327.story

Perhaps there was no actionable negligence by the UP; however, that will not be decided here, but by our legal process, possibly including a court of law.   Railroad crossing accidents seem to be judged the fault of the vehicle's driver or the pedestrian.  But it is difficult to not feel some sympathy for that couple, apparently very loved in their community.  Probably they thought it was reasonable to assume it safe to drive under the rail overpass.  Guess not.

 

I thought this was a very touching statement from their son:

"Many of you have expressed surprise and anger at God for not stopping what has happened here and shortening my parents' lives," Robert Lindner said. "That does not comfort me. In my opinion, it is God that gave us our time with these two amazing people. And just as you don't curse when a wonderful concert has ended, I want you to give my parents a standing ovation for the wonderful performance that was their life."

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Lindner family.

[Falcon48]

CNW 6000

Falcon48:

CNW 6000:

Interesting - from the link:
"A Federal Railroad Administration spokesman declined to comment on preliminary findings, referring most questions to Union Pacific officials. "We are in charge of (approving) the track on the bridge, not the bridge itself,'' agency spokesman Michael England said. The agency delegates many inspection duties to the railroads. In the case of the Shermer Road rail overpass, Union Pacific employees inspect the bridge and their report is turned over to the Federal Railroad Administration."

So...the RR could (in theory) build the bridge out of 2x4 timbers and if the ballast & rails looks ok the FRA says "OK"?  I realize that's a bit simplistic but wouldn't the bridge design and structure be important relative to the tracks?

 

Under "old" FRA rules, a bridge had to be capable of supporting track geometry under load.  FRA rules didin't  dictate the actual bridge design, but they required the end result.  FRA adopted additional bridge rules in 2010, requiring calculation of bridge capacity, and adoption of management programs for inspection and maintenance (49 CFR Part 237).  These rules became effective as to Class I roads in March 2011.  Again, these rules don't dictate actual bridge design.  Rather, they require the calculations of capacity to be made by a qualified bridge engineer, and then require the railroad to comply with the engineer's determinations.    

 

 

That's about what I was getting at, more formally written.  I believe that the last sentence will be one of the key factors in any litigation.  A little digging found a date of November 1, 2009 for the last derailment (http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=302580&nseq=9#remarks) which suggests to me that the rule you mentioned would not apply.  Would this bring into question the legal wisdom of "grandfathering" things along, if true?  Any engineering studies & recommendations specific to this site (if they exist & I'm guessing they do) would also be interesting to read.

  There is no "grandfathering" under the Part 237 rules.  An "old" bridge needs to have its safe capacity determinined the same as a "new" bridge. The rule was not in place in 2009, so it wouldn't have applied this bridge, or any other bridge, then,  But it would apply to the bridge now.

Personally, I will be very suprised if it turns out that a bridge failure caused this accident.  The more likely scenario is that something else caused the train to derail, and the derailing train then took down the bridge.  But this is all speculation now.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Updated by the Chicago Sun-TImes on 9:02 PM July 11, 2012 - the URL/ title conveys the gist of this:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13707646-418/on-board-camera-captured-july-4-derailment-that-killed-glenview-couple.html 

From the 1st paragraph of said article: "A video camera on the Union Pacific freight train that derailed last week in Northbrook captured the train’s crash atop a bridge that then collapsed and killed a Glenview couple in a car beneath it, officials said."  And later on: "But Union Pacific’s preliminary cause, Davis says, remains a track defect caused by the heat." 

Note that this type of derailment would not be monitored, detected, or prevented, by the Positive Train Control ("PTC") system that is now mandated for implementation in 2015. 

- Paul North. 

[DwightBranch]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Updated by the Chicago Sun-TImes on 9:02 PM July 11, 2012 - the URL/ title conveys the gist of this:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13707646-418/on-board-camera-captured-july-4-derailment-that-killed-glenview-couple.html 

From the 1st paragraph of said article: "A video camera on the Union Pacific freight train that derailed last week in Northbrook captured the train’s crash atop a bridge that then collapsed and killed a Glenview couple in a car beneath it, officials said."  And later on: "But Union Pacific’s preliminary cause, Davis says, remains a track defect caused by the heat." 

Note that this type of derailment would not be monitored, detected, or prevented, by the Positive Train Control ("PTC") system that is now mandated for implementation in 2015. 

- Paul North. 

That's dumb, the derailment started mid-train, all the camera will show is the crew getting off to see why they were big holed.

[cx500]

It is not unusual for a sunkink to develop under a train.  The wheels rolling over the track cause it to flex a little in the vertical direction.  Combine that minor disturbance, a weak spot in the ballast shoulder and a rail under significant heat stress, and the track can start to move sideways.  And once it starts, the lateral restraint gets weaker and the lateral force gets stronger at that point.

My guess is that the train derailed first, for whatever cause, and the derailed cars damaged one or more of the main girders of the bridge, likely also knocking at least one corner off the bearings.  Either way, the structural integrity would be compromised. 

My exposure to railroad bridge engineers is that they are very conservative in designing and rating bridge capacity.  While of course there are rare cases when a bridge failure did cause a derailment, virtually all recent cases are due to an external cause.  Floods can wash out a pier or abutment, errant barges and overheight trucks knock bridges out, and fire can destroy the bridge ties and warp steel members.

John