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.
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.
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: 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?
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.
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.
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
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
Dan
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.
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.
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.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-union-pacific-will-meet-with-public-monday-on-fatal-rail-derailment-20120712,0,6589382.story
I don't know how it works in the railroad world, but any airline that hastily brought it's workers in to clean up a crash site, would have the NTSB all over them.
Never underestimate the power of the citizens of the communities involved. Most are filthy rich, with considerable political ties. They had a Naval Air Station closed, a couple of years after a jet crashed in one of their neighborhoods.
All said and done, UP might be looking at a permanent re-routing of their coal trains.
BLS53,
Your point is well taken. I would like to know a little more about the bridge. I understand that it is a new bridge, but maybe not completely new. I have heard that U.P. objected to the bridge design. I understand there have been other derailments there, and the bridge may have been knocked down in one or more of those.
Who would be responsible if the bridge failed from a design defect or from a construction defect?
I find it rather curious that U.P. has been so quick to rule out the possibility of a bridge failure as the first cause. And it is also curious that they have been so quick to announce the cause as being a sun kink. Usually officials are tight-lipped about these things. We are constantly told that they refuse to speculate. This time it seems like officials are engaged in a speculation jamboree.
Bucyrus BLS53, Your point is well taken. I would like to know a little more about the bridge. I understand that it is a new bridge, but maybe not completely new. I have heard that U.P. objected to the bridge design. I understand there have been other derailments there, and the bridge may have been knocked down in one or more of those. Who would be responsible if the bridge failed from a design defect or from a construction defect? I find it rather curious that U.P. has been so quick to rule out the possibility of a bridge failure as the first cause. And it is also curious that they have been so quick to announce the cause as being a sun kink. Usually officials are tight-lipped about these things. We are constantly told that they refuse to speculate. This time it seems like officials are engaged in a speculation jamboree.
BLS53 I don't know how it works in the railroad world, but any airline that hastily brought it's workers in to clean up a crash site, would have the NTSB all over them. Never underestimate the power of the citizens of the communities involved. Most are filthy rich, with considerable political ties. They had a Naval Air Station closed, a couple of years after a jet crashed in one of their neighborhoods. All said and done, UP might be looking at a permanent re-routing of their coal trains.
The Glenview Naval Air Station, by the way, was closed by the military in 1995 as an unnecessary facility with the end of the cold war (which it certainly was). As I recall, the closing was in the face of considerable local opposition.
One other thing, The alternative route for coal trains UP has to the route through Glenview is their existing trackage rights route over EJ&E through Barrington, a community which is probably richer and more politically connected than Glenview. We all know (from the CN-EJE merger) how much Barrington loves trains.
I think you need to think it out again.
If an aircraft crashed and blocked a couple major runways at O'Hare, DFW or Hartsfield how long do you think the aircraft would be left in place and the runways be left damaged and out of service? That's the analogus situation. An aircraft crashing in a cornfield doesn't shut down anything.
This wreck happened on a major rail route used by the Union Pacific and Canadian Pacific to access their main Chicago area rail yards to/from Milwaukee and points north. They needed to get the route open ASAP or things would start to back up from here to breakfast. That's why rapid restoration of service is the norm in railroading. If you don't do that on a major main line things go to Hell very quickly.
You draw a false analogy. And Glenview Naval Air Station was closed becuase it was redundant. Although former Chicago mayor Jane Byrne lost her first husband, a Marine pilot, in a crash there. The crash was in 1959 and the air station closed in 1995.
I'm a retired Naval Officer who was involved with the closure of NAS Glenview. Glenview was never on any BRAC lists, until the political powers that be, decided to persuade DOD that it should be closed. Your remembrance of the crash is incorrect. It didn't involve a crash in 1959, it involved a crash in March of 1991, of a T-39 Sabreliner in a Glenview neighborhood a mile south of the base.
The Navy had supported NAS Glenview remaining open through 2 previous rounds of BRAC.. The civilian community surrounding the base, had wanted it closed for years. Mainly for noise abatement issues, and the fact that the land was worth a lot of money for civilian development. The 1991 accident provided a catalyst to get the base included in the 1993 BRAC. As opposed to most communities throughout the nation, NAS Glenview received zero support from the surrounding civilian communities, to keep the base open.
There's other backroom dealings that went on with NAS Glenview's closure, that are too lengthy to go into on a railroad forum. Your view that the base was redundant is superficial. And being you're a retired railroad man, and have had no involvement in Naval Aviation to my knowledge, you might think twice before writing a condescending reply to someone who has knowledge of the BRAC process and what was involved with NAS Glenview's closing.
As for the NTSB. I'm not an NTSB investigator, but I've spent enough years on the civilian side of aviation, to know the "to do's" and "don't do's" concerning crash sites. If the site involved the closing of a major highway, that highway would be closed. Preserving evidence isn't even the primary concern, as all airline crash sites are environmentally hazardous, The area would be secured, and no member of the public would be allowed near it, major roadway or not. This is strictly an assumption on your part that a major highway would be opened ASAP. I'm really not in the mood to read through years of NTSB reports of airline crashes, looking for one where a highway was blocked, but if you want to, you're welcome to do so.
These boards are among the most cliqueish on the internet. Calling each other by your first names, and attacking those with few posts, who you think you can challenge and intimidate. Here's a clue. Some people who know about a particular subject are not going to back down from your condescending and authoritarian replies. I don't care if you invented the IC's piggyback operation or are Casey Jones' grandson for that matter. If you don't know anything about Naval Aviation or civilian aviation, other than what you read in the newspapers, it might be better to keep your mouth shut.
"Crews on Friday morning removed the last remnants of rail car parts from the site of the July 4 Union Pacific freight train derailment in Glenview."
From "Glenview train derailment meeting Monday" at:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120714/news/707149891/
BLS53 These boards are among the most cliqueish on the internet. Calling each other by your first names, and attacking those with few posts, who you think you can challenge and intimidate. Here's a clue. Some people who know about a particular subject are not going to back down from your condescending and authoritarian replies. I don't care if you invented the IC's piggyback operation or are Casey Jones' grandson for that matter. If you don't know anything about Naval Aviation or civilian aviation, other than what you read in the newspapers, it might be better to keep your mouth shut.
Hear, hear.
Regarding NTSB involvement in this one - I'm not finding anything that indicates that. Instead, the BNSF 2-train collision in Oklahoma, and the NS derailment in Columbus, seem to be fully occupying the NTSB the last couple of weeks.
Wow, a retired Naval Officer...
Well Mr. Retired Naval Officer, you might want to read the reply a little more closely...no one mentioned a highway....what Ken mentioned was a runway.
You're not a NTSB investigator?
Good, I feel safer already.
As for calling my friends by their first names, since I have known most of them for years, I don't see a problem with that...what do you call your friends by, numbers?
You do have friends, yes?
Now, if instead of a screen name, you would like to use your real name, we would be happy to call you by that, but then, you couldn't be quite as arrogant and obnoxious if members could read your real name.
And, to compliment your arrogance, no one here is all that impressed with your Retired Naval Officer status.
If you find these forums cliquish and full of people you dislike, then please, feel free to go troll and insult elsewhere.
If aviation is your real interest, I can recommend a few good aviation forums, one run by a current Naval Aviator who is also a member here...although he feels no need to mention his current rank...bragging is not his way, professionalism is.
Since you mentioned you were involved in the civilian side of aviation, instead of the operational side of railroading, I would suggest it be you who keeps his mouth shut about things you don't and have not done for a living.
Insulting those who have not insulted you, about an industry you have not worked in, but one in which they have and still do, is not conductive to earing a single ounce of respect for yourself from any one here except your fellow trolls, the railroaders here could really care less about your rank, or about your knowledge of civilian aviation (quite a few of them have served by the way, there are a lot of non-coms here, and a few commissioned officers from all branches of the Armed Services, even a Coastie or two,)...but your lack of respect for a well-known, well liked and very knowledgeable forum member and railroader bodes no good will for you.
As for the NTSB securing the site of this derailment, it would appear they already know what they wanted to know.
Since hazardous material was not involved, and no passengers were injured or killed, odds are they will leave it as it is.
And keep in mind that this was a freight train operating on private property, not carrying passengers, UP is well within its rights to clean up the wreck, remove their property and go about their business.
From a liability stand point, this is the same as a grade crossing fatality, the victims survivors will file suit, UP will most likely offer a settlement, which may, in this instance, be a lot larger than one would expect because of the status of the victims and the negative publicity...in the end it will play out in a civilian court.
23 17 46 11
Talk about a double standard: one for railroaders and another for everyone else. You engage in one of the longest personal attacks I've ever seen on here, dripping with sarcasm at every turn, but no one had better call you to task b/c you are a railroader. And BTW, Mr. Blysard, these forums are sponsored by Trains Magazine as a place for anyone who is interested in railroads, not just for the folks who work on or for them. In consequence, participation means anyone's (railroader or not) expressed opinion just might be criticized by another member. You have acted now and in the past as though the rest of us can participate as long as we act as sycophants and cheerleaders for the railroads and railroaders.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Talk about a double standard: one for railroaders and another for everyone else. You engage in one of the longest personal attacks I've ever seen on here, dripping with sarcasm at every turn, but no one had better call you to task b/c you are a railroader. And BTW, Mr. Blysard, these forums are sponsored by Trains Magazine as a place for anyone who is interested in railroads, not just for the folks who work on or for them. In consequence, participation means anyone's (railroader or not) expressed opinion just might be criticized by another member. You have acted now and in the past as though the rest of us can participate as long as we act as sycophants and cheerleaders for the railroads and railroaders.
But what about the opposite Mr. Schlimm? The people that act as sycophants and cheerleaders against the railroaders on any subject? And don't pretend we do not have people like that on here.
This forum would be very boring without RRer participation. And I dare say it is heading that way at a pretty good clip. I know my participation has been very limited lately. And I'm not the only one.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann But what about the opposite Mr. Schlimm? The people that act as sycophants and cheerleaders against the railroaders on any subject? And don't pretend we do not have people like that on here.
I have not seen any of that. Can you cite an example?
I had private conversations with some people on here, and they all share my same thoughts. I am not going to go any deeper into it. I said my peace and that is that. Agree or disagree, whatever.
But I've seen it... threads where the railroads may be (or are) at fault always explode on this board.
I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork.
zugmann I had private conversations with some people on here, and they all share my same thoughts. I am not going to go any deeper into it. I said my peace and that is that. Agree or disagree, whatever. But I've seen it... threads where the railroads may be (or are) at fault always explode on this board.
I see.
zugmann schlimm: Talk about a double standard: one for railroaders and another for everyone else. You engage in one of the longest personal attacks I've ever seen on here, dripping with sarcasm at every turn, but no one had better call you to task b/c you are a railroader. And BTW, Mr. Blysard, these forums are sponsored by Trains Magazine as a place for anyone who is interested in railroads, not just for the folks who work on or for them. In consequence, participation means anyone's (railroader or not) expressed opinion just might be criticized by another member. You have acted now and in the past as though the rest of us can participate as long as we act as sycophants and cheerleaders for the railroads and railroaders. But what about the opposite Mr. Schlimm? The people that act as sycophants and cheerleaders against the railroaders on any subject? And don't pretend we do not have people like that on here. This forum would be very boring without RRer participation. And I dare say it is heading that way at a pretty good clip. I know my participation has been very limited lately. And I'm not the only one.
schlimm: Talk about a double standard: one for railroaders and another for everyone else. You engage in one of the longest personal attacks I've ever seen on here, dripping with sarcasm at every turn, but no one had better call you to task b/c you are a railroader. And BTW, Mr. Blysard, these forums are sponsored by Trains Magazine as a place for anyone who is interested in railroads, not just for the folks who work on or for them. In consequence, participation means anyone's (railroader or not) expressed opinion just might be criticized by another member. You have acted now and in the past as though the rest of us can participate as long as we act as sycophants and cheerleaders for the railroads and railroaders.
There are railroaders, and then there are "railroaders". If a person is an operating employee (engineers or conductors) discussing train operations I shut up and listen. For one thing, they normally don't claim to be experts on railroading, even though in reality they often are. Where it becomes contentious is when someone, almost always in management, not only claims to be an expert on railroading (even though they may not be a million miles from actual operations, for all we know a supervisor in the payroll department or something similar) but also, experts on the entire national system of transportation, allocation of resources to passenger service, etc. In those cases being a "railroader" means very little.
Bucyrus I see.
See what you want.
Murray I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork.
That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned.
zugmannSee what you want.
That's usually the case in these overly-dragged out threads of posters who specialize in "what-if's, assumptions and obtuse speculation."
RRKen Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork. That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned.
Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork.
Well I don't know if I would say that you as professional railroaders are shunned, as much as there are some posters here on the internet who come into this site and go on and on and on...and quite frankly, they don't know what they're talking about.
Schlimm
Interested in railroading, as opposed to insulting the railroaders who contribute their knowledge.
There is an expected level of civil discourse, yet it seems as if being rude and obnoxious towards railroaders who disagree with the non-railroaders concept of what did or did not happen is quite acceptable, yet when a railroader bites back, that's not acceptable?
Guess we should leave the forum to the arm chair railroaders, we wouldn't want to confuse the discussion with facts and knowledge.
I guess its because all we do is run the trains you guys talk about, it's not like we know anything worthwhile, yes?
Murray RRKen: Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork. That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned. Well I don't know if I would say that you as professional railroaders are shunned, as much as there are some posters here on the internet who come on this site and on and on and on...and quite frankly, they don't know what they're talking about.
RRKen: Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork. That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned.
Well I don't know if I would say that you as professional railroaders are shunned, as much as there are some posters here on the internet who come on this site and on and on and on...and quite frankly, they don't know what they're talking about.
That's the beauty of the Internet. It is up to each of us to decide whether somebody knows what they are taking about.
Bucyrus Murray: RRKen: Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork. That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned. Well I don't know if I would say that you as professional railroaders are shunned, as much as there are some posters here on the internet who come on this site and on and on and on...and quite frankly, they don't know what they're talking about. That's the beauty of the Internet. It is up to each of us to decide whether somebody knows what they are taking about.
Murray: RRKen: Murray: I see the nattering nabobs of negativism against professional railroaders are coming out of the woodwork. That is the norm of late. It's too bad, used to be we were a decent source of information. Any more, we are shunned. Well I don't know if I would say that you as professional railroaders are shunned, as much as there are some posters here on the internet who come on this site and on and on and on...and quite frankly, they don't know what they're talking about.
I believe there is a general concensus among posters here as to who fits in that category.
I don't wait for anyone to tell me I know what I am talking about. And I assure you, if I were lacking in a subject, the silence would be deafening.
BLS53 I'm a retired Naval Officer who was involved with the closure of NAS Glenview. Glenview was never on any BRAC lists, until the political powers that be, decided to persuade DOD that it should be closed. Your remembrance of the crash is incorrect. It didn't involve a crash in 1959, it involved a crash in March of 1991, of a T-39 Sabreliner in a Glenview neighborhood a mile south of the base. The Navy had supported NAS Glenview remaining open through 2 previous rounds of BRAC.. The civilian community surrounding the base, had wanted it closed for years. Mainly for noise abatement issues, and the fact that the land was worth a lot of money for civilian development. The 1991 accident provided a catalyst to get the base included in the 1993 BRAC. As opposed to most communities throughout the nation, NAS Glenview received zero support from the surrounding civilian communities, to keep the base open. There's other backroom dealings that went on with NAS Glenview's closure, that are too lengthy to go into on a railroad forum. Your view that the base was redundant is superficial. And being you're a retired railroad man, and have had no involvement in Naval Aviation to my knowledge, you might think twice before writing a condescending reply to someone who has knowledge of the BRAC process and what was involved with NAS Glenview's closing. As for the NTSB. I'm not an NTSB investigator, but I've spent enough years on the civilian side of aviation, to know the "to do's" and "don't do's" concerning crash sites. If the site involved the closing of a major highway, that highway would be closed. Preserving evidence isn't even the primary concern, as all airline crash sites are environmentally hazardous, The area would be secured, and no member of the public would be allowed near it, major roadway or not. This is strictly an assumption on your part that a major highway would be opened ASAP. I'm really not in the mood to read through years of NTSB reports of airline crashes, looking for one where a highway was blocked, but if you want to, you're welcome to do so. These boards are among the most cliqueish on the internet. Calling each other by your first names, and attacking those with few posts, who you think you can challenge and intimidate. Here's a clue. Some people who know about a particular subject are not going to back down from your condescending and authoritarian replies. I don't care if you invented the IC's piggyback operation or are Casey Jones' grandson for that matter. If you don't know anything about Naval Aviation or civilian aviation, other than what you read in the newspapers, it might be better to keep your mouth shut.
Where to start?
First, I'm not a retired anything.
Second, only a small portion of my post dealt with the closure of NAS Glenview. The buik of it was an explination as to why railroads need to get out of service main lines back in operation quickly. Such rapid repairs have been the norm for decades and will continue to be the norm. The alternative is a backed up mess.
Third, the 1959 crash happened exactly as I said it did. Why would a 1991 crash lead to successful pressure for closure when the 1959 crash did not?
Fourth, there was community support for continuing NAS Glenview as NAS Glenview. Contrary to what you claim. See page 1-27 of this document:
http://www.defense.gov/brac/docs/1993com2.pdf
While I don't doubt that some developers were licking their chops at the prospect of acquiring the land, the referenced document indicates nothing other than that the facility: 1) was no longer needed in its present form, and 2) could not be expanded as needed. In other words, it was out of date and redundant.
Fifth, not very far from the former NAS Glenview is Chicago Executive Airport. I have worked near the latter for 3 1/2 years. During that time there have been two fatal crashes involving aircraft attempting to land. Nobody is trying to close the airport.
Sixth, try to learn and comprehend the difference between a runway and a highway. I mentioned runway closures and you came back with babble about highway closures.
Seventh, there are moderators who can control what I post on this forum. You are not one of them. Keep your own mouth shut flyboy.
Predictable, just as i said. If anyone bothered to look at what provoked the heated exchange, greyhounds belittled the response of the retired naval officer to him.
BLS53 had first clearly said he didn't know what railroad guys would do, but that if there were a crash at O'Hare, the airlines would not be permitted to clear it all away to restore service until the NTSB had completed its investigation. "I don't know how it works in the railroad world, but any airline that hastily brought it's workers in to clean up a crash site, would have the NTSB all over them."
Greyhounds disagreed, not about the RR, but what would happen at an air crash scene. "If an aircraft crashed and blocked a couple major runways at O'Hare, DFW or Hartsfield how long do you think the aircraft would be left in place and the runways be left damaged and out of service? That's the analogus situation. An aircraft crashing in a cornfield doesn't shut down anything."
BLS53 (and he clearly stated he had not worked with the NTSB) took exception, though seemed to have shifted to a highway closure rather than an airport. "As for the NTSB. I'm not an NTSB investigator, but I've spent enough years on the civilian side of aviation, to know the "to do's" and "don't do's" concerning crash sites. If the site involved the closing of a major highway, that highway would be closed." The officer pointed out, rather rudely to be sure that he didn't care about greyhound's RR experience in relation to airports.
The actual problem seems to have been when Mr. Blysard felt the need to unload in a lengthy tirade against BLS53 . I criticized Mr. Blysard's remarks, and then the floodgates opened. It seems pretty clear that in the opinions of the RRers, those non-professionals should never disagree with an opinion expressed by them, only admire their service. Speaking only for myself, I do give a lot of credit for the hard, often thankless work the crews do under difficult work conditions. But some of you need to get a thicker skin and be open to criticism, rather than respond with attacks, and in a few cases only, utterly inane comments.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.