Trains.com

UP derails coal train on bridge

40177 views
227 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • 2,434 posts
Posted by gabe on Monday, July 9, 2012 7:47 AM
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: St. Paul, Minnesota
  • 2,116 posts
Posted by Boyd on Sunday, July 8, 2012 11:37 PM

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?

Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Sunday, July 8, 2012 8:44 PM

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.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:09 PM

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.   

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, July 8, 2012 7:05 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Sunday, July 8, 2012 6:57 PM

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.

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, July 8, 2012 6:41 PM

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.

Mischief 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.     

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Saturday, July 7, 2012 3:12 PM

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.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Aledo IL
  • 1,728 posts
Posted by spokyone on Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:19 AM

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

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, July 6, 2012 8:24 PM

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.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: near Chicago
  • 937 posts
Posted by Chris30 on Friday, July 6, 2012 8:05 PM

“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

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: near Chicago
  • 937 posts
Posted by Chris30 on Friday, July 6, 2012 7:52 PM

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.

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, July 6, 2012 6:59 PM

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.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Friday, July 6, 2012 6:35 PM

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. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, July 6, 2012 6:01 PM

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. 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Friday, July 6, 2012 5:30 PM

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.

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 6, 2012 5:25 PM

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. 

 

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: MP 175.1 CN Neenah Sub
  • 4,917 posts
Posted by CNW 6000 on Friday, July 6, 2012 5:21 PM

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?

Dan

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Friday, July 6, 2012 5:21 PM

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. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, July 6, 2012 5:08 PM

[quote user="jeaton"]

Rear view mirror?  Back facing camera? 

There could be some very good indications from the video.

Failing that, the legal procedings could compel a forensic examination of the bridge steel-what members failed and why-and expert reviews of the bridge design.

[/quote]

Re-watching the videos, again.  Your idea about examining the location forensically, would seem to be a pretty good idea.  

Is there something in the design or construction of that area that leads to having three similar derailments in the same location over the long period of time? An inherent design flaw?  I let those more qualified than I examine that aspect.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Friday, July 6, 2012 4:52 PM

Rear view mirror?  Back facing camera? 

There could be some very good indications from the video.

Failing that, the legal procedings could compel a forensic examination of the bridge steel-what members failed and why-and expert reviews of the bridge design.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, July 6, 2012 4:46 PM

BaltACD

"...More information being added to the sequence of events..."

Quote - Chicago Tribune

Erich Gibbs, who owns a business in the area, said he was driving on Shermer under the bridge about noon Wednesday, less than two hours before the accident, and he saw a worker wearing a colored safety vest walking on the tracks.

"It looked like he was checking something out,'' said Gibbs, 72, of Wilmette. "An hour and a half later, the train .... crushed the bridge.''

Davis confirmed that Union Pacific inspectors and monitoring equipment were on the tracks before the accident checking for possible abnormalities in track gauge or shifting. Such inspections are routinely conducted twice a day during extreme heat or cold, he said.

Because of the "heat order," a 40-mph slow zone order, down from 50 mph normally on that segment of track, was in effect at the time of the accident, Davis said. An event recorder in the locomotive showed that the train was traveling at 37 mph when it derailed, he said.

"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.

Both Pig Farmer1 and Balt ACD have made  very good points.  It would seem that maybe as a discussion we are attempting to 'over analyze' this event, as new and relevant details seem to arise every few hours..

             Early on there was a statement made that the specific bridge ( Shermer Ave overpass) had been inspected that very day, not too long before the fated train passed and derailed(?) . That seems to be consistent with the facts of the Chicago Tribune story quoted by BaltACD.

    As my son was a firefighter, I tend to have an interest in that direction, and follow a few related sites that reference those subjects. This site Chicagoareafire,com @

http://chicagoareafire.com/blog/2012/07/train-derailment-with-fire-in-northbrook/

There is a  a commentary and accompanying photos of the current accident scene at Shermer Road, and the distribution of the wreckage at that point as well as an aerial view of the scene. 

[There are as well some other comments mentioned that UPRR had completed a 'sho-fly' at the location of the collapsed bridge, around the debris field of the current accident(?).]

 Also included at the bottom of the current photos are a couple of photos by another photographer taken in 1974 of the same bridge at Shermer Road,

Another Poster (UChicagoMatt) mentioned an derailment at the overpass at Shermer Roadin 2009(?)  Information and video of Nov.1,2009 accident linked @

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2009/11/02/glenview-northbrook-train-derailment-video-from-shermer-road-south-of-willow-road/

That particular incident did not involve the bridge as full as the other and following derailments did.

Judging by the photos alone, it is hard to believe that the structure of this bridge could possibly be much older than about 38 years ( as opposed to the '100 year old' remarks mentioned by some other poster's comments on these Threads)

 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    March 2012
  • 493 posts
Posted by DwightBranch on Friday, July 6, 2012 4:44 PM

CShaveRR

Yes, they use distributed-power units on the hind end of WEPX coal trains like this.

One site telling about the court order shows a picture of a Roadrailer train using the track in the background.

 

Could that have contributed, sort of the opposite of stringlining, where the helpers felt the resistance go away after one or more cars hit the ground and went out of alignment, and pushed the cars together ? I have seen pileups that looked like this, all the cars accordioned, but only at the bottom of steep grades, not in a place like my native Illinois that is flat as a pancake. The helpers are unoccupied I assume so the crew would not notice, another problem with relying too much on automation.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Friday, July 6, 2012 4:32 PM

The Shoo-fly is probably slightly off the alignment of the original bridge so that the replacement can be put in the alignment of the original. So it is possible that some material is still on site, but it is likely that the majority has been moved.

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, July 6, 2012 3:58 PM

Yes, they use distributed-power units on the hind end of WEPX coal trains like this.

One site telling about the court order shows a picture of a Roadrailer train using the track in the background.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    March 2012
  • 493 posts
Posted by DwightBranch on Friday, July 6, 2012 3:25 PM

Does UP use rear or swing helpers on coal trains on this line?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, July 6, 2012 2:37 PM

Because it was a county judge, not a prayer of a chance. (Federal Exemption)

(thinking of a corny line from Sherriff Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles"Mischief)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Aurora, IL
  • 4,515 posts
Posted by eolafan on Friday, July 6, 2012 2:07 PM

Yes, a lawsuit has been filed and a Cook County judge has ordered UP to stop any work on the site....too late, UP has already cleaned up hte site and trains are reported (see  below) to be running over temporary tracks laid on a temporary gravel berm laid by UP.  This is going to be interesting.

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

Eolafan (a.k.a. Jim)
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, July 6, 2012 1:37 PM

Confirmed the story about the court order.  But I don't know what it means at this point, because a respected railfan has posted on Trainorders.com that fresh fill and track are in place (he said "trains are running").  The "scene of the crime" was long gone by the time the order was issued.

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 6, 2012 1:05 PM

In the news report on the previous page, it says that the bridge collapsed because it could not hold the weight of 28 cars.  It says that the first event was the derailment of the train.  Then, the piling up cars collapsed the bridge.  It says they know this because the crew saw it happen. 

 

At first, I accepted this explanation, but after thinking about it, I cannot see how the crew could have determined which came first; the derailment or the bridge failure.  I don’t see how a bridge failure, as the first event of the cause, can be ruled out. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy