Apparently, or so the LION has been told, the railroad is not covered under workman's comp, and under railroad law, they have to sue to recover for injuries. So yes, bring on the lawyers. Sounds dumb to me, they should just present their bills to the railroad and the railroad should pay them, and everybody can save a fortune on leachers.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
henry6 schlimm what did happen that is so radically different from what was reported? That is a good question, schlimm, one that should be asked about any media report that contains as much as one flaw. If you know one thing is wrong, out of place, impossible, ridiculous, or otherwise questionable, then how about the rest of the story? In this story, I like the image of "T-bone" but not the explanation of what that means in relation to what happened for instance. Journalists have to know more about what they are writing in order to become both knowledgeable and credible. They don't have the time, aren't given the time, to study or ask questions, or don't know what questions to ask, in order to be credible. we all complain here about how little the public knows about trains and railroads and how the media always screws things up. This is why.
schlimm what did happen that is so radically different from what was reported?
what did happen that is so radically different from what was reported?
That is a good question, schlimm, one that should be asked about any media report that contains as much as one flaw. If you know one thing is wrong, out of place, impossible, ridiculous, or otherwise questionable, then how about the rest of the story? In this story, I like the image of "T-bone" but not the explanation of what that means in relation to what happened for instance. Journalists have to know more about what they are writing in order to become both knowledgeable and credible. They don't have the time, aren't given the time, to study or ask questions, or don't know what questions to ask, in order to be credible. we all complain here about how little the public knows about trains and railroads and how the media always screws things up. This is why.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have noticed that when railroad collisions happen, it is usually not due to signal failure. And there is an unusually speedy confirmation that the signals worked properly. Often such confirmation is announced within 48 hours or so. The rest of the details can take years.
The scene is at a diamond, a crossing of two rail lines. Therefore it has to be guarded on both lines and in all directions by some kind of signal device and procedure in the rules or timetables. More than likely, some one violated the rules for some reason or another because seemingly signals rarely malfunction, even on nonsignaled track it would be a permanent or fixed signal and interlocked with approach signals at proper distances. One of the report said the UP train clipped the BNSF train near the rear of the train. So it would first appear that the UP train missed a signal or couldn't stop for some reason. The comment about it being two non passenger tracks and PTC would not be required is probably true, but if it were in effect at such locations, the train that should have stopped would have; it would be a good application of a safety device. I think you can tell what my conjecture would be reading all the signs and reports so far and that many of you see the same answers I do. But it is still too early to jump to those conclusions.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I live about 12 miles from Rockview, and my grown son I and railfan that location at least once or twice a week. We eat supper at a wide spot in the road next to BNSF's detector at MP141, and we have been doing this long enough that the BNSF crews (and the UP crews for that matter) recognize us. So maybe I can provide a little insight. BNSF runs about 15 or so trains a day, UP upwards of 50. The UP through here is a highly maintained and a fast road. The BNSF trains trundle in comparison.
The diamonds here are controlled by the UP. Both NB and SB BNSF crews have to contact their dispatcher who must put in a request with the UP dispatcher to get a signal indication through the interlocker. The interlocking is signaled red in all directions for both railroads unless the UP dispatcher sets up the signals for a train. It is clear that UP has the priority; many evenings we've seen the BNSF's 415 local go dead on the law just north of the interlocking plant (which is for all practical purposes, directly under the highway M overpass). This is not 5 minutes by train to the Chaffee crew change point.
Given how the plant operates it is certainly a puzzle as to how this collision could have happened, short of signal failure or crew failure. It will be interesting to see how it works out.
No traffic is moving on either railroad right now. BNSF just swapped locomotives to the rear of a southbounder that was stopped at Freeze since the incident. I assume they are going to pull it back to St. Louis.
The road bridge was built about 30 years ago to bypass grade crossing of both the BNSF and UP (then Cotton Belt). I doubt that much thought was given to hardening the structure (this is Missouri, after all).
By the way this is the third incident in just a few months at this location. An off-season tornado blew a UP double stack over, with cars scattered on both sides of the highway overpass - and under it - about 6 months ago. About 6 weeks ago when the Mississippi flooding closed BNSF's River Line, a detouring Nb train went on the ground as it was negotiating the connecting track to the UP and overturned about 4 cars blocking both lines.
We are headed down that way this evening to see what we can see. Not sure how close we can get, but I know every back way into that location.
Walt
The report about the UP train ‘clipping’ the BNSF near its rear gives me the impression that the UP crew simply fell asleep … after all, the collision occurred at 2:30 A.M.
It was good to hear that forum contributor wlilly lives somewhat nearby, so we might soon finally be able to get a knowledgeable onsite assessment of the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
There was an AP item in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune, which I found to better written than most other such reports:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/56365832-68/train-cars-rail-bridge.html.csp
This is the first time that I had seen anything about a "cargo train."
Johnny
If the UP crew had fallen asleep, shouldn't the alerter have automatically applied the brakes? I always thought that was the purpose of the alerter.
K. P. Harrier The report about the UP train ‘clipping’ the BNSF near its rear gives me the impression that the UP crew simply fell asleep … after all, the collision occurred at 2:30 A.M. It was good to hear that forum contributor wlilly lives somewhat nearby, so we might soon finally be able to get a knowledgeable onsite assessment of the situation.
With 'willy' stating that the crossing is controlled by the UP, I would conjecture that the UP Dispatcher would line the crossing for any UP traffic prior to lining the crossing for BNSF traffic. Until the NTSB publishes some data stating which train had the route, any assessment of which train had the route and which train did not is purely conjecture.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
cacole If the UP crew had fallen asleep, shouldn't the alerter have automatically applied the brakes? I always thought that was the purpose of the alerter.
This link should open page 14 of the thread below called One year later (sleep thread). Look at the two pieces I posted in blue on that page. The first one gives a detailed account of what is referred to as “sleeping on the alerter” or “alerter naps.” The more technical description is resetting the alerter “reflexively.”
In the described incident, the engineer resets the alerter several times while failing to respond to various wayside conditions calling for a response until he finally collides with a train. Basically the resetting is so unobtrusive that a person can do it without hardly waking up.
The second piece is the NTSB asking the FRA to redesign the alerter so they cannot be reset reflexively. Then the FRA assigns the task to a contractor and the contractor tells the FRA that there is no market for such an improved alerter. I have no idea why the contractor would get to make that call.
The link:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/217591/2402565.aspx#2402565
mudhicken PDN and I will be looking to see if the bridge bents/ support piling had crash rails or not. Crash rails are big concrete collars poured around the bridge supports for additional protection. Big controversy between the AREMA and the AASHTO/ASCE highway bubbas over this recently. The ex-Frisco River Sub is no slouch for traffic in this area as well. Plenty of chemical coast traffic on both. EDIT: It would appear from the CNN video that this bridge is relatively new and had NO crash/rail barricades at the site. The pig feathers will certainly fly on this one.
PDN and I will be looking to see if the bridge bents/ support piling had crash rails or not. Crash rails are big concrete collars poured around the bridge supports for additional protection. Big controversy between the AREMA and the AASHTO/ASCE highway bubbas over this recently.
The ex-Frisco River Sub is no slouch for traffic in this area as well. Plenty of chemical coast traffic on both.
EDIT: It would appear from the CNN video that this bridge is relatively new and had NO crash/rail barricades at the site. The pig feathers will certainly fly on this one.
To Paul North and Mudchicken:
The following link is to a photo of the accident under the High M Overpass showing pretty clearly that the concrete bridge piers were NOT protected by additional "Crash/rail " barricades.
http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/slidegallery.csp?cid=56365832&pid=5099444
[The above link is to the story provided by Deggesty (Johnnie) for his link to a photo essay, and story in The Salt Lake Tribune.]
mudchicken PDN and I will be looking to see if the bridge bents/ support piling had crash rails or not. Crash rails are big concrete collars poured around the bridge supports for additional protection. Big controversy between the AREMA and the AASHTO/ASCE highway bubbas over this recently. The ex-Frisco River Sub is no slouch for traffic in this area as well. Plenty of chemical coast traffic on both. EDIT: It would appear from the CNN video that this bridge is relatively new and had NO crash/rail barricades at the site. The pig feathers will certainly fly on this one.
And the answer is "No" - see this oblique ("Bird's-Eye" view) from Bing Maps:
http://binged.it/159DEgF
Tough to find a good photo of such a "crash wall", but here are links to 2 TXDOT sketches of one:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/det/images/4-13.gif
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/det/images/4-14.gif
See also "Sec. 21.2.3.4 - Pier Protection" on pages 6 and 8 of 11 at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/45395248/Highway-Bridges-Over-Railroads---PDF
EDIT: Here's a link to a photo of a crash wall by K.P. Harrier: http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff19/kpharrier/cajon/XC-DSC02128.jpg
It's from the "Cajon Pass Triple-Tracking Updates" thread here - post of May 19, 2008, on page 10 of many, 4th photo down - at: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/102777/1444807.aspx#1444807
- Paul North.
Wow there are some houses really close to this intersection. I bet the ground shook when it all happened. Now can the RR that is innocent sue the other one for all of the damage?
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
The crossing agreement(s) at that location (actual station name is "Rockview") spell out in detail who is responsible for what. (The thing, over several inches thick by now, has most likely evolved from the original Construction, Operation & Maintenance agreement) .... Usually, he who gets there first forces the latecomer to do the maintenance. (in this case I suspect that the UP/SSW did some horsetrading with BNSF/SLSF back when they doubletracked their 1882 line and crossed the 1904 SLSF main from St Louis to Memphis down in the MO "bootheel" and then went through a series of line changes)
Railroads sue each other, but not as much as one thinks in derailment cases. (Most disputes wound up with ICC/STB acting as administrative law judge)
(*) After seeing PDN's view of the underside of the bridge, it screams "crash wall - required". MoDOT (successor to the Mo RR Commission/ PSC after 1985) ought to share some of the responsibility for replacing a $ 3 Million dollar bridge for that bad call by the rubber-tired bubbas for not protecting the piers)
MC, PDN,
Are there any specifications as to the amount of reinforcing required in a crash wall? For that matter, I'd be curious about the amount of reinforcing in the original column - after the 1971 Sylmar temblor, Caltrans required hoop rebar of about the same diameter as the vertical rebar. Retrofits to pre-'71 constructions typical consists of steel or carbon fiber jackets around the column, though a few bridges had an additional layer of reinforced concrete placed around the original column.
- Erik
AREMA 8.2.1.5.1 (1994) Crash wall a minimum of 2.5' thick x 12 long x 6' ATR high and meeting heavy construction standard. Crash wall should project at least a foot beyond the limit of any support or column so that contact is with the crash wall first.
The crash wall is NOT designed to overcome a head-on collision. It should protect against the glancing blows of railcars in a derailment. (like what happened here)
REINFORCING STRENGTH/SIZE OF REBAR IS A FUNCTION OF THE BRIDGE'S OVERALL STRENGTH. At minimimum, crash wall has the same size of reinforcing steel as the columns.
(*) methinks FRA and NTSB will also be looking at the crash wall "25 foot rule" (protection mandatory for obstructions less than 25 feet from tracks) that many roads enforced long before 1994 (back to 1950's?) and the UP Hermosa WY incident under I-80 in the early 1980's (IIRC).....To this day, highway bridge designers complain ad-nausem about the added expense of the crash walls.
I wonder if the crossing frog got hurt in all of this? (spares just don't magically appear)...also interesting is that this is a later SSW line (built 1898) and not the original narrow gage. (Still gets there before SLSF)
MC,
Thanks!
Tomorrow, I expect we will be told that the signals were tested. If there was nothing wrong with the signals, what probable causes are left? What is the probability of ineffective braking?
I recall an incident near here where a train was approaching an interlocking crossing that the operator did not line up for some reason. The engineer discovered that he did not have any air that he could exhaust, so he reversed the engines. The air problem was said to be due to ice in the trainline.
Do railroads use any powered mainline derails in conjunction with interlocking systems these days?
K.P.'s Sunset Double track update has a good picture of a crash barrier protecting an overpass that he posted today.
MC- is there a set distance between the centerline of the track and the bridge support beyond which barriers are not required?
Paul D North's posting on the previous page has several links to pictures and one to a pdf - the text in the linked pdf has distances for which a crash barrier is required in he State of Montana, and note that barrier height depends on the spacing from the centerline..
matthewsaggie MC- is there a set distance between the centerline of the track and the bridge support beyond which barriers are not required?
AREMA Standard is 25 feet. (25 Ft. Rule above) .... some have the distance at 35-50 feet with speed and bridge type as contributing factors.
With the jillions of bridges over rail lines in this country my educated guess is that this is one that has not been retrofitted with the crash barriers. Time will tell if I am educated or not.
All you have to do is look at Google Earth (look at PDN's link)....
The fun will be watching MoDOT squirm in their regulatory shorts. I don't know a railroad field engineer or public works engineer that would not want the supports up-armored for new construction. (but they did not have final say in the matter -this incident will be cited for years to come)
mudchicken [snipped - PDN] . . . I wonder if the crossing frog got hurt in all of this? (spares just don't magically appear)...
mudchicken [snipped - PDN] . . . To this day, highway bridge designers complain ad-nausem about the added expense of the crash walls. . . .
The added expense of the crash walls is minimal - a few more cubic yards of concrete in a relatively simple formed shape, and a few thousand lbs. of rebar at most. In return, there are some substantial benefits:
If it were up to me, I wouldn't even go to the expense or complexity of using multiple individual columns in such an instance. Instead, I'd just pour a single massive wall with a simple rectangular form, and call it "Done !".
- Paul North. (Licensed/ Registered Professional Engineer [Civil] in Pennsylvania since 1982)
The local news reports say that MODOT is going to seek compensation to rebuild the bridge from the "railroad". Estimated cost $3 Million. No mention of MODOT responsibility that the current bridge wasn't hardened against a crash, or that the new one would be.
Some pictures of the clean-up are in this article:
James
The Butler Some pictures of the clean-up are in this article: Workers scramble to clean up after two trains collide
From the lead picture in the article - It appears that the Roadmaster did not have the old diamond hidden in the weeds.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.