Derailing accidents and the conditions of the roadbeds

[Anonymous]

Changing gears for a quick question (sorry). Amtrak is liable when the train hits the ground! Can Amtrak turn around and sue to re-coup losses if the cause of accident is deemed to be outside of Amtrak or the Frieght line. I.E. The manufacture of the car (bad car wheels) or the barge operator that hit the bridge? I'm sure Amtraks Insurance company is looking to re-coup from somebody.

[Anonymous]

So much for the good ol' days of Railroading when the only thing the Railroads care about now a days is the all mighty dollar than over SAFETY!

[PNWRMNM]

Ed and Mark

I think you would both agree that most main tracks are in better shape today than they have ever been. Track caused derailments are down over the last couple of decades by virtually every measure. Not perfect but has been getting better.

Mac

[edblysard]

Hi Guys,
One thing that sems to have been overlooked...the weak link concept.

I work for the PTRA, a terminal and switching railroad in Houston.
We are the end point for almost all freight into and out of the Port Of Houston, the 4th largest port in the US in terms of tonnage, and the Houston ship channel.

If you have the last issue of Trains magazine, look at the map of Houston, we are the guys in blue.

We receive, or yard, on average, a 100-120 car unit train(coke, grain, carbon black, plastic) every 4 hours, and several smaller, 50 to 100 car mixed freights per 8 hour shift.

Whether the train arrives at 90 mph, or 10 mph make no difference, it will be switched and classified, blocked and sent to the industry in the same amount of time.

The fact is, there is only so much space to park the train, and only a limited amount of space to switch them.

You could run intermodel from LA to Chicago at 100 mph. if you chose to and could afford the track maintainance, but the end result is, you still have to have some place for the train to go once it reaches Chicago.

For intermodel, it possible, due to the nature of the container and the way you unload it, but for boxcars, tanks and covered hoppers, well, someone has to take the inbound train apart, and block it out for its final destination.

And, once your tank car gets to it's final destination, you have to add in the turnaround time for it to be emptied or loaded, and then switched back into a outbound train to head back home.

Your per car dwell time at any terminus is the choke point on any railroad.

So, you could build a double track, 90 mph main across the west, but if this super road has no place to park the trains when they get to the terminus....

Keep in mind too, that "back in the day" when UP ran its City trains, and Santa Fe had bragging rights with the Super Chiefs, most railroads were scheduled railroads.

The local peddler freight left the yard at 1:00, every other day.

The big point to point trains left on a set schedule too.

There was a consistant number of cars, and a set number of trains your system had to handle in a day, and you could plan around that fact.

Every day was pretty much just like the day before, same number of inbounds, same number of train leaving.

And, when the railroad was the only way to ship things, we could "lose" your cars for a while if we needed to.

In todays market, if we lose your cars, we lose your business.

Period.

Today, everything that moves is almost always what would have been an "extra" train.

No schedule, other than as soon as its built, its is going to roll.

There is no 1:00 local...but there is 3 trains, each with 100 plus cars out on the same main, headed in the same direction.

For all the complaints, it should be pointed out that this year, we moved more "stuff" by rail than at any other point in railroading history.

We (the PTRA) have sometimes had to resort to a form of blackmail with the class1 roads..in that we refuse to accept any more of their inbounds, until they send a crew to pull outbounds.

Look at it like this...

You have a 3000 car capacity yard, with 400 cars inbound, and your yard is already full.

You have 1500 cars switched to go out to industries you serve, and 1500 cars blocked and classified, ready for the Class1s to pull out.

Where are you going to put the 400 inbounds?

Sound familar?

Sounds like the meltdown to me.

Add Amtrak into all of this...

Now, what Amtrak pays, say, UP, in user fees most likely dosn't cover the cost of the morning coffee service at all of their offices....but UP should build and maintain a 90mph track, and expedite Amtrak across the system?

Why?

There is a finite amount of cars all the yards will hold, getting the trains to them
at 90mph makes no difference, other than causing a parking problem.

Getting the trains to them at 25mph(which is a good average speed) works, it allows you enough time between trains to make room for the new inbounds.

Ed

[Anonymous]

A disclaimer of sorts: though I've been lurking for a while, this is the first time I've posted to this forum, since professional considerations prevent me from revealing my identity...and I'm loathe to post anonymously or with an alias. I will say that I've worked as both an agreement employee and as an officer in the engineering departments of several class 1 railroads.

I'm afraid I take umbrage to Mr. Chessking's statements. I will agree with Mr. Hemphill that RR engineering departments take their jobs seriously; it's inappropriate to make a blanket statement that the field employees (to wit: "...small numbers of track crews, signal men, etc...") are the only ones who care about their work whilst the "corporations" (which, perhaps incorrectly, I interpreted to be "management") remain blissfully ignorant, as Chessking seems to imply.

In simple terms, there's a limited amount of cash available at budget time. Each department makes its case for some of that cash. While we may think that the operating, engineering, and mechanical departments are the only ones to need some of that cash, there are actually many more stakeholders eyeing a comparitively small pile of money. Don't forget the marketing, administrative, IT, legal, finance, and procurement departments, to name a few. Oh yes, investors are also looking at that cash as a way to recoup their investment.

Even if the investors forfeited their share, there still wouldn't be enough money to bring the railroad network up to what I perceive to be your standards. Just how does one define "well maintained," anyway? (And, I can assure you that if the investors don't get some cash, the railroad will soon grind to a halt, long before the physical plant is made "perfect.")

But, to help elucidate the situation, suppose our favorite engineering department gets a 15% budget increase this year. Where to spend the money? More tie inserters? Tampers? What about ballast? What about saftey glasses and raingear for the men in the field? Just how much time will be available to work on the track, anyway? None of these would prevent the broken rail that resulted from a bad weld that was made five years ago, unless money had been spent on additional rail inspection at exactly the right time, and in the right place. So, spend some money on rail inspection and forgo some ditching. But what problems will that cause?

That said, many derailments are the result of a combination of factors: mechanical, engineering, and operating. The interaction between the many elements of the railroad, viewed as an engineering system, makes prediction of every single "incident" nearly impossible. I'm afraid that, after an incident does occur, hindsight often blurs an outsider's view of the complexity of the system.

I can tell you that careful modelling goes on to optimze the available resources. And the results from that modelling must also pass the "sniff test" from seasoned railroaders before resource allocation decisions are made. But the fact remains that, in the case of many track caused "incidents," unless we were to be granted clairvoyance, we wouldn't have been able to predict them. But we do our best.

The ride quality to which Chessking apparently refers ("smooth, trouble free ride") is important to only a small fraction of traffic. Coal, grain, paper rolls, coil steel, and automobiles tolerate rough track realtively well. Almost by definition, intermodal deals only with goods relatively insensitive to ride quality, or else the sensitive cargo is carefully paked in the trailer/container. The stuff that is intolerant of a rough ride goes solely by truck and thus can't be called intermodal (unless it comes off a ship). Long-distance Amtrak trains don't generally cover the expense of maintaining infrastructure to the standards required for relatively high speeds and a smooth ride. Indeed, ride quality is only one of many indicators of track condition. Since it's difficult and expensive information to accurately quantify, other metrics are generally used, and to much better effect.

Lastly, if memory serves, I believe a locomotive manufacturer in the northeast actually built a steam engine with octagonal (or some kind of polygonal)wheels in the late 1800s. I don't recall reading that the experiment was ever reproduced...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Now it's possible that CSX started from farther behind, but the claim is that the railroad was getting worse. I couldn't see the statistics supporting that claim. No evidence, no story.

CSX and NS inherited well maintained Conrail trackage. I haven't heard of many incidents occurring during Conrail's heydays. Now if you could, verse their statistics with CSX and NS (to date). Whatever happened afterwards with the degradation of these lines was the result of the corporations. Ok, I will no longer blame the small numbers of track crews, signal men, etc, any longer.

Does it need to be in caps for you to see??

[Anonymous]

I don't want to rock the boat here with anyone being that I'm new, but I do believe what was supposed to be bad news is probably no news at all (no disrespect). According to the FRA, there are track classes. If Amtrak is running on a freight line within the maximum allowable speeds for whatever class trackage and a section of it malfunctions below, well of course there will be a thorough NTSB investigation and the conclusion will ultimately have fingers pointing one way or the other who is faulted here. I am aware Amtrak's Accela Express (or however it's spelled) had problems with wheels (2000 issue Trains Magazine). Had a wheel or truck malfunctioned and been the result of a catastrophe, this is Amtrak property and so be it. But the origin of the tread stated rail problems. This stuff is common today because nobody gives a (no I won't say it) anymore about railroad maintenance. I got some info from www.csx-sucks.com

Maybe I'm blowing smoke here .. so feel free to rebuke this at a moment's notice. But with track conditions as they are today, it's like running hex wheels over a flat surface. "Enjoy the smooth, worry free ride."

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chessking

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

I think railroads found that the extra expense to have their trains go faster is not justified by the cargo they usually carry. If they spend 25% more on track maintenance but their revenue only goes up by 10%, was that a good decision?

If it saves lives, you bet ya! Just imagine the lawsuits involved with the railroad owner when passenger trains jump the track and people get injured or killed .. not to mention the track repairs and repairs to any other properties in the vicinity affected by the accident.

Save a little now, pay a lot later.

At what point do you say the track is in good enough shape? Railroads could spend 10 times the amount of money on maintenance that they do now. They would reduce derailments due to track but not eliminate them (unless they spent so much on maintanence they went under and now run no trains). Amtrak would not derail, because the tickets would be so expensive airlines would look like they were from the bargain basement. This may be a shock to people unfamilar with engineering, there is a certain amount of accidents that is acceptable, because they cannot be eliminated and trying to reduce them beyond a certain amount is cost prohibitive.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chessking

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

I think railroads found that the extra expense to have their trains go faster is not justified by the cargo they usually carry. If they spend 25% more on track maintenance but their revenue only goes up by 10%, was that a good decision?

If it saves lives, you bet ya! Just imagine the lawsuits involved with the railroad owner when passenger trains jump the track and people get injured or killed .. not to mention the track repairs and repairs to any other properties in the vicinity affected by the accident.

Save a little now, pay a lot later.

Got bad news for you chessking. When Amtrack goes on the ground, its Amtracks bill, not the freight railroad host. This does two things -- first, it limits the liability of the host and therefore lowers the track rental fee and also raises Amtracks operating costs ( liability for injury and probperty damage and repairs to track, track structure, birdges etc and repair to any rolling stock; and --- second, it all but eliminates court actions since the only party that can have a legal action filed upon it is Amtrack.

Given the above, it would seem strange for Amtrack to accept this situation, but the future cost of any derailment is built into the ticket price and it reduces costs relative to accident settlements to the point that the situation is a financial wash. On average, the situation balances.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp

I think railroads found that the extra expense to have their trains go faster is not justified by the cargo they usually carry. If they spend 25% more on track maintenance but their revenue only goes up by 10%, was that a good decision?

If it saves lives, you bet ya! Just imagine the lawsuits involved with the railroad owner when passenger trains jump the track and people get injured or killed .. not to mention the track repairs and repairs to any other properties in the vicinity affected by the accident.

Save a little now, pay a lot later.

[joesap1]

You guys make very good points. The railroad is being run like everything else in the US of A - cutthroat- strickly for the buck. Service, quality, and ride are gone. It really pains me when I see freight cars covered with grafitti, too.

[ericsp]

I think railroads found that the extra expense to have their trains go faster is not justified by the cargo they usually carry. If they spend 25% more on track maintenance but their revenue only goes up by 10%, was that a good decision?

[railman]

I feel your pain, joesap9. Riding Amtrak in 98' I encountered many of the same situations.

That said, the bread and butter of the railroad is freight. If the RR is most profitable running freight at 50 and there isn't demand for higher speeds outside of Amtrak, than no dice.

Secondly, you're right. Section gangs are gone. My great-grandfather worked as a section gang member for the GN way back. in west-central MN. As priorities changed, the miles they had to cover grew in junction with the new "defferred maitenence" policies of all the granger roads, until the track was down to 10, they were laid off and the line was abandoned.

I know. I hate to sound like I'm crashing the party. Read the past posts and you'll find I'm a huge defender of Amtrak, but the state of railroading today is just how it is, however sad, when the railroad can't do what it did.

Pretty ironic, isn't it, that in an industry that has prided and boasted of so much innovation over the past 50 years; SD90's, miles of welded rail and concrete ties; computer dispatching; etc., cannot go as fast as their forefathers on the same line.

We don't need super bullet trains- we just need to go back to a 1940's mindset on this- if a F-7 Milwaukee Road Hiawatha could clip 100mph between the Twin Cities and Chicago in 1939; it's pretty embarrassing for us to say "progress" is a 79 mph maximum speed limit.

[joesap1]

I asked this question on the TRAINS.com forum, but I believe it fits better here. Last Christmas I rode the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle to Fort Worth. There I finished my trip on the Heartland Express to Oklahoma City. On the way back home to California we were crossing Texas making good time at about 60 mph. But every once in a while we would cross a section of track that would cause the train to jerk violently. It would almost knock you down. A fellow passenger remarked that since the UP and the BNSF only have to transport freight at 55 mph maximum, they don't care that Amtrak can't move smoothly across the Western United States.
Back in the sixties I rode the City of Los Angeles from Upland, CA to North Platte, NE and in the open spaces the train pushed 90+ mph. No way can that happen today. With the unending reports of derailments everywhere, shouldn't the railroads begin to upgrade their roadbeds? My local Metrolink has concrete ties and welded rail on it's right-of-way and it can travel safe, fast, and smooth.
On person responding to my question said that in the past there were Sectionmen who maintained the tracks with pride. Now they are gone and the result is "crappy" track. Couldn't the railroads justify the expense with less accidents, less injuries and deaths, and quicker transport of their goods???????
Traveling by train is so much nicer than being crammed like a sardine in what they call modern airline transporation. This is not even mentioning the strip searches and the rifling of your luggage.