zugmann Murphy Siding What did the NTSB say? "Sir.. please stop calling us." ?
Murphy Siding What did the NTSB say?
"Sir.. please stop calling us." ?
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
EuclidWell maybe vehement is a little strong, but I was thinking of you and Mr. Hebdo. You both seemed to believe that there could be no other meaning to the mystery sentence. I have since spoken to the NTSB, and as of now, that has been inconclusive. But maybe they need a little time. If they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid4) The train was operating within its authority.
Just clarity, what "the train was operating in its authority" means is that the train had main track authority for the location at which it was operating, i.e. it wasn't off its route or someplace it wasn't authorized to go. If a train was authorized to go from Anna to Dora and the derailment happened at Bess, the train would have been operating in it authority. If a train was authorized from Anna to Dora and the derailment happened at Eve, then it would have been out of its authority.
In or out of authority has no bearing on what restrictions, if any, were in force or what speeds were authorized, it just says the train was where it was supposed to be.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
EuclidIf they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
Maybe because it's a potential consideration in the investigation? That was a preliminary report, after all. As such, it's going to cast a wide net, especially if they haven't nailed down a "chief suspect."
Perhaps the intention of the statement was to indicate that washouts (or potential washouts) had been observed in the area, so that's a consideration in the investigation.
As the investigation progresses, the investigators will be ruling out potential causes, from broken rails to broken equipment, to a failed roadbed, to who-knows-what. Maybe they've already ruled a lot of things out. We'll get our answer when the final report comes out.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy Siding Euclid When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure. I dunno. Unless you are using completely different meanings for the words written than the rest of us, I don't see any post that vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site.
Euclid When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure.
I dunno. Unless you are using completely different meanings for the words written than the rest of us, I don't see any post that vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site.
Well maybe vehement is a little strong, but I was thinking of you and Mr. Hebdo. You both seemed to believe that there could be no other meaning to the mystery sentence. I have since spoken to the NTSB, and as of now, that has been inconclusive. But maybe they need a little time. If they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
EuclidWhen reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure.
dehusman Of course if its truly a washout, where the track structure was compromised by erosion, then that whole "liquifaction" scenario becomes pretty much moot.
Of course if its truly a washout, where the track structure was compromised by erosion, then that whole "liquifaction" scenario becomes pretty much moot.
When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure. Then I saw that the news media seemed to widely assume that the report meant that the track had been washed out at the derailment site. So I decided to adopt that position.
But now, I see that the news stories have backed off on interpreting the NTSB report as stating that the washout was at the derailment site. Instead, they just quote the NTSB report directly. This tells me that like my original position on this, they don’t know what the NTSB report mystery sentence means. So I too have reverted back to my original position. That is that the report says that the rain washed out track, but it does not say where that occurred.
Also, BNSF spokesman Andy Williams is quoted responding to a question about whether the engineer knew about the washout or should have knowing about it. Mr. Williams had no answer. I have not seen a transcript of that interview, so I do not know if Mr. Williams acknowledged that there had been a washout as the question to him implies.
Taken all together, I see no reason to believe that a washout occurred at the derailment site. There is no evidence of that.
EuclidDid they see the washout after the derailment? Is it still there or has it been repaired? Did they take photographs of it?
A wash out occurs when flowing water "washes out" the ballast and subgrade material from under the track. Its pretty easy to find once the water goes down. If the ballast and subgrade material is 30 or 40 feet out into the field, that's a wash out.
EuclidOr was the washout visible to the crew as they passed into the area where the derailment would occur? If so, did the crew report feeling any track problem when they ran over the washout? Or did the crew feel a track anomaly as they passed over the area where the derailment would occur, but not see any evidence of a problem?
There is no public report of the crew saying there was a problem or reporting anything to the dispatcher. Not saying whether there was or wasn't just there hasn't been a report. The crew may not have seen the washout, the crew may not have felt the washout if it gave way after the engines passed. Once again we don't have that info.
Euclid They told us lots of facts about the train. Why not tell us about how they found the washout and where they found it? Is that asking too much?
Why should they? What difference will it make if they report this afternoon or 6 months from now?
tree68 Euclid I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question. Charlie - you should know by now that the only opinions that count here are Bucky's. All other opinions are "unsubstantiated claims."
Euclid I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question.
I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question.
Charlie - you should know by now that the only opinions that count here are Bucky's.
All other opinions are "unsubstantiated claims."
I don't give a fig about this silly, ongoing kid's game between Bucky and several other members. When he or anyone else makes what I think is a useful observation, I take note. Otherwise the back nd forth sniping reminds me of junior high school games. Boring and childish.
cx500 Not to mention that the "washout" at an unspecified location somewhere in the general area may have been more in the nature of some embankment erosion that did not affect the actual track. We just don't know. Detailed speculation based on ignorance is a foolish waste of time, especially when carried to the extreme we have seen here.
Not to mention that the "washout" at an unspecified location somewhere in the general area may have been more in the nature of some embankment erosion that did not affect the actual track. We just don't know. Detailed speculation based on ignorance is a foolish waste of time, especially when carried to the extreme we have seen here.
True. However, it seems obvious to me that neither the NTSB preliminary report nor the BNSF spokesperson would mention a track washout somewhere else, since that would be irrelevant to this derailment.
tree68 Euclid I have only said what might have happened. And you do so repeatedly (make the same assertions) - perhaps you're hoping if you say it enough times it'll stick?. If someone dares offer a different opinion, they are characterized as attacking you... Euclid You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree. In general, there's only one person most folks have disagreed with. And if they do so, they are characterized as attacking that person. And not just in this thread. See a pattern here?
Euclid I have only said what might have happened.
And you do so repeatedly (make the same assertions) - perhaps you're hoping if you say it enough times it'll stick?. If someone dares offer a different opinion, they are characterized as attacking you...
Euclid You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree.
In general, there's only one person most folks have disagreed with. And if they do so, they are characterized as attacking that person. And not just in this thread.
See a pattern here?
You might take a look at that exchange I had with Balt above since that is what you are quoting in your reply to me above. The comments by me that you quoted above have a context of specifically replying to Balt. They are not just my generalizations as you attempt to portray them in your post above.
EuclidI have only said what might have happened.
BaltACD Euclid Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup. Terex - Bovine droppings - wait for the full NTSB report. You have NO IDEA what the crew saw or felt or not.
Euclid Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
Terex - Bovine droppings - wait for the full NTSB report. You have NO IDEA what the crew saw or felt or not.
On the previous page, you said this:
The NTSB report stated that the first inkling that the crew had was when an emergency brake application was initiated by the train, thus the incident DID NOT derail the engines and the crew did not SEE a wash out in fact or in progress as they passed the point of derailment at 48 MPH in 49 MPH territory.
The report says this: "The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application."
It says nothing about whether the crew saw or felt anything that might have been related to the "washed out track." It does not say that the UDE was the "first inkling" (as you say) that foretold of a possible washout.
I have only said what might have happened. I never said it did happen. You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree.
EuclidJust to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
Note that the NTSB information only refers to a UDE occurring. There is no indication that the UDE was the first or only indication of an anomaly that the crew experienced. Therefore, the possibility that the crew saw and/or felt a washout may explain why the NTSB may be asserting that there was a washout, even without any other observation of a washout after the derailment.
Often, a washout will be very large, and will derail the train as the head end encounters it. It will leave obvious evidence of what happened. There may be a miniature Grand Canyon with several locomotives and freight cars heaped up in the bottom of the canyon. And the canyon is obviously new and as apparent as the 600-pound gorilla, and so it is obvious that the canyon is a washout that caused the wreck.
But at Doon, a washout had to be relatively tiny for the two locomotives and several loaded cars to make it past without derailing. And this would have been with the roadbed already saturated and presumably somewhat softened. This washout may have only been a foot wide and a foot deep with some loss of support under two or three ties. A standing fill is easier to plow up than a roadbed not on a fill. So a tiny washout that may have caused the derailment would have easily been totally obliterated as the loaded tank cars demolished the track and plowed up the ballast and probably several feet of the fill elevation. So tiny washout + big earthwork disruption = 100% obliteration of washout form.
This is my basis for suggesting that the washout may only be presumed by the NTSB and not actually seen by anybody after the derailment. The only evidence for a washout may be that the crew saw or felt something seconds before their train piled up behind them.
tree68As it was, the head end of the train was probably enough to set the fluidized roadbed into motion and it fell away. Combine that with what washout may have occurred before the arrival of the train and you have the recipe for the disaster. And, the washout likely continued after the derailment. That would make determining the scope of the washout at the time of the derailment difficult at best. The roadbed was/is on a raised berm. It's unlikely a derailment would have caused the damage to the roadbed that a washout would cause. It will be interesting to see the pictures that will probably be included with the final report.
Combine that with what washout may have occurred before the arrival of the train and you have the recipe for the disaster.
And, the washout likely continued after the derailment. That would make determining the scope of the washout at the time of the derailment difficult at best.
The roadbed was/is on a raised berm. It's unlikely a derailment would have caused the damage to the roadbed that a washout would cause.
It will be interesting to see the pictures that will probably be included with the final report.
In watching the Drone pictures again - I did not see any obvious indication of a 'washout' at least not to the point of seeing 'missing segments of roadway'. The massed accordian of derailed cars may have obscured such a washout, however, all the accordian of cars seemed to be at top level of the embankment the train was operating on. At the time the drone made it's pass over the scene the water level 'seemed' to be at the bottome of the embankment - of course the flight of the drone was a number of hours after the incident happened.
I am not saying that water did not have some causative effect - but whatever effect it had was not visible within the range of the headlight at 0430 by the crew of the train.
Ah - so you do accept that what I've suggested is amongst the possibilities. That's all I intended.
I bring up the UDE because the way that the information has been presented so far there is every indication that the crew saw nothing, felt nothing, and had no reason to suspect a problem until the UDE occurred. Of course the air is going to dump as the result of the derailment. The point is that the air was not dumped intentionally before the derailment.
Consider that the washout was a likely a dynamic event, occurring even as the train passed. This is why I mention the suspension of the roadbed in the high water. If no train had passed, I suspect the water would have receded and no one would have been the wiser.
As it was, the head end of the train was probably enough to set the fluidized roadbed into motion and it fell away.
tree68 Euclid I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken. Have you ever seen a washout on a railroad? They're usually pretty obvious. Yes, I have seen washouts on a railroad. But the question remains - who is the "someone" you refer to? The track foreman? The roadmaster? The railroad cab driver? The pizza delivery guy? Knowing who you are referring to will make answering your question a lot easier. One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application. Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there. There is no doubt in my mind that many pictures were taken of any track problems during the clean-up, and the track foreman can tell you exactly how many tons of material he used to fix the problem. I suspect my conjecture on the taking of pictures is a lot more accurate than your conjecture that none were taken...
Euclid I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken.
Have you ever seen a washout on a railroad? They're usually pretty obvious. Yes, I have seen washouts on a railroad.
But the question remains - who is the "someone" you refer to? The track foreman? The roadmaster? The railroad cab driver? The pizza delivery guy? Knowing who you are referring to will make answering your question a lot easier.
One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report:
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application.
Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there.
There is no doubt in my mind that many pictures were taken of any track problems during the clean-up, and the track foreman can tell you exactly how many tons of material he used to fix the problem. I suspect my conjecture on the taking of pictures is a lot more accurate than your conjecture that none were taken...
Yes washouts are typically very obvious. I have seen washouts on roads and railroads. But I did not say washouts are not obvious. I said that it is not obvious that anyone saw a washout. If a washout derailed the train, I suspect the washout may have disappeard in the process of the derailment. So, maybe the derailment was cleared up and track rebuilt without anyone seeing a washout after the derailment.
Or maybe the crew saw the washout before running over it, and we are left only with their report because the derailent obliterated the washout. Or maybe the crew reported feeling some sort of track irregualrity, and then derailed. Maybe this was then assumed to have been a washout.
I suspect pictures were taken of much of the derailment repair. But I never offered conjecture that no such pictures were taken. You are twisting my words. What I said was that I was not sure that any pictures were taken of the washout. That is not conjecture asserting that no pictures were taken of the wreck clean up process, as you say I have done.
The reason I am not sure if pictures were taken of the washout is that it may have been obliterated by the derailment. When I look at 33 tank cars jacknifed in the muck, I think it would be hard to find a distinct feature that could be identified as a washout, especially when you consider that this alleged washout was not big enough to derail the head end of the train.
I am not sure why you bring up the UDE in relation to anything I have said. I would expect that the train dumped the air as the derailment began. I did mention the possibility of the crew either seeing the washout, or feeling it, or both. I mention all of these details only as possibilities. I would not call them conjecture, since I am not asserting them to be true as an opinion. When you say there is no doubt in your mind regarding your unproven opinion, I would call that conjecture.
One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application. Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there.
tree68 Sheesh. We ALL want more information. When the investigation is complete, I'm sure the information you are looking for will be there. Or maybe not. They may not have plotted the exact limits of the washout using GPS, so that location may not be provided to your satisfaction. Some of your questions have already been answered. The crew's first indication of a problem was the UDE. That's in the initial report. Who is "they?" Obviously someone saw a washout, because it's been reported that there was one, and because it had to be repaired to restore traffic. It was reported here earlier that traffic has been resumed on the line. Common sense would tell most people that any damage to the track structure had therefore been repaired. I'm sure many pictures were taken - they'll probably be part of the final report. So - patience! I know it's rude of them to tempt you with tidbits of information, but the full report will be forthcoming at some point in the future. Then you can find the shortcomings in that report and complain about them here.
Sheesh. We ALL want more information.
When the investigation is complete, I'm sure the information you are looking for will be there. Or maybe not. They may not have plotted the exact limits of the washout using GPS, so that location may not be provided to your satisfaction.
Some of your questions have already been answered. The crew's first indication of a problem was the UDE. That's in the initial report.
Who is "they?" Obviously someone saw a washout, because it's been reported that there was one, and because it had to be repaired to restore traffic.
It was reported here earlier that traffic has been resumed on the line. Common sense would tell most people that any damage to the track structure had therefore been repaired.
I'm sure many pictures were taken - they'll probably be part of the final report.
So - patience! I know it's rude of them to tempt you with tidbits of information, but the full report will be forthcoming at some point in the future. Then you can find the shortcomings in that report and complain about them here.
I only have two questions. You seem to be going out of your way to make it seem like I am asking for too much. Then you attempt to answer my two questions with complete conjecture on your part. I don't want to rely on my conjecture or that of anyone else. I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken. We don’t know where the washout was or if it had anything to do with the derailment. Sure I will wait for the final report. I only stated the questions for anyone here to consider if they wish to do so. I did not ask for a condescending lecture.
BaltACDWhenever knowledge of a office inspection or Officers Inspection trip was obtained the first thing Division Officials would do was review Train Messages and order 'look out' type orders be annulled.
I always thought Amtrak and CSAO had a better system. They have the monthly or weekly bulletins for all the more generic stuff, then a one or 2 page daily for temporary speed restrictions and the like. Kept the important information very plain and easy to see.
DeggestyThanks, Jeff. I should have asked my trainman friends on the AGS about it back then It's a little late now to ask them; I doubt that any of them is still living. I certainly did not recognize any whom I saw between Birmingham and Meridian this past spring. As I remember, there were more notices about bad footing between Chattanooga and Birmingham than there were sout of Birmingham.
As I remember, there were more notices about bad footing between Chattanooga and Birmingham than there were sout of Birmingham.
CSX took a dim view of putting such information out on Train Orders or Train Messages - the tendancy for such orders, once put out is to never be annulled, long after the condition has been corrected. That is not to say that they didn't get put our from time to time, but the preferred method of issuing such information was on 'Superintendent's Notices' - which operating employees are also required to read and have available for ready reference. It is very easy to CLUTTER up Train Mssages with items that don't pertain directly to the safe operation of a train through the territory.
Whenever knowledge of a office inspection or Officers Inspection trip was obtained the first thing Division Officials would do was review Train Messages and order 'look out' type orders be annulled.
Thanks, Jeff. I should have asked my trainman friends on the AGS about it back then It's a little late now to ask them; I doubt that any of them is still living. I certainly did not recognize any whom I saw between Birmingham and Meridian this past spring.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.