VOLKER LANDWEHRIf there weren't high water information/warnings at the railroad, something went wrong I think.
Indeed. Someone dropped the ball.
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 SidingDidn't I read that the NTSB wasn't even going to do an official investigation? What does that tell you?
It tells me that NTSB has more than a fair workload already and that there were no fire, explosion, and most important no injuries or fatilities.
Murphy Siding The responses by several on here sound like Chicken Little. "There may be icebergs somewhere in the Atlantic. Every ship should slow to a crawl-just in case".
If there weren't high water information/warnings at the railroad, something went wrong I think. So it was not somewhere in the Atlantic.
Which was the safe way to go in such a case or were there standard procedures? I don't know.Regards, Volker
You would almost think that the derailment never happened. Just a typical trip like the thousands preceding it. Can't see the water because the headlight is not big enough. And how high is high anyway? It sounds like the 600-pound gorilla is being met with 600 pounds of denial.
Norris, I have the impression someone wants to acquire equine leather.
Johnny
charlie hebdoThe responses by many on here sound like the captain of the Titantic discussing weather and sea ice conditions that fateful night. "Icebergs? Damn the icebergs! Full speed ahead!!"
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Well, they were looking, even if the lookouts didn't have binoculars to do so with...
The difference in opinion here seems to have to do with a definition of high water, etc.
And it sounds more like those memes wherein snow is forecast in the south and the stores have their shelves emptied, while in the north, people might slow down a little if they can't see past their hood ornaments.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued. Nobody has said the railroad does stop just because flash flood warnings are issued. I only mentioned flash flood warnings to dispell the myth that flooding was not anticipated because the company had not been informed by anyone. That has been you contention - water = stop No that has not been my contention. NEVER have I said that. Show me where I have contened that. You can't. What that is and has been all along is someone else's silly exaggeration of what I have suggested that rule 6.21 requires.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD The railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued. Nobody has said the railroad does stop just because flash flood warnings are issued. I only mentioned flash flood warnings to dispell the myth that flooding was not anticipated because the company had not been informed by anyone. That has been you contention - water = stop
Euclid BaltACD The railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued. Nobody has said the railroad does stop just because flash flood warnings are issued. I only mentioned flash flood warnings to dispell the myth that flooding was not anticipated because the company had not been informed by anyone.
BaltACD The railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued.
Nobody has said the railroad does stop just because flash flood warnings are issued. I only mentioned flash flood warnings to dispell the myth that flooding was not anticipated because the company had not been informed by anyone.
That has been you contention - water = stop
No that has not been my contention. NEVER have I said that. Show me where I have contened that. You can't. What that is and has been all along is someone else's silly exaggeration of what I have suggested that rule 6.21 requires.
The responses by many on here sound like the captain of the Titantic discussing weather and sea ice conditions that fateful night.
"Icebergs? Damn the icebergs! Full speed ahead!!"
Or, the crew might have said "Water, shwater. Let's get home for breakfast!
EuclidHow do you know that to be a fact?
Neither of us know it to be a fact, or not.
Based on the sheriff's video, they probably did see water.
But that brings us back to the question "how high is too high?" What is unusual for that location?
Apparently the railroad did not feel it was too high, or they would have issued a bulletin to that effect.
And the crew may have seen similar situations in that spot in the past and given it no further thought because there had never been a problem there before.
The four foot spike, and a tidbit I noticed in the video are telling. One part of the video showed the oil slick going the wrong way through a culvert, perhaps an indication that the major flow in that area during the spike was the reverse of normal, and the embankment may not have been built to withstand that reversed flow.
tree68How do we know this crew was operating in a rain storm? Maybe they were running under starry skies.
Maybe there was not a rain storm at the time. So what? The rule gives three altertives that call for slowing to be prepared to stop. It does not require all three alternatives to be present. It only requres one of the three, and one of the three is high water.
tree68Unless the dispatcher told the crew there was a potential problem, they did not know there was a potential problem. Unless they are amateur meteorologists. They went to work when called, read the appropriate bulletins, got on the train, and away they went.
How do you know that to be a fact? You don't know that the crew did not see the high water or see it in time to slow down. If the water was as high as it appears to be the morning after the derailment, I would bet that the crew saw it clearly with the headlight illumination.
EuclidThe sign you mention is in the rulebook just as you descibe it: GCOR Part of rule 6.21 In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement. ****************************************************
How do we know this crew was operating in a rain storm? Maybe they were running under starry skies.
The rain that caused the rapid rise of the Rock River (and it's tributary, the Little Rock River probably fell as much as a day before the incident.
Further, the water was already high - then it rose some four feet in 12 hours (and just as quickly fell that same four feet). Even BNSF's weather contractor may not have seen that coming.
Unless the dispatcher told the crew there was a potential problem, they did not know there was a potential problem. Unless they are amateur meteorologists. They went to work when called, read the appropriate bulletins, got on the train, and away they went.
As I mentioned before, it was oh-dark thirty. What they could see was limited by the range of vision provided by their headlights. One minute they were looking at dry fields, the next they were surrounded by water.
Euclid I would hate to have you running an OTR dispatch center. Your the kind of REMF that is more worried about covering his BUTT than making sure the customers get serviced. In the Logistics Industry which Railroads play a HUGE part of it the Crew on the SCENE is the person in charge they use their OWN Judgement as to wheter or not something is safe to do. If they are wrong you clean up the mess that happened and learn what they did wrong. We have the same crap happen in the OTR industry all the time when it comes to High winds rain snow ice and other condtions. Guess what we do where I am at we tell the drivers it is their decsion wheter to run or not in the bad weather they make the call and we back them up if they do have a problem due to weather. My boss has gone to bat against his insurance company wanting to get rid of a driver for laying a truck over. In the drivers defense he got hit by a freak storm 100 mph side winds that no one predicted and he is still with us. We even ruled the accident non preventable.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued.
Murphy Siding dehusman Invoking this rule boils down to what is considered "potentially hazardous". By your interpretation, you are defining it as anyplace that has standing water within 2 or 3 feet from the track and requiring the crew to know where these locations are 1-2 miles before they get to them (because those are the conditions that the crew would have observed when they got to the location and how far away they would have had to take action to be at whatever speed you see to think they should have been operating). The railroad is considering "potentially hazardous" differently. Under your interpretation the midwest rail network would have been shut down someplace, sometime for most of the last couple weeks, because its summer and there are thunderstorms with flash flood warnings every day or two someplace in the upper midwest. In addition, the topography in that area doesn't have any raging rivers and cascading streams. It's not like Niagra Falls suddenly menacing the rail line. It's more like your basement backing up with water when the sump pump can't keep up. With no history of problems with washouts and landslides on the line in the past 100+ years, it's hard to believe that somehow changed overnight.
dehusman Invoking this rule boils down to what is considered "potentially hazardous". By your interpretation, you are defining it as anyplace that has standing water within 2 or 3 feet from the track and requiring the crew to know where these locations are 1-2 miles before they get to them (because those are the conditions that the crew would have observed when they got to the location and how far away they would have had to take action to be at whatever speed you see to think they should have been operating). The railroad is considering "potentially hazardous" differently. Under your interpretation the midwest rail network would have been shut down someplace, sometime for most of the last couple weeks, because its summer and there are thunderstorms with flash flood warnings every day or two someplace in the upper midwest.
In addition, the topography in that area doesn't have any raging rivers and cascading streams. It's not like Niagra Falls suddenly menacing the rail line. It's more like your basement backing up with water when the sump pump can't keep up. With no history of problems with washouts and landslides on the line in the past 100+ years, it's hard to believe that somehow changed overnight.
Ellicott City, MD over the years has had flooding issues from the Patapsco River, which the B&O Railroad followed from Baltimore to near Mount Airy, MD.
Two times within the past two years the downtown area along Main Street has been effectively destroyed by flash flooding - and guess what - the Patapsco River did not cause the flooding. The development that has taken place in Howard County at elevations higher than Ellicott City have effectively made the overflow water drainage route Main Street.
I live 10 miles from Ellicott City. During the original flooding incident, we barely got any rain. In the most recent flooding incident the storm cell was larger and did washout a segment of River Road that caused road crews to shut the road for about a month while they installed a new and larger culvert for run off to reach the river. The Patapsco River did not get to flood stage in either of these incidents. The Old Main Line Sub which occupies the opposite bank of the river from River Road did not experience any damage beyond a couple of trees down.
Can't speak to current CSX procedure, when I was working - When Flash Flood Warnings are issued MofW and Operations are notified at the same time by the contract weather service that CSX uses. Dispatchers notify trains that will operate in the affected territory of the flood warnings. MofW calls out Track Inspectors to patrol the affected area. Track inspectors communicate their findings to the Train Dispatcher - the Track Inspectors will continually patrol the track until the expiration time of the Flast Flood Warning. Track Inspectors will communicate any conditions they find and what if any operating restrictions need to be place on trains. The railroad DOES NOT STOP just because Flash Flood Warnings are issued. It WILL STOP if the Track Inspectors find conditions that warrant it.
dehusmanInvoking this rule boils down to what is considered "potentially hazardous". By your interpretation, you are defining it as anyplace that has standing water within 2 or 3 feet from the track and requiring the crew to know where these locations are 1-2 miles before they get to them (because those are the conditions that the crew would have observed when they got to the location and how far away they would have had to take action to be at whatever speed you see to think they should have been operating). The railroad is considering "potentially hazardous" differently. Under your interpretation the midwest rail network would have been shut down someplace, sometime for most of the last couple weeks, because its summer and there are thunderstorms with flash flood warnings every day or two someplace in the upper midwest.
dehusman Euclid In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement. Invoking this rule boils down to what is considered "potentially hazardous".
Euclid In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement.
Invoking this rule boils down to what is considered "potentially hazardous".
Water submerging a ten-foot-high fill up to the bottom of the ballast is potentially hazardous. High water alone is potentially hazardous. The rule says so.
EuclidIn unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement.
By your interpretation, you are defining it as anyplace that has standing water within 2 or 3 feet from the track and requiring the crew to know where these locations are 1-2 miles before they get to them (because those are the conditions that the crew would have observed when they got to the location and how far away they would have had to take action to be at whatever speed you see to think they should have been operating).
The railroad is considering "potentially hazardous" differently. Under your interpretation the midwest rail network would have been shut down someplace, sometime for most of the last couple weeks, because its summer and there are thunderstorms with flash flood warnings every day or two someplace in the upper midwest.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Murphy SidingIt looks to me like the train crew in question would have seen high water, trees,black dirt and corn everywhere they looked. Coming through at night, I would think everything not illuminated by the headlights would blend together into one dark landscape.Nowhere along the line did I see any signs that said "Caution- rain may have caused 100 year old railroad bed to suddenly turn to silly putty after all these years of use. You better creep along at 10 m.p.h. just in case".
GCOR
Part of rule 6.21
In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement. ****************************************************
dehusmanThere are systems on some engines right now that provide limited near real time track geometry data, but it is no where near sophisticated enough to forecast a subgrade failure like this and the number of engines equipped is a relatively small fleet.
zugmann Murphy Siding Nowhere along the line did I see any signs that said "Caution- rain may have caused 100 year old railroad bed to suddenly turn to silly putty after all these years of use. You better creep along at 10 m.p.h. just in case". Maybe it floated away?
Murphy Siding Nowhere along the line did I see any signs that said "Caution- rain may have caused 100 year old railroad bed to suddenly turn to silly putty after all these years of use. You better creep along at 10 m.p.h. just in case".
Maybe it floated away?
Dave,
It is really quite simple.
There is no way to predict or detect liquefaction. The best you can do if liquefaction is possible is to slow down so any derailment does minor damage. The best indicator of possible liquefaction is high water along the track. The water does not have to be over the tops of the rails in order to produce liquefaction.
Notice that it does not require anyone to know about a problem as a condition of complying with the instructions to be prepared to stop. All it requires is to see high water. Notice that it does not require the water to be over the tops of the rails.
Actually, the rule does not even require the water to unusually high. It only refers to unusually heavy rain. For the water to trigger a need for compliance with the rule, all the water needs to be is high.
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
I drove down to Doon Friday after work to see how close I could get to the cleanup sight. The answer is not very. What I could see coming in from the north is that there is standing water everywhere. There is also mudand collections of corn stalks to mark where the water had been quite higher in the fields. The area, like most all of Iowa, is rolling hills. The rail lines run near creeks, ponds and rivers constantly. It looks to me like the train crew in question would have seen high water, trees,black dirt and corn everywhere they looked. Coming through at night, I would think everything not illuminated by the headlights would blend together into one dark landscape. Nowhere along the line did I see any signs that said "Caution- rain may have caused 100 year old railroad bed to suddenly turn to silly putty after all these years of use. You better creep along at 10 m.p.h. just in case".
tree68 Euclid [So yes, if] nobody was aware of the weather service warnings (if there were any) no other train had seen it rising previous to the train that had derailed—if all that is so, there was no way to take defensive action in operating the train through the flood zone. The company simply did not know of the risk and so it was an Act of God. That pretty much sums it up.
Euclid [So yes, if] nobody was aware of the weather service warnings (if there were any) no other train had seen it rising previous to the train that had derailed—if all that is so, there was no way to take defensive action in operating the train through the flood zone. The company simply did not know of the risk and so it was an Act of God.
That pretty much sums it up.
What you quoted from me is just my hypothetical set of conditions for the hypothetical premise that nobody had any way to know about the high water. I am not stating those conditions as fact because I don’t know if they are facts. I have not jumped to any conclusions.
But you seem to have selected my quotes to make it sound like I have stated those hypothetical conditions as true fact. So, in red text, I added back in the part that changes the quote back to what I actually said.
You and several others have been warning that it is unfair to jump to any conclusions without knowing all the facts. And yet you are perfectly willing to jump to the conclusion that nobody associated with the railroad was aware of the flood hazard along the railroad at Doon.
Euclid Nobody knows years ahead of time when floods will occur, but imminent floods are almost always predicted based on predictions of, or actual occurrence of heavy rain.
Very true, the problem is your faith in the ability of the weather services to predict things greatly exceeds their ability to pinpoint a risk in real time.
The hindsight premise is that nobody could have known about the risk of derailing if high water posed that threat.
And that is the crux of your arguement. The problem is what threat was. As far as has been reported and from the pictures taken within a couple hours of the incident, it does not appear that there was water over the tracks. The railroad DID NOT FLOOD. It remained above water the entire time.
There is absolutely NO weather service that alerts on the possibility of subsidence. NONE. ZERO. ZIPPO. Not the US weather service, not any contract service. There is limited ability to forecast flash floods and high water, that's about it.
Forecasting water levels is waaaaaaaay more art than science. Water could rise 1 ft at one point in a stream, only 6" a mile away and 4 feet a mile from that. The water level depends on the cross section of the area you are measuring and flow rates above and below the area. Change something and the water levels change. If one tree falls over and gets jammed in a bridge or culvert under a county road a mile from the railroad tracks it could cause the water to rise unexpectedly around the railroad tracks. There is NO software on the planet sophisticated enough to figure that out. Several universities have research projects working on it , but there isn't anything deployed.
I just went through a big rain here about two weeks ago. We got 5-7” of rain in just an hour or two. Several hours prior, there was a big weather alert bulletin by the National Weather Service.
The NWS alerts on a county wide basis. Railroads generally do not directly follow NWS alerts because they are so broad and generic that they aren't useful for protecting specific areas.
It warned of everything that actually happened such as flash floods. It advised no travel. A few hours later, the rain came and washed out and caused closure of 85 roads in this area.
In cities, it took out lots of city streets, heavily damaged several houses and cars, tore out a lot of sewer and water mains, and washed out lots of residential landscape. Nobody could have stopped it, but we all knew it was coming, and so most people took precautions.
The question is, did they alert those specific cities and the specific roads and the specific areas on the roads? Did the NWS say there is a flash flood warning for Douglas county, or did the the NWS say in Douglas County 144 St will flood between mp 45 and 46, Blondo St will flood between 69th St and 71st St, the 800 block of the Deer Creek Subdivision on 124th St will flood? The answer, of course is that they weren't specific, they just said you were going to get heavy rains and SOMEPLACE in the county it COULD flood. There were heavy rains and SOMEPLACE in the county it flooded.
Railroad weather services are more specific, they forecast threats to the railroad, not the county and most will tailor threats to specific subdivisions and mile posts. So what was the threat to the railroad. Remember the RAILROAD did NOT flood. It does not appear to have been under water, it was not reported to have been underwater at the time of the incident and from the pictures was several feet above water. They had heavy rains over a several hundred square mile area covering 2 or 3 states for several days. NO weather service tries to forecast subgrade failures. It doesn't appear it was raining at the time of the incident. How would the weather service know the water level at the area where the incident occurred? It was not at a bridge over a major watercourse. Its not a navigable waterway. There isn't a water guage there. Even if there was a water guage there, it would have reported that the water level was well below the track level. The roads in your area were shut down because there was water OVER the road. How many roads in your area were shut down because the water was 2 ft below the road? My guess : ZERO.
The problem is that the probable cause, subgrade failure is not easily detectible. Even patrolling ahead of the oil train would not have revealed anything.
We don't have the sophistication to measure or detect those types of failures Maybe in some future state there will be sensors on the engines that will measure the track's reaction to loading and be able to identify areas that are getting soft (the problem would have been detected by the train or trains ahead of the oil train). There are systems on some engines right now that provide limited near real time track geometry data, but it is no where near sophisticated enough to forecast a subgrade failure like this and the number of engines equipped is a relatively small fleet.
Deggesty charlie hebdo greyhounds zugmann No doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?) Since you used the plural "radars" I believe it should be "I wish there were". But I ain't no English teacher. The correct grammar is "I wish there were" third person, subjunctuve. The radars have nothing to do with it. Right on, Charlie. The subjunctive is used when you refer to a conditon contrary to fact (that's what I was taught in grammar school several years back).
charlie hebdo greyhounds zugmann No doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?) Since you used the plural "radars" I believe it should be "I wish there were". But I ain't no English teacher. The correct grammar is "I wish there were" third person, subjunctuve. The radars have nothing to do with it.
greyhounds zugmann No doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?) Since you used the plural "radars" I believe it should be "I wish there were". But I ain't no English teacher.
zugmann No doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?)
Since you used the plural "radars" I believe it should be "I wish there were". But I ain't no English teacher.
The correct grammar is "I wish there were" third person, subjunctuve. The radars have nothing to do with it.
Right on, Charlie. The subjunctive is used when you refer to a conditon contrary to fact (that's what I was taught in grammar school several years back).
That's the way I remember being taught, but I never did like it. I wish that WAS not the case.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
DeggestyRight on, Charlie. The subjunctive is used when you refer to a conditon contrary to fact (that's what I was taught in grammar school several years back).
Thanks. Grammar isn't my strongest suit.
EuclidSo yes, if nobody on the train saw the unusually high water,
And this is very likely - the crew probably didn't see high water until they were at the Little Rock River.
Euclid nobody else had seen it,
Euclid nobody checked for it based on reports of heavy rain,
Euclidnobody was aware of the weather service warnings (if there were any) no other train had seen it rising previous to the train that had derailed—if all that is so, there was no way to take defensive action in operating the train through the flood zone. The company simply did not know of the risk and so it was an Act of God.
For your localized storm -
Euclid... Nobody could have stopped it, but we all knew it was coming, and so most people took precautions.
It's important to note that you're talking about a localized event - the heavy rain overwhelmed the available drainage - the question that applies to this discussion, is - where was all that water 12, or even 24 hours later.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.