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.
Johnny
zugmann I guess if you're running next to a predicatable water source that you can see, maybe? Otherwise, someone needs to tell somebody. We're really getting into this hindsight business.
We're really getting into this hindsight business.
I am not sure what you mean by “predictable water source.” 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.
The hindsight premise is that nobody could have known about the risk of derailing if high water posed that threat. And so it could only have been discovered to have been a risk after the derailment happened. So in hindsight, there is 20/20 vision so to speak.
So yes, if nobody on the train saw the unusually high water, nobody else had seen it, nobody checked for it based on reports of heavy rain, 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.
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. 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.
zugmannNo doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?)
EuclidWell fortunately there is a speedometer on the engine and liquefaction only happens during unusually high water which usually only happens when large amounts of rain are predicted.
I guess if you're running next to a predicatable water source that you can see, maybe? Otherwise, someone needs to tell somebody.
WE had a storm locally last month. Got 6" of rain in a span of 4 hours. There were cars stuck on flooded roads that don't flood unless there's a hurricane. But it was an exteremley local event. If the water suddenly washed out the tracks - what then? 5 miles away they got 1". Wx is crazy, yo.
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
zugmann Unfortunately, there aren't soil liquification gauges on the engine.
Unfortunately, there aren't soil liquification gauges on the engine.
Well fortunately there is a speedometer on the engine and liquefaction only happens during unusually high water which usually only happens when large amounts of rain are predicted.
And if you're a long haul crew - you may travel 200+ miles in a trip. You're not always up to the current weather status of an area. It can be hard to tell if an area just had a 0.35" Tstorm of 5 inches of rain in the past hour. No doppler radars in the train, either. Although I wish there was. (or is that I wish there were?)
Or in the track.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
One news article mentions that some officials have speculated that floodwaters eroded soil beneath the track. That might produce a hazard that would not be visible upon approach at first in its very early stage. So even approaching at speed low enough to stop short would not prevent encountering the hazard. But as this type of erosion continues somewhat, it will quickly grow large enough to be felt by the crew as the engine passes over it. With the likely continuing flow, the erosion would have soon been able to derail the engine as it crossed the erosion. We don’t know whether the crew felt any indication of a soft spot in the track.
However, there is another, more stealthy form of roadbed failure that would be probable and it is called, Liquefaction. With this problem, the track could have offered 100% of its intended support as the engine loaded it, but then lost 100% of support at that same point when a number of tank cars passed over it. So there would be no possible way to spot the problem upon approach.
Soil liquefaction is defined by soil saturation and then the introduction of vibration to trigger the saturation to quickly change the solid nature of the soil over to the nature of a liquid. There is no erosion involved with liquefaction.
If liquefaction caused the Doon derailment, it was produced by a combination of the river flood and the train. The rising river would have caused the soil saturation and the train would have introduced the vibration needed to cause the soil to suddenly lose its compressive strength.
Here is a good video showing soil liquefaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd6W2aP2dkA
Here is some reference to liquefaction and other soil mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction
Further - we do not know that the engineer wasn't trying to bring his speed down. He would have had virtually no visual warning of the high water, especially in the dark. You can't reduce the speed of a loaded oil train from 45 MPH to walking speed in the quarter mile range his headlight would have provided.
As I noted before, the hydrological charts (which do not include a guage on the Little Rock River, where the derailment occurred) show a very rapid rise and fall - three to four feet over less than 12 hours both up and down. A track inspector travelling the line the previous day very possibly would not have seen any reason for special measures.
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...
tree68 Euclid All if requires is to see unusually high water. Was this unusually high water for this area?
Euclid All if requires is to see unusually high water.
Was this unusually high water for this area?
The rule does not say that the unusually high water has to be unusually high for the area that it occurs. Rivers rise and fall every year. Often times they rise high enough to be called a flood. Nobody would say a high water flood is not a flood because the water rises every year to some extent. The rule does not split hairs over the general understanding of what unusually high water means.
EuclidAll if requires is to see unusually high water.
tree68 charlie hebdo There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew that the subgrade was weakened. I took the liberty of slightly modifying your post. Because that seems to be one of the assumptions being made - that the roadbed was in some way weakened, and we don't know that anyone considered that a possibility. Hindsight being 20-20, it does appear that said weakened roadbed was a factor. But even the quotes in the media are presented as opinion. Given the nature of rivers on the plains, I'm guessing that this was hardly the first time such conditions have existed. Which leads one to the possibility that even if the railroad knew the water was high, they may not have considered it a problem. If the engineer was an old head, he may well have gone over the same track under similar conditions many times before, without incident. So far, there's been no indication that there were any communications indicating a known problem, written or radio.
charlie hebdo There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew that the subgrade was weakened.
I took the liberty of slightly modifying your post.
Because that seems to be one of the assumptions being made - that the roadbed was in some way weakened, and we don't know that anyone considered that a possibility.
Hindsight being 20-20, it does appear that said weakened roadbed was a factor. But even the quotes in the media are presented as opinion.
Given the nature of rivers on the plains, I'm guessing that this was hardly the first time such conditions have existed. Which leads one to the possibility that even if the railroad knew the water was high, they may not have considered it a problem. If the engineer was an old head, he may well have gone over the same track under similar conditions many times before, without incident.
So far, there's been no indication that there were any communications indicating a known problem, written or radio.
GCOR
6.21 Precautions Against Unusual Conditions Protect trains and engines against any known condition that may interfere with their safety. When conditions restrict visibility, regulate speed to ensure that crew members can observe and comply with signal indications. 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. Advise the train dispatcher of such conditions by the first available means of communication.
****************************************************
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 unusually high water.
charlie hebdoThere seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew that the subgrade was weakened.
charlie hebdo There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened.
I too have noticed that tendency. The rule that requires slowing down says to slow down enough to be able to stop short of any track defects that may be caused by unusually high water. It does not mean that slowing down is not necessary unless defects are discovered. The rule does not care whether there actually are any defects either seen, not seen, or invisible. The rule just wants you to slow down so you can stop short just in case you do see a defect. If you wait until you see a defect before slowing down, then you will not be able to stop quick enough to avoid the defect. That would therefore defeat the purpose of the rule.
The only thing that triggers the requiement to slow down is unusually high water. And this does not mean just any water near the track.
charlie hebdo dehusman charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context. I don't think we should jump to conclusions either. That said, it is possible to come up with plausible explanations based on the information given without so much hesitation. There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened. And that such caution might slow down operations and that would cost money. Safety should be more important and the derailment costs will certainly be high.
dehusman charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring
I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments.
I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know.
What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water.
I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
I don't think we should jump to conclusions either. That said, it is possible to come up with plausible explanations based on the information given without so much hesitation. There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened. And that such caution might slow down operations and that would cost money. Safety should be more important and the derailment costs will certainly be high.
Or maybe upon seeing the water, the engineer braked the train and torque and vibration of the train under braking caused the failure of the fill....you don't know; I don't know; nobody that isn't a part of the investigation of the incident has any idea.
Things are not always what they appear to be from afar!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Terex all your questions are out of context. You know nothing about the specific incident and neither do I. To the extent that the NTSB does not investigate the incident neither of us will know anything definitive.
dehusman ...it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context.
...it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know.
What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there.
I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context.
You cite several points made by people here, and you say they are wrong. Please provide the specifics about the making of these points:
Who is assuming that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time?
Who is saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track?
Who has interpreted rules incorrectly, and how have they misterpreted the rules?
What has been taken out of context?
Who expressed the belief that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there?
Who said that we do know that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train?
dehusmanI think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
+1
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
charlie hebdo So that confirms the river was near its peak and above floodstage near the time of the derailment, correct? Again, we won't know the cause for certain unless the NTSB decides to investigate, but it seems pretty safe to conclude that someone should have informed the engineer to approach that stretch with caution and that he should have exercised more caution himself.
So that confirms the river was near its peak and above floodstage near the time of the derailment, correct?
Again, we won't know the cause for certain unless the NTSB decides to investigate, but it seems pretty safe to conclude that someone should have informed the engineer to approach that stretch with caution and that he should have exercised more caution himself.
All three gauges show a rapid rise before the peak - one shows a three + foot rise in 12 hours, the other four feet.
It would likely fall on whatever weather service the railroad uses to caution them about excessive rainfall. And such rainfall can be very localized.
As I think has been noted, it was oh-dark-thirty - you're not going to see much beyond what your headlights illuminate. If visibility is bad, you'll see even less.
Lots of considerations. Hopefully someone at the railroad will connect the dots and a lesson learned will come out of this mess.
Remember that NS (?) had a derailment earlier this year in NY that was laid to a culvert failure well below the roadbed. It was laid to recent high waters, but they were nothing a crew would have been directly aware of, or have seen until the roadbed began to subside.
From USGS charts:
Burr Oak Creek, above Perkins, IA (in the same general area, but has it's own watershed) peaked at about 2AM on June 21 at 19.78 Feet. It appears that normal for this creek is around 12 feet.
The Rock River at Rock Rapids (upstream from the derailment site) peaked at 20.8 feet around 8 AM on June 22. Flood stage is 12 feet, with normal appearing to be around nine feet.
The Rock River at Rock Valley (downstream from the derailment site) peaked at 21.2 feet at about 4 AM on June 22. Flood stage is 16 feet.
The train reportedly derailed at about 4:30 AM on the 22nd.
tree68And it might have been lower. Water takes time to drain in from upstream.
That's the really tricky thing about flooding, its a regional thing not a spot thing. A location can flood out and not have recieved a drop of rain. In the 1980's there were torrential rains in Central Texas. The TP flooded out. Then 4 or 5 days later the Austin Sub flooded out and then a few days later the Brownsville Sub near the Gulf Coast flooded out. Mind you when the Brownie flooded, it hadn't rained there in over a week. It was all the water from Big Spring, TX finally reaching the coast. Its not unusual for a stream/river to continue to rise for a while after the train stops as the water drains off.
And when it drains off it can go down inches per hour. Actually that can be more dangerous than the standing water. Flow causes erosion and erosion causes more bridge and roadbed failures than soggy ground by a long shot.
dehusman RDG467 I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map. To me it looks like the track is at least 2 ft, probably more, above the water at the time of the drone footage. The water around the derailment is still, the oil slick is spreading out in several directions from the derailment. The water appears to be the same level on both sides of the track. All visible from the drone footage. If the water was over the tracks, it would have had to drop at least a foot an hour from the time of the derailment. With the volume of water out there that's a pretty strong flow. With that much flow, the oil slick should be headed towards the outflow, the water should be different levels since that fast an outflow would be throttled on one side by the flow through the bridge opening. There is no visual evidence of that happening, so that's probably not the case, that the water level is not dropping that rapidly and the water was not over the tracks. Supposition based on the drone video (and years dealing with flooded railroad tracks).
RDG467 I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map.
To me it looks like the track is at least 2 ft, probably more, above the water at the time of the drone footage. The water around the derailment is still, the oil slick is spreading out in several directions from the derailment. The water appears to be the same level on both sides of the track. All visible from the drone footage.
If the water was over the tracks, it would have had to drop at least a foot an hour from the time of the derailment. With the volume of water out there that's a pretty strong flow. With that much flow, the oil slick should be headed towards the outflow, the water should be different levels since that fast an outflow would be throttled on one side by the flow through the bridge opening. There is no visual evidence of that happening, so that's probably not the case, that the water level is not dropping that rapidly and the water was not over the tracks. Supposition based on the drone video (and years dealing with flooded railroad tracks).
Dave, there's a culvert under Garfield Ave, a bit south of the RXR Marking in the NB lane, which drains the triangle with the pond. That's briefly visible in the drone footage. I can't tell if there's a culvert under the RR tracks, but the tank cars on the east side of the tracks have also contributed to the oil slick.
I read in the Des Moines Register that the NTSB wasn't planning to send a team, but were monitoring the situation.
charlie hebdoVery helpful. We have to keep in mind that the water level may have been higher at the time of the derailment, which was earlier.
And it might have been lower. Water takes time to drain in from upstream.
RDG467I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map.
RDG467 charlie hebdo One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence. [from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way." The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water. CH- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register. The derailment happened at approximately Friday, June 22 about 0430 CDT, as per Andy Williams, BNSF Spokesperson. 32 cars were reported derailed. 14 of them were leaking. I went back to view the drone footage on the Sioux County Sheriff Office's FB page while I was having my coffee. Viewing the last 3 minutes of the 22 minute video gives more clues. I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the addition of a topo map. The derailment site was on the southern edge of the Little Rock River floodplain. Creek elevation was 1270 ft, the top of the floodplain was 1280 ft, roughly corresponding to the base of the RR and road embankments. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 1 ft. The strongest current stayed in the river bed and immediate area to the north, which appears to be a trestle approach to the girder bridge over the LRR proper. That's about 0.40 miles north of the approximate point of derailment. Also, the head end, minus power, becomes visible around the 20:30 mark. There appear to be six tank cars & the buffer car stopped south of the 270th St grade crossing. That's roughly 0.20 miles from the first derailed tank car. I will defer to the locomotive engineers posting here to estimate how fast they think the loaded oil train was traveling when it went into emergency and stopped in roughly a quarter mile. I don't know the grade profile here, but I'm guessing there was a slight downgrade through Doon heading towards Sioux Center. Now, IIRC, loco headlights are focused fairly narrowly on the tracks. How much 'peripheral' light is available to see the terrain outside of the roadbed in country with little ambient light? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking becuase I wonder if they could see the water on both sides of the tracks if it was at the base of the embankment. I'd be confident to say that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
charlie hebdo One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence. [from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way." The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water.
One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence.
[from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way."
The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water.
CH- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register.
The derailment happened at approximately Friday, June 22 about 0430 CDT, as per Andy Williams, BNSF Spokesperson. 32 cars were reported derailed. 14 of them were leaking.
I went back to view the drone footage on the Sioux County Sheriff Office's FB page while I was having my coffee. Viewing the last 3 minutes of the 22 minute video gives more clues.
I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the addition of a topo map. The derailment site was on the southern edge of the Little Rock River floodplain. Creek elevation was 1270 ft, the top of the floodplain was 1280 ft, roughly corresponding to the base of the RR and road embankments. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 1 ft. The strongest current stayed in the river bed and immediate area to the north, which appears to be a trestle approach to the girder bridge over the LRR proper. That's about 0.40 miles north of the approximate point of derailment.
Also, the head end, minus power, becomes visible around the 20:30 mark. There appear to be six tank cars & the buffer car stopped south of the 270th St grade crossing. That's roughly 0.20 miles from the first derailed tank car.
I will defer to the locomotive engineers posting here to estimate how fast they think the loaded oil train was traveling when it went into emergency and stopped in roughly a quarter mile. I don't know the grade profile here, but I'm guessing there was a slight downgrade through Doon heading towards Sioux Center.
Now, IIRC, loco headlights are focused fairly narrowly on the tracks. How much 'peripheral' light is available to see the terrain outside of the roadbed in country with little ambient light? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking becuase I wonder if they could see the water on both sides of the tracks if it was at the base of the embankment. I'd be confident to say that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
Very helpful. We have to keep in mind that the water level may have been higher at the time of the derailment, which was earlier.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.