https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill
I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
Euclid https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidI conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
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
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language. To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox?
charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.
To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox?
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
zugmann Euclid I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
Euclid I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
My comment was in referernnce to an article in Siouxland News that states that the NTSB preliminary report is out and Siouxland News says (seemingly citing the NTSB report) that the train crew spotted the track washed out but were unable to stop in time, and then the washout derailed the train. Really? Does anybody here believe that happened? It most certainly is not in the NTSB report. For one thing, it would mean that they knew the cause of the derailment right from the point where they asked the train crew what happened. And yet they told the public that they did not know the cause of the derailment.
So that is why I said last night that I think Siouxland News interpreted the NTSB report to be saying that the flood derailed the train by causing a track washout. But then they went further and elaborated how trains get derailed by a track washout. They filled in some added details for their readership.
Today in talking to another news person, and before I said anything about my theory that Siouxland News fabricated part of the story; he mentioned the Siouxland News piece and told me he thought they made up the part about the crew seeing a washout and not being able to stop in time.
Before anyone gets all worked up about a newspaper report, just take a deep breath and wait for the NTSB to issue a report.
I have a bit of anger about news outlets. If there is an aircraft accident, they rush in an "expert" from the air industry, if there is a military incident, they find a retired general, etc. But when there is a rail accident, all they do is make up stuff as they go! One example is the UP derailment in on a bridge in St. Paul. "Two trains derailed!" causing diesel fuel to spill into the river. Actually it was (presumably) two locomotives and maybe one tank car derailed on the bridge and a fuel tank on one diesel was punctured or was it the tank car that was punctured??? My guess is that the second locomotive leaked the fuel into the river as the first car in the train was a tank car, presumably empty or not placarded as to position in the train.
Ed Burns
Retired Class 1 from Minneapolis.
Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report.
So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction.
Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction.
It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause.
When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that.
Dan
dpeltier Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction. It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause. When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that. Dan
So you are saying that the NTSB reporting that track was washed out does not mean that the train was derailed due to encountering washed out track? So many people here seem to believe the NTSB is saying that the train was derailed by a washout. They say the words have to mean that. What do you say to them?
Euclid dpeltier Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction. It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause. When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that. Dan So you are saying that the NTSB reporting that track was washed out does not mean that the train was derailed due to encountering washed out track? So many people here seem to believe the NTSB is saying that the train was derailed by a washout. They say the words have to mean that. What do you say to them?
I'm not allowed to comment on the incident. I'm just trying to explain to you why the NTSB preliminary report is careful not to call out a probable cause.
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language. To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox? Or a Lewis B. Carroll character, such as the Mad Hatter or the poem, Jabberwocky or those other memorable lines from Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Or a Lewis B. Carroll character, such as the Mad Hatter or the poem, Jabberwocky or those other memorable lines from Humpty Dumpty:
It does now seem apparent to me that the flood caused the derailment by washing out the track at the derailment site. Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report.
Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
The coverage all mentions that the train was not speeding and was operating within its authority. So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires. Also the developing washout must have been hidden in order to not have been found by the numerous track inspections that were underway leading up to the derailment.
EuclidMultiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
Can you provide links to your sources, please? As dpeltier said the NTSB primary report only states facts, all conclusions by others regarding causes are still assumptions, even when based on the report.
EuclidSo apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires.
How do you come to this conclusion? That BNSF apperently didn't apply doesn't mean their assessment was correct. We should wait for the NTSB final report.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report. Can you provide links to your sources, please? As dpeltier said the NTSB primary report only states facts, all conclusions by others regarding causes are still assumptions, even when based on the report. Euclid So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires. How do you come to this conclusion? That BNSF apperently didn't apply doesn't mean their assessment was correct. We should wait for the NTSB final report.Regards, Volker
Euclid Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
Euclid So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires.
In the first quote above, I stated what was said by AP:
https://apnews.com/fcde2d5bd86044f6953f537c4e177266
In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to. And since Mr. Williams states that the train was within its authority when asked if the engineer knew about the washout or should have known about it; I conclude that the train being "within its authority" means it was operating at its authorized speed of up to 49 mph. And therefore, it was not adhering to Rule. 6.21.
Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new.
EuclidIn the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to.
You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented.
I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new. Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to. You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented. I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker
Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to.
The article contains the following new information never known before:
1) The track was washed out.
2) The track washout was at the site of the derailment.
3) The cause of the derailment was flood related.
4) The train was operating within its authority.
5) The train was moving at 48 mph when it derailed.
6) It is not known whether the engineer knew or should have known that the tracks were washed out.
Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority. I assume that the train would not be operating within its authority if it was required to slow down per Rule 6.21, and had not done so.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new. Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to. You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented. I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker The article contains the following new information never known before: 1) The track was washed out. 2) The track washout was at the site of the derailment. 3) The cause of the derailment was flood related. 4) The train was operating within its authority. 5) The train was moving at 48 mph when it derailed. 6) It is not known whether the engineer knew or should have known that the tracks were washed out. Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority, which I assume would not be accurate if the train had not slowed down as required by Rule 6.21.
Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority, which I assume would not be accurate if the train had not slowed down as required by Rule 6.21.
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. To date I have not seen a report of which cars were actually derailed in the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Where do you actually see either (1) or (2) in the AP story?
This is likely to be more important than a semantic quibble. It doesn't say THE track was washed out, it just says 'track was washed out'. And nowhere do I see confirmation that there was a physical washout at the point of derailment, which is what would be necessary to conclude (2).
Another consideration here is what additional sources AP is using to go beyond the conclusions in the published NTSB material ... which as we've already discussed to the point of equine morbidity, says neither of those things and intentionally avoids formally stating them at this time.
The 'new' thing appears to be the BNSF guy saying your point (3), that the cause of the derailment was 'flood-related'. The problem is that, because he promptly shut up after saying that, you have no explicit knowledge of how, exactly, the derailment was flood-related. And won't until BNSF and/or NTSB provides more information. Which I suspect will be very slow in coming forth.
I do think it would be reasonably safe to state or conclude that the BNSF crew was not operating in conformance with Rule 6.21 if they were essentially at permitted track speed at the time the derailment started. On the other hand, I think it is pointless at this time to speculate whether or not the crew 'shoulda woulda coulda' run at some more restricted speed into what they may or may not have understood as established high water conditions. Only the result of actual investigation will confirm or disestablish that.
And I think I can reasonably assure you that no one writing for the AP knows anything firsthand about either the incident or the internal progress of the investigation other than what NTSB has divulged.
Overmod, I appreciate your comment, "... which as we've already discussed to the point of equine morbidity...."
Johnny
OvermodWhere do you actually see either (1) or (2) in the AP story? This is likely to be more important than a semantic quibble. It doesn't say THE track was washed out, it just says 'track was washed out'. And nowhere do I see confirmation that there was a physical washout at the point of derailment, which is what would be necessary to conclude (2). .
The AP story says this:
“NTSB: Track Was Washed Out At Doon Derailment Site…”
The NTSB report says this:
"The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”
I have been scolded by renowned linguistics experts Murphy Siding and Charlie Hebdo that the sentence above from the NTSB report has to mean that the actions of washing out of track, the flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River, and the flooding of farm fields were all three adjacent to the derailment location. Therefore, the washing out of track has got to refer to the track that was carrying the oil train through the derailment location.
Moreover, since the AP story says that is what the NTSB sentence means, I will take the AP story as the source.
Overmod,
I must say though despite admonitions from Hebdo and Siding, I perfectly understand your point about the difference between “washed out track” and “washed out the track at Doon which then derailed the train.” This stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it in the report and I am still not entirely convinced what the sentence actually means. And I also get the feeling that that is the point of the sentence. So I do hold out the possibility that Hebdo, Siding, and the AP are wrong in their interpretation of the mystery sentence.
EuclidSo I do hold out the possibility that Hebdo, Siding, Euclid, and the AP are wrong in their interpretation of the mystery sentence.
Fixed that for ya.
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...
Assuming that the fact is that the track was washed out at the derailment site as is widely assumed due to the mystery sentence in the NTSB report, it raises this question:
How would you find evidence that the track was washed out when the washout was never observed, and the derailment thoroughly plowed up the ballast and about six feet deep into the sub-grade fill, and probably pulverized the track structure in the process? How do you look at that mess and find evidence of a washout? The tank cars are not going to tell you why they derailed. The track is ripped to shreds. And the roadbed and ballast have been though a blender.
I suspect the NTSB found the one or more very small washouts along the track near the derailment site that were not actually under the derailment zone. From that they strongly speculate that the cause of the derailment was flood related, but they have no evidence that a washout derailed the train because if a washout caused the derailment, the evidence of the washout would be obliterated.
But finding small washouts along the roadbed away from the actual derailment would allow them to say that the rain washed out track. It would also be powerful circumstantial evidence that the train was derailed by a washout even if it cannont be found. Therefore, they summarize their circumstantial evidence by saying that the cause of the derailment is flood related. That is still going out on a limb, but not too far.
Nevertheless, it would still be a challenge to conclude that all damage observed in the wrecked cars and track was entirely the result of the pileup as opposed to some of that damage representing some type of breakage that actually caused the derailment.
It may be misleading to say that the rain washed out track because that tends to imply taking the track out of alignment, breaking it, and rendering the line impassible. Yet it would be accurate to say track was washed out while still remaining passible because any amount of track materials dislodged and moved could be referred to as being washed out. So washing out track does not necessarily mean destroying its ability to carry a train.
EuclidOfficially, I would determine that the train should not exceed 10 mph through the area based on the fact that the site is on a fill that is surrounded by water up to the bottom of the ballast.
What's needed is not a term undefined in the rules, but one that is. I am looking forward to petitnj providing a specific reference to 'creep' in rules, and the definition of what that is in mph. I would "assume" a reasonable value to be that used for yard limits, not 10mph but 5mph.
The alternative is 'restricted speed' which neatly provides that it's the engineer's responsibility to stop half the distance to any perceived hazard. What's been out of the discussion so far is what 'restricted speed' means when there is a likelihood of trouble but nothing overtly identifiable as something to be 'stopped half the distance to'. It is clear to me that standing water on either side of the ballast prism is a red flag for potential issues in track stability whether or not it appears that line and surface are still good; it also appears, circumstantially, that at least one BNSF crew interpreted the situation as full permitted speed if you don't see actual damage. It may be possible that there are situations under which running a long heavy train slowly might induce more settlement (leading to derailment) than the same train operated more quickly -- but the added kinetic energy as the square of the speed, expressed if there is a washout or 'water-related' derailment, ought to rule that out as an operating principle.
Meanwhile: I had always thought, without really looking carefully at Hay or other references, that "washout" specifically meant destruction of the effective track geometry, either by physically damaging the track or leaving the rails and ties effectively unsupported. That is not the same thing as creating a soft spot that can settle or "liquefy" under the passage of a train and cause it to derail. Is there an appropriate term of art for the latter that is distinct from 'washout'?? -- if there is not, I would argue there should be.
As I indicated above, I do not know what the phrase, “washed out” means in the context of the NTSB report. They said they will have one of the investigators call me this week and explain exactly what the mystery sentence means. The dictionary defines washout as a breach in a road or railroad track caused by flooding. But I am leaving open the possibility that the NTSB is using the term to mean erosion. IF the mystery sentence means that the track was breached by a washout at the Doon derailment site, it would seem impossible that two locomotives and a dozen or so cars were somehow able to jump the breach and regain the rails on the opposite side of the breach.
So as I mentioned above, I surmise the following regarding the NTSB mystery report:
They have no knowledge of what actually caused the derailment, but their best hunch is that the flood had something to do with it.
They have no knowledge of any washout condition within the derailment zone, whether the washout condition would be a breach or just storm water erosion.
They have not proven that the derailment was not caused by a mechanical failure of the train or track, having nothing to do with the flood.
In terms of speed, the rule does not refer to it as restricted speed although the concept is similar. What the rule requires is unusually high water sufficient to endanger a passing train. But the obvious point of the rule is to spot a flood-related track problem and be able to stop short of it. Since such a problem could be very small, or even not visible at all, I would surmise that the rule would require a speed certainly not faster than 10 mph, and prudence would suggest a speed of less than 3 mph. One mph would be even better, but considering that a train may derail at even 1 mph if the track defect is not visible, perhaps the greater objective of extreme slowness is to prevent a massive pileup if the creeping train does happen to encounter a hidden defect that thus derail.
Rather than pick apart every little detail to create contract language that defines unusually high water, the rule relies on common sense. It is like the rule to take the safe course when in doubt. It does not stipulate how safe and how safety and doubt should be measured and quantified. You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
Throughout these Doon threads, we have been told over and over that Rule 6.21 did not apply because BNSF did not define the water level at Doon as being high. And the reason given for that conclusion was that the crew did not adhere to the rule which has now been confirmed by the fact that they were traveling only 1 mph under the speed limit. So, the theory is that if the crew did not slow down, that means they were not required to slow down by the Rule 6.21.
EuclidYou could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
If it takes 1000 pages to write a rule, then there should be a 1000 page rule written. That's how it works out here.
zugmann Euclid You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it. If it takes 1000 pages to write a rule, then there should be a 1000 page rule written. That's how it works out here.
Euclid You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
It does not seem to work that way with Rule 6.21.
EuclidIt does not seem to work that way with Rule 6.21.
Then the rule may need revised. But when you start your own interpretations of the rules aka "use some common sense", you can get in trouble REAL fast.
Once the NTSB releases their report, there may be some revisions to 6.21.
Overmod What's been out of the discussion so far is what 'restricted speed' means when there is a likelihood of trouble but nothing overtly identifiable as something to be 'stopped half the distance to'.
Beyond "half the distance" most railroads also set a maximum speed for operating as "restricted speed." For us, it's 20 MPH on the main and 10 MPH in the yards.
I like the way we constantly complain that news sources are unreliable, then we spend hours and pages analyzing the news reports in great detail, down to the exact meaning of each word.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.