Murphy Siding 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. Were those railroad officials or law enforcement officials? The quote makes it sound like the latter. If that's the case, they might just be throwing out theories like some of the posters on here are doing.
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.
Were those railroad officials or law enforcement officials? The quote makes it sound like the latter. If that's the case, they might just be throwing out theories like some of the posters on here are doing.
Well sure, that's possible. 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 (when all else fails, play the "dimestore lawyer" card**). is tossed in, it raises suspicions.
* Likely they are either witless or looking for a bribe, right?
** Never before was any other occupation (except the media) so disparaged, so regularly on here.
Charlie H.- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register.
The derailment happened 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. It started during sunrise (0545), so I'm guessing it was around 0600 as the drone reached its operating elevation. 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 time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and 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 to the south. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 2 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. IDK if there were 2 or 3 units powering the train.
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 at 0430? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking because 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 in saying that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
Since a washed out bridge would be a greater apparent threat than a 'plain old embankment', would it be reasonable to assume there was some type of notice to the train crew about the flooding in the Doon area?
mudchicken Norris: The "expert at everything and proficient at none" dimestore lawyers are on the loose again. Unless it's railroad, FRA or NTSB, the assertion is pretty much invalid. (I'm with ya here)
Norris: The "expert at everything and proficient at none" dimestore lawyers are on the loose again. Unless it's railroad, FRA or NTSB, the assertion is pretty much invalid. (I'm with ya here)
I can understand someone from the news media looking for more information about a derailment. It would be easy for them to find a law deputy sheriff or other officer and ask his or her opinion. So far, that’s logical. But suppose this derailment had happened in the desert. Would the media report that officials thought the train derailed on account of all the sand? Would everyone simply believe that because they can see all the sand in the photos? (Or would they take it all with a grain of sand? Sorry man- the made me do it!)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
dehusman It is entirely possible that the track was inspected recently, no defects were noted, no speed restriction was issued, no previous trains reported any problems, the area had no history of previous problems and the train didn't detect any problems prior to passing over that specific location.
It is entirely possible that the track was inspected recently, no defects were noted, no speed restriction was issued, no previous trains reported any problems, the area had no history of previous problems and the train didn't detect any problems prior to passing over that specific location.
Dave,
Yes that is entirely possible along with dozens of other combinations of a portion of those facts, plus other possible facts that you have not listed. I think that is what this thread is looking at; that is, the possible causes for the derailment as they may relate to the flood. I don’t rule out any of those possible causes including negligence.
Some here seem unwilling to go that far, so they raise technical objections such as what “unusual” means, or that “creep” does not indicate a specific speed. They complain that officials asserting that the flood the caused the derailment may not be qualified officials. Or they may re-state what some have considered by exaggerating it to the absurd, such as trains needing to slow to a crawl every time rain is forecast. They offer lots of theories to limit the cause while complaining that others are offering mere theories to explore the cause.
Euclid dehusman Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. Short term memory problems? Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment. Well it does violate the rule, but there is the possibility that they were told that the track had been inspected and therefore they were not required to slow down. I can't accuse them of violating rule 6.21 if the rule did not exist due to having been overridden by other instructions. And I don't know whether or not that was the case. But my point was that if the rule did apply, it would make no difference whether the derailment was caused by the flood or something non-flood-related. This is because the rule to slow down would have been violated by failing to slow down for the flood even though the flood did not cause the derailment.
dehusman Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. Short term memory problems? Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that.
Short term memory problems?
Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
Well it does violate the rule, but there is the possibility that they were told that the track had been inspected and therefore they were not required to slow down. I can't accuse them of violating rule 6.21 if the rule did not exist due to having been overridden by other instructions. And I don't know whether or not that was the case.
But my point was that if the rule did apply, it would make no difference whether the derailment was caused by the flood or something non-flood-related. This is because the rule to slow down would have been violated by failing to slow down for the flood even though the flood did not cause the derailment.
EuclidThe rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
n012944 Euclid I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. Unless you have seen the download, you have no idea if they were doing track speed, or they were going slower.
Euclid I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down.
I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down.
Unless you have seen the download, you have no idea if they were doing track speed, or they were going slower.
Oh I think the derailment pileup of 32 cars and breaching enough of them to spill 230,000 gallons of oil is a pretty good indication that they were not moving anywhere near as slowly as 5-10 mph which would be required by rule 6.21 in order to make it possible to be prepared to stop as the rule stipulates in the case of unusually high water.
An "expensive model collector"
charlie hebdo it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, with too much focus on "rules" and too little on the purpose of those rules - safety. Example: Husman specified a list of eight questions to be addressed by investigators. High water at the point of derailment was not one of them even though that was obviously a factor. He gave the non-analogous example not slowing down when driving in winter precip on possibly iced bridges. A more parallel example would be plunging ahead into a potentially flooding underpass while driving in a heavy rainstorm without slowing down and exercising some caution. Recklessness.
it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, with too much focus on "rules" and too little on the purpose of those rules - safety. Example: Husman specified a list of eight questions to be addressed by investigators. High water at the point of derailment was not one of them even though that was obviously a factor. He gave the non-analogous example not slowing down when driving in winter precip on possibly iced bridges. A more parallel example would be plunging ahead into a potentially flooding underpass while driving in a heavy rainstorm without slowing down and exercising some caution. Recklessness.
This a good point about what probably, should be considered and discussed.
A practice I am exercising on this discussion is, the back and forth on "splitting hairs" about flood/creep/etecetra, I do not take the time to read the ad infinitum linguistic gymnastics. (gymnastics reference was for Balt who felt I thought engineers needed to do gymnastics to satisfy the alerter ........ this is a joke .......please this is a compliment to Balt and NOT a slam)
My practice of avoiding the nonsense is a personal privilage, but they have the same privilage to post it. However, one additional point that I have suggested before and probably has bored and irritated some here: A practice called "extinction" works well. Don't continue the endless, and I mean endless, discussion. Don't respond to certain people when you are certain that the discussion will be endless in the back and forth. mike
endmrw0627181316
dehusman Euclid In any case, the flood was unusually high water. How do you know the water was "unusually high"? How do you know if that area floods that way every time it rains. If the water has been that high for days, is it still "unusual"? If the water was higher previously and has started to recede, is it still unusually high? Nobody on this list has any answers to any of those questions so saying that people violated rules is way premature. It could have been a failure to detect and protect or it could have been a spontaneous failure, or it could have been something completely different.
Euclid In any case, the flood was unusually high water.
How do you know the water was "unusually high"? How do you know if that area floods that way every time it rains. If the water has been that high for days, is it still "unusual"? If the water was higher previously and has started to recede, is it still unusually high?
Nobody on this list has any answers to any of those questions so saying that people violated rules is way premature. It could have been a failure to detect and protect or it could have been a spontaneous failure, or it could have been something completely different.
You keep creating hypothetical positions that you allege others have taken, and then to set out to prove those positions wrong. I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. All I have done is break down the rule and evaluate how it might apply this this situation.
I don’t have a definition of what constitutes unusually high water. The rule does not define it either. It apparently relies on people judging the water depth using common sense—maybe the safest course kicks in somewhere. I would say this: If water qualifies as being unusually high and it stays that high for ten days, it is unusually high for ten days. It does not become usual just because it is typical of the preceding day. If that were the case, you could say it is not unusually high after the first minute, or the first second.
cx500I have no idea what the soils are like in Iowa, or if the land beside the embankment is normally underwater. I do know that on the Canadian Prairies the railways do have known areas of potential weak subgrades, and that in wet years track surface conditions can deteriorate rapidly. One fairly recent derailment was caused when the subgrade liquefied under the pounding of a unit potash train. It had been a wet spring, although there was no standing water at the time as far as I know.
Exactly. That's why I included the question about the history of the area being important. Railroads and the track people know the soft spots in their area. They know which places to check first. The mere presence of water in the area isn't enough to cause somebody to put a very restrictive slow order on the track or shut the line down as has been proposed. There has to be something happening to the track structure. If the track appears stable and has been stable for the last several days of flooding, there is nothing that would trigger an action. It appears that the track structure was still several feet above the water. It doesn't appear to be any flow of water. It appears to be back water. Those things do not present the same danger that water in the track structure or water flowing through the track structure present. Normally failures in cases where the track is above water and there is no flow are failures of something in the subgrade, things that are hidden from a visual inspection.
Of course, yes, if there is any kind of erosion, water flowing though the track, water over the track, shifting of the track, settling of the track, then yes some sort of action has to be taken, which could range from slow orders to shutting down the line.
zugmann Does BNSF use trip optimizer?
Does BNSF use trip optimizer?
I do not know if they use it system wide. I do know having talked with a conductor who worked in the BNSF North Central US, his statement involved two things. He witnessed an engineer "operating" the locomotive and was sound asleep snoring. His further comment was, with Trip Optimizer (that he had) and PTC, the operations were close to being totally automated.
He now works signal for BNSF/PTC and has interesting comments there, as well. They will be shared when appropriate. This is only to answer your question somewhat.
endmrw0627181216
EuclidIn any case, the flood was unusually high water.
dehusmanMany of the posters on this list know there was a defect there because, after the fact, in hindsight, something happened. The trick is knowing where something will fail BEFORE it fails. Many posters think is obvious because there is standing water around. Having never ridden a train they don't realize that there could be 50 miles of the route that are near streams or in areas that were flooded. There doesn't appear to have been a bridge, don't know if there was a culvert there, from the pictures it doesn't appear to ever have been under water. Railroads follow streams for hundreds of miles. Other than the fact that there is water around there what would have told them there would be a problem on that train at that point? How many dozen other trains had been operating safely for how many days over that track prior to the incident? There have been cases where several states have flooded out for MONTHS. Would you have every train operate at 4 mph over a 3 or 4 state area for months?
To a considerable extent I agree with you. While that may seem in contradiction to my earlier post, the reason is that not all railroad subgrades are equal. The better types of soil for strength and stability were not always locally available. The original contractors often formed the subgrade by scraping material up from beside the track, often by hand, to create a rudimentary ditch. Over a century later, despite many improvements above, this still forms the foundation for the track.
These weaker materials, where they are present, can be a real headache for the track forces in very wet years. Most of the time there is no problem so it is hard to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to completely rebuild miles of track. The occasional short slow order over a particularly soft spot suffices. And of course, much of the railroad network has a stronger base and high water has little impact on the foundation conditions.
I have no idea what the soils are like in Iowa, or if the land beside the embankment is normally underwater. I do know that on the Canadian Prairies the railways do have known areas of potential weak subgrades, and that in wet years track surface conditions can deteriorate rapidly. One fairly recent derailment was caused when the subgrade liquefied under the pounding of a unit potash train. It had been a wet spring, although there was no standing water at the time as far as I know.
John
Murphy Siding petitnj but would it still be prudent to slow in case something has changed since the last train traversed the area? Then why not just slow the train down all the time, just in case?
petitnj but would it still be prudent to slow in case something has changed since the last train traversed the area?
Then why not just slow the train down all the time, just in case?
It is not a matter of slowing down "just in case" of some unknown problem. Some of the potential dangers of unusually high waters might be proven safe by the passage of a train that gets by okay. But some of the potential dangers may not be revealed by the passage of a first train. So they remain as a peril to a following train. In fact the first train may accentuate the hidden danger and produce a visible sign of that danger to a following train so it can stop in time; if it has slowed to a speed enabling it to stop in time.
Murphy Siding It might be that the derailment had absolutely nothing to do with the water at all.
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
Interesting to see rules that apply here. And yes there are rules that recommend slowing for flooding conditions,etc. But maybe the issue here is rules vs common sense. The rule says I can go 45. The inspector and previous trains made it across safely. I don't see water on the track. All those rules apply, but would it still be prudent to slow incase something has changed since the last train traversed the area? Here is maybe a flaw in how crews are trained. They are trained to follow the rules. But! If there are unusual conditions -- the rule may not cover -- what should the crew do?
Two ways to train the crew 1) make them so acquainted with the route that they have memorized every speed change, switch, crossing, etc. or 2) mark the route clearly for speed, crossings, .... and have the crew be vigilant for the existing conditions. #1 follows the rules and only fails if there is an unusual condition or if the crew forgets part of their route (see Amtrak 501 in Washington State). #2 requires the route be clearly marked and the crew stay awake. (BTW this is how you drive your car.)
Which is better?
Murphy SidingExpanding on that thought as we're apparently allowed to throw out any theory and run with it like it’s undisputable truth: It might be that the derailment had absolutely nothing to do with the water at all. Any one of a dozen things could have caused it and water nearby is just coincidence.
Following on with that thought - given the propensity for rivers on the Great Plains to flood, it's possible that the very same situation had presented itself previously (perhaps a number of times) with no ill consequences. While the inspectors, etc, may have taken a close look at the locale, their experience may not have set off any alarms, if you will.
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...
dehusmanIt is entirely possible that the track was inspected recently, no defects were noted, no speed restriction was issued, no previous trains reported any problems, the area had no history of previous problems and the train didn't detect any problems prior to passing over that specific location.
Expanding on that thought as we're apparently allowed to throw out any theory and run with it like it’s undisputable truth: It might be that the derailment had absolutely nothing to do with the water at all. Any one of a dozen things could have caused it and water nearby is just coincidence.
Cotton Belt MP104 cx500 Assuming the subgrade was saturated, the smart thing to do would be to slow down to something like 10mph. That puts less stress on a weakened structure. But that would delay the trains, causing all sorts of problems such as recrews, bad meets and the like, and the folks back in the office will not meet their personal measurement targets used for bonus calculations. So, no slow order issued. If the train crew does the sensible thing and slow down, on at least certain roads they are liable to get disciplined for delaying trains. After all, if nothing went wrong it seems obvious to those in the ivory tower that slowing down was unnecessary. This is a very sensible observation and well timed comment to have everyone consider. Anyone who has worked in the public has faced this conundrum. I guess it could be said, That is how life is. ONE way of describing this delimma is, darned if you do and darned if you don't. It will be interesting to see what is revealed in the future if this is investigated. Since there were no fatalites, I doubt that there will be an NSTB detailed investigation. The cause of the BNSF/Herzog accident will MAYBE come to light since this was a fatal incident. I mention that incident as there has been so much speculation here on this thread as what the cause was. AS that WAS discussed at length on the forum, I have an observation of the most current discussion about the word "CREEP". My comments that have been labeled as, not worth reading, is justified, in that long ago I had difficulty in getting postings properly posted. That "problem" lead me to doing the best I could do and additionaly I was hoping to inject a little humor with "red neck talk". That is no excuse, but then in the aftermath, if what I post is worth NOT reading, why read it? Simple solution is to pass over. That solution to MY personal problem of how to treat the discussion of, CREEP. If there is any hint that that post will go over this subject of CREEP the the "Nth" degree, I will pass over THAT post and look for more interesting informative posts. My sincere appologies to those who did read my attempt to say something, and had the courtsey to "endure" and refrain from comments. This can be such a great site to daily go to and enjoy reading about RAILROADS. Those who have been harmed by my recklessness, I do sincerely appologize. mike endmrw0627180843
cx500 Assuming the subgrade was saturated, the smart thing to do would be to slow down to something like 10mph. That puts less stress on a weakened structure. But that would delay the trains, causing all sorts of problems such as recrews, bad meets and the like, and the folks back in the office will not meet their personal measurement targets used for bonus calculations. So, no slow order issued. If the train crew does the sensible thing and slow down, on at least certain roads they are liable to get disciplined for delaying trains. After all, if nothing went wrong it seems obvious to those in the ivory tower that slowing down was unnecessary.
Assuming the subgrade was saturated, the smart thing to do would be to slow down to something like 10mph. That puts less stress on a weakened structure. But that would delay the trains, causing all sorts of problems such as recrews, bad meets and the like, and the folks back in the office will not meet their personal measurement targets used for bonus calculations. So, no slow order issued.
If the train crew does the sensible thing and slow down, on at least certain roads they are liable to get disciplined for delaying trains. After all, if nothing went wrong it seems obvious to those in the ivory tower that slowing down was unnecessary.
This is a very sensible observation and well timed comment to have everyone consider. Anyone who has worked in the public has faced this conundrum. I guess it could be said, That is how life is. ONE way of describing this delimma is, darned if you do and darned if you don't.
It will be interesting to see what is revealed in the future if this is investigated. Since there were no fatalites, I doubt that there will be an NSTB detailed investigation.
The cause of the BNSF/Herzog accident will MAYBE come to light since this was a fatal incident. I mention that incident as there has been so much speculation here on this thread as what the cause was. AS that WAS discussed at length on the forum, I have an observation of the most current discussion about the word "CREEP".
My comments that have been labeled as, not worth reading, is justified, in that long ago I had difficulty in getting postings properly posted. That "problem" lead me to doing the best I could do and additionaly I was hoping to inject a little humor with "red neck talk". That is no excuse, but then in the aftermath, if what I post is worth NOT reading, why read it? Simple solution is to pass over.
That solution to MY personal problem of how to treat the discussion of, CREEP. If there is any hint that that post will go over this subject of CREEP the the "Nth" degree, I will pass over THAT post and look for more interesting informative posts.
My sincere appologies to those who did read my attempt to say something, and had the courtsey to "endure" and refrain from comments.
This can be such a great site to daily go to and enjoy reading about RAILROADS. Those who have been harmed by my recklessness, I do sincerely appologize. mike endmrw0627180843
Two good posts. Good to see you have figured out readable formatting.
The rule calls for trains to approach unusually high water at a speed slow enough to stop short of any visible track defects. However, it may be that there is a track defect that cannot be seen, and that it derails the train. But, even though the rule does not prevent the derailment, it still requires the train to be traveling very slowly in order to allow the engineer to stop short of any track defect if one is observed.
So even though the ruled does not prevent the derailment, it does provide the benefit that the train is traveling so slowly that the damage is minimized to the point where an oil spill or fire is unlikely. Obviously, this train was not traveling slow enough to stop short of track defects. You are not going to pile up 36 cars and breach enough of them to spill 230,000 gallons of oil if you are going slow enough to stop short of any observed track defects.
dehusman Euclid However, they are still required to approach prepared to stop; and in the case of looking for the smallest defects caused by flooding, the speed at which one could be prepared to stop short would be something around walking speed or 3 mph. Obviously the train that derailed at Doon was not prepared to stop, and was traveling far too fast to stop short of any observed defect. Baloney. Many of the posters on this list know there was a defect there because, after the fact, in hindsight, something happened. The trick is knowing where something will fail BEFORE it fails. Many posters think is obvious because there is standing water around. Having never ridden a train they don't realize that there could be 50 miles of the route that are near streams or in areas that were flooded. There doesn't appear to have been a bridge, don't know if there was a culvert there, from the pictures it doesn't appear to ever have been under water. Railroads follow streams for hundreds of miles. Other than the fact that there is water around there what would have told them there would be a problem on that train at that point? How many dozen other trains had been operating safely for how many days over that track prior to the incident? There have been cases where several states have flooded out for MONTHS. Would you have every train operate at 4 mph over a 3 or 4 state area for months?
Euclid However, they are still required to approach prepared to stop; and in the case of looking for the smallest defects caused by flooding, the speed at which one could be prepared to stop short would be something around walking speed or 3 mph. Obviously the train that derailed at Doon was not prepared to stop, and was traveling far too fast to stop short of any observed defect.
Baloney.
Many of the posters on this list know there was a defect there because, after the fact, in hindsight, something happened. The trick is knowing where something will fail BEFORE it fails. Many posters think is obvious because there is standing water around. Having never ridden a train they don't realize that there could be 50 miles of the route that are near streams or in areas that were flooded. There doesn't appear to have been a bridge, don't know if there was a culvert there, from the pictures it doesn't appear to ever have been under water. Railroads follow streams for hundreds of miles. Other than the fact that there is water around there what would have told them there would be a problem on that train at that point? How many dozen other trains had been operating safely for how many days over that track prior to the incident?
There have been cases where several states have flooded out for MONTHS. Would you have every train operate at 4 mph over a 3 or 4 state area for months?
The questions the investigators will be asking (other than cause) are:
When was the track last inspected?
Was any defect found?
If so, was a speed restriction issued?
If so, did the train recieve the speed restriction?
Did previous trains report any defects?
If so, what action was taken?
Did the crew of the train detect any problems?
Was there any history of problems at this location?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.