Paul of Covington 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.
Everyone needs a hobby.
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
Quoting Zug: "Everyone needs a hobby."And, it seems, that some should get on their hobby horses and ride away.
Back 45-5o or so years ago, I would read SOU train orders that had the information "bad footing between MP X and MP Y," which I took to mean that the roadbed was not as stable as it should have been. I never heard, though, of any mishaps in such stretches.
Have I missed any issuing of such information to the crew of this train?
Johnny
DeggestyQuoting Zug: "Everyone needs a hobby."And, it seems, that some should get on their hobby horses and ride away. Back 45-5o or so years ago, I would read SOU train orders that had the information "bad footing between MP X and MP Y," which I took to mean that the roadbed was not as stable as it should have been. I never heard, though, of any mishaps in such stretches. Have I missed any issuing of such information to the crew of this train?
I have not seen or read of the crew holding and operating under any form of restrictive train messages - no Flood Warnings, no Speed Restrictions, no restrictions of any kind for the area where the incident happened.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Lost in the weeds of detail is that we have moved from denying that the rain had anything to do with the derailment when it was obvious that it did. We heard some expert folks actually saying it might have been a faulty wheel or axle!
Deggesty Quoting Zug: "Everyone needs a hobby."And, it seems, that some should get on their hobby horses and ride away. Back 45-5o or so years ago, I would read SOU train orders that had the information "bad footing between MP X and MP Y," which I took to mean that the roadbed was not as stable as it should have been. I never heard, though, of any mishaps in such stretches. Have I missed any issuing of such information to the crew of this train?
They still issue bulletins such as that. It means exactly what it says, that conditions for walking are bad. It doesn't mean the track structure itself is bad. There are many reasons why footing might be bad, such as new track materials for a project having been distributed, or old materials that haven't been picked up yet.
Even where the footing is good, it's still really bad. Especially when walking on ballast, often deep and sloped on today's main lines. I've often joked with co-workers that it might be easier to issue bulletins where footing is good.
Jeff
I have two questions for the NTSB:
You say the cause of the derailment was flood related. What is your basis for that assertion?
You say the rain washed out track. Where was track washed out and how have you determined that it was washed out?
Obviously, they know the answer to both questions. So why play games?
charlie hebdoWe heard some expert folks actually saying it might have been a faulty wheel or axle!
Has it been ruled out? I mean, stuff does break - in all weather.
charlie hebdoLost in the weeds of detail is that we have moved from denying that the rain had anything to do with the derailment when it was obvious that it did.
I'm not so sure that anyone denied that the rain was a significant factor. What was being countered was that it was obvious that the crew (or the railroad) should have taken some action based on an evaluation of what an as yet undetermined level of "high water" is/was.
The official report will certainly address that, but the fact that the train was running at near track speed speaks to a conclusion by the crew and the railroad that no special actions were required.
charlie hebdo We heard some expert folks actually saying it might have been a faulty wheel or axle!
Fire investigators tend to find fire causes by ruling out various and sundry potential causes If they run out of accidental and natural causes, emphasis goes to finding a less innocent cause and the culprit responsible, if they can figure that out., In a derailment such as this, the simple fact that all wheels and axles are intact (I'm presuming that in this case they were) tends to rule out such a cause. But it must be considered in the course of the investigation.
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...
The NTSB saying that the cause was flood related, does seem to rule out a cause directly due to a mechanical failure. But who knows where these clever word games are going to take us. I don't see how they would be able to rule out a cause due to mechanical failure. While it is true that a broken axle cause will yield a broken axle somewhere in the wreckage, there are other potential mechancial causes that may have leave damage to the equipment, but it may not be so easily distiguishable from damage caused by the derailment.
Euclid I have two questions for the NTSB: You say the cause of the derailment was flood related. What is your basis for that assertion? You say the rain washed out track. Where was track washed out and how have you determined that it was washed out? Obviously, they know the answer to both questions. So why play games?
Answer to question 1: They didn't say it, it came from the BNSF spokesperson in the AP article. NTSB wrote: 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.
You should have learned by now that NTSB publishes only facts in their preliminary report, not propable causes. And they haven't ruled out anything yet.
Even if they know they won't publish it yet. Their job wouldn't end with the statement a wash-out caused the wreck (if this were the case what we don't know). They have to look at possible underlying causes that might have played a role in the accident, like e.g. misjudgement of high water, missing information about high water, track inspections, mechanical failure etc. to prevent similar accidents.
They plan to test tank car parts. They are DOT-117R (refitted) cars which should withstand such accidents better.
Only when all this is done you will get an answer in the final report. Get used to it and please don't start conspiracy theories.Regards, Volker
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid I have two questions for the NTSB: You say the cause of the derailment was flood related. What is your basis for that assertion? You say the rain washed out track. Where was track washed out and how have you determined that it was washed out? Obviously, they know the answer to both questions. So why play games? Answer to question 1: They didn't say it, it came from the BNSF spokesperson in the AP article. NTSB wrote: 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. You should have learned by now that NTSB publishes only facts in their preliminary report, not propable causes. And they haven't ruled out anything yet. Even if they know they won't publish it yet. Their job wouldn't end with the statement a wash-out caused the wreck (if this were the case what we don't know). They have to look at possible underlying causes that might have played a role in the accident, like e.g. misjudgement of high water, missing information about high water, track inspections, mechanical failure etc. to prevent similar accidents. They plan to test tank car parts. They are DOT-117R (refitted) cars which should withstand such accidents better. Only when all this is done you will get an answer in the final report. Get used to it and please don't start conspiracy theories.Regards, Volker
Yes you are right. Andy Williams is BNSF and not NTSB. So I now only have one question for NTSB:
1) You say the rain washed out track. Where was track washed out and how have you determined that it was washed out?
I have no desire to start a conspiracy theory. Nor do I expect the preliminary report to tell the whole story. I also don't expect the final report to say only that the rain washed out track. I don't expect the preliminary report to say what caused the wreck.
But, they do know that the rain washed out track, and so they have to know where that washout is/was located, and how they identified it. And no matter where the investigation takes them, there is no reason not to tell us more about the basis of their current finding that the rain washed out track.
The NTSB is who released the preliminary report. The public has a right ask questions about that report. We are under no obligation to hold all thoughts and comments until they release their final report.
EuclidBut, they do know that the rain washed out track, and so they have to know where that washout is/was located, and how they identified it. And no matter where the investigation takes them, there is no reason not to tell us more about the basis of their current finding that the rain washed out track.
Sure there is. What part of the erosion occurred before the derailment, and what part occurred after the derailment?
Any erosion occurring after the derailment had no bearing on the derailment. The water didn't instantly recede after the derailment - it continued to flow, and likely to erode the roadbed.
The total erosion at or near the derailment site was X (before derailment) and Y (after derailment). What the investigators found when they arrived was X+Y. What they need to determine is X.
X may have been zero when the locomotives passed. We've discussed liquifaction, although I prefer to consider that the water was high enough that the roadbed was, in fact, in suspension. The passing of the locos and the first cars may have stirred the suspended matter enough to allow the current to wash the roadbed away.
tree68 Euclid But, they do know that the rain washed out track, and so they have to know where that washout is/was located, and how they identified it. And no matter where the investigation takes them, there is no reason not to tell us more about the basis of their current finding that the rain washed out track. Sure there is. What part of the erosion occurred before the derailment, and what part occurred after the derailment? Any erosion occurring after the derailment had no bearing on the derailment. The water didn't instantly recede after the derailment - it continued to flow, and likely to erode the roadbed. The total erosion at or near the derailment site was X (before derailment) and Y (after derailment). What the investigators found when they arrived was X+Y. What they need to determine is X. X may have been zero when the locomotives passed. We've discussed liquifaction, although I prefer to consider that the water was high enough that the roadbed was, in fact, in suspension. The passing of the locos and the first cars may have stirred the suspended matter enough to allow the current to wash the roadbed away.
Euclid But, they do know that the rain washed out track, and so they have to know where that washout is/was located, and how they identified it. And no matter where the investigation takes them, there is no reason not to tell us more about the basis of their current finding that the rain washed out track.
I am not quite sure I understand your point or why you seem to believe it contradicts what I said about wanting more information. It seems that you are saying that they have not yet found all the answers to all the questions regarding the washing out of track, and that is the reason why they have not offered those details and answers. If that is what you mean, that’s fine. But I am not asking for all the details at this point. I am only asking where the track was washed out and how they were able to conclude that track had been washed out.
Did they see the washout after the derailment? Is it still there or has it been repaired? Did they take photographs of it? Or was the washout visible to the crew as they passed into the area where the derailment would occur? If so, did the crew report feeling any track problem when they ran over the washout? Or did the crew feel a track anomaly as they passed over the area where the derailment would occur, but not see any evidence of a problem?
If they say the rain washed out track, they ought to at least know how they came to that conclusion and where the track washout was located. That’s all I am asking for. It requires no conjecture, further study, or finding of additional details. These are known facts. Why should they wait because the report is preliminary? They told us lots of facts about the train. Why not tell us about how they found the washout and where they found it? Is that asking too much?
Thanks, Jeff. I should have asked my trainman friends on the AGS about it back then It's a little late now to ask them; I doubt that any of them is still living. I certainly did not recognize any whom I saw between Birmingham and Meridian this past spring.
As I remember, there were more notices about bad footing between Chattanooga and Birmingham than there were sout of Birmingham.
DeggestyThanks, Jeff. I should have asked my trainman friends on the AGS about it back then It's a little late now to ask them; I doubt that any of them is still living. I certainly did not recognize any whom I saw between Birmingham and Meridian this past spring. As I remember, there were more notices about bad footing between Chattanooga and Birmingham than there were sout of Birmingham.
CSX took a dim view of putting such information out on Train Orders or Train Messages - the tendancy for such orders, once put out is to never be annulled, long after the condition has been corrected. That is not to say that they didn't get put our from time to time, but the preferred method of issuing such information was on 'Superintendent's Notices' - which operating employees are also required to read and have available for ready reference. It is very easy to CLUTTER up Train Mssages with items that don't pertain directly to the safe operation of a train through the territory.
Whenever knowledge of a office inspection or Officers Inspection trip was obtained the first thing Division Officials would do was review Train Messages and order 'look out' type orders be annulled.
Sheesh. We ALL want more information.
When the investigation is complete, I'm sure the information you are looking for will be there. Or maybe not. They may not have plotted the exact limits of the washout using GPS, so that location may not be provided to your satisfaction.
Some of your questions have already been answered. The crew's first indication of a problem was the UDE. That's in the initial report.
Who is "they?" Obviously someone saw a washout, because it's been reported that there was one, and because it had to be repaired to restore traffic.
It was reported here earlier that traffic has been resumed on the line. Common sense would tell most people that any damage to the track structure had therefore been repaired.
I'm sure many pictures were taken - they'll probably be part of the final report.
So - patience! I know it's rude of them to tempt you with tidbits of information, but the full report will be forthcoming at some point in the future. Then you can find the shortcomings in that report and complain about them here.
BaltACDWhenever knowledge of a office inspection or Officers Inspection trip was obtained the first thing Division Officials would do was review Train Messages and order 'look out' type orders be annulled.
I always thought Amtrak and CSAO had a better system. They have the monthly or weekly bulletins for all the more generic stuff, then a one or 2 page daily for temporary speed restrictions and the like. Kept the important information very plain and easy to see.
tree68 Sheesh. We ALL want more information. When the investigation is complete, I'm sure the information you are looking for will be there. Or maybe not. They may not have plotted the exact limits of the washout using GPS, so that location may not be provided to your satisfaction. Some of your questions have already been answered. The crew's first indication of a problem was the UDE. That's in the initial report. Who is "they?" Obviously someone saw a washout, because it's been reported that there was one, and because it had to be repaired to restore traffic. It was reported here earlier that traffic has been resumed on the line. Common sense would tell most people that any damage to the track structure had therefore been repaired. I'm sure many pictures were taken - they'll probably be part of the final report. So - patience! I know it's rude of them to tempt you with tidbits of information, but the full report will be forthcoming at some point in the future. Then you can find the shortcomings in that report and complain about them here.
I only have two questions. You seem to be going out of your way to make it seem like I am asking for too much. Then you attempt to answer my two questions with complete conjecture on your part. I don't want to rely on my conjecture or that of anyone else. I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken. We don’t know where the washout was or if it had anything to do with the derailment. Sure I will wait for the final report. I only stated the questions for anyone here to consider if they wish to do so. I did not ask for a condescending lecture.
Euclid I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken.
Have you ever seen a washout on a railroad? They're usually pretty obvious. Yes, I have seen washouts on a railroad.
But the question remains - who is the "someone" you refer to? The track foreman? The roadmaster? The railroad cab driver? The pizza delivery guy? Knowing who you are referring to will make answering your question a lot easier.
One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application. Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application.
There is no doubt in my mind that many pictures were taken of any track problems during the clean-up, and the track foreman can tell you exactly how many tons of material he used to fix the problem. I suspect my conjecture on the taking of pictures is a lot more accurate than your conjecture that none were taken...
tree68 Euclid I don't think it is at all obvious that someone saw a washout, nor am I sure that any pictures of it were taken. Have you ever seen a washout on a railroad? They're usually pretty obvious. Yes, I have seen washouts on a railroad. But the question remains - who is the "someone" you refer to? The track foreman? The roadmaster? The railroad cab driver? The pizza delivery guy? Knowing who you are referring to will make answering your question a lot easier. One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application. Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there. There is no doubt in my mind that many pictures were taken of any track problems during the clean-up, and the track foreman can tell you exactly how many tons of material he used to fix the problem. I suspect my conjecture on the taking of pictures is a lot more accurate than your conjecture that none were taken...
One of your questions was whether the crew noticed anything. Balt has already pointed out that the crew's first indication of a problem was a UDE, and that's borne out by a statement in the preliminary report:
Important to note here is that they didn't say "when the crew initiated an emergency brake application." No conjecture on my part there.
Yes washouts are typically very obvious. I have seen washouts on roads and railroads. But I did not say washouts are not obvious. I said that it is not obvious that anyone saw a washout. If a washout derailed the train, I suspect the washout may have disappeard in the process of the derailment. So, maybe the derailment was cleared up and track rebuilt without anyone seeing a washout after the derailment.
Or maybe the crew saw the washout before running over it, and we are left only with their report because the derailent obliterated the washout. Or maybe the crew reported feeling some sort of track irregualrity, and then derailed. Maybe this was then assumed to have been a washout.
I suspect pictures were taken of much of the derailment repair. But I never offered conjecture that no such pictures were taken. You are twisting my words. What I said was that I was not sure that any pictures were taken of the washout. That is not conjecture asserting that no pictures were taken of the wreck clean up process, as you say I have done.
The reason I am not sure if pictures were taken of the washout is that it may have been obliterated by the derailment. When I look at 33 tank cars jacknifed in the muck, I think it would be hard to find a distinct feature that could be identified as a washout, especially when you consider that this alleged washout was not big enough to derail the head end of the train.
I am not sure why you bring up the UDE in relation to anything I have said. I would expect that the train dumped the air as the derailment began. I did mention the possibility of the crew either seeing the washout, or feeling it, or both. I mention all of these details only as possibilities. I would not call them conjecture, since I am not asserting them to be true as an opinion. When you say there is no doubt in your mind regarding your unproven opinion, I would call that conjecture.
Ah - so you do accept that what I've suggested is amongst the possibilities. That's all I intended.
I bring up the UDE because the way that the information has been presented so far there is every indication that the crew saw nothing, felt nothing, and had no reason to suspect a problem until the UDE occurred. Of course the air is going to dump as the result of the derailment. The point is that the air was not dumped intentionally before the derailment.
Consider that the washout was a likely a dynamic event, occurring even as the train passed. This is why I mention the suspension of the roadbed in the high water. If no train had passed, I suspect the water would have receded and no one would have been the wiser.
As it was, the head end of the train was probably enough to set the fluidized roadbed into motion and it fell away.
Combine that with what washout may have occurred before the arrival of the train and you have the recipe for the disaster.
And, the washout likely continued after the derailment. That would make determining the scope of the washout at the time of the derailment difficult at best.
The roadbed was/is on a raised berm. It's unlikely a derailment would have caused the damage to the roadbed that a washout would cause.
It will be interesting to see the pictures that will probably be included with the final report.
tree68As it was, the head end of the train was probably enough to set the fluidized roadbed into motion and it fell away. Combine that with what washout may have occurred before the arrival of the train and you have the recipe for the disaster. And, the washout likely continued after the derailment. That would make determining the scope of the washout at the time of the derailment difficult at best. The roadbed was/is on a raised berm. It's unlikely a derailment would have caused the damage to the roadbed that a washout would cause. It will be interesting to see the pictures that will probably be included with the final report.
In watching the Drone pictures again - I did not see any obvious indication of a 'washout' at least not to the point of seeing 'missing segments of roadway'. The massed accordian of derailed cars may have obscured such a washout, however, all the accordian of cars seemed to be at top level of the embankment the train was operating on. At the time the drone made it's pass over the scene the water level 'seemed' to be at the bottome of the embankment - of course the flight of the drone was a number of hours after the incident happened.
I am not saying that water did not have some causative effect - but whatever effect it had was not visible within the range of the headlight at 0430 by the crew of the train.
Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
Note that the NTSB information only refers to a UDE occurring. There is no indication that the UDE was the first or only indication of an anomaly that the crew experienced. Therefore, the possibility that the crew saw and/or felt a washout may explain why the NTSB may be asserting that there was a washout, even without any other observation of a washout after the derailment.
Often, a washout will be very large, and will derail the train as the head end encounters it. It will leave obvious evidence of what happened. There may be a miniature Grand Canyon with several locomotives and freight cars heaped up in the bottom of the canyon. And the canyon is obviously new and as apparent as the 600-pound gorilla, and so it is obvious that the canyon is a washout that caused the wreck.
But at Doon, a washout had to be relatively tiny for the two locomotives and several loaded cars to make it past without derailing. And this would have been with the roadbed already saturated and presumably somewhat softened. This washout may have only been a foot wide and a foot deep with some loss of support under two or three ties. A standing fill is easier to plow up than a roadbed not on a fill. So a tiny washout that may have caused the derailment would have easily been totally obliterated as the loaded tank cars demolished the track and plowed up the ballast and probably several feet of the fill elevation. So tiny washout + big earthwork disruption = 100% obliteration of washout form.
This is my basis for suggesting that the washout may only be presumed by the NTSB and not actually seen by anybody after the derailment. The only evidence for a washout may be that the crew saw or felt something seconds before their train piled up behind them.
EuclidJust to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
Terex - Bovine droppings - wait for the full NTSB report. You have NO IDEA what the crew saw or felt or not.
BaltACD Euclid Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup. Terex - Bovine droppings - wait for the full NTSB report. You have NO IDEA what the crew saw or felt or not.
Euclid Just to be clear, my point about the crew possibly seeing a washout upon approach is not to suggest they should have applied the brakes in response. My point is that they may have seen and/or felt a washout, and then there was a UDE as the train derailed. Then the NTSB could easily conclude that there was a washout that caused the derailment, even if the physical evidence of the washout were completely obliterated by the pileup.
On the previous page, you said this:
The NTSB report stated that the first inkling that the crew had was when an emergency brake application was initiated by the train, thus the incident DID NOT derail the engines and the crew did not SEE a wash out in fact or in progress as they passed the point of derailment at 48 MPH in 49 MPH territory.
The report says this: "The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) determined the train speed was about 48 mph when the train encountered the emergency brake application."
It says nothing about whether the crew saw or felt anything that might have been related to the "washed out track." It does not say that the UDE was the "first inkling" (as you say) that foretold of a possible washout.
I have only said what might have happened. I never said it did happen. You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree.
EuclidI have only said what might have happened.
And you do so repeatedly (make the same assertions) - perhaps you're hoping if you say it enough times it'll stick?. If someone dares offer a different opinion, they are characterized as attacking you...
Euclid You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree.
In general, there's only one person most folks have disagreed with. And if they do so, they are characterized as attacking that person. And not just in this thread.
See a pattern here?
Not to mention that the "washout" at an unspecified location somewhere in the general area may have been more in the nature of some embankment erosion that did not affect the actual track. We just don't know. Detailed speculation based on ignorance is a foolish waste of time, especially when carried to the extreme we have seen here.
tree68 Euclid I have only said what might have happened. And you do so repeatedly (make the same assertions) - perhaps you're hoping if you say it enough times it'll stick?. If someone dares offer a different opinion, they are characterized as attacking you... Euclid You, on the other hand, make assertions you claim as fact without any proof whatsoever, and then insult those who may disagree. In general, there's only one person most folks have disagreed with. And if they do so, they are characterized as attacking that person. And not just in this thread. See a pattern here?
Euclid I have only said what might have happened.
You might take a look at that exchange I had with Balt above since that is what you are quoting in your reply to me above. The comments by me that you quoted above have a context of specifically replying to Balt. They are not just my generalizations as you attempt to portray them in your post above.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.