cx500 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.
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.
True. However, it seems obvious to me that neither the NTSB preliminary report nor the BNSF spokesperson would mention a track washout somewhere else, since that would be irrelevant to this derailment.
I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question.
Euclid I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question.
Charlie - you should know by now that the only opinions that count here are Bucky's.
All other opinions are "unsubstantiated claims."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Euclid I don’t see where BNSF spokesman Andy Williams mentioned or confirmed that tracks were washed out. Apparently he was asked by a reporter if the engineer knew or should have known that track was washed out, and he had no answer to that question. Charlie - you should know by now that the only opinions that count here are Bucky's. All other opinions are "unsubstantiated claims."
I don't give a fig about this silly, ongoing kid's game between Bucky and several other members. When he or anyone else makes what I think is a useful observation, I take note. Otherwise the back nd forth sniping reminds me of junior high school games. Boring and childish.
EuclidDid they see the washout after the derailment? Is it still there or has it been repaired? Did they take photographs of it?
A wash out occurs when flowing water "washes out" the ballast and subgrade material from under the track. Its pretty easy to find once the water goes down. If the ballast and subgrade material is 30 or 40 feet out into the field, that's a wash out.
EuclidOr 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?
There is no public report of the crew saying there was a problem or reporting anything to the dispatcher. Not saying whether there was or wasn't just there hasn't been a report. The crew may not have seen the washout, the crew may not have felt the washout if it gave way after the engines passed. Once again we don't have that info.
Euclid 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?
Why should they? What difference will it make if they report this afternoon or 6 months from now?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Of course if its truly a washout, where the track structure was compromised by erosion, then that whole "liquifaction" scenario becomes pretty much moot.
dehusman Of course if its truly a washout, where the track structure was compromised by erosion, then that whole "liquifaction" scenario becomes pretty much moot.
When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure. Then I saw that the news media seemed to widely assume that the report meant that the track had been washed out at the derailment site. So I decided to adopt that position.
But now, I see that the news stories have backed off on interpreting the NTSB report as stating that the washout was at the derailment site. Instead, they just quote the NTSB report directly. This tells me that like my original position on this, they don’t know what the NTSB report mystery sentence means. So I too have reverted back to my original position. That is that the report says that the rain washed out track, but it does not say where that occurred.
Also, BNSF spokesman Andy Williams is quoted responding to a question about whether the engineer knew about the washout or should have knowing about it. Mr. Williams had no answer. I have not seen a transcript of that interview, so I do not know if Mr. Williams acknowledged that there had been a washout as the question to him implies.
Taken all together, I see no reason to believe that a washout occurred at the derailment site. There is no evidence of that.
EuclidWhen reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Euclid When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure. I dunno. Unless you are using completely different meanings for the words written than the rest of us, I don't see any post that vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site.
Euclid When reading the preliminary report, I was at first uncertain as to whether the washing out of track that it referred to was at the Doon derailment site. Some people here vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site. I still was not sure.
I dunno. Unless you are using completely different meanings for the words written than the rest of us, I don't see any post that vehemently insisted that the report said the washout was at the derailment site.
Well maybe vehement is a little strong, but I was thinking of you and Mr. Hebdo. You both seemed to believe that there could be no other meaning to the mystery sentence. I have since spoken to the NTSB, and as of now, that has been inconclusive. But maybe they need a little time. If they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
EuclidIf they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
Maybe because it's a potential consideration in the investigation? That was a preliminary report, after all. As such, it's going to cast a wide net, especially if they haven't nailed down a "chief suspect."
Perhaps the intention of the statement was to indicate that washouts (or potential washouts) had been observed in the area, so that's a consideration in the investigation.
As the investigation progresses, the investigators will be ruling out potential causes, from broken rails to broken equipment, to a failed roadbed, to who-knows-what. Maybe they've already ruled a lot of things out. We'll get our answer when the final report comes out.
Euclid4) The train was operating within its authority.
Just clarity, what "the train was operating in its authority" means is that the train had main track authority for the location at which it was operating, i.e. it wasn't off its route or someplace it wasn't authorized to go. If a train was authorized to go from Anna to Dora and the derailment happened at Bess, the train would have been operating in it authority. If a train was authorized from Anna to Dora and the derailment happened at Eve, then it would have been out of its authority.
In or out of authority has no bearing on what restrictions, if any, were in force or what speeds were authorized, it just says the train was where it was supposed to be.
EuclidWell maybe vehement is a little strong, but I was thinking of you and Mr. Hebdo. You both seemed to believe that there could be no other meaning to the mystery sentence. I have since spoken to the NTSB, and as of now, that has been inconclusive. But maybe they need a little time. If they did not mean that the washout was at the derailment site, why do you think they mentioned it?
Murphy Siding What did the NTSB say?
"Sir.. please stop calling us." ?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Murphy Siding What did the NTSB say? "Sir.. please stop calling us." ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.