Can't say that I've ever seen the word "creep" with regard to speed on the railroad.
I have seen the term "walking speed."
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...
If someone looked at the flood and ordered a slower speed, I am sure they would not tell the crew to creep through the flood zone. But for purposes of discussion for a need to slow down, why is there a need for us to stipulate a specific speed? And if there is that need for pupose of discussion, what speed are we supposed to stipulate? In view of this context, I think creep works fine. "Walking speed works fine too. I see that as about equal to creeping speed. Maybe another way to put it is way, way slower than 49 mph.
If there is a soft spot that would derail a train moving over 20 mph, and if you pass at 6 mph, you will not discover the soft spot. You will never know if there was any need to slow down at all. But if you do derail an oil train at a slow speed, it would be nice to not spill or ignite any oil. So what speed would that be?
I would suggest running about 6-10 mph and keeping a close eye on the track during the passage, and then checking carefully after passage.
Restricted speed would fulfill the requirements of most definitions of "creeping along".
S.P.H.R.S. (stop and proceed on hand or radio signals) is another version, normally found in special instructions for handling dimensional moves.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude Restricted speed would fulfill the requirements of most definitions of "creeping along". S.P.H.R.S. (stop and proceed on hand or radio signals) is another version, normally found in special instructions for handling dimensional moves.
Yes, it is true that saturated and/or unstable roadbed is not always obviously visible. But sometimes it is. Signs would include shifted or sunk track, or erosion of the side of the grade.
I have been over track not long after a flash flood raised the water level over the rail (and then receded to a normal level), and while the track and subgrade appeared normal there were pieces of debris hung up on top of and between the rails. Earlier that day we had been contacted by the Dispatcher and told to be on the lookout for flood damage, as weather and rainfall reports meant it was likely that flash floods would have occurred. We turned that area in, and later found out that a culvert and nearby subgrade needed repairs, fortunately we passed over without derailing.
Another instance I saw involved a beaver plugging a culvert, and the water level quickly rose almost to the ties. In that case it was obvious that the water had risen quickly as grass and other small green plants could be seen underwater. Another train ahead of us noticed this and turned it in, and by the time we got there a Foreman was on site to walk trains across the flooded area, with work equipment enroute.
SD70DudeAnother instance I saw involved a beaver plugging a culvert
Canadian beavers official motto:
"Disrupting Canadian railway travel since 1852"*
*Founding date of Grand Trunk Railway, CN's earliest predecessor.
Crack passenger train or branchline mixed, it mattered not to them.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
If you're going to quote rules, at least quote the appropiate ones. Doubt or uncertainty may not be applicable if the track had recently been inspected.
GCOR
6.21 Precautions Against Unusual Conditions Protect trains and engines against any known condition that may interfere with their safety. When conditions restrict visibility, regulate speed to ensure that crew members can observe and comply with signal indications. In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement.Advise the train dispatcher of such conditions by the first available means of communication.
6.21.1 Protection Against Defects If any defect or condition that might cause an accident is discovered on tracks, bridges, or culverts, or if any crew member believes that the train or engine has passed over a dangerous defect, the crew member must immediately notify the train dispatcher and provide protection if necessary.
6.21.2 Water Above Rail Do not operate trains and engines over tracks submerged in water until the track has been inspected and verified as safe. Operate engines at 5 MPH or less when water is above the top of the rail. If water is more than 3 inches above the top of the rail, a mechanical department supervisor must authorize the movement.
6.21.3 Track Obstruction / Unusual Conditions When a train is advised in the words, “Between (location) and (location) be governed by Rule 6.21.3”, within the specified limits train must move as directed in the special instructions.
Jeff
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.
Thank You.
Thanks! I had forgotten about that one.
Good thing they were there, the rails didn't break so the block would still have shown clear.
SD70Dude Thanks! I had forgotten about that one. Good thing they were there, the rails didn't break so the block would still have shown clear.
Indeed - in fact, a head end crew likely wouldn't have noticed anything wrong if they arrived at the beginning of the video. I suspect the passing of the train would have hastened the subsidence.
From rule 6.21
“In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop.”
It seems that the rule only addresses the presence of track defects that can be seen, and requires that the train be prepared to stop short if such defects are seen. There may be a defect that cannot be seen, so the crew would not be expected to see it and stop short.
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.
If the crew of that train had been told by a supervisor to not slow down at the flood site, would that have overridden the obligation of the crew to approach prepared to stop short of any track defects?
jeffhergert If you're going to quote rules, at least quote the appropiate ones. Doubt or uncertainty may not be applicable if the track had recently been inspected. GCOR 6.21 Precautions Against Unusual Conditions Protect trains and engines against any known condition that may interfere with their safety. When conditions restrict visibility, regulate speed to ensure that crew members can observe and comply with signal indications. In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement.Advise the train dispatcher of such conditions by the first available means of communication. 6.21.1 Protection Against Defects If any defect or condition that might cause an accident is discovered on tracks, bridges, or culverts, or if any crew member believes that the train or engine has passed over a dangerous defect, the crew member must immediately notify the train dispatcher and provide protection if necessary. 6.21.2 Water Above Rail Do not operate trains and engines over tracks submerged in water until the track has been inspected and verified as safe. Operate engines at 5 MPH or less when water is above the top of the rail. If water is more than 3 inches above the top of the rail, a mechanical department supervisor must authorize the movement. 6.21.3 Track Obstruction / Unusual Conditions When a train is advised in the words, “Between (location) and (location) be governed by Rule 6.21.3”, within the specified limits train must move as directed in the special instructions. Jeff
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Jeff- Do you contrue this to mean that any train operating in northwest Iowa needs to be crawling at 10 mph any time there is rain in the forcast, the way some on here are suggesting?
Jeff- Do you contrue this to mean that any train operating in northwest Iowa needs to be crawling at 10 mph any time there is rain in the forcast, the way some on here are suggesting?
Nobody has suggested that trains operating in northwest Iowa need to be crawling at 10 mph any time there is rain in the forecast.
EuclidHowever, 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?
EuclidIf the crew of that train had been told by a supervisor to not slow down at the flood site, would that have overridden the obligation of the crew to approach prepared to stop short of any track defects?
Nobody is going to be stupid enough to do that.
Question for all those "slow down every place" people. In the winter time, if you are driving down the highway, do you slow down to a crawl every time you drive over a bridge with a "Bridge ices before roadway" signs? If you expect the crew to do that why don't you?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Two good posts. Good to see you have figured out readable formatting.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Does BNSF use trip optimizer?
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 It might be that the derailment had absolutely nothing to do with the water at all.
petitnj but would it still be prudent to slow in case something has changed since the last train traversed the area?
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?
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.
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
EuclidIn 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.
zugmann 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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.