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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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
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?
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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!
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!
Johnny
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.
I like the way we constantly complain that news sources are unreliable, then we spend hours and pages analyzing the news reports in great detail, down to the exact meaning of each word.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Overmod What's been out of the discussion so far is what 'restricted speed' means when there is a likelihood of trouble but nothing overtly identifiable as something to be 'stopped half the distance to'.
Beyond "half the distance" most railroads also set a maximum speed for operating as "restricted speed." For us, it's 20 MPH on the main and 10 MPH in the yards.
EuclidIt does not seem to work that way with Rule 6.21.
Then the rule may need revised. But when you start your own interpretations of the rules aka "use some common sense", you can get in trouble REAL fast.
Once the NTSB releases their report, there may be some revisions to 6.21.
zugmann Euclid You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it. If it takes 1000 pages to write a rule, then there should be a 1000 page rule written. That's how it works out here.
Euclid You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
If it takes 1000 pages to write a rule, then there should be a 1000 page rule written. That's how it works out here.
It does not seem to work that way with Rule 6.21.
EuclidYou could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
As I indicated above, I do not know what the phrase, “washed out” means in the context of the NTSB report. They said they will have one of the investigators call me this week and explain exactly what the mystery sentence means. The dictionary defines washout as a breach in a road or railroad track caused by flooding. But I am leaving open the possibility that the NTSB is using the term to mean erosion. IF the mystery sentence means that the track was breached by a washout at the Doon derailment site, it would seem impossible that two locomotives and a dozen or so cars were somehow able to jump the breach and regain the rails on the opposite side of the breach.
So as I mentioned above, I surmise the following regarding the NTSB mystery report:
They have no knowledge of what actually caused the derailment, but their best hunch is that the flood had something to do with it.
They have no knowledge of any washout condition within the derailment zone, whether the washout condition would be a breach or just storm water erosion.
They have not proven that the derailment was not caused by a mechanical failure of the train or track, having nothing to do with the flood.
In terms of speed, the rule does not refer to it as restricted speed although the concept is similar. What the rule requires is unusually high water sufficient to endanger a passing train. But the obvious point of the rule is to spot a flood-related track problem and be able to stop short of it. Since such a problem could be very small, or even not visible at all, I would surmise that the rule would require a speed certainly not faster than 10 mph, and prudence would suggest a speed of less than 3 mph. One mph would be even better, but considering that a train may derail at even 1 mph if the track defect is not visible, perhaps the greater objective of extreme slowness is to prevent a massive pileup if the creeping train does happen to encounter a hidden defect that thus derail.
Rather than pick apart every little detail to create contract language that defines unusually high water, the rule relies on common sense. It is like the rule to take the safe course when in doubt. It does not stipulate how safe and how safety and doubt should be measured and quantified. You could write a 1000-page rule to cover that sort of specificity, and then no two people would agree on what it means. So, even though it may seem hokey, common sense is sometimes the best guide, and everybody has a little of it.
Throughout these Doon threads, we have been told over and over that Rule 6.21 did not apply because BNSF did not define the water level at Doon as being high. And the reason given for that conclusion was that the crew did not adhere to the rule which has now been confirmed by the fact that they were traveling only 1 mph under the speed limit. So, the theory is that if the crew did not slow down, that means they were not required to slow down by the Rule 6.21.
EuclidOfficially, I would determine that the train should not exceed 10 mph through the area based on the fact that the site is on a fill that is surrounded by water up to the bottom of the ballast.
What's needed is not a term undefined in the rules, but one that is. I am looking forward to petitnj providing a specific reference to 'creep' in rules, and the definition of what that is in mph. I would "assume" a reasonable value to be that used for yard limits, not 10mph but 5mph.
The alternative is 'restricted speed' which neatly provides that it's the engineer's responsibility to stop half the distance to any perceived hazard. What's been out of the discussion so far is what 'restricted speed' means when there is a likelihood of trouble but nothing overtly identifiable as something to be 'stopped half the distance to'. It is clear to me that standing water on either side of the ballast prism is a red flag for potential issues in track stability whether or not it appears that line and surface are still good; it also appears, circumstantially, that at least one BNSF crew interpreted the situation as full permitted speed if you don't see actual damage. It may be possible that there are situations under which running a long heavy train slowly might induce more settlement (leading to derailment) than the same train operated more quickly -- but the added kinetic energy as the square of the speed, expressed if there is a washout or 'water-related' derailment, ought to rule that out as an operating principle.
Meanwhile: I had always thought, without really looking carefully at Hay or other references, that "washout" specifically meant destruction of the effective track geometry, either by physically damaging the track or leaving the rails and ties effectively unsupported. That is not the same thing as creating a soft spot that can settle or "liquefy" under the passage of a train and cause it to derail. Is there an appropriate term of art for the latter that is distinct from 'washout'?? -- if there is not, I would argue there should be.
Assuming that the fact is that the track was washed out at the derailment site as is widely assumed due to the mystery sentence in the NTSB report, it raises this question:
How would you find evidence that the track was washed out when the washout was never observed, and the derailment thoroughly plowed up the ballast and about six feet deep into the sub-grade fill, and probably pulverized the track structure in the process? How do you look at that mess and find evidence of a washout? The tank cars are not going to tell you why they derailed. The track is ripped to shreds. And the roadbed and ballast have been though a blender.
I suspect the NTSB found the one or more very small washouts along the track near the derailment site that were not actually under the derailment zone. From that they strongly speculate that the cause of the derailment was flood related, but they have no evidence that a washout derailed the train because if a washout caused the derailment, the evidence of the washout would be obliterated.
But finding small washouts along the roadbed away from the actual derailment would allow them to say that the rain washed out track. It would also be powerful circumstantial evidence that the train was derailed by a washout even if it cannont be found. Therefore, they summarize their circumstantial evidence by saying that the cause of the derailment is flood related. That is still going out on a limb, but not too far.
Nevertheless, it would still be a challenge to conclude that all damage observed in the wrecked cars and track was entirely the result of the pileup as opposed to some of that damage representing some type of breakage that actually caused the derailment.
It may be misleading to say that the rain washed out track because that tends to imply taking the track out of alignment, breaking it, and rendering the line impassible. Yet it would be accurate to say track was washed out while still remaining passible because any amount of track materials dislodged and moved could be referred to as being washed out. So washing out track does not necessarily mean destroying its ability to carry a train.
EuclidSo I do hold out the possibility that Hebdo, Siding, Euclid, and the AP are wrong in their interpretation of the mystery sentence.
Fixed that for ya.
Overmod,
I must say though despite admonitions from Hebdo and Siding, I perfectly understand your point about the difference between “washed out track” and “washed out the track at Doon which then derailed the train.” This stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it in the report and I am still not entirely convinced what the sentence actually means. And I also get the feeling that that is the point of the sentence. So I do hold out the possibility that Hebdo, Siding, and the AP are wrong in their interpretation of the mystery sentence.
OvermodWhere do you actually see either (1) or (2) in the AP story? This is likely to be more important than a semantic quibble. It doesn't say THE track was washed out, it just says 'track was washed out'. And nowhere do I see confirmation that there was a physical washout at the point of derailment, which is what would be necessary to conclude (2). .
The AP story says this:
“NTSB: Track Was Washed Out At Doon Derailment Site…”
The NTSB report says this:
"The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”
I have been scolded by renowned linguistics experts Murphy Siding and Charlie Hebdo that the sentence above from the NTSB report has to mean that the actions of washing out of track, the flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River, and the flooding of farm fields were all three adjacent to the derailment location. Therefore, the washing out of track has got to refer to the track that was carrying the oil train through the derailment location.
Moreover, since the AP story says that is what the NTSB sentence means, I will take the AP story as the source.
Overmod, I appreciate your comment, "... which as we've already discussed to the point of equine morbidity...."
Where do you actually see either (1) or (2) in the AP story?
This is likely to be more important than a semantic quibble. It doesn't say THE track was washed out, it just says 'track was washed out'. And nowhere do I see confirmation that there was a physical washout at the point of derailment, which is what would be necessary to conclude (2).
Another consideration here is what additional sources AP is using to go beyond the conclusions in the published NTSB material ... which as we've already discussed to the point of equine morbidity, says neither of those things and intentionally avoids formally stating them at this time.
The 'new' thing appears to be the BNSF guy saying your point (3), that the cause of the derailment was 'flood-related'. The problem is that, because he promptly shut up after saying that, you have no explicit knowledge of how, exactly, the derailment was flood-related. And won't until BNSF and/or NTSB provides more information. Which I suspect will be very slow in coming forth.
I do think it would be reasonably safe to state or conclude that the BNSF crew was not operating in conformance with Rule 6.21 if they were essentially at permitted track speed at the time the derailment started. On the other hand, I think it is pointless at this time to speculate whether or not the crew 'shoulda woulda coulda' run at some more restricted speed into what they may or may not have understood as established high water conditions. Only the result of actual investigation will confirm or disestablish that.
And I think I can reasonably assure you that no one writing for the AP knows anything firsthand about either the incident or the internal progress of the investigation other than what NTSB has divulged.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new. Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to. You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented. I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker The article contains the following new information never known before: 1) The track was washed out. 2) The track washout was at the site of the derailment. 3) The cause of the derailment was flood related. 4) The train was operating within its authority. 5) The train was moving at 48 mph when it derailed. 6) It is not known whether the engineer knew or should have known that the tracks were washed out. Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority, which I assume would not be accurate if the train had not slowed down as required by Rule 6.21.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new. Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to. You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented. I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker
Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new.
Euclid In the second quote, I am not concluding that BNSF did not make a mistake in their assessment. At this point, all I know is that Rule 6.21 was not adhered to.
You said "So apparently Rule 6.21 did not apply due to the water not being high enough to meet the definition of “high water,” as the rule requires." In my understanding that means Rule 6.21 was not valid. But my English understanding might be wrong. If you had said BNSF didn't apply Rule 6.21....... I hadn't commented.
I would have expected BNSF to issue a speed restriction not the crew at night.Regards, Volker
The article contains the following new information never known before:
1) The track was washed out.
2) The track washout was at the site of the derailment.
3) The cause of the derailment was flood related.
4) The train was operating within its authority.
5) The train was moving at 48 mph when it derailed.
6) It is not known whether the engineer knew or should have known that the tracks were washed out.
Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority, which I assume would not be accurate if the train had not slowed down as required by Rule 6.21.
The NTSB report stated that the first inkling that the crew had was when an emergency brake application was initiated by the train, thus the incident DID NOT derail the engines and the crew did not SEE a wash out in fact or in progress as they passed the point of derailment at 48 MPH in 49 MPH territory. To date I have not seen a report of which cars were actually derailed in the train.
Regarding Rule 6.21, I only assume it did not apply because Mr. Williams said the train was operating within its authority. I assume that the train would not be operating within its authority if it was required to slow down per Rule 6.21, and had not done so.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.