cx500I have no idea what the soils are like in Iowa, or if the land beside the embankment is normally underwater. I do know that on the Canadian Prairies the railways do have known areas of potential weak subgrades, and that in wet years track surface conditions can deteriorate rapidly. One fairly recent derailment was caused when the subgrade liquefied under the pounding of a unit potash train. It had been a wet spring, although there was no standing water at the time as far as I know.
Exactly. That's why I included the question about the history of the area being important. Railroads and the track people know the soft spots in their area. They know which places to check first. The mere presence of water in the area isn't enough to cause somebody to put a very restrictive slow order on the track or shut the line down as has been proposed. There has to be something happening to the track structure. If the track appears stable and has been stable for the last several days of flooding, there is nothing that would trigger an action. It appears that the track structure was still several feet above the water. It doesn't appear to be any flow of water. It appears to be back water. Those things do not present the same danger that water in the track structure or water flowing through the track structure present. Normally failures in cases where the track is above water and there is no flow are failures of something in the subgrade, things that are hidden from a visual inspection.
Of course, yes, if there is any kind of erosion, water flowing though the track, water over the track, shifting of the track, settling of the track, then yes some sort of action has to be taken, which could range from slow orders to shutting down the line.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Euclid In any case, the flood was unusually high water. How do you know the water was "unusually high"? How do you know if that area floods that way every time it rains. If the water has been that high for days, is it still "unusual"? If the water was higher previously and has started to recede, is it still unusually high? Nobody on this list has any answers to any of those questions so saying that people violated rules is way premature. It could have been a failure to detect and protect or it could have been a spontaneous failure, or it could have been something completely different.
Euclid In any case, the flood was unusually high water.
How do you know the water was "unusually high"? How do you know if that area floods that way every time it rains. If the water has been that high for days, is it still "unusual"? If the water was higher previously and has started to recede, is it still unusually high?
Nobody on this list has any answers to any of those questions so saying that people violated rules is way premature. It could have been a failure to detect and protect or it could have been a spontaneous failure, or it could have been something completely different.
You keep creating hypothetical positions that you allege others have taken, and then to set out to prove those positions wrong. I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. All I have done is break down the rule and evaluate how it might apply this this situation.
I don’t have a definition of what constitutes unusually high water. The rule does not define it either. It apparently relies on people judging the water depth using common sense—maybe the safest course kicks in somewhere. I would say this: If water qualifies as being unusually high and it stays that high for ten days, it is unusually high for ten days. It does not become usual just because it is typical of the preceding day. If that were the case, you could say it is not unusually high after the first minute, or the first second.
charlie hebdo it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, with too much focus on "rules" and too little on the purpose of those rules - safety. Example: Husman specified a list of eight questions to be addressed by investigators. High water at the point of derailment was not one of them even though that was obviously a factor. He gave the non-analogous example not slowing down when driving in winter precip on possibly iced bridges. A more parallel example would be plunging ahead into a potentially flooding underpass while driving in a heavy rainstorm without slowing down and exercising some caution. Recklessness.
it is easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, with too much focus on "rules" and too little on the purpose of those rules - safety. Example: Husman specified a list of eight questions to be addressed by investigators. High water at the point of derailment was not one of them even though that was obviously a factor. He gave the non-analogous example not slowing down when driving in winter precip on possibly iced bridges. A more parallel example would be plunging ahead into a potentially flooding underpass while driving in a heavy rainstorm without slowing down and exercising some caution. Recklessness.
This a good point about what probably, should be considered and discussed.
A practice I am exercising on this discussion is, the back and forth on "splitting hairs" about flood/creep/etecetra, I do not take the time to read the ad infinitum linguistic gymnastics. (gymnastics reference was for Balt who felt I thought engineers needed to do gymnastics to satisfy the alerter ........ this is a joke .......please this is a compliment to Balt and NOT a slam)
My practice of avoiding the nonsense is a personal privilage, but they have the same privilage to post it. However, one additional point that I have suggested before and probably has bored and irritated some here: A practice called "extinction" works well. Don't continue the endless, and I mean endless, discussion. Don't respond to certain people when you are certain that the discussion will be endless in the back and forth. mike
endmrw0627181316
Euclid I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down.
I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down.
Unless you have seen the download, you have no idea if they were doing track speed, or they were going slower.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Euclid I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. Unless you have seen the download, you have no idea if they were doing track speed, or they were going slower.
Oh I think the derailment pileup of 32 cars and breaching enough of them to spill 230,000 gallons of oil is a pretty good indication that they were not moving anywhere near as slowly as 5-10 mph which would be required by rule 6.21 in order to make it possible to be prepared to stop as the rule stipulates in the case of unusually high water.
One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence.
[from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way."
The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water.
Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that.
Short term memory problems?
EuclidThe rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
charlie hebdo One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence. [from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way." The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
dehusman Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. Short term memory problems? Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment.
Well it does violate the rule, but there is the possibility that they were told that the track had been inspected and therefore they were not required to slow down. I can't accuse them of violating rule 6.21 if the rule did not exist due to having been overridden by other instructions. And I don't know whether or not that was the case.
But my point was that if the rule did apply, it would make no difference whether the derailment was caused by the flood or something non-flood-related. This is because the rule to slow down would have been violated by failing to slow down for the flood even though the flood did not cause the derailment.
Norris: The "expert at everything and proficient at none" dimestore lawyers are on the loose again. Unless it's railroad, FRA or NTSB, the assertion is pretty much invalid. (I'm with ya here)
Euclid dehusman Euclid I have never accused anybody of violating rules. I don’t recall anybody doing that. Short term memory problems? Euclid The rule pertaining to that condtion calls for slowing down. I don't think it takes a theory to contend that they did not slow down. That violates the rule no matter what caused the derailment. Well it does violate the rule, but there is the possibility that they were told that the track had been inspected and therefore they were not required to slow down. I can't accuse them of violating rule 6.21 if the rule did not exist due to having been overridden by other instructions. And I don't know whether or not that was the case. But my point was that if the rule did apply, it would make no difference whether the derailment was caused by the flood or something non-flood-related. This is because the rule to slow down would have been violated by failing to slow down for the flood even though the flood did not cause the derailment.
dehusman It is entirely possible that the track was inspected recently, no defects were noted, no speed restriction was issued, no previous trains reported any problems, the area had no history of previous problems and the train didn't detect any problems prior to passing over that specific location.
It is entirely possible that the track was inspected recently, no defects were noted, no speed restriction was issued, no previous trains reported any problems, the area had no history of previous problems and the train didn't detect any problems prior to passing over that specific location.
Dave,
Yes that is entirely possible along with dozens of other combinations of a portion of those facts, plus other possible facts that you have not listed. I think that is what this thread is looking at; that is, the possible causes for the derailment as they may relate to the flood. I don’t rule out any of those possible causes including negligence.
Some here seem unwilling to go that far, so they raise technical objections such as what “unusual” means, or that “creep” does not indicate a specific speed. They complain that officials asserting that the flood the caused the derailment may not be qualified officials. Or they may re-state what some have considered by exaggerating it to the absurd, such as trains needing to slow to a crawl every time rain is forecast. They offer lots of theories to limit the cause while complaining that others are offering mere theories to explore the cause.
mudchicken Norris: The "expert at everything and proficient at none" dimestore lawyers are on the loose again. Unless it's railroad, FRA or NTSB, the assertion is pretty much invalid. (I'm with ya here)
I can understand someone from the news media looking for more information about a derailment. It would be easy for them to find a law deputy sheriff or other officer and ask his or her opinion. So far, that’s logical. But suppose this derailment had happened in the desert. Would the media report that officials thought the train derailed on account of all the sand? Would everyone simply believe that because they can see all the sand in the photos? (Or would they take it all with a grain of sand? Sorry man- the made me do it!)
Charlie H.- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register.
The derailment happened Friday, June 22 about 0430 CDT, as per Andy Williams, BNSF Spokesperson. 32 cars were reported derailed. 14 of them were leaking.
I went back to view the drone footage on the Sioux County Sheriff Office's FB page while I was having my coffee. It started during sunrise (0545), so I'm guessing it was around 0600 as the drone reached its operating elevation. Viewing the last 3 minutes of the 22 minute video gives more clues.
I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map. The derailment site was on the southern edge of the Little Rock River floodplain. Creek elevation was 1270 ft, the top of the floodplain was 1280 ft, roughly corresponding to the base of the RR and road embankments to the south. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 2 ft. The strongest current stayed in the river bed and immediate area to the north, which appears to be a trestle approach to the girder bridge over the LRR proper. That's about 0.40 miles north of the approximate point of derailment.
Also, the head end, minus power, becomes visible around the 20:30 mark. There appear to be six tank cars & the buffer car stopped south of the 270th St grade crossing. That's roughly 0.20 miles from the first derailed tank car. IDK if there were 2 or 3 units powering the train.
I will defer to the locomotive engineers posting here to estimate how fast they think the loaded oil train was traveling when it went into emergency and stopped in roughly a quarter mile. I don't know the grade profile here, but I'm guessing there was a slight downgrade through Doon heading towards Sioux Center.
Now, IIRC, loco headlights are focused fairly narrowly on the tracks. How much 'peripheral' light is available to see the terrain outside of the roadbed in country with little ambient light at 0430? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking because I wonder if they could see the water on both sides of the tracks if it was at the base of the embankment. I'd be confident in saying that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
Since a washed out bridge would be a greater apparent threat than a 'plain old embankment', would it be reasonable to assume there was some type of notice to the train crew about the flooding in the Doon area?
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence. [from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way." The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water. Were those railroad officials or law enforcement officials? The quote makes it sound like the latter. If that's the case, they might just be throwing out theories like some of the posters on here are doing.
Were those railroad officials or law enforcement officials? The quote makes it sound like the latter. If that's the case, they might just be throwing out theories like some of the posters on here are doing.
Well sure, that's possible. But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring (when all else fails, play the "dimestore lawyer" card**). is tossed in, it raises suspicions.
* Likely they are either witless or looking for a bribe, right?
** Never before was any other occupation (except the media) so disparaged, so regularly on here.
RDG467 charlie hebdo One thing is clear. Something caused the derailment and it seems unlikely the (high) water was pure coincidence. [from the original story] "Officials at the scene agreed that floodwater from the swollen Little Rock River played a part in causing the cars to leave the tracks, but said they weren’t yet sure whether the waters compromised the track, physically pushed the cars off it or played a part in some other way." The rain was from the previous day and the day of the derailment. There is usually a delay in the high water. CH- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register. The derailment happened at approximately Friday, June 22 about 0430 CDT, as per Andy Williams, BNSF Spokesperson. 32 cars were reported derailed. 14 of them were leaking. I went back to view the drone footage on the Sioux County Sheriff Office's FB page while I was having my coffee. Viewing the last 3 minutes of the 22 minute video gives more clues. I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the addition of a topo map. The derailment site was on the southern edge of the Little Rock River floodplain. Creek elevation was 1270 ft, the top of the floodplain was 1280 ft, roughly corresponding to the base of the RR and road embankments. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 1 ft. The strongest current stayed in the river bed and immediate area to the north, which appears to be a trestle approach to the girder bridge over the LRR proper. That's about 0.40 miles north of the approximate point of derailment. Also, the head end, minus power, becomes visible around the 20:30 mark. There appear to be six tank cars & the buffer car stopped south of the 270th St grade crossing. That's roughly 0.20 miles from the first derailed tank car. I will defer to the locomotive engineers posting here to estimate how fast they think the loaded oil train was traveling when it went into emergency and stopped in roughly a quarter mile. I don't know the grade profile here, but I'm guessing there was a slight downgrade through Doon heading towards Sioux Center. Now, IIRC, loco headlights are focused fairly narrowly on the tracks. How much 'peripheral' light is available to see the terrain outside of the roadbed in country with little ambient light? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking becuase I wonder if they could see the water on both sides of the tracks if it was at the base of the embankment. I'd be confident to say that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
CH- The official quoted was Sheriff Vander Stoep in the Des Moines Register.
The derailment happened at approximately Friday, June 22 about 0430 CDT, as per Andy Williams, BNSF Spokesperson. 32 cars were reported derailed. 14 of them were leaking.
I went back to view the drone footage on the Sioux County Sheriff Office's FB page while I was having my coffee. Viewing the last 3 minutes of the 22 minute video gives more clues.
I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the addition of a topo map. The derailment site was on the southern edge of the Little Rock River floodplain. Creek elevation was 1270 ft, the top of the floodplain was 1280 ft, roughly corresponding to the base of the RR and road embankments. Top of the railhead was about 1286 ft, +/- 1 ft. The strongest current stayed in the river bed and immediate area to the north, which appears to be a trestle approach to the girder bridge over the LRR proper. That's about 0.40 miles north of the approximate point of derailment.
Also, the head end, minus power, becomes visible around the 20:30 mark. There appear to be six tank cars & the buffer car stopped south of the 270th St grade crossing. That's roughly 0.20 miles from the first derailed tank car.
Now, IIRC, loco headlights are focused fairly narrowly on the tracks. How much 'peripheral' light is available to see the terrain outside of the roadbed in country with little ambient light? I know that can depend on the position of the lights and their age. I'm asking becuase I wonder if they could see the water on both sides of the tracks if it was at the base of the embankment. I'd be confident to say that they saw the water flowing under the bridge before the derailment site, but who knows about seeing the standing water in the fields?
Very helpful. We have to keep in mind that the water level may have been higher at the time of the derailment, which was earlier.
RDG467I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map.
To me it looks like the track is at least 2 ft, probably more, above the water at the time of the drone footage. The water around the derailment is still, the oil slick is spreading out in several directions from the derailment. The water appears to be the same level on both sides of the track. All visible from the drone footage.
If the water was over the tracks, it would have had to drop at least a foot an hour from the time of the derailment. With the volume of water out there that's a pretty strong flow. With that much flow, the oil slick should be headed towards the outflow, the water should be different levels since that fast an outflow would be throttled on one side by the flow through the bridge opening. There is no visual evidence of that happening, so that's probably not the case, that the water level is not dropping that rapidly and the water was not over the tracks. Supposition based on the drone video (and years dealing with flooded railroad tracks).
charlie hebdoVery helpful. We have to keep in mind that the water level may have been higher at the time of the derailment, which was earlier.
And it might have been lower. Water takes time to drain in from upstream.
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...
dehusman RDG467 I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map. To me it looks like the track is at least 2 ft, probably more, above the water at the time of the drone footage. The water around the derailment is still, the oil slick is spreading out in several directions from the derailment. The water appears to be the same level on both sides of the track. All visible from the drone footage. If the water was over the tracks, it would have had to drop at least a foot an hour from the time of the derailment. With the volume of water out there that's a pretty strong flow. With that much flow, the oil slick should be headed towards the outflow, the water should be different levels since that fast an outflow would be throttled on one side by the flow through the bridge opening. There is no visual evidence of that happening, so that's probably not the case, that the water level is not dropping that rapidly and the water was not over the tracks. Supposition based on the drone video (and years dealing with flooded railroad tracks).
RDG467 I don't believe the water ever made it over the rails, but if it did, it wasn't more than a few inches. My reasoning comes from the time of the video (less than 2 hours after the derailment) and the addition of a topo map.
Dave, there's a culvert under Garfield Ave, a bit south of the RXR Marking in the NB lane, which drains the triangle with the pond. That's briefly visible in the drone footage. I can't tell if there's a culvert under the RR tracks, but the tank cars on the east side of the tracks have also contributed to the oil slick.
I read in the Des Moines Register that the NTSB wasn't planning to send a team, but were monitoring the situation.
tree68And it might have been lower. Water takes time to drain in from upstream.
That's the really tricky thing about flooding, its a regional thing not a spot thing. A location can flood out and not have recieved a drop of rain. In the 1980's there were torrential rains in Central Texas. The TP flooded out. Then 4 or 5 days later the Austin Sub flooded out and then a few days later the Brownsville Sub near the Gulf Coast flooded out. Mind you when the Brownie flooded, it hadn't rained there in over a week. It was all the water from Big Spring, TX finally reaching the coast. Its not unusual for a stream/river to continue to rise for a while after the train stops as the water drains off.
And when it drains off it can go down inches per hour. Actually that can be more dangerous than the standing water. Flow causes erosion and erosion causes more bridge and roadbed failures than soggy ground by a long shot.
From USGS charts:
Burr Oak Creek, above Perkins, IA (in the same general area, but has it's own watershed) peaked at about 2AM on June 21 at 19.78 Feet. It appears that normal for this creek is around 12 feet.
The Rock River at Rock Rapids (upstream from the derailment site) peaked at 20.8 feet around 8 AM on June 22. Flood stage is 12 feet, with normal appearing to be around nine feet.
The Rock River at Rock Valley (downstream from the derailment site) peaked at 21.2 feet at about 4 AM on June 22. Flood stage is 16 feet.
The train reportedly derailed at about 4:30 AM on the 22nd.
So that confirms the river was near its peak and above floodstage near the time of the derailment, correct?
Again, we won't know the cause for certain unless the NTSB decides to investigate, but it seems pretty safe to conclude that someone should have informed the engineer to approach that stretch with caution and that he should have exercised more caution himself.
charlie hebdo So that confirms the river was near its peak and above floodstage near the time of the derailment, correct? Again, we won't know the cause for certain unless the NTSB decides to investigate, but it seems pretty safe to conclude that someone should have informed the engineer to approach that stretch with caution and that he should have exercised more caution himself.
All three gauges show a rapid rise before the peak - one shows a three + foot rise in 12 hours, the other four feet.
It would likely fall on whatever weather service the railroad uses to caution them about excessive rainfall. And such rainfall can be very localized.
As I think has been noted, it was oh-dark-thirty - you're not going to see much beyond what your headlights illuminate. If visibility is bad, you'll see even less.
Lots of considerations. Hopefully someone at the railroad will connect the dots and a lesson learned will come out of this mess.
Remember that NS (?) had a derailment earlier this year in NY that was laid to a culvert failure well below the roadbed. It was laid to recent high waters, but they were nothing a crew would have been directly aware of, or have seen until the roadbed began to subside.
charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring
I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments.
I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know.
What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water.
I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
dehusmanI think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
+1
dehusman ...it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context.
...it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know.
What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there.
I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context.
You cite several points made by people here, and you say they are wrong. Please provide the specifics about the making of these points:
Who is assuming that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time?
Who is saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track?
Who has interpreted rules incorrectly, and how have they misterpreted the rules?
What has been taken out of context?
Who expressed the belief that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there?
Who said that we do know that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train?
Terex all your questions are out of context. You know nothing about the specific incident and neither do I. To the extent that the NTSB does not investigate the incident neither of us will know anything definitive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusman charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context.
I don't think we should jump to conclusions either. That said, it is possible to come up with plausible explanations based on the information given without so much hesitation. There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened. And that such caution might slow down operations and that would cost money. Safety should be more important and the derailment costs will certainly be high.
charlie hebdo dehusman charlie hebdo But even if that were the case, local law enforcement officials* would likely know more about the incident and especially the conditions of the flood area than any of us, including the experts who seem to be looking for any miniscule point that would remove the cause and liability from the engineer and, by extension, the railroad. When looking for answers, Occam's Razor often applies and when the 600# gorilla in the room is repeatedly ignored, dismissed or a red herring I think you are misunderstanding the intent of many of the comments. I don't think anybody is saying that the flooding couldn't be a cause. While there are other things that could have caused the derailment (broken wheel, drawbar failure, broken rail, etc) it is highly probable that the flooding caused the subgrade to fail and derailed the train. But maybe it didn't. We don't know. What I am saying is that many of the people think that because the train derailed there that it would be obvious that it was going to derail there. That is not necessarily the case. There are lots of places where the tracks are surrounded by water or swamps. There are lots of places that "normally" flood when there is heavy rain. We don't know whether its normal or not, so we can't assume that somebody would have taken exception to there being standing water. I am not trying to remove responsibility, I am saying that jumping to conclusions and the assumption that somebody could forecast the derailment at that specific place and time is wrong, just as saying that a train should operate in some restricted manner any time there is water anywhere near the track is wrong, just as interpretating rules incorrectly is wrong. So many posters take things out of context. Fact is, we know very little about the context. I don't think we should jump to conclusions either. That said, it is possible to come up with plausible explanations based on the information given without so much hesitation. There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened. And that such caution might slow down operations and that would cost money. Safety should be more important and the derailment costs will certainly be high.
Or maybe upon seeing the water, the engineer braked the train and torque and vibration of the train under braking caused the failure of the fill....you don't know; I don't know; nobody that isn't a part of the investigation of the incident has any idea.
Things are not always what they appear to be from afar!
charlie hebdo There seems to be a tendency to say the neither the railroad nor engineer should have slowed down in the impacted area (exercised caution) because no one knew exactly where the subgrade was weakened.
I too have noticed that tendency. The rule that requires slowing down says to slow down enough to be able to stop short of any track defects that may be caused by unusually high water. It does not mean that slowing down is not necessary unless defects are discovered. The rule does not care whether there actually are any defects either seen, not seen, or invisible. The rule just wants you to slow down so you can stop short just in case you do see a defect. If you wait until you see a defect before slowing down, then you will not be able to stop quick enough to avoid the defect. That would therefore defeat the purpose of the rule.
The only thing that triggers the requiement to slow down is unusually high water. And this does not mean just any water near the track.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.