Thanks for the link. Beside the acknowledgement that the accident was flood related the article doesn't contain anything new.
EuclidIn 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
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report. Can you provide links to your sources, please? As dpeltier said the NTSB primary report only states facts, all conclusions by others regarding causes are still assumptions, even when based on the report. Euclid 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. How do you come to this conclusion? That BNSF apperently didn't apply doesn't mean their assessment was correct. We should wait for the NTSB final report.Regards, Volker
Euclid Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
Can you provide links to your sources, please? As dpeltier said the NTSB primary report only states facts, all conclusions by others regarding causes are still assumptions, even when based on the report.
Euclid 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.
How do you come to this conclusion? That BNSF apperently didn't apply doesn't mean their assessment was correct. We should wait for the NTSB final report.Regards, Volker
In the first quote above, I stated what was said by AP:
https://apnews.com/fcde2d5bd86044f6953f537c4e177266
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. And since Mr. Williams states that the train was within its authority when asked if the engineer knew about the washout or should have known about it; I conclude that the train being "within its authority" means it was operating at its authorized speed of up to 49 mph. And therefore, it was not adhering to Rule. 6.21.
EuclidMultiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report. Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
EuclidSo 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.
It does now seem apparent to me that the flood caused the derailment by washing out the track at the derailment site. Multiple news sources are stating that as fact based on the NTSB report, and the subsequent BNSF interview with Andy Williams who has now confirmed that the cause is flood related, a fact that was not included in the NTSB preliminary report.
Mr. Williams wouldn’t say whether the train engineer knew or should have known about washed-out tracks mentioned in a preliminary NTSB report.
The coverage all mentions that the train was not speeding and was operating within its authority. 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. Also the developing washout must have been hidden in order to not have been found by the numerous track inspections that were underway leading up to the derailment.
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language. To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox? Or a Lewis B. Carroll character, such as the Mad Hatter or the poem, Jabberwocky or those other memorable lines from Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language. To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox?
charlie hebdo Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.
To be honest, some of his posts seem to make more sense if you pretend you are reading a Dr. Suess book. For example: "Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? ...... They don't say anything ...."Would you, could you in a box? Would you, could you with a fox?
Or a Lewis B. Carroll character, such as the Mad Hatter or the poem, Jabberwocky or those other memorable lines from Humpty Dumpty:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid dpeltier Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction. It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause. When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that. Dan So you are saying that the NTSB reporting that track was washed out does not mean that the train was derailed due to encountering washed out track? So many people here seem to believe the NTSB is saying that the train was derailed by a washout. They say the words have to mean that. What do you say to them?
dpeltier Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction. It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause. When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that. Dan
Euclid Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report. So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction.
Another newsman I talked to today said he believes the NTSB preliminary report is doing C.Y.A. because they believe that a track washout caused the derailment, but they don't want to jump to that conclusion. He reminded me that the report is preliminary, and that gives them the right to change it. Since they don't know what caused the wreck, they want to leave that detail open, while ever so slightly claiming it was a washout. That way if it proves to have been a washout, the NTSB can say that's what they thought. If the cause proves to have not been a washout, they can say we never said it was a washout. Hence you have the language in yesterday's report.
So it seems to me that the local theory is that there was a washout or there was not a washout. I doubt that anyone has considered that it may have not been a washout, but rather liquefaction.
It's not that the NTSB is "doing C.Y.A.", it's that they don't report the probable cause at this stage in their investigation. They will report some significant facts that they are looking at, but they don't attribute cause.
When there was the big explosion at Castleton ND a few years back, the NTSB preliminary report mentioned that a broken axle had been found. Since axles don't break without causing derailments, you could read between the lines, but it was not officially given as the cause for, as I recall, several years after that.
Dan
So you are saying that the NTSB reporting that track was washed out does not mean that the train was derailed due to encountering washed out track? So many people here seem to believe the NTSB is saying that the train was derailed by a washout. They say the words have to mean that. What do you say to them?
I'm not allowed to comment on the incident. I'm just trying to explain to you why the NTSB preliminary report is careful not to call out a probable cause.
Before anyone gets all worked up about a newspaper report, just take a deep breath and wait for the NTSB to issue a report.
I have a bit of anger about news outlets. If there is an aircraft accident, they rush in an "expert" from the air industry, if there is a military incident, they find a retired general, etc. But when there is a rail accident, all they do is make up stuff as they go! One example is the UP derailment in on a bridge in St. Paul. "Two trains derailed!" causing diesel fuel to spill into the river. Actually it was (presumably) two locomotives and maybe one tank car derailed on the bridge and a fuel tank on one diesel was punctured or was it the tank car that was punctured??? My guess is that the second locomotive leaked the fuel into the river as the first car in the train was a tank car, presumably empty or not placarded as to position in the train.
Ed Burns
Retired Class 1 from Minneapolis.
zugmann Euclid I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
Euclid I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
My comment was in referernnce to an article in Siouxland News that states that the NTSB preliminary report is out and Siouxland News says (seemingly citing the NTSB report) that the train crew spotted the track washed out but were unable to stop in time, and then the washout derailed the train. Really? Does anybody here believe that happened? It most certainly is not in the NTSB report. For one thing, it would mean that they knew the cause of the derailment right from the point where they asked the train crew what happened. And yet they told the public that they did not know the cause of the derailment.
So that is why I said last night that I think Siouxland News interpreted the NTSB report to be saying that the flood derailed the train by causing a track washout. But then they went further and elaborated how trains get derailed by a track washout. They filled in some added details for their readership.
Today in talking to another news person, and before I said anything about my theory that Siouxland News fabricated part of the story; he mentioned the Siouxland News piece and told me he thought they made up the part about the crew seeing a washout and not being able to stop in time.
EuclidI conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
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
Euclid https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill
I conclude that this report on the cause is completely made up based on a theatrical interpretation of a train being derailed by a washout. I am unable to find a way to contact them.
charlie hebdoThank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Read, please. The figure is the derailment site. You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track? The investigation is about this track, so they woud not mention other trackage. "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”" Broken down sentence for euclidian clarity: "....washing out track....... adjacent to the derailment location." " ...flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River....adjacent to the derailment location." "flooding ... farm fields adjacent to the derailment location."
charlie hebdo Read, please. The figure is the derailment site. You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track? The investigation is about this track, so they woud not mention other trackage. "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"
Broken down sentence for euclidian clarity: "....washing out track....... adjacent to the derailment location." " ...flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River....adjacent to the derailment location." "flooding ... farm fields adjacent to the derailment location."
Thank you for the clarification. If I didn't know better I would think English was not Bucky's primary language.
Euclid BaltACD The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain. Well according to this report, the track was washed out, and the crew spotted it and tried to stop, but could not stop in time. I would never imagined that it happened that way. This is indeed new information that was not revealed in the past. Yet they new this all along since the derailment. But this is from the Siouxland News. They cite the NTSB report. Where in that report does it say that the crew spotted the track washed out and could not stop in time? https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/ntsb-released-preliminary-report-on-doon-ia-derailment-and-oil-spill DOON, Ia — The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report into June's train derailment near Doon that led to a spill of thousands of gallons of oil. That report reveals that the BNSF railway train was not speeding at the time and that engineers tried to stop the train once they noticed a section of track had been washed out by recent flooding on the Little Rock River.
BaltACD The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.
Well according to this report, the track was washed out, and the crew spotted it and tried to stop, but could not stop in time. I would never imagined that it happened that way. This is indeed new information that was not revealed in the past. Yet they new this all along since the derailment.
But this is from the Siouxland News. They cite the NTSB report. Where in that report does it say that the crew spotted the track washed out and could not stop in time?
DOON, Ia — The National Transportation Safety Board has released its preliminary report into June's train derailment near Doon that led to a spill of thousands of gallons of oil.
That report reveals that the BNSF railway train was not speeding at the time and that engineers tried to stop the train once they noticed a section of track had been washed out by recent flooding on the Little Rock River.
EuclidSure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? Notice that nowhere does the report say that a washout actually caused the wreck. They don't say anything about the actual cause of the derailment even though they go into extensive detail about the train, its speed, location, mileposts, number of cars, tonnage, etc, etc. They only mention that heavy rain in the area washed out track. The sentence does not say the track was washed out at the derailment sight. It is clearly written in a way that may or may not mean that. Don't you think that if the NTSB had determined that a track washout derailed this oil train, they would speak a little bit more directly to that detail? I sure do. Usually, if a track is washed out, a train does not leap the gap and run for a few thousand more feet. But maybe they mean the track was only undermined by washing, and the track grew weaker as the train began to cross over it. Did the crew report seeing a washout? Or did NTSB pick through the muck and wreckage and find the telltale evidence of a washout? Or is the NTSB merely assuming that it had to be a washout that caused the derailment because the water was so high and they believe the track failed?
BaltACDThe NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.
Sure the words are clear, but are you really sure what they mean? Notice that nowhere does the report say that a washout actually caused the wreck. They don't say anything about the actual cause of the derailment even though they go into extensive detail about the train, its speed, location, mileposts, number of cars, tonnage, etc, etc.
They only mention that heavy rain in the area washed out track. The sentence does not say the track was washed out at the derailment sight. It is clearly written in a way that may or may not mean that.
Don't you think that if the NTSB had determined that a track washout derailed this oil train, they would speak a little bit more directly to that detail? I sure do. Usually, if a track is washed out, a train does not leap the gap and run for a few thousand more feet. But maybe they mean the track was only undermined by washing, and the track grew weaker as the train began to cross over it. Did the crew report seeing a washout? Or did NTSB pick through the muck and wreckage and find the telltale evidence of a washout? Or is the NTSB merely assuming that it had to be a washout that caused the derailment because the water was so high and they believe the track failed?
charlie hebdoRead, please. The figure is the derailment site. You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track? The investigation is about this track, so they woud not mention other trackage. "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"
charlie hebdo Euclid charlie hebdo Euclid Regarding this sentence in the report: “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.)” Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location? Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location? If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer. Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence. The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site. In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location? Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area." The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows. Read, please. The figure is the derailment site. You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track? The investigation is about this track, so they woud not mention other trackage. "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"
Euclid charlie hebdo Euclid Regarding this sentence in the report: “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.)” Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location? Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location? If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer. Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence. The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site. In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location? Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area." The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows.
charlie hebdo Euclid Regarding this sentence in the report: “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.)” Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location? Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location? If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment? Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer. Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.
Euclid Regarding this sentence in the report: “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.)” Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location? Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location? If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment? Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment? Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment?
Regarding this sentence in the report:
“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.)”
Does this mean that washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields all occurred adjacent to the derailment location? Or does it mean that only the result of flooding of farm fields occurred adjacent to the derailment location?
If it means the former, does that then mean that the washing out of the track caused the derailment?
Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but do not yet know if that caused the derailment?
Or does it mean that they found the track to be washed out at that location, but have ruled that out as a cause of the derailment, and are still trying to determine the cause of the derailment?
Why would a derailment investigation mention a track washout without describing its relationship to the derailment?
Look at Figure 1 (the derailment scene) for your answer. Obviously that clarifies/modifies the sentence.
The sentence refers to the "area" which is obviously larger than the derailment site. In that area, rain washed out track and flooded a tribuary of the Little Rock River and flooded farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. Did all three of those things happen adjacent to the derailment location? Or did all three of those things happen at more than one location in the "area."
The sentence does not make that clear no matter what the photo shows.
Read, please. The figure is the derailment site. You seriously think washing out track refers to some other track? The investigation is about this track, so they woud not mention other trackage. "washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment location. (See figure 1.)”"
Yes, I have read it many times and I fully realize that Figure 1 is the derailment site shown in the photor of the wreck. And it is precisely because the investigation is about finding the cause of that wreck that makes me curious as to why they make such an oblique reference to a track washout.
Regarding the sentence from the report that I quoted above in red: Where did the track get washed out?
I don't recall that information being reported right after that rain.
Note AREA. Area has no specificity. Over the past serveral months in my 'area'. There as been the 8 inch deluge that flooded Ellicott City for the send time in two years - the flooding was in the Tiber Creek watershed which used Main Street as it's actual path to the Patapsco River and the flooding was several feet UNDER the CSX right of way which bridges Main Street. Ellicott City is about 10 air miles from my home.
Tuesday the Middle River section of Baltimore County had a T'storm cell camp over that localized area dumping about 7 inches of rain and create many road closures account flooding as well as hundreds of flooded homes. Amtrak operates through Chase which is in the area of the flooding, however it is on a fill through the area. Middle River is about 30 airline miles from my location.
Nothing in the NTSB 'pre-report' addressed what, if any, flood warnings had been issued to BNSF. If a flood warning was issued to BNSF, there was no mention of what if any actions took in response to the flood warning. In the report NTSB did not voice any exceptions to the train operating 48 MPH in a normla 49 MPH zone. The NTSB 'pre-report' did not report any information that was not already in the public domain.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I'm not really sure you need to know too much more than is visible in this photo from the NTSB report page:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.