This might be a clue.From the link> "The area received 5 to 7 inches of rain during the 48 hours prior to the accident, washing out track..."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
NP Eddie ALL: The NTSB is investigating the Doon, Iowa derailment. It will be interesting to see what they say caused this derailment. One can read the preliminary report on the NTSB website. Ed Burns
ALL:
The NTSB is investigating the Doon, Iowa derailment. It will be interesting to see what they say caused this derailment. One can read the preliminary report on the NTSB website.
Ed Burns
Here is the link:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HMD18LR002-preliminary-report.aspx
There is no determination of the cause, but it does say that the train went into emergency braking application at 48 mph while the speed limit is 49 mph. So that refutes the speculation that the train may have indeed slowed down as the rule stipulates or just for a precautionary measure on the part of the crew.
dehusman: Its pretty easy to figure out what caused car crash after the event, but what the railroad's situation is trying to figure out if there will even be a crash, when and where it will happen, before it happens, all while riding in the car. Higher degree of difficulty.
VOLKER LANDWEHRI have tried to show what information about the flood should have been known at BNSF as basis for their decision how to operate the oil train. I did it afterwards but what I found is available online almost simultanously with event. I don't try to find the reason for the accident. I think the appropriate care and more Rule 1.1.1 especially with an oil train would have reduced the aftermath. It is an opinion and I might be wrong. I went into this detail as some posters here tried to play down the high water despite the facts. One can value facts differently, an the BNSF apperently did. The railroad might have had all the information and come to the conclusion there was no reason to reduce the speed. Hopefully the results of the internal investigation will show up. Regards, Volker
Yes Volker, perfectly said.
Murphy Siding Euclid Therefore, I strongly suspect that the derailment was either caused by liquefaction or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc. Uff Duh! How could you get any more ambiguous? You're covering all your bases with custard pie or something else unrelated to the discussion. You could just as easily have strongly suspected that the derailment was either caused by aliens from outer space or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.
Euclid Therefore, I strongly suspect that the derailment was either caused by liquefaction or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.
Uff Duh! How could you get any more ambiguous? You're covering all your bases with custard pie or something else unrelated to the discussion. You could just as easily have strongly suspected that the derailment was either caused by aliens from outer space or by something unrelated to the flood such as a broken rail, broken wheel, broken flange, etc.
If the cause is flood related, I cannot see any possible cause other than liquefaction. That is unless the railroad was as dismissive of high water as all their defenders seem to be. But the defenders tell me that the railroad is just loaded with precautionary monitoring and inspection routines in cases such as this. So I can't see how they could have been blindsided by the high water; unless of course they were caught off guard by that pesky surge.
dehusmanBefore everybody gets too excited about the flood gauge data, a significant detail is that the flood data is not updated on a real time basis, it is generally updated about hourly with a little lag.
The USGS gage data is updated every hour with the current discharge and levels. The delay is about 5 to 10 minutes. Example: Most recent instantaneous value: 1410 07-11-2018 08:15 CDT displayed at 8:21 CDT
As the update is at the same time hour for hour your delay is max. 15 minutes if you know when to look.
dehusmanSince it takes several data points to determine a trend, it could take several hours to even detect that something was shifting in the water levels. If it was a short term event, like a sudden rise and drop, over a short period, lets say 3-4 hours, it could be over by the time the event was detected.
When I read you post I get the impression that this is rocket science. This is observation and simplest mathematics.
Upriver: On June 21, 2018 0:00 am there had been a rise of about 3 ft within the last 10 yours upstream. At about 10 am there was another 5 ft rise. After a few hours pause there was a rise of additionally 3 ft crossing the Major Flood Mark.
Down river: On June 21, 0:00 am there had a rise of 2 ft within 10 hours. In contrast to upriver the level rose constantly without pause by 8 ft within the following 24 hours.
So there was early warning, more than the 3-4 hours you talked about. Everything else is constantly watching.
dehusmanThe downstream gauge is a lagging indicator, it tells you what happened, not what is going to happen, plus it lags the upstream gauge by probably an hour or more, being several miles away. By the time you could confirm that there was a difference in the trend and see a change in the downstream gauge, it would be somewhere over 3-4 hours.
the gage is about 4.5 miles downstream but it showed the same tendency at the same time! So there was no delay. For me that indicates that a lot of water came into Rock River after the upriver gage.Edit: The upriver gage still rose at the time of the accident, so no need to think the situation at Doon was much different than Rock Valley.
dehusman: There are also several tributaries from multiple directions feeding into the main river, in any case you would expect the downstream flow to be larger than then upstream flow, since there aren't gauges on all the tributaries it is pure speculation to assign the majority of it to one tributary.
There are a number of tributaries. Looking at their watershed areas makes my assumption that majority of the balance of the discharge an adjucated guess.
dehusman: This is all really cool for monitoring an event over a period of days or weeks (done that), but its not real handy for predicting something short term on a real time basis. After you get 6-12 hours of trend, you can make some pretty good guestimates of where it might go. They do provide forecasts, but like all weather forecasts they are estimates and they can be off by time and elevation (seen that too).
About 3.5 hours before the accident the Rock Valley gage 4.5 miles south of Doon showed a near record level with a discharge only exceeded twice in 70 years. Do you need more indication that this is not the typical yearly spring flood?
There was ample warning, there was enough time to observe and even a last warning shot 3.5 hours before the accident.
I have tried to show what information about the flood should have been known at BNSF as basis for their decision how to operate the oil train. I did it afterwards but what I found is available online almost simultanously with event.
I don't try to find the reason for the accident. I think the appropriate care and more Rule 1.1.1 especially with an oil train would have reduced the aftermath. It is an opinion and I might be wrong. I went into this detail as some posters here tried to play down the high water despite the facts.
One can value facts differently, an the BNSF apperently did.
The railroad might have had all the information and come to the conclusion there was no reason to reduce the speed. Hopefully the results of the internal investigation will show up.Regards, Volker
Murphy Siding dehusman Murphy Siding When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment? The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated? You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public. I'm just wondering how common it is since that keeps getting thrown out there as a possible reason for the derailment in question. If it's a very rare occurrence then it seems quite plausible that the derailment was caused by something a lot more common and the water was a non-factor.
dehusman Murphy Siding When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment? The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated? You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public.
Murphy Siding When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?
The last one or the last one the NTSB or the TSB investigated?
You probably won't know the last one since it could have been investigated internally by the railroad and cause determined, but the results never released to the public.
I'm just wondering how common it is since that keeps getting thrown out there as a possible reason for the derailment in question. If it's a very rare occurrence then it seems quite plausible that the derailment was caused by something a lot more common and the water was a non-factor.
Deleted
Murphy SidingWhen was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Liquefaction requires certain conditions of soil saturation, ground vibration, and soil type.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=icrageesd
SD70DudeThis fatal accident was caused by a section of saturated subgrade becoming weak and unstable after the water level dropped, due to a downstream beaver dam rupturing: http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1992/r92t0183/r92t0183.pdf
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1992/r92t0183/r92t0183.pdf
If all else fails - blame it on the beavers!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This fatal accident was caused by a section of saturated subgrade becoming weak and unstable after the water level dropped, due to a downstream beaver dam rupturing:
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I understand it has occurred a couple of times on CPR lines within the past decade, but as far as I know there was no standing water around (maybe some down in the parallel ditch of course). Probably just deformed subgrade strata retaining elevated moisture levels after a wetter period. I won't go into geotechnical explanations; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as shown by certain amateurs here.
When was the last verified incidense of soil liquefaction causing a train derailment?
In 2004 I was traveling from Jacksonville to Mid-Ohio Race Course outside of Mansfield, OH. Route was I-95 to I-26 to Columbia, SC and then up I-77 to Strasburg, OH then US250 to Wooster and US 30 on to Mansfield.
Leaving Columbia I became entangled in the outer bands of a Hurricane Jeanne and continued to experience the bands while traversing I-77 up through the West Virginia Turnpike - after dealing with the bands which were causing standing water on the highway and limiting max speeds to 35-50 MPH to limit hydroplaning I finally called a quits to the day at Parkersburg, on the South side of the Ohio River.
The following morning, listening to loacal radio it was announced that the current flood stage of the Ohio River was approximately 10 feet higher than the Army Corps of Engineers had previously predicted for the storm. I had no trouble getting from the motel to I-77 and heading North and crossing the Ohio River. Entering Ohio at Marietta about all I could see was water - I-77 was 'high and dry' but all the surrounding fields and ground level roadways were under water - how far under water, I have no idea - it could have been a foot, five feet or even 10 feet.
As a user of I-77 I have to assume that the Ohio Transportation Department had done at least a cursory inspection of I-77 - it's bridges, culverts and other potential points of water damage since they did not restrict the speeds on the highway or declare any point of the highway out of service. Admittedly my Durango and race car on it's open trailer aren't a Oil Train - but the same principals apply
Before everybody gets too excited about the flood gauge data, a significant detail is that the flood data is not updated on a real time basis, it is generally updated about hourly with a little lag. Since it takes several data points to determine a trend, it could take several hours to even detect that something was shifting in the water levels. If it was a short term event, like a sudden rise and drop, over a short period, lets say 3-4 hours, it could be over by the time the event was detected.
The downstream gauge is a lagging indicator, it tells you what happened, not what is going to happen, plus it lags the upstream gauge by probably an hour or more, being several miles away. By the time you could confirm that there was a difference in the trend and see a change in the downstream gauge, it would be somewhere over 3-4 hours.
There are also several tributaries from multiple directions feeding into the main river, in any case you would expect the downstream flow to be larger than then upstream flow, since there aren't gauges on all the tributaries it is pure speculation to assign the majority of it to one tributary.
This is all really cool for monitoring an event over a period of days or weeks (done that), but its not real handy for predicting something short term on a real time basis. After you get 6-12 hours of trend, you can make some pretty good guestimates of where it might go. They do provide forecasts, but like all weather forecasts they are estimates and they can be off by time and elevation (seen that too).
Volker would make a really good coroner. Its pretty easy to figure out what caused car crash after the event, but what the railroad's situation is trying to figure out if there will even be a crash, when and where it will happen, before it happens, all while riding in the car. Higher degree of difficulty.
Here is a map of the Rock Valley/ Doon area showing the River gages.
Source is the Iowa Flood Information System (IFIS): https://goo.gl/TaCvNy
The river flowing into the Rock River at Doon is the Little Rock River with a relatively large watershed area.Regards, Volker
Danke, Volker, for presenting the known facts so clearly.
Murphy SidingVolker- You're on the wrong river. The bridge at Doon is over the Little Rock River, not the Rock River.
Yes and no. The Little Rock River flows into the Rock River between the two gages.
A flood on Rick River will lead to an afflux in Little Rock River as Tree68 already said. But there is another indicator: The upriver gage showed a discharge of 13,000 cfs, the down river gage a discharge of 35,000 cfs. The balance came from somewhere, most likely from the Little Rock River.
For me this indicates that the situation on Little Rock River didn't differ significantly from that on Rock River.Regards, Volker
The Little Rock flows into the Rock just a few hundred yards beyond the railroad bridge (N 43 15' 51" W 96 14' 28"). Given the flat terrain, the "back flow" from the Rock will undoubtedly show up at the bridge. I would opine that using the levels of the Rock as a reference is not unreasonable.
I noted earlier that a rain gauge upstream on the Little Rock (at George, IIRC) recorded a four inch rainfall around that time - which would be reflected in the level of the Little Rock.
I feel the fact that both Rock River gauges showed a (more or less) four foot rise and fall within a 24 hour period, with the peak roughly coinciding with the derailment, is a factor. The peak was not sustained - the level fell as fast as it rose.
This rapid rise might also account for the railroad not realizing the threat. As I recall from the graph, the rise began around 4:30 PM
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 The lamented yes, but sometimes arises when people argument around known facts. Murphy Siding I dunno. I don't see where they would have thought the Little Rock River was a threat that might cause a derailment to happen further down the line- which it didn't. All the low lying farmland in that area tends to flood every spring to some extent; nothing new there. I think we agree that there was a high water. From the facts I say it was an unusal high water. Was it high enough to be of concern for BNSF? Apperently not. Should it have been? My personal opinion is yes. What did I find:- Rock River gage 10 mi upriver exceeded Major Flood Stage 16 hrs before accident - Rock River gage at Rock Valley downriver 1.5 ft below record level 3.5 hrs before accident - Rock River gage at Rock Valley downriver: Discharge of June 22, 2018 only exceeded twice in the last 70 years (see my post at top of page) - Rock River gage 10 mi upriver had a discharge of 13,000 cubic feet per second. - Of the 35,000 cfs at Rock Valley only 13,000 cfs came from the Rock River itself, according to the map the balance came most likely from Little Rock River. It is for sure not a yearly high water. If BNSF realized this or not we don't know. At least the information was publicly available.Regards, Volker
The lamented yes, but sometimes arises when people argument around known facts.
Murphy Siding I dunno. I don't see where they would have thought the Little Rock River was a threat that might cause a derailment to happen further down the line- which it didn't. All the low lying farmland in that area tends to flood every spring to some extent; nothing new there.
I think we agree that there was a high water. From the facts I say it was an unusal high water. Was it high enough to be of concern for BNSF? Apperently not. Should it have been? My personal opinion is yes.
What did I find:- Rock River gage 10 mi upriver exceeded Major Flood Stage 16 hrs before accident
- Rock River gage at Rock Valley downriver 1.5 ft below record level 3.5 hrs before accident
- Rock River gage at Rock Valley downriver: Discharge of June 22, 2018 only exceeded twice in the last 70 years (see my post at top of page)
- Rock River gage 10 mi upriver had a discharge of 13,000 cubic feet per second.
- Of the 35,000 cfs at Rock Valley only 13,000 cfs came from the Rock River itself, according to the map the balance came most likely from Little Rock River.
It is for sure not a yearly high water.
If BNSF realized this or not we don't know. At least the information was publicly available.Regards, Volker
Murphy Siding All the low lying farmland in that area tends to flood every spring to some extent; nothing new there.
Are you saying that the flooding where the derailment occurred was not overflow connected to the Little Rock River, but rather just rain accumulating in those fields?
tree68One would presume that if they had recognized the threat, the oil train never would have even tried to cross the Little Rock River, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
EuclidWhy do you believe the railroad did not recognize the surge?
That would be the $64,000 question... We've actually discussed some possibilities - internal communications failure, failure of their contract weather service (assuming they use one) to recognize and communicate the threat, ignoring the obvious because it's never happened before. All conjecture at this point, but there are plenty of possibilities. One would have to know exactly how the process works at BNSF to be any more specific.
One would presume that if they had recognized the threat, the oil train never would have even tried to cross the Little Rock River, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I'm betting they're asking themselves exactly the same question.
tree68The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the four foot surge, which the railroad apparently did not recognize.
Why do you believe the railroad did not recognize the surge?
I never said all three conditions had to exist. I did say that it's possible none of the three conditions existed.
You are certain that the high water existed. High water did exist, and had for several days. While we can't know for sure, it would appear that the railroad did not find that to be a problem, for reasons several people have outlined.
Had the railroad felt the existing high water was a problem, the oil train likely would not have come through at track speed, or close to it.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the four foot surge, which the railroad apparently did not recognize. It's possible that the crew did recognize it and began to take action. As can be seen in the Sheriff's video, however, their warning was limited (probably a quarter mile), and not nearly enough to bring that loaded train down to restricted (or other slow) speed by the time they hit what turned out to be the bad section.
Where we disagree is whether the high water before the surge was actionable. Some number of us here feel that it likely was not actionable, myself included. That area undoubted floods on a regular basis with no untoward results.
I'm good with the liquefaction idea - it make a lot of sense, given the surge, which may well have raised the water level to an intolerable level, and which may have been peaking at that location at that time.
The yes but but but but but but ..... motorboat!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.