VOLKER LANDWEHR Murphy Siding I think you’re oversimplifying this and bit and getting a little bit bucyrussy about it as well. Yup. It happened. If a semi-trailer jackknifes and dumps 5,000 gallons of beer on the interstate, it will cost somebody’s money to clean it up. That’s no different than the oil spilled on the railroad. Wow! Since when is beer a hazardous material or harmfull to groundwater? Crude oil is both. I think it is an adventurous conclusion that beer and oil spills are the same. A company responsible for the clean-up will realize the difference in its bank account. Regards, Volker
Murphy Siding I think you’re oversimplifying this and bit and getting a little bit bucyrussy about it as well. Yup. It happened. If a semi-trailer jackknifes and dumps 5,000 gallons of beer on the interstate, it will cost somebody’s money to clean it up. That’s no different than the oil spilled on the railroad.
Wow! Since when is beer a hazardous material or harmfull to groundwater? Crude oil is both.
I think it is an adventurous conclusion that beer and oil spills are the same. A company responsible for the clean-up will realize the difference in its bank account. Regards, Volker
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingI was just using beer as an example. Would the train have derailed any differently if it had been corn instead of oil?
It might have derailed as well but the consequences to the environment would be significantly different. There is a reason the oil train speeds were limited.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Murphy Siding I was just using beer as an example. Would the train have derailed any differently if it had been corn instead of oil? It might have derailed as well but the consequences to the environment would be significantly different. There is a reason the oil train speeds were limited.Regards, Volker
Murphy Siding I was just using beer as an example. Would the train have derailed any differently if it had been corn instead of oil?
(1) Bucky and a few others on here have forgotten who "owns" the track. (The train and the dispatcher are mere tenants)
(2) BNSF and the other big outfits have their own weather / meteorlogical teams staffed directly with the centrallized dispatchers micro-managing weatherforecasts and warnings inside the railroad's corridors.
(3) Investigators will be looking at how much and how often bad weather patrols were out in front of the trains and were patrols warranted here given the conditions prior to the incident. Perfect storm or exactly what?
IMHO some of the views expressed are just plain warped logic from folks not versed in the real world and certainly not qualified as railroaders in any way, shape or form. Cool it.
( I had an incident where we had a 500 year rainstorm event compounded by 12" of marble-sized to golf ball-sized hail. We were out patrolling track in front of everything that moved. We cleared Amtrak for 60 MPH instead of the normal 90MPH. A hi-rail patrolled 45 minutes in front of Amtrak, Amtrak went by, and then two timber pile 3-span bridges were gone 20 minutes later. I drove by those two bridges about 10 minutes before Amtrak arrived over them. One of the two arroyos was empty. Mother nature can be an absolute unpredictable b*tch.)
Possibly high water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftPBz0a9FJg
Murphy SidingIf the dispatcher does notify the crew, what does he/she tell the crew to do differently?
Depends on the alert and the railroad. I don't know what the instructions are for the BNSF. It could be anything from an advisory to a speed restriction to stopping trains.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
mudchickenIMHO some of the views expressed are just plain warped logic from folks not versed in the real world and certainly not qualified as railroaders in any way, shape or form. Cool it.
Perhaps you should cool it. The "railroaders" are not totally in agreement and your post has almost nothing to do with the Doon incident.
charlie hebdoThe "railroaders" are not totally in agreement and your post has almost nothing to do with the Doon incident.
I think real railroaders are more in agreement with each other than with some of the other people. I think Mudchicken's post has everything to do with the Doon derailment.1. Ownership of the tracks: The speed of the track is the responsibility of the MofW dept. (except in some boiler plate restrictions required by the rules.) The MofW determines the condition of the tracks and issues speed restrictions, the MofW lifts the speed restrictions. The MofW determines them, the dispatcher communicates them.2. Weather support: I went into more detail on that earlier.3. Patrols : Everything Mudchicken said was already said about 4-5 pages earlier. It is absolutely inconcieveable that the track was not being patrolled frequently. Nobody has anything to gain by not letting them patrol and the patrols have the authority to put whatever restrictions they deem necessary, from a reduced speed to impassable and the dispatcher will immediately start communicating that restriction. On the other hand if there is no observable threat to the track, there will be no restriction.
The bridge story perfectly describes the challenge of operating in heavy weather conditions. Even if the track was patrolled ahead of the train it is possible that there would be no defects detected. The whole reason the railroad builds a high dump/fill is so that the railroad will be above water and they will be able to operate when there are "high water" conditions. As I have said before, there is no system currently available that can accurately predict stream levels at specific points outside of the few water monitoring stations.
My sense is that the railroaders are in fact in general agreement. The actual cause is completely unknown to us. It might have been a broken rail, axle, wheel, or a subgrade failure (liquefaction) due to saturation by the high water. Or something else. None of them could be predicted except in hindsight, including the subgrade if it had never been troublesome in past flooding events.
The derailment occured Friday. The river rose rapidly Wednesday after 5 to 7 inches (13 to 18 centimeters) of rain fell Wednesday and a further downpour on Thursday. That is a lot of rain and anyone looking objectively can see that there was a lot of standing water all around. Common sense would dictate some degree of caution. Some on here argue a series of red herrings. Was any caution shown? That is the question the public wants answers to because once again, the rails belong to the railroad but the consequences of a lack of caution affect many others.
The Doon crash is the first one involving the new, safer DOT-117R tank cars that promised to make oil safer to transport by rail. The accident reveals that these tank cars are not foolproof, considering the nearly quarter million gallons of oil released from them into an Iowa river.
charlie hebdoPerhaps you should cool it. The "railroaders" are not totally in agreement and your post has almost nothing to do with the Doon incident.
If there is anyone on this forum I would choose to believe over all others on this - it's Mudchicken. He's got more real world experience in the matter (and contacts in the business) than the rest of us combined.
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...
tree68 charlie hebdo Perhaps you should cool it. The "railroaders" are not totally in agreement and your post has almost nothing to do with the Doon incident. If there is anyone on this forum I would choose to believe over all others on this - it's Mudchicken. He's got more real world experience in the matter (and contacts in the business) than the rest of us combined.
charlie hebdo Perhaps you should cool it. The "railroaders" are not totally in agreement and your post has almost nothing to do with the Doon incident.
As a operating railroader,
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
mudchickenVolker: Miller-Coors and a small craft brewer here in Colorado would differ from your opinion. (And the truckers keep turning over trailers at the same place on a regular basis ... now referred to as "Brewmasters Curve" just outside Golden).
Sorry, but this doesn't tell me anything and I don't understand what you want to tell me.
I don't know if the brewers wouldn't realize a difference if they had to clean-up an oil spill instead of beer that often.Regards, Volker
Murphy SidingWhat does that have to do with the derailment in Doon Iowa?
Your laws require a number of precautions to prevent oil train desasters like speed limit, PTC, buffer cars.
Perhaps in a case of high water special precautions for an oil train on this route might have been adviced. I don't know if this perhaps was done.
As I said before I think the railroad must have known of the high water condition at the time of the accident, I don't say the high water was the cause for the derailment. It might have been.
The water level Tree68 gave for up-river from Doon is defined as Major Flood Stage: http://ifis.iowafloodcenter.org/ifis/app/?c=Doon_(Rock_River)Klick on the Attention mark for more information.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Murphy Siding What does that have to do with the derailment in Doon Iowa? Your laws require a number of precautions to prevent oil train desasters like speed limit, PTC, buffer cars. Perhaps in a case of high water special precautions for an oil train on this route might have been adviced. I don't know if this perhaps was done. As I said before I think the railroad must have known of the high water condition at the time of the accident, I don't say the high water was the cause for the derailment. It might have been. The water level Tree68 gave for up-river from Doon is defined as Major Flood Stage: http://ifis.iowafloodcenter.org/ifis/app/?c=Doon_(Rock_River)Klick on the Attention mark for more information.Regards, Volker
Murphy Siding What does that have to do with the derailment in Doon Iowa?
Murphy SidingThere is a vocal minority on this thread who hold to the claim that since there was a derailment, the railroad must have done everything wrong.
Straw man argument. Nobody said that. What some of us are saying is that some of the RRers on here don't think the BNSF was at all remiss in its exercising caution.
mudchicken (1) Bucky and a few others on here have forgotten who "owns" the track. (The train and the dispatcher are mere tenants) (2) BNSF and the other big outfits have their own weather / meteorlogical teams staffed directly with the centrallized dispatchers micro-managing weatherforecasts and warnings inside the railroad's corridors. (3) Investigators will be looking at how much and how often bad weather patrols were out in front of the trains and were patrols warranted here given the conditions prior to the incident. Perfect storm or exactly what? IMHO some of the views expressed are just plain warped logic from folks not versed in the real world and certainly not qualified as railroaders in any way, shape or form. Cool it.
What does the track ownership have to do with the price of tea in China?
I don’t see why you seem to conclude that I fail to realize that the railroads take flood prediction and monitoring seriously. My position is on the side of safety. Yet, I am accused of overreacting merely by asking whether the BNSF crew followed the rules in slowing down the oil train in order to make passing through the flood safer. It is an obvious question, considering that the oil train derailed on a largely submerged fill. I am told that there was no need to slow down for the flood because we don’t know what caused the derailment. It is that childlike reasoning that I am arguing against.
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding There is a vocal minority on this thread who hold to the claim that since there was a derailment, the railroad must have done everything wrong. Straw man argument. Nobody said that. What some of us are saying is that some of the RRers on here don't think the BNSF was at all remiss in its exercising caution.
Murphy Siding There is a vocal minority on this thread who hold to the claim that since there was a derailment, the railroad must have done everything wrong.
EuclidI am told that there was no need to slow down for the flood because we don’t know what caused the derailment. It is that childlike reasoning that I am arguing against.
If the cause had nothing to do with the flood, the argument that there was no need to slow down is perfectly valid.
And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Murphy Siding There is a vocal minority on this thread who hold to the claim that since there was a derailment, the railroad must have done everything wrong. Straw man argument. Nobody said that. What some of us are saying is that some of the RRers on here don't think the BNSF was at all remiss in its exercising caution. We have no information that tells us if they were or weren't. We also have no real information that tells us if it was or wasn't warranted.
We have no information that tells us if they were or weren't. We also have no real information that tells us if it was or wasn't warranted.
And likely we never will know with much certitude because it won't be investigated by an objective 3rd party (NTSB) since fortunately there were no deaths. Heck, maybe an elephant caused the derailment? And those new improved tank cars, they really did their job, right? Of course, there could be a civil suit brought by those pesky dimestore lawyers. But we all know they are crooks.
charlie hebdoStraw man argument. Nobody said that. What some of us are saying is that some of the RRers on here don't think the BNSF was at all remiss in its exercising caution.
I don't think anybody is saying that.
What we are saying is that there are different levels of caution and there are different levels of risk. It is really easy to figure out there was a problem after the pile up. No brainer. It is waaaaaaaaayyyyyy harder to figure out there is a problem, especially one that cannot be detected by the naked eye, before things happen.
The railroad could have done everything they were supposed to and the subgrade still could have failed. they could have had a patrol immediately infront of the train, inspecting the track, may not have found any defects and still there could have been a subgrade failure. They could have patrolled an hour before the incident and between the time the patrol went by and the time the train got there the water rose 2 or 3 or 4 feet. We don't know.
People on these list seem to view these things as isolated incidents. They are not. This was a multi-day, multi-state event that covered HUNDREDS of miles of railroad tracks from several railroads. There were probably a hundred miles of tracks where the water was a some point or another up to the ballast line. We have had several of these weather events over the last moth or so. This was not high water at just one spot, it was high water at many locations at many different times over a several day period. Having water next to the tracks in the midwest where the railroad runs along streams and through flood plains is NOT UNUSUAL.
Euclid seems to think that the crew was clairvoyant and a mile or 2 before the location somehow knew there woud be high water there and should have slowed down before they got there.
Fact is nobody on this list knows what happened in any detail and we will probably never know unless a government agency investigates and releases a report.
cx500And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different.
The age of a dam doesn't make it safe in high water situations. It might have got weakened by recurring high water levels over the years. I would monitor an old dam closer than a newer one.
We know from our river dikes in Germany that they will break some day if they are not cared for and not necessarily at the highest possible water levels. But for sure the oldest are in highest danger.Regards, Volker
cx500 Euclid I am told that there was no need to slow down for the flood because we don’t know what caused the derailment. It is that childlike reasoning that I am arguing against. If the cause had nothing to do with the flood, the argument that there was no need to slow down is perfectly valid. And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different.
Euclid I am told that there was no need to slow down for the flood because we don’t know what caused the derailment. It is that childlike reasoning that I am arguing against.
The rule does not say you have to slow down only if you know that the flood will derail your train. The rule calls for slowing down as a precautionary measure just in case the flood poses the danger of a derailment.
The rule also does not allow you to ignore the requiement to slow down in a flood just because there were no derailments caused by previous floods in the same location.
The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with what caused the derailment. The issue would be exactly the same even had there been no derailment. The issue is only about slowing down in areas of high water as required by rule 6.21.
Euclid cx500 Euclid I am told that there was no need to slow down for the flood because we don’t know what caused the derailment. It is that childlike reasoning that I am arguing against. If the cause had nothing to do with the flood, the argument that there was no need to slow down is perfectly valid. And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different. No matter what caused the derailment, the existence of the flood alone requires the slow-down according to rule 6.21. There was a flood with high water, right? There is rule 6.21, right? The answer to both questions is yes. Therefore the arugment that there was no need to slow down is 100% bogus. The rule does not say you have to slow down only if you know that the flood will derail your train. The rule calls for slowing down as a precautionary measure just in case the flood poses the danger of a derailment. The rule also does not allow you to ignore the requiement to slow down in a flood just because there were no derailments caused by previous floods in the same location. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with what caused the derailment. The issue would be exactly the same even had there been no derailment. The issue is only about slowing down in areas of high water as required by rule 6.21.
No matter what caused the derailment, the existence of the flood alone requires the slow-down according to rule 6.21. There was a flood with high water, right? There is rule 6.21, right? The answer to both questions is yes. Therefore the arugment that there was no need to slow down is 100% bogus.
Non-railroaders trying to apply railroad rules - ROFLOL
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusmanEuclid seems to think that the crew was clairvoyant and a mile or 2 before the location somehow knew there woud be high water there and should have slowed down before they got there.
As I said before, if the railroad didn't know of the danger something has gone wrong. There are gauges upstream and down stream of Doon in about 50 miles distance. The first peak upstream was about 16 hours before the accident, downstream 2 days after the upstream peak. Doon is about 10 miles from the upstream gauge.
So from experience it was possible to predict a higher water level at the derailment site.Upstream gauge: https://natwebcaww01.wr.usgs.gov/nwisweb/data/img/USGS.06483290.44424.00060..20180620.20180626.log.0.p50.gif
Downstream gauge: https://natwebcaww01.wr.usgs.gov/nwisweb/data/img/USGS.06485500.233364.00065..20180620.20180626..0..gif
Regards, Volker
EuclidThe issue is only about slowing down in areas of high water as required by rule 6.21.
Please define high water as it applies to the Little Rock River crossing by BNSF just south of Doon, Iowa. Specifics are required (ie, river levels).
Otherwise, it's your opinion vs the knowledge and experience of BNSF.
If I had one, I could show you a picture of water trackside along our line this past weekend. You'd probably say that the water level looks fine - it's a good six to eight feet below track level in a marshy area.
We know it's an indication of a possible plugged culvert (beavers) and requires urgent attention. It was reported to our MOW folks.
BNSF (or any railroad, for that matter) doesn't want to dump a train, especially one that could have such significant impact. They are going to take whatever measures (which have been described here previously) to ensure that such an incident doesn't take place.
Clearly, this caught them by surprise, for whatever reason. Some of the possibilities have been discussed here. You can bet that they will be doing what's necessary to ensure it doesn't happen again - perhaps some active monitoring of the river levels at that bridge.
VOLKER LANDWEHR cx500 And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different. The age of a dam doesn't make it safe in high water situations. It might have got weakened by recurring high water levels over the years. I would monitor an old dam closer than a newer one. We know from our river dikes in Germany that they will break some day if they are not cared for and not necessarily at the highest possible water levels. But for sure the oldest are in highest danger.Regards, Volker
cx500 And should the flood have been the cause, if the fill had remained stable for over a century through numerous flood events there was no logical reason to think this time might be different.
tree68Please define high water as it applies to the Little Rock River crossing by BNSF just south of Doon, Iowa. Specifics are required (ie, river levels).
I think you gave the specifics yourself when you posted the water levels from 10 miles upstream. They were above the Major Flood Stage: From Wiki "Flood Stage":
Whatever this means for BNSF's operation of a crude oil train.Regards, Volker
tree68Please define high water as it applies to the Little Rock River crossing by BNSF just south of Doon, Iowa. Specifics are required (ie, river levels). Otherwise, it's your opinion vs the knowledge and experience of BNSF.
I already did that in a very recent post here. How do you know that specifics are required? The rule calls for action without a precise defintion of high water.
tree68BNSF (or any railroad, for that matter) doesn't want to dump a train, especially one that could have such significant impact.
Who is saying that the crew should have dumped the train? The rule only calls for slowing down. It does not say you should put the train into emergency.
tree68Clearly, this caught them by surprise, for whatever reason. Some of the possibilities have been discussed here.
Why is it clear to you that this caught them by surprise? You go to the ends of the earth insisting that they had no duty to slow down because we don’t have a definition of “high water.” And now you say the water caught them by surprise. Which is it?
VOLKER LANDWEHR tree68 Please define high water as it applies to the Little Rock River crossing by BNSF just south of Doon, Iowa. Specifics are required (ie, river levels). I think you gave the specifics yourself when you posted the water levels from 10 miles upstream. They were above the Major Flood Stage: From Wiki "Flood Stage": Major Flood Stage Rivers: significant to catastrophic, life-threatening flooding is usually expected at this stage. Extensive flooding with some low-lying areas completely inundated is likely. Structures may be completely submerged. Large-scale evacuations may be necessary. Whatever this means for BNSF's operation of a crude oil train.Regards, Volker
tree68 Please define high water as it applies to the Little Rock River crossing by BNSF just south of Doon, Iowa. Specifics are required (ie, river levels).
I gave what was, based on the gauges. Pure hindsight, which we all know is generally 20-20.
There was a very definitive spike in river levels. That may not have been properly anticipated. In fact, I'd bet it wasn't. Had BNSF been aware of that spike, I'd opine they probably would have taken action.
The levels of the Rock River (and thus the Little Rock River, as it flows into the Rock a short distance beyond the derailment site) were already high, above "Action" stage as I recall, but not necessarily at "Flood" stage, and they had been at that level for several days. Apparently BNSF didn't find those levels actionable or they would have issued the appropriate guidance.
And this is the question at hand - at what level of the Little Rock River would BNSF determine the need to slow, or stop trains? Apparently it hadn't reached that level the last time BNSF folks had checked. Bucky apparently feels that the threshold should have been lower. How much?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.