Murphy SidingWait. I lost my scorecard..... Rule 2.61.?
I think that's the number - slow down for bad weather, in essence.
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...
Murphy Siding Wait. I lost my scorecard..... Rule 2.61.?
Wait. I lost my scorecard..... Rule 2.61.?
GCOR
6.21 Precautions Against Unusual Conditions Protect trains and engines against any known condition that may interfere with their safety. When conditions restrict visibility, regulate speed to ensure that crew members can observe and comply with signal indications. In unusually heavy rain, storm, or high water, trains and engines must approach bridges, culverts, and other potentially hazardous points prepared to stop. If they cannot proceed safely, they must stop until it is safe to resume movement. Advise the train dispatcher of such conditions by the first available means of communication.
tree68 Euclid So, as I said before, I think the derailment was either caused by roadbed liquefaction or by some other cause unrelated to the high water. Which basically means Rule 2.61 [6.21] would have no bearing here, right?
Euclid So, as I said before, I think the derailment was either caused by roadbed liquefaction or by some other cause unrelated to the high water.
Which basically means Rule 2.61 [6.21] would have no bearing here, right?
I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule. Certainly it would have had bearing if the flood did cause the wreck by creating a track defect, even if the defect were liquefaction which the crew would not have been able to spot by visual observation.
But even so, the slowing down would have made the wreck less damaging and may not have spilled any oil. However, the rule says nothing about a side benefit of the slowing down lessening the derailment damage if a derailment occurs despite slowing down to check the track.
If the crew had not been given permission to ignore the rule, and if the derailment was not caused by anything related to the flood, I would say that the crew should have nevertheless slowed down because the rule calls for slowing down in cases of high water. Officials pull tests on train crews with mocked up circumstances to see if the crews follow the rules. They are expected to follow the rules in those tests even though the test conditions are staged. So when heading into high water, they are supposed to slow down even if no track defects exist and no derailment happens.
Do we actually know what date and time the BNSF MOW folks inspected the area of the flooding/high water derailment? That would seem to be a pretty critical factor.
charlie hebdoDo we actually know what date and time the BNSF MOW folks inspected the area of the flooding/high water derailment? That would seem to be a pretty critical factor
No we really don't have any information on anything (which of course hasn't stopped anybody) and yes, it, among a zillion other things we don't know, would be a critical factor.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I thought about posting about how we follow procedure FF (flash flood) when issued, usually after civil authorities issue flood warnings. I figure the Yes-But Choir (it used to be more of a solo act) would pick it apart and I'm not in the mood for music.
Besides, who cares how things are handled in the real world.
Jeff
EuclidI would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule.
The crew would not be given permission not to adhere to the rule, to ignore it, or anything of the sort.
Please erase from your library the misconception that a rule can be summarily ignored, or that a crew can be instructed to ignore a rule. If it occurs at all, it will be an extremely rare event, or will earn some folks some unpaid time off.
If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule. If they were concerned with water levels, they would notify the train crew, either directly by radio if it was a short fuse event, or via a bulletin or other such means when they came on duty.
If the crew saw water that they felt was high enough to fit the high water rule, they would be within their rights to adhere to it.
As noted, water levels had been high for several days.
About a mile north of the derailment site, the railroad crosses the Rock River. Apparently there was no concern there, either, or the train would have been slowed for that crossing as well.
For that matter, in the Sheriff's video, there was no flooding visible from the railroad north of 260th Street.
But none of that is going to change your opinion, or likely your misconceptions.
tree68 Euclid I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule. The crew would not be given permission not to adhere to the rule, to ignore it, or anything of the sort. Please erase from your library the misconception that a rule can be summarily ignored, or that a crew can be instructed to ignore a rule. If it occurs at all, it will be an extremely rare event, or will earn some folks some unpaid time off. If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule.
Euclid I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule.
If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule.
What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule?
If a rule must always stand, if it always is, if it cannot be officially decided to be ignored, then how can it be invoked? If a rule cannot be extinguished, how can it be invoked?
Euclid tree68 Euclid I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule. The crew would not be given permission not to adhere to the rule, to ignore it, or anything of the sort. Please erase from your library the misconception that a rule can be summarily ignored, or that a crew can be instructed to ignore a rule. If it occurs at all, it will be an extremely rare event, or will earn some folks some unpaid time off. If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule. What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule? If a rule must always stand, if it always is, if it cannot be officially decided to be ignored, then how can it be invoked? If a rule cannot be extinguished, how can it be invoked?
Terex - time for you to go to work on a railroad. You might actually learn something about rules application. The betting is you would not make it through the probationary period before you were told not to return.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid tree68 Euclid I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule. The crew would not be given permission not to adhere to the rule, to ignore it, or anything of the sort. Please erase from your library the misconception that a rule can be summarily ignored, or that a crew can be instructed to ignore a rule. If it occurs at all, it will be an extremely rare event, or will earn some folks some unpaid time off. If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule. What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule? If a rule must always stand, if it always is, if it cannot be officially decided to be ignored, then how can it be invoked? If a rule cannot be extinguished, how can it be invoked? Terex - time for you to go to work on a railroad. You might actually learn something about rules application. The betting is you would not make it through the probationary period before you were told not to return.
Fine, you lose the bet.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid tree68 Euclid I would say that Rule 6.21 should have been adhered to by the crew because of the high water; unless they were given permission to not adhere to the rule. The crew would not be given permission not to adhere to the rule, to ignore it, or anything of the sort. Please erase from your library the misconception that a rule can be summarily ignored, or that a crew can be instructed to ignore a rule. If it occurs at all, it will be an extremely rare event, or will earn some folks some unpaid time off. If the railroad was not concerned with the high water, they simply would not invoke the rule. What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule? If a rule must always stand, if it always is, if it cannot be officially decided to be ignored, then how can it be invoked? If a rule cannot be extinguished, how can it be invoked? Terex - time for you to go to work on a railroad. You might actually learn something about rules application. The betting is you would not make it through the probationary period before you were told not to return. Fine, you lose the bet.
No way - you won't make it through preliminary training and be allowed to set hands or feet on live rail equipment.
EuclidWhat is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule?
That's simple.
Giving permission to not adhere to a rule implies that there is a reason to adhere to the rule in the first place.
Not invoking the rule means there is no reason to do so.
In this case, you seem to remain convinced that the railroad (and the crew) knew the water was high enough to be a threat (although we still haven't established what level that is) and chose to ignore that information.
As to your second question(s) - every spring we deal with rusty rail conditions and the possibility that crossing protection may not operate as it should. So every spring our bulletin orders reflect that and invoke NORAC rule 138 - provide flag protection - should the protection not operate. The rule is always in effect, but only applies if the crossing protection does not work.
Once the rails are polished and the crossing protection works as it should, every time, that item disappears from the bulletin order. Again, the rule is still there.
If we get a report of malfunctioning crossing protection, we'll be told to be prepared to stop and flag that crossing - per rule 138. That might be in a bulletin order, or could be right in the comments of the Form D if the need is immediate.
I can't make it any more simple than that.
Sorry, if I/we held you of from posting.
I'd really appreciate your first hand knowledge.
The problem in this discussion seems to be that the participating railroaders don't have experience with Rule 6.21 or don't reveal it.
I hope your post could put the discussion on a foundation.
It is not like dehusman said, that we know nothing.
We know the Rock River gage 10 miles upriver from Doon showed a first peak above Major Flood Stage 16 hours before the accident as well as the Rock Valley gage less than 10 miles downriver showing 1.5 ft less than record level about 3.5 hours before the accident.
We have the video from the Sheriff Department with video sequences of tank cars on the river bridge. We have the pile-up that for me doesn't look it happend at a reduced speed.
And we have Rule 6.21 that for me as a civil engineer seems to take into consideration that with unusual high waters hidden track defects that cannot get detected by visual inspection only are more likely than in different situations.
But I might get it wrong here. So first hand experience is needed.Regards, Volker
EuclidFine, you lose the bet.
So you went through railroad training?
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
VOLKER LANDWEHRThe problem in this discussion seems to be that the participating railroaders don't have experience with Rule 6.21 or don't reveal it.
Does it really matter if a railroader has experience with Rule 6.21? The crux of the matter is whether the railroad or the railroaders actually involved considered the water "high." If they did not, the rule simply did not apply.
I don't have time at the moment to research chapter and verse in NORAC, but there is a similar rule there.
Those local railroaders are the ones who run the line on a daily basis. If they didn't consider the waters at the time to meet the criteria of Rule 6.21, why should we?
Clearly something failed. By all appearances, water played a part, but it could just as well have been a broken axle that revealed itself at a particularly inopportune time.
But..But...But... There was water ALL AROUND!
Let's say you have a nicely finished basement - carpet, hardwood floor, electronics, furniture - a comfortable family room.
Four inches of water in that basement is going to be something of a catastrophe - the carpet and wood flooring will be ruined, and other items may suffer damage as well.
My basement is unfinished. The furnace and water heater are up on pedestals, and any storage is on shelves. If I get four inches of water, it'll be damp down there for a bit, until the water drains, but that'll be all.
Both examples involve four inches of water. One basement is ruined, while it's just another day for the other.
I've posited that high water was normally no big deal at Doon. I still hold that opinion.
tree68 Euclid What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule? That's simple. Giving permission to not adhere to a rule implies that there is a reason to adhere to the rule in the first place. Not invoking the rule means there is no reason to do so. In this case, you seem to remain convinced that the railroad (and the crew) knew the water was high enough to be a threat (although we still haven't established what level that is) and chose to ignore that information. As to your second question(s) - every spring we deal with rusty rail conditions and the possibility that crossing protection may not operate as it should. So every spring our bulletin orders reflect that and invoke NORAC rule 138 - provide flag protection - should the protection not operate. The rule is always in effect, but only applies if the crossing protection does not work. Once the rails are polished and the crossing protection works as it should, every time, that item disappears from the bulletin order. Again, the rule is still there. If we get a report of malfunctioning crossing protection, we'll be told to be prepared to stop and flag that crossing - per rule 138. That might be in a bulletin order, or could be right in the comments of the Form D if the need is immediate. I can't make it any more simple than that.
Euclid What is the difference between giving permission to not adhere to the rule and not invoking the rule?
Okay, I see what you are saying. They did not invoke the rule because it hinges on there being high water, and that term is defined in such a way that the conditions of flooding at the derailment site were not high water. Therefore, the rule was moot or un-invoked.
In my opinion, the rule stands based on a common sense definition of high water. There is plenty of common sense subjectivity in rules. They are not moot-unless-invoked. Why have rules that are default moot unless they are invoked? Even in your example of crossing signals not activating, the flag protection rule is always there. If you want to apply the term “invoked,” I would say that rule is self-invoking. But it seems like an argument over semantics. Is a highway speed limit sign un-invoked if there is nobody there to read it?
Maybe you can post a reference that says that Rule 6.21 is default moot and must be invoked when the threshold definition of the rule term, “High water” is met. Maybe you can also post that threshold definition of “High water.”
In any case, my larger point is that I don’t believe the crew violated the rule. I believe the rule stood on its own at the time, and the crew was given permission to ignore it. Maybe you disagree with the terms I use to convey that, but if a rule can be invoked, it can also be extinguished.
The reason the rule was extinguished is that the procedure it calls for was not needed because MOW had been continuously inspecting the track, so there was no reason for the train to slow down to look for track flaws. And also, the Rule does not require a train to slow down to lessen derailment damage if a track flaw derails it. So there was no reason for the rule under those conditions.
So the decision to extinguish Rule 6.21 was made by a higher authority than the crew, under the premise that the track had been inspected and found to be safe for normal train operation. That determination was obviously wrong if the derailment was somehow caused by the flood. The determination was right if the derailment cause was not related to the flood.
tree68Does it really matter if a railroader has experience with Rule 6.21? The crux of the matter is whether the railroad or the railroaders actually involved considered the water "high." If they did not, the rule simply did not apply.
For the course of this discussion it would be nice to get an insight from a railroader who is confronted with these situations more often to understand when and why or why not a railroad deems a flooding dangerous.
I looked for information that could have been available to BNSF if they looked for. I drew my conclusions from what I found and my knowledge and experience as civil engineer. These conclusions might be wrong. But nothing has convinced me yet, neither way.
tree68I don't have time at the moment to research chapter and verse in NORAC, but there is a similar rule there.
In quick search of NORAC, CSX rules, and NS rules I didn't find a similar rule only a rule regarding Reporting of unusual occurences. But I may have overlooked something.
tree68Those local railroaders are the ones who run the line on a daily basis. If they didn't consider the waters at the time to meet the criteria of Rule 6.21, why should we?
Perhaps because there was an accident (caused by whatever) and some evidence that can lead to the conclusion that there might have been a misjudgement?
I'm not a railroader and I don't believe that decisions by railroaders are automatically right. I would like to understand the criteria a railroad uses in such situations.
tree68I've posited that high water was normally no big deal at Doon. I still hold that opinion.
OK, I differ. Is a high water above the Major Flood Stage level and at Rock Valley just 1.5 ft below record levels unusual or not? It looks like BNSF operated as usual but in the light of the accident with the resulting oil spill it must be allowed to question this.
The information about UP's procedures might help a lot.Regards, Volker
tree68Let's say you have a nicely finished basement - carpet, hardwood floor, electronics, furniture - a comfortable family room. Four inches of water in that basement is going to be something of a catastrophe - the carpet and wood flooring will be ruined, and other items may suffer damage as well. My basement is unfinished. The furnace and water heater are up on pedestals, and any storage is on shelves. If I get four inches of water, it'll be damp down there for a bit, until the water drains, but that'll be all. Both examples involve four inches of water. One basement is ruined, while it's just another day for the other.
VOLKER LANDWEHR In quick search of NORAC, CSX rules, and NS rules I didn't find a similar rule only a rule regarding Reporting of unusual occurences. But I may have overlooked something.
CSX rules.
301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued:
Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches
the far limits;
If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and
Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment.
624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority.
FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher.
VOLKER LANDWEHR I'm not a railroader and I don't believe that decisions by railroaders are automatically right.
I'm not a railroader and I don't believe that decisions by railroaders are automatically right.
You really should......
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher.
I have a question about this part:
Does this rule apply whenever there is high water? Or does it only apply when invoked according to a specific definition or technical specification that defines “high water” ? If it is the latter, what is that specific definition of high water which when met, will invoke the rule to require approaching at restricted speed?
Euclid n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher. I have a question about this part: If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and… Does this rule apply whenever there is high water? Or does it only apply when invoked according to a specific definition or technical specification that defines “high water” ? If it is the latter, what is that specific definition of high water which when met, will invoke the rule to require approaching at restricted speed?
The answer is in the begining of the rule. "When a flash flood warning is issued".
The rule interpretation is probably (I am not a rules specialist) UNUSUALLY high water, just like the rule says. I would expect in that area a flooded field was not unusual. Local knowledge will guide operations, and the field staff and train crews will be familiar with "points likely to be affected".
jeffhergert I thought about posting about how we follow procedure FF (flash flood) when issued, usually after civil authorities issue flood warnings. I figure the Yes-But Choir (it used to be more of a solo act) would pick it apart and I'm not in the mood for music. Besides, who cares how things are handled in the real world. Jeff
Johnny
n012944 Euclid n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: 2. Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher. I have a question about this part: 2. If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and… Does this rule apply whenever there is high water? Or does it only apply when invoked according to a specific definition or technical specification that defines “high water” ? If it is the latter, what is that specific definition of high water which when met, will invoke the rule to require approaching at restricted speed? The answer is in the begining of the rule. "When a flash flood warning is issued".
Euclid n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: 2. Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher. I have a question about this part: 2. If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and… Does this rule apply whenever there is high water? Or does it only apply when invoked according to a specific definition or technical specification that defines “high water” ? If it is the latter, what is that specific definition of high water which when met, will invoke the rule to require approaching at restricted speed?
n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: 2. Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher.
2. Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches
2. If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and…
So the first condition is "When a flash flood warning is issued." But following that first condition, there is a second condition stated as item #2. It is a second condition because it says, "If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered..."
Only if that second condition exists is there a requirement to slow to restricted speed.
So in order to know if that second condtion exists, you have to have a definition or specification for "unusually heavy rain or high water." What is that definition?
yes, but.....
What is the definition of "the real world"?
Euclid n012944 Euclid n012944 CSX rules. 301.7 When a Flash Flood Warning is issued: 2. Trains must operate through the limits not exceeding 40 MPH until the leading end reaches the far limits; If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and Promptly notify the train dispatcher of conditions that affect the safe movement of trains or on-track equipment. 624.2 When an authorized employee provides notification that he or she is ready to perform heat inspections or flash flood warning inspections, the train dispatcher must promptly issue an authority. FYI, rule 301.7 lasts until the flash flood warning is over, per the weather service. Even if the tracks have been inspected, crews must still observe the rule until told not to by the dispatcher. I have a question about this part: 2. If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered within the limits, approach bridges, culverts, and other points likely to be affected at restricted speed; and… Does this rule apply whenever there is high water? Or does it only apply when invoked according to a specific definition or technical specification that defines “high water” ? If it is the latter, what is that specific definition of high water which when met, will invoke the rule to require approaching at restricted speed? The answer is in the begining of the rule. "When a flash flood warning is issued". So the first condition is "When a flash flood warning is issued." But following that first condition, there is a second condition stated as item #2. It is a second condition because it says, "If unusually heavy rain or high water is encountered..." Only if that second condition exists is there a requirement to slow to restricted speed. So in order to know if that second condtion exists, you have to have a definition or specification for "unusually heavy rain or high water." What is that definition?
Is a Flash Flood Warning in effect?
BaltACDIs a Flash Flood Warning in effect?
And for the non-railroaders, that doesn't mean a NWS flash flood warning, that means a Flash Flood Warning issued by the railroad, through their processes and policies.
EuclidSo the decision to extinguish Rule 6.21...
OK, there's another term to delete from your vocabulary - at no time is a rule "extinguished." It either applies or it doesn't.
Another concept you can delete from your collection is "gave permission to ignore a rule." It's highly unlikely any supervisor is going to do so under normal circumstances. Maybe another railroader can give an example of when it has happened.
When I say "invoke" I mean this: The dispatcher will send a message in one form or another to the effect of "high water between MP x and MP y. Proceed through that area IAW rule 6.21."
Or the DS may simply issue a slow order that reflects Rule 6.21 by ordering the crew to operate at restricted speed between MP x and MP y account high water.
This is the same thing I mentioned re: crossings and NORAC Rule 138.
EuclidMaybe you can post a reference that says that Rule 6.21 is default moot and must be invoked when the threshold definition of the rule term, “High water” is met. Maybe you can also post that threshold definition of “High water.”
Actually, I've already asked you to provide that information, since you're so certain that the water levels at the Little Rock River crossing met that threshold.
And rule 6.21 isn't moot - it the railroad feels water levels don't meet their threshold for "high", the rule simply doesn't apply. It's not extinguished, no one has to be given permission to ignore it - it just doesn't apply.
OTOH, if a crew feels the water levels are extraordinary, they have every right to observe the rule.
VOLKER LANDWEHRWe know the Rock River gage 10 miles upriver from Doon showed a first peak above Major Flood Stage 16 hours before the accident as well as the Rock Valley gage less than 10 miles downriver showing 1.5 ft less than record level about 3.5 hours before the accident.
"Major Flood Stage" really doesn't have much meaning for the railroad in the grand scheme of things because flooding is relative to the evelation of what you are worried about flooding is.
If "Major Flood Stage" is the water at the station of 15 ft and your facilites are at 55 ft, "Major Flood Stage" isn't anything to worry about.
In the floods I have been involved with, what the railroad generally does is they go out to the tracks and somebody measures the water level below top of rail (actually several times). Lets say when the flood waters are at 10 ft at the measurement station and the water at the railroad (which could be miles from the measuring station) is 14 ft below top of rail. "Major Flood Stage" is at 20 ft and the water is forecast to crest at 22 ft. That's a rise of 12 ft from where it is now. Even though the water is 2 ft above "major flood stage", the railroad still is 2 ft above water. Something to watch, not something to panic over.
Having been one of the guys who track the flood gauges and the freeboard of the railroad, I can tell you that is how it works. And once you get an understanding of what the water level changes at the measuring station mean at the railroad (the relationship may not be linear) its pretty reasonable as far as predicting water levels and when things will crest.
If you've been watching this thing for the last 3 or 4 days, the water level crested below the top of rail by several feet and it is going down, are you going to go to be placing a lot of restrictions on the operation?
Perhaps off-topic, but here is a washout and derailment where the water is obviously up to the track. Happened yesterday morning:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/tsb-releases-image-of-via-rail-derailment-that-injured-2-1.4737680
This one seems to be small enough that there is no way the crew could have seen it coming, and much of that area runs through swamps, so should Rule 6.21 or whatever it is be in effect all the time...?
Bear-poking completed.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.