charlie hebdoFor what it's worth, 12.9 to 13.1 miles.
As the crow flies it is between 6 and 7 miles depending which points in the towns you chose. The roads are the sides of a right triangle, linear distance is the hypotenuse.Regards, Volker
I think is it pretty obvious that the derailment was caused by the flood. If it had been caused by some non-flood issue such as a broken rail or broken axle, they would have found that cause very early, and they would have been anxious to announce it to the world.
This is because an oil train derailment and oil spill is highly controversial, and it raises the question of how the company would have let the rising water sneak up on them to cause the wreck. It raises the question of negligence. Whereas, a mechanical failure would just be accepted as something that routinely happens, so it would have been just bad luck, but not negligence.
Therefore, if the cause was the flood, they probably would never announce that publically. However, if the cause was a mechanical failure, they would have told us as soon as possible in order to quickly dispel the suspicion about how they handled the flood danger.
So I assume (1) they know the cause, (2) the cause was the flood, and (3) they don’t want to make that public.
EuclidI think is it pretty obvious that the derailment was caused by the flood. If it had been caused by some non-flood issue such as a broken rail or broken axle, they would have found that cause very early, and they would have been anxious to announce it to the world. This is because an oil train derailment and oil spill is highly controversial, and it raises the question of how the company would have let the rising water sneak up on them to cause the wreck. It raises the question of negligence. Whereas, a mechanical failure would just be accepted as something that routinely happens, so it would have been just bad luck, but not negligence. Therefore, if the cause was the flood, they probably would never announce that publically. However, if the cause was a mechanical failure, they would have told us as soon as possible in order to quickly dispel the suspicion about how they handled the flood danger. So I assume (1) they know the cause, (2) the cause was the flood, and (3) they don’t want to make that public.
Ol'Yes But is now the BNSF PR Expert.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidTherefore, if the cause was the flood, they probably would never announce that publically. However, if the cause was a mechanical failure, they would have told us as soon as possible in order to quickly dispel the suspicion about how they handled the flood danger.
.... or more likely, they know the cause, the cause was subgrade issues and they aren't going to annouce the cause, regardless of what it, is because no matter what the cause was they are going to be sued. They aren't going say jack until they have to. They know that no matter what the cause is people will second, third, fourth and fifth guess them on the cause and how they handled it (read any one of the multiple threads on the subject). There is no obvious advantage to the BNSF rush out and publicly annouce a cause.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Euclid Therefore, if the cause was the flood, they probably would never announce that publically. However, if the cause was a mechanical failure, they would have told us as soon as possible in order to quickly dispel the suspicion about how they handled the flood danger. .... or more likely, they know the cause, the cause was subgrade issues and they aren't going to annouce the cause, regardless of what it, is because no matter what the cause was they are going to be sued. They aren't going say jack until they have to. They know that no matter what the cause is people will second, third, fourth and fifth guess them on the cause and how they handled it (read any one of the multiple threads on the subject). There is no obvious advantage to the BNSF rush out and publicly annouce a cause.
Euclid Therefore, if the cause was the flood, they probably would never announce that publically. However, if the cause was a mechanical failure, they would have told us as soon as possible in order to quickly dispel the suspicion about how they handled the flood danger.
That is an elaboration of what I stated as my assumption above. I agree with what you have added. In the final analysis, I have no need for them to tell us what they have determined the cause to be-- because they are telling us by their silence.
Volker: Looks to me like the hypotenuse C is 10.55 miles [A = 10.2 miles; B = 2.7 mi.]. Of course, any reporter from Rock Rapids would likely drive on A and B unless he has wings.
Perhaps I made a mistake. Here is the map: https://goo.gl/maps/EPJdHBuXMQD2
On my screen the length at the bottom right is 1 km (0,622 miles)Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Perhaps I made a mistake. Here is the map: https://goo.gl/maps/EPJdHBuXMQD2 On my screen the length at the bottom right is 1 km (0,622 miles)Regards, Volker
I took my figures from Google Maps - directions. You were measuring from Rock Valley. Should be Rock Rapids, a different village.
I thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;)
rdamonI thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;)
See, poor subgrade. Maybe Harvey Korman will hold the press conference.
dehusman rdamon I thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;) See, poor subgrade. Maybe Harvey Korman will hold the press conference.
rdamon I thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
EuclidI think is it pretty obvious that the derailment was caused by the flood. If it had been caused by some non-flood issue such as a broken rail or broken axle, they would have found that cause very early, and they would have been anxious to announce it to the world.
Will they bring in a new Sheriff or Gov. William J. Le Petomane?
Murphy Siding Euclid I think is it pretty obvious that the derailment was caused by the flood. If it had been caused by some non-flood issue such as a broken rail or broken axle, they would have found that cause very early, and they would have been anxious to announce it to the world. The only thing obvious is that you want to believe that is correct. There is of course, no proof. Instead there is a good counter-argument to your hypothesis that if the BNSF hasn't come out and said you are wrong, that must mean you are right. As Cotton Belt noted above, if the line is back in use this quickly, it means the water wasn't the issue after all. For your theory, the track sub-base would have had to be replaced with new material. That would have entailed completely replacing about a quarter mile of track, ballast and sub-base out in a mud river botom of a farmer's field. I imagine that would be done after extensive testing of the ground underneath. That didn't happen.
Euclid I think is it pretty obvious that the derailment was caused by the flood. If it had been caused by some non-flood issue such as a broken rail or broken axle, they would have found that cause very early, and they would have been anxious to announce it to the world.
The only thing obvious is that you want to believe that is correct. There is of course, no proof. Instead there is a good counter-argument to your hypothesis that if the BNSF hasn't come out and said you are wrong, that must mean you are right. As Cotton Belt noted above, if the line is back in use this quickly, it means the water wasn't the issue after all. For your theory, the track sub-base would have had to be replaced with new material. That would have entailed completely replacing about a quarter mile of track, ballast and sub-base out in a mud river botom of a farmer's field. I imagine that would be done after extensive testing of the ground underneath. That didn't happen.
I am assuming what I believe to be the correct explanation for the wreck based on what I believe is was most probable. It is not an explanation that I desire to be true, as you say. I don’t care what the cause was. I just believe I know what it was.
For my theory of liquefaction being the cause of the wreck, the track sub-base would most certainly not have had to have been replaced with new material, as you say. That might be done later as the long term solution, but it would not have to be done just to resume operation. For resumption of operation, all that would have been needed was to let the water go down wait for the soil to dry out.
I suspect the soil in that fill is fine sand or maybe sandy loam. That is very free draining soil. It will saturate fully and instantly as the water rises. It will also drain and dry as fast as the water drops. When it reaches full saturation, it will continue to be able to support the intended load. But when you add vibration with that load, it will shake the saturated fill and cause it to completely lose its ability to support a load. At that point, the material is indeed like quicksand.
So water created the loss of support, and when you remove the water, support will return. Therefore the fact that a long soil correction project was not carried out does not mean that liquefaction was not the cause.
Those poor Nits, boy are they ever being picked on here!!!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
EuclidI am assuming what I believe to be the correct explanation for the wreck based on what I believe is was most probable. It is not an explanation that I desire to be true, as you say. I don’t care what the cause was. I just believe I know what it was. For my theory of liquefaction being the cause of the wreck, the track sub-base would most certainly not have had to have been replaced with new material, as you say. That might be done later as the long term solution, but it would not have to be done just to resume operation. For resumption of operation, all that would have been needed was to let the water go down wait for the soil to dry out. I suspect the soil in that fill is fine sand or maybe sandy loam. That is very free draining soil. It will saturate fully and instantly as the water rises. It will also drain and dry as fast as the water drops. When it reaches full saturation, it will continue to be able to support the intended load. But when you add vibration with that load, it will shake the saturated fill and cause it to completely lose its ability to support a load. At that point, the material is indeed like quicksand. So water created the loss of support, and when you remove the water, support will return. Therefore the fact that a long soil correction project was not carried out does not mean that liquefaction was not the cause.
SD70Dude Those poor Nits, boy are they ever being picked on here!!!
Murphy Siding Euclid I am assuming what I believe to be the correct explanation for the wreck based on what I believe is was most probable. It is not an explanation that I desire to be true, as you say. I don’t care what the cause was. I just believe I know what it was. For my theory of liquefaction being the cause of the wreck, the track sub-base would most certainly not have had to have been replaced with new material, as you say. That might be done later as the long term solution, but it would not have to be done just to resume operation. For resumption of operation, all that would have been needed was to let the water go down wait for the soil to dry out. I suspect the soil in that fill is fine sand or maybe sandy loam. That is very free draining soil. It will saturate fully and instantly as the water rises. It will also drain and dry as fast as the water drops. When it reaches full saturation, it will continue to be able to support the intended load. But when you add vibration with that load, it will shake the saturated fill and cause it to completely lose its ability to support a load. At that point, the material is indeed like quicksand. So water created the loss of support, and when you remove the water, support will return. Therefore the fact that a long soil correction project was not carried out does not mean that liquefaction was not the cause. I suspect that you are now just making up new theories to back up your old theories and plug holes in said theories. The magic dirt turns bad when it gets wet and the magic dirt turns back into repectable soil on whim when you need it to do so to support your other theories. What do you know about magic bullets?
Euclid I am assuming what I believe to be the correct explanation for the wreck based on what I believe is was most probable. It is not an explanation that I desire to be true, as you say. I don’t care what the cause was. I just believe I know what it was. For my theory of liquefaction being the cause of the wreck, the track sub-base would most certainly not have had to have been replaced with new material, as you say. That might be done later as the long term solution, but it would not have to be done just to resume operation. For resumption of operation, all that would have been needed was to let the water go down wait for the soil to dry out. I suspect the soil in that fill is fine sand or maybe sandy loam. That is very free draining soil. It will saturate fully and instantly as the water rises. It will also drain and dry as fast as the water drops. When it reaches full saturation, it will continue to be able to support the intended load. But when you add vibration with that load, it will shake the saturated fill and cause it to completely lose its ability to support a load. At that point, the material is indeed like quicksand. So water created the loss of support, and when you remove the water, support will return. Therefore the fact that a long soil correction project was not carried out does not mean that liquefaction was not the cause.
I suspect that you are now just making up new theories to back up your old theories and plug holes in said theories. The magic dirt turns bad when it gets wet and the magic dirt turns back into repectable soil on whim when you need it to do so to support your other theories. What do you know about magic bullets?
I have not changed the principles of liquefaction or my description of it. Maybe you should reconsider your assumption that a liquefaction failure means that the entire fill has been damaged and rendered in need of complete replacement before being used again. That is a false theory that you have made for your special reasons which are fairly obvious.
If this was a liquefaction failure, I suspect it would have been fairly easy to detect the quicksand nature of the soil under the wreck pileup during the cleanup phase. And even though complete soil correction would not have been needed to resume operation, they may have perfomed a considerable amount of soil correction.
They described the removal and replacement of large amounts of oil-soaked top soil. Being that the entire flooded section of the roadbed would have been oil soaked as well, I would not be surprised if they replaced much of that soil too. This need not have taken several months, as you imply, considering the amount of other soil that was replaced within a short time. I am sure they had a lot of heavy equipment at the site for the cleanup. So they may indeed have permenantly fixed the liquefaction potential in the orignal roadbed fill soil.
EuclidI have not changed the principles of liquefaction or my description of it. Maybe you should reconsider your assumption that a liquefaction failure means that the entire fill has been damaged and rendered in need of complete replacement before being used again. That is a false theory that you have made for your special reasons which are fairly obvious. If this was a liquefaction failure, I suspect it would have been fairly easy to detect the quicksand nature of the soil under the wreck pileup during the cleanup phase. And even though complete soil correction would not have been needed to resume operation, they may have perfomed a considerable amount of soil correction. They described the removal and replacement of large amounts of oil-soaked top soil. Being that the entire flooded section of the roadbed would have been oil soaked as well, I would not be surprised if they replaced much of that soil too. This need not have taken several months, as you imply, considering the amount of other soil that was replaced within a short time. I am sure they had a lot of heavy equipment at the site for the cleanup. So they may indeed have permenantly fixed the liquefaction potential in the orignal roadbed fill soil.
Murphy Siding Euclid I have not changed the principles of liquefaction or my description of it. Maybe you should reconsider your assumption that a liquefaction failure means that the entire fill has been damaged and rendered in need of complete replacement before being used again. That is a false theory that you have made for your special reasons which are fairly obvious. If this was a liquefaction failure, I suspect it would have been fairly easy to detect the quicksand nature of the soil under the wreck pileup during the cleanup phase. And even though complete soil correction would not have been needed to resume operation, they may have perfomed a considerable amount of soil correction. They described the removal and replacement of large amounts of oil-soaked top soil. Being that the entire flooded section of the roadbed would have been oil soaked as well, I would not be surprised if they replaced much of that soil too. This need not have taken several months, as you imply, considering the amount of other soil that was replaced within a short time. I am sure they had a lot of heavy equipment at the site for the cleanup. So they may indeed have permenantly fixed the liquefaction potential in the orignal roadbed fill soil. I'm not a soil engineer. Are you?
Euclid I have not changed the principles of liquefaction or my description of it. Maybe you should reconsider your assumption that a liquefaction failure means that the entire fill has been damaged and rendered in need of complete replacement before being used again. That is a false theory that you have made for your special reasons which are fairly obvious. If this was a liquefaction failure, I suspect it would have been fairly easy to detect the quicksand nature of the soil under the wreck pileup during the cleanup phase. And even though complete soil correction would not have been needed to resume operation, they may have perfomed a considerable amount of soil correction. They described the removal and replacement of large amounts of oil-soaked top soil. Being that the entire flooded section of the roadbed would have been oil soaked as well, I would not be surprised if they replaced much of that soil too. This need not have taken several months, as you imply, considering the amount of other soil that was replaced within a short time. I am sure they had a lot of heavy equipment at the site for the cleanup. So they may indeed have permenantly fixed the liquefaction potential in the orignal roadbed fill soil.
I'm not a soil engineer. Are you?
Euc - getting up to his neck, or higher, in mud and not understanding the why's of it.....
Round and round we go.....
zardoz Round and round we go.....
Johnny
Cotton Belt MP104If there was such horrible damage due to the flooding issue, which has been documented and discussed in GREAT detail (btw..... that's why I started this thread) ......... how come they got back to operating so quickly, without delay due to all the work that would be needed to repair ROW undermined by flooding?
If the roadbed fill had been undermined, it would not necessarily have occurred over the entire length of the fill. It may have just been confined to the area where the derailment occurred. Regardless of whether undermining occurred there, that spot would have needed a lot of earthwork repair just due to being dug up by the pileup of cars.
Also, if an area were undermined to the point where it would derail the train, there would be a high probability that the locomotives would have derailed when they hit that weak spot.
With liquefaction, there is no undermining or removal of supporting soil. Instead, the soil remains in place, but loses its ability to carry a load. And it does not lose the supporting ability prior to the arrival of a train. Instead, it develops its loss of support as the train passes. This is because the final key to a liquefaction failure is vibration of the soil, and that is provided by the train passage.
Euclid This is because the final key to a liquefaction failure is vibration of the soil, and that is provided by the train passage.
That vibration by earthquakes is exactly what happens to cause the liquefaction damages that are so destructive on fill and settlement soils.
blue streak 1That vibration by earthquakes is exactly what happens to cause the liquefaction damages that are so destructive on fill and settlement soils.
Earthquakes are one probable cause for soil liquefaction. Other vibrations, like heavy trains, can have the same effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd6W2aP2dkA
Wiki explanation "Soil liquefaction": Soil liquefaction occurs when a saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress such as shaking during an earthquake or other sudden change in stress condition, in which material that is ordinarily a solid behaves like a liquid.
Regards, Volker
Before you get too excited.
Liquification is a very specific thing. There are numerous other types of failures that could have happened, that could have been accelerated by the rain, that could have been triggered by loading as well as vibration, other than liquification.
We still don't know what the actual cause of the subgrade failure was.
Just because Acting Governor Reynolds* says something in her proclamation doesn't mean it's gospel.
*She was elected Lt. Governor of Iowa. The Iowa Constitution says the Lt. Governor takes on the duties and responsibility of the office of Governor when the Governor can't finish out the term. It does not say that they are elevated to the actual position of governor. (Former Governor Branstad resigned to become ambassador to China.) I am in this camp, that she is still actually the Lt. Governor discharging the duties of Governor.
Jeff
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.