.... or most likely, none of the above, #4 a plain old slope failure.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I can see three different types of flood-related defects that may have caused the derailment:
Soil erosion on the surface around the track structure.
Soil erosion inside of the fill bank supporting the track structure.
Soil liquefaction inside of the fill bank supporting the track structure.
I would say that the least likely is #1 and most likely is #3. All three causes could allow an entire train to pass without causing a derailment; or allow part of the train to pass before passage of the train accentuates the water-caused defect sufficiently to derail the train. All three causes could also derail the train just as the locomotive encounters the defect.
Cause #1 would be spotted by all of the monitoring and inspections under way as we have been told always happens. That is why I believe that #1 is the least likely. Cause #2 could produce an effect similar to cause #3. Both could lead to a collapse of the roadbed.
One difference is that #2 could collapse the roadbed without a train passing over it, and thus be found by inspection like cause #1. Whereas cause #3 would not collapse the roadbed unless a train were passing over it. So cause #3 would not be detected by any inspection.
Also, of the three causes, #3 is the least likely to derail the head end because the liquefaction site has to be developed by the train passage. With liquefaction, the train shakes the soil over enough time to produce the soil condition that derails the train. So it will be unlikely to derail the train until after the head end has passed the saturated soil site where liquefaction can be triggered.
Wow, Bucky's so determinded to have the last word that he is moving his posts around.
dehusman Wow, Bucky's so determinded to have the last word that he is moving his posts around.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
dehusman .... or most likely, none of the above, #4 a plain old slope failure.
Do you mean a failure of the fill bank slope while submerged in flood water? I suppose that is possible to have occurred before the train arrived without being seen by the constant track inspections during the flood.
However, if it did happen before the arrival of the train, it seems most likely that it would have derailed the head end of the train as soon as it encountered the unsupported track. But that did not happen.
If the slope failed during the passage of the train, I would call that liquefaction, which is the type of failure that I believe occurred.
EuclidIf the slope failed during the passage of the train, I would call that liquefaction, which is the type of failure that I believe occurred.
Liquifaction is one thing, a slope failure is another. Liquifaction the material in the fill changes from behaving like a solid to behaving like a liquid and flows. Slope failure the structure of the slope "mechanically" fails and the slope shifts.
Yes, but...
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...
dehusman Euclid If the slope failed during the passage of the train, I would call that liquefaction, which is the type of failure that I believe occurred. Liquifaction is one thing, a slope failure is another. Liquifaction the material in the fill changes from behaving like a solid to behaving like a liquid and flows. Slope failure the structure of the slope "mechanically" fails and the slope shifts.
Euclid If the slope failed during the passage of the train, I would call that liquefaction, which is the type of failure that I believe occurred.
I believe the Doon derailment was caused by liquefaction of the roadbed fill which had become saturated by the high water. Then the soil was subjected to the loading of the train, and at the same time, it was also shaken by the train. Then the shaking triggered liquefaction to cause a sudden loss of support. Maybe the slope was involved in this collapse of soil support, or maybe not. The fill is relatively narrow, so it could have failed across its entire width.
Here is a reference to liquefaction and ground movement including slope failure:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1973/0688/report.pdf
From the link:
“Because of the critical effect liquefaction has on the safe performance of engineered construction and the stability of certain geologic formations, considerable study has been devoted to this topic in recent years. Significant progress has been made in understanding the liquefaction phenomenon and the factors controlling it; however, ambiguity in present definitions of the term liquefaction and lack of clear distinction between liquefaction and ground-failure conditions associated with this phenomenon have produced some confusion in usage and understanding of liquefaction and its consequences.”
Euclid dehusman Euclid If the slope failed during the passage of the train, I would call that liquefaction, which is the type of failure that I believe occurred. Liquifaction is one thing, a slope failure is another. Liquifaction the material in the fill changes from behaving like a solid to behaving like a liquid and flows. Slope failure the structure of the slope "mechanically" fails and the slope shifts. I assume that slope failure can occur without liquefaction, but references say that it can also be caused by liquefaction. In most cases, it is the weight of the soil and effect of gravity that causes ground movement when liquefaction occurs. With railroads, it is the weight of the soil, the effect of gravity, and the loading of the train that causes ground movement when liquefaction occurs. The train also provides the ground shaking that triggers saturated soil to achieve liquefaction. I believe the Doon derailment was caused by liquefaction of the roadbed fill which had become saturated by the high water. Then the soil was subjected to the loading of the train, and at the same time, it was also shaken by the train. Then the shaking triggered liquefaction to cause a sudden loss of support. Maybe the slope was involved in this collapse of soil support, or maybe not. The fill is relatively narrow, so it could have failed across its entire width. Here is a reference to liquefaction and ground movement including slope failure: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1973/0688/report.pdf From the link: “Because of the critical effect liquefaction has on the safe performance of engineered construction and the stability of certain geologic formations, considerable study has been devoted to this topic in recent years. Significant progress has been made in understanding the liquefaction phenomenon and the factors controlling it; however, ambiguity in present definitions of the term liquefaction and lack of clear distinction between liquefaction and ground-failure conditions associated with this phenomenon have produced some confusion in usage and understanding of liquefaction and its consequences.”
I assume that slope failure can occur without liquefaction, but references say that it can also be caused by liquefaction. In most cases, it is the weight of the soil and effect of gravity that causes ground movement when liquefaction occurs. With railroads, it is the weight of the soil, the effect of gravity, and the loading of the train that causes ground movement when liquefaction occurs. The train also provides the ground shaking that triggers saturated soil to achieve liquefaction.
Murphy Siding Euclid: Because of the critical effect liquefaction has on the safe performance of engineered construction and the stability of certain geologic formations, considerable study has been devoted to this topic in recent years. Significant progress has been made in understanding the liquefaction phenomenon and the factors controlling it; however, ambiguity in present definitions of the term liquefaction and lack of clear distinction between liquefaction and ground-failure conditions associated with this phenomenon have produced some confusion in usage and understanding of liquefaction and its consequences.” Are you a soil engineer?
Euclid: Because of the critical effect liquefaction has on the safe performance of engineered construction and the stability of certain geologic formations, considerable study has been devoted to this topic in recent years. Significant progress has been made in understanding the liquefaction phenomenon and the factors controlling it; however, ambiguity in present definitions of the term liquefaction and lack of clear distinction between liquefaction and ground-failure conditions associated with this phenomenon have produced some confusion in usage and understanding of liquefaction and its consequences.” Are you a soil engineer?
Murphy SidingAre you a soil engineer?
He very obviously isn't, to anybody who has had any even casual experience with their impact on the railroad. However in his quoted link the phrase "have produced some confusion in usage and understanding" seems very fitting.
I don't believe that I have made any claims that require me to be a soil engineer (which I am not). I'm just touching the basics here, and you don't need to be a soil engineer to understand my points. I thought the quote from the link raised an interesting and pertinent point about the confusion over liquefaction and its consequences. That is why I directed it to Dave. I tried to put it into non-soil engineering terms for all the non-soil engineers out there. Are you a soil engineer?
As I recall, the PDF makes a distinction in which liquefaction is not ground movement even though it is often cited in cases of severe ground movement such as in earthquakes. What liquefaction does is make ground movement possible. I believe that this is the basic point of the quote citing some confusion about liquefaction and its consequenses. By the way, are you a soil engineer? Do you know a lot of soil engineers?
charlie hebdoAnd the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe.
You may see it as providing more information - some see it as an attempt to cover all of the bases so if a cause is made public Bucky can say "see, I told you so!"
tree68 charlie hebdo And the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe. You may see it as providing more information - some see it as an attempt to cover all of the bases so if a cause is made public Bucky can say "see, I told you so!"
charlie hebdo And the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe.
Yes, but!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
For Yes, But you always need more than person. On side usually is one person, the other side a few. And a number of those are so preoccupied that they wouldn't admit or realize a good information or correct answer.
If you want to end it, why not stop answering?Regards, VolkerRegards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR For Yes, But you always need more than person. On side usually is one person, the other side a few. And a number of those are so preoccupied that they wouldn't admit or realize a good information or correct answer. If you want to end it, why not stop answering?Regards, VolkerRegards, Volker
It is a threadbare strategy used by those members whose knee-jerk reaction to anything Euclid posts is animosity. Their desire is to flood the thread with inanity so that it gets locked. Is Euclid irritatingly obsessive, at times even arguing with himself? Sure. But he also seeks answers to questions that make some folks uncomfortable. And if all this were about was their irritation or boredom with his "yes, buts" they could simply ignore the thread or not respond to him. But it has a far more nasty goal - censorship.
cx500 Murphy Siding Are you a soil engineer? He very obviously isn't, to anybody who has had any even casual experience with their impact on the railroad. However in his quoted link the phrase "have produced some confusion in usage and understanding" seems very fitting.
Murphy Siding Are you a soil engineer?
No need to be a soil mechanics and geotechnical engineer in view of the literature aimed to laymen. They are good enough to understandably describe the causes.
I, as a civil engineer (structural design) haven't seen anything wrong in Euclid's description. Soil liquefaction is one propable cause of the derailment. Others were mentioned in this thread.
The linked article explains the cause and its possible consequences. The quoted part refers to the inaccurate use of the terms, mixing up cause and consequences.Regards, Volker
charlie hebdoIt is a threadbare strategy used by those members whose knee-jerk reaction to anything Euclid posts is animosity. Their desire is to flood the thread with inanity so that it gets locked. Is Euclid irritatingly obsessive, at times even arguing with himself? Sure. But he also seeks answers to questions that make some folks uncomfortable. And if all this were about was their irritation or boredom with his "yes, buts" they could simply ignore the thread or not respond to him. But it has a far more nasty goal - censorship.
I know and agree.Regards, Volker
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding Euclid: Because of the critical effect liquefaction has on the safe performance of engineered construction and the stability of certain geologic formations, considerable study has been devoted to this topic in recent years. Significant progress has been made in understanding the liquefaction phenomenon and the factors controlling it; however, ambiguity in present definitions of the term liquefaction and lack of clear distinction between liquefaction and ground-failure conditions associated with this phenomenon have produced some confusion in usage and understanding of liquefaction and its consequences.” Are you a soil engineer? Are you? He's not a soild engineer, but his quote is from people at the USGS who are. And the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe.
Are you? He's not a soild engineer, but his quote is from people at the USGS who are. And the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe.
Euclid Murphy Siding Are you a soil engineer? I don't believe that I have made any claims that require me to be a soil engineer (which I am not). I'm just touching the basics here, and you don't need to be a soil engineer to understand my points. I thought the quote from the link raised an interesting and pertinent point about the confusion over liquefaction and its consequences. That is why I directed it to Dave. I tried to put it into non-soil engineering terms for all the non-soil engineers out there. Are you a soil engineer? As I recall, the PDF makes a distinction in which liquefaction is not ground movement even though it is often cited in cases of severe ground movement such as in earthquakes. What liquefaction does is make ground movement possible. I believe that this is the basic point of the quote citing some confusion about liquefaction and its consequenses. By the way, are you a soil engineer? Do you know a lot of soil engineers?
VOLKER LANDWEHRIf you want to end it, why not stop answering?
Because I hate to see incorrect information left to stand unchallenged.
In case you're wondering what all this "yes, but..." stuff is about - if someone disproves one of Bucky's theories, his strategy has always been to backpedal and approach from a different direction. "Yes, but..."
Or "I was merely giving my opinion."
Instead of defending Bucky from all of the "bullies," try using the same level of incredulity toward his posts that others use. It will soon become apparent to you...
Murphy SidingHaveyou seen reference to it ever causing a derailment before?
I posted a link to derailments caused by liquefaction earlier in this thread. As I recall, these derailment examples were not in the U.S. I will see if I can find that link, and post it again. In any case, I believe that liquefaction may have been the underlying cause of landslides along railroads, which derailed trains. As that recent link suggests, these landslides may have been referred to as such without any deeper determination involving liquefaction as the underlying cause.
As I mentioned, it is the shaking of the ground that often triggers the soil change that is liquefaction. Any vehicle can shake the ground, but freight trains are ideal because the shaking from them is strong, prolonged, and finely pulsed. So I would conclude that ground shaking caused by trains is second only to earthquakes as a cause of ground shaking.
Well said, Larry.
It is truly sad that one poster continnually posits new explanations of another person's actions when the full story has not presented to the public--or asks questions that cannot be answered with the currently available knowledge. Several incidents back the simile of beating a dead horse was presented--and the beating conitnued.
Johnny
tree68 VOLKER LANDWEHR If you want to end it, why not stop answering? Because I hate to see incorrect information left to stand unchallenged. In case you're wondering what all this "yes, but..." stuff is about - if someone disproves one of Bucky's theories, his strategy has always been to backpedal and approach from a different direction. "Yes, but..." Or "I was merely giving my opinion." Instead of defending Bucky from all of the "bullies," try using the same level of incredulity toward his posts that others use. It will soon become apparent to you...
VOLKER LANDWEHR If you want to end it, why not stop answering?
Do you always know whether information is correct or not? “Yes but,” is nothing more than my graciousness in not crassly rejecting everything you said. I regard that sort of total rejection as being an act of open hostility, as we sometimes see in forum discussion.
I do not believe that you are entirely wrong all the time. In your perpetual quest to shoot down incorrect information, I get the impression that you feel that anything I say is incorrect information.
As you know, the term “backpedal” has a negative connotation. You assign that term to me as a characteristic based on my restating the terms of my argument. I think that if you are honest, you will admit that what really bothers you is that I make strong arguments and don’t back down when you come along correcting my information.
You advise others to use the same level of incredulity that you and others use when reading my comments. Maybe you and your “others” should tone down your level of incredulity and consider what I actually say rather than just make fit your preconceived template. All debate involves the changing of terms to help clarify one’s position and make it more convincing. That is not backpedaling.
Euclid tree68 charlie hebdo And the rest of us can read and learn something, maybe. You may see it as providing more information - some see it as an attempt to cover all of the bases so if a cause is made public Bucky can say "see, I told you so!" Often times hearing “See, I told you so!” is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe you should work on that a little. Just a thought from a non-soil engineer.
On soil liquefaction, he posted a fatual link to USGS soil engineers. And what's wrong with "covering all the bases" i.e. examining multiple hypotheses? It is what practicing engineers, such as Volker tend to do. So do people who use scientific methodologies.
EuclidYou advise others to use the same level of incredulity that you and others use when reading my comments. Maybe you and your “others” should tone down your level of incredulity and consider what I actually say rather than just make fit your preconceived template. All debate involves the changing of terms to help clarify one’s position and make it more convincing. That is not backpedaling.
Healthy skepticism is desirable when it is questioning in the marketplace of ideas. But when it becomes little more than a series of snide, ad hominem attacks dressed up as "objective posts" and merely because of the name of the poster, that is simply garbage.
tree68Because I hate to see incorrect information left to stand unchallenged.
Not all of his answers are wrong, but they are mostly handled as such.
tree68In case you're wondering what all this "yes, but..." stuff is about - if someone disproves one of Bucky's theories, his strategy has always been to backpedal and approach from a different direction. "Yes, but..."
I'm reading this forum since about ten years. So I already learned about it. On the other hand I learned how what you call "bullies" (not my words) try to drive such threads into insanity to get it locked. A few railroaders got banned for doing this.
tree68Instead of defending Bucky from all of the "bullies," try using the same level of incredulity toward his posts that others use. It will soon become apparent to you...
I'm only definding Euclid when I think he is right or he asks the right questions.I'll question him if necessary but perhaps in different way.
I already posted it elsewhere and think it is still correct: It doesn't seem easy for some railroaders to accept different opinions and questioning.
Yes, I learn a lot from railroaders here. Are they unerring? For sure not. And I think it is sometimes necessary to get questioned from an outsider to loose ones blinkers. And a real expert allows to be questioned and doesn't hide behind being an expert.Regards, Volker
Euclid Murphy Siding Haveyou seen reference to it ever causing a derailment before? I posted a link to derailments caused by liquefaction earlier in this thread. As I recall, these derailment examples were not in the U.S. I will see if I can find that link, and post it again. In any case, I believe that liquefaction may have been the underlying cause of landslides along railroads, which derailed trains. As that recent link suggests, these landslides may have been referred to as such without any deeper determination involving liquefaction as the underlying cause. As I mentioned, it is the shaking of the ground that often triggers the soil change that is liquefaction. Any vehicle can shake the ground, but freight trains are ideal because the shaking from them is strong, prolonged, and finely pulsed. So I would conclude that ground shaking caused by trains is second only to earthquakes as a cause of ground shaking.
Murphy Siding Haveyou seen reference to it ever causing a derailment before?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.