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.....
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
SD70Dude Those poor Nits, boy are they ever being picked on here!!!
Those poor Nits, boy are they ever being picked on here!!!
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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. ;)
See, poor subgrade. Maybe Harvey Korman will hold the press conference.
Will they bring in a new Sheriff or Gov. William J. Le Petomane?
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.
rdamonI thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;)
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I thought they had to run the railroad through Rock Ridge due to finding quicksand. ;)
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
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.
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.
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.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding For what it’s worth, Rock Rapids is about 14 miles away, not 7 as someone had mentioned For what it's worth, 12.9 to 13.1 miles. Lost in all the usual obfuscations, the point is Euclid was correct. He did check with the nearest local newspaper for an update. To cast aspersions on his credibility [in this instance only] was simply wrong and rude.
Murphy Siding For what it’s worth, Rock Rapids is about 14 miles away, not 7 as someone had mentioned
For what it's worth, 12.9 to 13.1 miles. Lost in all the usual obfuscations, the point is Euclid was correct. He did check with the nearest local newspaper for an update. To cast aspersions on his credibility [in this instance only] was simply wrong and rude.
Murphy SidingFor what it’s worth, Rock Rapids is about 14 miles away, not 7 as someone had mentioned
jeffhergert The engineer had brought the train to a stop, I got off, and he pulled the indicated car up to me. (That was, and still is allowed when operating on wood ties.)
.
Murphy Siding I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do know the owner of the lumberyard in Doon. I asked him what the people in town knew about the cause of the derailment. He said "nothing- we just figure stuff happens".
Now that is a factual statement. Thank You Murph.
charlie hebdoI think several of you owe euclid an apology.
You haven't known Bucky as long as some of us, I gather.
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...
Cotton Belt MP104Murphy Siding The line didn't stay closed too long. On Saturday the 14th I caught two trains, one coming off the line the other going onto the line at Garretson, S.D. The northbound was all tankers. ASSUMING the above is a reliable source .....SARCASM, I say again, SARCASM
Murphy Siding The line didn't stay closed too long. On Saturday the 14th I caught two trains, one coming off the line the other going onto the line at Garretson, S.D. The northbound was all tankers.
EuclidOh I think that is pretty far fetched. So you must think I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes by quoting from what you regard as a non-credible source. They said they have no information. Maybe they really have been informed by authorities that the flood caused the wreck, but they are so non-credible that they forgot that they were informed. How do you determine that the source in Doon is not a credible information source? How do you determine that any news source is credible or not credible? Personally I would not "expect the same from anyone else", as you say. I consume news, and judge whether I think it is credible. It would never occur to me that it should be independently certified to be credible in order to protect me from incorrect news.
I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I do know the owner of the lumberyard in Doon. I asked him what the people in town knew about the cause of the derailment. He said "nothing- we just figure stuff happens".
To be fair, I did try to find the same media source that euclid had found. I had Googled “newspaper+Doon, Iowa”. That lead me to a Facebook page for something like a countywide, monthly Shopper’s News free paper. The last entry on the page was from last fall asking if anyone had ideas for newspaper articles. I don’t recall if that paper is affiliated with a radio station. For what it’s worth, Rock Rapids is about 14 miles away, not 7 as someone had mentioned, not that it makes the news any less credible.
Cotton Belt MP104Elsewhere in a TRAINS news article comment section, there is chastisment over the news article being very "loose" with facts. This draws attention to the possiblity of the cashier at the local store might be more "factual" than the professioal reporter being the source and not exactly accurate mike endmrw0717181604
Yes, that is why I went to Doon. All of the big credible news sources have nothing to say on the subject. A thousand of them must have covered it with the same story the day it happened. Now they are all stacked up at the top of any Google search with the words"Doon" and "derailment" in the search, and it is all the same old news. Very credible though. Sometimes it is best to stop in at the gas station and ask what happened.
charlie hebdo I think several of you owe euclid an apology. Statements are often made on here without precise attribution. He's not the only one to have done so.
I think several of you owe euclid an apology. Statements are often made on here without precise attribution. He's not the only one to have done so.
I don't know about an appology, but I would hope, as another has suggest on this thread, this would happen. Perhaps Eculid should institute the lawsuit against BNSF to reveal the cause of the derailment, as that is what it will take to find the true cause.
Elsewhere in a TRAINS news article comment section, there is chastisment over the news article being very "loose" with facts. This draws attention to the possiblity of the cashier at the local store might be more "factual" than the professioal reporter being the source and not exactly accurate mike endmrw0717181604
[quote user="Murphy Siding"]
The line didn't stay closed too long. On Saturday the 14th I caught two trains, one coming off the line the other going onto the line at Garretson, S.D. The northbound was all tankers.
[/quote
ASSUMING the above is a reliable source .....SARCASM, I say again, SARCASM
Since the information is given, and I am sure it is reliable, it causes me to wonder. If 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?
To me this report of traffic running again, seems to suggest this accident cause was like what would have happened on dry ROW and the cause was the usual reason for derailments. i.e. NOT flood related mike endmrw0717181547
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.