blue streak 1 PNWRMNM Streak, The detour route is Laurel-Great Falls-Shelby. It has been upgraded from its GN days but IIRC is still relatively low capacity. Mac How congested will that make Shelby <> Sandpoint? Will that make the Builder get slowed on that section? So far Builders both ways have made it on time the ~ 8 - 9 hours betwen those 2 points. EDIT: How will BNSF and MRL Crews be allocated?
PNWRMNM Streak, The detour route is Laurel-Great Falls-Shelby. It has been upgraded from its GN days but IIRC is still relatively low capacity. Mac
Streak,
The detour route is Laurel-Great Falls-Shelby. It has been upgraded from its GN days but IIRC is still relatively low capacity.
Mac
This likely to be a replay of the summer of 2009 when the MRL was closed west of Helena for a month due to the collapse of Mullan tunnel.
MRL crews can't be used for detours - not their railroad. Plus, they don't have conductors. In the future, this likely will be different, as all will be BNSF employees after January 1, 2024.
In 2009, like now I assume, there was initial chaos mostly surrounding crew availability. But as crews were relocated from elsewhere across the system as available, things settled into a more-or-less regular operation. Not everything will detour via Great Falls. Coal empties, for instance, will continue east all the way to Snowden, Montana and then turn south to Glendive and then on to the mines. Grain traffic from Nebraska and beyond and Eastern South Dakota will operate via Willmar and Benson in Minnesota, then via Minot and Havre to keep as much traffic off the Great Falls route as possible.
With regard to the Shelby-Spokane segment, in 2009, it was averaging 40 to 55 trains daily without serious incident, though prioritization suffers. I did note that one day in August 2009, 15 coal and grain trains were dispatched west from Shelby, and the following morning the westbound Empire Builder arrived in Seattle early.
Marias Pass is well-equipped to handle an increased volume of traffic, especially this time of year. With a 1% ruling grade on the east slope, and two main tracks on the west slope, and no tunnel at the summit, traffic flows quite easily. Most westbounds don't require helpers, and while the eastward grade is 1.8%, helpers (when needed) are placed on the rear and cut off on the fly at Summit (using Helperlink). With two main tracks on the west slope, the helper power can usually immediately return to Essex for a subsequent help without waiting for opposing eastward traffic.
Just after the BN purchase of the Santa Fe in 1995, Rob Krebs instituted some upgrades of the route between Laurel and Shelby, at Shelby, and between Whitefish and Bonners Ferry. Some of the second main track in Western Montana was never built due to budget restraints (but it is graded and ready), but a second main track was added between Bonners Ferry and Crossport and a new siding at Katka was added in the Kootenai River Canyon. Erroneously cited by Bill Stephens at TRAINS as being a bottleneck, the railroad in the Kootenai River canyon is river grade with no single track section being much over 5 miles. Also, the 30 MPH speed limit for freight trains of all stripes means that a need to overtake a lesser-priority train is not a "thing." The story is that Mr. Krebs wanted the route to upgraded to move traffic away from the MRL, not fully cognizant of the penalities involved when the MRL traffic quota was not met.
To facilitate a meet between Great Falls and Shelby, trains must be less than 6500 feet or so (Conrad has a siding nearly 9,000 feet, but it's not in the best shape), though I wouldn't be surprised to see a train stashed at shuttle grain facilities at Collins, Conrad, or Shelby to increase fluidity. The line from Great Falls to Mossmain (Laurel) has numerous lengthened sidings, mostly on the north and south end, with those in the middle being 6200 to 6800 feet. It's all dark territory, and being a 225-mile run with multiple meets means dogcatching with heavier traffic is a frequent occurrence.
The condition of the route between Laurel and Shelby via Great Falls is testimony to the fact that the MRL is and will be the gift that keeps on giving. Conceived in the days when a spokesman for BN once said, "our whole railroad is for sale" and wanting to implement two-person crews, a guaranteed traffic quota was part of the deal to create Montana Rail Link which will forever skew how trains are operated through Montana. As was proven with Mr. Krebs, there is little incentive to upgrade the route via Great Falls when a certain amount of traffic can't operate that way. And when there is a service interruption, the lack of infrastructure and crews make the operation more of a challenge than it needs to be. While the route that is now the MRL is better for lighter, higher-priority trains, it's actually cheaper for unit trains to operate via Great Falls and Marias Pass because helpers aren't required. In Washington State, BNSF operates unit trains (grain, coal, crude) to West Coast ports on a route that can be several hundred miles further than via Stevens or Stampede Pass just to avoid a 2.2% grade (operating via Wishram and Vancouver, WA), yet in Southern Montana, these trains must battle helper grades of 1.8% (Bozeman Pass) and 2.2% (Mullan Pass) when the alternative flatter route via Great Falls (depending on origin) is only 30 (for Signal Peak coal trains) to 95 miles further (to/from Mossmain).
That the MRL was an artifically-created entity which included a specific traffic flow for 35 years has determined the accompanying infrastructure on the route and will likely continue to do as such for years in the future.....
--Mark Meyer
According to posts on RyPN, Kalmbach apparently noted yesterday (I don't read the Newswire) that a MRL representative explicitly confirmed that they conducted timely inspections of the bridge, knowing about the scour that was the reason for removal of the highway bridge. It would seem less than credible to me that the MRL inspectors were either criminally incompetent or mendacious. So I think 'watchful waiting' is in order to see what the NTSB reports.
Sometimes everything is all right, until it's not.
That last little bit of material that was holding everything in place washed away...
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...
BNSF is going to qualify MRL crews from Laurel through Great Falls to Shelby.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/agreement-allows-montana-rail-link-crews-to-operate-bnsf-detour-trains/
OvermodAccording to posts on RyPN, Kalmbach apparently noted yesterday (I don't read the Newswire) that a MRL representative explicitly confirmed that they conducted timely inspections of the bridge, knowing about the scour that was the reason for removal of the highway bridge. It would seem less than credible to me that the MRL inspectors were either criminally incompetent or mendacious. So I think 'watchful waiting' is in order to see what the NTSB reports.
I have no fear that they conducted regular above the water inspections. I do wonder how many below the water inspections were conducted.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Scour can be a tricky problem for bridge inspectors. High stream flow can take out a lot of material, but as things quiet down the underlying void gets refilled with more rock from upstream. A week later once an underwater inspection again becomes possible everything appears good.
It is a known problem, and I believe the FRA asked the railroads to provide them with a list of bridges with spread footings something like 25 years ago. New bridges will normally have pile foundations but retrofitting existing piers is neither simple nor cheap.
That pier will probably date from over 100 years ago, so in fact it has lasted well in that location. You can be certain the replacement pier will have deep piles to preclude any possibility of a repeat.
John
Clean up continues. MRL received the okay to construct a temporary causeway in the river so heavy equipment can access the derailed and submerged cars.
Some interesting photos here:
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/short-lines-regionals/reports-cleanup-investigation-under-way-after-bridge-collapses-under-mrl-train/
Stillwater County daily press releases here, including some interesting embedded links:
https://www.stillwatercountymt.gov/train-derailment/
EPA documents stored here:
https://response.epa.gov/site/doc_list.aspx?site_id=16083
This link is to a short video of a backhoe on the causeway dragging a tank car out of the river. The current appears to be fairly strong and fast.
https://response.epa.gov/sites/16083/files/2023%2007-01%20car%20removal%20video.MOV
Here is the site map showing which of the derailed cars are where and what their load is, taken from directly overhead:
https://response.epa.gov/sites/16083/files/Twin_Bridges_Montana-%20F5%20Incident%20Detail_PIO.pdf
Apparently all cars are out of the river as well as the collapsed bridge span.
Asphalt was found as far as 110 miles downriver.
https://response.epa.gov/sites/16083/files/Stillwater%20MT%20Derailment%20Press%20Release%2020230706.pdf
kgbw49Apparently all cars are out of the river as well as the collapsed bridge span. Asphalt was found as far as 110 miles downriver. https://response.epa.gov/sites/16083/files/Stillwater%20MT%20Derailment%20Press%20Release%2020230706.pdf
Will there be a memorial to the three garter snakes?
LOL!
The environmental impact of this accident doesn't appear to be close to the aftermath of the 2011 pipeline break in Laurel. IIRC, about 1,000 barrels of crude oil were released into the Yellowstone River. I drove over the hwy-212 bridge a few hours before that spill occurred and the river was the highest I've ever seen it to be.
I got a few giggles from reading about someone who was worried that the 2011 oil spill would reach Yellowstone Park.
Update with a drone overhead photo of the site with all cars out of the river and the collapsed span removed.
https://www.stillwatercountymt.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-07-06-Public-Mtg-Fact-Sheet-002-1.pdf
Thought it was 2 spans that collasped both setting on the "missing casion "
Can someone explain to me how they're recovering somewhere north of 23,000lb of asphalt from as far downstream as 110 miles but are observing 'no detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons'?
Overmod Can someone explain to me how they're recovering somewhere north of 23,000lb of asphalt from as far downstream as 110 miles but are observing 'no detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons'?
I suspect they are thinking of the more volatile hydrocarbons (gasoline, etc) as opposed to the sludge that is asphalt. Asphalt is a long-chain hydrocarbon. The short-chain hydrocarbons ethane, propane and butane are constituents of natural gas.
I'm in agreement with Larry on this, though I would go a bit further and note that aspalt is largely a solid at the water temperature of the Yellowstone river. The asphalt chunks are probably less harmful than the tar blobs that occasionally show up on SoCal beaches. The tar blobs come from a combination of natural seeps, leaks from off shore oil wells and pipelines, and ship spills.
tree68 The short-chain hydrocarbons ethane, propane and butane are constituents of natural gas.
The short-chain hydrocarbons ethane, propane and butane are constituents of natural gas.
Then there is the MAIN component of Nat Gas, METHANE (single carbon, & thus not a chain?)
from the Far East of the Sunset Route
(In the shadow of the Huey P Long bridge)
blue streak 1 Thought it was 2 spans that collasped both setting on the "missing casion "
Pictures of the bridge prior to this collapse show three spans.
The eastern span stayed on its piers.
The center span completely collapsed into the river and was quite mangled by the incident.
The western span remained intact but the eastern end of it dropped into the river where the pier is gone.
In the overhead picture at the link referenced above, the eastern and western spans remain on site but the center span is removed.
JC UPTONThen there is the MAIN component of Nat Gas, METHANE (single carbon, & thus not a chain?)
I'm not a chemist - just something I pulled from an on-line source as a comparison.
The main point is that while there's a bunch of asphalt in the river, you're not going to pollute downstream water sources or cause a spectacular fire if you throw a match in the river. You'll have just as much luck causing a conflagration if you throw a match in the middle of the road in front of your house.
Some years ago, when there was work being done on one of the bridges on the Adirondack line, it was insisted that when the work was done, all of the fill used to allow temporary access to the bridge from river level had to be removed - didn't want the river "polluted" by non-native crushed stone or whatever. The solution was to use river cobble - indistinguishable from the existing river bottom. The bulk of the temporary fill was removed, but if they missed something, who can tell?
tree68 JC UPTON Then there is the MAIN component of Nat Gas, METHANE (single carbon, & thus not a chain?) I'm not a chemist - just something I pulled from an on-line source as a comparison. The main point is that while there's a bunch of asphalt in the river, you're not going to pollute downstream water sources or cause a spectacular fire if you throw a match in the river. You'll have just as much luck causing a conflagration if you throw a match in the middle of the road in front of your house. Some years ago, when there was work being done on one of the bridges on the Adirondack line, it was insisted that when the work was done, all of the fill used to allow temporary access to the bridge from river level had to be removed - didn't want the river "polluted" by non-native crushed stone or whatever. The solution was to use river cobble - indistinguishable from the existing river bottom. The bulk of the temporary fill was removed, but if they missed something, who can tell?
JC UPTON Then there is the MAIN component of Nat Gas, METHANE (single carbon, & thus not a chain?)
You mean each cobble wasn't tagged with RFID to identify which were natives and which were immigrants?
tree68, but I bet you DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno
kgbw49 tree68, but I bet you DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno
Red Roof, actually...
I wonder if for the replacement they will have to go big like the Plattsmouth Bridge which had to span a 400-foot-wide navigation channel.
https://www.highsteel.com/project-gallery/bnsf-plattsmouth-bridge/Or the Merchants Bridge replacement project which had three spans of 520 feet.
https://www.walshgroup.com/ourexperience/transportation/bridges/merchantsbridge.html
kgbw49I wonder if for the replacement they will have to go big like the Plattsmouth Bridge which had to span a 400-foot-wide navigation channel.
That could depend heavily on whether the river is considered navigable, and to what extent. And that classification may be archaic if there is no longer any commercial traffic.
A local canal museum wanted to put a replica canal boat in the remnants of the actual canal alongside the museum. They were told they couldn't as it was still listed as navigable. By a canoe, maybe, and then only for a few hundred yards.
tree68 kgbw49 I wonder if for the replacement they will have to go big like the Plattsmouth Bridge which had to span a 400-foot-wide navigation channel. That could depend heavily on whether the river is considered navigable, and to what extent. And that classification may be archaic if there is no longer any commercial traffic. A local canal museum wanted to put a replica canal boat in the remnants of the actual canal alongside the museum. They were told they couldn't as it was still listed as navigable. By a canoe, maybe, and then only for a few hundred yards.
kgbw49 I wonder if for the replacement they will have to go big like the Plattsmouth Bridge which had to span a 400-foot-wide navigation channel.
Just looking at the existing bridge height, I will hazard a guess that the river is not considered navigable for commercial traffic. Looking a Google Earth which still shows the highway bridge that was removed a couple of years ago, that bridge was no higher than the existing railroad bridge.
Right. I am just wondering if since two bridges at that location with piers in the river have failed - one being removed before it collapsed and one that collapsed - if the powers that be can make them span the whole 567 feet with a bridge that has no piers in the river.
BaltACDJust looking at the existing bridge height, I will hazard a guess that the river is not considered navigable for commercial traffic. Looking a Google Earth which still shows the highway bridge that was removed a couple of years ago, that bridge was no higher than the existing railroad bridge.
I agree, but who'd think a canal that was abandoned 80 years ago would still be considered a navigable waterway...
Old stuff like that can be strange sometimes...
Asphalt is "insoluable" in water, and they are probably refering to water samples that show 'no detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons'.
tree68 That could depend heavily on whether the river is considered navigable, and to what extent. And that classification may be archaic if there is no longer any commercial traffic.
Johnston's book on building the Milwaukee's Puget Sound extension mentioned some of the construction material for the line between Terry and Miles City was carried by boat. The Great Northern used a vertical lift bridge for their branch line that crossed the Yellowstone near Sydney. So at one time a lower part of the Yellowstone was considered to be navigable.
In all my visits to Montana, I do not recall seeing any signs of docks along the Yellowstone river, or any sign of docks on topo maps. There are no dams or locks for aiding navigation on the Yellowstone.
Midland Mike: Since asphalt is typically used as a waterproofing agent, any tendency to water solubility would be a bad thing. FWIW, that aspect didn't occur to me until I read your post, but it did bring up another thought that any water solubility would cause it to be banned from any use where rain runoff would run into storm sewers.
Update as of July 12. Included is a picture of the west span removed from the river.
It is unclear as to whether it can be reused or not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.