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.
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'?
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.
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...
Thought it was 2 spans that collasped both setting on the "missing casion "
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
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.
LOL!
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
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Apparently all cars are out of the river as well as the collapsed bridge span.
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
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
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.
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/
Sometimes everything is all right, until it's not.
That last little bit of material that was holding everything in place washed away...
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.
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
rdamon Looks like it has been dormant for awhile
Looks like it has been dormant for awhile
The Great Falls-to-Helena line has been out of service for over two decades, mostly due to a large "slip out" between Great Falls and Ulm. The subdivision is now posted for 10 MPH (if in service, which it isn't). The route lost most of its traffic following the BN purchase of the Santa Fe. Prior to that, BN was an important player for traffic between the CP at Coutts/Sweet Grass and UP at Silver Bow, Montana. Once it became BNSF, which then had its own route to California, it became a competitor, and CP and UP began interchanging their common traffic at Kingsgate, BC/Eastport, ID.
wjstix The government (state and federal) really don't have anything to do with rebuilding the bridge. There are laws regarding things like how high a railroad bridge has to be when going over a road, or how much clearance a road bridge must have going over a railroad. But about the only time the government would be involved in a bridge over a river would be if the bridge were over a navigable river, where I believe the Army Corps of Engineers would be involved to be sure boats and barges could pass safely. That's not the case here. Now if (as it appears) the incident causes pollution in the river, that is a different story.
The government (state and federal) really don't have anything to do with rebuilding the bridge.
There are laws regarding things like how high a railroad bridge has to be when going over a road, or how much clearance a road bridge must have going over a railroad. But about the only time the government would be involved in a bridge over a river would be if the bridge were over a navigable river, where I believe the Army Corps of Engineers would be involved to be sure boats and barges could pass safely. That's not the case here.
Now if (as it appears) the incident causes pollution in the river, that is a different story.
The Yellowstone is considered navigable all the way past Livingston. See part (E.) of the following
https://dnrc.mt.gov/licenses-and-permits/stream-permitting/
Duplicate
blue streak 1Surely there will some agency that will monitor water quality during reconstruction?
Likely the state environmental conservation people, or whatever they are known as there. That's who usually monitors such matters.
The feds might be involved if the river is considered "navigable." Even if no boats use it as such, sometimes the designation sticks.
blue streak 1 The replacement of the bridge will have many possibilities. 7. What federal and / or state agency(s) will have input?
The replacement of the bridge will have many possibilities.
7. What federal and / or state agency(s) will have input?
1. BNSF is the owner with MRL leesee. 2 of 4 spans are destroyed. Usually depending on how any leese agreement is written the overall owner may be responsibile for replacement of any structure that has a major failure? Insurance coverages by both will come into play.
2. What caused this incident? Train or flood? That will have affect on insurance. Self insurance deductibles will come into play.
3. What happened to the missing support column?
4.. What is the condition of the other 2 supports? Can they reused or is scouring a problem? If present are not useable then that appears to be a complete loss for BNSF?
5. Where can BNSF find useable bridge trusses? Any under construction that can be acquired?
6. Worse case would be if new bridge has to span whole river without columns in river.
blue streak 1 This map shows Great Falls - Helena out of service. Could BNSF reactivate that route for relief? What is the track like? Stick rail? Crossties? Are there clearance issues? Trees, vegetation, washouts, rock slides? Grades? Obviously some reason inactive? Montana Rail System (mt.gov) Open railway map shows only 3 very short sidings on this Helena subdivision. ( less than 5000 feet maybe 2500 )
This map shows Great Falls - Helena out of service. Could BNSF reactivate that route for relief? What is the track like? Stick rail? Crossties? Are there clearance issues? Trees, vegetation, washouts, rock slides? Grades? Obviously some reason inactive?
Montana Rail System (mt.gov)
Open railway map shows only 3 very short sidings on this Helena subdivision. ( less than 5000 feet maybe 2500 )
UP from the south is available.
Hopefully this one will work the same.
The total of the spans seem to be about 10 car lengths.
It would seem to be in the range of 500 feet that it needs to span.
The adjacent highway bridge that was removed was built in 1930 and was 567 feet long.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/pnp/habshaer/mt/mt0600/mt0659/data/mt0659data.pdf
Page 17 of the attachment shows the comparative spans of the highway bridge and the railroad bridge to scale, and the length of spans seem very close.
It is clear that completely new piers of some sort will have to be constructed, but the question is going to be where and how.
How deep down will the new piers have to go to ensure there is not a repeat of a collapse?
What if it is determined that, like the former highway bridge, the location is not suitable for a replacement?
It just seems like this outage could last a very long time given the downstream usage of the river, the effects of the river at the the highway bridge and now the railroad bridge, which has ultimately proven to be catastrophic.
One would think that if there is to be a replacement bridge constructed at the same site, the oversight agencies are going to have a say in guaranteeing that the next bridge will be of a design that ensures that it will withstand the river forces at the site and will not come down.
It will not surprise me if they require a significant amount of study to determine just what that next bridge will have to look like to make that happen.
For instance, what would the replacement bridge have to look like if they don't allow piers in the riverbed at this location for the replacement bridge?
One would think all those questions are going to be asked and will have to be answered in this instance, because they aren't going to allow another complete failure of a bridge like this on a main railroad artery where another collapse with different materials ending up in the river could be many magnitudes worse then asphalt and molten sulphur.
Inasmuch as the railroad will be repairing their own property, not building new, I suspect permitting would be minimal, unless there is something particularly sensitive, environment-wise, involved.
Because the railroad is a private entity, it can do pretty much what it wants in terms of labor and materials. While union rates do figure in, they won't be as cumbersome as the statutory requirements faced by government entities, where there are bidding requirements, etc.
While government agencies tediously assemble requirements in preparation for requesting bids, the railroad will be hauling the materiel it needs from stock or from established vendors.
Kinda like painting your house - you decide what color you want, maybe hire a couple of local kids (or a handyman or even a painting company) to help you out, and paint away.
If it was a municipal building, odds are it would all have to go out to bid, meaning the bid specs have to be developed, perhaps a request for proposals put out, bids requested, opened, etc. You're sitting in your nicely painted house, the municipal property will get painted next year. Unless someone doesn't like the color and sues...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.