Santa Fe designed and built the bridge. State paid for it. (per order of the PUC) Railroad responsible for track maintenance only. It is the state's bridge.
Colorado Highway 1 (US-85) followed a similar route prior to 1957. State built a smaller underpass in 1952 for the two lane highway that was US-85 (parts of that old road are still out there.) State built a shoo-fly for ATSF and US-85 so that the new twin span [2x87']/ skewed structure could be built. After the new twin span was ready, the old span was ripped out and everything was put back on the original alignment.
State is off the hook on this one. BNSF rail broke, derailing a BNSF train that in turn took out the bridge. BNSF eats this one.
The fun will be the discussion about inside steel guardrails (ISG's) that were there before the merger and disappeared somewhere after. (DC and I both can recall the obsession of ATSF trying to protect through plate girder bridges in the '80's (knee bracing on those rascals are really vulnerable)) The decision to allow removal of the ISG's by BNSF will be an interesting discussion.
The BNSF structures department has a tiger by the tail. Spare skew 87 ft BD-Thru Plate Girder bridges don't exactly grow on trees.
Will be curious to see the exact relationship between the broken rail and the bridge. Would the original placement of the ISG even been good enough to save the bridge?
Local newsworkers are making some pretty wild claims (awful reporting) and stirring-up plenty of needless hysteria. CDOT has proven itself inept again in a railroad and administrative sense. ATSF/BNSF has issues here, but at least they were doing steel bridge inspections independent of CDOT even though it was not their bridge. Wakeup call for all involved.
Walked over that bridge too many times to count in the 1980's and early 1990's.
I'm appalled that the guard-rails were removed.
Possibly, as a product of tyhe investigation, the FRA will order that guard rails be installed on every bridge, with exceptions permittedfor specific cases only when the railroadf proves them unnecessary.
Crote:
The state has a license (M&O) to cross the old ATSF line along with an alledged easement with the state for the interstate highway. The two are not the same. On top of that there is the binding PUC decision that allowed the crossing in the first place.
The railroad caused(?) the damage. The language of the PUC decision from 1957-58 (4 pages long, dated 1/16/58) is pretty clear.
Regardless, the derailment was aparently caused by the railroad (at least as far as who was obligated to maintain the track structure) and the railroad was clearly charged with maintaining the track over the bridge under the terms of the PUC decision's binding agreement between the parties. The highway easement and the agreement (which curiously goes back to 1952 with Colorado Hwy 1 and US-85) take a back seat to the PUC Decision/ administrative law.
You break it, you fix it.
(...and now the alarmists are making claims about rail inspection that make zero sense in the real world. With ultrasonic or electro-magnetic or visual, all do not see everything going on within the rail - nature of the physics involved and all methods have shortcomings / blindspots - An unfortunate break set in motion a really bad/unusual chain of events that go back to enforcing the wording of that PUC decision. It appears there was no deliberate negligence here, just a very unfortunate chain of events.)
The NTSB report should be interesting reading. IMHO, your "understanding" is a bit of a reach and does not jibe with the PUC decision or my 40+ years of experience.
daveklepper I'm appalled that the guard-rails were removed. Possibly, as a product of tyhe investigation, the FRA will order that guard rails be installed on every bridge, with exceptions permittedfor specific cases only when the railroad proves them unnecessary.
Possibly, as a product of tyhe investigation, the FRA will order that guard rails be installed on every bridge, with exceptions permittedfor specific cases only when the railroad proves them unnecessary.
Dave: I somewhat would agree with you. The argument has been out there for years. It goes against the Santa Fe rules I had to follow. The argument was always over surfacing vs replacing the ISG every time (cost, spike killing ties, center broken bridge ties; risk probability)... there also is the issue on criteria to be used. (Every railroad seemed to have a different approach) There was a portion of the Santa Fe rule that focused on thru deck girder bridges specifically.
But there are details specific to this instance that are not necessarilly known yet. I'm sure the BNSF CEI's will show up in the NTSB report.
...and NTSB directives and opinions don't always have to be followed.
I do not believe any thing said about the PUC decision untill I see it. All said here about it is hearsay. Post the full puc decision or retract your statements about it.
caldreamerI do not believe any thing said about the PUC decision untill I see it. All said here about it is hearsay. Post the full puc decision or retract your statements about it.
If you are that vehement, go find the PUC decision yourself to refute mudchicken.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
caldreamerI do not believe any thing said about the PUC decision untill I see it. All said here about it is hearsay. Post the full PUC decision or retract your statements about it.
https://puc.colorado.gov/puc-decisions
OvermodHe posted a very precise citation. If you think he is mistaken, it's on you to demonstrate with proof, not on him. Here you go:
I just tried a couple of searches - neither of which was fruitful. But, I have the document in front of me. I'm not going to take the time to clean up the formatting in the post following the OCR scan. Maybe later.
The Colorado PUC Decision Number is 49392, but it's dated January 16, 1958, so it may or may not be available in digits from PUC.
Here you go:
(Decision No. 49392)
BE?eRE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CCUlIBSION
OF-TEE-STATE OF COLORADO
***
IN THE J4A.'I'rE:R OF TlIE APPLICATION OF )
'I'HE DEPAR'DlEJIT _ 01' HIGHWAYS OF THE )
STATE OF COLORADO FOR A.l1l'HORITY TO )
COIS'l'Rl8CT KIGRWAY -RAII1lA.Y GRADE )
SEPARAfiON S'l'RtrCTlmE AND REMOVE AN )
EXTIl>TING GRADE SEPARATION STRUeTURE )
ON STATE HIGIDlAY NO.1, IN fiE )
NORTHWEST QmARTER SEGTION 24, TOWN- )
SKIP 19-50UTR, HAlGE 65-WESTp ON )
PROPERTIES OF 'f~ ATCHISON, TOPlSKA )
AlID SA1l'fA - FE RAILWAY COMPA1iY AT )
m:IE POST 629 PLUS ll48.6 lEE'!' IN )
P9EBI.O COUNTY, S1'A'lE 01" COLORADO. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -)
APPLICATION NO. 15752
January 16, 1958
AppearanQes:
George L. Zoellner, Esq.,
Denver, Colorado, for
Applieant, Department
of lIighways;
John L. McNeill, Denver,
Colorado, for- the staff
of the Cemmission.
STA.TEMENT
By the Commission:
The above-entitled applieatiolil, ~eT appropriate notice
to all interested parties, to the owners of adjaGent property, and
to the Board of County Commissioners -of Pueblo Co:unty, was set f0r
hearing at the Oourt Bouse in Pueblo, Colorado, November 27, 1957,
where the matter was heard by the eommission and. taken under advise-
ment.
The purpose of the applieation is to secure Commission
approval for the construction of a proposed'railroad overpass
strueture 'for the single traek ero:ss1ng of The Atahison, Topeka.
and Santa :re Railway Company over and above a reloeated portion of
State Highway No~ 1, as noted above. 'l'h~ proposed new work will re-
p1aee an existing highway UIJderpass structure whieh is now inadequate
-1-
Image
to sa.f'e~ baDile present traffie volUIJles. At the hearing,; the
fQJ;lowing exlU);1its were offered and explained by Mr. E. L. King~
who 'is Assistant to the Plans & S1:l.rVeys Engineer of the DeIla.rtment
of Highways at Denvery Colorado:
Exhibit A: Sheet lio. 1 and Title Page of
department plans to show ~rossing
location and general project area.
Exhibit B: Plan Sheet No.9 to show la,yout of
crossing) elevation and plan views
of proposed separation strueture~
structure details to show elea.rance
dimensions at the rail line and at
the vehicle opening.
Exhibit CI Prepared. Statement of Mr. King to
describe details of: Location~' agree-
ments, approvals, necessity and pro·
posed safety improvements, construc-
tion, maintenance a.Dd costs.
Exhibit D: Agreeli.ent dated I4arch 25, 1957, 'between
Santa JOe am Depa;rlment of Highways' for
construction of the proposed grade sep-
aration strueture near Br~ony Pueblo
County, Colorado.
In his explanatory statement, Mr. King related that the
instant hi~ construction is located approximately six miles
,north of too City of Pueblo, near Santa Fe Mile Post 629. The projeet
is the final phase in four-laning the Freeway betWeen Colorado Springs
and Pueblo. This is the north-south route through Colorado, of' the,
National System of Interstate and Defense JIighways y authorized by
the National eODgress under the 1956 Highway Act. The project is
1.017 miles in length and will provide for two lanes of traffic in
each direction, separated by a median varying from 38-foot minimum
to 60-foot maximum, tbe riding surface to consist of a 4-inch thiek-
ness of A.sphaltic Conerete with fully-paved shetWlers. Present
traffie is now being handled. through a two-lane underpass strueture
lnilt in 1929 that is onJ..y 33 feet wide, with limited sight distances
due to eurved approa.eh alinellient.
UDder current design criteria as required to meet the
sta.m.ards for the Interstate Road System, the f'our:..lane separated
-2-
road.-way pattern will be extended under the rail line on a more
direct route. Deck girders of the present structure will be removed,
the Wlderpass section be filled in and much of the existing road~y,
will be ol!lliterated as a part of the new -divided road.-way. The rail-
road will be carried on 2l-irieh Wide':'flange cress lte$llS supported
by means of two through-girders 9 feet deep and 21 feet apart, ex-
tending in two spans of 87 feet eaeh over the respective road~.
Each roadway will consist of a 10-foot wide shoulder and two 12-foot
triU'fic lanes to be completed at onee ; with provisions being made
for the future construction of a third 12-~oot lane with a ~foot
wid.e shoulder. On the bridge at each side of the rail line, there
wiil be a two-foot wide walkway for rail employees, the threugh-
girders exteIJding some 5'2" above the wal:k:waJ' will offei' haDdrall
protection.
Following is a. S1illJllllB.ry of- the controlling dimensions at
the structYi'e:
Item Minimum Commiss:j,on Minimum Commission
Vertical Specification lIorizontaJ. Specifieation
Roadway 16' 16' 50.5' 30.0'
Hail-line 9·0' 8.5'
- ' Walk-way 7.0' 5·0'
Also involved in the construet~on of the new railroad hrtdge
is the necessity to de~our l!Ioth the rail-line traffic and vehicular
traffic during the construction interval.
Space and. alinement limi-
tation within the respective ,railroad and highway rights-of-way will
require a temporary grade erassing of the - rail and highway detour
routes to be used. In this regard, -Mr. King exp~iried that the
temporary grade crOSsing would be protected with staodard automatic
flashing signal. lights, f"ull;r wired, and so insta.lled to give full
-warning of the app~oael1 of trains; tllat custom.ry- slow speed signing
for vehicula.;l- travel wauN be installed ~ that train speeds 'WOuld
-3-
necessarily be reduced over the 1500 feet of' tempora.r;y track
detpur; and ,that standard reflectorized advance warning signs
would also @e installed. ,Up0n c0mpletion of the new structure
and placement of the permanent tra.ck, the highway trai'fi~ would
then we routed through, the new underpass and the tempora.r,r detour
ins.tallations be removed.,
Approvals of the proposed. project and structure have been
given :By the Chief Engineer, De~ent of Highways, by the Pueblo.
County Board of Co~ty Commissioners and appropriate officials of
The Atchison, Topeka. and. Santa Fe RailWay Company.
It appears that the proposed structure is necessary to meet
increased traffic volumes and will offer an effective continuation
of the previous grade separation advantages with the added improve-
,ments,of greater siz~ and more, direct alinement. Upon completion of
the railwlilY' ,bridge a~ross the highway, the Departm~nt assumes the
maintenance of all the structure. The Rail way has no maintenance
costs or responsibilities other than its roadbed, track and other
\
aPIl~na.nces •
..... ~ .
: Under the terms of the Agreement wi;th the Railway Compan;y,
tne Department pays ~ costs. The ;Bai:l'way shall be f'ully reilllbursed
for all actual expenses incidentaf to w~rk~erformed aY,Railway's
forces for the Department's G:,onveniEmee in lnulding the project.
The Department's estimated cost 'of the Railway structure is $192,996.00,
eXclming Railway Foree Account work, right-of-way costs and engineering.
Estimated eost of work 1;)y Railwa.y eompany Forces is $32,200.00.
•
•........ ~ ... ,.~ ....................•.......•............
~o prO~SbS were offered at the hearing and none appear
in. ,the fil!':!s of the Commission.
TllE eOWITSSIGN FIDSI
That it is iDi'ormed in the instant matter, and the fore-
.»
going Statement, my referenee, is made a part hereof.
That public safety, convenience and necessity require the
construction and operation of' the enJ.a.rged grade separation structure
" '
-4-
as proposed herein for vehicular travel under the main line
trackage of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company,
and that the present structure my be abandoned and removed •.
That horizontal and vertical clearances for the proposed
structure either equal or exeed ·the clearance requirements es-
tablished by the Commission and be therefore aaceptable.
That Applicant, the State High~ Commission of Colorado,
be, and it here'};)y is, granted a certificate of public convenience
and necessity to authorize and approve the following:
(a) Establishment, construction and maintenance of a
railroad overpass structure for the crossing of relocated State
Highway No. 1 by traek.a.ge of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa :Fe
Rail-way at its Mile Post 629 plus 1148.6 feet in the wi Section 24,
Township 19-south, Range 65-West, 6th Principal Meridian, Pueblo
(b) Establishment, operation and final removal of
temporary grade crossing and flashing light protective devices at
the construction detour required for installation of the above-
mentioned railroad, overpass structure.
(c) ABandonment and removal of the present underpass,
being Bridge No. 629.24.
That the work to be done, costs, installation and other
maintenance sball be as ind:hcated in the preceding Statement and
Exhibits "A)" "B," "C, II and "D;" all of which, by reference, are
made a part hereof.
This Order shall become effective forthwith.
Dated. a.t D~nver, Colorado,
this 16th ~ of January, 1958 .
. ea
THE PUBLIC U'UI.li'IES CCHITSSION
. O:FB STATE OF COLORADO
RALPH C. HORTON
JOHN P. TIlOl1PSON
JOSEPH Ii'. Jp:GRO
Commissioners.
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...
For brevity, the most important part appears to be this (de-OCR'd)
Upon completion of the railway bridge across the highway, the Department assumes the maintenance of all the structure. The Railway has no maintenance costs or responsibilities other than its roadbed, track and other appliances.
I'm not familiar with the specific agreements governing this bridge and I suppose it's possible that there's an agreement that specifically addresses who is responsible for repairing bridge damage in the event of an accident. But, in the absence of such an agreement, I don't think the issue is going to be "who owns the bridge" or "who built the bridge". Rather, the issue is going to be "who broke the bridge". If the cause really was a broken rail that derailed the train which then took down the bridge, the railroad's probably going to be responsible.
Falcon48If the cause really was a broken rail that derailed the train which then took down the bridge, the railroad's probably going to be responsible.
A classic case of "you broke it, you bought it..."
Have some of us missed the news that BNSF has committed to repairing the bridge.
Perhaps some lawyers would like there to be a legal issue but BNSF's commitment should let them find work elsewhere.
diningcarHave some of us missed the news that BNSF has committed to repairing the bridge. Perhaps some lawyers would like there to be a legal issue but BNSF's commitment should let them find work elsewhere.
BNSF is looking at the situation as a railroad that has had significant route damaged. FIX IT NOW and let the lawyers figure out who pays what to whom. Railroads react to adversity to restore operations and will do whatever is necessary to get things moving again in the shortest amount of time. Time is money.
diningcarHave some of us missed the news that BNSF has committed to repairing the bridge.
The civil matter has little if anything to do with the bridge replacement, I think, and perhaps very little with the State of Colorado or some of its agencies.
daveklepper I'm appalled that the guard-rails were removed. Possibly, as a product of tyhe investigation, the FRA will order that guard rails be installed on every bridge, with exceptions permittedfor specific cases only when the railroadf proves them unnecessary.
Dave,
I've noticed sort of casually that guard rails on American railroad bridges have become somewhat uncommon. Seems to me that when I was a kid, at a time when many if not most rail lines had passenger trains, most of the bridges sported guard rails. But now I don't see them as often anymore. Why is that?
Is it possible that with the much heavier trains that are running today that guard rails would not be able to keep a derailed train inline and prevent it from plunging off the bridge anyway? Or, has this just been an unjustifiable cost-cutting move?
Fred M Cain daveklepper I'm appalled that the guard-rails were removed. Possibly, as a product of tyhe investigation, the FRA will order that guard rails be installed on every bridge, with exceptions permittedfor specific cases only when the railroadf proves them unnecessary. Dave, I've noticed sort of casually that guard rails on American railroad bridges have become somewhat uncommon. Seems to me that when I was a kid, at a time when many if not most rail lines had passenger trains, most of the bridges sported guard rails. But now I don't see them as often anymore. Why is that? Is it possible that with the much heavier trains that are running today that guard rails would not be able to keep a derailed train inline and prevent it from plunging off the bridge anyway? Or, has this just been an unjustifiable cost-cutting move?
I vaguely recall this issue about guard rails being discussed here in the past. The gist of it was that a new line of thinking has emerged that indicates that guard rails might cause more harm than good.
Unless I'm mistaken, the 'guard rails' here are referring to steel beams in line with the webs of the plate girders, to protect against contact with car superstructure. This is very different from a pair of 'rails' laid in the gauge to attempt to align wheelsets in trucks.
When referring to bridge guardrails, I believe we are talking about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_rail_%28rail_transport%29#/media/File:Shepherdstown_railroad_bridge_WV2.jpg
At one time, some railroads also used collision posts (I don't think that is the correct term), which were steel/ concrete posts erected at the approach to a trestle to prevent a derailed train from striking the trestle structure, much like you see in parking lots to protect garage door entrances and other facilities from motor vehicles. Those have fallen out of favor. These were discussed in some detail in a recent book about a couple of bridge collapses on the O&W railroad in the 19th and 20th centuries, written by a structual engineer.
adkrr64 When referring to bridge guardrails, I believe we are talking about these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_rail_%28rail_transport%29#/media/File:Shepherdstown_railroad_bridge_WV2.jpg At one time, some railroads also used collision posts (I don't think that is the correct term), which were steel/ concrete posts erected at the approach to a trestle to prevent a derailed train from striking the trestle structure, much like you see in parking lots to protect garage door entrances and other facilities from motor vehicles. Those have fallen out of favor. These were discussed in some detail in a recent book about a couple of bridge collapses on the O&W railroad in the 19th and 20th centuries, written by a structual engineer.
I was referring to those in your link. I have heard them called guard rails or check rails. I assume that the guard rails said to be missing from the Colorado bridge are what I am referring to.
If a truck hit a state owned bridge they would go after the trucking company.
I would see no difference if a train hit a state owned bridge.
Broken rail was probably in advance of the bridge.
Now BNSF may want the bridge fixed faster than the speed of CO DOT.
Common term is crash wall or collision/barrier wall used interchangably. About four years ago AREMA was investigating the existing standard after the UP/BNSF collision in the Missouri bootheel. The derailment at Hermosa WY (Under I-80) got brought up multiple times as a classic case.
The current fail was from above. A crash wall would not have prevented what happened. The ISG issue is still getting batted around. Railroads insist on barrier walls where the bents, piers, bridge seats underneath and other critical infrastructure could be threatened by a derailment. Part of the recent conversation was prodded by state DOT complaints about the cost of that protection for public works projects.
rdamon If a truck hit a state owned bridge they would go after the trucking company. I would see no difference if a train hit a state owned bridge. Broken rail was probably in advance of the bridge. Now BNSF may want the bridge fixed faster than the speed of CO DOT.
When Hurricane Katrina devastated CSX's NO&M and portions of the M&M subdivisions in September 2005, CSX brought ALL the resources available to restore the lines to operation - which was done on March 1, 2006. Less than six months after the catastrophe.
Comments in various newspapers through the region were stating that the various State road administrations were still trying to get their language together to put the damages to I-10 and US-90 which also run between New Orleans and Jacksonville when CSX was announcing the reopening of their damaged railroad..
We had a sinkhole open up adjacent to a road late February - sinkhole was large enough to require closing the road for 4+ months. The frustrating part was that the city had a plan in place to fix the root cause of the sinkhole (rusted out corrugated steel drain pipe) a year before. Main hold up was getting all the permitting done (ACoE, EPA, Cal Coastal commission, etc), but the sinkhole and subsequent repair probably did a lot more damage than the original repair plan would have done.
You mean nature doesn't wait for all the permits?
Prelim Report
The derailment occurred near a track switch east of a railroad bridge that crossed over Interstate 25. Derailed railcars struck the bridge, six dropping to the interstate below and one or more striking a northbound truck-tractor in combination with a utility trailer
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/RRD24FR001.aspx
I can't get the web site to load a second time; but the first time I did not see a mention of a broken rail. Did anyone see this?
diningcar I can't get the web site to load a second time; but the first time I did not see a mention of a broken rail. Did anyone see this?
Really poor choice of words. OTOH, NTSB is not solely focussed on a broken rail at this point. Everything is still in play. They just were sertting the table with this statement.
The derailment at SantaFe Junction in Kansas City on the bridge happend passing through the trailing point, but that was the lead locomotive.
Thinking a car may have already been on the ground and the switch provided a ramp.
Drove right through the opening where the bridge should have been at 4pm today while headed for home. Very strange.
No sign of the replacement structure.
Clean-up has progressed about as far as it can go.
Santa Fe main o/s as far north as Buttes and surfacing gang equipment is parked on the main track about 1 mile above Bragdon cross-overs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.