BNSF Train Derails over I-25 north of Pueblo

[Overmod]

diningcar

Have some of us missed the news that BNSF has committed to repairing the bridge.

I'd be astounded if BNSF hadn't 'committed' to repairing the bridge at their expense within hours, possibly minutes, of the accident.  That's a critical main line -- they want to reopen it.  And there isn't any political complicating factor like the chemical subgrade contamination at East Palestine.

Perhaps some lawyers would like there to be a legal issue but BNSF's commitment should let them find work elsewhere.

Be assured that the general activity known as 'subrogation' will be a fertile field for appropriate personnel to whatever degree payment for the bridge replacement is concerned.

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.

[BaltACD]

diningcar

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.

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.

[diningcar]

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.

[tree68]

Falcon48

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. 

A classic case of "you broke it, you bought it..."

[Falcon48]

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. 

[Overmod]

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.

How this doesn't support what MC was saying, if proximate cause was a broken rail, is for caldreamer to explain.

[tree68]

Overmod

He 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- 

 

Image

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: 

 

Image

 

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. 

 

Image

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. 

 

Image

 

Image

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 

County, Colorado. 

(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. 

 

 

 

 

Image

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. 

 

[Overmod]

caldreamer

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.

He 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:

https://puc.colorado.gov/puc-decisions

[BaltACD]

caldreamer

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.

If you are that vehement, go find the PUC decision yourself to refute mudchicken.

[caldreamer]

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.

[mudchicken]

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. 

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.

[mudchicken]

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 railroadf proves them unnecessary.

[croteaudd]

mudchicken:

 

You indicated in the bridge destroyed incident under discussion in this tread that BNSF was going to eat it and the State is off the hook.  That is not how I understand things, that the State (highway dept.) has an easement to cross under BNSF’s track.  Anything that affects that easement, the State has to pay.  If that was not that way, the railroad would not allow anyone to easement cross their routes.  Please elaborate more on this.  Thanks.

[mudchicken]

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.

[mudchicken]

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.

[diningcar]

Highway 85 was the route between Pueblo and Denver in 1955. The State was getting prepared for I-25 and had an agreement with Santa Fe to build this structure. Santa Fe had to re-route around the construction site with a Shoo-Fly in 1956-57. I do not know the details, but my associates did the engineering for Santa Fe.

[samfp1943]

Linmked fromDENVER POST: @https://www.denverpost.com/2023/10/19/i25-reopens-train-derailment-bnsf-pueblo-colorado/

Apparently the article froim TRAINS Newswire, is no longer available.  Both pieced attributed t he derailment and spilage of coal on to the I-25 lanes, to a broken rail.  The truck driver was killed when the bridge collapsed and was droppoed onto his vehicle. 

Since the I-25 was constructed in the 1960's, it kkkpossible to assume that the rail bridges were built to get the railroad over previously, existing highways(?).  My hhuess woukld be that reasponsibility lforrepair and replacement of the downed bridghe will be subject to coiurt actions (?) and or, litigations. 

The death of the truck driver will most likely, suffer similar slings of litigation (?). That is the shameful part of this situation.

 

[diningcar]

Both lanes of I-25 were open Thursday afternoon. 

BNSF reports that the track had been inspected one day prior to the derailment. Further reports about the broken rail and any other factors will have to wait for the government analysis.  

[diningcar]

Colorado news is that the southward lanes are open on 10-18.

[croteaudd]

Concerning bridges, in most cases the railroad was there first, thus, if a bridge is wiped out, the causer of the bridge to exist has to pay for a replacement.  In the I-25 incident, clearly the railroad was there first, so the State undoubtedly will have to pay to replace it!

 

In the western United States, there is a reversed situation, the highway was there first, then the railroad.  The railroad built and paid for a bridge over the highway.  Now, decades later, the State changed specifications on that State Highway, and wants to make it five lanes, necessitating the railroad to pay for a new bridge to go over five lanes instead of four.  But, the railroad said no, we, in good faith, built the bridge as the State specified, and will not pay for a new bridge!  I guess it is in the courts.  Somehow I think the railroad will lose this one, and bigtime too!  But I guess one can’t blame the railroad for trying, but then, the situation starts taking on a morality persective of right and wrong …

[NP Eddie]

Dave:

 

Sorry to hear about the cap. Please private e-mail me as you have my e mail.

 

Ed Burns

[Euclid]

Fred M Cain

It seems a bit strange to me that such a derailment would cause the bridge to collapse.  I mean, that's not impossible by any means - there are some pretty powerful forces involved there.  But it still strikes me as strange.

I would be more likely to believe that the bridge itself failed first and resulted in a derailment rather than the other way around.

However, as a couple of other posters have stated, we'll just have to wait for the NTSB's assessment.  That could take a while.

 

It readily works both ways.  Trains derail for many different reasons.  If a derailment, for any reason, happens to be on a bridge or upon approach to a bridge, it can easily exert sufficient force to take down the bridge if it snags the bridge structure. 

 

And bridges also collapse for many reasons besides being snagged by a train.  If a bridge collapses for any reason, and a train happens to be on the bridge, that can cause the train to derail.

 

Or a bridge can get misaligned for a reason not related to a train, but then a train can arrive and derail due to the misaligned bridge.  Then the derailed train may knock down the bridge.

[Fred M Cain]

It seems a bit strange to me that such a derailment would cause the bridge to collapse.  I mean, that's not impossible by any means - there are some pretty powerful forces involved there.  But it still strikes me as strange.

I would be more likely to believe that the bridge itself failed first and resulted in a derailment rather than the other way around.

However, as a couple of other posters have stated, we'll just have to wait for the NTSB's assessment.  That could take a while.

[daveklepper]

Ed Burns gave me a BNSF had years ago, which I treasured and wore frequently.  It has been stolen from me, and I suspect who stole but have no proof.  Hmmmn.....  Nobody I see regularly, and member of  a very very different community.  Another Yeshiva student has a similar suspician and requested our security guard not to allow him entrance again.  I'll really miss  that hat when winter arrives.

No, not an Arab

[diningcar]

Yes, the Santa Fe track from Pueblo to Denver was in this location when the State wanted to build in a new location and so they "contracted" with Santa Fe for an underpass and paid Santa Fe for its temporary "shoofly" during the overpass construction. This was in 1956-1958 approximately.

 

[Erik_Mag]

To make things even more complicated, I've read reports that the bridge is owned by the state, not the BNSF. This should keep some lawyers busy for a while.

[BaltACD]

diningcar

Just announced: Broken rail caused the derailment. Details will follow.

When I was working - the number of times a train in signaled territory would leave a track circuit lit after it had departed the track segment and when the anomaly was investigated by signals/MofW and was found to be a Broken Rail.  Such a occurrence is proof that the rail broke under traffic of the train.  There but for the grace of God was a derailment that didn't happen.

[diningcar]

Just announced: Broken rail caused the derailment. Details will follow.

[tree68]

NTSB on scene.  Truck driver was from California.

It appears that everything is on the table at this point, including the possibility that the truck might have caused the bridge to fail - that from the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office spokesperson.

https://gazette.com/news/truck-driver-killed-in-train-derailment-near-pueblo-identified-stretch-of-i-25-closed-indefinitely/article_f386305a-6bae-11ee-bc44-97f19a31bc45.html