Several cars from a CPR train have plunged into the Wahnapitae River near Sudbury, ON after a trestle collapsed.
I would suggest it is probably to early to attempt to blame EHH for this incident. The man hasn’t even been on the job a year yet.
Bruce
My only hope that is not a structural fault. If a derailment hit bridge at least that is a little better. Whatever the reason it appears that major evaluations of bridges of all kinds need immediate attention throughout North America. IMHO too many bridge collaspes and wash outs lately ?
The river under the bridge was running high and fast due to heavy rains. To me it is time to install remotely monitored river gauges on mainline bridges. This is the second similar incident in a month.
One source indicates that a bearing failed on one of the freight cars, which derailed and hit the bridge. A truss bridge has no redundancy, so if even only one of the members is destroyed the results can be catastrophic. It had a length just over 150 feet.
John
One of the photos in the linked article shows a collapsed truss bridge. Was there also a wooden-piling trestle approach (unusual, but not unheard of), or is there a confusion of terms here ?
From the linked article:
“Our early investigation indicates this incident is the result of an unexpected and catastrophic wheel-bearing failure that could not have been detected in advance,” [CP spokesperson Ed] Greenberg said.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/wheel-bearing-failure-may-have-caused-sudbury-train-derailment-1.1307608#ixzz2VE7sPdZb
[:-,] Perhaps he and CP need to read up on and meet the manufacturers of the hot wheel bearing detector devices ??? (Credibility quotient rapidly approaching zero . . . . )
- Paul North.
Positive Trestle Control?
Do the Canadian roads have something similar to the FRA mandated 50 mile limit without either a Defect Detector or manual inspection rule?
My carrier started out with Defect Detector spaced about 25 miles apart - over the past few years they have been working toward getting them about 15 miles apart - so that when equipment fails (and it does), they will not HAVE to stop a train for a manual inspection (often times on a single main track). With the 25 mile set up if you have consecutive DD’s out of service the train will have to stop at the location of the 2nd DD for a manual walking inspection.
I have now heard two different reasons for the derailment that took out the truss bridge, bearing failure and broken axle. Reportedly the truss length is right at the limit for a plate girder replacement. Also CP Engineering staff were at St. Cloud, ON (which is north(west) of the bridge looking to install a connecting track from the CP to the CN to facilitate detours(which would otherwise require a reverse move). Otherwise the choices are route via the Soo Line through the US or CN all the way from Winnipeg. Replacement of the bridge is expected to take several months to fabricate replacement spans. Replacement with shorter more available spans is apparently not an option.
Last Defect Detector was approximately 8 miles before derailment. Testing of detector showed that it was operating properly. This clearly shows that what is needed is more of the acoustic type bearing defect detectors to supplement the thermal type.
CP has now issued one of the more detailed responses to a derailment that I can recall:
http://www.cpr.ca/en/news-and-media/news/Pages/cp-clarifies-wanup-derailment.aspx
The location of the derailment is Wanup at Mile 112.7 of the Parry Sound Sub. The two previous Hot Box Detector mentioned in the press release are at Mile 94.7 and 74.6. From what I can see in the 2011 Canadian Trackside Guide, Hot Box Detectors seem to be spaced in the 20-30 mile range.
Bruce
CN’s HBD spacing has been 30 miles for a long time. They are currently working at adding more on their mainline through Michigan.
railroad bridges are the next shoe to drop in the North American Infrastucture debacle. There has not been a new railroad bridge built in NY state since 1930. Drive thru Buffalo and look under the bridges and pieces of them are falling on cars and bikes. Its convenient to blame this on bearing failure…there are hundreds of these types of bridges on the NA rail network
Bearing failure causes the axle to break.- one cause carried to the ultimate end.
The letter that CP put out states:
“This incident could be compared to a properly maintained and serviced passenger vehicle that showed no dashboard alarm indicators prior to experiencing a blown tire. In this same way, the incident at Wanup was also undetectable”.
That’s funny… things never just happen for no reason. I think if they looked hard enough they’d find a way to detect events that lead up to bridge collapses. They should have omitted this paragraph from their letter… sounds ridiculous.
CP must not have much of a bridge shop or no ‘influence’ with commercial bridge builders if it is going to take ‘several months’.
In 1969 B&O had a 60 inch culvert wash out in a severe thunderstorm - July 4 - one of about 15 compromised water crossings on that particular division. Rail traffic resumed on the division July 10, using the other track past the culvert wash out. Decision was made to eliminate the culvert and replace it with a bridge. Pile drivers and other equipment to build the foundations for the bridge were on scened July 15, Bridge was constructed at B&O’s Martinsburg Bridge Shop and shipped to the scene in Ohio, arriving August 17, bridge was set in place on August 18 with both divisional wreck cranes lifting - one from each end. Traffic was resumed and my work at the site ended August 20 - this was building a bridge from scratch - not just replacing a existing span.
When the chips are down, RR Engineering forces get traffic moving. I expect no less of of CP Engineering
With all due respect, you are probably comparing apples and cauliflower.
B&O no doubt had a modern standard plan for a short girder or I-Beam span that could be used, and fabrication may even be underway for planned use at some other site. Apparently it was built by the railroad itself, not a separate company which may well have other very significant and demanding customers. The speed of fabrication suggests either a very simple span or one already part built. The abutments would be designed to fit the span.
To replace this truss will probably take several weeks of design time. Even with computer programs to
There are two ways to approach line disruption projects - RIGHT NOW or as time allows.
CSX had their bridge over the Anacostia River in DC, get eaten away by ‘steel eating bacteria’ in the waters of the Anacostia River (less than 25% of the load bearing dimension was left on strutural members that ConRail in stalled in 1978) - On November 15, 2006 both bridges (#2 & #3 tracks) were taken out of service, setting up a I-95 detour route through Cincinnati for normal traffic and with the cooperation of Amtrak, CSX was able to operate 1 train each way a day through Washington Union Station - the UPS trains.
All forces that could be obtained were brought to bear to make temporary repairs to return one of the bridges to service - Contractors, that had just finished the I495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge were brought into the project - all contractors on the project worked 24/7 on the project, even through the Thanksgiving Holiday, and traffic was resumed on Dec. 2, 2006.
Once the crush of have a route passed. Replacement of the other bridge was undertaken, replacement was about 70% complete when a conductor bottled the air on a coal train - it ran away and onto the unfinished bridge - collapsing it - 23 cars ended up in the river and about 36 in total were derailed - that set completion back for another year - the bridge was returned to service in the middle of 2009. Then replacement of the other bridge was undertaken and it was completed at the end of 2011.
Where there is a will, there is a way!
If CP gets a detour route they are ‘happy’ with, would the line with the bridge be a candidate for abandonment?
Does a bearing ever just break straight out, without overheating first?
I too would be curious to know what type of defects these devices are able to detect. I have heard of them, but until this incident it was always one of those things I was going to learn more about later.
Bruce
Bearing breaking is not the true catastrophic event - it is the axle breaking that causes the derailment - when the bearing fails and the end of the axle generates enough heat to get the axle stub that was in the bearing to a near molten state - the weight of the car presses down on the side frame of the truck and sheers the bearing stub part of the axle off of the remainder of the wheel set, which then has no limits in its travel to stay on the rail and it goes off the rail and sets up the chain reaction throughout the remainder of the train.
A hot bearing that is nearing it’s molten state, can be wrung off by applying the train brakes as the brake shoe provides it force against the wheel.
John/ cx500, thanks much for that thorough summary of the bridge design and fabrication process on the previous page of this thread. [tup]
- Paul North.