Some of the more substantial bridges in this country have little–if any–access on the side of the bridge while a train is running over it. In addition, they have the inner rail that helps keep the train on the bridge rather than tumbling over the side in the event of a derailment.
Say for instance a train would derail on the ex-IC now INRR famous Bloomfield bridge. Because the trains cross it at a slow speed, it is altogether conceivable the train would stop in time to allow the inner rail to keep it on the bride.
That brings me to my question, if you have one of INRR’s new very heavy SD-9043s that are off the rails on the middle of a bridge like that, how do you get the engine off the bridge? It is not like you can approach it from the side to re-rail it.
Each derailment, it’s location and the equipment involved becomes an exercise in the applied physics of movement, with a sub-exercise in applied economics in determining a plan of action for resolving the situation.
Since the railroads have done away with Wreck Trains and their 200/250 Ton heavy lift cranes, they would most likely hire a contractor with a Heavy Lift crane that may or may not be hi-rail equipped to work the derailment from the ends. The effort would be long and tedious and very difficult.
Railroad bridges get inspected a lot…so the odds of a derailment on a bridge are small, very small.
But they do happen…last one I can recall was the UP’s over the Trinity River here in Texas…you have seen the photos, where the gray covered hopper is hanging out over the rails, when one of the bridge piers collapsed due to heavy rains and flood waters…the one where the locomotives are still coupled to the train and the hopper is hanging in mid air with nothing under neath it…
In that instance, UP brought in cranes on barges…the rest of the train was dragged back by other engines, the hopper was held in place and supported by the cranes as the other cars and locomotives were cut away, then the hopper was lifted by a crane down to the barges…not because UP was worried about the cost of the hopper, but because they were worried about the cost of the environmental clean up if it fell and contaminated the river.
In your example, if the locomotive was derailed, but still up right…the Pat Baker Group, Hulcher and others have mobile cranes designed to lift the locomotive by the ends and re rail it…if it was on its side and the situation warranted it, such as a super busy main line or there simply was no way to get it up right with out damaging the bridge further…then the locomotive would be scrapped in place, cut up into pieces and removed in a conventional manner.
Remember, to the railfan, locomotives are artifacts, to the railroad, they are simply tools.
If the tool breaks, and is too expensive to repair, then you discard the tool and replace it.
I am sure the Mudchicken will show up and give you the exact name and model of the crane or side booms used, and I am pretty sure he has had to pick up a locomotive or two off a bridge or trestle before…
On my territory (NS Piedmont Div) we don’t even have the inner guard rails unless the bridge has steel girders on the side of the bridge. All we have are basically crossties running along the sides, doubt that’ll keep us on the trestle though. Examples below, the two WITHOUT the guard rails damn sure need them alot more than the two bridges with them. They are worried about the train damaging their bridge but who care if the crew dies.
Name: As badly as I always wanted to work for the railroad, confronted with those bridges and the heights, I would have had to walk away from the job right then and there. I can barely look at the pictures!
I know that Bloomfield Bridge very well…I see no other way than to approach the engine from the front or rear and attempt to lift it back on the rails.
While they were doing that, I would not want to be standing under the bridge, however.
Here’s a link to a photo of a hi-rail crane doing just that, except at a yard track instead of on a bridge. Nevertheless, ithis photo displays the lifting arrangements and relationships better than a photo on a bridge would do, with all the bridge structure obscuring the details:
[EDIT: Added the link instead - having trouble to get the thumbnail image to appear and be active]
Note the comparatively short boom length, and how close the crane is to the loco, to maintain the crane’s lifting capacity without the front end rising up (= practical overload condition).
Doing this on a bridge would be similar - assuming there’s a decent place that can support the outriggers - except that of course the work area would be much more restricted.
One more thing - if it’s a through truss bridge, though, finding enough open space overhead in the plane of the top (cross) bracing to fit that boom through at the proper angle for the needed lifting capacity would be a challenge. More likely, to thread the boom through the trusswork initially at the best location as close to the loco as possible, and then to raise the boom up as the crane backs up very slowly to get to the appropriate lift angle - that would be a bit delicate, to put it mildly.
I’ll see if I can find a photo from an ad for the Hoesch system that MC mentioned - I seem to recall that they tout bridge rerailing as one of its selling points.
Luckily, only a minor percentage of derailments end up on bridges. Note I didn’t say they happen on bridges. Even fewer derailments start on a bridge or are caused by a bridge issue.
To the question about speed limits on bridges, those are set due to any specific conditions, not just because it happens to be a bridge, for the most part. The best bridge is the one you don’t even know you are going over (ballast deck, welded rail, maximum authorized speed).
Some bridges do have speed limits just because they are bridges, such as some of those in the photos above. High, slim trestle, open deck, on a curve, etc. Modern trains are a lot heavier than those when the bridge was built. Look at what UP is doing to speed things up at Kate Shelly.
Condition is the big key. I’ll put in a plug for AREMA’s new Bridge Inspection Handbook here. It is often an engineer or track inspector who first reports a condition that ends up being a bridge issue rather than a track issue. The more practised eyes out there, the better.
That is quite the bridge. I don’t understand why the company would not equip it with guardrails between the stock rails. I understand your point about guardrails preventing damage to through truss bridges by preventing rolling stock from snagging the side members in a derailment. But it also seems like guardrails would prevent a lot of damage in the case of the high bridge, where they would prevent the complete destruction of locomotives and rolling stock if they were to drop from such a great height. Guardrails would also prevent destruction to the high bridge itself as the falling equipment could easily damage the supporting structure, or even take down much of the bridge if the cars caught the deck structure on the way over the side.
This - inner guard rails vs. and/ or outside guard timbers - is one of those things where the origins, rationales, and justifications are lost in the mists of history, and what we’re left with is a lot of tradition, oral history, “urban legends”, and supposition as to “why it’s done - or not done - that way”.
That said, here’s a couple of observations and pointed questions - in no particular order or priority - to maybe add some insight and focus the discussion a little bit more than just another “us vs. them” employee vs. company rant:
1.) Ever replace one or more open-deck bridge timbers, during a limited “time & track possesion” order - that has some or all of the following attached to it: a.) 2 running rails with tie plates and spikes (and maybe rail anchors), b.) 2 sets of spacer blocks - 1 on each side - down between the timbers, with nails/ screws [can’t see the photos clear enough to tell if they’re there or not]; c.) 2 sets of guard timbers, usually lap-jointed, and screwed to at least half of the bridge timbers; d.) 2 spacer bars (usually 3/4" x 3" or so), again screwed to each bridge timber [not present in these photos]; e.) 1 or 2 walkway gratings, spiked or screwed to the timbers, and often staggered as well [also not present in these photos]; f.) 1 or 2 handrails, in long pieces, screwed to maybe every 3rd, 4th, or 5th timber [likewise not present in these photos]; and now add g.) 2 inner guard rails, with spikes and maybe tie plates, for sure with joints that don’t match any that may be in the running rails, and which just complicate the tie plates [may have to cut them shorter] and spiking or clips [??] for the running rails ?
In view of this, is it any wonder why the M-O-W and Bridge & Building [“B & B”] / Structures people are more than happy to not have to incur and deal with the ad
A few years ago one of our trains derailed on the St Catherine river bridge on its way into Montreal . The cause of the derailment was high (70mph) winds that blew a double sack train onto its side . The bridge is a double track bridge and the cars fell between the two tracks preventing them from falling into the river . Getting the cars back upright was complicated by the fact that it was Febuary and minus 20 deg f . The containers were empty so it was possible to rerail the cars without unloading the containers first . There were boats in the river to rescue anyone that would fall into the freezing water . The task was completed with the assistance of little giant cranes and lots of wood blocking to keep the cars from falling deeper into the gap . The cars were one at a time pulled upright and blocked ,then one by one were placed back onto the track with a hydro crane . All without damaging the bridge any further.
