Dang that’s a lot of informatioin Ed.
I will have to take the time to read it through the night. And reevaluate technical information…
Are you kidding me I ain’t going to do that… you are good people Ed… Always have been.
Friends are gold Thanks[;)]
Since some time in the early 1980s, at many of the drawbridges in the Cleveland area, Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie, the bridges were usually left for water traffic to pass and if the infrequent train needed to cross the bridge a relief operator, or if necessary, an on-duty operator from another tower (which might be temporarily closed) would drive to the drawbridge, make the necessary movements, then drive back, or to the next bridge down, or up river or the rail line as needed.
The drawbridge, which was not a drawbridge, was the subject of the Sunset Limited wreck at the Big Bayou Canot, Alabama, back in 1993.
Barges hit the unsecured end of the bridge and knocked it three feet out of alignment before the Sunset Limited approached eight minutes later at about 70 MPH. The result was not pretty.
The rails didn’t separate which would have disrupeted the signal circuit. The engineer didn’t see the misaligned span until a few seconds before the wreck.
The towboat operator didn’t know how to use the radar and ran his barges into the wrong inlet, ramming the bridge in heavy fog.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/RAR9401.aspx
Rest In Peace, all who perished.
Ed
No the tanker car was high and dry it was the low fuel tank of the first UP locomotive that got punctured and leaked into the Mississippi River.
Heat of the day as you stated yes good point. I heard from other sources that could have been a big part of the equation that day.
PS it’s been way hot up here for many consecutive days
You know what I think. Besides having sensor relay transmitted to off site bridge operators. As an extra safety precaution I think they should have cameras so the off-site bridge operator has a view of all four points of rail alignment on the bridge.
That way if the operator was able to see something wrong he could override the system[:-^]
I’m not going to be surprised if it turns out the bridge looked just fine as the train approached. And the weight of the first engine “snapped a widget” on the bridge. And THEN it dropped down. Which it did. There’s a great photo of the guys putting in the temporary bridge rails, and you can see them rising from the swing bridge deck to the other truss.
Ed
PS: It’s picture number 4, currently up by the Star Tribune. Underneath is what must be the repair/replacement of the pier following the damage last year. They weren’t done, as evidenced by the watercraft docked at the pier. There does seem to be some temporary block at what I would call the bridge shoe.
In tracking the walkway from one bridge to the next, that too seems to have a height differential of 6" to a foot. Definitely not a normal thing to have on such a walkway.
Here, by the way, is a “before” shot, from Bridgehunter:
You can see a motor and gear assembly. That has to be the locking mechanism for the bridge. Underneath, you can see a pin at an angle. I think this is the locking pin. If you look at the “after” shot, it looks like the bridge shoe for the swing bridge is different than the “before”. There’s the temporary blocking, of course. Note also that the assembly appears to have an angled face, sloping downwards to the right. And also note how, in the “after”, the top of the angled face has been crushed downwards.
I believe that the bridge shoe was replaced. And failed under the weight of the locomotive(s).
I also believe that, before before that failure, the bridge appeared sound to the bridge operator, the interlocking equipment, and the locomotive crew.
No, not at all. I would say there are probably just a handfull of bridge operators left. Virtually all the moveable bridges I know of are remote control, operated by the train dispatcher hundreds of miles away. Some are operated by remote control from a radio signal from the boats on the river.
The very last thing you want is a human being to override the system. The systems are set to fail safe, so if a human overrides the system he is having the train operate into an unsafe condition. If the bridge isn’t lined and locked then the train won’t get a signal and the operator’s/dispatcher’s panel won’t show lined and locked.
Whether there is an operator standing on the bridge or the operator is a dispatcher 1000 miles away, it doesn’t matter. If the bridge won’t line and lock they call out bridge or signal maintainers who inspect the bridge to make sure its safe. The bridge operators aren’t bridge maintainers or signal maintainers, most of them are clerical employees. For example, back in the day, the Causeway Lift bridge onto Galveston Island was protected by clerks off the SP. When the regular operator was marked off, they would protect the job with an extra board clerk out of Houston. So a clerk might spend 99% of their time writing train orders, typing waybills and making switch lists and then a couple times a year operate the lift bridge.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion Dave. Electronic and digital equipment fail every day. Sensors and relays are no different. Computers, smartphones, artificial intelligence, robotics-automated equipment, self-driving cars like the Tesla not long ago. They all malfunction or fail, they all have.
It’s never a question of if, it’s always a question of when. Something mechanical weather electronic digital or machine will malfunction sooner or later.
Many situations for certain specifics human involvement is not replaceable.
Someone noticing something wrong viewing live cameras from a thousand miles away while a sensor or relay is malfunctioning could very well override and prevent a disaster.
Override can be many different actions anywhere from changing a green light to red or immediate communication. Malfunctioning sensors or relays don’t do that.
Ed could be right though maybe it is a broken rail-lock doohickey after the weight hit it. Now that makes sense too.
I can’t find that picture. Your picture is at a slightly different angle and the lighting color is very different, but it looks the same to me. Maybe in a year, one of us will remember this thread when the NTSB publishes a report.
Hey Henry you weren’t talking to me but I would have to agree the National Transportation Safety Board has been known to take their sweet time with investigation reports.
Sometimes we’re lucky if we ever hear the results. Many times they become not public and are swept under the rug just like the FDA does when we’ve been told by them something is safe for us for years and all the sudden it’s brought to surface that it’s not.
Here’s a link to the news story:
As I said, the photo I’m talking about is the fourth one in. And the location is almost exactly where the “before” shot was taken from. You can enlarge it.
Ed
Yep I seen that image from bridge Hunter you provided Ed that bridge shoe looks mangled. You may have cinched this one up.
I’ve been in and out from my own thread as I’ve been busy with my daughter visiting from China. She’s going back the 22nd for another year.
Interesting finds thanks for posting. I’m sure this ties in to what my friend from BNSF said. The bridge was hit hard by a barge several years ago. The structural damage repairs may have not been adequate… his words not mine.