I can imagine that a flood causes all kinds of problems. What are the most common?
dd
dd – I’ll bet MC checks in on this when he wakes up, but…
ballast: do you still have full cribs? Or have you lost some or all of the ballast?
fill: is it still in decent conditiion, or do you have washouts or saturated places which have lost their strength?
culverts: are they clear, or have they silted in?
bridges: are they in decent shape? Bearings, abutments and piers (undercutting particularly)? Anything hit them? Condition of bridge overall…
track: are the ties still properly held by the ballast? Cross levels, alignment (horizontal and vertical)? condition of any joints?
special work (switches, diamonds): clean out the frogs and points, check swtich machines, check shunts (if used), check all fastenings, make sure they work, lube everything in sight…
signals: if your wiring got wet, you have to check every signal and relay for correct operation, or run dark until you can.
As well as the more obvious clearing of debris…
I’m sure I’ve left something out.
I’ve seen old photos of steam locomotives in flood waters actually (according to the author/photographer) operating and pushing/pulling cars.
I know the distance between water on the rails and the motors in the wheels on todays diesel-electrics are very critical to their operation.
Do the rails have to be completely visible? Or are there exceptions like within an industrial facility or yard where the rails and surrounds are paved? (Debris not withstanding)
In light of the Katrina disaster down south, this is a worthwhile thread.
Just wondering.
Mark
Mark – sort of depends on how gutsy the engineer is! If I couldn’t see the ties and ballast, I’d walk… but then, I’m kind of conservative.
The traction motors have astonishingly little clearance, and just a few inches – two or three – and they will be in the water. Even with less, they will be being splashed, and traction motors = high voltage elextricity. And electricity and water just don’t mix.
Steam engines don’t have this problem, of course. But still, in terms of safe operation, you’d never do it nowadays. But then, there are a lot of things we don’t do now which seemed perfectly all right ‘way back when’!
Jamie…
Thanks for the insight!
Mark
I have access to look at other dispatching territories from my screen at work and I can tell you that the entire coastal CSX line from New Orleans east to Mobile is completely out of service. The entire track is blocked off with 707 Authorities and many of the control points show no power. I have even heard from some of the maintenance managers that a big section of the track bed is just washed away, so to answer the question the RR’s down there have a LOT of work to do before any trains will be running on the track and of course MC expound on that quite a bit.
AND… Here’s some pics of damage in New Orleans specific to CSX.
Our rule is one inch over the rail. But i will tell you what i would do. I would have the conductor walk about fifty yards infront of me to make sure the track is still there. if he dissapears i know to stop, if he does not disappear i will keep on going at a walking pace!!
Dependent on the individual railroad’s rulebook, the water can be up to 5 inches above top of rail. When it got close to 4 inches, our old railroad had the mechanical supervisor ride the slow moving train over the high water and cut out the traction motor blowers (to keep water out of the traction motor case. With the post Dash-2 newer engines, I don’t know if this can be done any more. Maybe Randy Stahl can enlighten us.
Jchnhtfd has it about right on the reactions to running submerged track. In addition I guarantee the roadmaster and the motor track inspector are patrolling the track before and after the train passes and they watch the train thru the water looking for excess deflections. Any switch under water is spiked and clamped shut until it emerges again and can be maintained…and if it is running water, you’re working like mad to keep the upstream side clear of debris.
(The railroads are circling the wagons now and have lined up consultants (surveyors and engineers) to thow at problems after the initial crisis is addressed. A lot of the older railroaders remember when railroads could be self-sufficent and throw resources at problems like this - no longer even remotely a possibility in today’s dumbsized world… “Lean & Mean” now starts looking like starving and stupid…)
In Britain, after an accident that happened during a flood, the procedure for checking bridges has been revised. About 20 years ago a 2 car passenger train on the Heart of Wales line fell into a river in flood when the bridge it was on collapsed. Fortunately the passengers got out alive but in ensuring that they did spo the engineer paid the ultimate price. Afterwards it was found that during the flood the normal flow of the river had altered and it had eroded parts of the bride foundations that it did not normally come anywhere near. As a result revised procedures were drawn up.
Tulyar – which is why I said that you have to check the bridge piers and abutments – for which you just have to wait a bit!
I got to musing, though, on how the railroadmen ‘way back when’ got away with some things (like running through flooded track) that we wouldn’t do now… and one thing hit me: the engines were a lot lighter, and the axle loadings were a lot less. A big 4-4-0 might have had 30 tons per axle, and often half that. That puts a lot less stress on the track structure and fill than a modern engine, which could easily be twice that. So if the fill is weakened by being saturated, a light engine might make it while a heavy modern engine would just collapse the fill…
I recall see a section of track near Rexburg ID after the Teton dam broke. The rails and ties looked fine on the water, but after the water went down, there was no roadbed under the track! Roadbed is obvious - but that is what got me thinking about other damage to look for.
dd
Following is FRA issued guide lines for inspection:
TRAINING GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AT
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AFTER FLOODS AND STORMS
Introduction
As a result of the recent weather related derailments on railroads, FRA has issued a safety advisory 97-1 which requires that a special inspection of track must be made after flood, severe storm or other weather related occurrences which might have damaged the track. These training guidelines have been developed to help track inspectors detect erosion or scour at bridges and culverts during their track inspections after such occurrences. They are intended to provide criteria for inspectors to look for telltale signs and unusual conditions at a bridge or culvert that will indicate a scour or erosion problem.
FRA Advisory 97-1 dated September 4, 1997
FRA Safety Advisory 97-1 recommends safety practices to reduce the risk of train derailments caused by damage to tracks, roadbed and bridges resulting from the uncontrolled flows of water and similar weather related problems. Some of the key points of the advisory are as follows:
· Identify vulnerable bridges and culverts
· Compile a list of vulnerable bridges and culverts and make the list available to all inspectors.
· Conduct a training program for inspectors and provide initial briefing on the contents of this advisory.
· Conduct refresher training courses and update list of vulnerable bridges annually.
A copy of the FRA Safety Advisory is included herewith for information.
Initial Listing of Vulnerable Structures by Subdivision
A list of vulnerable bridges and culverts by subdivision has been prepared and is available to all inspectors. A copy of the list
thanks BaltACD for the FRA stuff – however, it appears that even the FRA did not consider a flood of this magnitude.
this cleanup will be enormous.
dd