Bridge too low for CSX trains in Delaware

DUH

"Teachable moment" at the taxpayers expense.  A totally stupid, typical comment from a bureaucrat.

So you measure a clearance for a train from the ground, not from the top of the rails?  I guess there was a day of engineering school missed for someone there.

hokie71 posted:

Interesting aw......you know what!

Close enough for gub'mint work.

Should have asked Joe Biden for input on the project.  He's from Delaware and loves trains, dontcha know?

Nick Chillianis posted:

hokie71 posted:

Interesting aw......you know what!

Close enough for gub'mint work.

Should have asked Joe Biden for input on the project.  He's from Delaware and loves trains, dontcha know?

 

With Biden, as long as the little guy waving the lantern pops out and doesn't hit the train, he's fine with it.

Not the first time this has happened. I seem to recall that when the engineering firm was building the BART system, they did the same thing, i.e. measured from the ground instead of the top of the rails. Thus, the tunnel under SanFrancisco Bay to Oakland had have the track lower a bit, prior to the big grand opening.

THose guys deal in hand grenades and horse shoes- close counts. Hey !  What's a few inches ??

I heard they did the same error in Niagara Falls replacing an overpass. I couldn't confirm it.

Happens all the time... First time double stacks where hauled on the ex Northern Pacific route by the BN in Lombard Montana, they tore the Milwaukee railroad bridge right of its bridge abutments.  The overpass was long abandoned.

All ya gots ta do is let some air out of the tires...

Rusty

Engineer-Joe posted:

I heard they did the same error in Niagara Falls replacing an overpass. I couldn't confirm it.

NIAGARA FALLS!  Slowly I turned!!!

Eddie Marra posted:

Engineer-Joe posted:

I heard they did the same error in Niagara Falls replacing an overpass. I couldn't confirm it.

NIAGARA FALLS!  Slowly I turned!!!

I can't believe you beat me to this. Great minds think alike.

Do you know that bit dates back to the earliest days of vaudeville and has at least a half dozen variations?

Besides the Niagara Falls version,  Abbott and Costello performed the "Susquehanna Hat Company" version on their 1950's TV show.

hokie71 posted:

...the DelDOT survey team “mistakenly measured the clearance for the span from the ground rather than from the top of the tracks’ steel rails.”

You have GOT to be kidding me! Have we actually become that stupid?

Good grief...

Yes, THEY have  !! A really big low bridge boo-boo happened in Pittsburgh many years ago when the PRR built a bridge over the Allegheny River in to the city. AFTER they built it, the Army Corps of Engineers decided it was too low for the stacks on river boats to clear.  The end result was they jacked up this really big bridge with big hydraulic jacks and added concrete caps  2-3 ft. thick on top of the piers and abutments.  The bridge is there, used every day.  This was more a  difference of opinion than a mistake.

OGR Webmaster posted:

hokie71 posted:

...the DelDOT survey team “mistakenly measured the clearance for the span from the ground rather than from the top of the tracks’ steel rails.”

You have GOT to be kidding me! Have we actually become that stupid?

Elevations for railroad grades usually are at ground level and not the tops of the rails, and many people not in the know think of it like they would for a roadway, where the elevation should be able to be taken as correct.

When I was still in the military, a contractor on a post I was serving at was hired to build a new engine house and they followed the instruction to the letter. The problem was, the same thing happened and nobody accounted for the added height of the roadbed, ties and rail. Locomotives could fit inside but it was so tight it literally scraped the paint off the tops of the fans the first time they pulled a GP into it. In that case, it was a minor subcontract to make the doors about a foot taller and cut the difference out of the openings.

That's when I first was told about this being a relatively common thing in the field, for that reason.

So when I read this story elsewhere this morning, I wasn't the least bit surprised. It's an issue of a common frame of reference, as the railroad folks (and companies who deal with them a lot) normally know this, but next to nobody else does.

As for the old Lombard MT bridge, that was hit by some fiber optic cable support equipment on a train passing down the old NP main. It's not the same thing as that bridge had been built in accordance with the requirements of the age. There were no trains that tall when they were built.

OGR Webmaster posted:

hokie71 posted:

...the DelDOT survey team “mistakenly measured the clearance for the span from the ground rather than from the top of the tracks’ steel rails.”

You have GOT to be kidding me! Have we actually become that stupid?

Good grief...

Yes, we have, Charlie Brown!

Shouldn't CSX have been involved in reviewing the initial bridge design before it was built?

Without knowing what occurred when the DelDot Engineering Department approved construction drawings, if questions arose about height elevation or clearance dimension measured from what reference point the CSX Mechanical or Engineering Department should have been contacted for clarification.  All of the freight and passenger car general arrangement drawings that I have ever seen had all vertical dimensions measure from top of rail(TOR) for heavy and light cars, not from roadbed grade.

I can just see the DelDOT crew doing the measurements and lowest guy on the totem pole saying  "I think you made a mistake".

Lower the track. Probably cheaper.....

I guess they did not know what TOR means. 

The same thing happened when they built the new South Ferry station and found insufficient overhead clearance and had to rebuild it.

Gilly@N&W posted:

Lower the track. Probably cheaper.....

To who? CSX didn't build the bridge, so why should they foot the bill for that?

And can you imagine the state saying they're gonna pay for a grade change for a private railroad?

All RR measurements are from top of rail. That works for under ground utilities or any above ground work. We always measured from top of rail, as that is the starting point and what everything should be based off of. Lowering the track does not always work. We had to undercut a bridge 21" to allow for double stacks, and ended up hitting the underground bridge supports. CSX usually pays for bridges to be raised to accept future improvements.

This is a universal problem it seems, and not just limited to railroads. There are those who attempt to pass under them........

http://11foot8.com/

Now that is one tough bridge.

It is not to tough to look at the clearance diagram in the AREMA manual to figure out that vertical clearances are measured from top of rail.  And, if the track is on a horizontal curve you must account for the effects of superelevation.  In my experience the railroad profile grade was always shown for the top of rail and not the ground surface.

Gilly@N&W posted:

Lower the track. Probably cheaper.....

Establishing a new grade for CSX for probably at least a mile in both directions?

Don't think so...

Rusty

Depending on the grade there now, they would not have to go back that far. RR's do not like to mess with the sub grade and hard pans, as they are too hard to reestablish. Single track makeso a difference as well. Bridge inspectors and bridge company should have to foot Bill for any work. 

Just my opinion but why make the clearances so tight?

Measure twice, cut once.

Gene posted:

All RR measurements are from top of rail.

I worked for a construction contractor as their PR guy for a large project that involved removal of railroad tracks. I've never heard of elevations for RR tracks being the tops of the rails and was told they measured it from the top of the actual permanent grade itself and not the top of the rails, as everything else could change with simple track work or replacing the rails with different sizes.

With the removal of track as you stated, you would not have to worry with clearance issues. 

I worked for CSX for 37 years. Our most vital measurement was top of rail.  When building new tracks, we did have top of subgrade for the installation on ballast after that. Over the years with rail change outs, surfacing teams and tie teams the top of rail does change, that is why you measure from it and not subgrade. I always had a height pole with me when doing any track work around overpasses to make sure we were still in tolerance. 

Railroad clearances  are not always so tight.  At times you do have immovable objects that you have to account for. I had one overpass that was close, with only 6 inches to spare. They are replacing the overpass this year to a new height of over 26 feet. The other areas are around industries and tight curves.

wb47 posted:

Now that is one tough bridge.

The trucks are not hitting the bridge.

Are we talking two different things here?  First is the article showing the RR tracks under the new highway bridge, wherein the clearance was not tall enough for CSX train clearances.  The other is a video of trucks on a highway not having enough clearance for the RR bridge above.  According to ADCX Rob the trucks are not hitting a bridge.  Maybe I am using an incorrect term for whatever the trucks are hitting.  Thanks for a little more info if you can give it. 

The trucks in the 11foot8 videos are hitting a crash beam erected just before the bridge, placed to give one last visual warning(brightly painted yellow with warning verbiage) and to protect the bridge itself.  "This massive steel I-beam bears the brunt of the impact, protecting the structure that supports this fairly busy railroad track."

I read this and thought, "ONLY $500,000? Must be a pretty minor mistake and an easy fix."

You can't do much to a bridge for $500,000 these days.

Thanks for the explanation Rob. 

ADCX Rob posted:

The trucks in the 11foot8 videos are hitting a crash beam erected just before the bridge, placed to give one last visual warning(brightly painted yellow with warning verbiage) and to protect the bridge itself.  "This massive steel I-beam bears the brunt of the impact, protecting the structure that supports this fairly busy railroad track."

I put a couple of them in during the first 6 yrs working for the state on a county bridge crew.  We called them "Head Ache bars". We'd put them approx. 20-40' before the bridge.  

Look at the video, 0.27, you'll see the bridge floor beam move up a little, not good.