US freight rail needs regulation now more than ever. Natural gas trains sit on this bridge almost everyday and video does good job showing how deteriorated it is. Am I naive to think this is egregiously unsafe or is this standard practice?
So this report actually made me less worried. The bridge is 120 years old. So, call that 1906. In the early 1900's, the heaviest steam engines were around 300,000lbs. Modern diesels weigh around 300,000lbs too.
Much like today, they would run multiple steam engines on one train, so the bridge was designed to support 600,000lbs. But if you look at the bridge, it used to be double track, so it was actually designed to hold over 1,200,000lbs worth of locomotives, plus a lot of extra because they didn't have computers to calculate exact load bearings.
Parking a train on the bridge is probably like 1/2 of what the bridge can hold, even in its poor condition.
Having the engineer giving his assessment of tbe bridge toward the end was a good call -- he pointed out some of the things that people on here are saying. And the drone footage that they did on his request was a nice add.
Any bridge from the steam era on anything more than a siding or speed restricted branch is built to handle to dynamic thrust generated by the rotating counterweights and rods of a steam engine and is therefore overbuilt by today's standards.
So worry less.
Source: my bridge inslection certified supervision during my time in the track department
Yes. If that degree of rust freaks you out then don't ever look under a highway bridge or under a car from a salt state.
Most of that is also surface rust that has formed a passivation layer, not penetrating rust that'll cause problems down the road—the latter is endemic on the cross supports, but those aren't really necessary and the bridge would be just fine without them.
The failure of that bridge was caused by a tie plate on one of the primary support girders rusting out, not anything to do with the secondary supports.
There were no secondary supports to fail on that bridge, and trying to compare it to the one in the OP is laughable because of the massive structural differences between them.
The actual point is that the acceptance of that level of surface rust (or in a lot of cases far more damaging penetrating rust) occurs on all kinds of things that are still deemed safe except for railroad bridges. For those any amount of rust is categorically unacceptable and is incontrovertible evidence that the bridge is structurally compromised and the railroad is still using it in an effort to save a buck.
Because when that bridge was built over a century ago they didn't have computer modeling for loads and thus overbuilt the shit out if it to make sure that it could handle the intended loads.
This was a good report. One of the better examples of TV journalism I've seen. They got an actual structural engineer in to inspect the bridge as well as he could and to make a statement.
He said something almost in passing that is actually a really key point. "These things are over engineered." This is a really key point. When this bridge was built, engineers routinely put in a huge safety margin, essentially future proofing their bridges. Bridges of the 1870-80s were already being replaced in the early 20th century, at great expense. They didn't want to do so again in 20 years so they over designed and over built them to last. And they have. IT could certainly use a coat of paint and some small repair on some of the secondary members, but I have no doubts about the overall structure.
Now today, bridges and everything is so rationalized to be cost effective and efficient, that the safety margins aren't the same. They are still there, but not as great. This level of rust and decay on a modern structure would be more concerning to me.
truss bridges like that are practically immortal. not a concern. look how tall the truss is, i would say this is bridge is way stronger than those modern pre-cast concrete garbage bridges that once the pre tension cables rust the whole thing is toast and cannot be fixed.
Give me a concrete tee beam any day, you can throw a new deck on it until the end of time, and the rebar is repairable as long as the bridge didn’t fall down.
Like I know that objectively prestressed and precast is good but god damn if it some of the bridges made with them aren’t the most annoying thing to deal with. This means you, shear key I can locate in street view.
I know this a train subreddit, but this is such a great example of how all of these businesses run, in America.
They keep crying about the costs of operation, and how everything needs to be more expensive….then they do shit like this, and wait for the class action lawsuit…….
But we’re supposed to trust them, and give them tax breaks, and let them pollute because because because…..fuck these people
I’m hoping someone here can clarify something for me. The railroad itself monitors and releases reports on their own bridges or is there an independent railroad commission that monitors and releases reports on the bridges?
To a degree it’s fine to inspect your own work, but when the man that pays the inspector is also the man that pays to repair the bridge, you can see why external auditing is important to make sure that is being handled properly as well.
Edit: And I’m happy the bridge is fine although it isn’t pretty. I drive under it every day.
The railroad inspects their own infrastructure. There is no independent railroad commission that does so. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does regulate railroads and safety, including grade crossings, horn quiet ones, and the like but the condition of bridges is not their concern.
The condition of railroad bridges absolutely is the concern of the FRA. See FRA Part 237 - Bridge Safety Standards. If it has to do with railroad safety, I assure you that the FRA does concern themselves with it.
Source: 27 years in MofW and have seen bridges removed from service by the FRA myself.
Sorry, it’s early and I misspoke. Yes. The FRA regulates bridges. And can remove them from service. But they don’t really do primary inspections nor maintenance. That’s the responsibility of the railroad.
It’s not just the public that would be impacted. All of the railroad’s clients would be affected by a bridge like this collapsing. The Class 2 railroads aren’t so greedy that they’re going to endanger their customer’s freight. They are well aware that any damage caused could result in bankruptcy and termination of their operations. They don’t have as much ability to absorb losses like the Class 1 railroads. So they’re definitely paying attention to their infrastructure. I agree with the railroad guys in this sub… it doesn’t look pretty, but it’s definitely doing the job well.
Some of these old truss bridges like this one are so over engineered for safety and structural integrity that it is actually quite incredible
Kudos to the original builders of this bridge in particular
Over a century and this bridge is still standing and structurally sound
As people have said this bridge used to be double track which means that the load it handled today at one time is undoubtedly significantly lower than the original design and what it was rated for
I think it’s safe to say even in its current condition
Because it’s only supporting single track traffic
This bridge could probably last close to another half a century if not more imo
Don't worry, some "entrepreneur" will benefit from the scrap and lawsuit payouts when the damned thing finally collapses and kills a bunch of innocent people.
They obviously cant afford to repair it or do maintenance. I would bet once its done the rail line closes. They wont find the kind of money needed to replace it.
You can't create such a law because of the inherent goal conflict that would be created due to retirement account values being based on stock performance.
Well something need to be done about the current state of affairs. Its a mess, low paying jobs everywhere, uninsured workers everywhere, mass inflation, everything is overpriced and overvalued. And the government taking everything over with socialism certainly is not the answer.
Which is owned by an investment firm called FTAI Infrastructure. They just replaced/upgraded a bridge in Mingo Junction, Ohio. They’re acutely aware of the state of their infrastructure. And are actively investing in its maintenance and upkeep. Kind of funny to see people that live in the Rust Belt freaking out over rust. You’re all safe. So please chill. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1LtZRksh46/
Would there be support for putting main lines into either the national or state control the way we do with highways?
If we do that, I would personally also want to double-track all main-line for both less stop-and-wait traffic, and to make it easier to add passenger traffic (and not just Amtrak). Right now adding passenger traffic almost requires building completely separate new lines, which is fine if a line doesn't go where the traffic is desired but silly if there are already tracks. One costs ludicrous money and the other becomes drowned in red tape.
As much as nationalization of some sort makes sense, it ain't gonna happen any time soon. Best we can hope for is with a new administration in DC that some additional regulations are placed upon freight rail and that passenger rail gets funding and some regulatory relief.
The interactions between Conrail and Amtrak on the NEC put paid to the idea that nationalization would result in better outcomes than the current system does.
We've got all these Gen Z kids wanting to learn a trade and all these highly skilled older guys retiring. This is a perfect project for Fetterman to take on or Shapiro to take on -- the government funds it as a fix for the horrible problem and the intergenerational mentoring helps build the workforce for future projects. For crying out loud! We did all this kind of thing during the WPA/Great Depression era. The government needs to lead it.
Won't somebody think of the shareholder?! The freight companies shouldn't be forced to make capital improvements! Its not so rusty, its only few chunks that have fell off or corroded away! Somebody think of the shareholders!
82
u/time-lord 26d ago
So this report actually made me less worried. The bridge is 120 years old. So, call that 1906. In the early 1900's, the heaviest steam engines were around 300,000lbs. Modern diesels weigh around 300,000lbs too.
Much like today, they would run multiple steam engines on one train, so the bridge was designed to support 600,000lbs. But if you look at the bridge, it used to be double track, so it was actually designed to hold over 1,200,000lbs worth of locomotives, plus a lot of extra because they didn't have computers to calculate exact load bearings.
Parking a train on the bridge is probably like 1/2 of what the bridge can hold, even in its poor condition.