CopperJonny Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 They have to empty the cars, I can't believe they haven't started it this morning for crying out loud! Safety MY ASS! I volunteer to go drag the hoses and connect to the valves!!!! #1 Drain the effing cars 100% #2 Steam the cars for 8 hrs (just in case they fall) because no dozer will hold them back lol #3 Bring in the heavy lift cranes I've been Rigger for hoisting some of the heaviest lifts in the world.... and NO!! one mobile crane can't handle that weight.... We routinely hoist and place vessels up to and over 190,000 lbs... on a weekly basis for crying out loud.... if CP can't do it, get out a the way! Just leave those cheques blank afterwards..... "18 inspections since the high water began last week!" they say.... "the underside is impossible to inspect!" they say.... We'll if it wasn't inspected 100%, then "IT WASN'T INSPECTED AT ALL" I'm telling it like it is.... as an inspector! If it wasn't inspected fully, and that means EVERY GOD DAMN SQUARE INCH, then the inspector who signed off on the reports... is one of two things.... #1 -Lazy, or #2 - Incompetent. They now stand up to be liable for there errors! And most likely will lose their jobs/license. Either way.. the Bow is in the predicament it is now, due to incompetent people! And it doesn't matter if the company (unless they terminated inspectors like Nenshi asks) or the Government where or are concerned about their infrastructure ... I'm sure we can all agree that NObody wanted something like this to happen... for various and reasons alike... it always falls on the inspector.... period. And I will reiterate .... if one cannot inspect every square inch of an article... regardless of size.... then Inspection is NOT complete!!! And not one of those reports should be signed off... period! And there AIN'T NO debating a damn thing about it.... yes to average out if no flaws/faults/defects/discontinuities are found...assumptions become ideal... to save the client money.... but when its 100 yr old steel... every goddamn process (LPI,MPI, RT-X-ray, UT-Ultrasound, ET- Eddy Current) shall be used to determine if any discontinuities are present... otherwise... it wasn't honestly inspected! End of transmission.... 1 Quote
maxwell Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 come on guys lets keep it civil... stop the personal bashing.. we all wish and want shoulda woulda coulda in the end it's a wait and see thing Quote
Mykiss Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 come on guys lets keep it civil... stop the personal bashing.. we all wish and want shoulda woulda coulda in the end it's a wait and see thing Agreed.... Quote
peetso Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/27/train_derails_on_calgary_bridge_over_swollen_bow_river.html CP CEO Hunter Harrison said it it was “clearly” a failure of piers at the bottom of the river. The engineers blamed it on fast water scouring away gravel under the support. “We couldn't have seen anything from an inspection on top unless there was severe movement as a result of the failure down below,” Harrison said. “We would normally have probably put divers in to inspect, but the current was too fast. Somebody would have drowned if they had tried to go in there, plus the current was so fast, and it's so murky, you couldn't do an appropriate inspection.” The rail company didn't anticipate “a problem like this occurring at all,” said Harrison, who said it would have been “jeopardizing commerce” to hold back trains until divers could get in. "jeopardizing commerce" seriously, did he just say that. Its absolutley ridiculous. 1 Quote
Hawgstoppah Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 "jeopardizing commerce" seriously, did he just say that. Yes, yes he did.... Quote
bcubed Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/derailed-tanker-cars-drained-removed-from-broken-calgary-bridge-1.1345326 *phew* Quote
maxwell Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 epic news!!!!! I wonder if anything the mayor said will make the Feds step up and have some new bridges and such built following new codes and regulations.. doubtful Quote
Pipes Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 An interesting perspective reading this thread after the fact. To play devil's advocate, we don't know the details of the failure so how can anyone speculate on due diligence. We can certainly question the process. I listened to news reports making this sound worse than it was. Explosive chemicals! .....or not. Fear that it may be Jet fuel. It would have been better if it was jet fuel since both the flash point and fire point is higher than gasoline or diesel. I'm not trying to underplay the seriousness of the issue, but speculation running rampant makes no sense. It's like a fire alarm goes off and everyone would rather trample each other heading for the door than work together. I think Nenshi's has been good throughout this ordeal, but as the leader, I'm not sure he should have been ripping the Feds so quickly. Don't get me wrong, but I'm glad this worked out the way it did, but let's keep with the innocent until proven guilty process. 2 Quote
aaa Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Good post Pipes and quite true, Jet A fuel is very stable and needs to be atomised and travelling 'at speed' to ignite. Jet B, more unstable, but I highly doubt B was in those railcars. Did we want it in our river, no. But the press babbling about 'highly dangerous jet fuel' was the last thing Calgarians needed to hear yesterday morning. Quote
monger Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Stuff in the tanks was not very explosive (not jet fuel)...actually really hard to ignite even with a torch. Still is great news that none of it ended up in the water The gravel under the base of the pillar washed away causing it to shift....could not have been seen by anyone. Hadn't happen for 100 years. I really doubt anyone could have safely checked the base underwater considering the current speed and visibility. Good ending to a crappy situation. Pretty sure that bridge will not be replaced. Quote
CopperJonny Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Just to be clear...the point my rant was all about which I realize I didn't make clear...Without a full inspection, that bridge nor any other should not have been open for use... At all! Edit: for safety reasons Alone!!! 1 Quote
Hawgstoppah Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 I agree to an extent. At least not open to hazardous material... for sure. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.