Eastern Railroad Discussion > Stuck Bridge Disrupts NS Chicago Traffic

http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/3e5706924b99c2e99ef1f023069802e9?s=50&d=identicon&r=GStuck Bridge Disrupts NS Chicago Line Trafficby csanders429Traffic on the Chicago Line of Norfolk Southern was disrupted this past Sunday after a failure of the drawbridge over Sandusky Bay.
https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ns-logo-2.jpg?w=560The bridge became stuck in the up position and when the operator was finally able to lower it it would not lock into place. The bridge, located at milepost 248 is controlled remotely.
Some marine traffic because stranded when the bridge wouldn’t lock into place and boaters anchored their vessels and called friends to pick them up.
Smaller watercraft were able to pass beneath the bridge despite a warning light being illuminated that there was insufficient clearance.
The drawbridge failure lasted for more than three hours and halted train traffic on a line that hosts more than 50 movements a day including Amtrak’s Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited.
However, Amtrak was unaffected by the failure because its trains pass over it between midnight and 6 a.m.
NS maintenance forces were able to repair the bridge and it resumed normal operation.
The bridge was built in 1929 and is a double-track rolling Scherzer-type drawbridge

The bridge also got stuck in the partially raised position back on a Tuesday afternoon in late June. It got attention this time because of all the weekend recreational boating traffic.

Will it take a federal handout for NS to overhaul or replace it, as with the capital upgrades in western Indiana ? 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will it take a federal handout for NS to overhaul
> or replace it, as with the capital upgrades in
> western Indiana ? 

What leads you to believe that the bridge needs overhauled?

OMG!!!  Can't you read, it delayed Amtrak, therefore it must be overhauled.

altoonafn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Will it take a federal handout for NS to
> overhaul
> > or replace it, as with the capital upgrades in
> > western Indiana ? 
>
> What leads you to believe that the bridge needs
> overhauled?

SP4360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMG!!!  Can't you read, it delayed Amtrak,
> therefore it must be overhauled.

At somebody else's expense, of course!

Getting stuck once a month is not good, even for freight traffic. 

Another reason for the infrastructure bill to be passed ASAP.

Proud Foamer
OAKLEY, CA

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting stuck once a month is not good, even for
> freight traffic. 

What were the failures and how often do they occur?

This could have simply been two fluke occurrences within 2 months. It may call for increased inspections or maintenance, but not a full overhaul. 

Ok lets get this straight-

I live at CD 253, or a bout a half mile west of there.  As someone who literally lives right next to the Chicago line, the movements is more like 70+ a day with the 4 amtrak daily trains.  

Secondly if the DB gets stuck it gets stuck.  All im seeing in this post is someone whining about it getting stuck. 

Michael Fair
Royal Oak, MI

It’s closer to the 50 than 70 a day.

Posted from iPhone

Badorder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another reason for the infrastructure bill to be
> passed ASAP.

Why should the tax payer pay to fix this bridge? NS is profitable. Let them fix it themselves.

Posted from iPhone

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Badorder Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Another reason for the infrastructure bill to
> be
> > passed ASAP.
>
> Why should the tax payer pay to fix this bridge?
> NS is profitable. Let them fix it themselves.
>
> Posted from iPhone

The bridge provides for water navigation.  If not for that, it could just be stuck in down position or replaced by fixed structure.

Bob

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> howeld Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Badorder Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Another reason for the infrastructure bill to
> > be
> > > passed ASAP.
> >
> > Why should the tax payer pay to fix this
> bridge?
> > NS is profitable. Let them fix it themselves.
> >
> > Posted from iPhone
>
> The bridge provides for water navigation.  If not
> for that, it could just be stuck in down position
> or replaced by fixed structure.

A condition of building a bridge over navigable waters is that the bridge provide for navigation either through fixed clearance or by capability of opening/lifting.

On the other hand, since this and other railroad bridges were built, the taxpayer has provided the trucking industry with elaborate fixed infrastructure at a bargain price, so one could argue the playing field needs leveling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/21 09:44 by toledopatch.

Wahington's solution will be to create lower boats . . .

"Why can't the Army Corp of Engineers just dip the river down where it goes under a railroad. It is done all the time with railroad over highway bridges." Somewhere in DC someone is agreeing with this comment. :)

where submarines impacted

Badorder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another reason for the infrastructure bill to be
> passed ASAP.

How many boaters were affected???

Author: justalurker66
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why can't the Army Corp of Engineers just dip the river down where it goes under a railroad. It is done all the time with railroad over highway bridges." Somewhere in DC someone is agreeing with this comment. :)

Too late. Reality beat you to it.  A Port of Seattle Commissioner already said that during discussion of the replacement Spokane Street Bridge in Seattle 30 years ago.


TAW

Typically a lock is built with a high side and a low side and most of the work of changing the water level within the lock to match each side is a function of operating valves that stop water from flowing down river while the lock fills and stops water from entering the lock while the lock empties. (I have visited several locks and watched such operation and have "locked through" as a tourist at the Soo Locks. The Canadian side locks became my favorite since visitors can freely walk the grounds including walking across the gates at the locks.)

Locks to create a "dip" in a river would be an interesting engineering feat. Filling the locks to raise ships would not be difficult, but lowering ships would likely require pumps. Two locks large enough to handle the largest expected ship plus all the additional equipment needed would be cost prohibitive.

This comment is brought to you by the concept of "don't tell them it cannot be done, just tell them how much it will cost".