North American: Train Derailment - West of Winnipeg
From the "other" part of North America, and country hosting the next NANOG meeting.
Fairly major Train Derailment East of Winnipeg. Many Canadian carriers affected, (This is a major 360 condo build) although most have fiber route diversity.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
From the "other" part of North America, and country hosting the next NANOG meeting.
Fairly major Train Derailment East of Winnipeg. Many Canadian carriers affected, (This is a major 360 condo build) although most have fiber route diversity.
I'm curious. I think I've gone the last couple of months without hearing about any train derailments, and then between news media reports and the NANOG list I think I've heard of four this week. A quick check of news media websites didn't turn up anything on this one, but I may just not be looking at the right sites. Are train derailments common events that don't get much press coverage (or maybe that don't get much coverage unless it's a passenger train), or was this an especially bad week? -Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gibbard scg@gibbard.org
Are train derailments common events that don't get much press coverage (or maybe that don't get much coverage unless it's a passenger train), or was this an especially bad week?
Certainly fiber along rail right of ways was easy to install - and as a result, there's a lot of it, but trains tend to do a lot of damage when they go off track. I would imagine there's less likelihood of such damage occurring along roadways or other right-of-ways with the same amount of disruption is less? And, in this age where less fiber is going in the ground, does that mean that train derailments may become the new enemy #1, displacing the now idle backhoe's? ;)
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Steve Gibbard wrote:
Are train derailments common events that don't get much press coverage (or maybe that don't get much coverage unless it's a passenger train), or was this an especially bad week?
According to federal records and news reports, train derailments are up about 15% even if you take into account the growth in rail traffic. Thursday happened to be a particularly notable day on the network. Imagine if you were in the brand-new government Cyber-warning center yesterday. UUNET network-wide problems (train cuts cable or IS-IS problems?) Earthlink 1.5 million customers out of service due to a power failure MSNBC web site off the air due to a SYN attack Cable & Wireless has master ticket open on their network Explosion in NYC LA Times leaks CIA warning about China hackers attacking US What would you do? Would you call anyone? Who would you call? Hint: the answer is not Sean. I can usually gauge how the network is doing by the size of my Inbox. If I have no e-mail or several hundred messages; something happened.
In the past few years on NANOG, I've noticed a strong correlation between train derailments and network outages. (Not to discount the backhoe correlation in any way of course...) The question I have is this: If fiber runs are trenched into the railbed, and we know that trains go off of the tracks every now and then, what, if anything, is being done to harden the conduit? Would trenching it deeper help? Has encasing the conduit in a steel-reinforced channel been examined? Or is there something about laying conduit next to track and the accident modalities that I am just missing here? Given this week's higher frequency of rail accidents and their attendant network disruptions, it seems like the cost/benefit of looking at this issue might have shifted a bit. I can only see these right-of-ways becoming increasingly valuable over time and in our post 9/11 environment, this seems to be an area that seems especially vulnerable. Just curious... At 5:26 PM -0400 4/26/02, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Steve Gibbard wrote:
Are train derailments common events that don't get much press coverage (or maybe that don't get much coverage unless it's a passenger train), or was this an especially bad week?
According to federal records and news reports, train derailments are up about 15% even if you take into account the growth in rail traffic.
Regards, Chris Kilbourn Founder _________________________________________________________________ digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483 where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-425-483-0483 19515 North Creek Parkway Fax: +1-425-482-6871 Suite 208 http://www.forest.net Bothell, WA 98011 email: chrisk@forest.net
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Chris Kilbourn said:
In the past few years on NANOG, I've noticed a strong correlation between train derailments and network outages. (Not to discount the backhoe correlation in any way of course...)
The question I have is this:
If fiber runs are trenched into the railbed, and we know that trains go off of the tracks every now and then, what, if anything, is being done to harden the conduit?
Conduit? What's THAT ;-? Only exposed (bridge crossing, etc) parts are in conduit.
Would trenching it deeper help? Has encasing the conduit in a steel-reinforced channel been examined? Or is there something about laying conduit next to track and the accident modalities that I am just missing here?
A) There's limited right-of-way. Who are you already next to? ATT? MCI? Sprint? B) There's limited ACCESS to A). You either must shutdown the rail line or follow a rigorous safety program to ensure you don't have a piece of whatever sticking out across the track when that train goes by. C) How deep do you want it? ATT put their #5 TCC cable down 4'; no easy task. {But then, we paid for it...}. Will that help when a locomotive lands on it? If it doesn't... it's much harder to fix. D) There's limited money. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:42:21PM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
C) How deep do you want it? ATT put their #5 TCC cable down 4'; no easy task. {But then, we paid for it...}. Will that help when a locomotive lands on it? If it doesn't... it's much harder to fix.
The average locomotive is something above 100 tons. On anything but your usual passenger service, it's common to see at least 2, and up to 4, units on the front (often not all of them are in service or at full capacity). It's also relatively boxy, nearly flat. Flip it over, cause the front bit to go do into the dirt, and it will make a *lovely* plow. Anyone doubting this should look at aerial footage from news crews after such an accident; things often look like a road-scraper went by. 4' might be deep enough - and it might not, though I'd suspect that it will be protected from most derailments. But, as noted above... 4' costs a lot to accomplish. If the cost of a derailment-induced outage is low (latency, rerouting, a few minutes of problems while the system reacts), it probably costs a hell of a lot less than burying that many miles of cable 4' deep. Even when you run the averages. And 1' deep probably just isn't going to cut it, as it were. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
You can also add to that: If the original derailment didn't cut the cable, the subsequent construction surely would. The cable buried is an afterthought, rail repair crews will undoubtedly bulldoze things flat and straight, bring in fill and push the debris to one side, and get the ballast and rails back in, tamped, and service restored as quickly as possible. Over a period of time, after, they will remove and scrap, all with big machinery, shipping the repairable to a rebuilder...your glass cable doesn't mean an iota to the rail company when they need to restore service and get the right-of-way open. An outage of this nature on a main track may take days to a month or so to be ready for a crew to re-install the glass, splice and restore that path. Needless to say, this is what redundancy is all about... At 20:54 4/26/02 -0600, you wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:42:21PM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
C) How deep do you want it? ATT put their #5 TCC cable down 4'; no easy task. {But then, we paid for it...}. Will that help when a locomotive lands on it? If it doesn't... it's much harder to fix.
The average locomotive is something above 100 tons. On anything but your usual passenger service, it's common to see at least 2, and up to 4, units on the front (often not all of them are in service or at full capacity).
It's also relatively boxy, nearly flat. Flip it over, cause the front bit to go do into the dirt, and it will make a *lovely* plow. Anyone doubting this should look at aerial footage from news crews after such an accident; things often look like a road-scraper went by.
4' might be deep enough - and it might not, though I'd suspect that it will be protected from most derailments. But, as noted above... 4' costs a lot to accomplish.
If the cost of a derailment-induced outage is low (latency, rerouting, a few minutes of problems while the system reacts), it probably costs a hell of a lot less than burying that many miles of cable 4' deep. Even when you run the averages. And 1' deep probably just isn't going to cut it, as it were. -- ***************************************************************************
Chris Kilbourn wrote:
In the past few years on NANOG, I've noticed a strong correlation between train derailments and network outages. (Not to discount the backhoe correlation in any way of course...)
The question I have is this:
If fiber runs are trenched into the railbed, and we know that trains
go off of the tracks every now and then, what, if anything, is being done to harden the conduit? Fiber is not always trenched. Sometimes fiber is strung on poles next
It is not normaly *in* the railbed. The Right of Way specifies something along the lines of 20 feet in either direction 90' from the mapped path. The fiber is normaly far enough away that a crew can safely work on the fiber and the train can safely (slowly) pass at the same time. the the tracks.
Would trenching it deeper help? Has encasing the conduit in a steel-reinforced channel been examined? Or is there something about The harder you make it for them gremlins to get in, the harder you make it for you to get in when you need to.
laying conduit next to track and the accident modalities that I am just missing here? Sprint stands for Southern Pacific Railroad (INternal Telcom--not sure of that last part...). Guess where Sprint's fiber is?
Given this week's higher frequency of rail accidents and their attendant network disruptions, it seems like the cost/benefit of looking at this issue might have shifted a bit. Trenching where there is not already an existing right of way (This is worse in a urban area) is very expensive. Expensive to the point where you have to have multiple companies go in on the trench to make it even resemble something cost effective. Take a look at the trenching done a few years ago on the San Francisco Penensula for example--Every few hundred feet there are 6 or so manhole covers marked XO, PB, WC, MFN, ATT, etc. Absent from the lineup was Sprint, which has the CalTrain run from SF to Gilroy.
I am surprised that BART does not try to make some quickie bucks by stringing fiber on it's right of way. We can call it Bay Area Rapid (transit) Fiber--BARF. =)
I can only see these right-of-ways becoming increasingly valuable over time and in our post 9/11 environment, this seems to be an area that seems especially vulnerable. The old right-of-ways are for trains. The fact that you can lay fiber is just iceing.
/herb
participants (8)
-
ben hubbard -
blitz -
Chris Kilbourn -
David Lesher -
herb＠tomobiki.urusei.net -
Joel Baker -
Sean Donelan -
Steve Gibbard