One of those stories that is funnier than heck unless you are involved directly.
I surveyed many miles of railroad for CSX a few years back. We always shot the top of rail. I'm not sure I buy that explanation. It would be more difficult to shoot the bottom of the rail unless maybe they just shot the center of the tracks or something....
Dan Patterson, post: 373702, member: 1179 wrote: I surveyed many miles of railroad for CSX a few years back. We always shot the top of rail. I'm not sure I buy that explanation. It would be more difficult to shoot the bottom of the rail unless maybe they just shot the center of the tracks or something....
They could have shot the top of the rail, but had the wrong Range Pole height or wrong height of the Instrument. Could be a combination of errors for that survey crew. Wow they designed that Bridge without an inch to spare. Or does railroad company require a certain cap between the railcar and bottom of the bridge?
Give the boy the benefit of the doubt! They shot what they shot and if the engineers did not understand what they shot they should have asked. If the height was so critical was it clearly marked on the plans so all could verify? I once worked for a survey company that ran 10 crews on mainly construction work. I asked the owner how he kept his cool so well when we got calls about the building in the wrong place or the wall is wrong...... He calmly said, "We are usually correct", which we were when we had a chance to defend. Nobody asked the surveyors in this case that I read. In fact they had moved on so that is another good reason to blame them! My 2 cents, Jp
There should have been some buffer in the design, designing for a couple inches to spare in clearance is just plain dumb. The contractor should have also done the proper checks during construction to verify the required clearance. He would have known the deflection amount in the girders to compute the final numbers. I'd be more interested on why the project went 100% over the contract award amount.
I call total BS, there is no reason they could not lower that track 6"-8" and taper it for 500' I would be willing to bet the elevation of rail will change 6" over the course of 10 years anyway during re-ballasting operations.
I figure CSX is screwed next time the need to re-do a grade crossing, or need something from the DOT.
Can't we all just get along?
The surveyors fault?
Doesn't sound like it to me.
Sounds like the engineers are executing what they learned in the first class they took.
Finger-Pointing 101
The clearance to low chord of a bridge is one of those things that has to looked at, and checked a dozen times by all parties. It could be as simple as a typo, misidentified TBM, a dozen things. Sad.
I had a similar thing happen, twice!!!!
No where near this expensive, but two different engineers designed grades for two different projects using the TBC and used the curb cuts meaning they used the flowline elevation instead of the real Back of Curb, Took photos for both jobs, labeled everything for both jobs just like the book says, but of course it was my fault,,,,,,,,,at least the blame was unsuccessful thrown my way............so I'm dubious..........
Sounds like someone used the top of ballast for the top of rail during the design portion.
Top of curb v. flow line gutter is a nightmare to keep track of.
I would make no comment until I saw the original survey crew's field notes.
I suggest those field notes state exactly what they shot. If they were my crew and probably most others they should have been shooting a complete track cross section at multiple points along the crossing. One might even consider that CSX raised the track profile without disclosing it.
The cross section should have included all swale data, toe of ballast, top of ballast, top end of tie & type of tie, tie plate surface elevation, top of rail, rail section information, repeat in reverse order. Rails wear such that the rail height decreases and CSX should have provided % of rail wear information. Then it would all be repeated per a second benchmark. Nearest up line and down line drainage structure and cross drains are also required. If the crossing were over curved track, one has to be aware of and know the super elevation. Super elevation can increase if higher speed limits are proposed. Increased super elevation is always an up on the outside rail and/or track.
CSX also should have provided a signed and sealed cross section clearance template before design work began. That information should not have been DelDOTs responsibility to search for.
DelDOT should have required CSX to sign off on all design information before bidding the project.
Lastly CSX and DelDOT may have been working from differing benchmarks and/or datums.
Blaming the guy who is not there now is not professional.
Paul in PA
Larry Scott, post: 373726, member: 8766 wrote: Top of curb v. flow line gutter is a nightmare to keep track of.
I tell them to run 1/4' or 1/2' contours in those parking/concrete areas, they will see it immediately, it's not like it's 1986 and the computers will blow up trying to process. But yeah, it can be a pita.
Oddly enough CSX here in Alabama will come and measure for you if you ask. That way you can confirm with them that you have measured the proper differences at the critical points but alas maybe that is only here in the stix.
Mack00079, post: 373748, member: 11516 wrote: Oddly enough CSX here in Alabama will come and measure for you if you ask. That way you can confirm with them that you have measured the proper differences at the critical points but alas maybe that is only here in the stix.
BN&SF has a new bridge here in town just a half mile from the house. During construction the poor contractor (hired by the City) couldn't sneeze without the RR inspectors being up his butt. Every job I've seen over and under rails the RR Co. is usually at least a partial presence.
As for calling the surveyors out for their "mistake"; unless they coded a ground-shot as a "top of rail" shot, they are only partially to blame. Misreading or misinterpreting survey shots is by no means a surveyor's error. Several times others have tried to imply that I had erred by not shooting something specific. While only an oversight in the field, there was probably no data given to the engineer that was actually in error. The engineer's interpretation of field data is paramount to the design. And the surveyor has no control over the engineer's use of the data.
And I can't believe all the expensive boneheads that stood around for a year while that bridge was being built and never checked. The construction management team should always verify critical clearance BEFORE a pour.
Concrete is a lot easier to move when it's in a transit-mix truck....
Word for word from the gentleman at CSX "Son you can measure whatever you want with whatever you want but the only measurement that matters to me is the one my guy is gonna take. That is the one that will go to NTSB."
Mack00079, post: 373751, member: 11516 wrote: Word for word from the gentleman at CSX "Son you can measure whatever you want with whatever you want but the only measurement that matters to me is the one my guy is gonna take. That is the one that will go to NTSB."
The railroad wins every time and twice on Sunday around here. They hold projects hostage, change their minds (DOT plans) just prior to lettings, will not let the DOT fix the crossings when they become rough, etc.
It's done their way, with your time, your money, and changed on a whim. Then they kick your butt in court if you don't assimilate. Early in my career I thought for sure this would some day change, but it hasn't.
Steve
Most likely the bridge plans went through an extensive quality control process. Every feature was reviewed to assure they met the requirement for color, line type, symbol type and size, and Level (Layer). The digital file was checked and rechecked. During construction, many checks most likely were made to assure plan compliance. The only item that appears not to have been checked was the most critical measurement for which the entire project was based. Once again, presentation was held to a higher standard than content. Reviewers are more interested in where the north arrow is on the plans than if it is pointing north. The check list does not have an item for " did someone who actually understands the purpose for the project review the data and processes to determine that the basic project objectives are met". We spend much time meeting the presentation requirements of DOT Projects. I believe in using check list; however, nothing will ever replace common sense and experience. The Golden State bridge was designed and built without Total Stations, Scanners. CAD, COGO or any computer aids. Those people just knew what they were doing.
Standard finger pointing rule no. 1 "It is always the surveyor's fault"
