Jump to content

Beaver Coach meets railroad


JDCrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Highly unfortunate for the driver. I'm glad he came away with minor injuries as that is a nasty hit.

It is highly fortunate there was no passenger as that looks to have disappeared.

Wish him and his family the best on this one.

A clear reminder to keep my eyes on the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its possible to carry enough liability insurance to replace that bridge and the lost revenue the railroad will incur.  Would be curious if they accept the insurance limit or if they go after personal assets.  The big thing is he is alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nvrtoofast said:

I hadn't thought about the insurance concern but very true. Would figure the railroad carries some sort of insurance to cover that end. However, with insurance liking to go after the "Guilty" party your concern remains valid.

Years ago one of our drivers was hauling a track drill (not ours) behind a dump truck. Chains broke and the drill came off. 
 

The drill was a total loss. The insurance company of the track drill owner paid for the drill, but came after us. But we were not paid, or under contract, just hauling it as a favor for the next job. Was weird how they tried hard, and our natural inclination was to turn it into our insurance, but glad we talked to an attorney. 
 

In this case it’s strange to be that a “new” bridge could be moved even an inch by a 25lb motorhome. What if an 80k semi hit it? It’s is faulty engineering or bad concrete? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Financial liability for the RR bridge

IANAL (“I am not a lawyer”), but I do have experience in asset protection strategies.

”Fire walling” individual assets - whether business or personal, especially individual assets that can run up huge liability claims - is extremely important and a successful strategy to protect your other assets (home, business, cars, bank accounts, etc). 

It is usually inexpensive to put your rig into its own corporation (usually an LLC). If done correctly, your personal financial liability is limited in situations to the rig and its insurance coverage.

Protection  against “piercing the corporate veil” is very important, and, initially, you’ll need advising on how to do that properly. But, in exchange for some minor inconveniences like how you pay for fuel, maintenance, and insurance, you are fire walled quite well. 

This is an excellent example of how a $2M umbrella policy can be blown away by a single vehicle accident.  Now imagine if other vehicles and people were involved.

- John

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update in “RE: Financial liability for the RR bridge”

Showed the photo to my 22 year old son who is a 4th year electrical engineering major…

”You guys are over thinking it.  You just need another motor home to hit the train bridge support from the opposite direction”

:) 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gary Cole said:

The article stated that several engineers inspected the bridge pillar and determined that it had moved 1".

There is an update, I believe they only dropped the weight limit 18k lbs and have a schedule to get it back straight.

Perhaps the wood above moved and inch or the tracks themselves? I don’t overly trust our rinky dink little news here, it’s been overly impressed with engineers, you should see the debacle just 30 miles from here 

 

https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/failed-wickiup-junction-overpass-comes-down-in-la-pine/article_64179736-a618-52a3-b1d7-bd6dc16d10c2.html

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JD That makes more sense. Understanding "typical" Construction that concrete support would have a foundation under it with rebar or similar to connect the two. an 18K lb reduction isn't too bad. shifting the upper section make more sense.

 

Your other engineering marvel is ridiculous. It's why I stopped being an engineer and moved to another career. I'm just a "good" engineer. It's only worth hiring "great" engineers. And sometimes they don't have 4.0 GPAs.

 

Best,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, nvrtoofast said:

JD That makes more sense. Understanding "typical" Construction that concrete support would have a foundation under it with rebar or similar to connect the two. an 18K lb reduction isn't too bad. shifting the upper section make more sense.

 

Your other engineering marvel is ridiculous. It's why I stopped being an engineer and moved to another career. I'm just a "good" engineer. It's only worth hiring "great" engineers. And sometimes they don't have 4.0 GPAs.

 

Best,

Agree 100% it seems that logic or “street” smarts sometimes is lacking. I’ve dug for years down in the area and it’s pumice as far as you can dig down. Why they didn’t do test drillings to see what method was needed (perhaps pilings) would be best. Water table also is around 40-50 ft down, super common knowledge as one only has to look at well logs, and the State has every well log on file. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...