Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Water, Water Everywhere
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Water, Water Everywhere

730
views

Published on

Presented by Brenda Mainwaring, Union Pacific Railroad

Presented by Brenda Mainwaring, Union Pacific Railroad

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
730
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Spent the most time and money on the transcon route.Greatest risk – loss of our primary routeHighest likelihood of success – the others were almost certain to flood.We would have been underwater north of CB without the work but overall the predictions were far more dire than reality.One significant reason – assumption and supposition at work here – the presence of retired levees. Experts tell me that the Corps model did not include these retired levees because the condition could not be predicted. However, retired Corps employee who lived in the potential flood zone, patrolled the levees and alerted authorities to potential failures. Prevented flooding from the north that had been predicted.We learned the hard way about non-federal levees in Kansas and Missouri.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Union Pacific 2011 Flood Recovery Efforts Brenda Mainwaring, Director Public Affairs1
    • 2. Runoff Components 145%-150% of Normal May - June2
    • 3. Platte River – East of North Platte North Proposed Berm3
    • 4. Platte River – UPRR looking toward airport Kearney Sub North4
    • 5. Platte River – East of North PlatteNorth Proposed Berm5
    • 6. Platte River – Berm construction Nebraska National Guard6
    • 7. Temporary outlets under track Temporary cut through Hwy 30 to improve natural waterway flow7
    • 8. Platte River at North Platte – Height of berm = 3 feet – Length of berm = 3600 feet – Length of haul road = 6000 feet – Additional 36” culverts = 4 – Sandbags placed = 2000 (industrial size) – Sandbags stationed for backup = 800 – 32,106 tons of rip rap for berm (366 cars) – 30,425 tons of ballast/rip rap (340 cars)8
    • 9. Missouri River Runoff above Sioux City9
    • 10. Missouri River Basin10
    • 11. Minneapolis St.Paul Mankato Adams Sheboygan Bill Mason City Milwaukee Le Mars Janesville Kenosha Sioux City S.Morrill W.Chicago Chicago Granger Aurora Mo Valley Joliet Green Grand Council Des Moines River Island Bluffs North Lincoln S.Pekin Platte Falls City Ft. Madison Woodland Jct KansasProvo Bond Denver City Quincy Findlay Jct. Marysville Springfield Helper Sharon Springs Topeka St. Salem Salina Grand Louis Jct. Paola Jefferson Herington City Hutchinson Gorham Poplar Bluff Dexter Terminal Areas Dalhart Line11
    • 12. Traffic to/from major West Coast ports crosses the Basin Traffic to/from Mexican crossings traverse the Basin Seattle Eastport Portland Duluth Twin Cities Chicago OmahaOakland SLC Denver KC St. Louis LA Memphis Calexico Dallas Port access New Nogales El Paso Orleans Border crossings Houston Eagle Pass Laredo Brownsville12
    • 13. Priorities: 1. Protect the “Red X” 2. Protect Missouri line 3. Protect Omaha to Kansas City Minneapolis St.Paul Mankato Adams Sheboygan Bill Mason City Milwaukee Le Mars Janesville Kenosha Sioux City S.Morrill W.Chicago Chicago Granger Aurora Mo Valley Joliet Green Grand Council Des Moines River Island Bluffs North Lincoln S.Pekin Platte Falls City Ft. Madison Woodland Jct KansasProvo Bond Denver City Quincy Findlay Jct. Marysville Springfield Helper Sharon Springs Topeka St. Salem Salina Grand Louis Jct. Paola Jefferson Herington City Hutchinson Gorham Poplar Bluff Dexter Terminal Areas Dalhart13
    • 14. Missouri River Basin Do we need to raise the track and if so, HOW MUCH? • Army Corp model ~Showed river elevation based on max release plus rain fall ~Inundation Maps ~River cross sections • Railroad elevation data ~Precision Measurement Vehicle data (+/- 3-4 feet) ~Survey key locations along route14
    • 15. Yes, we need to raise the track. Now what? • Profile Sheets ~Showing existing grade ~High water level ~Planned track raise ~Bridge work • Surveyors ~Stake track for planned raise • Field Forces work the plan ~…while keeping the track open for rail traffic15
    • 16. Other Tools Used: • Aerial Photos • Google Earth • NOAA website (River Gages) • Local Websites (Atchison River Bridge) • Weather Forecasting (Inflow of Rivers/Streams) • Army Corps of Engineers daily conference call • Regional Army Corps locations (Omaha, Kansas City)16
    • 17. Blair Sub • Blair, Omaha, Sioux City Subdivision 1940-52 levee system – Length of track to raise – Blair to Mo Valley 11 miles – Council Bluffs to Mo Valley 19 miles – Raise Average = 2.88 ft, max. = 6 ft – Raised crossings = 11 Public & 2 Private – Raised turnouts = 32 Missouri Valley – Additional 48” culverts = 6 – Bridges raised = 5 Blair Sub – Aggregate delivered = 1884 Carloads17
    • 18. Council Bluffs and Missouri Valley – Losing the main line through Iowa was not an option – Raised track height through CB federal levee in close coordination with City of Council Bluffs and Corps of Engineers – Water levels did not reach Corps projections but UP would have been under water north of CB if we had not raised the track – Sandbagged Missouri Valley’s water treatment plant and swimming pool/water park Missouri Valley – Coordinated street closures with City of Missouri Valley Blair Sub – Readily available to City officials to voice concerns18
    • 19. Typical Bridge Raise19
    • 20. Blair Sub Track Raise20
    • 21. Missouri Valley yard tracks (foreground) and through tracks (rear). Note elevation difference. Missouri Valley, Canal Street (note valley between tracks)21
    • 22. Borden Road private crossing Joslin Ave was underwater (Private vehicles used UP ROW) Missouri Valley, 6th Street (Hwy L20) Alternate I-29 route22
    • 23. UP track (raised) CN track (rebuilt) Joslin Ave (underwater)23
    • 24. CN Railroad, UP Railroad, Flood line Monument Road, north of Council Bluffs24
    • 25. Railroad Stratigraphy Joslin Avenue at Monument Road, Council Bluffs25
    • 26. Atchison to Leavenworth, Kansas • Preliminary review showed some areas could be 6-9 feet under water. • Decision to monitor and provide a 48hr countdown to take the sub out of service. • With Corps model not having the full impact on mainline, we decided to do what we could to keep the Kansas and Missouri lines open as long as possible.26
    • 27. Falls City Sub MP 313 – MP 320 Non federal levees Federal levee27
    • 28. Fort Leavenworth levee after main track raise of 18”+/- Gage reading: Atchison……….29.3 Leavenworth…..24.9 FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 6/23/201128
    • 29. Fort Leavenworth levee after non federal levee over topped or failed to the north. Gage reading: Atchison……….30.3 Leavenworth…..26.25 UP sandbags on siding FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 6/28/201129
    • 30. Fort Leavenworth levee after sandbags failed on siding. Gage reading: Atchison……….31.0 Leavenworth…..28.0 FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 6/29/201130
    • 31. Fort Leavenworth levee 24 hrs after breach. Gage reading: Atchison……….30.9 Leavenworth…..30.0 FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 6/30/201131
    • 32. Fort Leavenworth levee Gage reading: Atchison……….30.5 Leavenworth…..30.2 FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 7/3/201132
    • 33. Fort Leavenworth levee from access road looking east. Gage reading: Atchison……….30.3 Leavenworth…..30.0 • Falls City Subdivision (Omaha to KC) – Water rose 3 feet in one hour after non-federal levee failure – Reached Corps inundation predictions after levee failure – Total miles raised = 26.62 miles plus 2 miles of sidings – Raise average= 1.4 ft, Max. = 4.55 ft – Raised crossings. = 3 Public & 10 Private – Bridges raised = 4 – Aggregate delivered FALLS CITY SUB MP 313.9 = 1,341 Carloads 7/7/201133
    • 34. River Sub, Kansas City to Jefferson City, MO Shut down for a month34
    • 35. River sub Bridge 240.45BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED IN 2007(4)PCB-119 [SIMN]Gage reading 6/30/2008:Napoleon………(not available)Waverly…….…..20.535
    • 36. AFTER LEVEE BREACH NEAR MP 241.0. THIS LEVEE IS NOT ON FED OR NON FED LIST (FARMER LEVEE) Gage reading: Napoleon………27.3 Waverly…….…..29.5 RIVER SUB MP 240.45 7/3/201136
    • 37. LEVEE BREACH NEAR MP 241.0. THIS LEVEE IS NOT ON FED OR NON FED LIST (FARMER LEVEE) Gage reading: Napoleon……….27.3 Waverly…….…..29.5 RIVER SUB MP 240.45 7/3/201137
    • 38. LEVEE BREACH NEAR MP 241.0. THIS LEVEE IS NOT ON FED OR NON FED LIST (FARMER LEVEE) Gage reading: Napoleon……….27.0 BR 240.45 Waverly…….…..29.9 RIVER SUB MP 239.5 TO MP242.0 7/5/201138
    • 39. LEVEE BREACH NEAR MP 241.0. THIS LEVEE IS NOT ON FED OR NON FED LIST (FARMER LEVEE) BR 240.45 RIVER SUB MP 239.5 TO MP242.0 7/5/201139
    • 40. LEVEE BREACH NEAR MP 241.0. THIS LEVEE IS NOT ON FED OR NON FED LIST (FARMER LEVEE) • River Subdivision BR 240.45 – Total miles raised = 14.4 miles plusTOP OFof 16” +/- OVER 1 mile RAIL sidings – Aggregate delivered = 619 Carloads • Jefferson RIVER SUB MP 239.5 TO MP243.0 City Subdivision 7/5/2011 – Total miles raised = 14.7440 – Aggregate delivered = 276 Carloads
    • 41. Scope of the Work • Estimated cost: $50 million, including both lost revenue and repairs • Flood desk staffed 24-7 from June through August and extra dispatching shifts for flooded areas • 74 mile of mainline track raised as much as 6 feet • 3 miles of siding track raised • 9 bridges raised and cleared • 458,000 tons (4,800 rail cars) of ballast, rip-rap and other stabilizing material • Six dozen pieces of specialized equipment • 90 percent customer satisfaction rating in July • NO injuries or incidents!41
    • 42. Key Takeaways • We had time to plan and react • Years of investment in infrastructure and surge resources (locomotives, crews) paid off • Collaboration with US Army Corps of Engineers resulted in benefits for all • There are LEVEES and there are “levees” • Lessons learned for the future about staging resources for weather emergencies • Improved communication with customers about anticipated traffic problems and proposed solutions42

    ×