Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With Subsequent

Hazardous Materials Release and Fire

Cherry Valley, Illinois

June 19, 2009

Accident Report

NTSB/RAR-12/01

PB2012-916301 National 

Transportation 

Safety Board
NTSB/RAR-12/01

PB2012-916301

Notation 8145A

Adopted February 14, 2012

Railroad Accident Report

Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With 

Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release and Fire

Cherry Valley, Illinois

June 19, 2009

National 

Transportation 

Safety Board

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594
National Transportation Safety Board. 2012. Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With 

Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release and Fire, Cherry Valley, Illinois, June 19, 2009. Railroad 

Accident Report NTSB/RAR-12/01. Washington, DC.

Abstract: About 8:36 p.m., central daylight time, on Friday, June 19, 2009, eastbound Canadian National 

Railway Company freight train U70691-18, traveling at 36 mph, derailed at a highway/rail grade crossing 

in Cherry Valley, Illinois. The train consisted of 2 locomotives and 114 cars, 19 of which derailed. All of 

the derailed cars were tank cars carrying denatured fuel ethanol, a flammable liquid. Thirteen of the 

derailed tank cars were breached or lost product and caught fire. At the time of the derailment, several 

motor vehicles were stopped on either side of the grade crossing waiting for the train to pass. As a result 

of the fire that erupted after the derailment, a passenger in one of the stopped cars was fatally injured, two 

passengers in the same car received serious injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the 

highway/rail crossing were injured. Two responding firefighters also sustained minor injuries. The release 

of ethanol and the resulting fire prompted a mandatory evacuation of about 600 residences within a 1/2-mile

radius of the accident site. Monetary damages were estimated to total $7.9 million.

As a result of this accident investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes safety 

recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Association of American Railroads, the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National Association of County 

Engineers, the American Public Works Association, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the 

National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Association of State Dam Safety 

Officials, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the 

Canadian National Railway Company. The National Transportation Safety Board also reiterates two 

previously issued recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration and to the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, 

railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by 

Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the 

probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the 

safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board makes public its actions 

and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and 

statistical reviews.

Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about 

available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board

Records Management Division, CIO-40

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594

(800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551

Safety Board publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical 

Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB2012-916301 from:

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, Virginia 22312

(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000

The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence 

or use of Board reports related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter 

mentioned in the report.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

i

Contents

Figures........................................................................................................................................... iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary................................................................................................................... viii

1. Factual Information...................................................................................................................1

1.1 Accident Synopsis......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Accident Narrative ...................................................................................................................1

1.3 Emergency Response .................................................................................................................8

1.3.1 Local Response................................................................................................................8

1.3.2 CN Response .................................................................................................................12

1.3.3 Nicor Gas Response.......................................................................................................12

1.4 Injuries .....................................................................................................................................13

1.5 Damages...................................................................................................................................13

1.5.1 Tank Cars.......................................................................................................................13

1.5.2 Signal, Track, and Structures.........................................................................................13

1.5.3 Total Monetary Damages ..............................................................................................14

1.6 Personnel Information..............................................................................................................14

1.6.1 Crew of Accident Train .................................................................................................14

1.6.2 On-Duty CN Rail Traffic Controller .............................................................................15

1.7 Toxicological Information .......................................................................................................16

1.8 Meteorological Information.....................................................................................................16

1.9 Site Description........................................................................................................................18

1.9.1 General...........................................................................................................................18

1.9.2 Track and Structures......................................................................................................19

1.10 Train and Mechanical Information ........................................................................................19

1.10.1 Accident Train .............................................................................................................19

1.10.2 Derailed Cars...............................................................................................................20

1.11 Hazardous Materials Information ..........................................................................................22

1.12 Postaccident Environmental Monitoring and Remediation ...................................................23

1.12.1 Air Monitoring.............................................................................................................23

1.12.2 Contaminated Soils......................................................................................................24

1.12.3 Water Pollution............................................................................................................24

1.12.4 Waste Disposal ............................................................................................................24

1.13 Pipeline Information ..............................................................................................................25

1.14 Postaccident Inspections and Testing ....................................................................................25

1.14.1 Mechanical Systems ....................................................................................................25

1.14.2 Track ............................................................................................................................26

1.14.3 Signals..........................................................................................................................26

1.14.4 Pipeline ........................................................................................................................27

1.14.5 Derailed Tank Cars......................................................................................................27
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

ii

1.15 Track Inspections in Accident Area.......................................................................................30

1.15.1 CN Track Inspections..................................................................................................30

1.15.2 FRA Track Inspections................................................................................................32

1.15.3 Ultrasonic Rail Testing................................................................................................32

1.16 Previous CN Track Washouts Near Mulford Road ...............................................................32

1.17 Hydrological Information ......................................................................................................33

1.17.1 Rainfall Estimates........................................................................................................33

1.17.2 Culverts........................................................................................................................33

1.17.3 Detention Ponds...........................................................................................................35

1.18 RTC Training and Duties.......................................................................................................39

1.18.1 Training........................................................................................................................39

1.18.2 Duties Related to Weather Alerts................................................................................39

1.19 CN Internal Emergency Communications.............................................................................41

1.20 Train Consist Inaccuracy .......................................................................................................43

1.21 Tests and Research.................................................................................................................45

1.21.1 Tank Car Specimens for Examination.........................................................................45

1.21.2 Tank Car Construction.................................................................................................45

1.21.3 Tank Car Construction Standards................................................................................48

1.21.4 Field Examination........................................................................................................48

1.21.5 Laboratory Examination ..............................................................................................51

1.21.6 Mechanical Testing and Chemical Analysis................................................................51

1.21.7 Locomotive Recorders.................................................................................................53

1.22 Actions Taken Since the Accident.........................................................................................53

1.22.1 Postaccident Actions by the CN ..................................................................................53

1.22.2 Postaccident Actions by the FRA................................................................................55

1.22.3 Postaccident Actions by the AAR ...............................................................................55

1.22.4 Postaccident Actions by Nicor Gas .............................................................................56

1.22.5 Postaccident Actions by the City of Rockford ............................................................57

1.22.6 Postaccident Actions by the Cherry Valley Fire Protection District ...........................57

1.23 Other Information ..................................................................................................................58

1.23.1 Performance of DOT-111 Tank Cars in Accidents .....................................................58

1.23.2 DOT Hazard Communications Initiative.....................................................................59

1.23.3 Pipeline Construction Standards and Regulations.......................................................59

2. Analysis.....................................................................................................................................61

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................61

2.2 Accident Summary...................................................................................................................62

2.3 Emergency Response and Recovery Efforts............................................................................63

2.4 Determination of Point of Derailment .....................................................................................64

2.5 Effectiveness of CN Emergency Communications..................................................................64

2.6 Deficiencies in Postaccident Drug and Alcohol Testing .........................................................66

2.7 CN Weather Alert Policies and Rule X ...................................................................................67

2.8 Performance of the RTC..........................................................................................................68

2.9 Hydrological Information ........................................................................................................70

2.9.1 Breach in Harrison Park SWM Pond 1..........................................................................70

2.9.2 Maintenance of Storm Water Management Detention Ponds .......................................71

2.9.3 Upgrade of Drainage Pipes At Mulford Road ...............................................................72
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

iii

2.10 Accuracy of Train Consist Information .................................................................................73

2.11 Performance of DOT-111 Tank Cars in Accidents................................................................75

2.11.1 Damage to Tank Heads, Shells, and Top Fittings .......................................................75

2.11.2 Bottom Outlet Valves..................................................................................................80

2.11.3 Draft Sill and Sill Pad Attachments.............................................................................81

2.12 Safety Management Systems.................................................................................................83

2.13 Nicor Gas Pipeline .................................................................................................................84

2.13.1 Construction Standards for Pipelines at Railroad Grade Crossings ............................84

2.13.2 Pipeline Hazard Communications ...............................................................................85

3. Conclusions...............................................................................................................................87

3.1 Findings....................................................................................................................................87

3.2 Probable Cause.........................................................................................................................89

4. Recommendations....................................................................................................................90

4.1 New Recommendations...........................................................................................................90

4.2 Reiterated Recommendations ..................................................................................................92

5. Appendixes................................................................................................................................94

5.1 Appendix A: Investigation.......................................................................................................94

5.2 Appendix B: Comprehensive Timeline of Accident Events....................................................95

5.3 Appendix C: Tank Car Safety Recommendation History........................................................99
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

iv

Figures

Figure 1. CN system map showing route from Sioux City, Iowa, to Chicago, Illinois. .................2

Figure 2. A still image produced from deputy sheriff‘s dashboard video recorder looking 

from a point on west berm of Mulford Road facing south. .............................................................5

Figure 3. Aerial view, looking northwest, of derailed tank cars after locomotives and first 58 

cars have been pulled away from wreckage. ...................................................................................7

Figure 4. Looking north along Mulford Road toward burning tank cars at crossing. ....................9

Figure 5. Photo shows storm water debris on the track, near the open deck bridge (0.1 mile 

west of the accident site). Water flow under open deck bridge is also indicated as flowing in 

southeast direction. ........................................................................................................................14

Figure 6. Accident site. .................................................................................................................18

Figure 7. Bottom outlet valve configuration, as modified from original design, for derailed 

CITX and CTCX cars. (Not to scale) The operating handle securing bracket is circled. 

(Adapted from a Trinity Tank Car drawing)..................................................................................21

Figure 8. Bottom outlet valve arrangement (not to scale) used on derailed NATX and TILX 

tank cars. (Adapted from a Trinity Tank Car drawing) .................................................................22

Figure 9. Tank head punctures in two derailed tank cars (outlined with white paint). 

(Federal Railroad Administration photo).......................................................................................27

Figure 10. Breach in tank car NATX 303504. (Federal Railroad Administration photo) ............28

Figure 11. Bottom outlet valve of car CTCX 731599 showing exposed valve and bent but 

intact valve operating handle. Handle retaining bracket is missing. (Valve was opened during 

derailment but was closed by emergency responders.)..................................................................29

Figure 12. Bent valve handle and exposed and partially open bottom outlet valve on car 

NATX 303504. (Federal Railroad Administration photo).............................................................29

Figure 13. Top fitting damage, car TILX 193772. (Overall photo by Trinity Tank Car. Inset 

photo by the CN.)...........................................................................................................................30

Figure 14. Aerial view illustrating CN and UP grade crossings and location of culverts and 

washouts on day of accident. .........................................................................................................34

Figure 15. Aerial view showing location of Harrison Park subdivision detention ponds in 

relation to accident site. .................................................................................................................36
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

v

Figure 16. Postaccident photograph showing breach in SWM pond 1 as viewed from inside 

pond looking south.........................................................................................................................37

Figure 17. View looking north from downstream end of outlet area of SWM detention pond 

1 showing erosion over top of outlet culvert and erosion below outlet. (Photo taken in April 

2008.) .............................................................................................................................................38

Figure 18. Schematic cutaway view (not to scale) of end of tank car showing major 

components. ...................................................................................................................................46

Figure 19. Schematic drawing (not to scale) from below showing body bolster, draft sill, and 

head brace attachment locations to pads on underside of tank cars. Circled areas indicate 

where transverse portions of draft sill are welded adjacent to transverse weld of body bolster 

pad..................................................................................................................................................47

Figure 20. B end of car NATX 303504. .......................................................................................49

Figure 21. Underside of B end of tank car NATX 303504 as viewed from A end. .....................49
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AEI automatic equipment identification

AREA American Railroad Engineering Association

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems

BNSF BNSF Railway

CDT central daylight time

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CN Canadian National Railway Company

CVFPD Cherry Valley Fire Protection District

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DOT-111 Tank cars built to DOT specification 111-A100W1

EMS emergency medical services

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GPS Global Positioning System

HM-ACCESS hazardous materials–automated cargo communications for efficient and 

safe shipments

IC incident command

ksi kips per square inch (1 kip equals 1,000 pounds of force)

MP milepost

NASA-TLX National Aeronautical and Space Administration Task Load Index
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

vii

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWS National Weather Service

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

psig pounds per square inch, gauge

RFD Rockford Fire Department

ROC regional operations coordinator

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration (predecessor to the Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)

RTC rail traffic controller

SWM storm water management

TMDS Train Management Dispatching System

TTML Tensile Testing Metallurgical Laboratory

UP Union Pacific Railroad
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

viii

Executive Summary

About 8:36 p.m., central daylight time, on Friday, June 19, 2009, eastbound Canadian 

National Railway Company freight train U70691-18, traveling at 36 mph, derailed at a 

highway/rail grade crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois. The train consisted of 2 locomotives and 

114 cars, 19 of which derailed. All of the derailed cars were tank cars carrying denatured fuel 

ethanol, a flammable liquid. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were breached or lost product and 

caught fire. At the time of the derailment, several motor vehicles were stopped on either side of 

the grade crossing waiting for the train to pass. As a result of the fire that erupted after the 

derailment, a passenger in one of the stopped cars was fatally injured, two passengers in the same 

car received serious injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the highway/rail 

crossing were injured. Two responding firefighters also sustained minor injuries. The release of 

ethanol and the resulting fire prompted a mandatory evacuation of about 600 residences within a 

1/2-mile radius of the accident site. Monetary damages were estimated to total $7.9 million.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the 

accident was the washout of the track structure that was discovered about 1 hour before the 

train‘s arrival, and the Canadian National Railway Company‘s (CN) failure to notify the train 

crew of the known washout in time to stop the train because of the inadequacy of the CN‘s 

emergency communication procedures. Contributing to the accident was the CN‘s failure to 

work with Winnebago County to develop a comprehensive storm water management design to 

address the previous washouts in 2006 and 2007. Contributing to the severity of the accident was 

the CN‘s failure to issue the flash flood warning to the train crew and the inadequate design of 

the DOT-111 tank cars, which made the cars subject to damage and catastrophic loss of 

hazardous materials during the derailment.

The following safety issues were identified during this accident investigation:

Effectiveness of the CN‘s internal emergency communication system

Effectiveness of the CN‘s weather alert policies and rules

Vulnerability of the DOT-111 tank car shells and fittings to damage and subsequent 

release of lading during derailments

Inspection and maintenance of storm water detention ponds

Accuracy of train consist (a listing of all the cars and their order within the train) 

information

Construction standards for underground pipelines at railroad crossings

Adequacy of storm water drainage system assessment

The CN‘s toxicology and fatigue evaluations
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

ix

As a result of this accident investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board makes 

safety recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Railroad 

Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Association of 

American Railroads, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

the National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works Association, the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, the National League of Cities, the National Association of 

Counties, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the National Association of Towns and 

Townships, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Canadian National Railway Company. The 

National Transportation Safety Board also reiterates two previously issued recommendations to 

the Federal Railroad Administration and to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

1

1. Factual Information

1.1 Accident Synopsis

About 8:36 p.m., central daylight time,1on Friday, June 19, 2009, eastbound Canadian 

National Railway Company (CN) freight train U70691-18 (the accident train) derailed at a 

highway/rail grade crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois. The train consisted of 2 locomotives and 

114 cars, 19 of which derailed. All of the derailed cars were tank cars carrying denatured fuel 

ethanol, a flammable liquid. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were breached or lost product and 

caught fire. At the time of the derailment, several motor vehicles were stopped on either side of 

the grade crossing waiting for the train to pass. As a result of the fire that erupted after the 

derailment, a passenger in one of the stopped cars was fatally injured, two passengers in the same 

car received serious injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the highway/rail 

crossing were also injured. Two responding firefighters also sustained minor injuries. The release 

of ethanol and the resulting fire prompted a mandatory evacuation of about 600 residences within 

a 1/2-mile radius of the accident site. Monetary damages were estimated to total $7.9 million.

1.2 Accident Narrative

The accident train was initially assembled at an ethanol plant in Tara, Iowa, on 

June 19, 2009. The train departed the Tara plant about 5:55 a.m., with two locomotives pulling 

one ―buffer‖ car containing gravel2and 75 tank cars loaded with a total of 2,158,724 gallons of 

denatured fuel ethanol. After a crew change in Waterloo, Iowa, the train arrived at Dubuque, 

Iowa, where another two-member crew (engineer and conductor) was assigned to take the train 

about 175 miles from Dubuque (milepost [MP] 183.2) to Hawthorne Yard (MP 8.9) near 

Chicago, stopping along the way at Freeport, Illinois, MP 115.6, to add more cars to the train: 

2 loads and 36 empties. (See figure 1.) Along the route, the train would pass through Rockford, 

Illinois, then through the village of Cherry Valley, Illinois,3at about MP 80.4

 

1 All times in the report are central daylight time. 

2

Federal regulations prohibit positioning a hazardous materials car (such as one containing ethanol) next to a

locomotive, so a nonhazardous materials car was used as a buffer.

3

The village of Cherry Valley is about 10 miles southeast of Rockford, Illinois. Cherry Valley residents 

generally consider the village to be a suburb of Rockford.

4 Milepost numbers decreased from west to east.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

2

Figure 1. CN system map showing route from Sioux City, Iowa, to Chicago, Illinois.

The accident train crew went on duty at 2:00 p.m. on June 19, 2009, at the CN Dubuque 

yard. After receiving the paperwork for the train at the yard office and conducting a job briefing,5

the two crewmembers were transported to the train. The dispatcher‘s records indicated that the 

train departed Dubuque at 2:28 p.m. via the CN‘s Dubuque Subdivision, which would take the 

train over the Mississippi River into Illinois where it would traverse several miles of BNSF 

Railway (BNSF) track before going back onto CN property.

As instructed, the crew stopped at Freeport, Illinois, MP 115.6, to pick up the additional 

cars (2 loads and 36 empties) that had been assembled and staged on a passing track. The 

additional cars were added to the head end of the train. The train then consisted of two 

locomotives; cars 1 through 39, which were an assortment of boxcars and other nontank cars; 

and cars 40 through 114, which were tank cars containing ethanol.

 

5

A job briefing typically includes a discussion about where the crew will work, the train‘s consist, and any 

track warrants and bulletins from the various territories over which the crew would be operating that day.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

3

While the train was operated between Dubuque and Freeport, and later while the cars 

were added at Freeport, the rail traffic controller (RTC) who was the on-duty train dispatcher6at

the CN‘s Southern Operations Control Center in Homewood, Illinois, (about 100 miles southeast 

of Cherry Valley) received two severe weather alert bulletins for areas along the train‘s route. 

The first AccuWeather7bulletin, Alert No. 1055—Thunderstorm Watch, was received at 

5:34 p.m. and was effective until 10:00 p.m. The alert reported the following:

Severe Thunderstorm Watch: Wind Gusts to 70 mph and localized flash flooding 

conditions: Freeport Sub-Division MP 74 to MP 108 [which incorporated the 

Cherry Valley area].

About 1 hour later, at 6:36 p.m., the RTC received a second severe weather alert, Alert 

No. 3146—Flash Flood Warning. The alert was effective until 10:40 p.m. and stated the 

following:

Rain and storms continue on track with rainfall rates approaching 2 inches/[hour]

in the heaviest storms. Look for total rain accumulation of 2.5–5 inches. Watch 

out for water on the tracks and possible washouts.[8]

This alert was in effect for the Freeport Subdivision from MP 50 to MP 115 (which incorporated 

the Cherry Valley area) and for the Dubuque Subdivision from MP 116 to MP 128.

The CN operating rule book and special instructions that were in effect for the Freeport 

and Dubuque Subdivisions at that time included Rule X, which required that, ―When weather 

warnings are received, the RTC will notify all trains and terminals in the warning area.‖ In the 

case of flash flood warnings, ―trains [will] operate prepared to stop short of obstructions.‖

The CN further required RTCs, after receiving warnings of flash flooding meeting a 

criteria of 2 inches of rain in 1 hour, 3 inches in 2 hours, or 4 inches in 4 hours, to notify track 

personnel in the area to inspect track before a train‘s arrival, to advise trains in the affected area 

of the warnings, and to advise train crews to proceed at a speed that allows the train to stop 

within one-half the range of vision until the track is inspected or the track supervisor has given 

permission to resume normal operation. (The CN‘s weather policies and procedures are 

discussed in more detail later in this report.)

At 7:16 p.m., the conductor of the accident train called the RTC by radio from Freeport 

requesting authorization to continue eastbound. The RTC issued track authority giving the train 

track rights through Rockford and Cherry Valley, but he did not advise the crew of the weather 

alerts that he had received and that were in effect for territory over which the accident train 

would be operating. At 7:21 p.m., the train crew again made radio contact with the RTC to 

request a signal indication that would allow the train to depart Freeport. During this 

conversation, which lasted about 3 minutes, the RTC did not mention the weather alerts. 

 

6 Within the CN system, train dispatchers are referred to as rail traffic controllers.

7

AccuWeather is a for-profit company that provides weather forecasting services to clients worldwide.

8

A washout is the loss of supportive ballast or subballast structure underneath the track, caused by erosion from 

moving water, that compromises the ability of the track to support the safe passage of a train.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

4

Meanwhile, several people in the vicinity of the CN South Mulford Road (referred to 

hereinafter as Mulford Road) grade crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois, noted that high water 

conditions were affecting the tracks and notified authorities. At 7:35 p.m., a citizen called the 

Rockford, Illinois, police department to report flooding of the CN railroad track in the vicinity of 

the Mulford Road grade crossing. About that same time, a citizen with experience in transporting 

hazardous materials observed the washout condition. He said he was aware that railroads 

normally posted their contact information at all grade crossings but that he could not find the 

contact information at the Mulford Road crossing,9so he called 911 instead. This first call to the 

Winnebago County 911 center, at 7:40 p.m., was followed by several additional calls over the 

next 10 to 15 minutes, with some of the callers reporting that ―the track is washing away.‖ At 

7:52 p.m., a citizen called to report that water was ―going under the tracks.‖

At 8:03 p.m., the Winnebago County sheriff‘s office learned that the Rockford Police 

Department had no one available and dispatched a Winnebago County deputy sheriff to 

investigate.

While the dispatched deputy was en route to the scene, a deputy in the 911 center then 

attempted to identify the owner of the tracks to report the washout. At 8:09 p.m., the 911 deputy 

called the BNSF and was informed that it was not BNSF track. At 8:10 p.m., he contacted the 

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) (whose track crosses Mulford Road about 500 feet north of the CN 

crossing) and advised the UP that its track was washed out. The UP employee who received the 

call told the deputy that UP dispatchers would hold all their trains.10

The deputy sheriff dispatched to investigate the reports arrived at the scene at 8:14 p.m. 

to find a washout condition just west of the CN crossing. He reported his finding back to the 

Winnebago County 911 center. By this time, the track had been identified as belonging to the 

CN, and at 8:16 p.m., a deputy in the county 911 center contacted the CN Police Emergency Call 

Center in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and spoke with the police officer staffing the call desk. The 

deputy informed the call desk officer that a major storm with flash flooding had occurred in the 

Rockford, Illinois, area and that ―water has washed out rail lines that do belong to you‖ near 

Mulford Road. 

The call desk officer attempted to contact the RTC for the affected area by phone, but the 

line was busy. After several unsuccessful attempts to reach the RTC, the call desk officer asked 

another call desk officer to keep trying to contact the RTC. Meanwhile, the first call desk officer

attempted to reach the CN chief dispatcher at Homewood by phone in an attempt to have him

relay the information to the RTC. 

At 8:23 p.m., the deputy sheriff sent to Mulford Road to investigate the complaint 

advised his dispatcher that ―both tracks are washed out about 6 to 8 feet beneath the tracks.‖ A

forward-facing video camera on the deputy‘s patrol car was operating at the time and captured 

video images of the washout area. The video depicted a section of track and roadbed about

 

9

According to the CN signals supervisor, the contact information had been posted on the signal bungalow. 

When the bungalow was replaced during a crossing upgrade, the contact information had not been reposted. 

10 In response to this notification, UP track inspectors were directed to the scene where they found a washout 

area (smaller than the washout affecting the CN tracks) just to the west of the Mulford Road grade crossing, along 

with several other washout areas nearby. These washouts were repaired before the UP track was reopened to traffic.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

5

17 feet long along the west side of Mulford Road where water was rushing under the track. (See 

figure 2.)

Figure 2. A still image produced from deputy sheriff’s dashboard video recorder looking from a 

point on west berm of Mulford Road facing south. 

The water flow had washed the ballast section out from under the track beginning at a 

point about 4 feet from the west edge of Mulford Road. The track structure was hanging, with no 

support under the crossties and rail. The video showed about 10 crossties spiked to the rails that 

were suspended about 1 foot above the flowing water. Weeds and other debris visible against the 

north side of the rail and ties indicated that the water level had originally been even higher.

Around this time, at 8:17 p.m., as the accident train approached the signal at a rail

crossing in Rockford, MP 85.6, the crew contacted the RTC to request a proceed signal.11 After 

talking with the RTC, the crew received a favorable signal and continued eastbound. The 

dispatching system recorded that the train entered the rail crossing at Rockford at 8:18 p.m.

At 8:32 p.m., a CN police dispatcher at the Emergency Call Center in Montreal called the 

Winnebago County 911 deputy back to confirm the location as Mulford Road and to report that 

the railroad would be ―sending someone out.‖ 

 

11 Under a traffic control system, train dispatchers have the capability to control certain wayside signals 

remotely.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

6

The accident train continued to operate eastbound from Freeport to the Rockford area, a 

distance of about 30 miles. The crew told investigators that as they traveled through Rockford, 

they noticed high water near the Rockford Diamond (a junction of tracks). The conductor stated 

that water was not over the rails at that point but that it was near the top of the rails. The crew 

encountered high water again about 1/2 mile east of MP 81. The conductor said he then 

contacted the RTC to report the high water at the Rockford Diamond and MP 81. CN records 

indicate that the RTC received the radio transmission from the conductor at 8:35 p.m.

While moving through the Rockford area, and traversing the rail crossing at Rockford, 

the engineer operated the train between 17 and 18 mph and continued at that speed range after 

observing and reporting the high-water conditions. After the train crested the hill at MP 81.2, the 

engineer placed the train in throttle position 6 and increased the speed to 36 mph. The crew 

reported no unusual track conditions in the authorized 50-mph territory through Cherry Valley.

As the train approached Mulford Road, the train was operating on straight track with a 

slightly descending grade. According to postaccident interviews, the conductor was seated at his 

desk on the left side of the locomotive cab facing forward; the engineer was seated at the 

controls on the right side of the cab (south side of the locomotive), also facing forward and 

activating the locomotive horn for the approach to the Mulford Road crossing. Locomotive event 

recorder data showed that the horn and bell were in the ―On‖ position at 8:34:15 p.m. The crew 

stated that they could see that the lights and flashers at the grade crossing were activated and that 

the gates were down.

When the head end of the train was about 57 car lengths past Mulford Road, the train was 

traveling about 36 mph when the brake pipe pressure decreased from 86 psi to 80 psi. According 

to event recorder data, the train-initiated emergency brake application occurred at 8:35:58 p.m., 

and the throttle position changed from 6 to 0. Thirty seconds later, at 8:36:28 p.m., the train 

stopped. About this same time, the RTC was calling the Edmonton Walker Call Desk to relay the 

reports from the train of water over the rails at the Rockford Diamond and at MP 81. In response 

to this call, the Edmonton Walker Call Desk dispatched a track inspector to the area. 

At 8:42, the train engineer radioed the RTC that the train had gone into emergency 

between MP 80 and 81. The conductor said that when the train stopped, he dismounted the 

locomotive and began walking back to determine the cause of the brake application. He said that 

after walking back about 39 cars, he saw an ―orange glow‖ in the sky and sparks rising from the 

rear of his train. He said he decided it was unsafe to go any farther and notified the engineer by 

radio before returning to the locomotive. At 8:55 p.m., the track inspector who had been 

dispatched by the Edmonton Walker Call Desk (in response to the RTC‘s report of high water) 

called the RTC and asked for authority to inspect the track from MP 79 eastbound. The RTC told 

the track inspector that he could follow the train that had reported the high water, the accident 

train, which at that point was not known to have derailed. About 8:59 p.m., the engineer 

contacted the RTC to report what the conductor had seen, which was a fire possibly involving an 

ethanol car about 58 or 59 cars from the head end. The RTC then called the CN Police 

Emergency Call Center and relayed the report. 

The investigation determined that the locomotives and the lead 58 cars, roughly the east 

half of the train, separated from the derailed cars near the crossing. The separation occurred 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

7

between the 58th and 59th cars (the 19th and 20th tank cars) on the train. The 57th and 58th 

cars—the rear two tank cars of the head end portion of the train that stopped east of the 

crossings—had partially derailed (two of the north wheels on each car) but remained upright. 

Seventeen tank cars—the 59th through 75th cars on the train—derailed, with 15 of those cars 

contributing to a 400-foot-long pileup that engulfed the grade crossing. (See figure 3.) Shortly 

after the accident, the forward portion of the train, including the two derailed tank cars at the rear 

of the forward portion, was pulled away from the wreckage.

Figure 3. Aerial view, looking northwest, of derailed tank cars after locomotives and first 58 cars 

have been pulled away from wreckage.

At 8:40 p.m., the first CN call desk officer in Montreal reached the chief dispatcher at the 

Homewood control center, and about this same time, the second call desk officer made telephone 

contact with the RTC. The second call desk officer reported to the RTC that, ―apparently we‘ve 

got some flooding in the Rockfield [sic], Illinois, area on the Freeport sub.‖ The RTC then asked, 

―Rockford, Illinois?‖ After the caller checked with the first call desk officer and confirmed that 

the correct location was Rockford, the RTC said, ―I have the report of water over the rails—a 

train [the accident train] reported it already.‖ The call lasted about 30 seconds. Neither the call 

desk officer nor the RTC used the term ―washout‖ in their communication with each other, and 

the location of Mulford Road was not specified. The term ―washout‖ was also not used in the 

conversation between the first call desk officer and the chief dispatcher at Homewood.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

8

1.3 Emergency Response

1.3.1 Local Response

At 8:36 p.m., callers began contacting local emergency response authorities to report the 

incident.12 At 8:36 p.m., a cell phone call reported a ―bus/truck‖ fire at the crossing. One minute 

later, at 8:37 p.m., several other callers reported the derailment. The Winnebago County 911 

Emergency Call Center received a total of 19 calls reporting the accident.

At 8:38 p.m., Rockford 911 Dispatch began dispatching resources of the Rockford Fire 

Department (RFD). About a minute later, Rockford 911 issued a secondary, or follow-up, 

dispatch13 of resources of the Cherry Valley Fire Protection District (CVFPD), which 

immediately responded. The first responding CVFPD resource arrived at the scene at 8:46 p.m., 

followed shortly by additional responding CVFPD units and mutual aid resources from 

neighboring communities. The CVFPD chief subsequently determined that the incident had 

actually occurred within the jurisdiction of Cherry Valley rather than Rockford.

With his arrival on scene, the CVFPD chief assumed the role of incident commander. He 

observed from a distance obvious major fire involvement over a relatively widespread area. The 

characteristics of discharging flame suggested a ―pressure fire.‖14 Flames were impinging on 

several nonburning tank cars in proximity to the burning cars, and the chief stated that he heard 

numerous pressure relief valves15 opening.

By this time, the flames extended several hundred feet into the air. (See figure 4.) It was 

not known if the pressure relief valves on the derailed and overturned tank cars were either 

damaged or inoperable. It was not known if any pressure tank cars16 were involved in the 

wreckage pileup. At that point, responders did not know the contents of the burning cars because 

the placards indicating contents were not readily visible. They also did not know if any 

locomotives or train crew might be involved.

 

12 The information in this section is based on incident response data and communications information supplied 

by the emergency service agencies involved, as well as on individual interviews with key personnel of the 

emergency services agencies and the railroad.

13 A follow-up dispatch can occur when an event location is at or close to the boundary with another emergency 

response jurisdiction. The operational protocol prescribes that the agency closest to the physical location of the event 

should be expediently dispatched to the scene.

14 Characteristics of a pressure fire include a ―focused‖ flame indicating that the substance fueling the fire is 

under pressure as it is ignited.

15 Tank cars are equipped with valves designed to open automatically to relieve pressure and prevent a tank 

rupture in the event that excess heat or other factors cause pressure within the tank to rise to a dangerous level.

16 Pressure tank cars are designed to carry chemicals or petroleum products under pressures usually exceeding 

100 pounds per square inch. The ethanol being transported by train U70691-18 was not under pressure during 

regular transit. It is permissible to transport denatured ethanol in both general service and pressure tank cars.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

9

Figure 4. Looking north along Mulford Road toward burning tank cars at crossing.

From his vantage point on the north side of the site, the CVFPD chief could see several 

motor vehicles in the roadway on the north side of the tracks near the grade crossing; however, 

no determination could be made as to whether any of the vehicles had been damaged by the 

derailing railcars or the subsequent fire. The chief said he assumed that a similar situation 

(vehicles stopped in a queue that may have been directly affected by the derailment and fire) 

existed on the south side of the grade crossing.

The nearest dwelling was about 600 feet from the derailed equipment. The closest 

building to the site was a commercial facility on the south side of the tracks about 300 feet from 

the crossing. The business was closed at the time of the accident, and the building was 

unoccupied.

The CVFPD chief requested a mutual aid response to the scene, including an RFD

hazardous materials response team with a decontamination unit. He also established an initial 

incident command (IC) at the intersection of Mulford Road and Abbington Court, about 

1,400 feet north of the fire perimeter. By radio, he advised the next responding fire department 

chief, who was an RFD responder, to set up an initial south sector command at the intersection of 

Mulford Road and Sandy Hollow Road, about 900 feet south of the fire perimeter.

A situation report from the south sector command to the CVFPD chief indicated major 

fire involvement with multiple railroad tank cars burning. South of the crossing, several vehicles 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

10

were in the roadway near the derailed equipment, with one vehicle on fire. An emergency 

medical services (EMS) crew was attending to several injured persons.

At this time, responders had not been able to identify the contents of the tank cars or to 

determine whether pressurized rail tank cars were involved. Based on the volume of fire 

involvement and the observation of flame discharge from the pressure relief devices, the CVFPD 

chief consulted the 2008 Emergency Response Guidebook and determined that the area needed to 

be evacuated. At 9:02 p.m., the CVFPD chief contacted RFD Dispatch to implement a 

mandatory evacuation within a radius of about 1/2 mile from the fire perimeter. The evacuation 

was to be executed by the local law enforcement personnel.

At 9:09 p.m., RFD Dispatch advised the CVFPD chief that the CN had informed the RFD 

that the tank cars contained ethanol. Based on that information, the CVFPD chief requested that 

RFD Dispatch locate quantities of fire-suppressing foam. A few minutes later, at 9:12 p.m., RFD 

Dispatch notified the IC that the railroad indicated that only one tank car contained ethanol. In 

order to make a positive identification of the contents of the burning rail cars, the IC initiated a 

search for the train crew. The crew would have a train consist (a listing of all the cars and their 

order within the train) as well as the shipping papers17 for the hazardous materials being carried. 

Shortly before 9:50 p.m., a firefighter notified the IC that the crew had been located and that the 

two crewmembers were on their way to the IC with the train‘s shipping papers.

At 10:10 p.m., law enforcement officers requested fire department help in implementing 

the mandatory evacuation. Fire companies and an ambulance were dispatched to assist in the 

effort. About 10:30 p.m., two CN dangerous goods officers arrived on scene and became 

hazardous materials liaisons to the fire departments. The officers provided additional guidance 

for the incident response.

About 10:20 p.m., the two CN crewmembers arrived at the IC post and presented the 

train consist and the hazardous materials shipping papers documenting that the tank cars 

contained ethanol. Upon receipt of the shipping papers, the IC recognized that the car positions 

shown on the printed train consist were not correct based on the visual identification of the cars 

in the pileup. It was not until 1:22 a.m. the next morning that the IC received an e-mail from the 

CN containing the correct consist. (Errors in the train consist are discussed in detail in the ―Train 

Consist Inaccuracy‖ section of this report.)

Having learned that the source of the fire was ethanol, the incident commander

considered the following factors: (1) the volume of burning cargo, (2) the fact that extinguishing 

the fire would require large quantities of foam, which were not available on short notice, (3) the 

overall topography of the widespread wreckage pileup, (4) the fact that the fire no longer was an 

immediate hazard to life or property, and (5) the fact that the fire would consume the cargo 

content, which would help reduce the effects of a hazardous materials product release into the 

 

17 As required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 Subpart C, each shipper of a hazardous 

material must provide a properly prepared shipping paper that, at a minimum, identifies the material by its proper 

shipping name, hazard class or division number, identification number, packing group (if any), and total quantity. 

Additional hazard warning and handling information, such as ―Poisonous–Inhalation Hazard,‖ must be also entered 

on the shipping paper.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

11

environment. Based on these considerations, the incident commander decided to allow the cargo 

content to burn itself out; the CN dangerous goods officers concurred with this decision.

After about 1/2 hour at the IC, the two train crewmembers were asked by IC and CN 

personnel to return to their locomotive and move the train forward a short distance to provide a 

greater separation between the fire and the remaining (nonburning) railcars of the train. The two 

crewmembers returned to the train, and the train was subsequently pulled forward a short 

distance.

About 11:00 p.m., two CVFPD firefighters, using an off-road vehicle, were assigned to 

check the area southeast of the accident site for fire and to determine the location and condition 

of the remaining railcars of the train. During that mission, the firefighters were apparently 

exposed to toxic fumes, with one of them experiencing disorientation. The two firefighters were 

subsequently transported, as a precautionary measure, to a local medical facility for evaluation.

The IC principals had seen yellow fiberglass warning markers in the vicinity of Mulford 

Road near the accident site indicating the presence of an underground natural gas pipeline in the 

area. They were not aware of the specifics of the pipeline, such as its exact location, its size and 

product pressure, and how deep it was buried. Because the incident commander believed 

underground natural gas pipelines are typically buried deep enough to be protected from the 

impact of a heavy surface vehicle making forceful contact with the soil, he was not immediately 

concerned that the integrity of the pipeline might be threatened by the derailment and wreckage 

pileup. The IC was also in possession of map documentation received from a pipeline training 

contractor that did not indicate the presence of a pipeline in that area. About midnight, as a 

precautionary measure, one of the IC officers made an inquiry to Nicor Gas,18 the local pipeline 

operator, for information about the pipeline. Nicor Gas personnel reported that no gas pipelines 

were located in that area and that the closest gas main pipeline was about 0.7 mile south of the 

accident site.19

By midday on June 20, 2009, the ethanol was substantially burned off, and it was 

expected that the fire would self-extinguish within a few hours. At 5:00 p.m. on June 20, the IC 

declared that all fires were extinguished. At 5:30 p.m., the IC suspended the mandatory 

evacuation, and about 8:00 p.m., released mutual aid resources. The CVFPD firefighting 

resources stood by, monitoring the situation throughout the night and through the following day 

in case the fire rekindled.

At 5:00 p.m. on June 21, after conferring with principals of the CN, the shipper, and other 

responding organizations about the status of the event, the incident commander terminated the 

on-scene operations.

A total of 35 separate fire department entities with 250 personnel and about 80 vehicles 

responded or were part of the mutual aid response. Additionally, the Winnebago County 

 

18 Northern Illinois Gas was formed in 1954. In 1997, Northern Illinois Gas began operating its natural gas 

business as Nicor Gas. 

19 This information provided to the IC by Nicor Gas was incorrect, and was based on a clerk‘s misreading a 

map. As noted in the report, in response to an inquiry from the CN about 6 hours later, Nicor corrected its error and 

stated that it did have a pipeline located at the accident site.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

12

Sheriff‘s Department responded with 20 units (officers), which were supported by resources 

from 31 other law enforcement agencies.

1.3.2 CN Response

The CN activated its emergency response plan, which resulted in CN technical personnel 

and equipment resources being dispatched to the scene. Corporate resources that responded 

included CN environmental and dangerous goods (hazardous materials) responders, CN police, 

CN freight claims and damage prevention personnel, and CN operational personnel. Through 

execution of its ―Foam Bank‖ program, the CN identified the closest source of fire suppression 

foam and arranged for quantities to be brought to the scene. Although the IC made the decision 

(in consultation with the CN) to allow the fire to self-extinguish while the foam was en route, the 

foam supplies were delivered to the scene and were available had they been needed.

About 6:30 a.m. on June 20, the CN contacted Nicor Gas and, to follow up the IC‘s

inquiry, asked the pipeline operator about a natural gas pipeline possibly being located at the 

accident site. Upon rechecking their data, Nicor Gas personnel responded that, contrary to their 

earlier report, there was a 12-inch natural gas transmission pipeline20 at the accident site. The IC 

was not concerned that the pipeline had been breached because about 10 hours had elapsed since 

the accident occurred without any indication that the pipeline was leaking gas.

1.3.3 Nicor Gas Response

About 7:06 a.m. on June 20, Nicor Gas dispatched several technical representatives to the 

accident scene to support the wreckage recovery and clean-up operations and to prevent 

excavation damage to its natural gas pipeline during those activities. The representatives located 

the exact path of the pipeline, which also served as a distribution pipeline in that area, and 

subsequently advised that their instrumentation, which they installed within a vault located near 

the site, indicated no pressure drop in the pipeline. Subsequent indications from responding 

technical representatives confirmed that the pipeline had not been breached.

Since the loaded tank cars derailed west of the crossing on a section of unsupported track 

over the washout area, and the east edge of the washout was adjacent to and above the location 

of the natural gas pipeline, the derailed equipment fell into the void caused by the washout and 

dug in close to the location of the pipeline. When investigators observed the derailed equipment 

near the pipeline and the west edge of the crossing, the gas pipeline was not exposed but covered 

in debris from the derailment and soil movement from the washout. The railroad equipment 

recovery contractor, at the request of and under the direction of Nicor Gas, excavated the 

pipeline and found that a railcar wheel and axle assembly had impinged on the pipeline, severely 

denting it. Further excavation revealed a flattening of the 16-inch-diameter steel casing21 that 

surrounded the pipeline, with sharp angular bends at two locations where it made contact with

 

20 In general, transmission lines are larger diameter and higher pressure lines used to transport gas between 

states, counties, cities, and towns. Distribution pipelines are usually smaller diameter and lower pressure lines used 

to deliver gas directly to local homes and businesses.

21 Pipeline casings have historically been used at road and railroad crossings to accommodate higher dead and 

live loads and to help prevent third-party damage to the pipeline.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

13

the rail car wheel assembly. Nicor Gas continued a technical representation presence at the 

accident site for several additional days.

1.4 Injuries

As a result of the product release and fire after the derailment, one person was killed, 

three people were seriously injured, and six people, including two emergency responders, 

received minor injuries. (See table 1.) Among the seven civilians who were transported by EMS 

or who self-transported to local medical facilities for examination and treatment, three sustained

life-threatening burn injuries; three had minor burn injuries; and one sustained a minor strain or 

sprain injury. The one fatality from the accident had been in the first vehicle stopped in the queue 

on the south side of the grade crossing. That person suffered fatal burn injuries.

Table 1. Injuries.

Injury TypeaTrain crew Citizens Emergency 

Responders Total

Fatal 0 1 0 1

Serious 0 3 0 3

Minor 0 4 2 6

Total 0 8 2 10

a

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 840.2 defines fatality as the death of a person either at the time an accident occurs or 

within 24 hours thereafter. 

1.5 Damages

1.5.1 Tank Cars

Fifteen of the 19 derailed cars were destroyed in the accident and subsequent fire. The 

four other derailed cars were damaged but deemed repairable. The CN eventually reported the 

total equipment cost at $1,292,460.

1.5.2 Signal, Track, and Structures

As a result of the derailment, about 1,230 feet of the main track was destroyed, which 

required the installation of 31 1/2 track panels.22 An open deck timber bridge23 spanning a small 

creek west of Mulford Road received washout damage that pushed the east retaining wall 

inward. No other damage to the bridge was evident or reported. To the west of the bridge, about 

0.1 mile from the accident site, debris was found deposited on the top of the track structure. The 

direction of water flow and the debris area are shown in figure 5. The CN reported the track and 

 

22 Track panels are generally 39 feet long and are preconstructed of two rails affixed to crossties.

23 An open deck timber bridge is one in which the rails are affixed to timber bridge crossties supported by 

longitudinally aligned timber stringers with no ballast section supporting the actual track on the bridge span.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

14

structures damages at $437,706. Damages to the highway/rail grade crossing warning system 

were reported at $125,000.

Figure 5. Photo shows storm water debris on the track, near the open deck bridge (0.1 mile 

west of the accident site). Water flow under open deck bridge is also indicated as flowing in 

southeast direction.

1.5.3 Total Monetary Damages

The CN estimated the total monetary damages at $7.9 million, including an estimated 

loss of lading of $900,000 and wreckage removal of about $300,000.

1.6 Personnel Information

1.6.1 Crew of Accident Train

The crew of the accident train consisted of an engineer and a conductor. CN train and 

engine personnel are required to take operating rules classes every 3 years. Both crewmen had 

attended rules classes and were qualified on railroad operating rules. Both crewmen stated that 

they were aware of the requirements of Rule X for unusual weather conditions and weather 

alerts.

When the crew went on duty on the day of the accident, they had been off duty more than 

10 hours. In their interviews with investigators, they indicated they were rested and in 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

15

compliance with the hours-of-service regulations. Both crewmembers were in good health and 

neither one was taking any prescription or nonprescription medications at the time of the 

accident. The crew told investigators that leading up to the accident, their workload had been 

normal.

Engineer. The engineer, age 49, was hired as a brakeman on February 22, 1994. He was 

promoted to conductor on March 8, 1994, and promoted to locomotive engineer on October 31, 1996. 

His most recent operating rules classes were on March 17, 2008. During the previous 12 months, 

the engineer had received 34 efficiency tests24 on the railroad operating rules with no failures. 

The CN did not have a specific efficiency test for Rule X.

The engineer stated that he had traversed the accident territory numerous times as a 

brakeman or conductor. While the accident trip was his first time operating a train eastbound

from Dubuque to Chicago as an engineer, he had previously operated trains as an engineer in the 

westbound direction.

Conductor. The conductor, age 47, was hired on August 22, 2008, as a conductor. He 

attended operating rules classes on that date. During the previous 12 months, he had been 

efficiency tested on carrier operating rules five times with no failures. As a conductor, he had 

made 10 trips (6 westbound and 4 eastbound) through Cherry Valley.

1.6.2 On-Duty CN Rail Traffic Controller

The on-duty RTC, age 24, was hired on November 27, 2006, as a CN rail traffic 

controller. Before becoming an RTC, he had worked about 8 months for the UP railroad as a 

tower operator in the Chicago area. At the time of the accident, the RTC had been dispatching 

CN trains for about 2 1/2 years.

The RTC was initially trained and qualified to dispatch trains on desk 7 (Iowa zone).25 He 

later became qualified to dispatch trains on desk 1 (Chicago terminal).26 At the time of the 

accident, the RTC worked a shift that required that he work both desks simultaneously. The RTC 

worked at a single location that had two monitors: one for desk 1 and one for desk 7. His 

responsibilities on the combined desks included a traffic control system27 and dark (nonsignaled)

territory. The dispatcher who had trained the RTC said he believed that the accident RTC was 

one of the better students and he (the trainer) did not have any concerns about his ability to 

dispatch the combined desks. Since becoming a train dispatcher, the RTC had not been cited for 

a dispatching violation. Management and coworkers who were interviewed regarded him as a 

professional employee and a conscientious worker.

 

24 An efficiency test is a documented observation as a regulatory requirement. During this testing, an employee 

is observed to assess compliance with railroad company operating or safety rules.

25 ―Desk‖ generally refers to the specific territory each RTC is required to dispatch. Desk 7 included CN 

consecutive subdivisions from Council Bluffs, Iowa, into the Chicago area. Desk 7 responsibilities involved freight 

train traffic exclusively.

26 Desk 1 included various subdivisions terminating into the greater Chicago area in a hub-and-spoke 

configuration. Desk 1 responsibilities included the movements of commuter trains as well as freight traffic.

27 Under a traffic control system, dispatchers control train movement and manage traffic flow by remotely 

operating wayside signals at control points along the route.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

16

He said that on the day of the accident, his health was good, his vision and hearing were 

normal, and he was not taking any drugs or prescription or nonprescription medications that may 

have affected his performance.

The RTC did not work on Tuesday and Wednesday before the accident, which were his 

scheduled days off. On his days off, he typically does chores and maintains a sleep schedule 

similar to the one on the days he works. He routinely goes to sleep between 12:30 a.m. and 

1:00 a.m. and sleeps to about 9:00 a.m. After waking up, he typically eats breakfast, watches 

television, and relaxes. The day before the accident (Thursday), he went on duty at 3:00 p.m. and 

worked his full shift, which ended at 11:00 p.m. After his Thursday shift, he drove home, ate 

dinner, and then slept from 12:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. He spent Friday morning doing chores and 

departed the house about 2:15 p.m. (for his 15-minute commute to work). He went on duty at 

3:00 p.m. and worked until 11:00 p.m.

1.7 Toxicological Information

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 219, Subpart C, the CN 

engineer and conductor provided postaccident toxicological blood and urine specimens that were 

tested for the presence of alcohol and illegal drugs.28 The specimens were collected between 

1:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on June 20, 2011, at a hospital in Rockford, Illinois. Test results were 

negative for alcohol and illegal drugs.

The on-duty RTC was not asked to provide specimens for postaccident toxicological 

testing. According to a CN assistant superintendent, specimens were not requested from the RTC 

because the RTC was not initially believed to have been directly involved in the accident. As the 

investigation progressed, CN officials determined the following day that the RTC may have had 

some direct involvement. However, by that time, the RTC had gone off duty, and CN officials 

incorrectly believed that the RTC could not be required to provide specimens for testing. In fact, 

49 CFR 219.203(b)(4)(ii) states that an employee may be immediately recalled for testing if ―the 

railroad‘s preliminary investigation (contemporaneous with the determination required by 

§ 219.201) indicates a clear probability that the employee played a major role in the cause or 

severity of the accident/incident.‖ After the accident, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

determined that the CN had violated Title 49 CFR 219.203(b)(4)(ii).

1.8 Meteorological Information

At the time of the accident, Greater Rockford Airport, about 5 miles southwest of the 

accident site, was reporting calm winds, visibility of 10 miles, high broken clouds, and 

temperature of 66° F. About 2 hours before the accident, at 6:16 p.m., the airport reported a 

squall line moving across the airport with thunderstorms and moderate rain with wind gusts to 

45 knots. Rainfall rates rapidly increased with the passage of this squall line, and between 

6:17 and 6:54 p.m., the airport weather station reported visibility of 1/2 mile or less in 

thunderstorms with heavy rain. Rainfall data collected at 1-minute intervals at the Greater 

 

28 The specimens were screened for cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines, 

phencyclidine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and ethyl alcohol.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

17

Rockford Airport indicated a total of 4.18 inches for June 19, 2009. An estimated 3.59 inches of 

rain fell during the evening storm (6:09 to 7:39 p.m.). 

The airport weather station reported a total of 4.24 inches of precipitation in one 24-hour 

period from June 18 through June 19, 2009. On only one other day in June 2009 had 

precipitation exceeded 1 inch. Total June precipitation was reported as 7.36 inches—about 

2.56 inches above the average for the month.

The Chicago National Weather Service (NWS) office reported between 10 and 15 inches 

of precipitation in the 90-day period ending in June, with a year-to-date rainfall total of 

25.23 inches, or about 10 inches above average. A review of NWS data showed the following 

local severe weather conditions reported by the Chicago NWS Weather Forecast Office on 

June 19, 2009:

1812 CDT Wind gust of 52 mph at Rockford Airport [about 5 miles southwest of 

accident site]

1820 CDT Trees and power lines downed in the city due to high winds

1836 CDT 14-inches of running water in the intersection of Woodridge & Javelin 

Rds. [about 2 miles northeast of accident site]

1839 CDT Wind gust to 70 mph on I-39 just south of Rockford [about 1/2 mile 

east of accident site]

1845 CDT several roads under water. One rescue where car was stranded in flood 

water at Alpine & Newburg [about 1 mile northeast of accident site]

1854 CDT One hour rainfall of 3.25 inches reported by ASOS29 at Rockford 

Airport

1912 CDT Water 10 inches deep on Lyford Road just north of State Street [about 

2 miles northeast of accident site]

1933 CDT 6 to 10 inches of water in the intersection of 11th and 22nd streets 

[about 2 miles northwest of accident site]

2045 CDT Flash flooding caused railroad tracks to wash out near Milford [sic] 

Road causing train derailment. Large fire reported in progress. Multiple injuries 

reported.

On the day of the accident, sunset was at 8:36 p.m., and sunrise the next day was at 

5:20 a.m.

 

29 The Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program is a joint effort of the National Weather 

Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense. The ASOS is the nation's primary 

surface weather observing network.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

18

1.9 Site Description

1.9.1 General

The village of Cherry Valley, Illinois, lies primarily in Winnebago County (with a small 

portion in Boone County) in the north central portion of the state. It is southeast of Rockford, 

Illinois, and is about halfway between Chicago, Illinois, and Dubuque, Iowa. The most recent 

census (2010) indicated a population of 3,161.

The derailment occurred just west of the CN grade crossing at Mulford Road, a two-lane,

paved county road oriented north and south. At this location, the center line of Mulford Road 

represented the jurisdictional boundary between Rockford and Cherry Valley.

The grade crossing was protected by active warning devices for both directions of traffic. 

The warning devices included four post-mounted, 12-inch-diameter flashing light unit pairs, two

fully reflectorized red-and-white-striped gate arms with lights, and bells mounted on the signal 

masts. A Safetran grade crossing predictor (GCP-3000) monitored railroad traffic and controlled

the activation of the warning devices. The GCP-3000 was configured to provide a constant 

minimum warning time of 25 seconds for approaching trains before they occupied the crossing at 

any speed up to the maximum allowable speed of 50 mph. The GCP-3000 was also configured 

with a data logger that captured train movement information in nonvolatile memory.

The area in which the accident occurred included residential as well as light industrial 

properties. About 480 feet north of the CN‘s main track was an east/west UP industrial lead track

that paralleled the CN track for about 1/2 mile and that crossed Mulford Road to the north of the 

CN crossing. (See figure 6.)

Figure 6. Accident site.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

19

1.9.2 Track and Structures

The track on which the derailment occurred was owned, inspected, maintained, and 

operated by the CN. The Freeport Subdivision, in the vicinity of the derailment, consisted of a 

single main track signaled for operations in either direction. In the area of the derailment, the 

track was oriented, both geographically and by timetable, in an east-west direction. The track 

was designated as FRA Class 4 track.30

The CN operated two to three through-freight trains daily over this portion of the 

Freeport Subdivision. The through-freight trains and some local freight operations accounted for 

an estimated annual tonnage over the line of 8.5 million gross tons (as of 2008).

The rail throughout the area was 115-pound31 continuous welded rail32 seated and affixed 

in 13- by 7 3/4-inch double-shoulder tie plates. The track structure in the derailment area was 

built on 6 to 8 feet of fill and was supported by a mixture of limestone and granite ballast to an 

estimated depth of 18 to 24 inches under the crossties. The shoulder ballast extended about 10 to 

12 inches off of the end of the crossties.

In the hour before the accident, the train traversed the track segment between Freeport 

and Cherry Valley. According to the CN track profile, this track segment comprised 26 curves, 

5 bridges, and 7 sets of ascending and descending grades, with some grades multiple miles in 

length.

The railroad maintained a ditch line on both the north and the south sides of the tracks. 

About 0.2 mile west of Mulford Road, the CN maintained a 20-foot-long open deck bridge that 

spanned a small creek.

1.10 Train and Mechanical Information

1.10.1 Accident Train

At the time of the accident, the accident train consisted of 2 locomotive units and 

114 cars. The 78 loaded and 36 empty cars gave the train a trailing weight of 11,125 tons.

Including locomotives, the train was 6,940 feet long.

Before the train left the ethanol plant on the morning of June 19, 2009, the train crew 

(which was not the accident crew) inspected the 76-car train and conducted an air brake test. No 

exceptions were noted. At Freeport, Illinois, when the accident crew added 2 loaded and 

36 empty cars to the head end of their train, they inspected the cars and tested the air brakes on 

the additional cars. No exceptions were noted during either the inspection or the air brake test.

 

30 Railroads determine how they will classify various segments of their track. As the class designation 

increases, the track must meet increasingly higher Federal standards for construction, maintenance, and inspection. 

Federal regulation also establishes maximum train speeds for each class of track.

31 Rail weight is referenced per yard of track; thus a 3-foot length of 115-pound rail weighs 115 pounds.

32 Continuous welded rail is defined as rail in which rail segments have been welded together to form rail 

lengths of 400 feet or more.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

20

The train passed five wayside inspection scanners before the derailment with no 

exceptions reported.

1.10.2 Derailed Cars

All of the 19 cars in the derailment were tank cars manufactured by Trinity Tank Car, 

Inc. as U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) specification 111-A100W1 (DOT-111) tank 

cars and were intended to transport ethanol. DOT-111 cars, under 49 CFR Part 173, may be used 

in general service to transport commodities or nonpressurized hazardous materials. The nominal 

full water capacity of the cars was 30,145 gallons. As DOT-111 cars, they were not required to 

be equipped with head shields (extra protection at the ends of the tank to resist puncturing),

jackets, or thermal protection. The dates of manufacture of the tank cars ranged from 

December 2006 to October 2008.

Two of the 19 derailed cars (car numbers preceded by reporting marks TILX) were 

owned by the railcar leasing division of Trinity Industries, Inc.; 9 cars (car numbers preceded by 

NATX) were owned by GE Equipment Services; and 8 cars (car numbers preceded by CITX and 

CTCX) were owned by CIT Rail.

The tank cars involved in this accident had bottom outlet valves and multiple fittings. 

Title 49 CFR 179.200-17 requires that DOT-111 cars equipped with bottom outlet valves be built 

with design elements intended to prevent damage to the valve and subsequent loss of lading 

during a derailment. These design features could take the form of recessed valves, breakaway 

designs for the structures below the valves, skid protection structures around the valves, or a 

combination of these. The valve operating mechanisms must also be provided with a locking 

arrangement to ensure that the valve stays closed during transit. The Association of American

Railroads (AAR) Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices for tank cars specifies that 

bottom outlet valve handles, unless stowed separately, must either be designed to bend or break 

free on impact or be positioned so that the handles, in the closed position, are above the bottom 

surface of a protective skid plate.

All of the derailed cars were equipped with 4-inch flanged bottom outlet ball valves

surrounded by ―skid protection‖ systems that consisted of an angular steel structure mounted 

adjacent to the bottom outlet fittings. The skid protection structure was designed to protect the 

bottom outlet valve if the bottom of a derailed tank car came into contact with the ground, track, 

or other object. Attached to the ball valve flanges were outlet adaptor assemblies or nozzles that 

protruded outward of the skid protection. The outlet adaptor assembly was designed to shear 

from the valve flange during an accident so as to minimize damage to the closed valve.

The cars owned by CIT Rail (CITX and CTCX) were originally constructed with outlet 

valves oriented so that the valve handles operated longitudinally. On June 4, 2008, Trinity Tank 

Car filed an R-1, ―Report of Tank Repairs, Alteration or Conversion,‖ with the FRA for the CIT 

Rail cars, indicating that the outlet valves on those cars had been rotated 90 degrees such that the 

handle operated in the transverse direction rather than in the longitudinal direction. A hole in the 

valve handle was designed to weaken the handle and cause it to break away on impact to allow 

the valve to remain closed. (See figure 7.) 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

21

Figure 7. Bottom outlet valve configuration, as modified from original design, for derailed CITX 

and CTCX cars. (Not to scale) The operating handle securing bracket is circled. (Adapted from 

a Trinity Tank Car drawing)

The cars owned by GE Equipment Services (NATX) and by Trinity (TILX) were 

equipped with a 4-inch ball valve of the type shown in figure 8. The valve operating handle 

extended upward along the side of the tank where it could be secured in its closed position by a 

bracket and retaining pin. A transversely oriented handle extension attached to the valve through 

a hole in the skid protection structure. The valve was opened by moving the handle 

longitudinally.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

22

Figure 8. Bottom outlet valve arrangement (not to scale) used on derailed NATX and TILX tank 

cars. (Adapted from a Trinity Tank Car drawing)

The tops of the derailed tank cars were equipped with a number of fittings and 

appurtenances such as loading and unloading valves, pressure and vacuum relief devices, and 

manways (openings that allow access to the inside of the tank for inspection, maintenance, or 

cleaning). Although the products carried in DOT-111 tank cars are not pressurized, the tank cars 

involved in this accident were manufactured to a test pressure of 100 pounds per square inch, 

gauge (psig). Each of the derailed tank cars was fitted with a single pressure relief valve that is 

designed to prevent excessive pressure buildup within the tank if exposed to fire. At the time of 

the accident, FRA regulations (Title 49 CFR 179.200-16) required manufacturers of non-pressure

tank cars with top-mounted loading and discharge devices to protect those fittings with steel 

covers and sidewalls that were at least 0.119-inch thick.

All of the tank cars on the train were relatively new, and all the required inspections were 

up to date. Before the tank cars were loaded for the accident trip, the shipper inspected them to 

ensure that they were in proper condition to transport denatured fuel ethanol. According to the 

shipper‘s documentation, these inspections revealed no defects or damages to any of the tank 

cars.

1.11 Hazardous Materials Information

Denatured fuel ethanol is a colorless, water-soluble liquid with an alcohol- and gasoline-like

odor. The product is regulated by the DOT as a flammable liquid. In the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

23

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy, to design a program that 

requires the blending of renewable fuels33 into the nation‘s motor-vehicle fuel supply. This 

program, called the Renewable Fuel Standard, Title 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart M, is intended to 

reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum and also is expected to provide 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. On February 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule that 

revises the Renewable Fuel Standard Program as required by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007.34 These revisions, known as RFS2, mandate incremental increases in the 

annual production of renewable fuels that must be used in transportation fuel from the 2010 level 

of 12.95 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, in January 2009, 170 ethanol bio-refineries

were operating in 26 states, with 20 new facilities under construction. Although pipelines are a 

preferred method for transporting petroleum products over long distances, ethanol is not shipped 

by pipeline because it is thought to cause stress corrosion cracking in pipeline walls. In a notice 

of proposed rulemaking,35 the EPA states that because of the uncertainties regarding the future 

use of pipelines, the agency assumes that ethanol will continue to be transported from production 

facilities by rail, barge, and truck to petroleum terminals where it will be blended into gasoline.

The EPA believes that distribution by these modes can be further optimized primarily through 

increased shipment by unit train,36 potentially tripling the current number of ethanol shipments 

being transported in DOT-111 tank cars over the next 10 years.

In 2008, denatured ethanol was the most common hazardous material commodity 

transported by railroad in North America, with 218,902 tank car shipments originating in the 

United States. By comparison, the second most travelled commodity by railroad in 2008 was 

liquefied petroleum gas, with 105,364 tank car shipments.

1.12 Postaccident Environmental Monitoring and Remediation

After investigators inspected the tank cars, the cars were pumped and purged of product. 

Between June 21 and June 24, about 107,745 gallons of ethanol, or about 25 percent of the 

original 431,708 gallons of lading from the 15 tank cars involved in the pileup, were recovered.

The total amount of lading consumed by fire or released to water, soil, and air in the accident 

was about 323,963 gallons.

1.12.1 Air Monitoring

The CN contracted with a company to monitor releases of hazardous materials to air and 

water. Real-time air sampling began about 4:02 a.m. on June 20, 2009, and continued through 

June 25, 2009. The results of air monitoring at various locations for volatile organic compounds, 

ethanol, and particulate matter indicated no concentrations requiring additional action. 

 

33 Renewable fuels are fuels produced from plant or animal products or wastes rather than from fossil fuels. The 

most widely known renewable fuels are ethanol and biodiesel.

34 The final rule was effective July 1, 2010. 

35 Federal Register, vol. 74, No. 99 (May 26, 2009), p. 25003.

36 A unit train is designed to move as a single unit from origin to destination. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

24

1.12.2 Contaminated Soils

On the morning of June 21, 2009, investigators observed evidence of spilled ethanol in 

the tank car staging yard adjacent to the accident site. The CN‘s environmental contractor 

excavated and stockpiled contaminated topsoil from an estimated 1/2-acre area in the staging 

yard. The excavated soil was commingled with contaminated soil removed from the derailment 

area. On June 23, 2009, testing of the stockpile characterized the soils as nonhazardous material, 

and from June 24 through June 27, contractors transported 82 truck loads consisting of about 

1,733 tons of contaminated soil to a landfill.

Between June 25 and June 30, 2009, CN contractors completed 57 soil borings and dug 

6 monitoring wells in the derailment zone and in the staging yard in order to investigate the 

presence or extent of any subsurface soil and groundwater contamination. Samples were tested 

for a wide range of chemical contaminants, including ethanol and petroleum hydrocarbons. The 

soil and groundwater results yielded no concentrations of these compounds that exceeded 

applicable remediation objectives.

1.12.3 Water Pollution

The EPA, as the Federal on-scene coordinator, estimated that about 60,000 gallons of 

ethanol were released into a tributary of the Rock and Kishwaukee Rivers, resulting in a 

significant fish kill. The EPA reported that the fish kill likely resulted from depressed dissolved 

oxygen levels in the river from the natural degradation processes of the ethanol.

On June 21, 2009, about 8:00 a.m., the Illinois Conservation Police began receiving 

reports of fish dying in the Grand Detour area of the Rock River. The fish kill ultimately affected 

about 53.6 miles of the Rock River between Grand Detour and Erie, Illinois. For about 36 hours 

following the initial fish kill report, Illinois Department of Natural Resources biologists 

measured, counted, and sorted affected fish species. The Department of Natural Resources 

estimated that about 72,350 fish were killed with an associated value of about $272,300.

Other pollutants of concern were the components of the gasoline that was used as a 

denaturant for the ethanol. On June 21 through 24, 2009, water samples were collected at several 

stations along the Rock and Kishwaukee Rivers and tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons and 

gasoline-range organics. These tests did not yield any levels of detectable chemical compounds 

in excess of human health and ecological screening levels.

Tests were performed on water samples from a community well that served about 

200 households about 1/2 mile north of the derailment site, as well as seven additional residential 

wells from nearby communities. The samples were tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons and 

gasoline-range organics, yielding no detectable chemical concentrations in excess of their human 

health screening levels.

1.12.4 Waste Disposal

The CN contracted for accident site waste remediation. Depending on the degree of 

product contamination caused by the fire, waste materials resulting from transfer of liquids from 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

25

the damaged rail cars were shipped either as recycled hazardous material or as hazardous waste. 

Virgin denatured fuel ethanol pumped from the tank cars was transported by motor carriers under 

hazardous materials bills of lading. Burnt sludge and residues were transported for disposal as 

characteristically ignitable hazardous waste.

1.13 Pipeline Information

The Nicor natural gas pipeline at the site of the derailment was constructed in 1965. The 

pipeline ran parallel to the west side of Mulford Road and consisted of a welded 12-inch-diameter

pipeline installed inside a 50-foot-long segment of 16-inch steel pipe casing. Both pipes had a 

nominal wall thickness of 0.375 inches. The casing pipe had 2-inch-diameter vents along each 

side. The pipe had a technical specification indicating a minimum tensile strength of 60,000 psi 

and a minimum tensile elongation of 22 percent. At the time of the accident, the pipeline was 

operating at a pressure of 288 psig. At the site of the derailment, the top of the pipe was about 11

feet below the surface. 

Yellow fiberglass markers indicating the presence of the gas pipeline and providing the

owner‘s name and emergency contact number were in place on the north and south sides of the 

tracks before the derailment. The nearest marker on the south side of the grade crossing was 

about 50 feet south of the tracks on a utility pole that was destroyed in the postderailment fire. A 

second, legible pipeline marker was about 250 feet south of the tracks within a tuft of vegetation 

along Mulford Road. The nearest visible postfire marker on the north side of the derailment was 

between the CN and UP tracks. Another marker, about 525 feet north of the grade crossing on 

the west side of Mulford Road, was not damaged in the accident.

1.14 Postaccident Inspections and Testing

1.14.1 Mechanical Systems

After the accident, investigators inspected the general mechanical condition of the 

locomotive and the cars that did not derail. The inspections determined that the running gear and 

foundation brake rigging were within specification on every car. The two locomotive units were 

designated for road service with all required inspections current. No exceptions were taken to the 

mechanical condition of the locomotives. The only mechanical exceptions taken were to 

preexisting broken coupler knuckle pins37 on three of the nonderailed tank cars. For all of the 

cars, no exceptions were taken to air brake piston travel, brake pipe leakage, brake shoe 

condition, or any other aspect of any car.

 

37 A knuckle pin acts as a hinge pin to keep the knuckle in place within the coupler body while the knuckle is 

being either opened or closed.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

26

1.14.2 Track

NTSB investigators recorded track geometry measurements for 62 stations38 leading up 

to the first section of damaged track. One station that incorporated damaged track was also 

measured. In addition to measurements for gauge (distance between the rails), cross level 

(difference in height of the rails in tangent track), and alignment (the ―straightness‖ of the 

tracks), investigators also looked for evidence of movement. Gauge, cross level, and alignment 

measurements on nondisturbed track were within FRA allowable measurements for Class 

4 track. The track showed no evidence of rail movement in the area leading up to the derailment 

footprint.

39 The ballast cribs (the spaces between the crossties) were full in the immediate 

vicinity of the track to the west of the derailment footprint.

Portions of broken rail segments retrieved from the track wreckage were reassembled on

scene. The reconstruction revealed that a piece of the north rail had a blunt strike mark on the 

gauge (inside) corner of the rail head. The rail piece was later identified as a match to another 

piece of rail that contained a weld typically associated with in-track welding. Interviews about 

Mulford Road upgrades/renewals and a review of ultrasonic data confirmed that this weld had 

been about 8 to 10 feet west of the crossing. The rail pieces did not exhibit any defective rail 

condition.

Witnesses to the accident said that the rails were bending west of the crossing and that the 

freight cars were ―bouncing‖ at that location before they derailed. Investigators observed marks 

on some of the north wheel flanges of the last two cars on the forward portion of the train—the 

first two cars to derail and the two cars just ahead of the point at which the derailing cars caused 

the train to separate into two sections. Based on these data, investigators determined the point of 

derailment to be at MP 80.18, about 8 feet west of the Mulford Road crossing and within the area 

where the track was unsupported because of the washout of the track structure.

1.14.3 Signals

Investigators inspected and tested the signal system and the highway/rail grade crossing 

warning system to the extent possible. All signal units and signal cases were found locked with 

no indication of tampering or vandalism that would interfere with the operation of the signal 

system. Although the wayside signal system did not incur damages as a result of the derailment, 

the subsequent fire destroyed the signal case that housed the highway/rail grade crossing 

equipment as well as the masts on which the flashing warning lights and crossing gates were 

mounted. The GCP-3000 unit and data logger were recovered, but the data were not 

downloadable because of damage from the postaccident fire.

Investigators reviewed CN signal maintenance reports for the wayside signals and the 

highway/rail grade crossing warning equipment. The maintenance records indicated that all 

signal tests and inspections had been conducted in accordance with FRA regulations and CN 

requirements.

 

38 Typical postaccident station measurements are recorded on the leading side of a point of derailment, where 

possible, in 15 1/2-foot increments.

39 The derailment footprint refers to the limits of the damaged track and resting positions of the derailed cars.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

27

1.14.4 Pipeline

As the wreckage was removed from above the pipeline, Nicor crews discovered that a 

railcar wheel and axle assembly had impinged on the pipeline. Although the pipeline was buried 

about 11 feet deep, the rail car wheels had contacted the 16-inch-diameter protective casing that 

surrounded it. Photographs taken of the pipeline damage by Nicor crews as they worked through 

the evening of June 21, 2009, to excavate and inspect the pipeline revealed severe flattening of 

the pipe casing. Crews also observed sharp angular bends at two locations where the casing was 

contacted by the rail car wheel assembly. 

1.14.5 Derailed Tank Cars

Between June 21 and June 22, 2009, investigators visually inspected the 15 derailed tank

cars (positions 59 through 73) that constituted the 400-foot-long pileup across Mulford Road.

The car inspections were conducted after the CN had staged the damaged cars on a vacant lot 

west of Mulford Road between the UP and CN tracks.

All 15 tank cars in the pileup were damaged as a result of the derailment and subsequent 

fire, with only 2 of the cars (the first two cars in the pileup) retaining their entire lading. Of the 

13 cars that released all or part of their contents, 11 were breached. Most of the cars sustained 

varying degrees of dents, deformations, and breaches. The derailed tank cars sustained a total of 

15 head punctures or tears (figure 9), and 4 tank shell punctures or tears (figure 10). Head 

failures in seven of the cars were caused by coupler or draft sill strikes. Two of the tank heads 

were breached by other striking objects or tank car structures. Additionally, side shells of three 

of the tank cars were breached as a result of car-to-car impacts. Eleven of the tank cars involved 

in the derailment were fire-damaged as evidenced by scorched or burned-away paint.

Figure 9. Tank head punctures in two derailed tank cars (outlined with white paint). 

(Federal Railroad Administration photo)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

28

Figure 10. Breach in tank car NATX 303504. (Federal Railroad Administration photo)

Many of the cars had valve and fitting damage ranging from sheared nozzles to broken 

valve handles. The postaccident inspection found six cars in which the bottom outlet valve 

nozzle sheared from the ball valve flange, as designed. Of these six cars, three of the ball valves 

had opened, contributing to the release of product from their respective cars. The ball valves had 

opened on three of these six cars, contributing to the release of product from those cars. The 

postaccident inspection revealed that the valves had opened when the valve levers were bent or 

pulled away from their retaining brackets during the derailment. Valve and valve configurations 

of both types (modified CIT and NATX/TILX) were involved in the product release. (See figures 

11 and 12.) As evidenced by the burn patterns on the tank shells around the center sides of the 

three tank cars, the release of product through the bottom outlet valves contributed to the 

postaccident fire.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

29

Figure 11. Bottom outlet valve of car CTCX 731599 showing exposed valve and bent but intact 

valve operating handle. Handle retaining bracket is missing. (Valve was opened during 

derailment but was closed by emergency responders.)

Figure 12. Bent valve handle and exposed and partially open bottom outlet valve on car NATX 

303504. (Federal Railroad Administration photo)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

30

Three top valves were also found to be damaged and either partially or fully open. In the 

case of one car, CTCX 224236, the protective housing separated from the car, and both the liquid 

and the vapor valves were sheared from their threaded pipes, causing the car to lose about 

26,357 gallons of product. The protective housing cover of car TILX 193772 (figure 13) was 

knocked askew in the derailment, breaking the vapor valve from its fitting and contributing to the 

release of product from that car. While the protective housing did prevent damage to fittings in 

the case of one car (CTCX 731600), which came to rest lying upside down in a muddy stream 

channel, the top fittings were damaged in other instances where the protective housings 

contacted harder objects.

Figure 13. Top fitting damage, car TILX 193772. (Overall photo by Trinity Tank Car. Inset 

photo by the CN.)

Six of the derailed cars were selected for detailed examination and materials testing. The 

results of that effort are detailed in the ―Tests and Research‖ section of this report.

1.15 Track Inspections in Accident Area

1.15.1 CN Track Inspections

Records showed that the CN operated a geometry test car over the Freeport Subdivision 

five times between November 1, 2007, and the day of the accident. On the most recent test, on 

March 2, 2009, the data indicated an incipient profile value (a short dip in the track affecting 

both rails) in the track geometry west of Mulford Road that did not require a slow order (a 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

31

reduction in operating speed for the trains). The CN surfaced that portion of track beginning in 

May 2009. The second most recent test, on December 2, 2008, indicated some minor geometry 

conditions that required a 50-mph slow order. The order had no real effect, as the slow-order 

speed was the same as the maximum authorized speed for that portion of the subdivision. The 

geometry data recorded prior to the two most recent tests did not show any deficiencies near the 

derailment area.

FRA regulations (49 CFR 213.233(c)) require that Class 4 track be inspected twice 

weekly with a 1-day interval between inspections. The FRA reviewed the records of CN track 

inspections for the 12-month period before the accident and took no exception to the type or 

frequency of inspections except for some recordkeeping items. A review of CN track inspection 

records for the 12 months prior to the accident indicated that no track deficiencies had been 

noted in the derailment area.

In postaccident interviews, a CN track inspector said that on the day of the accident he 

reported for work about 5:30 a.m. and proceeded to inspect track from Freeport eastbound 

(including the accident area). A welder helper and a laborer who worked the same area that day 

recalled that after reporting for duty, they went to MP 108 to make two welds. The track

supervisor stated that he was at the Freeport headquarters until he received a call from the CN‘s 

Edmonton Walker Call Desk advising him of a severe weather alert (high winds). The track

supervisor said he contacted the welder helper and the track inspector and directed them to 

inspect the track from MP 100 to 79 and from MP 53 to 36, respectively. He indicated that he, 

himself, would inspect the track between MP 79 and MP 53.

The track inspector said that he did not note any significant water conditions at Mulford 

Road when he went by about 7:30 a.m. The welder helper and the laborer stated they did not see 

anything abnormal when they came through about 1:00 p.m. The welder helper said he did 

observe a ―little more water than normal,‖ but ―nothing very high at all,‖ and no washouts. The 

welder helper recalled that the track supervisor, during his Hy-rail40 trip, discovered a tree 

blocking the track at MP 74.0 and told the welder helper and the laborer to go to that location 

and remove the tree. They said that they removed the tree and then returned to Freeport where 

they went off duty. The track inspector stated that he completed his inspection and special patrol 

for high winds about 11:30 a.m. and returned to Freeport.

The track supervisor stated that while he was returning to Freeport, he decided to drive by 

Mulford Road and check that area. He said that upon arriving at Mulford Road about 2:00 p.m., 

he pulled over to the west side of the road and observed both ditch lines, taking no exception to 

the amount of water present. He said that he then proceeded to Freeport and went off duty for the 

weekend.

Investigators interviewed a number of CN engineering personnel working on the Freeport 

Subdivision. Based on those interviews, except for the initial high-winds alert, none of them 

were contacted by either Edmonton Walker Call Desk personnel or by the RTC about any 

weather-related alerts or track problems affecting the Rockford area on the day of the accident.

 

40 Hy-Rail refers to a vehicle, usually a pickup truck, that has been modified to operate both on the highway and 

along the rails.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

32

The track inspector stated that he was familiar with the territory and knew where severe 

weather could be a particular concern. The track supervisor, the track inspector, the manager of 

engineering, and the regional chief engineer said their understanding of the CN‘s weather alert 

policy was that they would be called by Edmonton Walker Call Desk personnel or by the RTC if

one of those parties received information indicating that weather could affect operations. The 

engineering employees also stated that they are empowered to initiate track inspections based 

upon observing severe weather even if they have not been notified and directed to do so.

1.15.2 FRA Track Inspections

On October 28, 2008, an FRA track inspector inspected the track between MP 73.0 and 

MP 115.0 (which included the accident area) on the Freeport Subdivision. The only exception 

noted was a defective weld at MP 107.3.

1.15.3 Ultrasonic Rail Testing

CN records indicated that the company conducted ultrasonic tests of the rail on the 

Freeport Subdivision several times per year. The rail was tested three or more times in 2007, five 

times in 2008, and twice in 2009 leading up to the day of the accident. The most recent ultrasonic 

rail test had been conducted on February 19, 2009. The only defect noted for the accident area 

during that test was a defective weld at MP 81.18, which was repaired.

1.16 Previous CN Track Washouts Near Mulford Road

The CN track supervisor told investigators that about 3 years before this accident, in 

September 2006, heavy rains led to significant water runoff into the swale between the CN and 

UP tracks west of Mulford Road. A subsequent track inspection found a loss of ballast along the 

north shoulder west of the crossing and the south shoulder east of the crossing. The loss of north 

rail shoulder ballast extended for about 200 feet; the loss east of the crossing was located 

adjacent to the crossing. The ballast was not washed out under the ties, and only the shoulders 

were affected (a longitudinal washout). A water backup caused a swirling motion of water that

caused a loss of ballast along the track on the east side of the crossing. The track supervisor said 

the ballast loss on the east side was only down to the bottom of the crossties and that no crossties 

were ―hanging.‖ At all of the locations of ballast loss, the ballast section was restored and the 

track was tamped.

In August 2007, according to the CN track supervisor, the Cherry Valley area 

experienced an 8-inch rain storm. The track supervisor said that he went to the scene and found 

that the water had caused a washout area 5 to 6 feet long and about 4 feet deep under the tracks 

about 40 feet west of the Mulford Road crossing. To help prevent future washouts, the CN 

installed a 36-inch-diameter corrugated steel pipe at the site of the washout. The CN indicated 

that no calculations had been performed to size the 36-inch pipe. The CN also indicated that such 

designs are based on the expected water flow, but no design calculations are actually performed. 

The pipe was laid through the washout opening and secured with ballast and rip rap (piles of 

large rocks). After installation was complete, the top of the pipe was about 1 foot below the 

bottom of the crossties. At this height, about 8 feet above the bottom of the ditch line, it would 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

33

not be a culvert for normal water flow but could serve as a ―relief‖ outlet that would allow 

flooding waters to drain from the north ditch line to the south side of the tracks. The area to the 

west of the grade crossings was so severely damaged by the derailment that the 36-inch pipe was 

not found after the accident. 

The CN did not consult with the Winnebago Highway Department or any other 

jurisdictional entity to determine why excess water sufficient to cause a washout had collected. 

Nor was there a consultation with the Winnebago County Highway Department before the CN 

made the decision to install the 36-inch pipe in the washout area. 

1.17 Hydrological Information

1.17.1 Rainfall Estimates

Investigators initially relied upon the statistical rainfall amount from the Greater 

Rockford Airport, which is about 5 miles southwest of the accident scene, as the amount of rain 

that had fallen in the accident area on the day of the accident. Although the official rainfall at the 

airport was measured at 3.25 inches from a rain gauge, Doppler images indicated a much higher 

intensity of rainfall as the severe storm was developing and moving over the area surrounding 

the accident site. Rainfall data indicated rainfall rates ranging from 3.25 inches per hour to 

8.9 inches per hour during a 50-minute period before the accident. The rain storm caused 

flooding in many areas of Winnebago County, including in Rockford and Cherry Valley. Local 

residents interviewed stated that it was the worst flooding they had seen.

1.17.2 Culverts

The Mulford Road grade crossing and the area to its north and east had a number of 

hydrologic features designed to manage and direct the flow of storm water. These included, in 

addition to the 36-inch pipe the CN had installed under its tracks in 2007, an 18-inch-diameter 

corrugated metal pipe culvert under Mulford Road just north of the UP Mulford Road crossing, a 

24-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert under Mulford Road north of the CN crossing, 

and a 5- by 10-foot reinforced concrete box culvert under Mulford Road just south of the CN 

crossing. The pipes and culvert were installed by the Winnebago County Highway Department in 

1970 as part of the reconstruction of Mulford Road. (See figure 14.)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

34

Figure 14. Aerial view illustrating CN and UP grade crossings and location of culverts and

washouts on day of accident.

When asked why no actions had been taken with regard to the 24-inch and 5- by 10-foot 

culverts on either side of the CN crossing after the heavy storms had caused flooding in 2006 and 

2007, Winnebago County highway officials responded that the storm water had damaged the CN 

tracks but that Mulford Road had not been affected. The officials stated that the highway 

department had sent inspectors in 2007 to observe the installation by the CN of the 36-inch pipe 

to ensure that no damage was done to Mulford Road.

According to Winnebago County highway officials, the concrete box culvert to the south 

of the CN crossing was the primary structure for conveying runoff generated within the upstream 

drainage basin. The 24-inch culvert immediately north of the CN tracks was to serve as a relief 

pipe for runoff that collected in the swale between the UP and CN tracks along the west side of 

Mulford Road—it was not intended to convey any significant storm flows. The primary storm 

water path was along the south side of the CN tracks, and its primary conveyance past Mulford 

Road was the concrete box culvert. According to the officials, the box culvert was sized in 

accordance with this drainage plan. After the 2007 rain storm, the Winnebago County Highway 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

35

Department did not make any changes to the drainage system for Mulford Road where it 

intersected with the CN tracks.

The methodology used by the Winnebago County Highway Department to design 

culverts (or pipes) under public roadways was contained in the Illinois Department of 

Transportation Drainage Manual. The manual was used as a matter of policy and was referenced 

in the county‘s surface water management ordinance. According to the Drainage Manual, 

culverts or pipes intended for two-lane roadways (such as Mulford Road) were to be sized based 

on a 30-year flood frequency (3 percent probability of occurring in any one year), and those for 

four-lane roadways were to be based on a 50-year flood frequency (2 percent probability of 

occurring in any one year). 

1.17.3 Detention Ponds

A little more than 1/2 mile northwest of the CN Mulford Road crossing, the residential 

subdivision of Harrison Park was the site of two storm water management (SWM) detention 

ponds,41 both built in 1997. (See figure 15.) Based on design drawings, the larger of these, 

referred to in this report as SWM pond 1, measured 400 by 255 feet at the pond bottom and 

458 by 306 feet at the top of the berm. According to county officials (and as is typical within 

municipalities) the storm sewers and inlets that were tributaries for SWM pond 1 were designed 

to the 10-year storm (10 percent probability of occurring in any year), while the pond itself was 

designed to the 100-year storm event (1 percent probability of occurring in any one year).

42

 

41 A detention pond, sometimes called a dry pond, temporarily stores water after a storm, but it eventually 

empties at a controlled rate downstream to another location. 

42 A 1989 Illinois state water survey report provided statewide frequency distributions for heavy rainfall events 

in Illinois. The distributions were determined for rain periods ranging from 5 minutes to 10 days and recurrence 

intervals varying from 2 months to 100 years. Based on the hourly precipitation rate of 3.38 inches at the Greater 

Rockford airport (about 5 miles from the derailment) on June 19, 2009, that heavy rainfall event would be 

considered to fall between a 50-year flood and a 100-year flood.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

36

Figure 15. Aerial view showing location of Harrison Park subdivision detention ponds in relation 

to accident site.

During the postaccident investigation, SWM pond 1 was found to have a breach in its

southeast corner at the site of the pond outlet. The breach measured 12 feet high by 18 feet wide 

with water continuing to flow out from north to south. Inside the pond, investigators found a 

small stream leading to the breach. The stream was 4 to 6 inches deep and 2 to 3 feet wide. The 

remains of several pieces of 27-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe were found scattered at 

the bottom of the breach opening. (See figure 16.)

Further investigation of the breach revealed a plume of material (sand, clay, dirt, small 

rock) as well as flowing water (2 to 4 inches deep) extending southeast out of the retention pond 

and toward the UP track. Investigators followed traces of water flow that led to the UP track and 

discovered washout damage (about 15 to 20 different locations from below the outlet going east 

to Mulford Road that varied in length and depth below the bottom of the ties and outside of the 

end of the crossties). From the UP washout, the water appeared to flow in a southeast direction.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

37

Figure 16. Postaccident photograph showing breach in SWM pond 1 as viewed from inside 

pond looking south.

Investigators interviewed several residents who lived adjacent to SWM pond 1. The 

residents told investigators that the berm directly over the outlet of the pond had been 

deteriorating for the past several years. The managing agent (a local realty firm) for the Harrison 

Park Landowners Association43 provided investigators with an April 2008 photograph 

(figure 17) showing a view looking north from the downstream end of the outlet area of the 

detention pond. 

 

43 The detention ponds were owned in common by the landowners in the Harrison Park subdivision.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

38

Figure 17. View looking north from downstream end of outlet area of SWM detention pond 1 

showing erosion over top of outlet culvert and erosion below outlet. (Photo taken in April 2008.)

The recorded plat of the Harrison Park subdivision notes that ―the maintenance of the 

drainage and storm water detention easement shall be the sole responsibility of the individual 

property owner.‖ According to the records of the Harrison Park Landowners Association, after 

the deterioration at the outlet of SWM pond 1 had been noted in April 2008, a local construction 

company submitted a bid to repair the damage for $23,436. In 2009, the association agent began 

assessing Harrison Park landowners to pay for the repairs. At the time of the accident, the 

balance in the fund to repair the damage was $23,288.11. The breach was repaired on 

September 3, 2009, at a cost of $23,500.

The city of Rockford had a permit with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency that 

required the city to inspect storm water management detention ponds as part of a larger program 

to prevent water pollution. The ponds, including privately owned ponds, were to be inspected for 

the presence of sediment, floatables, and water. According to city officials, privately owned 

storm water management detention ponds were inspected only during dry weather. The city had 

conducted citywide inspections that included detention ponds in 1997, 2004, and 2008.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

39

1.18 RTC Training and Duties

CN RTCs fill the role that has traditionally been referred to as ―train dispatcher.‖ RTCs 

direct the movement of trains within a division and coordinate train movement from one division 

to another. Their duties include arranging train meets and passes and managing unexpected 

delays and emergencies. RTCs regularly communicate with train crews and maintenance-of-way 

workers by radio or telephone.

1.18.1 Training

At the time of the accident, CN RTC training consisted of about 2 months of classroom 

work, which included teaching candidates how to use the computerized Train Management 

Dispatching System (TMDS) that had been implemented in the summer of 2008. Following the 

classroom training, students typically spent from 8 to 20 weeks at a dispatch desk under the 

supervision of a qualified RTC. NTSB Investigators interviewed the on-duty RTC and the chief 

dispatcher and visited the CN‘s Homewood, Illinois, control center to examine the CN‘s weather 

procedures and to assess RTC workloads.

1.18.2 Duties Related to Weather Alerts

Train operations on the Freeport Subdivision were governed by the Chicago Division 

Timetable No. 5, effective 1200 Sunday, April 5, 2009, as well as the CN U.S. Operating Rules, 

4th edition, effective June 13, 2008. The CN operating rule book and special instructions that 

were in effect in the Cherry Valley area at the time of the accident included, in part, the 

following rules:

Rule D: Reporting Injuries and Defects [which states, in part]

Threatening conditions including, but not limited to, mechanical failures, defects 

in track, bridges, or signals, must be reported. ... Before trying to use any track or 

structure endangered by flood, fire, or other cause, employees must make a 

personal inspection and take all precautions to avoid an accident.

Rule X: Weather Warnings

When weather warnings are received, the RTC will notify all trains and terminals 

in the warning area. Quick and precise communication by all employees is 

absolutely necessary during severe weather conditions. 

High Winds in excess of 60 mph - Employees on trains in the warning area may 

proceed at normal speed if the local weather conditions are not as severe as the 

weather warning indicated. If local weather conditions are such that the crew in 

the warning area is concerned about their safety, the train will operate prepared to 

stop short of obstructions. If conditions require operating at less than normal 

speed, the crew must notify the RTC immediately.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

40

Flash Flood Warnings - At locations specified by the RTC, timetable or Operating

Bulletin, trains will operate prepared to stop short of obstructions.

A July 16, 2008, CN weather alert policy further instructed RTCs, after learning of 

warnings of flash flooding, river floods, and saturated ground, with rain criteria of 2 inches in 

1 hour, 3 inches in 2 hours, or 4 inches in 4 hours:

Trains and Track personnel should be contacted - Track personnel if in area 

should inspect track before train‘s arrival. RTC Actions requires that trains in the 

affected area are to be advised of the flash flood warnings and are to proceed at a 

speed, prepared to stop within one half the range of vision, until the track is 

inspected or the Track Supervisor has given verbal permission to resume normal 

operation.

Two severe weather bulletins were in effect on the Freeport Subdivision around the time 

of the accident. The first weather bulletin, a severe thunderstorm watch, was in effect from 

5:34 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and covered the area from MP 74 to MP 108. The second weather 

bulletin, a flash flood warning, was in effect from 6:36 p.m. to 10:40 p.m. and covered the area

from MP 50 to MP 115 on the Freeport Subdivision and from MP 116 to MP 128 on the 

Dubuque Subdivision. According to postaccident interviews, the second bulletin, the flash flood 

warning, was delivered to the Homewood control center by the AccuWeather system shortly 

after 6:36 p.m. 

The TMDS used by the RTCs incorporated computer screens capable of displaying all 

track segments within an RTC‘s territory. The RTC could add temporary ―labels‖ to the TMDS 

screens to highlight significant information about a particular track segment or as a reminder to 

the RTCs about the status of track or about operating bulletins in effect. To create a label, the 

RTC would display the affected section of track on his or her computer screen then call up 

(display) a form and enter the relevant information. The information on this form would then be 

inserted as a label onto the screen.

Labels could be ―restrictive‖ or ―nonrestrictive.‖ Restrictive labels appeared in light blue 

on the screen and included information that the RTC must communicate to train crews entering 

the affected area. An RTC who attempted to authorize trains to operate through an area with a 

restrictive label would receive a TMDS warning as a reminder to notify the crews who would be 

transiting this area. Information contained in nonrestrictive labels was not required to be 

communicated to train crews and included, for example, reminders to RTCs of the presence of 

equipment on a section of track.

When an RTC received a severe weather bulletin—such as a forecast for flash flooding or 

high winds—that affected the RTC‘s territory, the RTC was required to add a restrictive label to 

the computer displays and to notify the crews of trains operating within areas affected by the 

alert. If trains were already operating in the affected area when the weather bulletin was 

received, the RTC had to communicate this information immediately to the crew.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

41

Sometime after 6:36 p.m., the regional operations coordinator (ROC) retrieved the severe 

weather bulletin44 and walked it over to the RTC working desk 7. The specific communication 

between the ROC and the RTC during the handoff of the weather bulletin could not be recalled. 

However, the CN has no written protocol describing the information required to be 

communicated during this type of handoff. The RTC could not recall how the weather bulletin 

was handed off (that is, handed directly to him or placed on his desk). After he delivered the 

weather bulletin, the ROC departed to tend to his other duties. Neither the ROC, nor any other 

supervisor, was required to verify if the RTC took appropriate action in response to the weather 

bulletin. 

Although the RTC could not recall the specific task he was performing the moment he 

received the weather bulletin, he believes that he was talking on the radio to a train crew at that 

time. His radio conversations that evening typically lasted between 1 and 3 minutes. Consistent 

with his training, he completed his radio communication before addressing his next task, which 

may have been answering another radio call. (He often had radio calls waiting in the queue.) The 

RTC had recognized that it was a weather bulletin that had been handed to him. Based on his 

training and experience, he understood the significance of severe weather bulletins, the 

requirement to put labels on his computer screens, and the need to notify the trains operating 

within the mileposts of the weather bulletin. However, he did not read the bulletin and, 

consequently, did not take appropriate action. He eventually placed the weather bulletin on a 

stack of papers containing other weather bulletins he had received earlier in his shift. When 

asked if he should have slowed the train down, he stated that the train crew should have operated 

the train according to the rules, based upon the conditions that they observed.

The RTC also received a number of telephone calls during his shift. If the RTC was on 

the telephone or could not take the call (for example, he was talking on the radio), the 

unanswered calls would be placed in a queue, including the calls from the CN police before the 

accident.

At the time the weather bulletins were received, the chief dispatcher was on duty at the 

Homewood control center monitoring the weather and the RTCs. The chief dispatcher told 

investigators that he was aware of heavy rains and weather alerts on the Freeport Subdivision but 

that it was the RTC‘s responsibility to post them. He said he had not monitored the delivery of 

the weather alerts to the RTC or noted whether the regional operations controller had actually 

placed the alerts on the RTC‘s desk. Although the chief dispatcher could have monitored the 

weather alert process, he did not.

1.19 CN Internal Emergency Communications

CN police representatives told investigators that, upon being notified of a problem at a 

crossing, the first task of a call desk officer is to locate the crossing. The desk officers may enter 

the name of the CN subdivision and milepost number into an Internet-based system that responds 

by displaying a map of the area, or they may use a system that responds with the subdivision and 

milepost number when the name of the road is entered. The CN representatives said it took no 

 

44 Weather reports are typically written on a single page with the heading ―AccuWeather‖ written in large, bold 

print at the top right of the page.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

42

more than 1 or 2 minutes to find Mulford Road and to determine the appropriate contact 

information.

The CN police emergency response center had telephone lines programmed to contact the 

various CN RTCs. When notified of the washed-out track near Mulford Road, the CN police 

used this ―speed dial‖ feature in an attempt to contact the RTC and the chief dispatcher. Calls 

made directly from the emergency response center to an RTC go into a queue—first in, first 

answered. If the phone call does not go through, call desk officers may use a dedicated ―hotline‖ 

to contact the chief dispatcher. According to CN officials, the hotline was restricted to police use 

and was to be monitored by the chief dispatcher around the clock. 

According to the call desk officers on duty during this incident, between 8:18 p.m. and

8:23 p.m. they were looking up the location of Mulford Road while simultaneously dealing with 

other calls. One of the call desk officers said:

I was trying to get hold of the dispatcher as soon as I could, but ... I was dealing 

with other calls as well. ... I know it was a busy night ... but my first priority was 

trying to get hold of desk 7.

According to response center records, CN call desk officers made calls at 8:23, 8:26, 

8:33, and 8:40 p.m. in an attempt to contact the chief dispatcher or the RTC for desk 7. The call 

desk officer who entered the crossing data for Mulford Road into the mapping system noted that 

UP tracks crossed Mulford Road just north of the CN tracks, so at 8:30 p.m., the officer called 

the Winnebago County 911 operator to confirm the location at Mulford Road. At 8:32 p.m., the 

CN police dispatcher advised Winnebago County 911 that the CN would be ―sending someone 

out‖ to the crossing. About 8:40 p.m., when call desk officers in Montreal did reach the RTC and 

the chief dispatcher, neither of the call desk officers reported a track washout. 

The call desk officers did not use the hotline to reach the chief dispatcher because they 

said they had had difficulty getting the line in the past because of CN conference calls being 

conducted on the line. Also, one call desk officer told investigators that:

My experience in using [the hotline is that it] depends on how occupied they are 

on the other end. Sometimes you try to reach them and nobody answers. 

Sometimes we call and we hear the dispatcher putting the phone on the table 

without answering, or we have some long time waiting, like the dispatcher is not 

picking up the line.

During postaccident tests of the line to desk 7 conducted by investigators, the CN police 

dispatcher waited about 1 minute for the desk 7 RTC to answer. A test call using the hotline was 

answered in 4 seconds.

See table 2 for a washout notification timeline. A comprehensive timeline of the June 19 

event is at appendix B. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

43

Table 2. Washout notification timeline, June 19, 2009. 

Time

(CDT)a Activity

7:35 p.m.

A citizen calls the Rockford, Illinois, Police Department to report a washout of CN track near the 

Mulford Road grade crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois. 

7:40 p.m.

Winnebago County 911 (WC911) in Rockford begins receiving multiple calls from citizens about 

the washout. 

8:03 p.m. WC911 dispatches a Winnebago County sheriff’s deputy to Mulford Road to investigate reports.

8:09 p.m. WC911 deputy attempts to determine owner of tracks with reported washout. Calls BNSF Railway 

and is told the track is not BNSF. 

8:10 p.m. WC911 deputy calls UP Railroad to report washout. UP tracks are about 500 feet north of CN 

tracks at Mulford Road.

8:14 p.m.

Sheriff’s deputy reaches Mulford Road; calls and advises WC911 deputy that the tracks are

washed away. 

8:16 p.m.

Having determined that the track belongs to the CN, WC911 deputy contacts the CN Emergency 

Call Center in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and informs the call desk officer of washout of CN 

tracks at Mulford Road in Rockford, Illinois: “Water has washed out rail lines that do belong to 

you.”

8:18 p.m.

CN emergency call center desk officer in Montreal makes first unsuccessful attempt to contact the 

rail traffic controller (RTC) at Homewood, Illinois, control center. Officer asks another call desk 

officer to continue calling the RTC while the first officer attempts to reach the chief dispatcher at 

Homewood. Call desk officers make a total of three more calls each before reaching the RTC and 

chief dispatcher. 

8:32 p.m.

CN emergency call desk officer in Montreal calls WC911 to confirm the location at Mulford Road 

and to inform authorities that CN would be “sending someone out.”

8:35 p.m.

After passing MP 81 (less than 1 mile west of Mulford Road), crew of the accident train calls the 

RTC to report having encountered high water at Rockford Diamond (a junction of tracks) and 

water near the tops of the rails near MP 81.

8:36 p.m.

Shortly after the head end of the accident train passes over the Mulford Road grade crossing, the 

train experiences an automatic emergency brake application as the train derails and separates 

behind the 58th car. 

8:36 p.m.

RTC calls Edmonton Walker Call Desk in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to relay the accident train’s 

report of high water at Rockford Diamond and water near the tops of the rails at MP 81.

Edmonton Walker Call Desk dispatches local track inspector (who lives in Freeport, Illinois) to the 

area.

8:40 p.m.

CN Montreal Emergency Call Center desk officers reach the chief dispatcher and RTC at 

Homewood. Neither caller mentions “washout.” RTC responds that he has already reported the 

high water.

8:42 p.m.

With the head end of their train near MP 79.5, the crew of the accident train radios the RTC to 

report that the train is in emergency but the cause has not been determined.

8:55 p.m.

Local track inspector dispatched by Edmonton Walker Call Desk contacts RTC and asks to 

inspect the track east of MP 79. RTC advises him to follow the train that had reported the high 

water (the accident train, which has already derailed). 

8:59 p.m. The accident train engineer calls RTC to report fire involving at least one ethanol tank car.

a

Investigators checked and verified two 911 center clock systems with the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 

Boulder, Colorado, and through a review of paired outgoing and incoming calls with the 911 centers, extended the time validation to 

the CN’s Montreal and Homewood dispatch offices.

1.20 Train Consist Inaccuracy

Title 49 CFR 174.26, ―Notice to Train Crews,‖ requires that a train crew have a train 

consist that reflects the current position in the train of each rail car containing a hazardous 

material. The train consist must be maintained on board the occupied locomotive of every train.

The train crew must update the train consist to indicate changes in the placement of a hazardous 

material rail car within the train. The regulation states that when changes to the train consist 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

44

occur en route as a result of pickups or set outs, a train crew must update the train consist by 

handwriting on it or by appending or attaching another document.

Before the accident train departed Tara, Iowa, the crew was given a consist showing the 

cars on the train (identified by car number and contents) and their order in the train. About 

7 miles east of Tara, in Fort Dodge, Iowa, the train passed an automatic equipment identification 

(AEI) scanner,45 which automatically updated the consist. However, according to the scanner 

report, only 3 of the 76 cars in the train were in the positions indicated on the printed train 

consist carried by the crew. Although the CN had electronically updated the consist information 

and train crew changes had occurred in Waterloo, Iowa, and Dubuque, Iowa, neither train crew 

received an updated paper consist document. At crew change locations, the new train crew 

typically accepts the paperwork from the crew being relieved, without actually conducting an

inspection to check the accuracy of the train consist against the information provided to them.

The train continued with the incorrect consist for another 259 miles, to Freeport, Illinois. At 

Freeport, 38 nonhazardous rail cars were added to the head of the train. Before leaving Freeport, 

the train crew received a track list46 for the additional cars, but the consist for the 76 tank cars 

that were now at the rear of the train remained in error. The conductor did not update the train 

consist information.

During the emergency response effort on the day of the accident, about 10:20 p.m., the 

train crew arrived at the IC and presented to emergency responders the Freeport track list and the 

original Tara consist. The train crew told hazardous materials responders that although they did 

not know which specific cars were involved in the derailment, all of the tank cars behind the 39th

car contained ethanol. The emergency responders concluded from the documents presented by 

the train crew that each of the tank cars involved in the derailment contained ethanol.

At 1:22 a.m. on June 20, 2009, the CN chief dispatcher e-mailed an accurate train consist 

to the Region 2 coordinator of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, who provided the 

document to the IC.

As a result of the discrepancy in the accident train consist, the FRA issued a July 28, 2009, 

inspection report directing the CN to develop a transportation action plan to identify the 

operational procedures and documentation requirements for the transportation of hazardous 

materials. The FRA indicated that the action plan should address efficiency testing of train crews 

for hazardous materials consist compliance and announced that it would monitor the CN‘s 

efficiency testing by conducting its own unannounced train consist inspections to determine 

compliance with 49 CFR 174.26.47

 

45 AEI scanners identify cars on a train by reading the identification tags on cars as they pass the scanner. The 

AEI reader automatically relays information back to the CN‘s central computer to update the master train consist. 

46 The term ―track list‖ refers to the order, shipping data, and number of cars as they were placed on a given 

track.

47 The CN‘s response to the FRA‘s direction to develop an action plan is discussed later in this report in 

―Postaccident Actions by the CN.‖
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

45

1.21 Tests and Research

1.21.1 Tank Car Specimens for Examination

After the initial on-scene examination of the damaged tank cars, investigators selected six 

of the cars for further analysis. Pieces and parts of the selected cars were retained, and in some 

cases, coupons (specimens for testing) were cut from the tank shells and delivered to the NTSB‘s 

Materials Laboratory in Washington, DC, for examination and testing.

The detailed examinations focused on the B ends48 (cut beyond the 5-6 ring49 weld 

seams) of tank cars NATX 302968, NATX 302974, NATX 303504, and TILX 193767. The 

manway and the valves and pressure-relief devices from car NATX 302974 also were removed 

for examination.

1.21.2 Tank Car Construction

The DOT-111 tank cars involved in this accident were constructed with a draft sill 

design, where the draft sills

50 of each car were attached to steel ―pads‖ that were attached to the 

tank. Because the cars did not incorporate a center sill that extended the entire length of the car, 

the draft sills are also referred to as ―stub‖ sills. Body bolsters and their associated body bolster 

pads centered above the railcar trucks supported the tank and protected it against lateral forces. 

The draft sill center plate served as the attachment point between the tank car body and the truck 

assembly. Reinforcing bars extended underneath the tank between the draft sills on each car. 

(See figures 18 and 19.)

 

48 Because rail cars have no front or rear, for descriptive purposes, the ends of the cars are designated ―A‖ and 

―B.‖ The B end of a car is the end equipped with the wheel used to manually set the car‘s brakes. The end without 

the brake wheel is the A end. As trains are assembled, either end of a tank car may be placed in the front or rear 

position.

49 The tank shells were constructed of six ―rings‖ welded together. By convention, ring 1 is at the A end and 

ring 6 at the B end.

50 Draft sills incorporate the draft gear that is designed to transfer longitudinal draft (tension) and buff 

(compression) forces throughout the length of a train.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

46

Figure 18. Schematic cutaway view (not to scale) of end of tank car showing major 

components.

The body bolster pads and front sill pads were attached to the tank with fillet welds.51 On 

the body bolster pads, all the edges of the pad were welded. On the front sill pad, the front and 

sides were welded, as were all inside edges of the rectangular cutout at the center of the front sill 

pad. (See figure 19.) At the rear edge of the front sill pad, a butt weld52 attached the front sill pad 

to the body bolster pad and to the fillet weld attaching the body bolster pad to the tank shell.

Fillet welds at the interior and exterior sides of the head brace attached the head brace to the 

front sill pad, and an exterior fillet weld attached the head brace to the draft sill. To the rear of 

the head brace, the draft sill was welded to the front sill pad, body bolster pad, and reinforcing 

bars.

 

51 Fillet welds are the types of welds used to join two surfaces at right angles. In cross section, fillet welds 

appear triangular.

52 Butt welds are used to join the squared edges of two pieces that do not overlap.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

47

Figure 19. Schematic drawing (not to scale) from below showing body bolster, draft sill, and 

head brace attachment locations to pads on underside of tank cars. Circled areas indicate 

where transverse portions of draft sill are welded adjacent to transverse weld of body bolster 

pad.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

48

1.21.3 Tank Car Construction Standards

Industry standards for stub sill/pad/shell attachments are contained in the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices.

53 Key 

requirements for the stub sill attachments are listed below:

1. The throat area54 of welds attaching the stub sill to the pad must be no more than 

85 percent of the throat area of welds attaching the pad to the tank.

2. Pads must extend at least 1 inch transversely on either side of the stub sill.

3. The front sill pad must extend beyond the head brace attachment weld toe55 by a 

distance set by a specified formula [~3 inches in the accident tank cars].

With regard to standard 1, the car manufacturer stated that the design complied with the 

85 percent rule. As detailed later in this section, NTSB investigators measured the fillet welds

from polished and etched cross-section specimens from tank cars NATX 303504 and TILX 

193767 and found that they generally corresponded to the sizes specified in the construction 

drawings. The welds appeared to be workmanlike in both external appearance and in 

microstructural cross-section. With regard to standard 2, the draft sill was at least 1 inch from the 

edges of the pads in the transverse direction. With regard to standard 3, the front sill pads on the 

accident cars extended about 5.5 to 6 inches beyond the head brace weld toe.

1.21.4 Field Examination

Car NATX 303504. An initial examination of the damage at the B end of tank car NATX 

303504 (car 66 in the train) showed that the draft sill was deformed downward almost 90 degrees 

relative to the tank axis. (See figures 20 and 21.) The tail plates of the draft sill (vertical sides to 

the rear of the center plate) were buckled. The tank shell was fractured circumferentially around 

about 104 inches of the circumference adjacent to the front edge of the body bolster pad. All 

fracture surfaces were on slant planes, consistent with ductile overstress fracture. The front sill 

pad on the car was fractured from the tank shell and remained attached to the head brace and 

draft sill.

 

53 AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Association of American Railroads, Washington, 

DC (October 2007).

54 For the purposes of this report, the throat area can be defined as the thickness of the weld.

55 The weld toe is the point at which the face of the weld (the exposed surface of a weld on the side from which 

the welding was done) meets the base metal (the metal being welded).
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

49

Figure 20. B end of car NATX 303504.

Figure 21. Underside of B end of tank car NATX 303504 as viewed from A end.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

50

Examination of the lower side of the tank at the front sill pad attachment area showed that 

the fillet weld attaching the sill pad to the tank shell had fractured through weld metal. The weld 

fractures occurred in various planes from parallel to the tank outer surface to almost

perpendicular to the tank surface. The fracture features had a matte gray appearance with a light 

orange oxide, consistent with ductile overstress fracture with some postfracture oxidation. The 

fracture features were generally uniform in color and texture, with no evidence within the welds 

of slag, undercuts, porosity, lack of fusion, or cracks. The portions of the weld metal remaining 

attached to the tank surface had features that were consistent with fracture propagation from 

front to rear along the sides of the front sill pad. The weld fractures at the edges of the front sill 

pad ended at the edge of the body bolster pad, a position also corresponding to the location of the 

circumferential fracture through the shell. At the lower surface of the tank car, the 

circumferential shell fracture occurred adjacent to the fillet weld for the body bolster pad and the 

butt weld attaching the front sill pad to the body bolster pad and bolster pad fillet weld. 

Investigators did not find evidence of preexisting damage such as fatigue cracking.

NATX 302974. Examination of the B end of tank car NATX 302974 (car 67 in the train) 

revealed that the head was deformed and had a 25-inch-wide by 44-inch-long opening. An 

impact mark about 8 inches wide was observed on the lower side of the opening, and head 

material at the upper side of the opening was folded over on itself three times. A 32-inch-long 

crack extended upward at the 12 o‘clock position from the opening. A closer examination of the 

draft sill showed that the right side of the draft sill had a torch-cut surface. Adjacent to the cut 

surface, the right side wall showed ―S‖-shaped deformation consistent with buckling, and the 

lower right flange showed upward bending deformation. The left side of the draft sill was 

fractured on a slant plane with little out-of-plane deformation, consistent with overstress fracture 

in tension. The upper surface was fractured and folded over on itself. The front sill pad was 

fractured where it intersected the front portion of the head brace adjacent to the head brace to 

front sill pad weld. All fractures showed features consistent with overstress fracture with no 

evidence of preexisting damage such as fatigue cracking.

NATX 302968. The tank head at the B end of car NATX 302968 (car 69 on the train) was 

deformed inward, and the left side56 of the tank was fractured circumferentially, with 100 inches 

of the fracture along the circumferential weld between the head and the shell. The end of the 

shell at the fracture location was folded over on itself and deformed outward. Fracture features 

were on slant planes, consistent with overstress fracture. The examination found no evidence of 

preexisting damage such as a fatigue cracking. The B end of the stub sill was deformed upward 

relative to the tank longitudinal axis.

TILX 193767. Investigators cut portions of the draft sill and the tank shell at the B end of 

tank car TILX 193767 (car 72 in the train) where it fractured adjacent to the weld attaching the 

head brace to the draft sill weld and where the front end of the draft sill was deformed downward 

relative to the tank car axis. Fracture surfaces of the draft sill were on slant angles, which was 

consistent with ductile overstress fracture.

 

56 Right and left are referenced from the center of the tank car looking toward the A end.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

51

1.21.5 Laboratory Examination

Investigators assessed parts and specimens from the damaged tank cars to determine if 

they met tank car engineering drawings and AAR specifications. The shells of the tank cars 

examined by the NTSB were manufactured of AAR specification TC-128 Grade B (TC-128B) 

steel, and the heads were manufactured of either ASTM International57 specification A516 Grade 

70 (A516-70) steel or AAR specification TC-128B steel.

Investigators examined specimens torch-cut from the B ends of tank cars NATX 302974,

TILX 193767, and NATX 303504. The examinations focused on the attachment welds for the 

draft sill, head brace, and front sill pad. The results of those examinations are as follows:

NATX 302974. A cross-section of the piece cut from the B end of tank car NATX 302974 

showed the tank shell and front sill pad were deformed inward along the axis of the draft sill.

The head and front sill pad were deformed from a curved surface to a relatively flat plane in the 

area above the head brace. No cross-sections of the welds were prepared from this piece.

TILX 193767. NTSB investigators saw-cut cross-sectional pieces from the B end of tank 

car TILX 193767. The cross-section depicted outward deformation of the front sill pad from the 

tank head surface, with greatest outward displacement of the front sill pad at the head brace 

attachment location. The magnitude of deformation was less than that observed in NATX 

303504 (discussed below). Pieces of the cross-section were polished and etched to reveal the 

weld microstructures for examination. The welds were formed from multiple passes for weld 

sizes greater than 0.25 inch. Welds generally showed good coverage through the thickness of the 

weld.

NATX 303504. NTSB investigators saw-cut cross-sectional pieces from the B end of tank 

car NATX 303504. Outward deformation of the front sill pad from the tank head surface was

evident in the cross-sectional view, with the greatest magnitude of displacement occurring at the 

point of head brace attachment. Pieces of the cross-section were polished and etched to reveal the 

weld microstructures. Welds were formed from multiple passes for weld sizes greater than 

0.25 inch. Welds generally showed good coverage through the thickness of the weld. A crack 

was observed in the front sill pad at the toe of the front fillet weld between the head brace and 

the front sill pad. The crack extended through about one-half the thickness of the front sill pad.

1.21.6 Mechanical Testing and Chemical Analysis

During the on-scene and group examinations, investigators removed rectangular samples 

of shell material about 2 to 3 feet in size from tank cars CTCX 730958, NATX 302974, NATX 

303174, and TILX 193767. The samples, which were cut from parts of the tanks that showed no 

evidence of high heat damage, were sent to the NTSB‘s Materials Laboratory for tensile testing 

and chemical analysis. The selected tank cars represented a range of dates of manufacture; the 

oldest was built in 2006, and the newest, in 2008.

 

57 Known until 2001 as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM International is an 

international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a 

variety of materials, products, systems, and services.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

52

Construction records indicate that heads and shells of tank cars NATX 302974, NATX 

303174 and NATX 303504 were fabricated from normalized58 AAR TC-128B steel.

Construction records for cars CTCX 730958 and TILX 193767 indicated that the tank shells of 

those cars were fabricated from nonnormalized AAR TC-128B steel. According to the AAR 

Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, tank head and shell material may be 

furnished in either as-rolled or normalized condition unless the cars are specified for low-temperature

service, in which case the material must be normalized. The derailed tank cars in this accident 

were not specified for low-temperature service.

As described above, tank car NATX 302968 had a 100-inch-long circumferential fracture 

at the B end that propagated adjacent to the head-to-shell weld. In tank car NATX 303504, a 

circumferential fracture occurred in the shell adjacent to the body bolster pad while the 

circumferential head-to-shell weld remained intact. The samples that were cut from both cars 

included intact head-to-shell circumferential welds so that tensile tests could be performed across 

the welds.

Mechanical testing and chemical analysis was completed by Tensile Testing 

Metallurgical Laboratory (TTML) in Cleveland, Ohio, at the direction of the NTSB. TTML 

conducted the tests in accordance with ASTM International standard ASTM A-370.

Tensile Tests of Shell Material. A total of six specimens were tested from each shell 

piece removed from tank cars CTCX 730958, NATX 302974, NATX 303174, and TILX 

193767, with three specimens oriented in the longitudinal direction (relative to the plate rolling 

direction) and three specimens oriented in the transverse direction. Tensile properties of all 24 

tensile specimens met the tensile property requirements for AAR specification TC-128B steel.

Tensile Tests of Head-to-Shell Weld. Three tensile tests were conducted on each of the 

two samples containing head-to-shell welds that were taken from tank cars NATX 302968 and 

NATX 303504. The tests were conducted on specimens with the weld located at the middle of 

the specimen. Test results showed an ultimate stress of 88.0 to 88.5 kips59 per square inch (ksi)

for specimens from tank car NATX 302968, and 94.3 to 95.1 ksi for the specimens from tank car 

NATX 303504. All specimens showed ductile fracture features. Test specimens from tank car 

NATX 303504 fractured in the base metal. Among test specimens from tank car NATX 302968, 

one specimen fractured in the base metal, the other two specimens fractured in the heat-affected 

zone.60

Chemical Analysis of Shell Material. TTML conducted chemical analysis on each shell 

piece removed from tank cars CTCX 730958, NATX 302974, NATX 303174, and TILX 

193767. One deviation from the chemical requirements was measured in the phosphorus level of 

the sample from NATX 302974, in which phosphorus in the specimen was 0.002 percent higher, 

 

58 Normalized steel has undergone a heat treatment process that generally produces higher strength and 

toughness of the steel relative to the as-rolled condition, thereby increasing the amount of energy required to cause

fracture at most temperatures. Since 1989, pressure tank car shells have been required to be fabricated from

normalized steel.

59 One kip (kilo-pound) equals 1,000 pounds of force.

60 Heat-affected zone refers to the area of base material that has had its microstructure altered by welding.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

53

by weight, than specified. Other elements from the specimen from tank car NATX 302974 and 

all elements in specimens from the other three tank cars were within specifications.

1.21.7 Locomotive Recorders

The event recorder from the lead locomotive of the accident train was sent to the NTSB‘s

Vehicle Recorder Lab for readout and evaluation. Event recorder data indicated that at 8:34:36 

the locomotive bell was activated for 21 seconds and the horn transitioned from ―On‖ to ―Off‖ a 

few times during this period. One minute 22 seconds later (8:35:58), a train-initiated emergency 

brake application occurred, and the throttle position transitioned from 6 to 0. The accident train 

was traveling 36 mph at this time. Thirty seconds later, at 8:36:28, the train stopped. The train 

was not equipped with any onboard video recorders, nor were they required. 

1.22 Actions Taken Since the Accident 

1.22.1 Postaccident Actions by the CN

The CN has informed the NTSB of the following actions it has taken in response to the 

derailment:

Weather Alert Procedures. Shortly after the June 19, 2009, derailment, the CN 

implemented new procedures for the handling of weather bulletins. For U.S. operations, 

AccuWeather no longer transmits weather alerts to the CN‘s Edmonton Walker Call Desk but 

rather sends them directly to the Homewood control center. Additionally, a supervisor or a chief 

dispatcher who delivers a weather bulletin to an RTC is now required to ensure that the RTC

applies a restrictive label to the TMDS and notifies crews or other personnel in the area. The 

control center is also automating the dispatching desks so that RTCs will receive alert warnings 

directly via the TMDS. When a weather alert is received, the RTC must acknowledge the alert 

and select the option to automatically apply the appropriate restrictive label in the TMDS. The 

RTC must then issue the weather alert to the trains in the territory. 

Since the accident, the CN has also changed its engineering personnel notification policy 

for weather alerts. Weather alerts arriving at the Homewood control center are now forwarded to 

an engineering coordinator at Homewood whose job it is to notify engineering personnel and 

coordinate an appropriate response. To ―declutter‖ the reporting process, the CN no longer 

responds to weather ―watches‖ and instead focuses exclusively on ―warnings,‖ believing that 

―watch‖ notifications were unnecessarily adding to the RTC‘s workload.

Emergency Call Procedures. On September 18, 2009, the CN issued new instructions 

for emergency call procedures. The CN offices in Canada (Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal) 

were provided with hotline phone numbers for the 12 RTC desks in the Homewood control 

center. If a call to one of the hotline numbers is not answered within 7 seconds, it will roll over to 

an emergency line. If that line is not answered within 7 seconds, it will roll over to a back-up 

emergency line. The new instructions further provide that direct telephone lines are assigned to 

each RTC/signal desk at Homewood, Montreal, Toronto, and Edmonton, and that calls on these 

lines take priority. A red light flashes when those lines ring.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

54

At the time of this accident, the CN was in the process of updating procedures to be used 

by CN Police Emergency Call Center personnel when contacting the chief dispatcher or RTCs at 

Homewood. The updated procedures manual61 added 40 new procedures for call center 

personnel, including actions to be taken (that is, phone calls to make and information to be 

transmitted) when a train must be stopped following the notification of a washout.

After the accident, all CN RTCs were required to attend a 1-week ―Emergency Service 

Dispatcher‖ training course provided by College Montmorency in Laval, Quebec, Canada. The

training has been provided to all existing employees and must be taken by all new hires.

Drainage Improvements. After the accident, the CN replaced the 36-inch corrugated 

metal pipe (which was destroyed in the accident) under the track west of the crossing with two 

48-inch-diameter cast iron pipes installed near the site of the previous 36-inch pipe. The 

Winnebago County Highway Department determined that, based on design calculations, the 

24-inch-diameter pipe under Mulford Road north of the CN tracks should be replaced with a 

single 48-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe. However, according to county highway 

department representatives, the CN ―insisted‖ that two 48-inch pipes be installed. Because of a 

lack of conclusive information about the cause of the washout and the desire to reopen Mulford 

Road as quickly as possible, Winnebago County provided the CN with one 48-inch, one 36-inch, 

and one 24-inch corrugated metal pipe to be installed in place of the original 24-inch pipe. 

Winnebago County officials continued to maintain that these pipes were to be considered relief 

pipes only and that all significant storm flows would be directed through the box culvert south of 

the crossing.

Crossing Emergency Notification Signage. After the derailment, the CN installed a 

new emergency notification sign on the signal bungalow at the Mulford Road grade crossing. 

The new emergency notification sign conformed to the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. The telephone number on the new sign is for the CN‘s Southern 

Operations Control Center in Homewood, Illinois.

Train Consist Accuracy. As a result of the discrepancy in the accident train consist, the 

FRA issued a July 28, 2009, inspection report directing the CN to develop a transportation action 

plan to identify the operational procedures and documentation requirements for the 

transportation of hazardous materials. On August 10, 2009, the CN responded to the FRA‘s 

directive by establishing a ―Hazardous Materials Action Plan‖ for its Iowa Subdivision. This 

plan specifies that cars carrying hazardous materials must not be handled unless a train 

crewmember has all of the proper documents showing the current position of all hazardous 

material shipments in the train. The plan requires that when picking up or setting out cars, the 

documents must be updated before the train departs the location. The plan states that the CN will 

perform efficiency tests on an around-the-clock basis. Every transportation officer in the CN‘s 

Iowa zone is to perform a minimum of five hazardous materials placement tests per month on 

trains that pick up or set out cars en route, and three hazardous materials placement tests per 

month on trains leaving the initial terminals. The plan specifies follow-up testing within 10 days 

for employees who have been found in violation of the rules. 

 

61 The CN‘s revised procedures document, Call instructions and procedures used by the CN Police Emergency 

Call Center for contacting the Chief Dispatchers and RTCs at Homewood, is dated October 28, 2009.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

55

The plan also states that the CN will place renewed emphasis on its existing efficiency 

testing program, which involves testing train crews on hazardous materials documents, train 

placement, and hazardous materials placards. According to CN representatives, between July 

2009 and December 2010, the CN conducted 167 efficiency tests in its Chicago region, which 

includes the Cherry Valley area, and found no defects in the area of consist accuracy.

1.22.2 Postaccident Actions by the FRA

According to the FRA, from September 2009 through December 2009, FRA safety 

inspectors audited the CN‘s emergency call system in Homewood, Illinois. During the FRA 

audits, the CN conducted mock emergency calls (drills) to the service center help desk to 

determine the effectiveness of the emergency call system. The CN changed the routing of 

emergency calls to a trouble desk located inside the dispatcher center at Homewood (instead of 

to Montreal, Quebec, Canada). This enhanced notification process included reducing the number 

of telephone rings before rolling a call to the chief dispatcher or other managers. As part of the 

call testing, the rings were timed and counted to ensure that calls that rang four times were 

immediately forwarded to the chief dispatcher‘s office and a mass notification list.

The FRA also performed tests involving four police departments making mock 

emergency calls. The phone number that the CN issued to the local police departments was

correct. All calls were answered within four rings, verifying that changes the CN had 

implemented were, in fact, effective.

The FRA also performed audits on CN train consist list accuracy. From September 2009 

through December 2009, FRA Region 4 hazardous materials safety inspectors conducted 14 train 

consist audits of trains operating between Rockford, Illinois, and Dubuque, Iowa. Of the 

14 trains reviewed, lists from 3 trains were found to be inaccurate according to the physical 

placement of hazardous materials rail cars being transported within the train. The FRA issued 

three violations to the CN, one for each of the three inaccurate consist lists.

1.22.3 Postaccident Actions by the AAR

After the Cherry Valley accident, the AAR Tank Car Committee formed a task force to 

consider several DOT-111 protective systems or changes in operations that include the 

following:

Half-height and full-height head shields

Tank jacket, with or without insulation

Increased shell thickness

Increased head thickness

Removal of bottom fittings

Increased outage requirements
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

56

The task force asked researchers at the University of Illinois to conduct a statistical 

analysis of tank car accident data to determine the overall effectiveness of shell breach risk 

reduction options, including installing head shields, installing jackets, and increasing the 

thicknesses of the heads and shells. In its status report for the October 20–21, 2010, committee 

meeting, the task force presented data suggesting that the greatest reduction in the estimated 

amount of lading released from DOT-111 tank cars, about 50 percent, could be achieved through 

a combination of thicker steel, tank jackets, and head shields.

The DOT-111 tank cars currently used to transport ethanol and crude oil have a minimum 

plate thickness of 7/16 inch nonnormalized TC-128B or A516-70 steel, with no provision for a 

head shield. However, tank cars ordered after October 1, 2011, for denatured fuel ethanol and 

crude oil service in Packing Groups

62 I and II must be constructed in accordance with AAR 

circular letter CPC 1230, the requirements of which have also been included in an AAR petition 

for rulemaking that was filed with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) on March 9, 2011. The new AAR requirements increase the minimum head and shell 

thickness to 1/2 inch for TC-128B nonjacketed cars and 7/16 inch for jacketed cars. Shells of 

nonjacketed tank cars constructed of A516-70 steel must now be 9/16 inch thick; shells of 

jacketed cars must be 1/2 inch thick. The new AAR requirements also specify that both the heads 

and the shells must be constructed of normalized steel and that in all cases, a 1/2-inch-thick head 

shield must be provided. The new AAR requirements are to be effective until such time as a 

government/industry task force (designated task force T87.6) determines whether additional risk 

mitigation enhancement is appropriate for these cars.

1.22.4 Postaccident Actions by Nicor Gas

Pipeline Replacement. After the accident, Nicor Gas replaced the damaged section of 

its pipeline with welded 12-inch-diameter American Petroleum Institute 5L Grade X-42 steel 

pipe with 0.250-inch wall thickness. In coordination with the CN, Nicor installed about 700 feet 

of replacement pipe parallel to the west side of Mulford Road about 350 feet north and 350 feet 

south of the CN crossing. The new pipeline was installed adjacent to the existing pipeline, which

was purged of product, capped, and retired in place. The replacement pipeline was installed at a 

depth of 22 feet below the centerline of the tracks.

Communication and Notification Protocols. Nicor Gas maintains two 24-hour 

response and dispatch centers and has on-call personnel throughout the service territory to 

respond to events that occur after normal business hours. According to company representatives, 

since this accident, Nicor Gas has revised its communication and notification procedures to 

ensure that dispatch personnel review pipeline maps and corroborate their findings concerning 

the location of pipelines with the field duty supervisor to avoid providing erroneous information 

to emergency response agencies.

Emergency Responder Information. Nicor Gas also reported that it has sent letters to 

the fire departments serving each of the 640 communities in its service area informing them of

 

62 The packing group indicates the degree of danger presented by a hazardous material in transport. Packing 

Group I indicates great danger; Packing Group II, medium danger; and Packing Group III, minor danger.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

57

the availability of the National Pipeline Mapping System.63 Instructions were included on how to

use the National Pipeline Mapping System to identify transmission pipelines within the fire 

departments‘ jurisdictions. Additionally, Nicor Gas has recommended that the preplanning books 

for pipeline events be periodically updated to ensure that pipeline facility and operator contact 

information remains current. On an ongoing basis, this information will be emphasized through

Nicor‘s public awareness program.

1.22.5 Postaccident Actions by the City of Rockford

Officials representing the city of Rockford informed the NTSB that the city has taken the 

following actions in response to the washout and derailment at Mulford Road:

The city has developed a storm water inspection program for large detention ponds after a 

major storm event. Rockford‘s major storm event monitoring program is set to include 

inspections of public and private major detention ponds, bridges, culverts, and major creeks and 

drainage ways.

The city has revised its detention basin evaluation form to include data on the physical 

condition of the detention pond‘s embankments, outlets, and spillways. Inspectors will rate the 

conditions found as ―Good,‖ ―Fair,‖ or ―Poor.‖ Any component rated other than ―Good‖ will be 

further inspected by the storm water section manager.

The city is encouraging private homeowners associations and their management 

companies to notify the city immediately if there is any physical damage to a storm water 

management detention pond, drainage way, or culvert after a major storm event or whenever 

such damage is detected.

1.22.6 Postaccident Actions by the Cherry Valley Fire Protection District

In response to a request from the CVFPD, Nicor Gas provided the CVFPD with maps

showing the locations of natural gas pipelines within the CVFPD district in early September 

2009. The CVFPD also procured a railroad tank car that was involved in the derailment for 

 ̳live-action use or real-world application‘ at the CVFPD training facility, which is also used by 

the RFD hazardous materials response unit.

 

63 The National Pipeline Mapping System is a geographic information system created by the Office of Pipeline 

Safety within PHMSA in cooperation with other Federal and state government agencies and the pipeline industry. 

The mapping system shows the locations of pipelines, population levels/densities, the locations of roadways, the 

names and contact details for the pipeline operators, and a list of products that may be transported.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

58

1.23 Other Information

1.23.1 Performance of DOT-111 Tank Cars in Accidents

In addition to its numerous investigations of accidents involving DOT-111 tank cars, the 

NTSB conducted a 1991 safety study64 that examined the performance of 84 DOT-111 tank cars 

in accidents that occurred between March 1988 and February 1989. The study found that 

54 percent of the DOT-111 cars involved in these accidents released product, with head and shell 

punctures accounting for 22 percent of the releases. The study found that the rate at which the 

DOT-111 tank cars experienced head or shell punctures or failures was double that of DOT-105, 

-112, and -114 pressure tank cars. The NTSB concluded that the DOT-111 tank cars, which are 

frequently used to transport hazardous materials, have a high incidence of failure when involved 

in accidents.

On July 1, 1991, the NTSB recommended to the Research and Special Programs 

Administration (RSPA, predecessor to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration), the FRA, the AAR, the Chemical Manufacturers‘ Association (now the 

American Chemistry Council), the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Fire 

Protection Association that these organizations work together to develop a list of hazardous 

materials that should be transported only in pressure tank cars with head shield protection and 

thermal protection (if needed) and to establish a working agreement to ship the listed hazardous 

materials in such tank cars.

Subsequently, RSPA, in cooperation with the FRA, published regulations requiring 

stronger and better protected tank cars for certain classes of hazardous materials. Under these 

regulations, a wider variety of hazardous materials must be transported in pressure tank cars that 

have head and shield protection and thermal protection, as applicable, as well as enhanced 

puncture protection for tank cars used to transport compounds that pose environmental hazards.

The Chemical Manufacturers‘ Association reported that some of its members had made 

voluntary equipment modifications and implemented operating practices to enhance the 

performance of their DOT-111 tank cars, such as increased head and shell thickness, head 

shields, elimination of bottom outlets where feasible, and removal of unused fittings and valves.

The most recent NTSB investigation that considered the performance of DOT-111 tank 

cars was of an accident that occurred on October 20, 2006, in New Brighton, Pennsylvania, in 

which a Norfolk Southern Railway ethanol unit train derailed 23 tank cars.65 Twenty of the 

23 derailed DOT-111 cars lost an estimated 485,278 gallons of denatured ethanol following the

derailment and subsequent fire. In that accident, 12 tank cars lost full loads, and 8 tank cars lost 

partial loads.

 

64 Transport of Hazardous Materials by Rail, Safety Study NTSB/SS-91-01 (Washington, DC: National 

Transportation Safety Board, 1991). <http://:www.ntsb.gov>

65 Derailment of Norfolk Southern Railway Company Train 68QB119 With Release of Hazardous Materials 

and Fire, New Brighton, Pennsylvania October 20, 2006, Accident Report NTSB/RAR-08/02 (Washington, DC: 

National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). <http://:www.ntsb.gov>
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

59

1.23.2 DOT Hazard Communications Initiative

On October 13–14, 2009, PHMSA hosted a public meeting to solicit input for an 

upcoming proof-of-concept study on the use of electronic data sharing in lieu of paper hazardous 

materials shipping papers. The initiative is titled HM-ACCESS (hazardous materials-automated 

cargo communications for efficient and safe shipments). The goal of HM-ACCESS is to define 

regulations and guidelines to allow the electronic communication of shipping paper information 

and to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of allowing the use of electronic shipping 

papers. The proposed benefits of this program include improving the availability and accuracy of 

hazard and response information for shipments and packages that are tracked electronically while

improving the speed by which information is available to emergency responders when accidents 

occur. While PHMSA considers methods to ensure that emergency response agencies are 

capable of receiving real-time hazard communications, it notes that if regulatory authorization 

were provided, rail transport organizations would be prepared to use electronic shipping paper 

technology.

1.23.3 Pipeline Construction Standards and Regulations

The industry standard for pipeline construction in 1965, when Nicor installed the natural 

gas pipeline at the accident site, was ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping 

Systems.

66 The 1963 ASME B31.8 standard 841.14, ―Cover, Clearance, and Casing 

Requirements Under Railroads, Roads, Streets, or Highways for Buried Steel Pipelines and 

Mains,‖ stated that 24 inches of cover was required in normal soil for pipelines. 

The current applicable state construction regulation is contained in Title 83 Illinois 

Administrative Code Part 590, which, as of January 1, 2009, incorporates the standards contained 

in 49 CFR Parts 191.23, 192, 193, and 199 as the minimum safety standards for the 

transportation of gas and for gas pipeline facilities.

The current Federal construction regulation that addresses cover for pipelines at railroad 

crossings is contained in 49 CFR 192.327, which requires cover of 36 inches in normal soil for 

transmission pipelines. An exception to the minimum cover standard is authorized when an 

underground structure prevents installation at the required depth, in which case additional 

protection, such as a casing, must be provided to withstand the anticipated external loads.

According to Nicor Gas, the company conforms to railroad owner specifications when 

designing and installing pipelines under railroad tracks. The specifications typically have 

incorporated American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) 

specifications as a standard. Before 1993, the American Railway Engineering Association

(predecessor to AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering recommended that pipelines carrying 

flammable gas and liquids under railroad beds be encased in a larger steel pipe to prevent 

crushing by train loads.

 

66 The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.8 code is an American national standard of 

engineering requirements deemed necessary for safe design and construction of pressure piping.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

60

The CN has adopted AREMA standards that were developed in 1993 for pipelines under 

railroad tracks or across or along railroad rights-of-way. These standards specify that cased 

pipelines carrying flammable products under pressure must be buried a minimum of 5 feet 

6 inches beneath main tracks. The standard further requires that pipelines carrying flammable 

products located within 25 feet of the centerline of any track must be encased or be of a special 

design approved by the railway chief engineer. The standard allows the use of uncased natural 

gas pipe if the pipe is constructed of steel and installed a minimum of 10 feet below the rail ties.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

61

2. Analysis

2.1 Introduction

This analysis begins with a summary of the accident sequence and includes discussion of 

the following safety issues identified in this report:

Effectiveness of the CN‘s internal emergency communication system

Effectiveness of the CN‘s weather alert policies and rules

Vulnerability of the DOT-111 tank car shells and fittings to damage and subsequent 

release of lading during derailments

Inspection and maintenance of storm water detention ponds

Accuracy of train consist information

Construction standards for underground pipelines at railroad crossings

Adequacy of storm water drainage system assessment

The CN‘s toxicology and fatigue evaluations

The remainder of this introductory section discusses those elements of the investigation that the 

NTSB determined were not factors in the accident. The balance of the analysis addresses the 

factors that were found to have caused or contributed to the accident, or to have contributed to its 

severity.

All of the tank cars on the train were inspected before being loaded with ethanol, and no 

mechanical defects were noted. As the train was en route toward Cherry Valley, it passed five 

wayside inspection scanners with no exceptions reported. The locomotive units and all the cars 

of the train were inspected after the accident, and no significant mechanical defects were found 

in the locomotives or any of the cars. 

Results of tensile tests of shell material samples from four of the tank cars were 

consistent with AAR requirements for the steels used in fabrication of the tank car shells. 

Chemistry results for three of the four samples were consistent with AAR requirements. The 

fourth sample contained a slightly higher level of phosphorus than permitted, but this was not 

considered significant given the satisfactory tensile test performance. 

The rail in the accident area had been most recently ultrasonically tested on 

February 19, 2009, about 4 months before the accident. The only defect noted for the accident 

area was a defective weld, which had been repaired. Examination of rail pieces from the point of 

derailment revealed no preexisting defects.

Investigators inspected and tested the signal system and the highway/rail grade crossing 

warning system to the extent possible. Portions of the signal system that had not been damaged 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

62

in the accident functioned as designed. Maintenance records indicated that all signal tests and 

inspections had been conducted in accordance with FRA regulations and CN requirements.

The investigation determined that the two train crewmembers, as well as the RTC 

responsible for the accident area, were trained and qualified for the work they were to perform.

Blood and urine specimens were collected from the train crewmembers within 7 hours of 

the accident. The specimens were tested and found to be negative for alcohol and illegal drugs. 

The NTSB concludes that the use of alcohol or illegal drugs by the RTC as a factor in the 

accident could not be determined because there was no toxicological testing conducted.

Fatigue was evaluated as a possible human factors issue for the engineer, the conductor, 

and the RTC. A variety of fatigue factors, including sleep (acute sleep loss, cumulative sleep 

debt, and sleep quality), continuous hours awake, circadian disruption, sleep disorders, 

medication use, disruptive environmental factors, and shift work considerations were examined. 

None of the fatigue factors emerged as an indication of significant fatigue for the RTC at the 

time of the accident. However, the information obtained for the train crew is insufficient to 

determine whether fatigue for these two individuals was a factor in the accident. 

The NTSB therefore concludes that the following were not factors in the accident: 

mechanical condition of the locomotives and cars on the train; material properties of steels used 

in the tank car construction; integrity of the track structure, culvert, and rails leading up to the 

point of derailment; functioning of the signal system and the grade crossing warning system; use 

of alcohol or illegal drugs by the train crew; training and qualifications of the train crew and the 

RTC; and fatigue of the RTC. 

2.2 Accident Summary

On the afternoon of Friday, June 19, 2009, the accident train, which had originated in 

Tara, Iowa, was en route to Chicago, Illinois, with 114 cars, 75 of them tank cars loaded with 

denatured fuel ethanol. While the train was en route, the CN Southern Operations Control Center 

in Homewood, Illinois, received two severe weather bulletins affecting the train‘s route. The first 

alert, a severe thunderstorm watch, was received at 5:34 p.m. and was effective until 10:00 p.m. 

The second alert, a flash flood warning, was received at 6:36 p.m. and was effective until 

10:40 p.m. Under CN operating rules in effect at the time, the RTC at the Homewood control 

center should have informed the crew of the accident train about the weather alerts, but he did 

not do so even when he was in communication with the crew about other matters. 

At 7:35 p.m., a citizen called the Rockford, Illinois, police department to report flooding 

of the CN railroad track in the vicinity of the Mulford Road grade crossing in Cherry Valley, 

Illinois. This was about 1 hour before the accident train was scheduled to arrive at the crossing.

About 7:40 p.m., a citizen who had been unable to find the railroad‘s contact information posted 

at the crossing called 911 and stated, ―Well, anyway, underneath the tracks is washed out, so if a 

train goes over there, it is going to derail.‖ Over the next few minutes, the 911 center received 

several other calls reporting that the track near the Mulford Road crossing was washed out or 

was ―washing away.‖
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

63

Shortly after 8:00 p.m., a deputy sheriff went to the scene and found a 17-foot-long 

washout beneath the track west of the grade crossing, which he reported to the Winnebago 

County 911 call center. A deputy sheriff in the call center succeeded, at 8:16 p.m., in reaching 

the CN emergency call center. Officers assigned to the CN emergency call desk then attempted, 

without success, to reach the chief dispatcher and the RTC at Homewood to alert them to the 

washout and to have them stop train movements through the area. 

About 8:34 p.m., as the freight train approached the Mulford Road crossing, the crossing 

warning lights were flashing, and the crossing gates were down. Several motor vehicles were 

stopped on both sides of the crossing to await passage of the train. About 8:35, when about onehalf of the train had passed Mulford Road, tank cars began to derail west of the crossing. The 

derailing cars separated from the front portion of the train and formed a pileup of tank cars 

across Mulford Road. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were punctured or otherwise breached or 

had fitting failures or valve activations that allowed ethanol to escape and fuel a fire that killed 

one person and injured nine. 

At 8:40 p.m., CN emergency call desk officers finally reached the chief dispatcher and 

the RTC at the Homewood control center to report the water conditions affecting the track, but 

by then the accident had already occurred.

2.3 Emergency Response and Recovery Efforts

UP and CN railroad hazardous materials managers provided firefighting advice to fire 

department crews within 1 hour of the accident, and the fire department appropriately allowed 

the burning ethanol to be consumed while cooling uninvolved adjacent tank cars. Real-time air 

monitoring that was established by the CN‘s contractor around the perimeter of the accident 

scene about 7 1/2 hours after the accident found no air pollutant concentrations in excess of 

applicable action levels.

The EPA oversaw the recovery and restoration efforts that began immediately after the 

fire was extinguished. Tank car residues, spillage, and contaminated soils were promptly 

removed from the accident scene under the surveillance of the EPA Federal on-scene 

coordinator. Testing showed that the groundwater and nearby community wells were not 

polluted by the tank car spillage.

About 25 percent of the lading was recovered from the 15 tank cars involved in the 

pileup. The remaining 75 percent of the lading was consumed in the postaccident fire, released 

into the air and soil, or discharged into a waterway that entered the Rock and Kishwaukee 

Rivers. Once the postaccident fire was extinguished, spilled ethanol that entered the surface 

waters could not be recovered. Although the discharged ethanol dissipated through dilution and 

natural bio-gradation processes, a significant fish kill resulted downriver from the accident scene 

and was most likely due to dissolved oxygen consumption rather than any toxic effect of the 

discharge.

The NTSB concludes that both the emergency response to the accident and the 

environmental recovery efforts after the fire were timely and appropriate. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

64

2.4 Determination of Point of Derailment

A combination of ultrasonic rail testing data, evidence from the rail reconstruction

efforts, marks found on multiple rail cars, and eyewitness accounts of the mechanics of the 

derailment helped the NTSB determine that the point of derailment was at the location of a field 

weld in the north rail about 8 feet from the west edge of the Mulford Road grade crossing. The 

broken rail was within the area where the washout of the track structure had created a severely 

compromised track condition. The markings on the inside gauge corner of the rail and on the 

wheel flanges of the north wheels of the lead two cars that derailed provided evidence that these 

cars derailed due to a broken rail.

Although the washout resulted in a complete loss of support structure for a significant 

portion of track, 2 locomotive units and 56 cars of the train—17 of which were loaded tank 

cars—were, in fact, able to successfully traverse this weakened track section. The NTSB 

considered how half of the train was able to negotiate the unsupported track before the rail failed 

and caused a derailment.

Although, according to video evidence, the washout area before the arrival of the train 

was about 17 feet long, it very likely widened under passage of the train. Investigators retrieved a 

portion of the north rail that exhibited a wheel strike mark at the gauge corner of the east 

fractured face of a field weld (receiving end strike) that was consistent with the marking 

observed on the wheel flange on what investigators determined was the first car derailed. A 

follow-up examination of ultrasonic rail testing data confirmed that the field weld was located 

about 8 feet west of the crossing. With the passage of the 57th car, the overstressed north rail

fractured at its weakest point because of the unsupported track, which was caused by the 

washout. The NTSB, therefore, concludes that the derailment occurred when wheel loads on rails 

that were unsupported because of a washout of the track structure caused the north rail to fracture 

at a field weld about 8 feet west of the Mulford Road grade crossing.

2.5 Effectiveness of CN Emergency Communications

One of the first citizens to note the conditions affecting the track at Mulford Road was a 

person with experience in transporting hazardous materials. He said he was aware that railroads 

normally posted their contact information at all grade crossings but that he could not find the 

contact information at the Mulford Road crossing. 

According to the CN, the emergency contact information for the Mulford Road crossing 

(which included not only a telephone number for the CN but a unique identification number for 

this particular crossing) had at one time been posted on the signal bungalow. When the bungalow 

was replaced as part of a crossing upgrade, the emergency contact information was not reposted. 

When the citizen could not locate the railroad contact information, he called the 

Winnebago County 911 center. This call was made at 7:40 p.m., about 56 minutes before the 

derailment. Had the emergency contact information been available, the citizen would likely have 

called the CN instead of 911, or both. Even though the 911 center was able to identify the 

crossing, it was not until 41 minutes after the initial 911 call that the CN Police Emergency Call 

Center in Montreal was notified of the track washout. The absence of emergency contact 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

65

information at the crossing thus caused a delay in reporting the track conditions, which decreased 

the time available to notify RTCs and to stop any trains approaching the washout area. The 

NTSB, therefore, concludes that had the required CN grade crossing identification and 

emergency contact information been posted at the Mulford Road crossing, the railroad would 

likely have been notified of the track washout earlier, and the additional time may have been 

sufficient for the RTC to issue instructions to stop the train and prevent the accident. Therefore, 

the NTSB recommends that the CN implement a process, consistent with the principles of a 

safety management system, to ensure accuracy and visibility of emergency contact information 

at all highway/rail grade crossings on its system. Since the derailment, the CN has installed a 

new emergency notification sign on the signal bungalow at the Mulford Road grade crossing.

Although the CN Police Emergency Call Center was not notified of the washout as soon 

as it should have been, it did receive notification of the track washout at 8:16 p.m., almost 

20 minutes before the arrival at the crossing of the accident train. Despite this advance warning, 

emergency call desk personnel were unable to establish contact with dispatchers at the CN 

Homewood control center in time to prevent the accident.

Emergency call center personnel spent the first few minutes after the initial notification 

attempting to identify the crossing so that the appropriate RTC could be notified. After the 

crossing was located, several additional minutes elapsed before the first attempt was made to 

contact the RTC. At 8:23 p.m., a police call desk officer made the first call to the RTC at 

Homewood. When the first calls did not go through because the lines were busy, a second caller 

was enlisted to try to reach the RTC while the first caller attempted to contact the chief 

dispatcher overseeing the RTC. 

The two call desk officers each made three unsuccessful calls before the chief dispatcher 

and the RTC were finally contacted at 8:40 p.m. Even then, the officer speaking with the RTC 

initially gave a muddled and incomplete report, saying ―apparently we‘ve got some flooding in 

the Rockfield [sic], Illinois, area.‖ The location was subsequently clarified (although neither 

―washout‖ nor Mulford Road was mentioned), but by then it was too late because the derailment 

had already occurred. 

At no point did emergency call officers attempt to use the dedicated police ―hotline,‖ that 

was routed directly to the desk of the chief dispatcher and that was supposed to be monitored 

around the clock. The CN police stated that they had experienced difficulty getting access to the 

hotline in the past and that, even when calls were made using the hotline, if the chief dispatcher 

had a heavy workload at the time, the ringing hotline phone would often be ignored.

The inability of emergency call center officers to make telephone contact with either the 

chief dispatcher or the RTC indicates a breakdown in the policies, procedures, and equipment on 

which the CN relied for emergency communication. Specifically, the dispatch center had no 

written policies on how the AccuWeather weather alerts were to be delivered to the RTC from 

the printer. And, although the RTC was required to post the weather alerts on the computer 

system, there were no written procedures to ensure that the RTC completed this action or that the 

information was delivered by radio to trains in the affected territories. Finally, the telephone 

equipment used in the dispatch center did not have a rollover feature so that incoming calls could 

be answered efficiently when the RTC was working with trains or workers on other activities. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

66

Often, the phone would just ring, or it would be picked up and laid down until the desk personnel 

finished their current work tasks. By failing to provide and reserve a dedicated line of 

communication that was used for emergency purposes only and that took precedence over any 

other communication, the CN created an environment in which emergency communication with 

life-saving implications could be—and in this accident were—subordinated to routine 

operational communications. The NTSB concludes that the CN police emergency 

communication system in place at the time of this accident was inadequate, with the result that 

CN police were unable to prevent the derailment even though adequate time was available for 

them to have done so. 

Since the accident, the CN has updated its emergency communication system policies, 

procedures, and equipment. The CN offices in Canada have been provided with hotline phone 

numbers for the 12 RTC desks in the Homewood control center. If a call to one of the hotline 

numbers is not answered within 7 seconds, it will roll over to an emergency line. If that line is 

not answered within 7 seconds, it will roll over to a back-up emergency line. Additionally, direct 

telephone lines were assigned to each RTC/signal desk at the Homewood, Montreal, Toronto, 

and Edmonton centers, and calls on these lines take priority. A red light flashes when a call is 

received. The new procedures and the equipment upgrades are designed to prevent a recurrence 

of the breakdown in communication that occurred on the day of this accident. However, policies, 

procedures, and safety devices are effective only if the procedures are followed and if the devices 

are actually used and are regularly tested for proper function. The NTSB therefore recommends 

that the CN implement a program consistent with principles of safety management systems to 

periodically test all aspects of its internal emergency communication system to ensure that 

personnel are familiar with the system‘s operation and that emergency notifications can be 

communicated immediately to any chief dispatcher or RTC in the CN system. 

2.6 Deficiencies in Postaccident Drug and Alcohol Testing

After the accident, the CN identified two employees—the conductor and the engineer of 

the accident train—for postaccident toxicological testing pursuant to 49 CFR 219.203 

(―Responsibilities of railroads and employees‖). As mentioned in section 219.203(a) ―Employees 

tested,‖

Following each accident and incident described in 49 CFR 219.201, the railroad 

(or railroads) must take all practicable steps to assure that all covered employees 

of the railroad directly involved in the accident or incident provide blood and 

urine specimens for toxicological testing by FRA.

In addition, 49 CFR 219.203(2) states, 

Such employees must specifically include each and every operating employee 

assigned as a crew member of any train involved in the accident or incident. In 

any case where an operator, dispatcher, signal maintainer or other covered 

employee is directly and contemporaneously involved in the circumstances of the 

accident/incident, those employees must also be required to provide specimens. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

67

The CN initially determined that the RTC would not be required to undergo postaccident 

toxicological testing because he was not believed to have been directly involved in the accident. 

As a result, the RTC was allowed to go off duty without being tested for drugs or alcohol. The 

NTSB, however, does not believe that the CN appropriately followed 49 CFR 219.203(4), which 

states, ―covered employees who may be subject to testing under this subpart must be retained in 

duty status for the period necessary to make the determinations required by 49 CFR 219.201.‖ 

Specifically, the NTSB does not believe that the CN had sufficient information about the 

circumstances of the accident before the end of the RTC‘s shift to make that determination. 

The next day, as the CN continued to investigate the accident, it realized that the RTC 

may have been directly involved in the accident. However, the CN mistakenly believed that the 

RTC could no longer be required to provide specimens for testing. Federal regulations state that 

an employee may be immediately recalled for testing if (per 49 CFR 219.203(b)(4)(ii)) ―the 

railroad‘s preliminary investigation (contemporaneous with the determination required by 

49 CFR 219.201) indicates a clear probability that the employee played a major role in the cause 

or severity of the accident/incident.‖

The RTC had not undergone required postaccident toxicological testing. As a result, it 

could not be determined if drugs or alcohol were a factor in his performance. Moreover, the 

NTSB is concerned that the CN did not adequately follow regulations requiring it to keep the 

RTC in on-duty status long enough to make an accurate determination regarding his role in the 

accident, and the CN‘s failure to understand its responsibility to conduct postaccident 

toxicological testing even if the RTC had gone off duty. The NTSB concludes that the failure of 

the CN to conduct postaccident toxicological testing on the RTC demonstrates that the CN 

postaccident toxicological program was ineffective. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the 

CN examine and revise its postaccident toxicological testing program to ensure that RTCs are 

tested unless there is clear and convincing evidence that they were not involved in the accident.

2.7 CN Weather Alert Policies and Rule X

In this accident, because the RTC did not convey the flash flood warning to the accident 

train, Rule X was not invoked by the train crew. As a result, the effect of its implementation on 

this accident can never be known. One reason for the difficulty in making such an assessment is 

the vagueness of Rule X. For example, the rule states that in the case of a flash flood warning, 

the train is to be operated at a speed that will allow it to be stopped short of an obstruction. The 

speed or the type of obstruction that might be expected is not specified. The problem with this 

lack of specificity is that a speed that would allow a train to stop short of a readily visible 

obstruction such as a tree over the tracks or a rockslide would probably be too fast for the train 

crew to see and respond to an impediment such as high water, a track washout, or misaligned 

rail—the types of hazards most likely to occur as a result of a flash flood. 

It is not clear what information the RTC would have provided to the train crew if he had, 

in fact, informed them of the alert. He might have read the warning to the conductor as written, 

including the advisory to ―Watch out for water on the tracks and possible washouts,‖ but because 

a verbatim reading of the alert was not required by CN policy, the crew may not have been 

alerted to the specific hazards.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

68

Weather alerts and their effects on train speeds were also addressed in a July 16, 2008, 

CN weather alert policy that instructed RTCs, after learning of warnings of flash flooding, to 

contact track personnel in the area to inspect the track before passage of a train. The policy 

directed RTCs to inform train crews of flash flood warnings and to advise them to operate their 

trains at a speed, ―prepared to stop within one half the range of vision, until the track is inspected 

or the Track Supervisor has given verbal permission to resume normal operation.‖ 

Presumably, if no track inspector were immediately available to inspect the track, trains 

would continue to operate at the lower speed until an inspector could be dispatched. However, a 

track washout, which is a common hazard during flash flooding, is extremely difficult to detect 

from a locomotive cab, even when the train is traveling at a reduced speed, and especially when 

that speed is determined by the crew based on their estimate of the train‘s stopping distance. 

Thus, a train crew, using its own discretion to determine an appropriate speed, may not be able to 

prevent an accident involving high water or a washout. 

The RTC also did not notify a track inspector in response to the flash flood warning. A 

track inspector was dispatched by the Edmonton Walker Call Desk in response to the RTC‘s 

relaying the accident train‘s report of high water, but the RTC‘s report was made even as the 

train was derailing, and the track inspector would not be en route until about 20 minutes later. 

The CN‘s policies and rules for responding to severe weather alerts are inadequate to 

prevent the type of accident that occurred in Cherry Valley, Illinois. They do not require that an 

RTC provide train crews with the full text of weather alerts; they do not require that trains be 

operated at specified restricted speeds through areas affected by severe weather warnings; they 

do not require that track be inspected before trains are allowed to travel through weather-affected 

areas at more than restricted speed; and they do not consolidate weather policies in a single rule 

accessible to all operating personnel. The NTSB concludes that the CN‘s weather policies and 

rules in effect at the time of the accident were inadequate because they provided insufficient and 

vague guidance in not requiring RTCs to read weather alerts verbatim to train crews; did not clearly 

specify whether train crews should operate trains at a restricted speed after receiving an alert;

provided no notification requirement that track inspectors conduct severe weather related 

inspections prior to train operations; and did not consolidate weather alert notices and the 

appropriate operation of trains into a single rule. The NTSB therefore recommends that the CN 

modify its weather warning operating and safety rules and procedures to (1) consolidate weather 

policies in a single rule, accessible to all operating personnel, (2) require that RTCs promptly and 

precisely notify affected train crews of weather alerts and identify for train crews the specific 

hazards to train operation represented by a weather alert, and (3) require either that a track 

inspector inspect the affected track before train operations are permitted within an affected 

weather alert area or that engineers operate their trains at restricted speed and crews watch for 

water on tracks, possible washouts, and misaligned track in the affected areas until the track is 

inspected. 

2.8 Performance of the RTC

Under CN weather procedures, in response to the flash flood warning that he received at 

6:36 p.m. on the day of the accident, the RTC should have inserted a restrictive label into the 

computerized TMDS. A restrictive label would have required that the RTC notify the crews of 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

69

trains operating through the area affected by the weather alert. For example, had a restrictive 

label been applied on the day of the accident, the RTC would not have been able to issue track 

authority (in automatic block signal territory) to the accident train at Freeport without verifying 

that he had informed the crew of the flash flood warning. But because the restrictive label had 

not been created, the track authority was issued without the crew having been informed of the 

severe weather and the potential for washouts along their route. When the crew reached traffic 

control system territory at Rockford, they requested that the RTC provide a signal indication to 

proceed. A restrictive label would again have prompted the RTC to inform the train crew of the 

weather alert. Instead, the RTC gave the train crew a permissive signal to proceed but did not 

discuss the possible flooding. 

The train crew spoke with the RTC by radio at least four times between Freeport and the 

accident site. At no time during those conversations did the RTC relay the weather bulletin 

information to them. The RTC was aware that weather bulletins had been delivered to his desk 

by his supervisor hours before the CN train derailed, and he understood the steps that had to be 

taken in response to severe weather alerts. After the accident, the RTC recalled receiving the 

6:36 p.m. flash flood warning and placing it on top of a pile of other papers. Although he said he 

had intended to take action in response to the weather alert, he did not do so. Moreover, the fact 

that the RTC did not mention the flash flood warning to the accident train crew even when the 

crew called to inform him of high water along their route indicates that the RTC likely did not 

read the bulletin.

The weather warnings, if given, would have triggered the implementation of Rule X, 

which required that the crew operate their train at a speed that would allow the train to stop short 

of an obstruction. If the RTC had informed the accident train crew of the flash flood warning 

while the train was in Freeport, the crew would have been operating under Rule X when they 

departed Freeport at 7:21 p.m. Because of the weight of the train and the large number of curves, 

bridges, and ascending and descending grades the train would encounter over the approximately 

35 miles between Freeport and Cherry Valley, the train crew would likely have operated the train 

at less than the normal track speed the train attained on the day of the accident. Even if the lower 

speed had not prevented the derailment, it would have lessened the dynamic forces acting on the 

derailed tank cars, reducing the amount of product released and likely mitigating the effects of 

the accident.

The NTSB therefore concludes that if the RTC had followed CN weather procedures and 

alerted the crew of the accident train to the potential for heavy rains and flash flooding along 

their route, the crew would have been required to operate the train at a lower speed, which would 

have reduced the severity of the accident. 

The NTSB recognizes that the RTC was consistently busy throughout his shift. His 

workload had been increased recently when he began dispatching trains from a desk that a month 

earlier had been formed by combining two separate desks. Like all RTCs, he was responsible for 

managing and strategically prioritizing numerous tasks. He understood the significance of severe 

weather bulletins and the actions he needed to take upon receiving them. However, when the 

RTC received the severe weather bulletin he was engaged in other dispatching tasks, did not read 

the bulletin, and ultimately forgot about it. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

70

The NTSB further recognizes that the CN did not take effective measures to reduce the 

likelihood that critical tasks would go unaddressed. For instance, there was no standard protocol 

for exchanging critical information when the weather bulletins were hand-delivered to the RTC. 

An effective handoff would have immediately alerted the RTC about the significance of the new 

weather bulletin, thereby prompting him to take immediate action. Additionally, in appearance 

(that is, headings, color, and font size of weather warnings and watches) all weather bulletins are 

identical; there is nothing that physically distinguishes different bulletins or alerts the RTC to

their significance until the contents are read. The ability to immediately identify the criticality of 

the weather bulletins would aid RTCs in prioritizing their tasks. Finally, the RTC did not answer 

the emergency phone call from CN police regarding the condition of the track before the 

accident occurred. It was not possible for the RTC to distinguish between incoming routine and 

emergency calls. However, the RTC or another CN official would have been able to respond 

more quickly to incoming emergency phone calls if those calls were rerouted to another 

destination or to a designated emergency phone rather than being placed in queue. The NTSB 

concludes that a thorough work risk assessment of dispatching operations may have identified 

several deficiencies that, if corrected, would have ensured safety-critical tasks were addressed 

appropriately. 

2.9 Hydrological Information

The rain storm on the day of the accident caused flooding in many areas of Winnebago 

County, in particular, the city of Rockford and the village of Cherry Valley. The city of 

Rockford‘s storm water drainage system surrounding the residential neighborhoods north of the 

CN and UP tracks and west of Mulford Road captured the runoff created by the storm and 

directed water into the two detention ponds constructed for the Harrison Park subdivision.

2.9.1 Breach in Harrison Park SWM Pond 1

The investigation revealed that the larger of the two detention ponds, SWM pond 1, had 

sustained significant deterioration before the storm of June 2009. Local homeowners provided 

documentation showing severe erosion of the upper portion of the berm over the outlet pipe more 

than 2 years before the accident. The erosion rendered the portion of the pond berm above the 

outlet significantly lower than when the pond was originally constructed. When the unusually 

high water level in the pond on June 19 rose to the bottom of the deteriorated berm section, the 

water began to escape through the opening. Once the water was able to overflow, it quickly 

began to further erode the berm, thus allowing more water to outflow and accelerating the 

deterioration. Although the water pouring out of this breach added to the water from the heavy 

rains, the investigation was unable to determine the amount of water from the detention pond

release that may have reached the intersection of the CN tracks and Mulford Road. 

The presence of debris on the top of tracks to the west of the open deck bridge about 

0.1 mile west of the crossing indicated that at some point, the water that had collected in the area 

between the UP and CN tracks attempted to follow the natural water drainage route. Normally, 

the runoff would have flowed under the tracks at the open deck bridge. From there, it would have 

gone into the creek running along the south side of the tracks and would have continued south as 

part of this creek, passing through the concrete box culvert under Mulford Road. On the day of 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

71

the accident, however, the opening at the open deck bridge was not large enough to 

accommodate the volume and flow rate of the storm water. The damage to the retention wall on 

the east side of the bridge was evidence that the water level was high enough to cover the bridge 

retaining wall and wash away the soil from behind it. As with other physical evidence, this 

indicates that the amount of water present before the derailment overwhelmed the existing water 

management system.

2.9.2 Maintenance of Storm Water Management Detention Ponds

Maintenance of detention ponds is typically the sole responsibility of property owners. In 

the case of Harrison Park SWM pond 1, the party responsible for maintaining the pond was the 

Harrison Park Landowners Association as represented by a local real estate firm. In April 2008, 

the association was aware that erosion over the outlet pipe was affecting the integrity of the 

pond, and in the same month the landowners‘ agent received a proposal to repair the pond. 

However, the landowners‘ agent did not begin assessing homeowners to pay for the work until 

the beginning of 2009, ensuring that the damage to the pond would not be corrected until more 

than a year after the deterioration had first been documented. At any point during that time, a 

heavy flood storm could have occurred that would have enlarged the initial breach and created a 

safety hazard for those downstream, as occurred on the day of the accident. The NTSB therefore 

concludes that the breach in Harrison Park SWM pond 1 that was documented in 2008 posed a 

downstream risk in the event of a heavy storm, and more timely measures should have been 

taken to repair the defect and restore the integrity of the pond. 

When a storm water management detention pond is breached or otherwise loses its 

structural integrity, damage can occur downstream with regional consequences. For that reason, 

although maintenance of a detention pond is usually the responsibility of the property owner, 

local storm water management authorities have a vital interest in ensuring that the ponds are 

functional. 

The city of Rockford was required by the state of Illinois to inspect detention ponds, but 

only from the perspective of water pollution. The ponds were not inspected for function. Even 

for water pollution, inspections by the city were infrequent, with only three citywide inspections 

having been performed in the 5 years before the accident. 

After the accident, the city of Rockford developed a storm water inspection program for 

large detention ponds, both public and private, after a major rain storm. In addition to detention 

ponds, the city‘s major storm monitoring program now includes inspections of bridges, culverts, 

major creeks, and drainage ways. The city also evaluates the physical condition of storm water 

detention ponds and requires inspections by storm water authorities if any physical aspect of a 

pond is rated less than ―good.‖ Finally, the city has contacted local homeowners associations and 

required that they immediately notify the city of any physical damage to a storm water 

management detention pond, drainage way, or culvert after a major storm event or whenever 

such damage is discovered. Had these provisions been in force and followed before the accident, 

city inspectors would likely have discovered the deterioration in Harrison Park SWM pond 1 and 

may have been able to work with the property owners to effect a more timely repair. The NTSB 

concludes that regular inspections by municipalities or other government authorities of storm 

water detention ponds, both public and private, would help ensure that the ponds function as 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

72

designed to reduce the likelihood of damage to property or injuries to people. The NTSB

therefore recommends that the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, 

the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the National Association of Towns and 

Townships, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors inform their members of the circumstances of 

this accident and emphasize the importance of periodically inspecting storm water management 

detention ponds (both private and public) to ensure that no deterioration has occurred that would 

result in the failure of a pond to function as designed.

2.9.3 Upgrade of Drainage Pipes At Mulford Road

At the time of the accident, two drainage pipes—a 36-inch pipe under the CN tracks and 

a 24-inch pipe under Mulford Road—were in place to handle runoff that collected in the area 

bounded by the UP tracks to the north, the CN tracks to the south, and Mulford Road to the east. 

According to representatives of the CN and the Winnebago County Highway Department, 

neither of these pipes was intended to be a primary conveyance for water. Instead, each was to be 

a relief pipe to provide an escape route once the water level in the swale area rose to the height of 

the pipes. On the day of the accident, the water level did rise to the height of the pipes, but the 

pipes were unable to accommodate the excess water, which allowed the water to back up and 

overflow the track and the road. 

This was not the first time excess water had affected the integrity of the CN tracks at this 

location. Twice in the previous 3 years, water in the swale area had risen to a level sufficient to 

remove support from underneath the tracks. In 2006, water rushing across Mulford Road 

removed ballast from track on both sides of the crossing. Less than a year later, in 2007, water 

caused a washout area 5 to 6 feet long and about 4 feet deep under the tracks about 40 feet west 

of the grade crossing. The NTSB concludes that the storm water drainage system in place in the 

area of the accident was inadequate as evidenced by the washout of the CN tracks on the day of 

the accident and by previous water damage to the track structure that occurred in 2006 and 2007. 

It was in response to the 2007 washout that the CN installed the 36-inch relief pipe. The 

CN did not attempt to determine why the water had been able to rise to the level that a relief pipe 

was needed or to evaluate the existing drainage system in light of two water incidents in less than 

1 year that had threatened the integrity of its tracks.

The Winnebago County Highway Department did not take any action in response to the 

two high water incidents because Mulford Road had not been directly affected. Highway 

department involvement was limited to observing the installation of the 36-inch pipe to make 

sure the roadway was not damaged. County officials did not consult with the CN about the sizing 

of the pipe, nor did the CN and the county attempt to work together to identify the reason for the 

unexpectedly high water levels. 

The NTSB concludes that this accident demonstrates that storm water issues can affect 

more than one entity—in this case, the CN and Winnebago County—and can require that 

multiple entities work jointly in a collaborative effort to solve any underlying defects or 

inadequacies. The NTSB therefore recommends that the DOT develop a comprehensive storm 

water drainage assessment program to be conducted jointly by railroads and public entities that 

ensures the adequate flow of water under both railroad and highway facilities, and require 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

73

railroads and public entities to coordinate any changes to storm water drainage systems before 

their implementation. In the interest of safety in the short term, the NTSB recommends that the 

DOT notify railroads and public entities about the circumstances of this accident and the 

importance of exchanging information related to storm water drainage system design issues that 

may adversely affect the adequate flow of water under both railroad and highway facilities. The 

NTSB also recommends that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, the National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works 

Association, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers inform their members about the 

circumstances of this accident and the importance of exchanging information related to storm 

water drainage system design issues that may adversely affect the adequate flow of water under 

both railroad and highway facilities.

After the accident, the CN installed two new 48-inch-diameter cast iron pipes at the site 

of the previous 36-inch pipe. The CN also replaced the existing 24-inch relief pipe under 

Mulford Road with a new 48-inch-diameter pipe, a new 36-inch-diameter pipe, and a new 

24-inch-diameter pipe, all supplied by Winnebago County. The new pipes significantly 

increased the drainage capacity for the area in which the high water occurred that precipitated 

this accident, but an opportunity was missed, in that similar steps could have been taken in the 

wake of previous instances of high water.

2.10 Accuracy of Train Consist Information

The original consist for the accident train had only 3 of the 76 cars in their proper 

positions on the train. This was not the first instance in which the CN failed to comply with 

49 CFR 174.26, ―Notice to Train Crews,‖ which requires that a train crew have a train consist 

that accurately reflects the current position of each rail car containing hazardous material in a 

train. In a July 10, 2005, accident in Anding, Mississippi,

67 in which one of the train consists was 

destroyed in the collision of two freight trains, the CN subsequently delivered an inaccurate 

consist that caused confusion during the emergency response. During the FRA‘s 2006 national 

hazardous materials audit focusing on the level of compliance with hazardous materials 

communications, it also found that 22.3 percent of the CN trains audited had improper hazardous 

materials car documentation, consist errors, train crews failing to update the train consist to 

reflect actual car placement, or trains dispatched with erroneous consist information.

In this accident, because the tank cars of the accident train made up a unit train consisting 

of a single commodity, no confusion occurred as a result of the train crew‘s failure to update the 

train consist. If different hazardous commodities had been commingled in the train, emergency 

responders would have been unable to locate them based upon the train consist. The NTSB

therefore concludes that the inaccurate train consist carried by the crew did not affect the 

emergency response to this accident; however, had a mixture of hazardous commodities been 

involved, the inaccurate consist information could have hampered the response effort or put the 

safety of emergency responders and others at risk.

 

67 Collision of Two CN Freight Trains Anding, Mississippi July 10, 2005, Railroad Accident Report 

NTSB/RAR-07/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2007). <www.ntsb.gov>
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

74

Electronic transmission of shipping paper information did occur in this accident, albeit 

about 3 hours after the train crew provided emergency responders with an inaccurate paper 

document, and about 4 hours after the dispatcher orally conveyed hazardous materials 

information to the fire department. When first contacted about the accident about 9:15 p.m. on 

the day of the accident, the CN could have at that time faxed or e-mailed the correctly ordered 

train car consist directly to the IC. Since this accident, the CN has provided its emergency 

responders with the capability, through e-mail, to receive the train consist, hazardous materials

waybills, and material safety data sheets. Accuracy of the train consist information would be 

ensured through AEI readers that relay train consist data to the CN‘s central computer. With this 

increased use of technology, remote access to the CN‘s database should ensure that updated train 

car consist and hazardous materials information is available to emergency response personnel at 

accident scenes in a more timely manner.

As a result of its investigation of the Anding, Mississippi, train collision, the NTSB 

recommended that the FRA (Safety Recommendation R-07-2) and PHMSA (Safety 

Recommendation R-07-4) work together to develop PHMSA regulations requiring that railroads 

immediately provide to emergency responders accurate, real-time information about the identity 

and location of all hazardous materials on a train. 

PHMSA, in a January 22, 2008, response to Safety Recommendation R-07-4, indicated to 

the NTSB that it was examining (1) ways to improve the availability of accurate and immediate 

information for emergency responders on the scene of an accident, and (2) strategies for 

enhancing emergency response planning and training efforts. Additionally, PHMSA indicated 

that it was evaluating the emergency response issues raised in the safety recommendation and the 

Federal, state, and local government, and industry programs intended to address those issues. 

Based on this response, the NTSB classified Safety Recommendation R-07-4 ―Open—Acceptable 

Response.‖

In an October 10, 2007, response to Safety Recommendation R-07-2, the FRA noted the 

ongoing efforts of the AAR, CHEMTREC,68 and the American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association to enhance the availability of hazardous materials information during an 

accident. But the FRA maintained that the current practice of requiring the physical hand-off of 

train consists and other hazardous materials information ―remains the most accurate method of 

transferring this information when an accident occurs.‖ The FRA stated that it had no reason to 

believe that regulatory revisions are necessary to address this issue. 

In an April 12, 2011, follow-up response to the safety recommendation, the FRA noted 

that its regulations require that information on the identity and location of hazardous materials 

shipments on a train be maintained by a member of the train crew for the benefit of emergency 

responders. Further, with the FRA‘s encouragement, the AAR issued a circular offering to 

provide hazardous materials information on the top 25 commodities to local emergency response 

organizations to assist in training and preparing for emergencies. Finally, with the FRA‘s 

encouragement, CSX Transportation, Inc. and CHEMTREC established a real-time information 

 

68 CHEMTREC (the Chemical Transportation Emergency Center), is an around-the-clock service available to 

firefighters, law enforcement officials, and other emergency responders who need immediate response information 

for emergency incidents involving chemicals, hazardous materials, and dangerous goods.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

75

process that provides car content and train consist information on a ―one-call‖ basis. The FRA 

indicated that it continues to evaluate this process to determine if additional regulations are 

necessary. 

While acknowledging the activities and contributions of the AAR, CHEMTREC, and 

industry stakeholders to facilitate the rapid communication of hazardous materials information, 

in a January 10, 2011, letter, the NTSB reminded the FRA that the intent of Safety 

Recommendation R-07-2 was to require railroads to provide to emergency responders 

information about the identity and location of hazardous materials on a train at the time of an 

accident and that the FRA had not identified any initiatives it had taken to move this 

recommendation forward. Therefore, the NTSB continues to classify Safety Recommendation 

R-07-2 ―Open—Unacceptable Response.‖

The NTSB also supports the HM-ACCESS initiative of PHMSA, which will allow the 

electronic communication of shipping paper information and improve the availability and 

accuracy of hazard communications to emergency responders. If implemented as envisioned, 

railroads will be able to quickly transmit electronically updated and accurate train consist data to 

emergency responders when accidents occur.

However, although PHMSA began its HM-ACCESS initiative with public meetings on 

October 13–14, 2009, to discuss an upcoming proof-of-concept study on the use of electronic 

documents for hazardous materials shipments, no rulemaking has been initiated by PHMSA or 

the FRA to require railroads to immediately provide accurate consist information to emergency 

responders. Therefore, the NTSB reiterates Safety Recommendations R-07-2 and R-07-4 to the 

FRA and PHMSA, respectively. 

2.11 Performance of DOT-111 Tank Cars in Accidents

2.11.1 Damage to Tank Heads, Shells, and Top Fittings

During a number of accident investigations over a period of years, the NTSB has noted 

that DOT-111 tank cars have a high incidence of tank failures during accidents. Previous NTSB 

investigations that identified the poor performance of DOT-111 tank cars include a May 1991 

safety study69 as well as NTSB investigations of a June 30, 1992, derailment in Superior 

Wisconsin;

70 a February 9, 2003, derailment in Tamaroa, Illinois;71 and an October 20, 2006, 

derailment of an ethanol unit train in New Brighton, Pennsylvania.72 In addition, on February 6, 2011,

the FRA investigated the derailment of a unit train of DOT-111 tank cars loaded with ethanol in 

Arcadia, Ohio, which released about 786,000 gallons of product. 

 

69 NTSB/SS-91/01.

70 Derailment of Burlington Northern Freight Train No. 01-142-30 and Release of Hazardous Materials in the 

Town of Superior, Wisconsin, June 30, 1992, Hazardous Materials Accident Report NTSB/HZM-94/01 

(Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1994). <www.ntsb.gov/>

71 Derailment of Canadian National Freight Train M33371 and Subsequent Release of Hazardous Materials in 

Tamaroa, Illinois, February 9, 2003, Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-05/01 (Washington, DC: National 

Transportation Safety Board, 2005). <www.ntsb.gov/>

72 NTSB/RAR-08/02.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

76

The fact that DOT-111 general service tank cars experience more serious damage in 

accidents than pressure tank cars, such as DOT-105 or the DOT-112 cars, can be attributed to the 

fact that pressure tank cars have thicker shells and heads. The pressure cars are also usually 

equipped with metal jackets, head shields, and strong protective housings for top fittings. They 

do not have bottom outlet valves, which have been proven to be prone to failure in derailment 

accidents. (See appendix C of this report for a listing of previous NTSB recommendations 

addressing tank car head shields, bottom outlet valves, and top fittings.)

Of the 15 derailed DOT-111 tank cars that piled up in this accident, 13 cars lost product 

from head and shell breaches or through damaged valves and fittings, or a combination of the 

two. This represents an overall failure rate of 87 percent and illustrates the continued inability of 

DOT-111 tank cars to withstand the forces of accidents, even when the train is traveling at 

36 mph, as was the case in this accident. Head breaches resulting in the release of denatured fuel 

ethanol occurred in 9 of the 15 tank cars in the pileup. Head failures in seven of the cars were 

apparently caused by coupler or draft sill strikes. Two of the tank heads were breached by other 

striking objects or tank car structures. Additionally, side shells of three of the tank cars were 

breached as a result of car-to-car impacts. Clearly, the heads and shells of DOT-111 tank cars, 

such as those that are used to transport denatured fuel ethanol in unit trains, can almost always be 

expected to breach in derailments that involve pileups or multiple car-to-car impacts. The 

inability of the DOT-111 tank car heads and shells to retain lading in this accident is comparable 

to previously mentioned ethanol unit train accidents that occurred in New Brighton, 

Pennsylvania, in which 12 heads or shells of 23 derailed tank cars were breached, and in 

Arcadia, Ohio, in which 28 heads and shells of 32 derailed tank cars were breached. 

DOT-111 tank cars make up about 69 percent of the national tank car fleet, and denatured 

fuel ethanol is ranked as the largest-volume hazardous materials commodity shipped by rail. This 

accident demonstrates the need for extra protection such as head shields, tank jackets, more 

robust top fittings protection, and modification of bottom outlet valves on DOT-111 tank cars 

used to transport hazardous materials. The NTSB concludes that if enhanced tank head and shell 

puncture-resistance systems such as head shields, tank jackets, and increased shell thicknesses 

had been features of the DOT-111 tank cars involved in this accident, the release of hazardous 

materials likely would have been significantly reduced, mitigating the severity of the accident. 

Although hazardous materials are better protected when transported in pressure tank cars, 

the majority of pressure tank cars, which are currently used for other hazardous materials such as 

liquefied petroleum gas, chlorine, and anhydrous ammonia, would be required to supply the 

demand for ethanol transportation alone. The FRA estimates there are about 40,000 class DOT-111

general service tank cars currently in ethanol service, while the total fleet of pressure tank cars of 

all specifications consists of about 62,000 cars.73 Since this accident, the AAR has opted to 

increase the crashworthiness of newly constructed class DOT-111 tank cars used in ethanol and 

crude oil service in Packing Groups I and II. AAR requirements for new tank cars increase the 

minimum head and shell thickness to 1/2 inch for TC-128B nonjacketed cars and 7/16 inch for 

jacketed cars. Shells of nonjacketed tank cars constructed of A516-70 steel must now be 

9/16 inch thick; shells of jacketed cars must be 1/2 inch thick. The AAR requirements also 

 

73 Association of American Railroads, UMLER, February 2009.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

77

specify that both the heads and the shells must be constructed of normalized steel and that in all 

cases, a 1/2-inch-thick head shield must be provided.

The AAR requirements do not provide a retrofit solution for the existing fleet of about 

40,000 tank cars that are dedicated to transporting denatured fuel ethanol. In its March 9, 2011, 

petition for rulemaking, the AAR specifically recommended that no provisions be adopted to 

require modifications or retrofitting of existing DOT-111 tank cars. In the petition, the AAR 

notes that it considered applying risk-reduction options both to the existing fleet and to new tank 

cars; however the Railway Supply Institute conservatively estimates the cost of retrofitting 

existing cars with head shield and jackets to be more than $1 billion over the life of a retrofit 

program, not including cleaning and out-of-service costs. The AAR argues, by contrast, that a 

member survey for information on the consequences of derailments involving Packing Groups I 

and II74 hazardous materials from 2004 to 2008 found 1 fatality, 11 injuries, and the release of 

about 925,000 gallons of materials with associated cleanup costs of about $63 million. 

The AAR cited other impediments to retrofitting DOT-111 tank cars with head shields or 

jackets. For example, the AAR contends that the extra weight of these safety features could 

overload tank cars designed to 263,000 pounds gross rail load even when the cars‘ draft sills are 

designed for 286,000 pounds. While increasing the thickness of existing tank car tank heads and 

shells would require replacement of the tank, retrofitting tank cars with head protection systems 

is not without precedent. When improved tank car construction specifications were adopted for 

certain tank cars used to transport flammable gasses, anhydrous ammonia, or ethylene oxide, 

RSPA took action to prohibit the use of tank cars built to older construction standards for these 

products. On January 27, 1984, RSPA issued a final rule that required after December 31, 1986, 

all DOT-105 tank cars constructed before March 1, 1981, as well as all DOT-111 tank cars used 

to transport these specifically identified hazardous materials to be equipped with the same tank 

head and thermal safety systems that are required on newly built DOT-105 tank cars and on all 

specification DOT-112 and DOT-114 tank cars used to transport those same hazardous 

materials.

75 The final rule noted that RSPA took this action to increase the safety of 

transportation by rail of hazardous materials.

The FRA reported that there are currently no plans to require phaseout or retrofitting of 

existing tank cars in the ethanol fleet.76 The decision not to phase out or retrofit existing tank cars 

allows new DOT-111 tank cars with improved protection to be commingled in unit train service 

with the existing fleet of insufficiently protected tank cars. The decision thus ignores the safety 

risks posed by the current fleet of about 40,000 ethanol tank cars that are on average 8 years old 

with an estimated service life of 30 to 40 years. There will be increasing need for general service 

tank cars to meet transportation demands due to the mandated tripling of the amount of ethanol 

blended into the nation‘s fuel supply by 2022. Notwithstanding the anticipated growth in the 

volume of ethanol transported by railroad, existing DOT-111 tank cars will continue to make up 

a large percentage of the tank car fleet for many years. 

 

74 The packing group indicates the degree of danger presented by a hazardous material in transport. Packing 

Group I indicates great danger; Packing Group II, medium danger; and Packing Group III, minor danger.

75 Federal Register, vol. 49, no. 19 (January 27, 1984), pp. 3468–3473. 

76 E-mail communication with FRA Hazardous Materials Division staff, November 2, 2011.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

78

In addition, the FRA reports recent orders for 10,000 new general service tank cars to 

provide for crude oil unit train transportation in the northwest United States and Canada due to 

the lack of pipeline infrastructure. Tank cars for crude oil service have the same specifications as 

cars used for ethanol, therefore design alternatives would easily apply to tank cars in both 

services. Over the past 3 years, annual rail shipments of crude oil from the Bakken region of 

North Dakota alone have increased from 500 carloads to more than 13,000 carloads, and volume 

is expected to grow to 70,000 carloads annually.77 There would be significant benefit to 

developing improved design standards prior to the construction of large numbers of additional 

tank cars, including avoiding the need to later include these cars in a retrofit or phase-out 

program. 

Improvements in tank car safety would most effectively be targeted to those hazardous 

materials commodities that are transported by unit train, such as denatured fuel ethanol and crude 

oils, and which pose the greatest risks when released, such as those commodities in Packing 

Groups I and II. The risks are greater in unit train operations because hazardous materials are 

transported in high density. For example, a unit train of 75 to 100 fully loaded 30,000-gallon 

tank cars typically transports between 2.1 million and 2.8 million gallons of hazardous materials. 

Considering that 10 of the 13 cars that released product in this accident did so as a result 

of punctures and fractures of the tank heads and shells, the NTSB welcomes the AAR‘s actions

requiring that new DOT-111 tanks cars built for Packing Groups I and II service have head 

shields and be constructed of thicker and higher quality steels. However, these actions do not 

address existing tank cars and would not ensure that all tank cars used to transport hazardous 

materials such as fuel ethanol will meet enhanced puncture-resistance standards. Because of the 

impediments to retrofitting the existing tank car fleet with puncture-resistance systems, a phase-out of 

existing tank cars to other service may be the best option for the immediate future. The NTSB 

concludes that the safety benefits of new specification tank cars will not be realized while the 

current fleet of DOT-111 tank cars remains in hazardous materials unit train service, unless the 

existing cars are retrofitted with appropriate tank head and shell puncture-resistance systems. 

Top fittings on tank cars generally project from the tank and are thus vulnerable to impact 

damage in derailments where the fittings may impact the ground or another object with the entire 

weight and momentum of the tank car behind it. Although housings used to protect the top 

fittings of DOT-111 tank cars involved in this accident were fabricated in accordance with 

49 CFR 179.200-16, the postaccident inspection of the derailed tank cars revealed that the 

housings were not effective in preventing damage to the top fittings of two tank cars, resulting in 

subsequent loss of lading.78 While the housing did protect the fittings in the case of one car, 

which came to rest lying upside down in soft mud, the top fittings were damaged in other 

instances where the housings contacted less compliant objects. In one case, the housing separated 

from the car, and both the liquid and the vapor valves were sheared from their threaded pipes, 

thereby causing the car to lose about 26,357 gallons of product. The housing cover of another car 

was knocked askew in the derailment, breaking the vapor valve from its fitting and contributing 

to the release of product from that car. Clearly, unprotected top fittings are vulnerable to impact 

 

77 Association of American Railroads‘ Insider Newsletter, December 12, 2011.

78 One tank car released product from both a damaged top fitting and a bottom outlet valve.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

79

damage and release of hazardous materials even when tank cars are otherwise less severely 

damaged, as was the case with the tank cars described above. The NTSB concludes that 

requirements for protection of the top fittings of the DOT-111 tank cars involved in this accident 

are inadequate because the protective housings were not able to withstand the forces of the 

derailment. 

In order to demonstrate the viability of possible solutions for top fittings protection for 

non-pressure tank cars, the FRA, in October 2009, published the preliminary results of a report 

following testing of three concepts: adding a roll bar assembly to the top of the tank,

incorporating a fabricated deflective skid to the top of the tank, and recessing the fittings into the 

interior of the tank.79 Under an FRA contract, researchers created computer models, designed the 

concepts, and conducted full-scale dynamic rollover tests as recently as August 2010 in order to 

validate the models. Each of the concepts proved effective in preventing rollover damage to the 

top fittings; however, PHMSA has not initiated rulemaking to require enhanced top fittings

protection for general service tank cars.

Notwithstanding PHMSA‘s inaction in mandating top fittings protection, the AAR, which 

by regulation is responsible for approving tank car designs, as of July 1, 2010, now requires that 

all new non-pressure tank cars used to transport Packing Groups I and II hazardous materials be 

equipped with discontinuity protection80 housings for top fittings. The top fittings are subject to 

an impact performance standard incorporated into the AAR‘s Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices. Essentially, top fittings may be grouped inside a more robust 

pressure-car-type protective housing or mounted on nozzles or flanges within rollover skid 

protection. Although the top liquid and vapor valve fittings on each derailed tank car were 

contained within a housing, this housing was not nearly as strong as a pressure-car-type 

protective housing that would be required by the new AAR standard.

The current AAR standard addresses new construction only and does not require 

retrofitting of the current tank car fleet with top fittings protection. With about 40,000 existing 

DOT-111 tank cars that the FRA estimates are transporting denatured fuel ethanol, with an 

estimated service life of 30 to 40 years, this represents the potential for tank cars with 

inadequately protected top fittings to continue to release products in accidents.

Therefore, the NTSB recommends that PHMSA require that all newly manufactured and 

existing general service tank cars authorized for transportation of denatured fuel ethanol and 

crude oil in Packing Groups I and II have enhanced tank head and shell puncture-resistance 

systems and top fittings protection that exceeds existing design requirements for DOT-111 tank 

cars. 

 

79 Survivability of Railroad Tank Car Top Fittings in Rollover Scenario Derailments Phase 2 Final Report, 

Federal Railroad Administration Report DOT/FRA/ORD-09-20 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2009).

80 Discontinuity protection refers to a housing or skid-plate structure designed to protect fittings and valves 

from damage in a derailment.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

80

2.11.2 Bottom Outlet Valves

During the derailment, three bottom outlet valves opened as a result of valve operating 

levers being bent and pulled away from their retaining brackets. The bottom outlet nozzles were 

also sheared off outward of discontinuity protection during the derailment, thus exposing the 

open outlet valves. The open bottom outlet valves resulted in the release of most, if not all, of the 

product from those cars.

Bottom outlet discontinuity protection of the type that existed on the accident tank cars 

has been shown to be of limited effectiveness in preventing product releases from bottom outlets

during accidents. Cited in the Transportation Research Board report, Ensuring Tank Car Safety, 

the AAR and the Railway Progress Institute reviewed the accident data for lading releases from 

bottom outlet valve damage and found that tank cars with damaged bottom outlets had a 

30 percent failure rate when protected, compared with a 66 percent failure rate when 

nonprotected. The rate of release for even the protected bottom outlet valves thus remains at such 

frequency that it is likely that some DOT-111 tank cars will release product during derailments 

involving a substantial number of these cars.

One of the derailed cars with an open bottom outlet valve was a car owned by CIT Rail 

with a bottom outlet valve and handle configuration that had been modified from the original 

design. The bottom outlet valve handle on the car was constructed with a breakaway point that 

was designed to allow the handle to break free in an accident without causing the valve to open. 

But the valve operating handle was too robust and failed to break away when the handle struck 

the ground or another object. (See figure 7.) Instead, the retaining bracket broke, and the intact 

handle, though bent, opened the valve and allowed lading to be released. (See figure 11.)

The AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices Specifications for Tank 

Cars specifies that ―bottom outlet valve handles ... must be designed to either bend or break free 

on impact, or the handle in the closed position must be located above the bottom surface of the 

skid.‖ In the modified valve arrangement, although the handle was designed to bend or break 

free on impact, the end of the handle protruded outward such that it could become caught by 

other objects, debris, or soil, and the breakaway point feature was ineffective.

The other two cars with bottom outlet valves that opened during the derailment were cars 

owned by GE Equipment and by Trinity that used a bottom valve handle arrangement in which 

the valve handle extended out from the center of the tank and then upward and was secured to 

the right side of the tank. Moving the handle longitudinally from the A end toward the B end of 

the car opened the valve. (See figure 8.) This design does not have a breakaway feature for the 

valve handle, instead relying on the fact that the handle extends above the bottom surface of the 

skid protection plate in satisfaction of the AAR standard. Postaccident inspection of the two cars 

revealed that bottom outlet valve handles were bent and pulled away from their retaining 

brackets and that the exposed ball valves were open, thus allowing release of lading through the 

sheared nozzles.

The risks of releases from bottom outlet valves on general service tank cars has been 

recognized for many years, as illustrated by the Chemical Manufacturers‘ Association‘s June 7, 1994,

correspondence with the NTSB concerning the status of Safety Recommendation R-91-11 in 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

81

which it reported that some of its members had made voluntary equipment modifications to 

enhance the performance of their DOT-111 tank cars and that these modifications included 

eliminating bottom outlets where feasible.

The AAR Tank Car Committee task force that considered several DOT-111 protective 

systems or changes in operations discussed removal of bottom outlets from new and existing 

DOT-111 tank cars in ethanol and crude oil service. The task force concluded that although 

bottom outlet removal would be a significant improvement to tank car release performance and 

could be easily accomplished, removing the bottom fittings would have major impact on existing 

loading and unloading infrastructure. Therefore, AAR Circular letter CPC 1230 that includes 

new requirements for tank cars ordered after October 1, 2011, failed to address removal or 

further protection of bottom fittings.

The Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR 179.200-17(a)(4) and 173.31(d)(2) 

require that outlet nozzle construction ensure against the unseating of the valve and that closures 

on tank cars be designed and closed such that there will be no release of a hazardous material 

under conditions normally incident to transportation, including the effects of temperature and 

vibration, but the regulations are silent on the performance of bottom outlet valve operating 

mechanisms under accident conditions. All bottom outlet nozzles are provided with a score 

section around the piping or bolts that allow the nozzle to break away when struck in an accident, 

thus preventing the bottom outlet valve from being damaged. When the bottom outlet nozzle is 

stripped away by the forces of an accident, it is essential that the valve remain closed, otherwise 

product will be free to drain from the tank. 

To prevent unintended opening of bottom outlet valves during derailments, the valve 

operating handles should be weak enough to readily break free before forces acting on the handle 

become sufficient to break the retaining pin and rotate the bottom valve to its open position. 

Alternatively, operating handles could be made of a detachable design such that no protruding 

mechanism is present that could inadvertently open the bottom outlet valve during an accident. 

The NTSB therefore concludes that the existing standards and regulations for the protection of 

bottom outlet valves on tank cars do not address the valves‘ operating mechanisms and therefore 

are insufficient to ensure that the valves remain closed during accidents. The NTSB therefore 

recommends that PHMSA require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly manufactured and 

existing non-pressure tank cars are designed to remain closed during accidents in which the valve 

and operating handle are subjected to impact forces.

2.11.3 Draft Sill and Sill Pad Attachments

Tank car NATX 303504 had a large breach that occurred as the draft sill was loaded 

downward relative to the tank. The draft sill is attached to pads that are attached to the tank car. 

The pads should help protect the tank from fracture caused by loads applied to the draft sill. The 

strength of the welds attaching the draft sill to the pad should be no more than 85 percent of the 

strength of the welds attaching the pad to the tank. Thus, it is expected that the draft sill should 

separate from the pad before the pad separates from the tank. However, in the case of NATX 

303504, the front sill pad fractured from the tank and remained attached to the draft sill. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

82

The fracture of the front sill pad for tank car NATX 303504 occurred at its edges within 

the fillet welds where it was attached to the tank. Overall deformation and fracture patterns 

indicated the fracture initiated at the front edge of the front sill pad due to downward loading of 

the head brace relative to the tank. Fractures at the edges of the front sill pad all showed ductile 

overstress features with no evidence of preexisting damage such as weld defects or fatigue 

cracks.

As the draft sill deformed further downward during the accident sequence, the front sill 

pad separated completely from the tank, but the body bolster pad remained attached to the tank,

and the draft sill remained attached to the body bolster pad. As a result, the downward 

deformation of the draft sill led to a circumferential rupture of the tank shell adjacent to the front 

edge of the body bolster pad. 

AAR standards require that the pads extend at least 1 inch transversely on either side of 

the draft sill attachment and must extend some distance from the head brace in the longitudinal 

direction as defined by a formula. However, there is no other requirement for distance that the 

pads extend in the longitudinal direction. In the tank cars involved in this accident, transverse 

portions of the draft sill attachment above the center plate were welded to the body bolster pad 

adjacent to the edge of the bolster pad where the pad was welded to the tank (see circled areas in 

figure 19). This area also corresponded to the tank circumferential fracture location. While 

separation of the front sill pad made tank failure more likely, the proximity of the attachment 

welds for the pads and the draft sill in this area provided a location where draft sill loads could 

be transferred directly to the tank wall rather than going first through the pads. 

According to AAR standards for other substantial attachments such as brackets (AAR 

MSRP C-III Appendix E 15.2.4), the distance between a bracket and the edge of the pad shall not 

be less than three times the thickness of the pad in any direction. However, there is no similar 

requirement for draft sills in the longitudinal direction except between the head brace and the 

front edge of the front sill pad. The NTSB concludes that tank car design standards for the 

attachments of draft sills to sill pads and of sill pads to the tanks are insufficient to protect the 

integrity of the tanks in accidents in which the draft sills are subjected to significant downward 

deformation. The NTSB believes that the requirements for draft sills should be reviewed to 

ensure that appropriate distances are maintained between the draft sill/pad attachment welds and 

the pad/tank welds in all directions throughout the entire length of the draft sill attachment. The 

NTSB therefore recommends that the AAR review the design requirements in the AAR Manual 

of Standards and Recommended Practices C-III, ―Specifications for Tank Cars for Attaching 

Center Sills or Draft Sills,‖ and revise those requirements as needed to ensure that appropriate 

distances between the welds attaching the draft sill to the reinforcement pads and the welds 

attaching the reinforcement pads to the tank are maintained in all directions in accidents,

including the longitudinal direction. 

The revised AAR standard would address tank cars constructed after the changes are 

published and would not be expected to require retrofitting of the tank car fleet existing at the 

time the changes are published. Given the estimated tank car service life of 30 to 40 years, this 

represents the potential for tank cars with susceptibility to tank failure from loads applied to the 

draft sill to exist long after changes are made to the design standards. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

83

Therefore, the NTSB recommends that PHMSA require that all newly manufactured and 

existing tank cars authorized for transportation of hazardous materials have center sill or draft sill 

attachment designs that conform to the revised Association of American Railroads‘ design 

requirements adopted as a result of Safety Recommendation R-12-9. 

2.12 Safety Management Systems

A safety management system is a systematic approach to managing safety, including the 

necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies, and procedures. An effective 

safety management system program can help companies reduce and prevent accidents and 

accident-related loss of lives, time, and resources. Currently, there are a number of industry 

sectors worldwide that have recognized the benefits of effective safety management, including 

aviation and the maritime communities. Moreover, the NTSB has included safety management 

systems for all modes of transportation on its Most Wanted List.

A safety management system provides for goal setting, planning, and measuring 

performance. An effective safety management system should, at a minimum: 

Define how the organization is set up to manage risk

Identify workplace risk and implement suitable controls

Implement effective communication across all levels of the organization

Implement a process to identify and correct nonconformities

Implement a continual improvement process 

The NTSB investigation identified several risks and failures that had they been properly 

addressed may have prevented the accident. First, inadequate grade crossing identification and 

emergency contact information resulted in personnel failing to communicate early notifications 

of the track washout conditions to the proper property owners. Second, the RTC failed to 

communicate the prevailing weather conditions to the crew of the accident train, and the RTC‘s 

supervisor failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that the RTC performed safety-critical 

tasks properly and in a timely manner. The CN failed to conduct a work risk assessment of 

dispatching operations that may have identified deficiencies that resulted in these errors. Third, 

the CN internal communications system failed to provide timely and precise knowledge of the 

washed out track conditions to the train dispatch center; in part, this failure was due to known 

difficulties associated with contacting personnel at the dispatch center. These considerations 

point out multiple failures at different levels across organizations that contributed to this 

accident. 

In addition to these communication and emergency response failures, other potential 

safety-critical operations were inadequate. For instance, the vagueness of Rule X did not provide 

the operating crew sufficient guidance for operating under severe weather conditions. 

Additionally, in 2006 and 2007, the CN had the opportunity to address storm water management 

at the crossing where the accident occurred but failed to effectively analyze and mitigate the 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

84

problem. Finally, the CN was aware of Federal regulations applicable to this accident, such as 

the need for accurate information on the train consist and the need to perform toxicological 

testing on personnel potentially involved in the accident. But, the CN failed to take steps to 

ensure compliance with these regulations. If the accident train had been carrying a mixture of 

hazardous materials, the emergency responders would not have been able to locate them based 

on the inaccurate train consist and the response effort could have been hampered. Likewise, it 

was not possible to rule out toxicological impairment of the RTC because the tests were not 

performed.

These inadequacies and lapses in safety-critical operations that were present in this 

accident suggest a lack of quality control and a weakness in the CN‘s safety culture. The CN was 

either unaware or did not respond effectively to the existing risks and failures that ultimately led 

to the accident. The NTSB concludes that had an effective safety management system been 

implemented at the CN, the inadequacies and risks that led to the accident would have been 

identified and corrected and, as a result, the accident may have been prevented. Therefore, the 

NTSB recommends that the FRA require that safety management systems and the associated key 

principles (including top-down ownership and policies, analysis of operational incidents and 

accidents, hazard identification and risk management, prevention and mitigation programs, and 

continuous evaluation and improvement programs) be incorporated into railroads‘ risk reduction 

programs required by Public Law 110-432, Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, enacted 

October 16, 2008. 

2.13 Nicor Gas Pipeline

2.13.1 Construction Standards for Pipelines at Railroad Grade Crossings

The pipeline crossing under the CN tracks at Mulford Road on the day of the accident 

exceeded Federal standards for protective ground cover by a factor of 3. It was also five times as 

deep as the industry-recommended protection requirement for depth of cover that was in effect at 

the time the pipeline was constructed. Yet, as the wreckage was removed from above the 

pipeline, Nicor‘s crews discovered that a railcar wheel and axle assembly had impinged on the 

pipeline. Although the pipeline was buried about 11 feet deep and protected within a 16-inch-diameter

casing, the rail car wheels impacted and severely dented the pipeline. The impact caused a severe 

flattening of the pipe casing with sharp angular bends at two locations where it was contacted by 

the rail car wheel assembly. This degree of deformation to the 16-inch casing pipe likely caused 

similar damage to the 12-inch carrier pipe. The NTSB concludes that had the gas pipeline been 

installed at the railroad crossing with the minimum level of ground cover permitted by the 

current Federal and industry pipeline construction standards, it likely would have failed as a 

result of being struck by derailed equipment in this accident. 

Although the pipeline did not leak as a result of this accident, even minor dents and nicks 

are capable of causing pipeline failures. Pipeline damage caused by an accident may result in a 

catastrophic pipeline failure that occurs some period of time after the damage was inflicted, as 

was the case following the derailment of a Southern Pacific Transportation Company freight 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

85

train on May 12, 1989, in San Bernardino, California.81 Thirteen days after the derailment in 

San Bernardino, a 14-inch pipeline at the derailment site ruptured, released gasoline, and ignited. 

The San Bernardino pipeline failure and subsequent fire resulted in 2 fatalities and 19 injuries 

and illustrates the potential outcome had a release occurred at the Cherry Valley, Illinois,

derailment site.

Research of pipeline incident records by PHMSA found only five reportable incidents82

since 1984 in which a train derailment caused damage to a pipeline crossing under the track. 

Although PHMSA does not collect data that would reflect the number of incidents in which 

pipelines are damaged by train derailments at locations in railroad rights-of-way other than 

crossings, the aforementioned San Bernardino pipeline failure illustrates that buried pipelines can 

be damaged when present near railroad accident scenes. Despite the infrequency of such 

incidents, the NTSB believes that pipeline operators and railroad companies should be informed 

about the potential risk of damages to pipelines whenever a train derails. Given the prevalence 

both of underground pipelines and aboveground railroad tracks, the two must, of necessity, cross 

at numerous locations. Responsible pipeline operators may wish to consider protection methods 

that offer a higher level of safety when installing pipelines at these critical locations. The NTSB 

therefore recommends that PHMSA inform pipeline operators about the circumstances of the 

accident and advise them of the need to inspect pipeline facilities after notification of accidents 

occurring in railroad rights-of-way. The NTSB also recommends that the FRA inform railroads

about the circumstances of the accident and advise them of the need to immediately notify 

pipeline operators of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way and ensure that pipeline 

inspections have been accomplished prior to resumption of service.

2.13.2 Pipeline Hazard Communications

The emergency responders who were engaged in the derailment and subsequent fire were 

unaware of the underground pipeline in the area. The pipeline marker closest to the Mulford 

Road crossing was destroyed by the postaccident fire, and neither the first responding fire 

department nor the railroad reconnaissance teams took notice of pipeline markers located farther 

from the accident scene.

About midnight on the day of the accident, the fire department located a pipeline marker 

south of the accident scene and contacted Nicor‘s dispatch center for further information about 

the location of the pipeline. Any concern the fire department may have had about the pipeline 

was put to rest by the map in its Pipeline Preplan Book (which was later found to contain 

incorrect information) and by the Nicor Gas dispatch clerk, who misread a map and erroneously 

reported that no pipeline was located in the vicinity of the Mulford Road grade crossing. After 

CN hazardous materials managers assessed the situation, they contacted Nicor again, and this 

time the operator confirmed the presence of the pipeline. At that point, Nicor appropriately 

dispatched a watch-and-protect team to the accident scene.

 

81 Derailment of Southern Pacific Transportation Company Freight Train on May 12, 1989, and Subsequent 

Rupture of Calnev Petroleum Pipeline on May 25, 1989, San Bernardino, California, Railroad Accident Report 

NTSB/RAR-90/02 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 1990). <http://:www.ntsb.gov>

82 Damage to the pipeline that does not involve the release of gas is not necessarily reported.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

86

At the time of the accident, Nicor had in place a 24-hour response and dispatch operation, 

including an emergency response process that established responsibilities for reporting and 

handling trouble and unusual conditions. Had the communications error not been made, Nicor 

likely would have dispatched proper field personnel to test and monitor the pipeline under its 

existing protocol. The NTSB concludes that the erroneous pipeline hazard communication to 

emergency responders by Nicor Gas Company likely occurred as a result of the Nicor dispatch 

center clerk‘s misreading of a map. 

Since this accident, Nicor has made improvements to its communication and notification 

protocol by ensuring that dispatch personnel review pipeline maps and corroborate their findings 

with the field duty supervisor to avoid providing incorrect information when contacted by 

emergency response agencies during an emergency. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

87

3. Conclusions

3.1 Findings

1. The use of alcohol or illegal drugs by the rail traffic controller as a factor in the accident 

could not be determined because there was no toxicological testing conducted.

2. The following were not factors in the accident: mechanical condition of the locomotives 

and cars on the train; material properties of steels used in the tank car construction; 

integrity of the track structure, culvert, and rails leading up to the point of derailment; 

functioning of the signal system and the grade crossing warning system; use of alcohol or 

illegal drugs by the train crew; training and qualifications of the train crew and the rail 

traffic controller; and fatigue of the rail traffic controller.

3. Both the emergency response to the accident and the environmental recovery efforts after 

the fire were timely and appropriate.

4. The derailment occurred when wheel loads on rails that were unsupported because of a 

washout of the track structure caused the north rail to fracture at a field weld about 8 feet 

west of the Mulford Road grade crossing. 

5. Had the required CN grade crossing identification and emergency contact information 

been posted at the Mulford Road crossing, the railroad would likely have been notified of 

the track washout earlier, and the additional time may have been sufficient for the rail 

traffic controller to issue instructions to stop the train and prevent the accident.

6. The CN police emergency communication system in place at the time of this accident 

was inadequate, with the result that CN police were unable to prevent the derailment even 

though adequate time was available for them to have done so.

7. The failure of the CN to conduct postaccident toxicological testing on the rail traffic 

controller demonstrates that the CN postaccident toxicological program was ineffective.

8. The CN‘s weather policies and rules in effect at the time of the accident were inadequate 

because they provided insufficient and vague guidance in not requiring rail traffic 

controllers to read weather alerts verbatim to train crews; did not clearly specify whether

train crews should operate trains at a restricted speed after receiving an alert; provided no 

notification requirement that track inspectors conduct severe weather related inspections 

prior to train operations; and did not consolidate weather alert notices and the appropriate 

operation of trains into a single rule.

9. If the rail traffic controller had followed CN weather procedures and alerted the crew of 

the accident train to the potential for heavy rains and flash flooding along their route, the 

crew would have been required to operate the train at a lower speed, which would have 

reduced the severity of the accident.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

88

10. A thorough work risk assessment of dispatching operations may have identified several 

deficiencies that, if corrected, would have ensured safety-critical tasks were addressed 

appropriately.

11. The breach in Harrison Park storm water management detention pond 1 that was 

documented in 2008 posed a downstream risk in the event of a heavy storm, and more 

timely measures should have been taken to repair the defect and restore the integrity of 

the pond.

12. Regular inspections by municipalities or other government authorities of storm water 

detention ponds, both public and private, would help ensure that the ponds function as 

designed to reduce the likelihood of damage to property or injuries to people.

13. The storm water drainage system in place in the area of the accident was inadequate as 

evidenced by the washout of the CN tracks on the day of the accident and by previous 

water damage to the track structure that occurred in 2006 and 2007. 

14. This accident demonstrates that storm water issues can affect more than one entity—in 

this case, the CN and Winnebago County—and can require that multiple entities work 

jointly in a collaborative effort to solve any underlying defects or inadequacies.

15. The inaccurate train consist carried by the crew did not affect the emergency response to 

this accident; however, had a mixture of hazardous commodities been involved, the 

inaccurate consist information could have hampered the response effort or put the safety 

of emergency responders and others at risk.

16. If enhanced tank head and shell puncture-resistance systems such as head shields, tank 

jackets, and increased shell thicknesses had been features of the DOT-111 tank cars 

involved in this accident, the release of hazardous materials likely would have been 

significantly reduced, mitigating the severity of the accident.

17. The safety benefits of new specification tank cars will not be realized while the current 

fleet of DOT-111 tank cars remains in hazardous materials unit train service, unless the 

existing cars are retrofitted with appropriate tank head and shell puncture-resistance 

systems.

18. Requirements for protection of the top fittings of the DOT-111 tank cars involved in this 

accident are inadequate because the protective housings were not able to withstand the 

forces of the derailment.

19. The existing standards and regulations for the protection of bottom outlet valves on tank 

cars do not address the valves‘ operating mechanisms and therefore are insufficient to 

ensure that the valves remain closed during accidents.

20. Tank car design standards for the attachments of draft sills to sill pads and of sill pads to 

the tanks are insufficient to protect the integrity of the tanks in accidents in which the 

draft sills are subjected to significant downward deformation.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

89

21. Had an effective safety management system been implemented at the CN, the 

inadequacies and risks that led to the accident would have been identified and corrected 

and, as a result, the accident may have been prevented.

22. Had the gas pipeline been installed at the railroad crossing with the minimum level of 

ground cover required by the current Federal and industry pipeline construction 

standards, it likely would have failed as a result of being struck by derailed equipment in 

this accident.

23. The erroneous pipeline hazard communication to emergency responders by Nicor Gas 

Company likely occurred as a result of the Nicor dispatch center clerk‘s misreading of a 

map.

3.2 Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the 

accident was the washout of the track structure that was discovered about 1 hour before the 

train‘s arrival, and the Canadian National Railway Company‘s (CN) failure to notify the train 

crew of the known washout in time to stop the train because of the inadequacy of the CN‘s 

emergency communication procedures. Contributing to the accident was the CN‘s failure to 

work with Winnebago County to develop a comprehensive storm water management design to 

address the previous washouts in 2006 and 2007. Contributing to the severity of the accident was 

the CN‘s failure to issue the flash flood warning to the train crew and the inadequate design of 

the DOT-111 tank cars, which made the cars subject to damage and catastrophic loss of 

hazardous materials during the derailment.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

90

4. Recommendations

As a result of its investigation of this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board 

makes the following safety recommendations:

4.1 New Recommendations

To the U.S. Department of Transportation:

Develop a comprehensive storm water drainage assessment program to be 

conducted jointly by railroads and public entities that ensures the adequate flow of 

water under both railroad and highway facilities, and require railroads and public 

entities to coordinate any changes to storm water drainage systems before their 

implementation. (R-12-1)

Notify railroads and public entities about the circumstances of this accident and 

the importance of exchanging information related to storm water drainage system 

design issues that may adversely affect the adequate flow of water under both 

railroad and highway facilities. (R-12-2)

To the Federal Railroad Administration:

Require that safety management systems and the associated key principles 

(including top-down ownership and policies, analysis of operational incidents and 

accidents, hazard identification and risk management, prevention and mitigation 

programs, and continuous evaluation and improvement programs) be incorporated 

into railroads‘ risk reduction programs required by Public Law 110-432, Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008, enacted October 16, 2008. (R-12-3)

Inform railroads about the circumstances of the accident and advise them of the 

need to immediately notify pipeline operators of accidents occurring in railroad 

rights-of-way and ensure that pipeline inspections are accomplished prior to 

resumption of service. (R-12-4) 

To the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:

Require that all newly manufactured and existing general service tank cars 

authorized for transportation of denatured fuel ethanol and crude oil in Packing 

Groups I and II have enhanced tank head and shell puncture-resistance systems 

and top fittings protection that exceeds existing design requirements for DOT-111 

tank cars. (R-12-5)

Require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly manufactured and existing 

non-pressure tank cars are designed to remain closed during accidents in which 

the valve and operating handle are subjected to impact forces. (R-12-6)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

91

Require that all newly manufactured and existing tank cars authorized for 

transportation of hazardous materials have center sill or draft sill attachment 

designs that conform to the revised Association of American Railroads‘ design 

requirements adopted as a result of Safety Recommendation R-12-9. (R-12-7)

Inform pipeline operators about the circumstances of the accident and advise them 

of the need to inspect pipeline facilities after notification of accidents occurring in 

railroad rights-of-way. (R-12-8)

To the Association of American Railroads:

Review the design requirements in the Association of American Railroads 

Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices C-III, ―Specifications for Tank 

Cars for Attaching Center Sills or Draft Sills,‖ and revise those requirements as 

needed to ensure that appropriate distances between the welds attaching the draft 

sill to the reinforcement pads and the welds attaching the reinforcement pads to 

the tank are maintained in all directions in accidents, including the longitudinal 

direction. (R-12-9)

To the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 

National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works Association, 

and the Institute of Transportation Engineers:

Inform your members about the circumstances of this accident and the importance 

of exchanging information related to storm water drainage system design issues 

that may adversely affect the adequate flow of water under both railroad and 

highway facilities. (R-12-10)

To the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the National Association of Towns and 

Townships, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors:

Inform your members about the circumstances of this accident and emphasize the 

importance of periodically inspecting storm water management detention ponds 

(both private and public) to ensure that no deterioration has occurred that would 

result in the failure of a pond to function as designed. (R-12-11)

To the Canadian National Railway Company:

Implement a process, consistent with the principles of a safety management 

system, to ensure accuracy and visibility of emergency contact information at all 

highway/rail grade crossings on your system. (R-12-12)

Implement a program consistent with principles of safety management systems to 

periodically test all aspects of your internal emergency communication system to 

ensure that personnel are familiar with the system‘s operation and that emergency 

notifications can be communicated immediately to any chief dispatcher or rail 

traffic controller in your system. (R-12-13)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

92

Examine and revise your postaccident toxicological testing program to ensure that 

rail traffic controllers are tested unless there is clear and convincing evidence that 

they were not involved in the accident. (R-12-14) 

Modify your weather warning operating and safety rules and procedures to 

(1) consolidate weather policies in a single rule, accessible to all operating 

personnel, (2) require that rail traffic controllers promptly and precisely notify 

affected train crews of weather alerts and identify for train crews the specific 

hazards to train operation represented by a weather alert, and (3) require either 

that a track inspector inspect the affected track before train operations are 

permitted within an affected weather alert area or that engineers operate their 

trains at restricted speed and crews watch for water on tracks, possible washouts, 

and misaligned track in the affected areas until the track is inspected. (R-12-15)

4.2 Reiterated Recommendations

As a result of this accident investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board 

reiterates the following previously issued safety recommendations:

To the Federal Railroad Administration:

Assist the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in 

developing regulations to require that railroads immediately provide to 

emergency responders accurate, real-time information regarding the identity 

and location of all hazardous materials on a train. (R-07-2)

To the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:

With the assistance of the Federal Railroad Administration, require that 

railroads immediately provide to emergency responders accurate, real-time 

information regarding the identity and location of all hazardous materials on a 

train. (R-07-4)
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

93

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

DEBORAH A.P. HERSMAN ROBERT L. SUMWALT 

Chairman Member 

CHRISTOPHER A. HART MARK R. ROSEKIND

Vice Chairman Member 

EARL F. WEENER

Member 

Adopted: February 14, 2012
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

94

5. Appendixes

5.1 Appendix A: Investigation

The National Response Center notified the NTSB of the Cherry Valley accident on 

June 19, 2009, and the NTSB sent one investigator from its Chicago, Illinois, office. The next 

day, the investigator-in-charge and other members of the NTSB investigative team were 

launched from the headquarters office in Washington, DC, and additional investigators arrived 

from field offices in Chicago; Atlanta, Georgia; Los Angeles, California; and Arlington, Texas. 

Investigative groups were established to study track and structures, signals, operations, 

mechanical, survival factors, human performance, pipeline and hazardous materials, and 

highway factors. Member Robert L. Sumwalt accompanied the team to the accident site.

Parties to the investigation were the Canadian National Railway Company; the Federal 

Railroad Administration; the Illinois Commerce Commission; the Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen; the United Transportation Union; the Brotherhood of Maintenance of 

Way Employes; the Cherry Valley Fire Protection District; the city of Rockford, Illinois; 

Winnebago County, Illinois; Valero Energy Corporation; Nicor Gas, and Trinity Tank Car, Inc. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

95

5.2 Appendix B: Comprehensive Timeline of Accident Events

Times in this timeline are derived from the following sources:

CN Homewood Southern Operations Control Center Train Management Dispatcher Sheet (time 

adjusted)

Cherry Valley Fire Protection District–National Fire Information Reporting System Report

CN radio log (time adjusted from CN Homewood Southern Operations Control Center)

Event Recorder data (independent time source, not adjusted)

Rockford and Winnebago County 911 centers (time source certified with GMT universal clock)

CN Emergency Call Center in Montreal (time adjusted)

NTSB interviews

NOAA weather data

Adjusted times: Investigators checked and verified two 911 center clock systems with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, and through a review of 

paired outgoing and incoming calls with the 911 centers, extended the time validation to the 

CN‘s Montreal and Homewood dispatch offices.

Acronyms and abbreviations used in the timeline:

CVFPD Cherry Valley Fire Protection District

Homewood CN‘s Homewood Southern Operations Control Center, Homewood, Illinois

IC Incident command 

MP railroad milepost

RFD911 City of Rockford 911/Emergency Services Dispatch Center

RFD Rockford Fire Department

RPD Rockford Police Department 

RTC CN rail traffic controller—the RTC responsible for the territory on which the 

accident occurred

WC911 Winnebago County 911/Emergency Services Dispatch Center
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

96

Friday, June 19, 2009

Time 

(CDT) Event/Activity

2:00 p.m. CN Train U70691-18 (accident train) goes on duty at MP 183.2 in Dubuque, Iowa, with accident crew. 

2:28 p.m. Accident train departs Dubuque with 75 loaded tanks cars of denatured fuel ethanol.

3:00 p.m. RTC goes on duty at Homewood.

3:30 p.m. A CN train passes through Cherry Valley and crosses Mulford Road without incident.

5:34 p.m. CN’s Homewood control center receives AccuWeather thunderstorm warning alert, which is delivered 

to the desk of the RTC.

6:00 p.m. A severe rain event begins moving through the Rockford and Cherry Valley area.

6:36 p.m. CN’s Homewood control center receives AccuWeather flash flood alert, which is delivered to the desk 

of the RTC.

7:00 p.m. Accident train stops at Freeport (MP 115.6) to pick up 38 cars, which will be added to the head end of 

the train. 

7:16 p.m. With the pickup of addition cars complete, accident train receives authority from RTC to depart 

Freeport. The RTC does not mention the 6:36 p.m. flash flood alert.

7:21 p.m. RTC gives accident train track authority to operate from West Seward to MP 16, with no restrictions. 

Again, the RTC does not inform the crew of the flash flood alert.

7:35 p.m. A citizen calls RPD concerning a washout of the CN track near Mulford Road. 

7:40 p.m. WC911 receives the first of multiple calls from local citizens about the crossings at Mulford Road, with 

one saying: “the tracks [are] washing away.”

7:52 p.m. A citizen calls WC911 to report that the tracks at Mulford Road are washed out and that water is going 

under the tracks. 

8:03 p.m. WC911, after learning that RPD has no patrol officers available to respond, dispatches a Winnebago 

County sheriff’s deputy to investigate the washout reports.

8:09 p.m.

WC911 deputy attempts to determine owner of tracks with reported washout. Calls BNSF Railway and 

is told the track is not BNSF.

8:10 p.m. WC911 deputy calls UP Railroad to report washout. UP tracks are about 500 feet north of CN tracks at 

Mulford Road.

8:14 p.m. Winnebago County deputy sheriff dispatched by WC911 arrives at Mulford Road. 

8:15 p.m. Accident train radios RTC to request a signal at MP 85.6 that will allow the train to pass over a rail 

crossing at Rockford.

8:16 p.m.

Having determined that the track belongs to the CN, WC911 deputy contacts the CN Emergency Call 

Center in Montreal and informs the call desk officer of washout of CN tracks at Mulford Road in 

Rockford, Illinois: “Water has washed out rail lines that do belong to you.”

8:18–

8:23 p.m.

CN emergency call desk officers make repeated unsuccessful attempt to reach the RTC and/or chief 

dispatcher at Homewood to relay the report of washed-out tracks. 

8:18 p.m.

Accident train passes signal at Rockford (MP 85.6). The crew notices high water at the Rockford 

Diamond and water near the top of the rails about 1/2 mile east of MP 81.

8:32 p.m.

CN emergency call desk officer in Montreal calls WC911 to confirm the location as Mulford Road and 

to inform authorities that CN would be “sending someone out.”

8:35 p.m.

As accident train crests a hill at MP 81.2, it picks up speed to 36 mph. After passing MP 81, crew calls 

the RTC to report having encountered high water at the Rockford Diamond and water near the tops of 

the rails near MP 81.

8:36 p.m.

Shortly after the head end of accident train passes over the Mulford Road grade crossing, the train 

experiences an automatic emergency brake application as the train derails and separates behind the 

58th car. Locomotive event recorder data show the train moving at 36 mph at the time. 

8:36 p.m.

RTC calls Edmonton Walker Call Desk in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to relay accident train’s report 

of high water at Rockford Diamond and water near the tops of the rails at MP 81. Edmonton Walker 

Call Desk dispatches track inspector (who lives in Freeport, Illinois) to the area.

8:36 p.m. RFD911 receives a call from a citizen reporting a bus/truck fire in the vicinity of Mulford Road. 

8:37 p.m.

A caller to RFD911 reports “a train has derailed, four explosions, box cars are exploding.” RFD911 

dispatches fire department (RFD) resources to the scene. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

97

Time 

(CDT) Event/Activity

8:37 p.m.

WC911 receives a call reporting a fire on the railroad tracks near Mulford Road. This is the first of 19 

calls received by WC911 reporting the incident. 

8:40 p.m.

CN Montreal Emergency Call Center desk officers reach the chief dispatcher and RTC at Homewood. 

Neither caller mentions “washout.” RTC responds that he has already reported the high water.

8:41 p.m. CVFPD resources arrive on the scene of the derailment and fire.

8:42 p.m.

With the head end of their train near MP 79.5, the crew of accident train radios the RTC to report that 

the train is in emergency but the cause has not been determined.

8:46 p.m.

CVFPD chief arrives on scene and radios RFD911 to advise of a major fire with multiple tank cars 

derailed and burning. The CVFPD chief initiates the IC process, and IC posts are established on both 

the north and south sides of the derailment. Two CVFPD ambulances inform the chief that there are 

burn victims from vehicles that were stopped at the railroad crossing at the time of the derailment. 

8:55 p.m.

Local track inspector dispatched by Edmonton Walker Call Desk contacts RTC and asks to inspect the 

track east of MP 79. RTC advises the track inspector to follow the train that had reported the high 

water (accident train, which has already derailed).

8:56 p.m. Cherry Valley and Rockford hazardous materials personnel report to IC. 

8:59 p.m. Accident train engineer calls RTC to report a fire involving at least one ethanol tank car.

9:00 p.m.

Because of the lack of information about the cargo involved in the fire and the question of whether 

pressurized cars are involved, the CVFPD chief implements an evacuation of the area.

9:02 p.m.

Because the type of product fueling the fire is unknown, IC directs the police to begin evacuating the 

residential subdivisions on the north side of the derailment within a 1/2-mile radius. 

9:09 p.m.

RFD advises IC that the railroad has identified the burning product as ethanol. IC asks RFD911 to 

start making calls to locate large quantities of fire-suppression foam. 

9:12 p.m.

RFD911 advises IC that it has been informed by CN that only one tank car contains ethanol. IC asks

RFD911 to inquire with CN about other products that may be involved since multiple tank cars are

burning. IC sends a firefighting team to attempt to locate the train crew, make sure they are safe, and 

bring them to the IC post. 

9:25 p.m.

RTC radios accident train and asks the crew move the nonderailed segment of the train 1/2 mile east 

to provide separation from the fire. 

9:50 p.m.

A firefighter (of the train crew search team) approaches the locomotive cab of the accident train and 

asks the two crewmembers to accompany him to IC with their shipping papers. Train crew begins

process of shutting down the locomotives and setting brakes on the railcars.

10:15 p.m. A CN dangerous goods officer arrives on scene and confers with IC. 

1020 p.m.

The train crew arrives at IC and provides a paper consist showing that all tank cars involved in the 

derailment contain ethanol. 

11:00 p.m.

Two-member CVFPD Unit 562 is instructed to go east through a field to determine how far the 

derailment extends and how many tank cars are burning.

11:21 p.m.

CVFPD Unit 562 advises IC that, while proceeding on foot, one of the firefighters has become ill. IC 

advises the unit to return to its vehicle. IC deploys a rapid intervention team to locate and bring the

unit back. 

11:36 p.m.

Members of CVFPD Unit 562 arrive back at the south sector (south side of the crossing). IC orders 

both crewmembers to be transported to a hospital to be checked for possible exposure to hazardous 

materials. Crewmembers are evaluated at the hospital and released to return home. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

98

Saturday June 20, 2009

Time 

(CDT) Event/Activity

12:01a.m.

IC calls Nicor Gas asking about the location of any pipelines along Mulford Road near the accident 

site. Nicor Gas responds that no gas pipelines are in the area and that the closest pipeline about 0.7 

mile from the accident site.

1:30 a.m. IC is advised that the primary evacuation had been completed. 

1:30 a.m. Crew of accident train is tested for alcohol and illegal drugs. 

2:28 a.m. IC is advised that the extended evacuation has been completed.

3:30 a.m.

IC begins releasing mutual aid (firefighting) units from staging area. Some resources are retained in 

case of any unforeseen event. 

6:30 a.m.

CN contacts Nicor Gas with a second inquiry about the location of a pipeline at the site. Nicor 

confirms that a gas transmission pipeline is located at the accident site.

7:06 a.m.

Nicor Gas dispatches technicians to the scene to prevent excavation damage during the wreckage 

recovery and clean-up operations.

10:00 a.m.

Fires on the west side of Mulford Road have burned down to a point that two unmanned monitors 

(cooling sprays) are put into operation. Fires will be extinguished at a steady pace over the next 

several hours, and water flow will be maintained for an additional hour for cooling. 

3:00 p.m.

Fires on the east side of Mulford Road have burned down to a point that unmanned monitors (cooling 

sprays) are put into place. The fires are extinguished at a steady pace, and water flow will be

maintained for an additional 2 hours for cooling.

5:00 p.m. IC declares that all fires have been extinguished.

5:30 p.m. Evacuees are allowed to return to their homes.

10:00 p.m. All mutual aid firefighting companies are released.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Time 

(CDT) Event/Activity

4:00 p.m. IC and railroad officials confer and agree that a fire department presence is no longer needed. The 

CVFPD chief terminates IC operations. 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

99

5.3 Appendix C: Tank Car Safety Recommendation History

Head Shields

To the Research and Special Programs Administration (R-85-61) and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (R-85-64):

In consultation with the American Association of Railroads, conduct a full testing 

and evaluation program to develop a head shield to protect DOT specification 

aluminum tank car ends from puncture and mandate installation of the head shield 

at an early date.

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.

To the Association of American Railroads:

In consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration and the Research and 

Special Programs Administration conduct a full testing and evaluation program to 

develop a head shield to protect DOT specification aluminum tank car ends from 

puncture and incorporate installation of the head shield at an early date as a rule in 

the car interchange requirements. (R-85-63)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action.

To the Research and Special Programs Administration:

Require that all tank car shipments of hazardous materials with an isolation radius 

of one-half mile or more, as recommended by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Emergency Response Guidebook, be transported in tank cars 

equipped with head shield or full tank head protection. (R-85-105)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action/Superseded by Safety Recommendation R-91-11.

To the Research and Special Programs Administration:

Evaluate present safety standards for tank cars transporting hazardous materials 

by using safety analysis methods to identify the unacceptable levels of risk and 

the degree of risk from the release of hazardous material, then modify existing 

regulations to achieve an acceptable level of safety for each product/tank car 

combination. (R-89-80) 

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

100

To the Research and Special Programs Administration (R-91-11), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (R-91-12), the Association of American Railroads (R-91-14), the Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (R-91-19), the American Petroleum Institute (R-91-20), the 

American Fire Protection Association (R-91-21):

Establish a working group [with the assistance of the other named organizations] 

to expeditiously improve the packaging of the more dangerous products (such as 

those that are highly flammable or toxic, or pose a threat to health through 

contamination of the environment) by (a) developing a list of hazardous materials 

that should be transported only in pressure tank cars with head shield protection 

and thermal protection (if needed); and (b) establishing a working agreement to 

ship the listed hazardous materials in such tank cars.

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable (R-91-11, -12, -20, and -21) 

Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action (R-91-14 and -19)

To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Establish, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation (DOT), criteria to 

identify materials that are harmful to the environment or pose long-term threats to 

public health, and evaluate, with the DOT, the severity of harm posed by the 

release of these materials from bulk containers, including tank cars, in 

transportation. (I-94-2)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action. 

To the Federal Railroad Administration:

Validate the predictive model the Federal Railroad Administration is developing 

to quantify the maximum dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under 

accident conditions. (R-04-6)

Status: Open—Acceptable Response.

Bottom Outlet Valves

To the U.S. Department of Transportation: 

Take immediate steps to cause the modification of both new and existing tank 

cars so that damage to the top fittings and bottom outlet valves is minimized in 

train accidents. (R-80-13)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.

To the Association of American Railroads:

Determine through analysis of your ―Reports of Repairs‖ records the causes of 

tank car attachment failures. (R-87-52) 
NTSB Railroad Accident Report

101

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.

Revise present attachment standards for new tank cars and require appropriate 

modification of existing tank cars based on deficiencies identified in its analysis 

of the causes of tank car attachment failures. (R-87-53)

Status: Closed – Acceptable Action.

Establish a quality control program that includes on-site inspection to determine 

that tank car manufacture, repairs, modifications, and alterations are performed in 

compliance with the tank car specifications. (R-87-54)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.

Top Fittings

To the U.S. Department of Transportation:

Take immediate steps to cause the modification of both new and existing tank 

cars so that damage to the top fittings and bottom outlet valves is minimized in 

train accidents. (R-80-13)

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action.

To the Federal Railroad Administration (R-89-48) and the Research and Special Programs 

Administration (R-89-53):

Assist and cooperate in amending 49 CFR Part 179 to require that closure fittings 

on hazardous materials rail tanks be designed to maintain their integrity in 

accidents that are typically survivable by the rail tank.

Status: Closed—Unacceptable Action

To the Federal Railroad Administration (R-89-49) and the Research and Special Programs 

Administration (R-89-54):

Assist and cooperate in amending 49 CFR Part 179 to require that specifications 

for securing closure fittings, such as minimum torque values for sealing bolted 

closures and gasket specifications, be determined and provided by tank car 

designers and manufacturers.

Status: Closed – Acceptable Action.