NTSB/RAB-08/05 

E PLURIBUS UNUM

NATIONAL TRA SPORTATIO

N

B OARD

SAFE T Y

N

National Transportation Safety Board 

Washington, D.C. 20594 

Railroad Accident Brief

Accident No.: DCA-07-MR-009 

Location: Oneida, New York 

Date: March 12, 2007 

Time: 6:58 a.m., eastern daylight time1

Railroad CSX Transportation 

Property Damage: $2.07 million 

Environmental Cleanup: $4.66 million 

Injuries: None 

Fatalities: None 

Type of Accident: Derailment 

Synopsis 

On Monday, March 12, 2007, about 6:58 a.m., CSX Transportation (CSX) train 

No. Q39010, a mixed freight train, derailed near Oneida, New York. The train was en route from 

Buffalo, New York, to Selkirk, New York. At the time of the derailment, the train was traveling 

about 47 mph. The train consisted of 3 locomotives and 78 cars. Twenty-nine cars derailed. Six 

tank cars were breached, including four carrying liquefied petroleum gas, one carrying toluene, 

and one carrying ferric chloride. An explosion and fire followed that led local emergency 

response officials to close two elementary schools and evacuate a 1-mile area around the 

derailment site. Four firefighters were taken to a hospital for observation as a precaution because 

they had stepped in a pool of ferric chloride. There were no fatalities. Estimated damages and 

environmental cleanup costs were $6.73 million. 

The Accident 

The engineer and conductor went on duty at CSX’s Frontier Yard in Buffalo, New York, 

at 2:30 a.m. to relieve the inbound crew on train No. Q39010. They said that after leaving 

Buffalo the trip was uneventful until the derailment and that the train had responded normally to 

the operating conditions. 

Near control point 266, about 6:58 a.m., while the train was traveling at 47 mph and the 

locomotives were pulling the train in throttle position No. 2,2

 both crewmembers heard a loud 

 1

 All times in this brief are eastern daylight time. 

2

 The throttle has eight positions, and position No. 8 has the highest power output. 
2

“pop” from under the locomotive. Immediately, the engineer looked in the rearview mirror and 

could see sparks at the spot in the track where the crew had heard the noise, then the brakes 

applied with an emergency application. The event recorder indicated that the engineer had kept 

the locomotive brakes released in response to the emergency application.3

The engineer said that he saw a fire near the middle of the train. The crew contacted the 

train dispatcher and reported that the train was on fire. After coming to a stop, they exited the 

locomotive and walked ahead of the train. The conductor made contact with the arriving 

emergency responders and gave them the written consist of the train. 

Investigation 

The investigation revealed that the train crew was qualified and trained to perform their 

duties correctly. Testing and a review of records showed that the signal system had functioned as 

designed. Postaccident equipment inspections and air brake tests showed that the locomotives 

and cars had no defects that would have caused or contributed to the collision. The only item 

noted was marks on the wheels of the front portion of the train that did not derail that passed 

over the point where a broken rail was found. (See Postaccident Testing.)

Emergency Response 

On the morning of March 12, 2007, the Oneida Fire Department chief4 was driving north 

on Broad Street to his station located at 109 North Main Street. (See figure 1.) He noticed a large 

fire in the distance and began driving in that direction. After he arrived on West Elm Street, he 

drove along a dirt access road between West Elm Street and the railroad. From this road, he saw 

a large fire and rail cars near the track. He went back to West Elm Street and established a 

command post there. He radioed his station and requested that one engine (Engine 2) respond to 

the north side of the railroad. A deputy fire chief responded with this engine. Two engines 

(Engines 1 and 3) responded to the south side of the railroad at West Elm Street. The fire chief 

also requested a tanker from the Canastota Fire Department, a tanker from the Wampsville Fire 

Department, and the Oneida County Hazmat Team. An ambulance was also dispatched to the 

scene to stand by. 

 3

 The CSX train-handling guidelines instruct engineers to keep the locomotive brakes released after an 

emergency application of the brakes when the locomotives are in power before the application. Because the brakes 

on the locomotives can be more effective than those on the train, keeping the locomotive brakes released prevents 

the cars on the train from running into the locomotives. 4

 The chief of the Oneida Fire Department later became the incident commander. 
3

The Madison County Communications Center operates the 911 and emergency 

communications for the county. The first 911 call was received about 7:03 a.m. The caller 

reported that a train had exploded on the train tracks on Canal Street in Oneida. 

According to the fire chief, the deputy fire chief met the train crew on the north side of 

the track. The crew gave the deputy fire chief the train consist. The fire chief estimated that he 

received this information within about 30 minutes of his arrival on scene. 

The initial evacuation area was a 1-mile radius around the accident site. After a further 

assessment, the evacuation area was reduced to a 1/2-mile radius that included eight houses. The 

mayor of Oneida declared a state of emergency that made this evacuation mandatory. The Oneida 

Police Department, the Madison County Sheriff, and the New York State Police conducted the 

evacuation. A school bus and an ambulance were used to assist those without transportation. The 

Oneida City School District bus garage was used as a shelter for evacuated residents. Two 

elementary schools (Durhamville and North Board Street) were closed, and students were taken 

to Oneida High School. 

Figure 1. Map of accident area. (The 1/2-mile and 1-mile radii circles indicate 

evacuation areas around the accident site.) 
4

Throughout the morning, local and railroad responders began to assess the accident scene 

and develop action plans. Based on observations from a New York State police helicopter that 

flew over the accident site with a CSX representative on board, it was estimated that cars 19 

through 535

 were involved in the derailment; two propane cars were breached; one propane car 

was burning; and the toluene car was burning and venting. Because the toluene car was venting, 

responders planned defensive actions. No fire suppression was conducted for the tank car fires; 

however, unmanned water monitors were used to cool the cars. 

During the afternoon and evening, local railroad responders began to assess the damage 

to the derailed cars and tested the pressure of the derailed cars. Based on these assessments, they 

made plans for transferring the contents of the damaged cars to either tanker trucks or empty rail 

tank cars brought from other locations. They also decided which cars had limited damage and 

could be re-railed. 

The state of emergency was lifted at 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2007, 3 days after the 

derailment, and evacuated residents were allowed to return to their homes. 

Description of Derailment and Damage 

The first 24 cars of the train did not derail. The 25th car was still attached to the train, and 

the front part of the car was not derailed. The rear of the car was off the tracks to the south side, 

and the truck assembly6 was no longer under the rear of the car. Approximately 1,284 feet behind 

the 25th car, the 26th car lay on its side off the tracks to the south, and both truck assemblies 

from this car were missing. A truck assembly was found 240 feet west of the 26th car, and it 

matched the partially derailed 25th car. Approximately 500 feet from this single truck assembly 

was a pileup of 27 derailed cars. The two truck assemblies matching the 26th car were located 

within the pileup. The rear 25 cars of the train did not derail. In total, 29 cars derailed. 

The intact truck assembly on the front of the 25th car was inspected, and no unusual wear 

or measurements were found. The detached truck assembly from the 25th car also was inspected, 

and the areas that normally contact the car did not have unusual wear patterns. The northern side 

frame of the 25th car showed rail burns7

 on the underside. (See figure 2.) This type of rail burn 

occurs when the wheels drop between the rails and the side frame of a derailed railroad car 

moves along the top of the rail. The rail burn damage had scoured and disfigured the surface of 

the underside of the side frame of the rear truck. 

 5

 The cars that derailed were the 25th through the 52nd. 

6

 A truck assembly consists of two axles and wheel sets, two side frames, and a cross piece (bolster) with the 

necessary braking and spring assemblies. 7

 A rail burn is a type of long dent, oriented more or less longitudinally, that is caused by friction from a car 

(not the wheel) moving along a rail. 
5

At milepost QC 266.0, a section of the 

south rail was recovered that had a portion of the 

head of the rail broken out. (See figure 3.) The 

break in the rail was 55.5 inches west of the tip of 

the adjacent switch point of the crossover. The 

track was destroyed from milepost QC 266.0 to 

700 feet east of the milepost. The next 1,000 feet 

of track were moderately damaged. The signal 

equipment case and the power crossover switches 

at control point 266 were destroyed. Estimated 

equipment, track, and signal damage was 

$2.07 million. 

Figure 2. Rail burn on underside

of northern side frame of 25th car.

Figure 3. Section of south rail with portion of rail head 

broken out. 
6

Hazardous Materials Information 

Of the 29 derailed cars, 22 were tank cars loaded with hazardous materials. Six of these 

tank cars were breached and released hazardous materials. 

Derailed cars (numbered from the front of the train) 30, 31, 32, and 42 were pressurized 

tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas. During the derailment, all four of these tank cars 

were punctured and they released their entire contents, which subsequently burned. When 

emergency response personnel arrived, they prevented access to the area and allowed the product 

to burn off. Additional air was pumped into the tanks of cars 30 and 31 to purge and burn the 

entire contents. The other 16 derailed tank cars containing liquefied petroleum gas had their 

loads vented and flared or transferred. 

Derailed cars 34 and 40 were nonpressurized tank cars. Car 34 carried toluene (a 

flammable liquid that is unhealthy when its vapors are inhaled or it is absorbed by the skin) and 

sustained a small leak on the bottom outlet valve. The car released about 500 gallons, some of 

which was consumed by fire. Car 40 contained ferric chloride, a corrosive liquid. This tank car 

sustained a large tear on one side and lost its entire contents, approximately 17,000 gallons. Lime 

was used to neutralize the ferric chloride in the contaminated soil. 

Within 12 hours after the derailment, AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. (AMEC), 

which was contracted by CSX to monitor and perform environmental remediation of the accident 

site, began monitoring and sampling the surface water near the derailment site. AMEC also took 

pH readings of the water several times daily for the next 3 days. The monitoring and sampling 

was reduced to once daily at four locations until March 17, 2007. Periodic sampling continued 

until April 20, 2007. In addition, samples from tap water at homes within a 1/2-mile radius of the 

derailment also were tested. 

Interim remedial measures to stop the spilled materials from entering the water system 

included installing absorbent booms and pads in the nearby unnamed tributary and Cowaselon 

Creek. AMEC dug interceptor trenches parallel and perpendicular to the tributary to capture the 

released product before it entered the tributary. AMEC also constructed a limestone berm around 

the tributary to buffer surface water and shallow groundwater entering the tributary and applied 

lime and soda ash to lowland areas where there was evidence of ferric chloride impact. Initially, 

AMEC removed from the trenches 10,560 gallons of water contaminated with ferric chloride and 

sent the water for disposal. Later, because of heavy rains, AMEC removed and sent for disposal 

about 90,000 gallons of water.

AMEC removed 7,128 tons of contaminated soil from the track bed and adjacent access 

road. This remediated the ferric chloride hazard; however, after treatment, 3,729 tons of the soil 

still were moderately contaminated with toluene, and the soil was sent to a local waste disposal 

site. Another 358 tons of soil were highly contaminated with toluene, which required the soil to 

be sent to a specialized waste disposal site. The soil from the two burn pits also was excavated 

and sent for disposal. According to CSX, environmental cleanup costs totaled $4.66 million. 
7

Operations Information 

The CSX Operating Rules, effective October 1, 2004, governed train movements on the 

Mohawk Subdivision of the CSX Albany Division. The trains were authorized by signals in a 

traffic control system operated by a train dispatcher in Selkirk, New York. CSX train crews used 

the Albany Division Timetable/Special Instructions, effective November 1, 2004, for specific 

instructions about the territory. 

Event Recorder Information 

According to the data from the locomotive event recorder, at 6:58:37 a.m. the train was 

traveling at 47 mph with the throttle handle in position No. 2 and the brake pipe charged to 88 

pounds per square inch (psi). One second later, the brake pressure indicated 69 psi. At 6:58:39, 

the event recorder data indicated that the train speed was 45 mph, the throttle handle was still in 

position No. 2, and the train line emergency brake application was recorded. At 6:58:40, with the 

train speed at 44 mph, the throttle handle indicated idle. The end-of-train device also indicated 

that the emergency application had reached the rear of the train. By 6:59:36, the train speed had 

dropped to 0 mph. The locomotives traveled approximately 2,018 feet after the initiation of the 

emergency brake application. 

Meteorological Information 

The nearest meteorological station was at Syracuse, New York, approximately 30 miles 

west of the derailment. On March 12, 2007, at 6:54 a.m. the temperature was 19° F, and the 

weather was partly cloudy with winds from the southeast at 5 mph. 

Track Information 

Two tracks at the derailment location ran approximately east and west. Track No. 1 was 

the northernmost track. Trains could operate on either track in either direction. However, 

eastbound trains heading toward Selkirk predominately operated on track No. 2, and the 

westbound trains heading toward Syracuse operated on track No. 1. The track gradient in the 

derailment area ranged from 0.00 to -0.25 percent. The alignment was tangent (straight) from 

milepost 268.6 to milepost 265.5. 

The derailment occurred at milepost 265.98 while the train was moving at 47 mph on 

track No. 2. The train was trailing through the eastern switch of a crossover that connected track 

No. 1 with track No. 2. 

The main tracks in the area of the derailment were classified as class 4 track under the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

213. Maximum authorized speed for freight trains on class 4 track is 60 mph. However, because 

the train was a key train as defined by the Association of American Railroads Circular No. OT55-I, “Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials,” 

the authorized maximum speed for the train was 50 mph. Annually, the two tracks carried 103.44 

million gross tons (MGT), with an estimate of 51.72 MGT each.
8

The most recent major maintenance performed on the track was in 2004. At that time, 

replacement crossties were installed, and the track bed was resurfaced. 

According to CSX records, a track inspector visually inspected the derailment site on 

March 8, 2007, and no exceptions were noted. Track records for the previous 90 days also 

showed that inspection frequency was consistent with FRA requirements. 

On January 18 and March 24, 2006, the FRA conducted routine inspections, which 

included the area through the derailment site, and noted no defects.

CSX Internal Rail Inspection History 

As a contractor to CSX, Sperry Rail Services had recently inspected the track 

ultrasonically for internal defects, on July 12 and November 9, 2006. The July 12, 2006, 

inspection had a loss of bottom signal at the location where the broken rail was found, indicating 

that the ultrasonic signal was unable to reach the bottom of the rail and echo back to provide an 

internal image of the rail. The operator had recorded this finding. 

The most recent ultrasonic inspection, on November 9, 2006, also had a loss of bottom 

signal in the same location. However, in this instance the operator decided to use a hand-held 

ultrasonic device because of visual evidence of shelling8

 on the top of the rail. Shelling can 

impede both the transfer of ultrasonic signals into the rail and the reflection of the signals back to 

the detector, reducing the effectiveness of the inspection. A hand inspection may be more likely 

to detect internal defects because the operator has some control over the orientation of the 

ultrasonic signal. The operator recorded the results of the hand screening as “negative hand test,” 

indicating that no defects had been found. 

Postaccident Testing 

Sections of the broken rail found on scene were secured and sent to the Safety Board’s 

Materials Laboratory in Washington, D.C., for testing. The rail was identified and labeled as 

shown in figure 4. 

 8 Shelling is surface cracking by metal fatigue near the gage corner caused by repetitive stresses. It is a 

progressive separation that may crack out at any level on the gage side of the rail but generally at the gage corner. 
9

Figure 4. Broken rail sections. (Fractures labeled A through F.) 

The running surfaces of each piece were examined visually. Extensive surface cracks and 

flat spots (smooth local depressions) were noted. All pieces showed shell cracks intersecting the 

running surface near the upper gage corner. Pieces 3 and 4 had a nearly continuous series of shell 

cracks along the length of each piece. The entire length of piece 5 displayed shell cracking. All 

pieces exhibited areas of shell cracks on the gage side of the running surface. Typical flat spots 

were 1 to 2 inches long. Measurements showed that most of the flat spots were depressed less 

than 0.010 inches below the adjacent surfaces. The flat spot adjacent to the east end of piece 4 

measured 0.025 inch at its deepest. Cross sections of the rail were cut through pieces 1 and 2. No 

noticeable wear of the rail head was noted when the rail profiles were compared to each other 

and to profiles contained in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 

Association Manual for Railway Engineering. 

The six fractures between the sections of rail were inspected and labeled A through F. 

Fractures A, C, D, E, and F, although showing some signs of internal defects, contained primarily 

features typical of an overstress separation.9

 

Fracture B was dominated by a large detail fracture in the rail head that most likely was 

the primary fracture. (See figure 5.) A longitudinal shelling crack propagated below the running 

surface of the rail and turned downward to form the detail fracture. This fracture propagated in 

fatigue until it penetrated more than 70 percent of the existing head cross section. The detail 

fracture region was darkly oxidized with alternating bands of fine fatigue arrest lines and areas of 

 9

 An overstress separation of the rail is often caused by the forces of a derailment. 
10

coarse fracture. The detail fracture measured 2.2 inches wide and 2 inches deep and extended 

into the web of the rail. 

Both faces of fracture B were heavily damaged at and adjacent to the running surface of 

the rail. (See figure 6.) The damage appeared to be consistent with rail damage from wheel 

contact that occurs after the rail has fractured. Also, the rail damage correlated with the damage 

to the wheel treads of the cars at the front of the train that did not derail. 

Figure 5. Rail fracture B. (Photographs taken with different lighting and magnification.) 

 

Figure 6. Damage to both faces of rail fracture B. 
11

Internal Rail Inspection 

FRA regulations regarding rail inspection at 49 CFR 213.237 require that a continuous 

search for internal defects be made of all rail in Classes 4 through 5 track, and class 3 track over 

which passenger trains operate, at least once every 40 MGT or once a year, whichever interval is 

shorter. CSX reported that it was inspecting the accident rail in accordance with these intervals. 

When the test was performed on November 9, 2006, the ultrasonic sensor on the hy-rail10 vehicle 

had difficulty reading through the rail to the base; however, the operator performed a hand test to 

look for internal defects and noted that nothing was found. The FRA regulation required the next 

ultrasonic test of the rail to be performed before 1 year had passed. Using average tonnage, CSX 

determined that 40 MGT would have passed in August 2007, and the next ultrasonic inspection 

was to be performed at that time. 

Estimates of rail defect growth rates indicate that the size of the internal defect that 

initiated the rail failure was likely large enough to have been detected during the prior ultrasonic 

inspection; however, the presence of shelling cracks on the railhead can obscure internal defects 

during ultrasonic inspections. As noted earlier in this report, shelling can also initiate a detail 

fracture into the head of the rail. 

The Safety Board investigated a derailment of a Burlington Northern freight train that 

occurred in Superior, Wisconsin, on June 30, 1992.11 An ultrasonic inspection had been 

performed in the month before the derailment, on May 13, 1992. The report described the 

inspection activity as follows: 

... the ultrasonic inspection car operator recognized that the rail contained 

shelling but did not consider the conditions severe enough to warrant an exception 

report. However, because of the surface condition, he conducted additional 

ultrasonic inspections using hand held equipment. The operator considered the 

rail to be free from internal defects based on his evaluation of the tests and his 

experience. 

The circumstances of the inspection activity in the Superior accident are similar to those 

in the Oneida accident. The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable 

cause of the derailment at Superior was the failure of the rail from an undetected preexisting 

detail fracture that had initiated from shelling and had reached critical size. As a result of its 

investigation of the Superior accident, the Safety Board issued recommendations that addressed 

the effectiveness of internal rail inspections. New provisions were added to the Track Safety 

Standards through paragraphs (d) and (e) of 49 CFR 213.237 that were responsive to the Board’s 

recommendations. These provisions appear to ensure that railroads are required to conduct valid 

continuous searches for internal defects and that no segments of rail are to remain in service 

without being inspected. In both the Superior and Oneida accidents, the rail inspection operators 

 10 A hy-rail vehicle, or hy-rail, is a truck that has flanged wheels attached to the front and rear so it can travel 

over railroad tracks and easily get on or off the track at a road crossing. 11 National Transportation Safety Board, 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: NTSB, 1994). Excerpt is from page 73. 
12

saw shelling conditions and conducted additional ultrasonic inspections but failed to find internal 

defects that subsequently caused derailments. 

In its report of the derailment of a Norfolk Southern Railway Company freight train on 

October 20, 2006, near New Brighton, Pennsylvania, the Safety Board addressed the need to 

improve the effectiveness of internal rail inspections:12

A damage-tolerance approach would establish an inspection frequency that allows 

internal rail defects to be identified before they reach critical size. The term 

damage tolerance means the ability of a structure to withstand damage without 

failure, including damage such as fatigue cracking or wear, which can develop 

from undetected manufacturing defects or from use in service. For most 

engineered structural components, including rail, an inspection and maintenance 

program to detect and repair damage in any component before it reaches critical 

size is integral to the damage tolerance of the structure. A damage-tolerance 

approach should (1) identify areas of rail that are prone to failure from high stress 

and fatigue and (2) determine appropriate inspection intervals based on the defect 

size detectable by the inspection method being used, the stress level, and defect 

(crack) propagation characteristics in the structure. Such an approach would 

consider all the factors that can affect defect growth rates, including rail head 

wear, accumulated tonnage, rail surface conditions, track geometry, track support, 

steel specifications, temperature differentials, and residual stresses in the rail. The 

capabilities and limitations of the inspection methods used to detect defects are a 

major factor in determining appropriate inspection intervals in a damage-tolerance 

approach. 

The rail at Oneida, New Brighton, and Superior had met or exceeded the minimum 

ultrasonic inspection frequency required by the FRA. Nevertheless, in each accident, an internal 

defect grew to critical size and resulted in a rail failure. As a result of the New Brighton 

investigation, on May 13, 2008, the Safety Board made the following recommendation to the 

FRA: 

R-08-10

Require railroads to develop rail inspection and maintenance programs based on 

damage-tolerance principles, and approve those programs. Include in the 

requirement that railroads demonstrate how their programs will identify and 

remove internal defects before they reach critical size and result in catastrophic 

rail failures. Each program should take into account, at a minimum, accumulated 

tonnage, track geometry, rail surface conditions, rail head wear, rail steel 

specifications, track support, residual stresses in the rail, rail defect growth rates, 

and temperature differentials. 

 12 National Transportation Safety Board, Derailment of Norfolk Southern Railway Company Train 68QB119 

with Release of Hazardous Materials and Fire, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, October 20, 2006, Railroad Accident 

Report NTSB RAR-08/02 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2008). Excerpts are from pages 36−37 and 42. 
13

The current status of Safety Recommendation R-08-10 is “Open—Response Received,” and the 

Safety Board is evaluating the FRA’s response. 

Probable Cause 

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

March 12, 2007, derailment of CSX train No. Q39010 and subsequent release of hazardous 

material near Oneida, New York, was the failure of the rail from an undetected detail fracture 

that initiated from an area of shelling on the rail. 

Adopted: September 30, 2008