Why not post the stray-current report commissioned by the Texas Medical Center, if there's nothing to worry about?

I expect this blog to present a certain perspective, but this post is verging on dishonesty with its highly selective presentation.

Taxpayer-supported entities should not mislead or deceive the public in such a way.

How about the London, England Tubes/Underground?  Are they having trouble.  Then again, I think they use FOUR rails:  2 for the train wheels, 1 positive and 1 negative for the electricity.

Also, I think during the Katy rebuild, some of the high power AC lines were placed UNDERGROUND?  Any leakage yet?

(whistles)  Well put on your last comment.  I can bet folks in NYC may have more problems than us.  If not, someone would need to exlain that.

All that I'm concerned about is any MORE accidents on the Red Line because I can bet one day, somebody may want to try to cripple the METRORail system just to make a point.  Just a thought.  It may or may not be true but don't let your guard down.

~Cedric Collins~

Gee Ms. Sit,

Is it not a fact that when the system was shoddily constructed, and powered up, there was no baseline testing for stray current leakage?

Taxpayers paid hundreds of millions for the initial construction, only to find out two years later that 3/4 of the track switches were destroyed by the stray current corrosion, and the bridge anchors on the Main Street Viaduct and the Braes Bayou Bridge needed to be replaced.

Last year METRO paid stray current consultants over $900K to locate the 250 locations where stray current was detected and needed to be repaired.

Is it not true that the April report from Mr. Edwin Wetzel, of PCS, that stray current leakage in the Smith Lands area, Wheeler-Blodgett, and around Commerce Street continues, AND, that the system remains outside the engineering design specifications?

Further, METRO cancelled the December Corrosion Committee meeting, and has not held any meeting since, thereby preventing the City of Houston from asking METRO to monitor City infrastructure such as the Holcombe bridge for stray current leakage damage?

I seem to recall the TV News clip where the President of the Utility comapny serving the Texas Medical Center, after receiving a $100K stray current report stated the stray current problem created by METRORail will only get worse, and called for METRO to stop the Stray Current Leakage which causes cumulative corrosion damage.

When you say look to New York, their system do have some stray current problems, but they use the 3rd rail system to isolate the return line, and do not use the rails as the Houston tram does.

Look to the Washington D.C. system which was recently touted in the editorial pages of the local PRAVDA.  That system has a terrible stray current problem, but the federal government covers the lion's share of the costs to continually repair the system infrastructure.

I posted a reply yesterday afternoon at about 1PM and it stated my post was sent yet now I have to repost with the data I provided. Wishing this blog would allow for instant psoting without moderation for known users rather than wondering why they do not get posted or take so long.

Mary said:  f you're worried about stray current leakage, look to one of the oldest systems in the nation: New York City. Its rail system is 100 times larger than ours, and it's been operating for more than a century."

"Are there any buildings or bridges falling down in New York?"

Apparantly Mary is not consulting with Metro engineers before making statements that are not comparative nor accurate?

NYC has a network of 930 miles of track which is all third rail and not in-the-street like virtually all of Metro's planned rail.

Their rail is built on wood and concrete sleepers set in stone ballast. Houston's trolley line is built with rails set in concrete with a poly-type insulation to try and prevent leakage.

Why is this important? Because leakage is created when the return path is close to any earth ground. NYC's design also has a third rail for the power supply.

Our design is more prone to leakage than a standard rail design.

Also what Mary, and Metro, do not mention is that their testing was done during non-rainy days which is the least likely to cause leakage. The addition of water to the soils and concrete increase the potential yet Metro did no testing during that time period,

Also what is not mentioned is that the esplanades along the Red Line are all irrigated with city water which has minerals and salts in it. Totally different than distilled rain water and a far better conductor of electricity. Internet reference;

*Water itself is not a conductor of electricity. In order for a substance to carry charge, two conditions must first be met:

There must be charged particles within the substance (either ions or electrons) and

These particles must be free to move It is true that in water (H2O) the discrete molecules are free to move, however, they carry no charge.

The only reason water can sometimes conduct electricity is because of the minerals (metallic solids) already present in the water."

Those irrigation systems place city water on the ground along the track and many times on the concrete and add to the potential.

What many tax payers may want as proof of Metro's confidence is for say the Chairman to make himself and the others who make these statements legally and financially responsible if anything is harmed by stray current. Then we know they really mean it.

Since my posting I saw that Kevin posted that perhaps Mary could post TMC's findings. Obviously, they are the property of TMC but they would surely be glad to allow reprinting here wouldn't they?

Isn't that information common knowledge/available to Metro staff Mary?

Ms. Sit,

The two-page memo report from one of METRO's highly-paid stray current corrosion experts, the one METRO is hanging their hat on concerning the TXDOT expressway bridges, has been under peer review at NACE.

When findings are released, and if the report is deemed deficient and/or misleading to the taxpayer-funded client, expect renewed calls for thorough testing before there is a catastrophic failure.

My speculation remains that METRO is stalling having to make admissions or cure the damage caused by the 3 and 1/2 years of cummulative METRORail stray current corrosion until after METRO secures all FTA full funding grants, and issues the billions in bonds so that the METRO expasnion scheme can not be stopped.

Royko/Tom Bazan,

What is the factual basis for your contention that the rail switches were damaged by stray current?  The Chronicle reported last year that the switches haven't been working almost since the opening of the rail line due to water infiltration in the switch boxes. Do you have documentation indicating otherwise, or is this more Baloney that we're supposed to accept just because you say it's so?

Actually, many transit supporters don't take offense at your incessant name-calling.  In fact, some of us have played "Bazan Bingo" over the years to see who can come up with the most trite platitudes or demeaning phrases in just one of your tirades.  It's just amazing that the most rabid among the street and highway infrastructure transportation system supporters react so vehemently and vigorously against anyone who might even point out the desire, or utility of transportation choices other than the heavily/fully taxpayer funded streets and highways.  Just one of those mysteries I suppose.

Chris,

Last year METRO spent over $900K paid to stray current cossosion firms just to tell them where the many problems were, most from the initial shoddy construction.  Which was not reimbursed by Siemens!

I have the documents released by METRO under the TXPIA, and the media (KHOU) has shown copies also, so I have not made this up, as you seem to be suggesting.

There was a huge failure last year, attributed to rats chewing the power lines.  The documents released by METRO cite the fact that contractors, testing for stray current, forgot to replace the cover, allowing the system inturruption.  METRO didn't willingly disclose that fact.

I don't care if you believe what I post.  The fact is that stray current leakage from METRORail was uncontained for the first two years, and I have the April 2007 report from Mr. Edwin Wetzel, of PCS, that stray current leakage in the Smith Lands area, Wheeler-Blodgett, and around Commerce Street continues to be detected, AND, that the system remains outside the engineering design specifications?

Mr. Royko/Tom Bazan,

When did I ask to see the actual rail switch?  I asked for the specific documentation supporting your oft repeated contention that the rail switch machines were destroyed by stray current rather than by water infiltration.  You appear to have not cited such documentation, likely because it does not exist.  One item to note in the current stray current discussion regarding long-operating electrified urban railway systems with no apparent damage(at least not the catastrophic type that you continue to assert will occur)is the electrified system operated on Houston streets for approximately half a century.  In addition, an eltrified interurban line to Galveston also operated partially on Houston streets.  I will need to perform a little more research, but I strongly doubt that the electrified system constructed well over a century ago incorporated even a fraction of the stray current mitigation features of modern light rail systems.  The early Houston system operated across the Main Street Viaduct, opened in 1913, in addition to street operations in the North end of downtown, the oldest part of the city with many surviving structures from that era of early electrified rail operations.  Do you have evidence of stray current damage from that half century of local electrified rail operations?  Also, are you certain that both the engineering design specifications and the industry-accepted level that stray current should not exceed are identical?  If the level that you cite is the standard, what are the current levels measured along the Main Street rail line?  Are they well in excess of that level for the entire alignment, somewhat in excess for part of the alignment, or what?  You have also stated that Siemens has not yet reimbursed Metro for stray current mitigation work to date.  Does that mean they will never reimburse for those costs?  Has Siemens been paid the entire amount due to them under the contract?  Typically, in such large contracts, a substantial amount will be retained and not paid to the contractor until it is clear that all contract deliverables have been achieved.  Has all of that retainage been paid by Metro to Siemens, or there still an amount yet to be paid pending resolution of the stray current and any other issues?

I had also asked if all the stray current monitoring has shown a complete absence of stray current when the rail system is not operating?  Is that the case, or do you have documentation to that effect?  In reference to the "prodigious sparking" that you contend emanates from the catenary line, it appears that you may now not be so insistent that sparking emanates from the catenary line itself, but acknowledge that any such sparking would be the result of loss of pantograph contact with the catenary line.  How often has this been documented to occur with the Main Street line?  Again, where is your factual support for the "prodigious sparking" that you describe?  What is your definition of "prodigious sparking"?  How in the world does the alleged sparking increase during start-up at the rail platforms as you allege?  How would the start-up in any way cause the pantograph to break contact with the catenary line?

Chris,

I have several file boxes with Stray Current testing data, and associated documents. METRO did not do any baseline testing prior to start-up and when Centerpoint contacted them to tell METRO to get a handle on the stray current leakage, that is when METRO started to have the consultants test.  That is when they documented the rail switch boxes did not function, and that they were full of water.

The testing for stray current shows there was severe stray current leakage in the bathtubs.  The switches were in the bathtubs, the switches failed (see draft report dated August 22, 2005.

In August 2006, METRO took action to try and cure the remaining stray current problems with the bathtubs.

As of March 2007, there was still a stray current leakage problem at several locations, and the system still was not operating within the design and engineering specifications.  As of the July review, the recommendation was to continue to monitor and combat the stray current problem.

Mr. Royko/Tom Bazan,

Please dig into some of your numerous boxes to answer some of the questions that I keep asking regarding your allegations.  What specific documentation supports your contention that the rail switches were destroyed by stray current?  Has stray current testing shown a complete absence of stray current during periods when the rail system is not operating?  You appear to throw out a "red herring" regarding baseline testing, seemingly under the assumption that only baseline testing would indicate whether or not stray current was present during non-operational periods of the rail system.  Such testing could be performed around 3:00 am any morning when the system is not operating.  Baseline testing only provides a means to determine when an electrified system is performing at a level below what was initially measured during the baseline measurement.  It is not some sort of near-magical, necessary-at-all-costs procedure that you continue to imply.  Also, again, is the most recent testing of stray current levels showing levels high enough to cause damage; if so, are those levels along the entire rail line, 10% of the rail line, or what?  In addition, the millivolts issue is not a "red herring" as you assert, nor is "current" synonymous with amperes.  A flow of electric current is described by both voltage and amperes, where voltage can be thought of as the "pressure" of the current and the amperes as the rate of flow.  Although the damage is due to the amperage of the current, the measurement is generally accomplished through measurement of the structures to earth reference voltage which is, of course, measured in millivolts.  As mentioned before, I am not a corrosion engineer, but I don't believe that you are one either.  Are you basing your allegations of shoddy construction upon your personal analysis and assessment of the rail system, or upon the analysis and assessment of a qualified engineer?

Thanks for the pictures of the damaged Chicago water mains dating from 1918, prior to stray current mitigation techniques.  Such occurrences are why modern electrified rail systems incorporate numerous mitigation techniques in their design, construction, and operation.  It is also why prudently designed pipeline structures incorporate corrosion mitigation features as electrified rail systems are by no means the sole source of stray current in the world.

Chris,

First, what is your full name so we can chat? My name is Don Gallagher. Fill out a profile as everyone who posts here should be required to do. It makes communications much clearer.

You stated that baseline testing should be done at 3AM when no trains are operating?

Baseline testing is generally implied to be testing done under normal operating conditions.

There would be zero stray current when no energy is being used to operate the trams.

It was quite easyt to read that Tom meant that Metro failed to do any basic testing for stray current with trams operating at 6 minute intervals.

According to reports I have read, much of the stray current problem is generated at stations and close to transformers. At the stations, the trains are using far more current when starting up.

I believe also that there is a station close to the Pierce Elevated and the transformer is right under the bridge.

Based on what Metro did to resolve the switch failures and that now all switches in paved areas are now in elevated boxes, they most definitely were either shorted out by standing water or corroded by the actions of electric current and mineral laden water.

Don G,

Why do you believe that the switches could only have been damaged by shorting out or corrosion by the actions of electric current and standing water?  Why couldn't the switches have been damaged/destroyed by continuous immersion in water for weeks or months?  The obvious answer, I suppose, is that such a thought would run counter to the preconceived notion that the switches simply "must" have been damaged by stray current in some form or fashion.

Again, I am not a corrosion engineer, merely a financial analyst, but my readings have indicated that, although prudent, there is nothing catastrophic about not performing baseline testing prior to start-up of new electrified rail systems.  Baseline testing may be performed subsequent to start-up, but the system performance and resulting reference may not be as high has it would have been if the system were still in pristine condition.

My real interest in 3:00 am testing is to determine if there is, indeed, stray current present.  As you stated, when the rail system is not in operation, there would be no stray current emanating from that system.  If, however, stray current were detectable during that period, there would be another source of stray current.  Since multiple boxes of  documents have been acquired by Mr. Royko/Tom Bazan on this topic, it would be very revealing to know if sources of stray current have been identified apart from the rail system.  It would also be beneficial to know if these boxes of documents indicate any level of stray current that might be damaging to surrounding structures.

As far as knowing who I am, you seem to be reasonable enough based upon your comments here, and elsewhere, but there are other individuals who appear to be filled with far too much hate, rage, and obsession for this forum to be just a friendly chat.  Maybe I've worked on too many projects in the past that have uncovered criminal behavior, and suddenly, individuals who seemed stable and reasonable were transformed into dangerous, violent felons.  Certainly not someone that I'd want to have knocking at my door.

Mr. Royko/Tom Bazan,

I am still awaiting some factual confirmation as to exactly what constitutes the "severe" stray current leakage that you continue to allege.  You also do not seem to be forthcoming with information regarding at what level stray current is a problem for structures and, more importantly, what is the measured level of stray current along the Main Street line and what percentage of the line is so affected.  As modern electrified rail designs incorporate a continuously-welded steel rebar mat along the length of embedded sections, damaging current leakage beyond that rebar mat would be highly unlikely and very surprising.  Of course one corrosion consultant already tested the Pierce elevated area of the rail line and found no problem, but you didn't like that answer.  Facts can be very problematic for gut feelings, preconceived ideas, and ideologies.

Chris,

You ignore the fact that METREAUX spent nearly a million of our precious taxpayer dollars last year just identifying the stray current leakage points existing from the shoddy construction.  We still do not know the amount spent to try and cure the problems, as all the problems are yet to be cured.

Since I can not post pdf files, I can not share the reports as proof!

I have been waiting over four months for NACE to complete a peer review process on the two-page memo report METRO released which seems to have given METREAUX "cover" on the stray current leakage which I have contended is impacting the 40+ year old supports of the three expressway bridges that span the tram line.

If NACE makes certain findings, I will be able to again ask the BOD's to instruct the administration to properly test these vulnerable substructer components.