AT&SF San Francisco Chief Long Delay

[rjemery]

SSW9389

Flagstaff recorded a 23 below zero temperature on December 14, 1964. The train's delay could be weather related. Steam lines and air brakes don't work very well when they are frozen. This is not an exact answer, but a definite possibility.

It was cold that morning and may well have been somewhat below freezing.  I recall wearing gloves, something I rarely do.  First the extra long previous's day e/b SF Chief arrived.  It itself may have been underpowered.  Our train followed about a hour later.  We eventually arrived in Chicago about 5 hours late, as I recall.  As I also recall, whenever I temporarily deboarded to stretch my legs, it was cold -- in Amarillo, Kansas City and at other major stops.

[SSW9389]

Flagstaff recorded a 23 below zero temperature on December 14, 1964. The train's delay could be weather related. Steam lines and air brakes don't work very well when they are frozen. This is not an exact answer, but a definite possibility.

 

[Dragoman]

If San Francisco Chief, then not Cajon, but Tehachapi. Otherwise, I agree -- no idea specifically, but all of those could be.

[ndbprr]

Earthquake or brush fire in California shutting down Cajon pass until inspected. Derailment bocking the route. One day strike. Basically have no idea.

[rjemery]

In mid-December 1964, the previous day's e/b San Francisco Chief (Train #2) was 23 hours late arriving/departing Belen, NM.  The day's regularly scheduled e/b SF Chief followed about one hour behind and was generally on time for its run.

Engine failure is not a likely cause.  AT&SF transcontinentals usually had an extra B unit (sometimes an A unit) in the consist in case a) one engine failed en route, b) to assist with the mountainous divides in Arizona and New Mexico, and c) to better maintain its 53 hour run into Chicago without downtime.

What other causes could have contributed to such an extraordinarily long delay?