Hello,
I recently stumbled across a photo of an apparently brand new (witness how spotless those Farr grilles are!) Pennsylvania Railroad EP-22 which seems to have been significantly damaged by trying to occupy the same space as the CB&Q observation car just ahead of it.
One caption I came across for the photo mentions a 9-19-1947 date but this can not be accurate since the 5805 was built in July of 1952.
PRR_5805_CUS by Edmund, on Flickr
Impact was obviously heavy enough to force the frame to collapse at the designed "crush-zone" and it is difficult to know if the engines were traveling light, and the train has already been pulled away, or were they at the head end of a departing train?
This "official" PRR photo had to have been taken shortly before the wreck, or was it after the repairs?
PRR_EPA-5805 by Edmund, on Flickr
I'm always fascinated by researching the whys and wherefores of railroad accidents and it would appear someone was not paying attention to signal indications here. Getting a copy of the ICC report would, of course, answer many questions.
Anyone recall this wreck or have any further leads on information?
Thank you, Ed
I doubt it hit that observation car. If that was the case that obs car would have significant damage itself, and it doesn't seem to have a scratch on it.
A E unit would have to had run into a bridge abutment to bend like that!
Something seriously damaged that E unit, the question is what?
The mystery deepens.
My "assumption" is the cut of cars, obs leading, was backing in to the platform area. Maybe a trainman wasn't positioned where he was supposed to be to watch the back-up move and possibly ran a signal?
There are brake and cab signal valves in a compartment at the rear of the obs where the crewmember can apply the brakes. Or, did one of the Pennsy E's run a signal when coming out from the platform area?
I'm looking at the truck on the obs, on the ground and the venetian blinds knocked out of place. I'll bet the rear of the car was raised slightly and dropped to the ground upon impact where the EMD designed crumple zone absorbed the impact behind the cab.
Again, just a guess from what I can gather from the one photo. More pictures would sure help
So far none of the PRR diesel roster books I have mention the 5805 returning to LaGrange or Altoona for rebuild or repair work. Seems like this accident got swept under the rug.
Thanks, Ed
I see what you mean. If that's true, that was one tough obs car!
gmpullmanHello, I recently stumbled across a photo of an apparently brand new (witness how spotless those Farr grilles are!) Pennsylvania Railroad EP-22 which seems to have been significantly damaged by trying to occupy the same space as the CB&Q observation car just ahead of it. One caption I came across for the photo mentions a 9-19-1947 date but this can not be accurate since the 5805 was built in July of 1952. PRR_5805_CUS by Edmund, on Flickr Impact was obviously heavy enough to force the frame to collapse at the designed "crush-zone" and it is difficult to know if the engines were traveling light, and the train has already been pulled away, or were they at the head end of a departing train? This "official" PRR photo had to have been taken shortly before the wreck, or was it after the repairs? PRR_EPA-5805 by Edmund, on Flickr I'm always fascinated by researching the whys and wherefores of railroad accidents and it would appear someone was not paying attention to signal indications here. Getting a copy of the ICC report would, of course, answer many questions. Anyone recall this wreck or have any further leads on information? Thank you, Ed
https://dotlibrary.specialcollection.net/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+3539)
You may have to create an account to view. It doesn't cost anything.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Mike (Wanswheel) sent me a link to a Chicago newspaper article concerning the wreck. I can't forward the link but in a nutshell here's what happened...
The wreck occurred March 11, 1954. The Pennsy train was arriving at the station just as the CB&Q train was backing in to recieve passengers, and somehow or another both trains wound up on the same track. There were 34 injured on the PRR train, the CB&Q train was empty.
There was one fatality, but not on the trains. He was Sergeant John Malloy, a 25 year veteran of the Union Station Police, who collapsed with a heart attack during the excitement.
Again, that's one tough obs car! They probably could have mounted a 90mm gun in the rear window and used the car as a tank destroyer!
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Thank you!
BaltACDYou may have to create an account to view. It doesn't cost anything.
Yes, I have an account there
Thanks for copying the report, Penny.
Trying to search "PRR wreck union station" brings up 99% hits for the Washington runaway. Thanks for providing the link to the ICC report.
Regards, Ed
Trying to search "PRR wreck union station" brings up 99% hits for the Washington D.C. runaway. Thanks for providing the link to the ICC report.
I now see the error in my ways. I was searching Pennsylvania Railroad and not Chicago Union Station Company
gmpullmanThank you! BaltACD You may have to create an account to view. It doesn't cost anything. Yes, I have an account there Thanks for copying the report, Penny. Trying to search "PRR wreck union station" brings up 99% hits for the Washington D.C. runaway. Thanks for providing the link to the ICC report. I now see the error in my ways. I was searching Pennsylvania Railroad and not Chicago Union Station Company Regards, Ed
BaltACD You may have to create an account to view. It doesn't cost anything.
I searched the years from 1947 through 1954 looking at both CB&Q and PRR incidents - until I clicked 1954 and saw the CUS listing. I must say the PRR had a high number of incidents during those years.
seppburgh2What is an Emergency Signal Whistle?
Mentioned in the report. Adjacent to the track, actuated from the interlocking tower (which seems odd as the movement director testified he was surprised when the whistles went off).
A different photo of this incident, a side on view, was used by Commonwealth Engineering as an indication of the strength of the Budd stainless structure in their catalogues from the early 1960s.
Peter
Does anyone have any details on PRR 5805:2. It's a new frame rebuild of 5805:1 after the wreck shown in the photo. Was the work done at Altoona or at LaGrange. EMD repair order #8034 is blank and fits the date. Also Trade In orders 7518 and 7519 state they were unused, but fit the date range of when this E8 was rebuilt. This E8A went on to become PRR #4270/PC #4270/ NJTR #4270.
gmpullman So far none of the PRR diesel roster books I have mention the 5805 returning to LaGrange or Altoona for rebuild or repair work. Seems like this accident got swept under the rug. Thanks, Ed
The 5805 2nd is a "new frame" rebuild. By keeping the old identity intact the railroad could have the unit rebuilt at cost and continue to depreciate the unit at the standard rate. The rebuilt unit would have an EMD warranty on new parts if it was rebuilt at EMD. Or EMD could have sent a new underframe to Altoona for the rebuild. It's all murky 1950s railroad accounting the way this rebuilding was done.
EMD 1959 Product Data shows no additional information for PRR 5805. It's shown as an E8A built on order #6354. This suggests an in-house rebuild.
Penn Central E8A #4270 sat derelict for years at the Elizabethport Shops as a parts source. It never wore NJT lettering or was in service as NJT #4270. There are photos of it on the rrpictures archives.
Online photos show a 20 month old E8A with a broken underframe. In 1954 terms that means the unit is a write off, because EMD did not repair underframes until later. In historical terms there is no problem because there were 74 Pennsylvania E8As and 74 matching EMD serial numbers. The first 5805 was EMD serial 15669 built in July 1952 on order 6354A. The history of the unit goes on with renumbering to PRR 4270, PC 4270, and finally to NJTR 4270, renumbered on paper only as this unit was a parts source at the Elizabethport Shops. A serial number inventory of units will not reveal this kind of repair if the serial number was not changed. But now there is a roster anomaly of 74 unit numbers, 74 serial numbers, that were built on 75 underframes. Besides the photo and the ICC report the repair is undocumented. No confirming information has been found on where the repair was done. A repair of this nature will easily cost three quarters of the cost of a new unit or more. Does the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical & Historical Society have additional primary source documentation that could shed some light on this major rebuild?
Ed in Kentucky
I still find it amazing that a passenger car (and its train that was behind it) can buckle the frame of a locomotive (that also had a train behind it). I am sure the engineers (not the throttle operators) can calculate all the forces involved and offer the reason, however, engines are supposed to be designed to handle much higher forces than cars - freight or passenger.
The rear of the PRR train was composed of heavyweight cars, I wonder if the slack ran in hard at the same time the collision happened, hammering 5805 into the anvil of the Burlington train, which was in emergency and may have already been stopped.
Also, no one seems to have noticed yet that the Burlington train's lead unit was E5A 9911A (Silver Pilot), which is preserved at the Illinois Railway Museum.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I understand that the CB&Q Pilot was judged to have run a Red Signal.
What I don't understand is how the Harrison St. Interlocking could have allowed a route to be lined that would bring the two trains into contact - even when one ran a red. The switches within the interlocking had to have been aligned in some manner, that even when the signals were against the CB&Q move it was still lined into the face of the PRR move.
BaltACDWhat I don't understand is how the Harrison St. Interlocking could have allowed a route to be lined that would bring the two trains into contact - even when one ran a red.
From what I understand, CB&Q was backing in to same track PRR was coming out of once he cleared, and was going to occupy same platform. Here is a crop of the diagram:
ICC_4-crop by Edmund, on Flickr
By running signal L58 they met right in the middle of the same slip switch, 57-59 that would have allowed #23 to back in to track 18.
And the full page (after so many copies and iterations much of the contrast has been lost) I tried to correct for some of the poor contrast.
ICC_4 by Edmund, on Flickr
Several wrecks I've seen photos of showing EMD E and F type cab units where the frame buckled just behind the cab. I understand, and what I refered to in my earlier replies as the "crumple zone or crash zone" was an EMD design to mitigate some of the shock of impact and attempt to protect the crew. EMD was concerned enough with PRR's specification to mount of lifting lugs on the noses of their locomotives that they "signed-off" on the liability of keeping the frame intact by lifting at the nose instead of the jacking pads. Presumably aware of the inherant weakness at this point in the frame.
Thank You.
Nice! Well done NDG. Great research.
The Burlington pilot would have seen the near points on the double-slip lined for his movement. If the tight space of the CUS throat, both point sets on each end of the double slips were operated by the same switch machine. In this case the points on the north end of the switch should have told the pilot that the double slip was lined for a movement crossing the track he was on.
It's hard to tell from contemporary photos how the crossing frogs on the double slips were constructed, but today's frogs in the same locations don't appear to be movable, so the pilot would not have had their position as a clue.
I'm sure the pilot made the same movement nearly every day. A lot of ICC and NTSB reports note that about accidents...
FYI.
Great shots of the crumple zone on a EMD cab unit.
This F-unit bore the brunt of a much harder head-on crash, but its cab remained intact. I can't find any reference as to whether or not the crew survived:
Another link if the photo doesn't show up right:
http://www.drgw.net/gallery/v/DRGWDieselContainer/F7s/DRGW5661/drgw_5661_millfork_ut_dec_1963_000.jpg.html
Great Photo.
Contemporary E9As built in 1954 when PRR 5805 was rebuilt are IC 4036, UP 943-947, and CB&Q 9990-9995. There were also cancelled orders for NYC E9As and additional IC E9As.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter