It would be a mistake to assume enginemen were monolithic on any particular subject, in this case steam vs diesel, than any other group of people are monolithic on any subject.
I'm sure some enginemen were sorry to see the steamers go, some were glad, and others probably didn't give a damn what they drove just as long as they had a job.
It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go.
And if what I've read is true many of those same veteran enginemen really didn't get comfortable with diesels until the hood units showed up. Even running short-hood forward gave some protection against collisions.
One steam engine type that crews were definately glad to see go were the aforementioned "Camelbacks." The only people that loved those engines were the accountants, on account of the cheap fuel they could burn. Most enginemen disliked them intensely.
Some enginemen were sorry to see the steamers go as they didn't think the diesels were as much fun to run, some were glad, and others probably didn't give a damn what they drove just as long as they had a job.
Flintlock76 ...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go...
...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go...
I really feel sorry for the crews who were killed by the restless drivers! I can't count how many videos I watched about a grade crossing accident. Maybe only the snow plow could protect our railroader from this kind of "accident"......
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Jones1945 Flintlock76 ...It is a fact that a lot of veteran engineers were nervous about running cab units. Not having fifty to seventy-five feet of machinery in front protecting you against a grade crossing collision took some getting used to, and I can see why. One of my books has a horrific photo of a collision between an F-unit and a gasolene tanker truck that didn't "Stop! Look! And listen!" The cab unit was fried and the head-end crew was killed. Not a good way to go... I really feel sorry for the crews who were killed by the restless drivers! I can't count how many videos I watched about a grade crossing accident. Maybe only the snow plow could protect our railroader from this kind of "accident"......
While having many feet of machienry ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was a equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD While having many feet of machinery ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was an equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
While having many feet of machinery ahead of the engine crew may have been comforting for steam engine crew vs. diesels in grade crossing incidents - there was an equally dangerous aspect of steam engine operation for those same crews - boiler explosions !!! Also not a good way to go!
Speaking of the boiler explosion, it is part of the history of SP 4-10-2 #5037: November 11, 1946. SP #5037 suffered a catastrophic boiler explosion at Bosque, Arizona
Quote from the web: "The locomotive had been serviced in Yuma only 2 and a half hours before the explosion, and no faults were found with the injector, feedwater heater, or water glasses. The ICC report found that the engine had just had a boiler wash just 4 days before the incident and that the four fusible plugs were renewed 12 days prior. It was later found that the water level had fallen to 6 and 3/4 inches below the bottom of the water glasses, allowing the top 3 inches of the crown sheet to soften. The "burning" of the crown sheet was found to reach almost 19 rows of staybolts back, almost half of the full length of the firebox. Only the engineer's side water glass was found intact. Analysis of the feedwater heater and injector showed no defects after being put on a sister 4-10-2. The water glass, a reflex type, was found to have the reflective surface on the inside of the glass worn dark, providing the only clue as to what may have happened. (by BDrotarIII)"
Instead of being sent to the torch, SP #5037 was repaired after this incident. She probably kept running until the end of the steam era.
Certainly, a violent death on the job is no way for anyone to go, but look at it this way, the engine crews that died in boiler explosions never knew what hit them. The cab unit crew that hit the tanker truck knew what was going to hit them (figuratively speaking) and there was nothing they could do about it.
Given the choice, and I know it's not much of a choice, I'd take the boiler explosion.
I can't imagine what it's like being in a situation where you can see your end coming, and you're absolutely helpless to prevent it. Maybe we don't want to know.
I agree with Wayne as well. Since there is actually not a place in this world is completely safe, I don't mind to say this openly that I would pick the fastest way to die if I was involved in a fatal accident. (if I had a choice)
The "central cab" design of the Baldwin RT624 looked safe for the crew, but they were some very powerful switchers. EMD's G16c which there were four units sold to British Hong Kong in the 1960s had similar design and they were used to tow mainline passenger trains.
EMD G16c
SP engineers had similar qualms when the AM's and AC's were initially placed in service: "I don't want a caboose in my lap someday." To which the RFE replied, "Do your job right and that will never happen."
Great Information once again!
Flintlock76The cab unit crew that hit the tanker truck knew what was going to hit them (figuratively speaking) and there was nothing they could do about it.
Same in spades for the situation with what I recall was an IC E9 in the Sixties, pictured in Trains -- I particularly remember the burned-out numberboards that were little more than a piece of glass to break and let fuel into the nose. My early thinking about properly-armored cabs dates very specifically from this and from a roughly contemporary picture of a PATH collision accident with flames still visible burning through where the center door of the car had been -- something assuredly scary to kids, whether for good reason or not!
Of course this pales with the death-on-wheels that was meted out to the poor engineman at Deans, in 1934, which was no less dreadful for involving gravel instead of fire. Here there was an immediate response, first in working out a solution that became the 'modified' P5s and then, by a commodius vicus of recirculation involving first Dohner and then Loewy, adapting it for the GG1. (Which would later encounter its own dreadful, "unsurvivable" fiery collision, at high speed with track equipment, and bring its crew safely through...)
On the other hand, there are stories of at least one of the early Zephyrs surviving this kind of collision successfully ... and of course the marvelous altercation between the CN test TurboTrain and a whole trailer load of frozen meat.
Thank You.
More than usual of that explosion went forward, possibly due to weakness in the smoke box wrapper due to the three cylinders. Note the piece of wrapper driven into the steps.
Looks as if the saturated steam, laced with levitated char in the front end, was above the ignition point of the cab and stack paint. At least the men wouldn't have suffered more than the victims of Mont Pelee in 1902.
And this with MOST of the explosion being in the usual direction, out and down through the firebox, with the usual rocket effect leaving all the elements hanging off the header like spaghetti...
Ironic, perhaps, that had the glass end been leading, like a cab-forward, the helper crew would likely have survived...
More pics from the book "The 4-10-2, Three Barrels of Steam"
OvermodTook some digging, but here we are: PRR 1515, built at Altoona in 1892, in part to test the Lindner system of cross-compounding.
As it turns out, Robert Lindner did not invent a new system of cross-compounding, only an improvement in starting valves for a cross-compound. You can see the patent (404295A) here. Valuable too is the discussion in the Railroad Gazette that starts November 15, 1889 with a description of the original system and then goes through several rounds of 'correspondence' before being taken up here: [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dkRKzCk5x2gC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lindner+compound&source=bl&ots=ytbTBw_md6&sig=ACfU3U3C70xnyYrTWOT0QZ4Y9Z-wP4A0JQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqlu-kyfTiAhUJ5awKHXsrDUk4ChDoATAAegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=lindner%20compound&f=false]in the Friday, March 27 issue of the Railroad Gazette (pp.207-8). Note the number of locomotives started with this system that were supposedly in service by early 1891, and the criticism of comments by von Borries, often considered the major proponent of cross-compound design, toward the end.
Valuable too is the discussion in the Railroad Gazette that starts November 15, 1889 with a description of the original system and then goes through several rounds of 'correspondence' before being taken up here:
[url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dkRKzCk5x2gC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=lindner+compound&source=bl&ots=ytbTBw_md6&sig=ACfU3U3C70xnyYrTWOT0QZ4Y9Z-wP4A0JQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqlu-kyfTiAhUJ5awKHXsrDUk4ChDoATAAegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=lindner%20compound&f=false]in the Friday, March 27 issue of the Railroad Gazette (pp.207-8).
Thanks a lot, Overmod!
(pic deleted).
SP #5028
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