Already heard from John Quincy Adams, who was actually in a train wreck (The First Tycoon book review thread). His grandson Charles Francis Adams, Jr. wrote
https://archive.org/stream/notesonrailroada00adamuoft#page/42/mode/2up
RME Euclid A big cause of wrecks in the 1850-1900 period was bridge collapses. In 1887, for example, 21 bridges fell down under trains. Most of the bridge collapses weren't causes of wholesale death all by themselves. And much of the telescoping problem with wood cars -- the kind of telescoping that compressed a car full of people into paste, anyway; the kind of telescoping that began to appear distressingly more with mixes of steel-underframe and full-steel cars -- was pretty well solved as you note with a combination of anticlimber and positive-engagement coupler. (There is some argument about how much good was actually done with strengthened car ends in the 1890s.). The real thing to avoid was having one car so much stronger than the other that it would force the sides and roof up enough to penetrate, but not enough to compromise the car's strength as a tube ... so victims had nowhere to go and no way to get out. The thing that caused the real deaths and horror was the combination of seasoned wood construction, plenty of varnish inside and out, and individual stoves. In a word: fire. Safety Baker stoves were probably not that much of an improvement (I suspect sparks shot out before the water bottom got everything doused, etc.) You will notice over and over again, even in the small representative cross-section of accidents wanswheel is posting, how very many people even with severe injuries would have kept their lives were it not for the very rapid and unquenchable spread of fire combined with heavy enough construction to make even the strongest hand tools ineffective.
Euclid A big cause of wrecks in the 1850-1900 period was bridge collapses. In 1887, for example, 21 bridges fell down under trains.
Most of the bridge collapses weren't causes of wholesale death all by themselves. And much of the telescoping problem with wood cars -- the kind of telescoping that compressed a car full of people into paste, anyway; the kind of telescoping that began to appear distressingly more with mixes of steel-underframe and full-steel cars -- was pretty well solved as you note with a combination of anticlimber and positive-engagement coupler. (There is some argument about how much good was actually done with strengthened car ends in the 1890s.). The real thing to avoid was having one car so much stronger than the other that it would force the sides and roof up enough to penetrate, but not enough to compromise the car's strength as a tube ... so victims had nowhere to go and no way to get out.
The thing that caused the real deaths and horror was the combination of seasoned wood construction, plenty of varnish inside and out, and individual stoves. In a word: fire. Safety Baker stoves were probably not that much of an improvement (I suspect sparks shot out before the water bottom got everything doused, etc.) You will notice over and over again, even in the small representative cross-section of accidents wanswheel is posting, how very many people even with severe injuries would have kept their lives were it not for the very rapid and unquenchable spread of fire combined with heavy enough construction to make even the strongest hand tools ineffective.
Johnny
By the way, C.F.A., Jr. mentions stoves about twice, in Notes on RR Accidents. Excerpts:
[Page 14] The other car had fallen fifty feet, and remained resting on its side against the abutment with one end inclined sharply downward. It was mid-winter and cold, and, as was the custom then, the car was heated by two iron stoves, placed one at each end, in which wood was burned. It was nearly full of passengers. Naturally they all sprang from their seats in terror and confusion as their car left the rails, so that when it fell from the bridge and violently struck on one of its ends, they were precipitated in an inextricable mass upon one of the overturned stoves, while the other fell upon them from above. A position more horrible could hardly be imagined. Few, if any, were probably killed outright. Some probably were suffocated; the greatest number were undoubtedly burned to death. Of those in that car three only escaped; forty-one are supposed to have perished.
This was a case of derailment aggravated by fire. It is safe to say that with the improved appliances since brought into use, it would be most unlikely to now occur under precisely the same circumstances on any well-equipped or carefully operated road. Derailments, of course, by broken axles or wheels are always possible, but the catastrophe at Angola was primarily due to the utter inability of those on the train to stop it, or even greatly to check its speed within any reasonable distance. Before it finally stood still the locomotive was half a mile from the frog and 1,500 feet from the bridge. Thus, when the rear cars were off the track, the speed and distance they were dragged gave them a lateral and violently swinging motion, which led to the final result. Though under similar circumstances now this might not happen, there is no reason why, circumstances being varied a little, the country should not again during any winter day be shocked by another Angola sacrifice. Certainly, so far as the danger from fire is concerned, it is an alarming fact that it is hardly less in 1879 than it was in 1867. This accumulative horror is, too, one of the distinctive features of American railroad accidents. In other countries holocausts like those at Versailles in 1842 and at Abergele in 1868 have from time to time taken place. They are, however, occasioned in other ways, and, as their occurrence is not regularly challenged by the most risky possible of interior heating apparatus, are comparatively infrequent. The passenger coaches used on this side of the Atlantic, with their light wood-work heavily covered with paint and varnish, are at best but tinder-boxes. The presence in them of stoves, hardly fastened to the floor and filled with burning wood and coal, involves a degree of risk which no one would believe ever could willingly be incurred, but for the fact that it is. No invention yet appears to have wholly met the requirements of the case. That they will be met, and the fearful possibility which now hangs over the head of every traveller by rail, that he may suddenly find himself doomed without possibility of escape to be roasted alive, will be at least greatly reduced hardly admits of question.
[Page 105] Besides being a bridge accident, this was also a stove accident,—in this respect a repetition of Angola. One of the most remarkable features about it, indeed, was the fearful rapidity with which the fire spread, and the incidents of its spread detailed in the subsequent evidence of the survivors were simply horrible. Men, women and children, full of the instinct of self-preservation, were caught and pinned fast for the advancing flames, while those who triedto rescue them were driven back by the heat and compelled helplessly to listen to theirshrieks. It is, however, unnecessary to enter into these details, for they are but the repetition of an experience which has often been told, and they do but enforce a lesson which the railroad companies seem resolved not to learn. Unquestionably the time in this country will come when through trains will be heated from a locomotive or a heating-car. That time, however, had not yet come. Meanwhile the evidence would seem to show that at Ashtabula, as at Angola, at least two lives were sacrificed in the subsequent fire to each one lost in the immediate shock of the disaster.*
* The Angola was probably the most impressively horrible of the many "stove accidents." That which occurred near Prospect, N. Y., upon the Buffalo, Corry & Pittsburgh road, on December 24, 1872, should not, however, be forgotten. In this case a trestle bridge gave way precipitating a passenger train some thirty feet to the bottom of a ravine, where the cars caught fire from the stoves. Nineteen lives were lost, mostly by burning. The Richmond Switch disaster of April 19, 1873, on the New York, Providence & Boston road was of the same character. Three passengers only were there burned to death, but after the disaster the flames rushed "through the car as quickly as if the wood had been a lot of hay,' and, after those who were endeavoring to release the wounded and imprisoned men were driven away, their cries were for some time heard through the smoke and flame.
http://www.midcontinent.org/rollingstock/dictionary/baker_heater.htm
https://archive.org/stream/cihm_05706#page/n7/mode/2up
Thanks, Mike. I presume that the fuel was coal--I did not see any mention of the fuel. Also, it seems that there was some access to the firebox, which apparently was so made that it could not be opened accidentally.
RME Euclid A big cause of wrecks in the 1850-1900 period was bridge collapses. In 1887, for example, 21 bridges fell down under trains. Most of the bridge collapses weren't causes of wholesale death all by themselves. And much of the telescoping problem with wood cars -- the kind of telescoping that compressed a car full of people into paste, anyway; the kind of telescoping that began to appear distressingly more with mixes of steel-underframe and full-steel cars -- was pretty well solved as you note with a combination of anticlimber and positive-engagement coupler. (There is some argument about how much good was actually done with strengthened car ends in the 1890s.). The real thing to avoid was having one car so much stronger than the other that it would force the sides and roof up enough to penetrate, but not enough to compromise the car's strength as a tube ... so victims had nowhere to go and no way to get out.
Steel passenger cars were an extreme rarity before 1905, so the issues with mixture of wood and steel cars were more of a problem of the 1910-1930 era. The Miller coupler and platform was in common, but not universal use in the 1880's, which provided some portection against telescoping. Safety took a bit of a backwards step with the early heavywieght cars, where all of the strength was in the center sill, which provided nearly zero protection against telescoping.
The stove got a lot more blame than it deserved for starting fires. The wooden consruction was the chief culprit, needing only a source of ignition to get a fire going. These included various sorts of oil lamps, including locomotive headlights, coals from the locomotive firebox in addition to the stove.
Fear of fires started by the stove were one of the motives for developing trainlined steam heating, ending up with the Vapor system. The more fundemental problem of cars being built with flammable material was mostly solved by steel constuction. A big impetus for that was various tunnel projects under New York City, i.e. Grand Central Terminal, Penn Statin along with the LIRR and subways - though the Harriman lines were going for steel for other reasons.
erikemSteel passenger cars were an extreme rarity before 1905, so the issues with mixture of wood and steel cars were more of a problem of the 1910-1930 era. The Miller coupler and platform was in common, but not universal use in the 1880's, which provided some portection against telescoping. Safety took a bit of a backwards step with the early heavyweight cars, where all of the strength was in the center sill, which provided nearly zero protection against telescoping.
Yes; I didn't phrase that too well. The comment about mixed wood/steel and steel cars is indeed from the post-1912 era, concerning some of the great telescope horrors like the Mount Union accident. The horror was demonstrated much later in the Highliner wreck of the early 1970s, and we've had a number of threads in the past that illustrate that with increasing speeds and loads even anticlimbing mechanisms of considerable size and weight won't prevent overriding and its consequences.
I also thought it was interesting that the steel center sill, which was intended to be a major factor increasing safety for riders, turned out to be just the opposite in some cases, especially where improved couplers and draft gear were supposed to do the job of the anticlimber plates in the Miller design.
It seems like a lot of photos and drawings of passnegr cars in the old, wooden days seemd to show a pot-belied stove at one end for heat. But they never looked like they were even bolted down. You'd think that a good jarring bump would have knocked them over. I wonder how the ratios compare- 44,000 deaths per year in automobiles out of a population of 300,000,000 today, verses train deaths per year out of the population of, say, 76,000,000 in 1900?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The bridge collapse and wreck at Ashtabula, OH, in 1876, rocked the nation in several ways. The bridge itself was a study in controversy. It was widely distrusted and had been expected to collapse one day. It was an advanced concept made of wrought iron instead of wood, yet the structure was still the Howe truss that was typically made of timber. The new bridge was full of engineering problems. Accounts mention problems that involved sagging which were repaired to some extent. In historic photos, I believe I can actually see the sag in the truss of perhaps 4-6”.
The Pacific Express was crossing the bridge in a blizzard at about 10 mph when it collapsed under the two engines. As the first cars dropped into the valley, their link and pin couplers held, and the falling cars pulled the trailing cars forward. One by one, they went over the edge and fell down into the valley. Like many other wrecks, this one too had fire break out in the wreckage.
A great controversy developed around the fact that nobody fought the fire despite having all the manpower, pumping engines, water supply, and hoses in place and standing by ready to take action. But the action was somehow paralyzed by those who ordered all efforts to be directed to recovering the victims rather than spraying water on the growing flames.
There was confusion over who was really in charge and had authority to commence the fire fighting. The fire chief was stymied. As the fire grew larger, it became apparent that there were still a lot of people trapped in the wreckage, and maybe it would have been better to have put water on the fire earlier.
But the greatest dimension to the controversy developed in the following days, where the people began to suspect that the railroad company had ordered there to be no fire fighting. The suspected motive was that the company wanted to burn up evidence of liability claims.
Murphy Sidingtrain deaths per year out of the population of, say, 76,000,000 in 1900?
https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofin15unit#page/58/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofin16unit#page/76/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/handbookoflabors1927unit#page/242/mode/2up
To be taken with a grain of salt.
https://archive.org/stream/railwaymastermec27newy#page/112/mode/2up
Interesting. The above excerpt shows that in 1900, there were 249 passenger deaths, 4346 trespasser deaths and 750 deaths attributable to highway crossings! For the most part, in 1900 wouldn't that mean hitting a wagon at a highway crossing? Also: 1 in 227 railroad workers was killed on the job, 1 in 29 injured.
Murphy Siding750 deaths attributable to highway crossings! For the most part, in 1900 wouldn't that mean hitting a wagon at a highway crossing?
Gives you the breakdown right in the material, following the statement of the number. 171 killed were trespassers, 558 'non-trespassers' (which I take to be people crossing the railroad at a legal road crossing) which would be a mixture of drivers (and yes, it would be primarily buggies or wagons, with a few perhaps on horseback) and pedestrians of some sort. There might have been one or more automobiles involved, but not many.
We hear people say that drivers are so distracted now with the tunes blaring and playing with their phones, that it's no wonder they don't see the lights and hear the horns of oncoming trains. Turn the clock back to 1900. The trains were slower. The city was probably quieter. The trains were probably reletively louder, as you could better hear a steam train approacing I would think. You were probably on a horse or on a wagon behind a horse. And yet, there were still 558 people on the ground killed by trains at crossings.
Murphy SidingThe trains were slower. The city was probably quieter. The trains were probably reletively louder, as you could better hear a steam train approacing I would think. You were probably on a horse or on a wagon behind a horse. And yet, there were still 558 people on the ground killed by trains at crossings.
Lots more traffic on or near or associated with railroads in those years. The horse might balk; the horse might rear; the horse might run away across the tracks or upset the wagon where the train might hit it. Many buildings were closer to the tracks, and no signage let alone bells or warning lights. No few cases I've read about where drivers weren't paying full attention, or got confused. There might actually be sources that recorded some of the causes or indicated history of accidents...
RME Murphy Siding The trains were slower. The city was probably quieter. The trains were probably reletively louder, as you could better hear a steam train approacing I would think. You were probably on a horse or on a wagon behind a horse. And yet, there were still 558 people on the ground killed by trains at crossings.
Murphy Siding The trains were slower. The city was probably quieter. The trains were probably reletively louder, as you could better hear a steam train approacing I would think. You were probably on a horse or on a wagon behind a horse. And yet, there were still 558 people on the ground killed by trains at crossings.
EuclidAn excellent reference that addresses that subject is a book called Metropolitan Corridor by John R. Stilgoe.
Here is the Amazon reference to that book
I have the book, but $4.00 sure seems reasonable. I was given a bunch of books on railroads, and this was one of them. The author approaches the topic of railroad development in a quite unique way. He uses the term “Metropolitan Corridor” to refer essentially to the railroad corridor, but in a broader sense as though it were a pipeline delivering a whole new way of life that transformed the American landscape.
So the book explores that connection as it applied to urban and rural settings with all their institutions. It takes a look at broad perspectives, but fills them in with incredibly well written, thorough, and accurate detail.
Google preview of Metropolitan Corridor has 10 or 11 somewhat discontinuous pages of Crossing.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2pWcmPGd6oUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It was Stilgoe’s necessary second book for tenure at Harvard.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/2/scrutiny-john-stilgoe/
wanswheel Google preview of Metropolitan Corridor has 10 or 11 somewhat discontinuous pages of Crossing. https://books.google.com/books?id=2pWcmPGd6oUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false It was Stilgoe’s necessary second book for tenure at Harvard. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/2/scrutiny-john-stilgoe/
How you craft a query to Google Books can dramatically affect where it positions you in an opened volume, and how it provides the 'markers' at the right margin that show you relevant references.
Try this as a starting point, and use the right scroll bar 'gray areas' for further navigation.
More detailed or specific wording of the 'query string' typed into Google will give you better results. So will refining a query if the first attempt produces the wrong information, or too many unrelated hits.
I still can’t find the chapter called CROSSING coming up in the Google preview. But in any case, the book gives a statistic on crossing deaths as follows:
“In 1902, the Interstate Commerce Commission recorded that nearly 4,000 people “struck by trains, locomotives, or cars” died instantly or within twenty-four hours of the collisions; another 3,563 suffered injuries. Federal statistics under-reported fatalities and injuries, however, because the commission never adequately defined such terms as persons, persons not trespassing, and trespassers.”
EuclidI still can’t find the chapter called CROSSING coming up in the Google preview.
Scroll to page 163 in the Google Books preview, or go to the table of contents and click on the chapter name.
Euclid I still can’t find the chapter called CROSSING coming up in the Google preview. But in any case, the book gives a statistic on crossing deaths as follows: “In 1902, the Interstate Commerce Commission recorded that nearly 4,000 people “struck by trains, locomotives, or cars” died instantly or within twenty-four hours of the collisions; another 3,563 suffered injuries. Federal statistics under-reported fatalities and injuries, however, because the commission never adequately defined such terms as persons, persons not trespassing, and trespassers.”
That’s from the second paragraph. This is from the first paragraph.
The “road-crossing” signal varied slightly from one railroad company to another, but every rulebook emphasized its importance. As Thoreau knew many decades before, it warned of Atropos, the speeding fate unable to swerve aside.
https://archive.org/stream/walden01thor#page/150/mode/2up
... and the children go to school on the other track. ??!
Would that railroad safety be as predictable today as he said it was on the Fitchburg -- and that more people got the message about the implacable bolts at all predictable times. But ... YIKES!
Also from the second paragraph of the Crossing chapter in Stilgoe’s book:
“Two hundred thousand trespassers have been killed or injured by the railroads of the United States in the past twenty years,” wrote one journalist in 1921. “Thirty thousand of them were children and more than 125,000 of them wage-earners.”
This article is easier to read (enlargeable pages) at Google Books.
https://books.google.com/books?id=xMXQAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA38&lpg=RA2-PA38&dq=%22rex+stuart%22+%22people+act+as+if+they+wanted+to+be+killed%22&source=bl&ots=j3iUERGFN_&sig=1gF8mYBCM3kCA0l5x3NK7NWVevQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGt9Pa-uTPAhVBOT4KHVqABEgQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q&f=true
Continued page 125 https://books.google.com/books?id=_7M7AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA125&lpg=RA2-PA125&dq=%22rex+stuart%22+%22people+act+as+if+they+wanted+to+be+killed%22&source=bl&ots=POCsduoDPI&sig=hxU5W0CxLzaeLLmHVO_4y7I6JqI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGt9Pa-uTPAhVBOT4KHVqABEgQ6AEILjAG#v=onepage&q&f=true
Really, really good followup on a casual reference in a text.
(To get away for a moment from all this death, I notice that at least one person in 1921 was making real money off an obsolete trolley system...)
From wanswheel's excerpt from Thoreau above, pg. 153 - likely we've all seen this quote, but it's still fun:
"I hear the iron horse . . . it seems as if the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it."
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.