Were crews able to get off before impact? In what way would anti-climbers have affected these two collisions?
If the two lead locomotives had been equipped with anti-climbers, the U25B would not have climbed the SD45, and most likely would have remained upright. Of course, at that speed the U25B was traveling, it may have been a lost cause for the crew.
croteauddOn April 2, 1973, eastbound SSW 9063, an SD45, was in the El Monte siding waiting for a U25B west (of unknown number) to pass on the main. Instead, on a clear green signal, it entered the El Monte siding at speed, and a block or two further west collided with the stopped 9063, the U25B shearing the SD45’s cab completely off. The next day this forumist went to the site and saw the unforgettable carnage firsthand. One never forgets seeing the aftermath of such an incident. Ironically, another SP SD45, a westbound on June 25, 1973, entered the Indio Yard (Calif.) on the main, at speed, with red intermediate block signals and rear-ended a standing freight on that main. In that incident, the cab was sheared off too! Soon afterwards locomotives started to be ordered and delivered with anti-climbers, preventing cabs from being sheared off!
With fatalities involved you should be able to find the Governmental investigation and its results on line; be that ICC or NTSB.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
croteaudd Euclid: On the eastbound SSW 9063 in the siding waiting, the head brakeman I believe was already on the ground for the roll-by. The engineer (unknown if he was also on the ground) and head brakemen saw what was happening and ran from the scene. The SP U25B crew rode it out and were killed. If the two lead locomotives had been equipped with anti-climbers, the U25B would not have climbed the SD45, and most likely would have remained upright. Of course, at that speed the U25B was traveling, it may have been a lost cause for the crew.
croteauddBaltACD: For many, many years I’ve known of and actually read many of those public reports on fatal train wrecks, including the El Monte, Calif. incident. You might want to take the time to read the reply to Euclid below … Euclid: In 2008 a Metrolink commuter train and a UP freight head-on crashed at Chatworth, Calif. near Los Angeles. It was on a curve, and both lead units at impact went out from the curve and ended up upright and side-by-side. The NTSB report on that incident indicated witnesses claimed to see the Metrolink had a green signal a mile away, but since the NTSB could not duplicate a green signal, they suggested those witnesses were ‘unreliable.’ Railfan witnesses unreliable? Who is the NTSB trying to fool? Ever since that report, I never saw the NTSB quite the same way. In that light, an NTSB report on the juicy Bertram, Calif. UP wreck down in the Salton Sea area should be coming out soon. News reports on that incident from many news sources at the time were the most incompetent hatchet jobs I’ve ever seen! Somehow I don’t believe the full truth will be reported by the NTSF on that incident either and it will join the Chatsworth incident cloaked in the mysterious …
I lost full faith in the NTSB much earlier. The derailment and fire inside the CSX Howard Street Tunnel in the Summer of 2001. The NTSB's report indicated the derailment happened and damaged the tunnel causing the water main break.
I had personal conversations with company personnel that were on site and on ground throughout the entirety of the incident from the initial report through the removal of all cars from the incident. The underailed cars from the head end of the train, when they were removed from the tunnel had dirt and lining brick from the roof of the tunnel on the tops of the cars. The incident happened on my territory.
The City of Baltimore water main broke and flooded the tunnel causing the derailment and the resulting release of HAZMAT that caught fire and burned for several days. If the water main didn't break and cause a breach of the tunnel the derailment would not have happend, as the NTSB found no car, track or train handling issues to cause it.
NTSB staked their position on level of the Lake Montebello resevoir showing 'steady' at the time the derailment happened and droping precipitously about 30 minutes after the report of the derailment.
The water main involved was in the neighborhood of a century old. In the years since that derailment the City of Baltimore has had numerous water main failures as well as some steam line failures.
With the evidence that was presented to me - the NTSB made a political report on the derailment, not a factual one. The City of Baltimore needed a deep pocket as they could not afford the results of their broken water main.
croteauddRailfan witnesses unreliable?
Recall that the engineer was communicating by cell phone with some railfans. The incident led to the banning of all cell phones, and similar devices, from the cabs of locomotives. It's now one of the first things inspectors check.
I would question the railfan's "observations" as well under the circumstances.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 croteaudd Railfan witnesses unreliable? Recall that the engineer was communicating by cell phone with some railfans. The incident led to the banning of all cell phones, and similar devices, from the cabs of locomotives. It's now one of the first things inspectors check. I would question the railfan's "observations" as well under the circumstances.
croteaudd Railfan witnesses unreliable?
One of the eyewitnesses was reported in some sources as being the conductor as he boarded the train. Inaddition to a couple of railfans. Too bad they didn't take a picure as it left.
They could not get the signal system to duplicate a clear or proceed signal. The position of the signal and that of the sun at the time did not cause a condition that may make an aspect to appear differently. The computerized signal logs did not contain any failure or anomaly in the signal.
They did have a new computerized dispatching system. A spokeswomen immediately and before anything else was known on the day of the event said the engineer was at fault. She was later fired for doing so.
While I mostly think it was the engineer's fault, part of me does have some doubt. A new system, some eyewitnesses, and immediately placing blame on a dead employee makes me think that they may have, and new about, bugs in their new system. I bet once more evidence against the engineer came out, they breathed easier at the commuter authority.
I believe it's easier for the general public to overlook a single human failure rather than a signal system failure. As for the NTSB, I think they are very good at investigating and finding out what probably happened. It's there recommendations that I sometimes have a problem with.
Jeff
Suggest you actually read how that type of searchlight signal actually functions, including how it goes through 'red' for every change as a safety feature.
Overmod Suggest you actually read how that type of searchlight signal actually functions, including how it goes through 'red' for every change as a safety feature.
croteauddYour suggestion about reading up on searchlight signals I knew all about over 50 years ago. The signals mentioned were the color light type that did not have moving parts.
You might as well go ahead and describe the super wild thing you observed, as there is no sense in hint-hint-hinting about it as if it is some highly-classified government secret.
So this was observed at least a decade before the start of the conversion to use PTC?
A signal pumping like that is rare, but happens. I've seen it a few times. You report it to the dispatcher and a signal maintainer checks it out. Because a signal continually doing that obviously has a defect somewhere in the circuitry, it's not as bad as a false clear.
False clears are rare, but do happen. And they take a report of one very seriously. I've only seen one once, before I was working for a railroad about 45 years ago. Since working I've heard of a few, and most of those were when a cab signal failed to show it's most restrictive aspect when block conditions should've caused it to do so.
croteauddOK, that signal changing situation was widely misunderstood and should have been said quite differently. My gross error. Those strange signal indications that I saw were humanly controlled. The signal would display yellow for a while. Then red for a while. Then back to yellow again for a while. Then green. That occurred deliberately by UP workers! Such occurs when signals are being tested in a controlled environment. The fact that the NTSB possibly slanderously said witnesses that saw a green signal were unreliable didn’t take that into account, at least not publicly! It would seem that the NTSB and the railroad itself would not want that possibility widely known, and that the controls to do that are right in the signal box!
I can't even begin to comprehend what you are talking about.
Signal testing is a thing. So is local control for various reasons.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
It occurs to me that this sounds suspiciously like someone setting an engine crew up for a banner test.
zugmann croteaudd OK, that signal changing situation was widely misunderstood and should have been said quite differently. My gross error. Those strange signal indications that I saw were humanly controlled. The signal would display yellow for a while. Then red for a while. Then back to yellow again for a while. Then green. That occurred deliberately by UP workers! Such occurs when signals are being tested in a controlled environment. The fact that the NTSB possibly slanderously said witnesses that saw a green signal were unreliable didn’t take that into account, at least not publicly! It would seem that the NTSB and the railroad itself would not want that possibility widely known, and that the controls to do that are right in the signal box! I can't even begin to comprehend what you are talking about. Signal testing is a thing. So is local control for various reasons.
croteaudd OK, that signal changing situation was widely misunderstood and should have been said quite differently. My gross error. Those strange signal indications that I saw were humanly controlled. The signal would display yellow for a while. Then red for a while. Then back to yellow again for a while. Then green. That occurred deliberately by UP workers! Such occurs when signals are being tested in a controlled environment. The fact that the NTSB possibly slanderously said witnesses that saw a green signal were unreliable didn’t take that into account, at least not publicly! It would seem that the NTSB and the railroad itself would not want that possibility widely known, and that the controls to do that are right in the signal box!
Signal Maintainers are required to do periodic testing on ALL signal appliances on their territory. When testing at a Control Point the tests are conducted with the knowledge and permission of the Control Operator (Operator or Train Dispatcher) testing will be done so trains are not affected.
When a new Control Point or a revised Control Point are implemented as a result of a Signal Suspension all routes and and the expected signal indications are tested exhaustively BEFORE the location is place in operation.
Railroads take the operation of the signal systems very seriously.
croteaudd The signal would display yellow for a while. Then red for a while. Then back to yellow again for a while. Then green.
How do you know this wasn't caused by blocks dropping and then clearing up again a moderate distance away? This could be caused by another train doing some switching or changing direction a couple blocks away, or perhaps MOW equipment without insulated axles, or even some trespasser getting their ATV stuck in a way that touches both rails.
Signal testing in CTC territory is done with the dispatcher and maintainers working together.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
What was going on?
SD70Dude croteaudd The signal would display yellow for a while. Then red for a while. Then back to yellow again for a while. Then green. How do you know this wasn't caused by blocks dropping and then clearing up again a moderate distance away? This could be caused by another train doing some switching or changing direction a couple blocks away, or perhaps MOW equipment without insulated axles, or even some trespasser getting their ATV stuck in a way that touches both rails. Signal testing in CTC territory is done with the dispatcher and maintainers working together.
One thing I might add. There are two variants on the display of signals. There are constant lit signals and there are approach lit signals.
An approach lit signal is dark until the track circuit approaching the signal is activated, until that circuit is activated the signal is dark.
When viewing a signal - what it indicates is activity BEYOND the signal, out of sight (most of the time) of anyone that would be viewing the indications the signal is displaying. As SD70Dude state there are many things that can be happening, out of sight of the signal viewer that may be causing the indications the viewer is seeing.
In the railroad area I frequent, over the years, the signals have gone from constant lit to approach lit, thus the are more frequently DARK than displaying any indication.
croteaudd SD70Dude: Hahahahaha! There were UP trucks everywhere, and UP people on that mast signal and on the ground. I think it was pretty obvious what was going on!
If there were UP personnel working at that exact location, perhaps there were more of them a short distance down the track. Which is why I mentioned MOW equipment as a potential cause. On top of actual authorized signal testing of course.
I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. All of these things are a normal part of railway operations. And just because the signal indication was changing while the workers were present does not automatically mean that they were operating the signals from the bungalow, they could have been communicating via radio or phone to have the dispatcher operate the control panel and confirm that the switches, signals and other parts of the system were operating properly and obeying the dispatcher's commands. You know, how actual railroad signal testing is performed.
I couldn't find the NTSB accident report online, but did find a paragraph in Extra 2200 South #39 that gives a tiny bit of information. "El Monte wreck 4/3/73 (at 50 mph), U25B 6739 demolished, basket case carbody, bent up 3-4 feet at ends, seen on Alameda St. Branch 4/11 going to Chrome Crankshaft along with SD45 9063 also totaled here when 6739 landed on top of it. Third unit heavily damaged, GP30 5002 being repaired at Taylor. U33C 8628 & GP35 6539 minor damage."
Ed in Kentucky
Wreck photos here: Piedmont and Western Railroad Club Train Wreck (pwrr.org)
SSW9389:
Great finds!
The photos filled in more details than I saw the next day at the wreck site, and much was different. The cleanup was fast! But the severity of the incident prolonged the cleanup.
For those interested:
The El Monte wreck site is much different now. Metrolink (a commuter outfit) has parallel tracks and station nearby. The east end CP is still there but is very different from back in 1973. The Pacific Electric Line crossed at that CP, and nostalgia buffs might find the now gone old PE Big Red Cars route in the middle of Iris Lane of interest. There was a southside connecting track between the SP and PE.
(The below Link malfunctions at the TRAINS website, so copy and paste it in a separate browser.)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CmKPER5akxQ2gxzD8
The head-on occurred at Tyler Street and, of course, the SP tracks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.