Could a member offer me help. I believe I remember years ago seeing a photo in an old issue of “Trains” of a Penn Central wreck at a drawbridge in Cleveland, Ohio. It was a Penn Central freight that hit the lowered drawbridge counterweight at speed, shearing the EMD locomotives down to the bare frames, cleaning off diesel engines, cab, etc. The wreck happened I believe in May of 1974. Does anyone out there remember or know which issue the photo (s) appeared in, I’d like to try to obtain an issue on the internet, but don’t know which issue to look for. Thanks so very much!
pc046340- Welcome to Trains.com! [C):-)]
I have the Trains Archive DVD set at home so I will try to remember to do a search and see if I can find out which issue it is. If I don’t post back please ping me to remind me about this.
I have that issue, but it would take all day to find it. The coverage was in the front under news coverage. It would be interesting to see the full report of that wreck. The use of radios played a critical role because the bridgetender told the engineer he had it all lined up, so the engineer could expect a clear signal at the bridge.
But then the bridgtender took the route away from the railroad and gave it to a boat. He did not inform the engineer of that, however, he was not required to because the signal indication was the only proper authority.
The train was not going very fast, but the gigantic counterweight, when lowered, had its bottom just above the elevation of the locomotive frames. So the entire momentum of the whole train shoved through the couplers, passing under the counterweight, and the counterweight cleanly sheared off everything above the locomotive frames.
Thanks for your insight, you can access the NTSB’s full report of the incident online, I’ve read it already, it’s about 30 pages long, but the report doesn’t have the pictures I was seeking. Thanks again!
August 1974 = Vol. 34, No. 10 issue, pg. 11 (top half). [Edited 5:15 PM 09 Jan. 2012] The cover is a New Haven passenger freight train with a lone electric locomotive in the McGinniss orange and black color scheme crossing a low-level vertical lift “bridge over the Harlem River” something like Hell Gate Bridge, with a caption referencing the lead article “How to Run a Railroad in the Northeast” (a John Kneiling article/ diatribe).
- Paul North.
Paul;
Thanks for the help, I have no idea how I would have found it myself, this forum is GREAT!
Bob Holt
I sure hope the engineers made it out alive.
The head-end crew was killed. If I remember correctly, the locomotives were sheared at frame level by the counterweight, with the frame of the lead locomotive shooting into the Cuyahoga River, just missing the boat that was passing through.
Yes, and the caption to the photo I referenced above says it shows the frame of the 2nd unit hanging most of the way out beyond the end of the bridge segment under the tower and counterweight. That frame seems to have been held in place from tipping over into the river as well only by the counterweight and weight of the wreckage on the rear end of the remains of that unit.
- Paul North.
I seem to recall some reference to the speed being around 20 mph at the time of impact. The main strength of a freight train is lengthwise through the center sills of the cars and locomotives. The counterweight was like an immoveable object blocking the train just above the line of the center sills.
If a train hits a solid object such as another train, the cars and locomotives generally jackknife or override each other as the force dissipates. In the case of this wreck, all the force of the train was directed just below the solid object, so it shoved the locomotive frames through as the massive counterweight sheared off the superstructure above the frames, crushed it into a wad, and piled up in a vertical mass 2-3 stories high.
Here’s a photo i found, not the one I’ve been searching for, but it gives an idea of what happened. Go to: www.clevelandmemory.org and type a search for “Penn Central OV-8”. You can enlarge the photo to get a good look.
If I knew the staff wouldn’t mind, I’d post a shot of the news page for you. Not sure what their policy is on such things.
Here’s the report, which contains some interesting information. Train speed is given as around 33 MPH, and the BAC of the engineer was .05…
Oddly, the report kinda gives him a pass on this, noting that an experienced engineer such as he should be able to compentently operate a train at that level.
Tree remember this was BEFORE the Chase MD collision and before Dug and Alchohal Testng became such a 800 LB Gorilla. It was nothing back then for OTR drivers to have a few at night then drive the next morning.
Thanks for that link, Larry [tup] (32 pages, approx. 1.37 MB in size for that ‘PDF’ format version).
The Blood Alcohol Concentration of the engineer was not a causal factor or the proximate cause of that wreck, as I understand it, although the NTSB was clearly puzzled and troubled by the apparent total failure of the engine crew to brake the train to any degree even though they could see the ‘Stop’ indication of the ‘home’ signal at least 2 full minutes before the impact.
Instead, it appears from the NTSB’s view of the facts, the engineer likely still would have hit the counterweight when the bridge operator lowered it in front of the approaching train after giving the train radio permission to proceed.
- Paul North.
No question on the D&A thing - the timing or the acceptance at that time.
Today that .05 or .06 would probably get you a conviction for driving while impaired.
That said, the poor communication was undoubtedly a primary cause.
Poor communication was definitely an issue and this accident goes a long way in explaining why it took so long for the FRA to approve the use of radio to govern train movements, as in the use of track warrants.
It is interesting that the DB operator imposed his own authority between the engineer and the wayside signals, and because the operator partly controlled those signals, the engineer accepted the operator’s personal authorization, and let it override the authority of the wayside signals.
Then when the operator realized he had made a mistake in giving his personal authorization to the engineer, the operator simply rescinded it without telling the engineer. It makes you wonder why the operator did not tell the engineer that he was taking the route away from the train after telling the engineer that he (the operator) had given the route to the train.
The only explanation I can see, is that the operator simply assumed it was not necessary to tell the engineer because the rules required the engineer to obey the wayside signal indications. Perhaps the operator was a bit embarrassed for making the mistake of forgetting about
I suggest that the moderators or the original poster change the title of this thread to something like:
1974 Wreck of Penn Central Train OV-8
Not a problem, I’m trying to edit this Subject right now, but I’m new to the forum. I originally just wanted to find the issue of “Trains” in question, I already knew about the wreck as a former PC employee,(1974 hired) and I didn’t realize my question would spark such interest. Thanks to all who have helped.