Does anyone here know much about AT&SF GP7 2878’s wreck? Because this picture linked here only shows 2878 and a hopper car in this wreck, it doesn’t mention if 2878 was the only locomotive involved in the wreck or if there were other locomotives involved. Nor does it show what the cause was (e.g: brake failure, incorrect weight calculation on the train)
Consist of the train at the time? What caused the wreck? Was 2878 pulling freight cars or running light?
Because I’ve looked everywhere and couldn’t find any details about its wreck. Not even the famous Extra Twenty-two Hundred South mentions it.
Even a post on Altamont Press suggests this question:
→ https://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,280621,280621#msg-280621 ←
EDIT: The hopper car involved appears to be FLCX 42822.
Did you even read the caption with the photo you linked? It has all the information that you need.
I did read the caption, but it never mentions if 2878 was the only locomotive involved in the wreck or if there were other locomotives involved. Nor does it say if 2878 was running light or pulling any freight cars.
It refers several times to “the unit”. That is known as a clue. If there were cars involved, they would’ve been mentioned. An omission is also a clue. You don’t need to report on a negative.
The unit ran away solo, which implies no other units in MU and no train. It collided with the hopper, which stopped it.
1 Like
So when it ran away, it was running light (by itself, pulling no cars).
Had it not ran away, where was it supposed to go to? or was it a switcher unit at the time? Also was it human error that caused the runaway? or was this done as part of a stunt or theft? When it ran away, was it set to full throttle, and then ran away or did it suffer a brake failure an the incline?
Was it just one hopper that tried to stop the 2878? or were there multiple hopper cars to add more weight to the stopping process? Because looking at the photo, it shows one hopper, the damaged one, but never mentions if there were multiple hoppers used to stop 2878, because think about it, you would need a lot of weight to bring a 50 mph runaway locomotive to a halt.
The caption says it was diverted onto yard tracks in hopes it would derail. It appears it did derail and momentum kept it going for some distance. It appears, from damage to both locomotive and the covered hopper, that the engine side swiped the car until the car body struck the cab.
Jeff
I see, but if you saw my reply, I’m referring to how it all started and led to the photo being taken, you’re referencing what happened after the photo was taken.
As in, when the 2878 first ran away, was this a case of hijacking/theft/someone stealing the 2878? or did the engineer not have enough time to get back on the 2878 when it ran away? And if it did run away, was it running down a hill? or was it going at full throttle?
I know that it “took off unattended”, but it never mentions if it was stolen for this or if the engineer wasn’t able to get back on 2878 fast enough.
Also, if you were to simulate this incident, was it just one hopper that was sitting there? or was there like a whole group of them sitting there?
And, when it derailed, did it like slam into the hopper after racing into the siding? or did it jump the tracks when going over a switch. Looking at the picture it looks like it might have jumped the tracks but I’m not sure if that happened or if this was after it slammed into hopper car.
The damage to both engine and covered hopper ,to me, indicate it had derailed before the struck. The coveref hopper clearly shows the majority of damage to one side. Had they hit head-on the damage would’ve been much worse over the entire end of the car.
The locomotive shows only light damage along the long hood, hand rails and scrape marks, until the corner of the car hit the cab. Then the cab was knocked back into the short hood, both deforming from the impact. Had they hit head-on damage would’ve been more severe towards the point of impact rather than the far end of the engine.
The caption states it was unknown if the car(s?) were already there or had been placed in anticipation of the runaway engine. My guess is they may have already been there, and it was probably a cut of cars, number and load/empty status unknown. I think they figured the tight curvature of switch and track layout was going to derail the engine.
As to how the engine got loose in the first place, you’ll need to find a news article or someone who worked for ATSF or lived in the area. It’s possible results from an internal ATSF investigation were never made public.
Jeff
Saw the New York Times, and I quote them on specific details.
- FLCX 42822 was “loaded with plastic”
- “Delbert Brooks, the Santa Fe yardmaster, said the locomotive was reported missing in the Oklahoma City yard at about 2:10 P.M.”
- “The engine was purposely aeralieu more than an hour later by Santa Fe workers at their yard northeast of Purcell.” The ‘aeralieu’ is a typo, which correcting this sentence means that it was PURPOSELY DERAILED.
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/11/27/archives/runaway-train-derails-after-chase-of-35-miles-connecticut-jobs-plan.html