Question for Steam Locomotive Engineers

@G3750 posted:

Sorry for the long-winded preamble, but my questions for steam locomotive engineers (Rich Melvin, Hot Water) are:

1. Do you believe the engineer's story about the throttle slipping from "closed" to "half-open", given that it has to latched and unlatched? [Personally, I think it's a crock.  

Thanks,

George

         No!

Thanks, Hot Water.  That was my thought as well.  The engineer was running late, he was speeding at Gallitzin, and he probably miscalculated where he was.  It was a screw-up.

George

That's not the first, nor the last, far-fetched alibi to be used, believe me.

A lot of Officials do not like to hold formal investigations to determine employee culpability, if any, in cases of alleged rules violations.  You have to conduct the hearing in accordance with the respective governing agreement, and this can get complicated, as each craft has its own agreement, and in the case of merged railroads, employees from different former railroads may be governed by different agreements.  I saw this as a challenge and studied all of the agreements until I was comfortably familiar with them.  If a guilty employee is ever exonerated, it is usually due to a defect in the form of the investigation, i.e., failure to follow the specified requirements*.  This did not bother me and one fellow referred to me as the Honorable Judge (actually a character who appeared many years ago on the Grand Old Opry).

I was the presiding officer at most investigations where I was assigned, and conducted thorough, fair, and impartial hearings.  Although the Superintendent may have wanted to fire a particular employee, if the evidence developed by testimony of witnesses did not support that, I would recommend exoneration.

But sometimes the employee is guilty and his representative may present a defense that is impossible to believe, or is not a truly mitigating factor, and the employee is found to be responsible and is assessed appropriate discipline.  I have heard some whoppers told as defense, but Company witnesses with expertise in those areas could, by testifying, refute untrue testimony by guilty employees.

*  Examples: Notification of Formal Investigation sent to Employee and Formal Investigation held within prescribed time limit; failure to allow postponement for reasonable requests; failure to share exhibits in advance when required; lack of impartiality on the part of the Presiding Officer.

I am always skeptical with an absolute "no".  When the idea was first floated that the dinosaurs were killed off by a meteor/asteroid strike the proponents were laughed at.  Rather than giving up they started asking if the strike happened what evidence would there be for it.  Then they looked and found that evidence.  So let's circle back to the defense.  What mechanical malfunctions/defects and/or human errors would have to occur to create a situation where a throttle could slip from closed to open?

@Bill N posted:

What mechanical malfunctions/defects and/or human errors would have to occur to create a situation where a throttle could slip from closed to open?

The large spring holding the latch closed against teeth on the throttle quadrant would have to break (something that could have been verified in the wreck); steam rushing through the double poppet valve in the steam dome would have to force it wide open; the engineer would have to be unaware of all this happening, including the huge sound increase as the engine's exhaust beats got louder and closer together, and somehow not realizing all this had happened until the engine went from 30 to 65 MPH (which, as you might expect with a steam locomotive pulling a double-header, doesn't happen instantaneously).

At best, the engineer was a liar; at worst--incompetent at his job.

Thank you Steve.  This makes it easier to understand.  I am also guessing that if that happened there would be a tell tale broken spring.  Now I am also guessing that if that happened the dynamics in the second locomotive would change significantly so the crew of the second loco should know something was up.  What is the crew of the second loco supposed to do when they think the first loco is travelling too fast?  I would think they would be blowing whistles.

@smd4 posted:

At best, the engineer was a liar; at worst--incompetent at his job.

. . . or asleep.  You correctly assessed the situation, concisely, smd4.

Another question arises if this was a double-headed train:  What action did the Engine Crew on the second engine take, to reduce the speed.  There were options available, the best being to cut-in the automatic brake valve on the second engine and move the brake valve handle to Service and, if that was not enough to overcome the feed valve of the first engine, then to Emergency.  And action should have been taken earlier, before things became critical.  

It's a lot easier to come up with an alibi for an emergency stop than to come up with one for a derailment.

@Number 90 posted:

It's a lot easier to come up with an alibi for an emergency stop than to come up with one for a derailment.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

@Number 90 posted:

Another question arises if this was a double-headed train:  What action did the Engine Crew on the second engine take, to reduce the speed.  There were options available, the best being to cut-in the automatic brake valve on the second engine and move the brake valve handle to Service and, if that was not enough to overcome the feed valve of the first engine, then to Emergency.  And action should have been taken earlier, before things became critical.  

I also wonder about the fireman in the lead engine. In addition to watching the steam gauge and sight glass, a fireman is intimately attuned with the engine sounds in order to do his job. Surely what was going on didn't escape his notice? Was he obligated to say anything to the engineer?

@Bill N posted:

Thank you Steve.  This makes it easier to understand.  I am also guessing that if that happened there would be a tell tale broken spring.  Now I am also guessing that if that happened the dynamics in the second locomotive would change significantly so the crew of the second loco should know something was up.  What is the crew of the second loco supposed to do when they think the first loco is travelling too fast?  I would think they would be blowing whistles.

This situation was discussed in the book.  There is a method (by whistle) for the 2nd engineer to communicate with the first.  There was no way to determine if that happened.  The lead engineer was the only survivor amongst the engine crews.

@smd4 posted:

I also wonder about the fireman in the lead engine. In addition to watching the steam gauge and sight glass, a fireman is intimately attuned with the engine sounds in order to do his job. Surely what was going on didn't escape his notice? Was he obligated to say anything to the engineer?

We'll never know.  Dead men tell no tales.

George

People have puzzled about that wreck ever since it happened those many years ago. When I was  kid Dad and I walked the area through Bennington Curve and the fill the engine overturned on and talked about the wreck. The real mystery question is why NO ONE pulled the air. ANY trainman, (Conductor, Brakeman or Flagman) or even a passenger aware of operation could have pulled the emergency brake valve in any car of the train but no one did. Dad and I always figured they were all asleep or at least completely inattentive to their surroundings (where the train was, as in, coming out of the tunnel at Gallitzin too fast). The North Coast Limited actually did wreck in a similar scenario when the train crew got aboard just after a party [with booze], the engineer set the throttle in Notch Eight to climb the hill out of town and then never closed the throttle when they crested the hill and started down the other side of the mountain.

Sabotage was even discussed IIRC (an air pipe angle cock shut between the second engine's tender and the first car of the train).

No one will ever know.

I see that it was on a down-grade, which would have made the increase in speed faster. But the noise increase would have been instantly noticeable.

@geysergazer posted:

Sabotage was even discussed IIRC (an air pipe angle cock shut between the second engine's tender and the first car of the train).

Closing an angle cock would require that the angle cock lever be lifted up off a locking lug, moved 90 degrees in the proper direction, and then lowered. It would be nearly impossible for this sequence to happen in a wreck spontaneously, and also would have been easy to detect by investigators.

As additional information concerning steam locomotive throttles; every single steam locomotive that I have been involved with, going back to the later 1950s on the PRR K4s/K4sa locomotives on the New York & Long Branch RR at South Amboy, NJ, when the latch on the throttle handle is "squeezed" and the throttle lever is then "free", it quickly closes itself. Granted, the vast majority of my "throttle time" experience has been on SP 4449, which is equipped with a front end throttle, but when one "squeezes the handle" to unlatch the throttle, you had better be strong, or the throttle will immediately jerk right out of your hand and attempt to close!

For example, I remember one trip on the Southern Pacific, the Road Foreman of Engines was a young lady, and reportedly VERY well respected by the crew members on her district, plus being a very experienced Engineer. Our Engineer asked her if she would care to run for awhile, since she was obviously VERY well qualified on her division. She said sure, so a quick explanation of the throttle and power reverse gear was provided, and she already knew about the 8ET Automatic Brake Valve. Well, we were moving right along, and after a bit, we needed to slow a bit, and she made a nice smooth train brake application, and immediately bailed-off the independent brake, then it came time for a slight throttle reduction, and as I was watching over to see what was about to happen, she grabbed the throttle with both hands, squeezed the latch and immediately the throttle pulled her forward right out of the seat, and slammed shut! I had to quickly back way off on the oil firing valve and turn on the blower. She swore, 'Holy s@#t!", and pulling hard on the big throttle handle, and got the throttle back to where it needed to be. Naturally, everybody was laughing, but she was good natured about it. Our Engineer explained how and why the throttle does that, and once she got the hang of it, with both her feet securely propped against the brake stand, she did a very credible job of running the engine and handling our train.

Hot Water, great story!

Dan Weinhold

Jack, (aka Hot Water) when it comes to telling stories YOU are the BEST.  I always enjoyed the stories you told during dinner and after dinner, while we sat and sipped a few cold ones, at TrainFest.  What amazed me was your total recall of all the details, of events that happened 30-40 years ago.  We all knew that it wasn't BS because there is no way anybody could repeat the same story 5 years later w/o changing a word.

Ahhh the Good 'Ol Days. 

@Hot Water this seems like the sort of info that's good to know in general. I didn't realize the throttle would move on you once the latch is squeezed.

Thanks for sharing the story!

@Hot Water posted:

she grabbed the throttle with both hands, squeezed the latch and immediately the throttle pulled her forward right out of the seat, and slammed shut!

That's a pretty fun story!

Gee, I would have thought the autonomous fault detection, identification and response firmware on the throttle latch controller field programmable gate array would have suppressed the latch release inhibit threshold for the next ten processor cycles while the faut condition persisted… Uh... Never mind.

Thanks so much for the great story!  I REALLY miss the good old days…

Eine Gespenster !

I'm a bit late to this one, and the details have been covered pretty well. I have a couple of comments...

In the engineer's testimony he said, "...he saw the throttle slip from closed to open.  By the time he could restore it to the closed position, it was too late..."

In my opinion, that is absolute nonsense.

• Throttles don't "slip" from closed to open.
  The mechanisms are "fail safe" designed so if the throttle lever latch is released, they will close, not open.
• Trains don't accelerate like top fuel dragsters.
  If they were going thirty MPH and the throttle was suddenly opened wide, it would take a couple of MINUTES to accelerate to 65 mph!

Do I believe the engineer's story about the throttle slipping from "closed" to "half-open"? Nope. Not for a minute. Total BS.

@G3750 posted:

...Rich, didn't you run NKP 765 down "The Slide" on its excursion through the Harrisburg area a few years back?  What did you think about the area?...

I have indeed run the 765 through there, several times, in both directions, upgrade and down. It's just part of the long 1.7% grade that runs from Cresson (top of the hill) to Altoona. I didn't note anything special about it.

Rich, thanks for weighing in on this.  And indeed thanks to all who chimed in on the topic.  You all confirmed what I suspected.

Interestingly enough, the coroner's inquest (held a few months later) didn't use much of the ICC and PRR testimony.  And it absolved the engineer (which I find incredible).

If you haven't read the book, it's a good read and very interesting.

George

Didn't want to start a new thread just for this. Saw movie a few weeks ago on TCM - "Red Light" - it started off with a newsreel shown in a prison - the newsreel appears to combine two actual events - the first part is aerial footage of the locomotives and some of the cars on the embankment after the Bennington Curve wreck. The other part of the newsreel was of two wrecking cranes righting a steam locomotive, along tangent track. One of the cranes has Southern on it - light color, looks like D6470. The other is in the background, darker and number not visible.

Other random train observations from movies/TV in recent month: 1) EMD G8 in South Korea in the movie "The Housemaid." Saw EMD builder's plate, but loco was unfamiliar. 2) Remnants of Pacific Electric line to Santa Monica along Santa Monica Boulevard in "Adam-12" - PACIFIC in black on white background on pole next to crossing; Pacific Saw & Supply Co. building in background.

David

What I don't understand is how the 2nd K4s' engineer didn't notice the excess speed? The curve is rated for 30 mph and the investigators estimated the train was traveling at least 65 mph. If he had noticed, he would've blasted his steam whistle and woken up the potentially sleeping engineer in the lead engine, or he would have used the train brakes to slow the consist down, right? Could it be that both engineers conspired to make up time (assuming the train was late to begin with)?

Was it accurate in the Polar Express movie when the cotter pin sheared off the throttle?

@Paul Kallus posted:

What I don't understand is how the 2nd K4s' engineer didn't notice the excess speed? The curve is rated for 30 mph and the investigators estimated the train was traveling at least 65 mph. If he had noticed, he would've blasted his steam whistle and woken up the potentially sleeping engineer in the lead engine, or he would have used the train brakes to slow the consist down, right? Could it be that both engineers conspired to make up time (assuming the train was late to begin with)?

Was it accurate in the Polar Express movie when the cotter pin sheared off the throttle?

Paul, did the engineers conspire to make up time?  Great question, I don't know and we'll never know.  But it seems that some people do crazy things.

In the September 1950 wreck on the Panhandle, the Spirit of St. Louis rear-ended a stalled troop train.  The engineer was trying to make up time and ran 3 block signals indicating STOP.  He only hit the brakes when trainmen some distance away threw fusees at the cab window.  But by then it was too late.  I recall that the conductor's grandson gave a talk at a PRRT&HS annual meeting about 10 years ago.

https://www.thetimes-tribune.c...02-51ed82c47c93.html

George

@G3750 posted:

The lead engineer (the only survivor of the 2 engineers and 2 firemen) testified that he was maintaining a proper (lower) speed and that he saw the throttle slip from closed to open.

Do you believe the engineer's story about the throttle slipping from "closed" to "half-open", given that it has to be latched and unlatched? [Personally, I think it's a crock.]

NO!  You're right. It's a crock

Furthermore, for trying to sell that as an alibi, that Engineer should have been fired twice - once for his responsibility in the fatal derailment, and should never, ever, under any circumstance, should he have even been considered for reinstatement because of those two lies:  that he was maintaining a proper speed (which he obviously wasn't); and for that second lie about the throttle.

@Paul Kallus posted:

What I don't understand is how the 2nd K4s' engineer didn't notice the excess speed? The curve is rated for 30 mph and the investigators estimated the train was traveling at least 65 mph. If he had noticed, he would've blasted his steam whistle and woken up the potentially sleeping engineer in the lead engine, or he would have used the train brakes to slow the consist down, right? Could it be that both engineers conspired to make up time (assuming the train was late to begin with)?

Was it accurate in the Polar Express movie when the cotter pin sheared off the throttle?

Must admit that none of the various steam locomotives I've ever worked on had a cotter pin in the throttle mechanism.  

@G3750 posted:

Rich, thanks for weighing in on this.  And indeed thanks to all who chimed in on the topic.  You all confirmed what I suspected.

Interestingly enough, the coroner's inquest (held a few months later) didn't use much of the ICC and PRR testimony.  And it absolved the engineer (which I find incredible).

If you haven't read the book, it's a good read and very interesting.

Georgei

I read the book a while back because I had purchased the "Red Arrow" Lionel K-4 Legacy and wanted to make matching passenger cars.  So I just wanted to know as much as I could about the train as possible.  I completed 9 cars during Covid lock-down.  I even acquired a K-line K-4 that Bruk B. masterfully upgraded to Legacy w/ whistle steam so that I can double-head the consist like was done that fateful night.  The date it happened was also significant in a way because February 18 is my birthday and 1947 was the year both of my parents were born!  LOL.

I highly recommend the book...it also gives backgrounds and history on some of the passengers.

Greg

Given the questions to this day about it, I wonder if the reason the engineer wasn't fired or found liable was because the wreck was actually caused by some other equipment failure that the PRR didn't want to admit to, and his payment for keeping quiet was keeping his job.

The PRR was king back then in that area of the state.

@rplst8 posted:

Given the questions to this day about it, I wonder if the reason the engineer wasn't fired or found liable was because the wreck was actually caused by some other equipment failure that the PRR didn't want to admit to, and his payment for keeping quiet was keeping his job.

Not a chance.  

The discipline system sends a message to the employee being disciplined, as well as to all other employees as to their fate if they commit the same rule violation.  And, in the 1920's, it was somewhat more harsh than it is today.  What message do you think the other employees would get from a cover-up and nobody being held responsible for the wreck?  You can be assured that the surviving Engineer was fired.

After the wreck, there was investigation of all of the applicable equipment as well as the track, the health of surviving employees, etc., jointly conducted by the ICC and the Railroad.  If there was provable equipment or track failure, you would have seen it in the ICC Railroad Accident Report.

And the Engineer of the second engine?  We will never know why he didn't cut in his automatic brake valve and apply braking.  Operating employees do not like to "turn each other in" and taking action to stop the train would certainly have called attention to the first Engineer running the train over the authorized speed.  Questions would be asked in the Dispatching Office about the delay between interlocking towers and that office has no problem with reporting Engineers or Conductors for suspected rules violations.  

Maybe the second Engineer thought they could still make it around the curve.