Railroad Forums 

  • PALMER, MASS. 11/23/53

  • Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.
Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

 #1451408  by shlustig
 
Train #602 Dp. Springfield for Boston at about 10AM; consist was a single RDC M-463. At Athol Jct., both of the RDC's engines died and it came to a halt. The Engr. was able to restart them and #602 proceeded after a 20" delay. Approaching Palmer, both engines again died, and the train coasted to a stop at the station.

Train #78 "Paul Revere" ( with 2 E-8's and 10 cars) was following #602 east from Athol Jct. and allowed it to get a couple of signal blocks ahead. Approaching Palmer
#78 was on "Clear" signals and had slowed for the 50mph restriction there when the enginemen spotted the stopped RDC. Due to the limited sight distance caused by the right-hand curve and the overhead bridge, there was insufficient distance to stop, and impact speed was about 30mph. 1 passenger on #602 was killed and 17 were injured.

Cause of the accident was due to the RDC stopping on sand so that the wheels did not make direct contact with the rail, thereby allowing the signals to display false proceed indications. As a result of the accident, the NYC required any single-unit RDC trains to be given a positive block to the rear. Ironically, that had been the rule when RDC's were first used in 1950, but the railroad dropped the requirement because of alleged improvements on the sanding system which had supposedly eliminated the problem.
 #1451437  by Noel Weaver
 
I am quite surprised that the NYC dropped the manual block protection for a single RDC. The New Haven kept that particular rule right up to the end. I remember working as an operator at SS-60 in Bridgeport and I had to hold behind the Naugy when it had a single car which was most of the time. I had no idea that the Central dropped that rule. I worked as a tower operator in Bridgeport at SS-60 for a few months in 1964 thanks to award 282.
Noel Weaver
Last edited by Noel Weaver on Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1451452  by BR&P
 
Curious why a single RDC, "pulling" only itself, would need much, if any, sand put down when stopping.
 #1451456  by Statkowski
 
It didn't say the RDC dropped the sand, just that it had stopped on sand. Going eastward from Palmer is a 3-mile climb getting as steep as 0.4%. A freight stopped at the home boards awaiting a CV train crossing would use sand there to get going again.
 #1451459  by BR&P
 
That makes sense. I actually worked into Palmer, but up the Ware line not the B&A main . As I recall it WAS downhill from the yard to where our line swung north just before the diamond but didn't know the grade extended that far east.
 #1451468  by Backshophoss
 
RDG had added "exciters" to their RDC's to insure there was a shunted signal along with the use of "rubbing blocks" to keep
the wheel "tread" clean ,to also insure a shunted signal.
Wonder why NYC never looked into those options to make sure a signal shunted behind a single RDC?
Even a pair of RDC's got positive block in front of and behind as well.
 #1451470  by Statkowski
 
Here's a Main Line track chart running from Rensselaer, N.Y. to Boston, Mass. showing uphill and downhill. It's a mixed bag running from Springfield to Palmer, ending up with a downhill 1.5-mile run of 0.60% grade into Palmer.

Here's the track chart (http://www.zekedev.com/sites/boston_line/trackchart.cfm). I'd love to see a track chart for the Beech Creek District's Cambria County Railroad (accessible only via the PRR and within 20 miles of the PRR's world-famous Horseshoe Curve).
 #1451534  by edbear
 
It was a raining that day. The plan was the RDC run was to be terminated at Palmer and passengers put on #78. #78 pulled up behind the stalled RDC a couple of times before the collision when the engines conked out. When #78 struck the RDC, passengers were standing or on the steps exiting.
 #1451535  by BR&P
 
edbear wrote:It was a raining that day. The plan was the RDC run was to be terminated at Palmer and passengers put on #78. #78 pulled up behind the stalled RDC a couple of times before the collision when the engines conked out. When #78 struck the RDC, passengers were standing or on the steps exiting.
I'm not sure I buy that. If the RDC was standing at the station, and the passengers were to be put on #78 at that location, why was #78 going 30MPH (presumably after being placed in emergency) when they hit? From the OP, it sounds like #78 was intent on highballing Palmer until they saw the RDC.

EDIT - after looking up the ICC report, I'm guessing that if things had gone as intended #78 would have been stopped by signal or flagging to put the RDC's passengers aboard. Apparently at the time of the wreck, and due to the false signal indication, #78's crew was unaware of the intent to stop them at Palmer and normally would have gone right through.
 #1451556  by edbear
 
That is correct. The signal at the diamond showed a proceed indication. I have the accident report.
 #1461052  by Engineer Spike
 
I too am surprised that they dropped the absolute block requirement. I was once on a light engine, and we were coming up to a block signal. Our signals are approach lit. It kept going on and off. I called the dispatcher and told him about it, and he said the occupancy light was going on and off on his CTC board. We have a rule about absolute blocks for movements with 12 or less axles.