1/21/47 - OAKLAND, MD

PASSENGER X7625 WEST (18 HEAD-END CARS + 1 RIDER COACH) proceeding from Cumberland toward Grafton at about 40mph derailed the locomotive, tender, and head 7 cars on an 8@ curve. The engine overturned to the right and the cars remained upright. Engineer was killed and the fireman was injured.

Speed was within the maximum for the location, and there was no dragging equipment on the locomotive. Track was found to be faulty in gauge, alignment, and superelevation.

Query: how often were the 7600's used on passenger or M&E trains?

Not often. Here is my speculation based on location and how B&O operated at this particular time: It's quite probable that there was no smaller locomotive available at the time when such a timed train as this needed to get and keep moving, so the EM-1 likely was the only one available. A quick perusal of the ICC accident report I have gives no origin or ultimate destination of the M&E train in question. My guess is that the urgency of the M&E train movement was too critical to allow enough time for replenishment of the original train's tender's coal and water (likely smaller original equipment coupled at origin), so the EM-1 was coupled (most probably at Keyser, WV, the eastern base of the EM-1's on the West End) to continue the move up Seventeen Mile Grade, on to Grafton, WV, where if the train hadn't derailed, another smaller locomotive would have continued moving the M&E train on westward, likely to St. Louis or Cincinnati.

Thanks, Wade:

Did any or all of the 7600's have steam and communication signal lines for use on passenger trains?

shlustig wrote:Did any or all of the 7600's have steam and communication signal lines for use on passenger trains?

My only book source dedicated solely to the EM-1 (Tom Dixon's softbound book that's chock full of photos, but a little limited on narrative), makes mention of those locomotives being used in the service that prompted you to ask about this in the first place, but does say that after the accident you asked about, M&E service using those locomotives was discontinued. Also, there was no mention of their being equipped with steam and communication signal lines, and I haven't seen mention elsewhere where they were so-equipped. So my thinking is no, they were not equipped with those appurtenances, being as the EM-1's were not built or intended for such use.

Wade, Thank you for the additional information.

hutton_switch wrote:Not often. Here is my speculation based on location and how B&O operated at this particular time: It's quite probable that there was no smaller locomotive available at the time when such a timed train as this needed to get and keep moving, so the EM-1 likely was the only one available. A quick perusal of the ICC accident report I have gives no origin or ultimate destination of the M&E train in question. My guess is that the urgency of the M&E train movement was too critical to allow enough time for replenishment of the original train's tender's coal and water (likely smaller original equipment coupled at origin), so the EM-1 was coupled (most probably at Keyser, WV, the eastern base of the EM-1's on the West End) to continue the move up Seventeen Mile Grade, on to Grafton, WV, where if the train hadn't derailed, another smaller locomotive would have continued moving the M&E train on westward, likely to St. Louis or Cincinnati.

I suspect at a train size of 19 cars, if the EM-1 wasn't used for the assignment the train would have had to be double headed over the territory with two locomotives and two locomotive crews.
'

mmi16 wrote:I suspect at a train size of 19 cars, if the EM-1 wasn't used for the assignment the train would have had to be double headed over the territory with two locomotives and two locomotive crews.

Logical assumption. M&E trains on the B&O were always high priority, particularly coming out of Washington, DC, and a major source of income for the B&O. In normal situations, such trains were quite likely pulled by a single 4-6-2 Pacific up until Keyser, with two similar replacements with fresh crews and filled tenders added at Keyser to continue the fast journey westward over the mountain grades. All this, provided that the locomotives and crews were available. This situation with the EM-1 was unusual.

hutton_switch wrote:

mmi16 wrote:I suspect at a train size of 19 cars, if the EM-1 wasn't used for the assignment the train would have had to be double headed over the territory with two locomotives and two locomotive crews.

Logical assumption. M&E trains on the B&O were always high priority, particularly coming out of Washington, DC, and a major source of income for the B&O. In normal situations, such trains were quite likely pulled by a single 4-6-2 Pacific up until Keyser, with two similar replacements with fresh crews and filled tenders added at Keyser to continue the fast journey westward over the mountain grades. All this, provided that the locomotives and crews were available. This situation with the EM-1 was unusual.

With at train of that size I would expect one of the Mountain T Class engines would have handled the train from DC to Keyser to attach a helper to get to Grafton.

mmi16 wrote:

hutton_switch wrote:

mmi16 wrote:I suspect at a train size of 19 cars, if the EM-1 wasn't used for the assignment the train would have had to be double headed over the territory with two locomotives and two locomotive crews.

Logical assumption. M&E trains on the B&O were always high priority, particularly coming out of Washington, DC, and a major source of income for the B&O. In normal situations, such trains were quite likely pulled by a single 4-6-2 Pacific up until Keyser, with two similar replacements with fresh crews and filled tenders added at Keyser to continue the fast journey westward over the mountain grades. All this, provided that the locomotives and crews were available. This situation with the EM-1 was unusual.

With at train of that size I would expect one of the Mountain T Class engines would have handled the train from DC to Keyser to attach a helper to get to Grafton.

Yes, provided that one had been available. That probably was not the case at the time with the urgency of keeping this M&E train on schedule to its destination.

hutton_switch wrote:

shlustig wrote:Did any or all of the 7600's have steam and communication signal lines for use on passenger trains?

... there was no mention of their being equipped with steam and communication signal lines, and I haven't seen mention elsewhere where they were so-equipped. So my thinking is no, they were not equipped with those appurtenances, being as the EM-1's were not built or intended for such use.

Quick question: Since it was January, and you think that steam lines were not available, how would they heat the cars?

D Alex wrote:

hutton_switch wrote:

shlustig wrote:Did any or all of the 7600's have steam and communication signal lines for use on passenger trains?

... there was no mention of their being equipped with steam and communication signal lines, and I haven't seen mention elsewhere where they were so-equipped. So my thinking is no, they were not equipped with those appurtenances, being as the EM-1's were not built or intended for such use.

Quick question: Since it was January, and you think that steam lines were not available, how would they heat the cars?

This was an M&E (Mail & Express [freight]) train. No passengers, so no need to heat any cars. I figure that the "mail" portion was already pre-sorted mail at origin (likely Washington, DC), in bags/pouches (no RPO car), though I could be wrong.

hutton_switch wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:41 pm This was an M&E (Mail & Express [freight]) train. No passengers, so no need to heat any cars. I figure that the "mail" portion was already pre-sorted mail at origin (likely Washington, DC), in bags/pouches (no RPO car), though I could be wrong.

B&O Mail & Express trains normally carried a 'rider coach' as the rear car for the Conductor and Flagman. I have never seen or heard of a B&O M&E train being operated with a caboose and I am not aware of any coaches at the period in time of this accident being equipped with a coal fired 'caboose stove' for heating purposes.