[PRCo] Re: #1727 Accident

[James B. Holland]

John Swindler wrote:

>Yes, different circumstances at low speeds, but same results at high speeds. 
>  In the earlier case, the operator's actions seem to have caused the 
>accident.  In the 1987 case, the operators inaction seem to have caused the 
>accident.
>

             My point in mentioning this is that the 1917 run-away was 
already past where the derail was installed so had the derail been in 
place, it would not have been of benefit.

             Disagree with the Inaction part  --  Accidents happen  --  
by very definition,  '''an event occurring by chance or from unknown 
causes  b: lack of intention or necessity...'''  it is something outside 
the control of certain individuals, that certain individual being the 
operator in this case.

             It has already been mentioned that the car had new lathe 
turned wheels which leave minute scores around the circumference of the 
tire which then makes the wheels extremely slippery on any rail, 
especially wet / frosty / black ice T-Rail.     The operator was 
notified of same for caution.     With 6-months experience on rails, 
what would  YOU  think when the car slid past stops?     FORGET  your 
railfan past and what you know about TrolleyCars.

             I think back to my early SF-Muni PCC days and it is a Gross 
Under-Statement that the PCCs here suffered from Criminal Neglect  --  
twould not be difficult at all to put together such a case  --  OFTEN  
watched cars pull in with braking problems, shop men climb inside and 
ring passengers bell, operators bell, And Then Send The Cars Right Back 
Out so they could say that all runs were out on the road  --  this was 
a  ROUTINE  which  MANY  operators witnessed.     Had severe braking 
problems with 1113 which resulted in an accident and that Is Exactly 
What They Did for Months even though I tracked the car, got signed 
statements from both operators and passengers that the car lost brakes 
multiples of times  --  1113 went in with bad brakes and was immediately 
sent back out  WITHOUT  brakes being checked in any fashion.     It was 
several months later that the car was finally mothballed for repair and 
that took several months to complete.     BUT  I digress.     Other 
operators thought I had pretty good knowledge when problems developed 
and that I handled situations reasonably well, but without my railfan 
knowledge, I could have been in right serious trouble on this 
God-Forsaken Property.

             Back to 1727  --  After--the--Fact, it was determined that 
the motor leads were not properly secured, that these motor leads were 
dragging and chafed, that these same motor leads then shorted out and 
probably wiped out any dynamics so the car was stopping with drums / 
track brakes.     What is interesting is that on open T-Rail, those 
motor leads were doing some Very excessive Dragging to reach ties and 
ballast and this in the face of a tray that joins the two track brakes 
each truck which should have caught the wires before they hit the 
ground.     And Strange that the wires could chafe and wear thru so 
easily  --  these are not light wires.     So wires were exerting some 
extreme pressure on the ground or whatever they were rubbing against to 
be able to chafe so severely.     And maybe, if only wheels were 
changed, the motors themselves were due for overhaul and wires were old 
and worn to begin with and this truck should Not have been installed on 
any equipment.

             The operator should have  *probably*  recognized that the 
stopping problems were extremely excessive and that even new tires 
should not have caused such severe problems in braking  --  some 
problems, obviously thus the warning he received  --  but not such 
severe problems.     But with his attention focused on operating the car 
he probably wasn't thinking beyond that.

             And if one set of motors are wiped out, that means that 
only one truck was powering and moving the car as well.     Interesting, 
because I was under the impression that some SF-Muni PCCs had one motor 
on each truck wired in series, not both motors same truck.     More 
complicated to do but it would have totally killed the car making it 
impossible to move if motor leads on one truck went out.

             While Fred pointed out that track brakes equal service 
dynamics, I doubted that this would help at speed and Boris confirmed 
the same.

             The Bottom Line is that The Lowest Common // Uncommon 
Denominator always receives the Bulk Of The Blame  --  the operator // 
driver.     I-F the operator has any share in the blame of the accident 
of 1727 it is that the sliding // spinning // stopping // poor 
acceleration experienced was Extremely Excessive for the purported 
cause  --  newly lathed wheels.     BUT  his actions to help his 
passengers by telling them to move to the rear of the car, even carrying 
one woman who was frozen with fear and unable to move from the front of 
the car to the rear, highlights his attentiveness and emphasizes that 
this technical aspect of the problem was beyond his understanding // 
knowledge etc.

>I have the news clippings from the circa 1917 accident, but wasn't there an 
>earlier tunnel run-away?
>

             Very vague memory of this being mentioned.

             ALL  THIS  ABOUT  1727  HAS  BEEN  HASHED  OUT  RIGHT  
HERE  BEFORE  --  kind of amazing (to me) the short memories.

>Jim, you mentioned couple years ago that you had a map that indicated a 
>number of derails on PRC.  Wonder if this was to make the operator make a 
>safety stop before entering a severe downgrade??  Or were the derails part 
>way down the hill??
>

             There were 2 or 3 derails on Airlington on the 49-line so 
this was on the downgrade!     One on Itin  --  Bob Rathke can tell us 
precise location  --  believe it was on the grade as well.

>From the Pittsburgh Dispatch, the number of run-away cars circa 1902-1905 
>was rather gruesome.  Quickly explains steel cars and air brakes.  And 
>perhaps also derails.
>

             Interesting that  ALL  derails except Itin and 2 at SHJ 
were removed by the time All PCC operation commenced!     So Not Only  
({[pat]})  is guilty of removing derails.

Jim Holland


>>From: "James B. Holland" <PRCoPCC at P-R-Co.com>
>>Reply-To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>>Subject: [PRCo] Re: #1727 Accident
>>Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:34:59 -0700
>>
>>John Swindler wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Guess we don't want to mention the removal of the necessary action safety
>>>switches at the south end of the tunnel.  Installed by Pittsburgh 
>>>      
>>>
>>Railways
>>    
>>
>>>after previous 'rocket sled' experience on 6% tunnel downgrade circa 
>>>      
>>>
>>1917.
>>    
>>
>>>(low floor car on rt. 48 (?))
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>             Far different circumstances  --  wasn't the low-floor
>>already into the tunnel, trolley dewired, jam packed car, motorman angry
>>because he had to get out to replace trolley when this is the
>>conductor's job but conductor jammed into crowd and unable to move.
>>So motorman gets back in and takes out his anger on the controls and
>>winds it up.
>>