Steam & Excursion > When One Crew Forgets Their Orders This Is Often The Result!

Southern Pacific's Daylight locomotives and trains were some of the safest passenger trains ever to run in the United States.  Their crews were among the very best on the SP system with years of experience behind them.  However, even these trains fell victim to human error on a few occasions.

One such fateful day on the SP was February 11, 1945.  The war was winding down and servicemen filled many of the Daylight trains.  Daylight engine #4443 was on the head end of the CALIFORNIAN on her daily run.  #4443 and her crew had just completed a stop at Redlands, California.  They were departing the station at 15 mph when suddenly from around a curve came SP #5015 and her freight at track speed.  The weather was clear and sunny so both crews had only moments to brace for impact.  This was the horrific result.

The subsequent investigation revealed that the engineer on #4443 had overlooked that they had passed a yellow signal which required him to stop at the next signal to allow  #5015 to take the siding just a short distance out from the Redlands depot.  The 2 engines collided and came to rest on the very switch points of the siding that #5015 was supposed to take.

Fortunately, no one was killed in the crash, however, 157 passengers were injured.  Most of those were servicemen.

Here is the official accident report:

http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+2932)


While accidents on Daylight powered trains were rare, they did occur.

Martin



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/16 08:53 by LoggerHogger.

---

If I'm reading this right, the engineer of the 4443 missed the indication on the East switch, as well as forgetting or disregarding the clear to stop indication they came
into the station on. They hit head on at the west switch before the 4-10-2 had a chance to clear the main track..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/16 12:04 by Finderskeepers.

Here is the official addident report:

http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+2932)

About 20 minutes before the accident occurred, the dispatcher at Beaumont placed the levers of the centralized-traffic-control machine in position for signal 126LA to display stop for No. 43, and for signal 126R to display proceed-on-diverging-route for Extra 5015 East, and lined the route for Extra 5015 East to enter the siding at the west switch at Redlands to meet No. 43.

As Extra 5015 East was approaching the west siding-switch the enginemen of the first engine were maintaining a lookout ahead. They observed that signal 126R displayed red-over-green, and that the west switch was lined for entry to the siding. The first these employees knew of anything being wrong was when the fireman saw the engine of No. 43 pass the clearance point of the west siding-switch. He called a warning to the engineer, who immediately moved the brake valve to emergency position, but the collision occurred before the brakes became effective.

As No. 43 was approaching the point where the accident occurred the speed was 30 miles per hour, according to the tape of the speed recorder. The air brakes had functioned properly at all points where used en route. The enginemen understood that, under the rules, the yellow aspect displayed by signal 128L required their train to proceed prepared to stop short of signal 126LA, and the red aspect displayed by signal 126LA required the train to stop short of that signal and not to proceed until an indication permitting the train to proceed was displayed or proper authority from the train dispatcher had been received. Because of track curvature the view of signal 126LA from the left side of a west-bound engine was materially restricted. This signal could be seen from the right side of a west-bound engine throughout a distance of about 1,800 feet immediately east of the signal. The engineer of No. 43 said that soon after the train departed from the station at Redlands he looked eastward and thought he Saw smoke in the vicinity of the third or fourth car, which indicated to him that the brakes of these cars had not released, and he made several attempts to release the brakes. He did not see the aspect displayed by signal 126LA until the engine was about 300 feet east of the signal, then he observed, simultaneously, the red aspect displayed by this signal and the approaching train, and he immediately moved the brake valve to emergency position in an unsuccessful attempt to stop short of the signal. However, the train was not stopped and the speed was about 20 miles per hour when the collision occurred. If No. 43 had been operated in accordance with the indications displayed by the signals involved, the accident would not have occurred.

#4443 missed her yellow signal and should have been prepared to stop at her next signal   It was #4443's fault. 

Martin



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/16 08:52 by LoggerHogger.

According to the description in the book, "Three Barrels of Steam", this happened in CTC territory. The passenger train arrived at the station, running on a YELLOW signal indication. After the station stop, during which time the Engineer was "distracted", and when receiving the high-ball from the Conductor, the Engineer of the passenger train, "marched right out of town!". The oncoming freight had the signal to take the siding, and the signal at the siding displayed RED for the passenger train. By the time the Engineer of the passenger train saw the RED signal, it was too lat for him to stop and he ran head-on into the big three cylinder 4-10-2 on the freight train.

This explanation makes sense, given the photo.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the description in the book, "Three
> Barrels of Steam", this happened in CTC territory.
> The passenger train arrived at the station,
> running on a YELLOW signal indication. After the
> station stop, during which time the Engineer was
> "distracted", and when receiving the high-ball
> from the Conductor, the Engineer of the passenger
> train, "marched right out of town!". The oncoming
> freight had the signal to take the siding, and the
> signal at the siding displayed RED for the
> passenger train. By the time the Engineer of the
> passenger train saw the RED signal, it was too lat
> for him to stop and he ran head-on into the big
> three cylinder 4-10-2 on the freight train.

Fast forward to Metrolink in Chatsworth in 2006: Passenger engineer enters station on a yellow, gets distracted, departs into a red signal that is protecting against an eastbound freight.

Oh, more questions. Was there ever a "station" at Redlands, at least on the Sunset main?

Out

This is why we have the "Delayed in Block" rule today.

like the MARC cap ltd wreck

The fireman on the 5015 was a guy named Joslyn, I forget his first name.  He was still working when I hired out on the SP.  He still walked with a limp from injuries sustained in the collision. Worked with him several times on locals around City of Industry. His engineer was Emmitt Bonner, and the hoghead oon 43 was a guy named Toats.  I understand Toats was making his last trip before retirement

Brian Black
Castle Rock, CO

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, more questions. Was there ever a "station" at
> Redlands, at least on the Sunset main?
>
> Out

​Yes. There is a 1892 photo in Signor's "Beaumont Hill" but I have nagging doubts that that depot is the same one that was in use in 1945.
This link, if you can get it to work, has a diagram of the accident site which shows the depot, or an icon of the depot, to be .74 miles east of the point of collision.

​http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=(select+2932)

Charlie


 

Thanks Charlie, link doesn't work but think I might know the spot where it could have been. I sure don't
remember one in the mid fifties but whatever.

Out

tehachcond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fireman on the 5015 was a guy named Joslyn, I
> forget his first name.  He was still working when
> I hired out on the SP.  He still walked with a
> limp from injuries sustained in the collision.
> Worked with him several times on locals around
> City of Industry. His engineer was Emmitt Bonner,
> and the hoghead oon 43 was a guy named Toats.  I
> understand Toats was making his last trip before
> retirement

​Willard was Josyln's first name. I remember his name and his face. I might have even worked with him in 1964 but don't have my time books for that year.
​What another great opportunity lost! 

​TO subscriber 'MMD'  posted on 6-23-16 that Josyln was fireman on 5015 and Jack Fassett was firing the passenger. I never worked with Fassett but he is shown
​on the January 1977 roster whereas Joslyn was missing on my July, 1972 roster.

​Another, but off topic, observation. Jack Fassett went firing on 5-20-41. His engineers date was 7-5-46, 5yrs plus a month or so later. Willard Josyln went
​firing on 12-02-42, 17 months after Jack but Willard wasn't promoted until 5-10-56 almost 10 years after Jack. The war effort which saw so many men hired and
​quickly promoted to engineers position was over; the nation was returning to a so-called peace time economy. The late Walt Thrall wrote of this situation
​and its leading him to resign from the UP after a heady, but short lived career on the 'high iron'. Just an observation.

Charlie
>

Beginning on page 76 and ending on page 83, in James E. Boynton's book "THREE BARRELS OF STEAM", is the full story, with many photos by W. Beverly Molony, plus a nice drawing of the track layout, where this whole mess occurred. It gives the names of both Engineers and Firemen. 

Looks like it made a grizzly mess of the Gresley!

Wesley.

Its always very important when you stop to remember what you "came in on".  If you change engineer there you should tell the new engineer what you came in on. I can sort of see how the engineer could have gotten a bit distrtacted at the station stop.  But you need to remember things like that.  He could have left the station at restricted speed until he had eyes on the next signal.  He could have stopped short of the red board.

> > ... Was there ever a "station" at Redlands, at least on the Sunset main?

> ​Yes. There is a 1892 photo in Signor's "Beaumont Hill" but I have nagging doubts that that depot is the same one that was in use in 1945.

The 1892 Redlands depot (opened in July 1892) was on the Redlands Branch and was torn down in 1898, replaced on the branch by a new passenger depot.  A passenger depot on the main line was apparently built in 1924 at the location formerly known as Brookside, which was renamed Redlands.  At the same time, the branchline Redlands was renamed "Redlands, 2nd Street."
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/16 14:28 by johnsweetser.

callum_out Wrote:

> Oh, more questions. Was there ever a "station" at
> Redlands, at least on the Sunset main?

The 1950 photo here shows it boarded up:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3873923

cewherry wrote:

> ​There is a 1892 photo in Signor's "Beaumont Hill" but I have nagging doubts that that depot is the same one that was in use in 1945.

The caption for that photo on pg. 24 of "Beaumont Hill" was sort of misleading; that photo was not taken in 1892.  Shown is the Redlands Branch depot that was built in 1898.  The photo was definitely taken after 1901 (as evidenced by the double train order semaphores).  Most likely, it was taken in the early 1910s.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/16 16:34 by johnsweetser.

Thanks, John for the clarification(s).

When I re-read Signors comments and saw the photo of the 1924 version, which I overlooked in my haste to respond to Rick, it became clear why I was dubious about the
1892 model. BTW there is another
photo of the depot among the John Barringer collection available for viewing on Flickr. I tried to download it but apparently that is a no no.

Charlie

Posted from iPhone