 |
Re: 1962 North Coast Limited Wreck At Granite Lake, ID
Author: Bill Kuebler
Date: 03-04-2011 - 16:58
"Butler" has invited me to take a look at this discussion thread and possibly offer a word or two. As a serious NP historian, I feel it my duty to set the record straight on some important matters here.
I'm the author of the "Vista-Dome North Coast Limited" book mentioned by George Andrews. The book was published in 2004. My investigation into and study of the Granite accident began in 1969 and continued more or less unabated for over 40 years. It continued, in fact, until a little over one year ago. It was at that point--late 2009--when I reached a "final conclusion" for the first time in my life and was able to answer all "open" questions to my own satisfaction--with compelling evidence to suport my conclusions. Until then, it was a matter of conjecture, educated guessowork, assembling countless pieces of a huge "puzzle" by sifting through thousands of facts--and always those nasty loose ends dangling in the breeze. But I'm happy to report there are no more loose ends, now. This is the first time I've been able to say that since I began looking into this in 1969.
So I can now "update" the necessarily incomplete account of this accident I gave in the 2004 book. There's WAY too much to talk about in a forum like this--my fingers would tire from typing and I lack the time anyway. So I'll summarize here by merely addressing most of the points raised in this thread thus far, and maybe adding a few more. But believe me, I'm leaving a LOT out. It's a big story.
1. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) most definitely DID investigate and report on this accident. The report was published, and I've had a copy of the ICC report on the Granite derailment since 1968.
2. There most definitely still are parts of the locomotive units in the lake at Granite. To begin with, all three diesel units left their forward trucks--three trucks total--in the lake. The three trucks were all flung off their respective units during the impact of each unit with the "shelf" of land at water's edge. These three trucks were never found. They are still in the lake. For that matter, there were small parts of equipment still ON THE GROUND at Granite as late as 1974, long after the new line opened in September 1965, and even longer after the March 1962 accident. There were not many such parts, but there were some. I personally found part of a brake disc from the water-baggage car (no. 402) when I visited the site in July 1974. I have that part in my garage now. I also found part of the numeral "5" from one of the number boxes from lead unit 6508A.
3. What some members of this list seem not to realize is that the floor of Granite lake is very soft and mucky. The lost trucks are well below the floor of the lake, way out of sight (even if divers went down to look, and are probably many dozens of feet below the floor of the lake.
4. Only the first two of the three diesel units went into the lake. The lead unit, 6508A, went in upside down. It was inverted when finally recovered, too. The middle unit, 6512C, went in rightside up. Both the first and second units went into the lake with such momentum that they sunk THROUGH the floor of the lake and were completely embedded BELOW the lake bed by several feet. When divers first went to look, they saw nothing. The third unit, 6700C, made it only as far as the shelf right next to the water, where it lay in a twisted heap. It did not go into the water.
5. All three units--most of them, that is (see my comments above about trucks)--were recovered.
6. The electro-pneumatic brake system on this train had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. In fact, the system had been disconnected before the train left Paradise, probably back at Livingston.
7. This accident was NOT caused by a broken rail. That was positively ruled out by the ICC. Nor was this accident caused by any other type of defect in the track. The track was in tip-top shape throughout the accident area. In fact, the north rail had been laid new in August 1961, and the south (inside-the-curve) rail was re-laid in 1954. This was excellent track and excellently maintained.
8. This accident WAS caused by excessive speed on the curve. They entered curve #25, an eight-degree left-hand curve, at 75-80 MPH. This speed was determined by engineering calculations based on marks on the rails, on the ground, calculated over-turning speeds for those units on that curve, etc., using the exact known weights and centers-of-gravity of the three diesel units with the fuel load that was known to exist at the time of the derailment. I've run through many such calculations myself, and everything is consistent with a high-speed over-turn scenario. Over-turning speed for those three units at the time of the derailment was 69 MPH, so those who think that over-speed was not the physical cause of this accident are standing against the laws of physics.
9. The train's brakes were functional, but were NOT applied as the train entered the curve.
10. No equipment malfunction caused or contributed to the cause of this accident.
11. The NP neither lied about this accident, nor did it cover anything up regarding what the ICC found and what the physical evidence showed. It is also the case that the NP did not make public all that officials knew about it, of course, but this is to be expected and is not an issue.
12. Alcohol was NOT involved in this accident. There was no Rule G violation whatsoever among any of the employees operating that train.
13. The fireman WAS running the engine at the time of the accident.
14. The fact that the fireman was running the engine is not an issue. There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever about this. Those who say that this is "odd" or in any way suspect have no idea what they are talking about.
15. The fireman was a qualified engineer. He was first promoted from fireman to engineer on December 21, 1950. The engineer assigned to this trip had every right to allow his fireman to run the engine at any time and for any distance. Even so, the assigned engineer retained at all times during the run full responsibility for the operation of the locomotive. This, too, is standard knowledge among Railway personnel.
16. It was common among railroad crews of that time (and before and since then) for the engineer to allow his fireman to run the engine for part of a trip. Not all engineers did this, but at least two-thirds of them did. They would even do this if the fireman were NOT qualified yet as an engineer. This was how enginemen in those years learned their trade. They didn't have simulators like they do today. They learned by watching and then doing--OJT. A fireman running the engine, even on a passenger train, was a routine matter in those years. It happened daily on all NP trains.
17. In the aftermath of the Granite accident, enginmen--especially at Parkwater--tended to blame the equipment as the cause (usually the electro-pneumatic brake system, which, as I said above, was not even in use west of Paradise), and NP officials tended to blame the crew. This is common on railroads (and in today's airlines). Crews blame anyone or anything but fellow crews, and management blames the crews (lest management take any blame). This is human nature, which hasn't changed much in about 6,000 years. In this case, both sides were wrong in whom or what they blamed--but only because the "blame" merely INCLUDED the crew and extended beyond them to supervisors and officials. In effect, the entire NP culture of that time could be "blamed" as well as the engine crew involved. I do not wish to elaborate on this here, as I do not yet know this audience.
18. In light of #17 above, however, the NP also rose to the occasion and "fixed" what was "broken" in their culture as it pertained to this accident. Never again did an accident of this nature occur on the NP after March 1962. The one at Evaro in June 1962 was of a completely different nature, as to its cause.
19. The Granite accident was most likely not caused by fatige. All known facts relating to circadian rythms of the engine crew involved are consistent with the conclusion that they were NOT experiencing a "circadian low" at the time of the accident, nor at any other time during their trip from Paradise. If anything, they should have been in a circadian "high" and quite alert, as far as fatigue is concerned.
There is a lot of mis-information, therefore, floating around out there on the Granite accident. I can assure you that whatever info you have that is conflict with any of the above is simply wrong and probably originates from those who do not know, did not investigate, and are simply unaware of facts.
If anyone on this list happens to live in the Seattle area, be at the White River Valley Museum in Auburn tomorrow (Saturday, March 5, 2011) at 1 pm. There will be two presentations there on accidents. I'll be giving my Granite presentation--the same one I gave in Spokane last July. If you attend this, you'll hear the FULL story, illustrated with photos, diagrams, etc.
Bill Kuebler
I'm the author of the "Vista-Dome North Coast Limited" book mentioned by George Andrews. The book was published in 2004. My investigation into and study of the Granite accident began in 1969 and continued more or less unabated for over 40 years. It continued, in fact, until a little over one year ago. It was at that point--late 2009--when I reached a "final conclusion" for the first time in my life and was able to answer all "open" questions to my own satisfaction--with compelling evidence to suport my conclusions. Until then, it was a matter of conjecture, educated guessowork, assembling countless pieces of a huge "puzzle" by sifting through thousands of facts--and always those nasty loose ends dangling in the breeze. But I'm happy to report there are no more loose ends, now. This is the first time I've been able to say that since I began looking into this in 1969.
So I can now "update" the necessarily incomplete account of this accident I gave in the 2004 book. There's WAY too much to talk about in a forum like this--my fingers would tire from typing and I lack the time anyway. So I'll summarize here by merely addressing most of the points raised in this thread thus far, and maybe adding a few more. But believe me, I'm leaving a LOT out. It's a big story.
1. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) most definitely DID investigate and report on this accident. The report was published, and I've had a copy of the ICC report on the Granite derailment since 1968.
2. There most definitely still are parts of the locomotive units in the lake at Granite. To begin with, all three diesel units left their forward trucks--three trucks total--in the lake. The three trucks were all flung off their respective units during the impact of each unit with the "shelf" of land at water's edge. These three trucks were never found. They are still in the lake. For that matter, there were small parts of equipment still ON THE GROUND at Granite as late as 1974, long after the new line opened in September 1965, and even longer after the March 1962 accident. There were not many such parts, but there were some. I personally found part of a brake disc from the water-baggage car (no. 402) when I visited the site in July 1974. I have that part in my garage now. I also found part of the numeral "5" from one of the number boxes from lead unit 6508A.
3. What some members of this list seem not to realize is that the floor of Granite lake is very soft and mucky. The lost trucks are well below the floor of the lake, way out of sight (even if divers went down to look, and are probably many dozens of feet below the floor of the lake.
4. Only the first two of the three diesel units went into the lake. The lead unit, 6508A, went in upside down. It was inverted when finally recovered, too. The middle unit, 6512C, went in rightside up. Both the first and second units went into the lake with such momentum that they sunk THROUGH the floor of the lake and were completely embedded BELOW the lake bed by several feet. When divers first went to look, they saw nothing. The third unit, 6700C, made it only as far as the shelf right next to the water, where it lay in a twisted heap. It did not go into the water.
5. All three units--most of them, that is (see my comments above about trucks)--were recovered.
6. The electro-pneumatic brake system on this train had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. In fact, the system had been disconnected before the train left Paradise, probably back at Livingston.
7. This accident was NOT caused by a broken rail. That was positively ruled out by the ICC. Nor was this accident caused by any other type of defect in the track. The track was in tip-top shape throughout the accident area. In fact, the north rail had been laid new in August 1961, and the south (inside-the-curve) rail was re-laid in 1954. This was excellent track and excellently maintained.
8. This accident WAS caused by excessive speed on the curve. They entered curve #25, an eight-degree left-hand curve, at 75-80 MPH. This speed was determined by engineering calculations based on marks on the rails, on the ground, calculated over-turning speeds for those units on that curve, etc., using the exact known weights and centers-of-gravity of the three diesel units with the fuel load that was known to exist at the time of the derailment. I've run through many such calculations myself, and everything is consistent with a high-speed over-turn scenario. Over-turning speed for those three units at the time of the derailment was 69 MPH, so those who think that over-speed was not the physical cause of this accident are standing against the laws of physics.
9. The train's brakes were functional, but were NOT applied as the train entered the curve.
10. No equipment malfunction caused or contributed to the cause of this accident.
11. The NP neither lied about this accident, nor did it cover anything up regarding what the ICC found and what the physical evidence showed. It is also the case that the NP did not make public all that officials knew about it, of course, but this is to be expected and is not an issue.
12. Alcohol was NOT involved in this accident. There was no Rule G violation whatsoever among any of the employees operating that train.
13. The fireman WAS running the engine at the time of the accident.
14. The fact that the fireman was running the engine is not an issue. There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever about this. Those who say that this is "odd" or in any way suspect have no idea what they are talking about.
15. The fireman was a qualified engineer. He was first promoted from fireman to engineer on December 21, 1950. The engineer assigned to this trip had every right to allow his fireman to run the engine at any time and for any distance. Even so, the assigned engineer retained at all times during the run full responsibility for the operation of the locomotive. This, too, is standard knowledge among Railway personnel.
16. It was common among railroad crews of that time (and before and since then) for the engineer to allow his fireman to run the engine for part of a trip. Not all engineers did this, but at least two-thirds of them did. They would even do this if the fireman were NOT qualified yet as an engineer. This was how enginemen in those years learned their trade. They didn't have simulators like they do today. They learned by watching and then doing--OJT. A fireman running the engine, even on a passenger train, was a routine matter in those years. It happened daily on all NP trains.
17. In the aftermath of the Granite accident, enginmen--especially at Parkwater--tended to blame the equipment as the cause (usually the electro-pneumatic brake system, which, as I said above, was not even in use west of Paradise), and NP officials tended to blame the crew. This is common on railroads (and in today's airlines). Crews blame anyone or anything but fellow crews, and management blames the crews (lest management take any blame). This is human nature, which hasn't changed much in about 6,000 years. In this case, both sides were wrong in whom or what they blamed--but only because the "blame" merely INCLUDED the crew and extended beyond them to supervisors and officials. In effect, the entire NP culture of that time could be "blamed" as well as the engine crew involved. I do not wish to elaborate on this here, as I do not yet know this audience.
18. In light of #17 above, however, the NP also rose to the occasion and "fixed" what was "broken" in their culture as it pertained to this accident. Never again did an accident of this nature occur on the NP after March 1962. The one at Evaro in June 1962 was of a completely different nature, as to its cause.
19. The Granite accident was most likely not caused by fatige. All known facts relating to circadian rythms of the engine crew involved are consistent with the conclusion that they were NOT experiencing a "circadian low" at the time of the accident, nor at any other time during their trip from Paradise. If anything, they should have been in a circadian "high" and quite alert, as far as fatigue is concerned.
There is a lot of mis-information, therefore, floating around out there on the Granite accident. I can assure you that whatever info you have that is conflict with any of the above is simply wrong and probably originates from those who do not know, did not investigate, and are simply unaware of facts.
If anyone on this list happens to live in the Seattle area, be at the White River Valley Museum in Auburn tomorrow (Saturday, March 5, 2011) at 1 pm. There will be two presentations there on accidents. I'll be giving my Granite presentation--the same one I gave in Spokane last July. If you attend this, you'll hear the FULL story, illustrated with photos, diagrams, etc.
Bill Kuebler
