|
|
| Re: IND accident of 1936 (1194842) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1195327) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Dec 30 16:23:44 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 30 16:16:59 2012. he was playing with the toys. |
|
|
| (1195342) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Dec 30 16:42:36 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by SLRT on Sun Dec 30 13:53:50 2012. Yes. I am theorizing (guessing). One would have to apply Newton's Second (F=m*a) and/or Third laws (F1 = F2 * -1) of motion to really prove this.wayne |
|
|
| (1195378) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Sun Dec 30 18:27:32 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Dec 29 22:26:39 2012. I think you are wrong there Wayne. Nobody ever tested the anticlimber technologies to over 40 MPH except for those of us careless train operators. High speed collisions like the one last year in D.C. or Layton Gibson need to be eliminated. The Jerome Avenue Derailment was fatal to one R62 that was bent into a "V" but well enough under 30 MPH so the anticlimbers stayed locked together enough to prevent frame jumping. Has the DOT test facilities ever conducted testing of rapid transit cars the way they have crashed locomotives into M1s? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1195392) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 DOT Crash Test Video. |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Dec 30 18:54:17 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by BLE-NIMX on Sun Dec 30 18:27:32 2012. I know that the DOT crashed some Silverliners and some Metro-North cars, probably M-1s into an F40 at the Pueblo test facility.Video of the tests. Note the telescoping: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bofRMEBHTok |
|
|
| (1195421) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Asgard on Sun Dec 30 22:45:51 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 28 21:52:01 2012. I remember seeing an arnine being cut up at 161st Street station. As I recall, a CC train had derailed or stalled at 167th Street, and had insufficient handbrakes set to hold it. It ran downhill and collided with the following CC, which had been evacuated at 161st.This would have been around Thanksgiving, 1969 or 1970. |
|
|
| (1195425) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Dec 30 22:59:35 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Asgard on Sun Dec 30 22:45:51 2012. I vaguely remember hearing about it, don't know much about it though. Arnines did have a nasty habit of rolling away unless you really cranked them down. I remember another similar incident around that time at Rockaway Park with an E that got away as well. |
|
|
| (1195438) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Dec 31 00:55:34 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Dec 30 14:34:59 2012. I rechecked the topographical map. It now appears 9th St at 7th Av is 80 feet higher then 9th St at 4th Av (ground level elevation). The subway tracks cross 4th Av at 9th St about 20 feet above the street. The 7th Av station has a mezzanine so we must assume the subway tracks at that station are about 30 feet below street level. These two things would reduce the difference in track elevation to about 80-20-30=30 feet. Even rolling down a grade of only 30 feet a train with no brakes would still reach a top speed of 30 MPH. That speed , along with the tremendous inertia of all the cars on both trains, would account for the damage. If only single cars were involved I'm sure the damage would have been less. |
|
|
| (1195505) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 31 09:49:41 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by 3-9 on Sat Dec 29 23:42:33 2012. No. Between 7th Avenue and the portal, there's a downgrade of 3.1% which runs for about 1600 feet.Keying by two reds after the 4th Avenue portal would put Abbott's train on that grade going up, as well as clear of a curve, allowing him to see the oncoming runaway. While there is, in the northbound direction, a brief 2% upgrade south of 7th Avenue, there is another long 3% downgrade south of that. This means that that runaway could have started from the area of signal B3-633 and picked up sufficient speed from there. |
|
|
| (1195506) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 31 09:52:01 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Dec 29 11:09:49 2012. You can also see one of 472's rollsigns through 212's cab window. |
|
|
| (1195508) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Mon Dec 31 09:56:18 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 29 23:55:24 2012. The train would be rolling UP the hill - - in one of the most oddest parts of the subway system (due to the steep uphill incline of 9th Street -- hence Park "Slope") the tunnel from 4th Ave to 7th Ave actually goes UPHILL. |
|
|
| (1195546) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 31 11:34:09 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 29 20:38:47 2012. And wanted to have kids, right? |
|
|
| (1195548) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 31 11:39:47 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Sun Dec 30 08:25:05 2012. Imagine the irony if the other fellow's name had been Costello... |
|
|
| (1195549) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 31 11:40:31 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by tunnelrat on Sun Dec 30 16:23:44 2012. No, that was Frank Corrall. |
|
|
| (1195554) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Dec 31 12:23:15 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Dec 31 09:49:41 2012. Can we get out our slide rules and calculate the speed at point-of-impact?wayne |
|
|
| (1195555) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Dec 31 12:29:07 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Dec 29 20:38:47 2012. Perhaps a codpiece would have helped?wayne |
|
|
| (1195592) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Dec 31 15:46:41 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Mon Dec 31 09:56:18 2012. The unmanned runaway was parked at the top of the hill near 7th Av so it rolled downhill. The manned train was slowly proceeding uphill. |
|
|
| (1195593) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Mon Dec 31 15:52:44 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Dec 31 12:23:15 2012. As I mentioned in this post even if the runaway has descended only 30 feet it would have been moving at 30 MPH at the point of impact. |
|
|
| (1195610) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Dec 31 16:55:43 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by VictorM on Mon Dec 31 15:46:41 2012. it is believed that the c/r was operating,not the m/m. |
|
|
| (1195641) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Dec 31 21:51:11 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Dec 31 12:29:07 2012. Those things would fly so hard, not even a whole cod would have helped. :) |
|
|
| (1195642) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Dec 31 21:51:37 2012, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 31 11:34:09 2012. That too. :) |
|
|
| (1195663) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 1 00:36:54 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Asgard on Sun Dec 30 22:45:51 2012. Sure that wasn't an R32 "D" train that was struck, with the damaged unit being #3629?wayne |
|
|
| (1195836) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 1 17:21:28 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Dec 31 21:51:11 2012. You'd have to waer a suit of armour.:) |
|
|
| (1195880) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 1 20:59:43 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 1 17:21:28 2013. Many who worked them DID consider it ... but nah, just had to be VERY careful and you were OK. |
|
|
| (1195903) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Tue Jan 1 23:26:05 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 1 00:36:54 2013. Not in 1936! |
|
|
| (1195905) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 1 23:45:30 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by jabrams on Tue Jan 1 23:26:05 2013. He said 69 or 70 |
|
|
| (1195923) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Asgard on Wed Jan 2 07:55:58 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Jan 1 00:36:54 2013. One of the trains might have been R32s, but one was definitely R1/9s. I saw the damaged car being cut up in 161st Street station. |
|
|
| (1195927) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Wed Jan 2 09:01:22 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Dec 31 11:40:31 2012. The Lord Byron of the NYC Subway System lol |
|
|
| (1196021) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jan 2 20:37:56 2013, in response to IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Dec 28 20:46:09 2012. That's one hell of a smash-up... |
|
|
| (1196044) | |
Re: Change subject line - very simple |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Thu Jan 3 00:43:10 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Jan 1 23:45:30 2013. This is what happens when you don't change the subject line, as I missed the one about a later accident. Subject line stated 1936 IND accident! |
|
|
| (1196051) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 3 05:50:58 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by MainR3664 on Wed Jan 2 20:37:56 2013. It sure as heck is.Remarkably, though, the station pillars seem not to have been damaged at all. |
|
|
| (1196128) | |
Re: Change subject line - very simple |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 3 14:30:04 2013, in response to Re: Change subject line - very simple, posted by jabrams on Thu Jan 3 00:43:10 2013. That may be true, but the later accident was mentioned in the same thread for comparison purposes. |
|
|
| (1196129) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 3 14:33:19 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 3 05:50:58 2013. Although the between track columns were not damaged, the force of the collision forced one of the cars up through the roof of the tunnel and although it may have been fully repaired by now, I was told that as of 1959 when I first heard about the accident, the roof of the tunnel in that area was only repaired by wooden planking and not concrete. |
|
|
| (1196517) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jan 5 11:20:58 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Wed Jan 2 09:01:22 2013. "Notice how fire and smoke come out of his ears.""Don't bug me, Garber, I've got problems." "Oh yeah? What's the matter?" "Oh nothing. A train is down, it's radio is dead, the power's off and it's dumped its load. Aside from that, everything's ginger peachy." |
|
|
| (1196519) | |
Re: IND accident of 1936 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jan 5 11:21:48 2013, in response to Re: IND accident of 1936, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Mon Dec 31 12:23:15 2012. Watch Curly as he tries to figure out how to use a slide rule. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
