This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
American railway accidents Pt. I


This undated postcard shows a M&StL freight southbound (rail- road west) across the Iowa River after the wreck chronicled in the earlier pictures. Clearly shown is that the northern approach tres-


bridge itself is on a 3° curve to the left. All of this curvature, including the pre- 1919 right-of-way is clearly visible in a Google Earth®


image. The bridge, according to a M&StL


track chart, consists of three 60-foot deck girders on masonry piers. The northeast approach was a frame bent trestle slightly less than 100 feet in length. The entire span, including ap- proaches, did not have guard rails. Line-of-sight issues were so severe in this area that the railroad realigned the 3° curve near the top of the grade in 1919. This work only slightly miti- gated the safety issues in the area. This was a stretch of track for cautious engine crews only!


Because the ICC requirement that railroads report major accidents didn’t become effective until July 1, 1911, we are indeed fortunate to have a detailed account of this wreck. A newspaper ar- ticle provides the backdrop for the col- lection of postcard photos which illus- trate this article. The weekly Marshalltown Times Re- publican for April 28, 1911, picks up the story:2


“Rolling stock was demolished, mer-


chandise destroyed and part of a steel bridge torn down when fast freight No.


76 92,


tle has been removed and replaced with another steel deck girder span. The engineer is decelerating as he enters the yard limit for Steamboat Rock (date unknown but subsequent to April, 1911).


south [railroad direction west] bound on the Iowa Central ran off the track and went thru the bridge over the Iowa River at Steamboat Rock at 5:10 Tuesday evening [April 25, 1911]. From the standpoint of property loss the wreck is one of the worst the company has had in years, but it was most fortu- nate in that no one was injured, and it is hard to understand how the engine- men escaped. Two spans of the bridge were torn out, and twelve empty and six loaded cars were derailed some of them being demolished and their contents badly damaged. One engine kept the track, the other hangs partly off the bridge and its tank [tender] is a wreck. “Traffic will probably be delayed for 24 hours or more. According to the trainmen, the derailment of a refriger- ator car, the first car in the rear of the locomotives, was the cause of the wreck. It left the track about 200 feet north of the bridge. The engine tank ahead of it was dragged off and cars following it were likewise derailed be- fore the bridge was reached. When the derailed tank and cars struck the north end of the steel bridge over the river they displaced and then tore out the two north spans into which the de- railed cars were dumped. Others were


piled up along the track and right-of- way approaching the bridge. “The head locomotive stuck to the rails and crossed the two spans before they went down. The rear locomotive got part way across before the bridge was torn loose, then it partly toppled off the bridge. The enginemen jumped from their locomotives as soon as they saw that part of the train was derailed, and that it was probable that the train would go off the bridge. This accounts for their escaping injury or death. “There is no water under the north two spans of the bridge, the drop from the bridge to the river bed at this point being about 8 or 10 feet. Oscar O. Green engineer, and G. Baxter, fireman both of this city were on the head loco- motive, No. 100. J. H. Benson, engineer and his fireman J.C. Carberry, were on the 421, the second locomotive. “It is estimated the train was running from 25 to 30 m.p.h. when the derail- ment occurred. Charles Worley, conduc- tor, of this city was in charge of the train. The wreck presented a curious sight. A great iron girder of the bridge was run thru the locomotive tank, and an im- mense wooden beam was forced thru the firebox of locomotive No. 421. Among the merchandise in the debris was a car of


JULY 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116