Rupert,
From all the information that I have seen of the wreck, none of the
baggage and express cars were involved in the accident and thus,
remained undamaged and probably weren't even derailed. Most of the
damage was confined to the rear of the Advanced Flyer from the dining
car back. None of the photos of the damaged cars show any baggage
cars involved. The contents of the baggage cars may have been
jostled, but would still have been deliverable. I agree with Bob
Webber's comments. Very little of the baggage car contents would have
been personal luggage and any that did exist, would have been large
trunks. As Bob notes, the majority of the contents of the baggage
cars would have been express shipments and storage mail and some of
that, may have been bulk mail third class material. Keep in mind
that, in that time period, Railway Express Agency and other express
companies were the UPS/FedEx of the day. While UPS dates back to the
early part of the 20th century, it wasn't the player that it is
today. REA was the big company and most people shipped from the local
station.
Here is a web site that I found which provides some photos and a list
of the dead and injured. In most cases, it also shows where the
people were from.
Bill Barber
Gravois Mills, MO
http://www3.gendisasters.com/illinois/7341/naperville-il-disastrous-
train-wreck-apr-1946
On Apr 10, 2010, at 3:10 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Re: Naperville Crash
> Posted by: "graywolfs2" graywolfs02@hotmail.com graywolfs2
> Fri Apr 9, 2010 7:53 am (PDT)
>
>
>
> Hi Rupert,
>
> Below is part of the ICC report for the accident at Naperville.
>
> No. 11, a west-bound first-class passenger train, consisted of
> Diesel-electric units 9920 A and 9920 B, one baggage car, one
> storage-mail car, two baggage cars, one mail car, one refrigerator-
> express car, two baggage cars, two coaches, one dining car, one
> parlor-lounge car and one, coach, in the order named. The sixth car
> was of steel-underframe construction, the ninth to eleventh-cars,
> inclusive, were of lightweight stainless-steel construction, and
> the remainder of the cars were of conventional all-steel
> construction. This train departed from Chicago Union Station, 28.44
> miles east of Naperville, at 12:35 p.m., on time, and, moving on
> track No. 2, passed Downer's Grove, the last open office, 7.32
> miles east of Naperville, at 12:57 p.m., 1 minute late. Soon
> afterward, some object was seen flying front beneath one of the
> cars and the train was stopped at Naperville for inspection at 1:03
> p.m., with the rear end standing 1,097 feet east of the station.
> About 2 minutes later the rear end was struck by No. 39.
>
> No. 39, a west-bound first-class passenger train, consisted of
> Diesel-electric units 9910 A and 9910 B, coupled in multiple
> control, three coaches, one dining car, two tourist sleeping cars
> and three Pullman sleeping cars, in the order named. All cars were
> of steel construction. This train departed from Chicago Union
> Station at 12:35 p.m., on time, and moved on track No. 1 to Kedzie
> Avenue, 23.59 miles east of Naperville, then entered track No. 2,
> passed Downer's Grove at 1 p.m., 2 minutes late, passed signal
> 227.1, which displayed approach-next-signal-prepared-to-stop,
> passed signal 228.1, which displayed stop-then-proceed, passed the
> flagman of No. 11, and while moving at an estimated speed of not
> less than 45 miles per hour it collided with No. 11 at a point 934
> feet west of signal 228.1.
>
> As can be seen in the report, the Advance flyer (#11) had five
> baggage cars while the Exposition Flyer (#39) had none.
>
> I believe that the Advance Flyer was the first section and the
> Exposition Flyer was the second section of the same train (Expo Flyer)
>
> There would be no need for baggage cars on the second section as
> all of the passengers checked baggage on both trains would go into
> the cars in the first section. The baggage-men would know at what
> station stop what baggage would need to come off and the
> corresponding passenger would see the station agent to collect
> their baggage.
>
> In my rail travels (when I was a young lad with my parents) we
> didn't have any checked baggage, it wasn't necessary to check the
> two to three suitcases we would have for our trip. I think it was
> passengers who had more luggage or larger trunks/cases that would
> have theirs checked.
>
> I hope this helps and I am sure that someone else can jump in here
> with more information as needed.
>
> Greg
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|