Well 1884 Enigma and May 1896 probably had come of the most violent tornadoes of the 19th century (Sherman in particular comes to mind). It's definitely the most well-documented tornado of the 19th century, that's for sure.
The major problem with statements like this is that New Richmond is one of the very few nineteenth-century events for which we have genuinely adequate public documentation in the visual sector. My personal perspective on this is that I feel that people have been too quick to dismiss anecdotal or oral reports but tend to make sweeping judgments about a historical tornado’s intensity based on a very limited or nonexistent photographic sample. Until recently people in this thread were even questioning Xenia’s F5 rating, doubting Dr. Fujita’s judgment, etc., until someone posting photographs showing that not only was Xenia deserving of its F5 ranking, but also that it was not a low-end F5 event either, based on extreme debris granulation, low-level debarking of shrubbery, massive wind-rowing, and so on. Until Smithville came along people were also doubting J. B. Elliot’s accounts about entire foundations being dislodged in Guin (incidentally, another event whose extreme violence was anecdotally attested but frequently discounted for a lack of visual evidence, until photographs came along that documented scouring down to bare soil, the tree reduced to a debarked stub in front of a building, and so on). Then Smithville uplifted a large portion of a poured concrete foundation. At one point even San Justo was doubted, until people posted Jarrell-like photographic evidence for the latter. People are making dismissive judgments that upon closer inspection and/or access to a fuller range of data all too often end up being discredited.
Many of the largest structures that New Richmond obliterated were not only extremely well built, but also were better constructed, thicker, and heavier than many of their present-day counterparts. That alone, along with the additional evidence that you mentioned, suggests that New Richmond’s potential intensity, including within New Richmond itself, was fully on a par with that of the most extreme “recent” events mentioned in this thread, if not even stronger. New Richmond was basically another San Justo, Jarrell, Moore 2013, Smithville, El Reno 2011, or Joplin, if not topping all those events. Another important factor is the fact that New Richmond was not a rain-wrapped tornado, but was widely visible well before entering town, yet still killed and mutilated hundreds of people in ghastly fashion. My supposition is that near-ground-level wind speeds in New Richmond were probably well in excess of 260 kt (300 mph).
There is still no evidence for the dislodging of foundations by Guin.
My point was that people did not believe such an occurrence was possible, yet Smithville proved that it was/is conceivable. We still do not have enough photographic evidence to conclusively disprove J. B. Elliot’s assertions about Guin. Given the evident strength of the tornado, it could have produced foundational damage similar to that which occurred in Smithville. Guin produced such intense ground scouring that I believe it was certainly capable of at least partly uplifting concrete foundations, like Smithville. Maybe Guin uplifted and blew away part of a concrete foundation.
I think most of the Xenia skepticism on this board has been more geared around people questioning if that was really one of the “strongest tornadoes in history” or if it was even the strongest on 4/3/74, like so widely reported for the last 40-50 years. I don’t think any of the recent photos of Xenia have changed the opinions of those on this board, either. There’s nothing groundbreaking in those recent photos to suggest that Xenia was anything more than a low-end F5. The type of damage shown in those photos is what I’d consider to be the minimum requirement for an F5 rating.
By all accounts many of the structures were well-built by the standards of the time, and some (particularly the businesses along Main Street) were certainly more substantial than typical modern buildings, but I'm not sure your conclusion follows from that. Thicker and heavier doesn't necessarily mean better constructed. I'm not an engineer by any means, but unreinforced masonry doesn't usually do so well with massive lateral loads, nor do timber frames secured with cut nails. I'd imagine even the most extreme examples, like the Ward Williams Dry Goods Store (a large one-story structure w/18"-thick double stone walls), probably weren't quite as robust as they might seem.
Thanks for the insight, Phil! I was hoping you'd be along eventually.
Thanks for the insight, Phil! I was hoping you'd be along eventually.
One of the problems with New Richmond is that the structures were so thoroughly destroyed and/or buried in debris from other buildings that it's hard to make out much about their construction. The few small sections of wall from the Ward Williams building that remained somewhat intact-ish do look pretty robust, though.
Just a couple of hours earlier and it would've been the 19th century equivalent of rush hour traffic. There were people leaving work downtown (especially the mills), people coming into town to visit the banks before they closed, a large passenger train at the Omaha Depot (which was basically toothpicked) and a whole flock of people leaving the circus, which was like half a mile SE of the track.
The situation reminds me of Joplin: the tornado touched down 2 hours after high school graduation and hundreds of out-of-towners had left for the day. I do know that quite a bit of the fatalities with Joplin were visitors who didn't know the area that well. The problem with counting fatalities back then is that people who succumbed to their injuries later weren't always followed up on. It wouldn't surprise me if this thing killed ~150 or so people, but no way to know for sure.
There were still lots of reports from recent tornados later been proved to be rumors or things that not overly impressive. For Smiville, the claim that it destroyed a road had later been proved not ture and the claim that it pulled water pipe out of the ground was also most likely not true. If Newton tornado on that day occurred several decades ago, it would be regarded as potential EF5 tornado because it " destroyed "a concert bridge which also been proved that not a really impressive damage feature.
Well EF5 tornadoes like Smithville and Hackleburg can rip away the masonry so violently that chunks of the foundation get taken with it (also happened with Chapman, come to think of it) but that's not the same thing as "dislodging" a foundation, like a certain poster seems to think.
Not home at the moment so I’ll post the photo later, but unless TornadoTalk was refuted Smithville DID rip a metal waste pipe out of the ground. The culvert dug out post-tornado was an entirely different spot altogether.
So, I found the section. As the tornado crossed over the intersection of L and S Circle and Highway 25, an underground waste pipe was partially ripped upwards. The short version is it wasn't officially noted, but plenty of contextual and photographic clues support the occurrence.
Things which can't be proven are not necessarily disproven by that. I can see the possibility of wellpipe being pulled out of the ground. Shallow wells common in areas like Smithville often have the pump on top and lightweight PVC piping dropped into the hole. The pump is fairly heavy but not at the level of a car engine, an object known to have been lofted and thrown in many proven cases. Moreso they sit on a raised concrete skirting around the hole which adds a lot of area for winds to affect once dislodgement begins. Shallow well 'jet pumps' with the pump at the bottom are also sometimes piped with PVC. That would be harder to draw up from the ground, but not if the skirting came loose and pulled the pipe with it. Deep wells and some shallow ones (especially older ones) use 1 1/4" steel pipe. Add the jet pump at the bottom and even with the skirting dislodged I'd be gobsmacked to discover that heavy mass had been pulled up as surely a pipe joint would have broken first. I'd sure love to know all those details here.
Wire mesh isn't always necessary with a house slab and many are poured without that. If there's a good "toe down" at the perimeter which has rebar properly placed and the soil has been properly tested or prepared, there's little chance of structural cracking due to a lack of wire mesh. Also there's a trend toward use of 'fiber reinforced concrete' which offers similar properties as mesh in the concrete itself. In fact, it is said that it can actually out-perform wire mesh but I'm old-fashioned and am not personally so sure about that.