Notes on Railroad Accidents

Usually, however, in New England the level crossings of the more crowded thoroughfares, perhaps one in ten of the whole number, are protected by gates or flag-men. Under similar circumstances in Great Britain there is an electric connection between a bell in the cabin of the gate-keeper and the nearest signal boxes of the block system on each side of the crossing, so that due notice is given of the approach of trains from either direction. In this country it has heretofore been the custom to warn gate-keepers by the locomotive whistle, to the intense annoyance of all persons dwelling near the crossing, or to make them depend for notice on their own eyes. Under the Hall system, however, the gate-keeper is automatically signalled to be on the look out, if he is attending to his duty; or, if he is neglecting it, the electric bell in some degree supplies his place, without releasing the corporation from its liability. In America the heavy fogs of England are almost unknown, and the brilliant head lights, heavy bells and shrill high whistles in use on the locomotives would at night, it might be supposed, give ample notice to the most careless of an approaching train. Continually recurring experience shows, however, that this is not the case. Under these circumstances the electric bell at the crossing becomes not only a matter of justice almost to the employé who is stationed there, but a watchman over him.

This, however, like the other forms of signals which have been referred to, is, in the electric system, a mere adjunct of its chief use, which is the block, – they are all as it were things thrown into the bargain. As contradistinguished from the English block, which insures only an unoccupied track, the automatic blocks seek to insure an unbroken track as well, – that is not only is each segment into which a road is divided, protected as respects following trains by, in the case of Hall's system, double signals watching over each other, the one at safety, the other at danger, – both having to combine to open the block, – but every switch or facing point, the throwing of which may break the main track, is also protected. The Union Signal Company's system it is claimed goes still further than this and indicates any break in the track, though due to accidental fracture or displacement of rails. Without attempting this the Hall system has one other important feature in common with the English block, and a very important feature, that of enabling station agents in case of sudden emergency to control the train movement within half a mile or more of their stations on either side. Within the given distance they can stop trains either leaving or approaching. The inability to do this has been the cause of some of the most disastrous collisions on record, and notably those at Revere and at Thorpe.

The one essential thing, however, in every perfect block system, whether automatic or worked by operators, is that in case of accident or derangement or doubt, the signal should rest at danger. This the Hall system now fully provides for, and in case even of the wilful displacement of a switch, an occurrence by no means without precedent in railroad experience, the danger signal could not but be displayed, even though the electric connection had been tampered with. Accidents due to wilfullness, however, can hardly be provided for except by police precautions. Train wrecking is not to be taken into account as a danger incident to the ordinary operation of a railroad. Carelessness or momentary inadvertence, or, most dangerous of all, that recklessness – that unnecessary assumption of risk somewhere or at some time, which is almost inseparable from a long immunity from disaster – these are the great sources of peril most carefully to be guarded against. The complicated and unceasing train movement depends upon many thousand employés, all of whom make mistakes or assume risks sometimes; – and did they not do so they would be either more or less than men. Being, however, neither angels nor machines, but ordinary mortals whose services are bought for money at the average market rate of wages, it would certainly seem no small point gained if an automatic machine could be placed on guard over those whom it is the great effort of railroad discipline to reduce to automatons. Could this result be attained, the unintentional throwing of a lever or the carelessness which leaves it thrown, would simply block the track instead of leaving it broken. An example of this, and at the same time a most forcible illustration of the possible cost of a small economy in the application of a safeguard, was furnished in the case of the Wollaston disaster. At the time of that disaster, the Old Colony railroad had for several years been partially equipped on the portion of its track near Boston, upon which the accident occurred, with Hall's system. It had worked smoothly and easily, was well understood by the employés, and the company was sufficiently satisfied with it to have even then made arrangements for its extension. Unfortunately, with a too careful eye to the expenditure involved, the line had been but partially equipped; points where little danger was apprehended had not been protected. Among these was the "Foundry switch," so called, near Wollaston. Had this switch been connected with the system and covered by a signal-target, the mere act of throwing it would have automatically blocked the track, and only when it was re-set would the track have been opened. The switch was not connected, the train hands were recklessly careless, and so a trifling economy cost in one unguarded moment some fifty persons life and limb, and the corporation more than $300,000.

One objection to the automatic block is generally based upon the delicacy and complicated character of the machinery on which its action necessarily depends; and this objection is especially urged against those other portions of the Hall system, covering draws and level crossings, which have been particularly described. It is argued that it is always liable to get out of order from a great multiplicity of causes, some of which are very difficult to guard against, and that it is sure to get out of order during any electric disturbance; but it is during storms that accidents are most likely to occur, and especially is this the case at highway grade-crossings. It is comparatively easy to avoid accidents so long as the skies are clear and the elements quiet; but it is exactly when this is not the case and when it becomes necessary to use every precaution, that electricity as a safeguard fails or runs mad, and, by participating in the general confusion, proves itself worse than nothing. Then it will be found that those in charge of trains and tracks, who have been educated into a reliance upon it under ordinary circumstances, will from force of habit, if nothing else, go on relying upon it, and disaster will surely follow.

This line of reasoning is plausible, but none the less open to one serious objection; it is sustained neither by statistics nor by practical experience. Moreover it is not new, for, slightly varied in phraseology, it has been persistently urged against the introduction of every new railroad appliance, and, indeed, was first and most persistently of all urged against the introduction of railroads themselves. Pretty and ingenious in theory, practically it is not feasible! – for more than half a century this formula has been heard. That the automatic electric signal system is complicated, and in many of its parts of most delicate construction, is undeniable. So also is the locomotive. In point of fact the whole railroad organization from beginning to end – from machine-shop to train-movement – is at once so vast and complicated, so delicate in that action which goes on with such velocity and power, that it is small cause for wonder that in the beginning all plain, sensible, practical men scouted it as the fanciful creation of visionaries. They were wholly justified in so doing; and to-day any sane man would of course pronounce the combined safety and rapidity of ordinary railroad movement an utter impossibility, did he not see it going on before his eyes. So it is with each new appliance. It is ever suggested that at last the final result has already been reached. It is but a few years, as will presently be seen, since the Westinghouse brake encountered the old "pretty and ingenious" formula. Going yet a step further, and taking the case of electricity itself, the bold conception of operating an entire line of single track road wholly as respects one half of its train movement by telegraph, and without the use of any time table at all, would once have been condemned as mad. Yet to-day half of the vast freight movement of this continent is carried on in absolute reliance on the telegraph. Nevertheless it is still not uncommon to hear among the class of men who rise to the height of their capacity in themselves being automaton superintendents that they do not believe in deviating from their time tables and printed rules; that, acting under them, the men know or ought to know exactly what to do, and any interference by a train despatcher only relieves them of responsibility, and is more likely to lead to accidents than if they were left alone to grope their own way out.

Another and very similar argument frequently urged against the electric, in common with all other block systems by the large class who prefer to exercise their ingenuity in finding objections rather than in overcoming difficulties, is that they breed dependence and carelessness in employés; – that engine-drivers accustomed to rely on the signals, rely on them implicitly, and get into habits of recklessness which lead inevitably to accidents, for which they then contend the signals, and not they themselves, are responsible. This argument is, indeed, hardly less familiar than the "pretty and ingenious" formula just referred to. It has, however, been met and disposed of by Captain Tyler in his annual reports to the Board of Trade in a way which can hardly be improved upon: —

It is a favorite argument with those who oppose the introduction of some of these improvements, or who make excuses for the want of them, that their servants are apt to become more careless from the use of them, in consequence of the extra security which they are believed to afford; and it is desirable to consider seriously how much of truth there is in this assertion. * * * Allowing to the utmost for these tendencies to confide too much in additional means of safety, the risk is proved by experience to be very much greater without them than with them; and, in fact, the negligence and mistakes of servants are found to occur most frequently, and generally with the most serious results, not when the men are over-confident in their appliances or apparatus, but when, in the absence of them, they are habituated to risk in the conduct of the traffic. In the daily practice of railway working station-masters, porters, signalmen, engine-drivers or guards are frequently placed in difficulties which they have to surmount as best they can. The more they are accustomed to incur risk in order to perform their duties, the less they think of it, and the more difficult it is to enforce discipline and obedience to regulations. The personal risk which is encountered by certain classes of railway servants is coming to be more precisely ascertained. It is very considerable; and it is difficult to prevent men who are in constant danger themselves from doing things which may be a source of danger to others, or to compel them to obey regulations for which they do not see altogether the necessity, and which impede them in their work. This difficulty increases with the want of necessary means and appliances; and is diminished when, with proper means and appliances, stricter discipline becomes possible, safer modes of working become habitual, and a higher margin of safety is constantly preserved.14

In Great Britain the ingenious theory that superior appliances or greater personal comfort in some indefinable way lead to carelessness in employés was carried to such an extent that only within the last few years has any protection against wind, rain and sunshine been furnished on locomotives for the engine-drivers and stokers. The old stage-coach driver faced the elements, and why should not his successor on the locomotive do the same? – If made too comfortable, he would become careless and go to sleep! – This was the line of argument advanced, and the tortures to which the wretched men were subjected in consequence of it led to their fortifying nature by drink. They had to be regularly inspected and examined before mounting the foot-board, to see that they were sober. It took years in Great Britain for intelligent railroad managers to learn that the more protected and comfortable a man is the better he will attend to his duty. And even when the old argument, refuted by long experience, was at last abandoned as respected the locomotive cab, it, with perfect freshness and confidence in its own novelty and force, promptly showed its brutal visage in opposition to the next new safeguard.

For the reasons which Captain Tyler has so forcibly put in the extracts which have just been quoted, the argument against the block system from the increased carelessness of employés, supposed to be induced by it, is entitled to no weight. Neither is the argument from the delicacy and complication of the automatic, electric signal system entitled to any more, when urged against that. Not only has it been too often refuted under similar conditions by practical results, but in this case it is based on certain assumptions of fact which are wholly opposed to experience. The record does not show that there is any peculiar liability to railroad accidents during periods of storm; perhaps because those in charge of train movements or persons crossing tracks are under such circumstances more especially on the look out for danger. On the contrary the full average of accidents of the worst description appear to have occurred under the most ordinary conditions of weather, and usually in the most unanticipated way. This is peculiarly true of accidents at highway grade crossings. These commonly occur when the conditions are such as to cause the highway travelers to suppose that, if any danger existed, they could not but be aware of it. In the next place, the question in regard to automatic electric signals is exactly what it was in regard to the Westinghouse brake, with its air-pump, its valves and connecting tubes; – it is the purely practical question, – Does the thing work? – The burden of proof is properly on the inventor. The presumption is all against him. In the case of the electric signals they have for years been in limited but constant use, and while thus in use they have been undergoing steady improvement. Though now brought to a considerable degree of comparative perfection they are, of course, still in their earlier stage of development. In use, however, they have not been found open to the practical objections urged against them. At first much too complicated and expensive, requiring more machinery than could by any reasonable exertions be kept in order and more care than they were worth, they have now been simplified until a single battery properly located can do all the necessary work for a road of indefinite length. As a system they are effective and do not lead to accidents; nor are they any more subject than telegraph wires to derangement from atmospheric causes. When any disturbance does take place, until it can be overcome it amounts simply to a general signal for operating the road with extreme caution. But with railroads, as everywhere else in life, it is the normal condition of affairs for which provision must be made, while the dangers incident to exceptional circumstances must be met by exceptional precautions. As long as things are in their normal state, that is, probably, during nineteen days out of twenty, the electric signals have now through several years of constant trial proved themselves a reliable safeguard. It can hardly admit of doubt that in the near future they will be both further perfected and generally adopted.

CHAPTER XVIII.

INTERLOCKING

In their management of switches, especially at points of railroad convergence where a heavy traffic is concentrated and the passage of trains or movement of cars and locomotives is unceasing, the English are immeasurably in advance of the Americans; and, indeed, of all other people. In fact, in this respect the American managers have shown themselves slow to learn, and have evinced an indisposition to adopt labor-saving appliances which, considering their usual quickness of discernment in that regard, is at first sight inexplicable. Having always been accustomed to the old and simple methods, just so long as they can through those methods handle their traffic with a bearable degree of inconvenience and expense, they will continue to do so. That their present method is most extravagant, just as extravagant as it would be to rent two houses or to run two steam engines where one, if properly used, could be made to suffice, admits of demonstration; – but the waste is not on the surface, and the necessity for economy is not imperative. The difference of conditions and the difference in results may be made very obvious by a comparison. Take, for instance, London and Boston – the Cannon street station in the one and the Beach street station in the other. The concentration of traffic at London is so great that it becomes necessary to utilize every foot of ground devoted to railroad purposes to the utmost possible extent. Not only must it be packed with tracks, but those tracks must never be idle. The incessant train movement at Cannon street has already been referred to as probably the most extraordinary and confusing spectacle in the whole wide circle of railroad wonders. The result is that in some way, at this one station and under this single roof, more trains must daily be made to enter and leave than enter and leave, not only the Beach street station, but all the eight railroad stations in Boston combined.15

During eighteen successive hours trains have been made to enter and leave this station at the rate of more than one in each minute. It contains four platforms and seven tracks, the longest of which is 720 feet. As compared with the largest station in Boston (the Boston & Providence), it has the same number of platforms and an aggregate of 1,500 (three-fifths) more feet of track under cover; it daily accommodates about nine times as many trains and four times as many passengers. Of it Barry, in his treatise on Railway Appliances (p. 197), says: "The platform area at this station is probably minimised but, the station accommodates efficiently a very large mixed traffic of long and short journey trains, amounting at times to as many as 400 trains in and 400 trains out in a working day.16"

The American system is, therefore, one of great waste; for, being conducted in the way it is – that is with stations and tracks utilized to but a fractional part of their utmost capacity – it requires a large number of stations and tracks and the services of many employés. Indeed it is safe to say that, judged by the London standard, not more than two of the eight stations in Boston are at this time utilized to above a quarter part of their full working capacity; and the same is probably true of all other American cities. Both employés and the travelling public are accustomed to a slow movement and abundance of room; land is comparatively cheap, and the pressure of concentration has only just begun to make itself felt. Accordingly any person, who cares to pass an hour during the busy time of day in front of an American city station, cannot but be struck, while watching the constant movement, with the primitive way in which it is conducted. Here are a multiplicity of tracks all connected with each other, and cars and locomotives are being passed from one to another from morning to night. A constant shifting of switches is going on, and the little shunting engines never stand still. The switches, however, as a rule, are unprovided with signals, except of the crudest description; they have no connection with each other, and during thirty years no change has been made in the method in which they are worked. When one of them has to be shifted, a man goes to it and shifts it. To facilitate the process, the monitor shunting engines are provided with a foot-board in front and behind, just above the track, upon which the yard hands jump, and are carried about from switch to switch, thus saving the time they would occupy if they had to walk. A simpler arrangement could not be imagined; anyone could devise it. The only wonder is that even a considerable traffic can be conducted safely in reliance upon it.

Turning from Beach to Cannon street, it is apparent that the train movement which has there to be accommodated would fall into inextricable confusion if it was attempted to manage it in the way which has been described. The number of trains is so great and the movement so rapid and intricate, that not even a regiment of employés stationed here and there at the signals and switches could keep things in motion. From time to time they would block, and then the whole vast machine would be brought to a standstill until order could be re-established. The difficulty is overcome in a very simple way, by means of an equally simple apparatus. The control over the numerous switches and corresponding signals, instead of being divided up among many men stationed at many points, is concentrated in the hands of two men occupying a single gallery, which is elevated across the tracks in front of the station and commanding the approaches to it, much as the pilot-house of an American steamer commands a view of the course before it. From this gallery, by means of what is known as the interlocking system, every switch and signal in the yard below is moved; and to such a point of perfection has the apparatus been carried, that any disaster from the misplacement of a switch or the display of a wrong signal is rendered impossible. Of this Cannon street apparatus Barry says, "there are here nearly seventy point and signal levers concentrated in one signal house; the number of combinations which would be possible if all the signal and point levers were not interlocked can be expressed only by millions. Of these only 808 combinations are safe, and by the interlocking apparatus these 808 combinations are rendered possible, and all the others impossible."17

It is not proposed to enter at any length into the mechanical details of this appliance, which, however, must be considered as one of the three or four great inventions which have marked epochs in the history of railroad traffic.18 As, however, it is but little known in America, and will inevitably within the next few years find here the widest field for its increased use, a slight sketch of its gradual development and of its leading mechanical features may not be out of place. Prior to the year 1846 the switches and signals on the English roads were worked in the same way that they are now commonly worked in this country. As a train drew near to a junction, for instance, the switchman stationed there made the proper track connection and then displayed the signal which indicated what tracks were opened and what closed, and which line had the right of way; and the engine-drivers acted accordingly. As the number of trains increased and the movement at the junctions became more complicated, the danger of the wrong switches being thrown or the wrong signals displayed, increased also. Mistakes from time to time would happen, even when only the most careful and experienced men were employed; and mistakes in these matters led to serious consequences. It, therefore, became the practice, instead of having the switch or signal lever at the point where the switch or signal itself was, as is still almost universally the case in this country, to connect them by rods or wires with their levers, which were concentrated at some convenient point for working, and placed under the control of one man instead of several. So far as it went this change was an improvement, but no provision yet existed against the danger of mistake in throwing switches and displaying signals. The blunder of first making one combination of tracks and then showing the signal for another was less liable to happen after the concentration of the levers under one hand than before, but it still might happen at any time, and certainly would happen at some time. If all danger of accident from human fallibility was ever to be eliminated a far more complicated mechanical apparatus must be devised. In response to this need the system of interlocking was gradually developed, though not until about the year 1856 was it brought to any considerable degree of perfection. The whole object of this system is to render it impossible for a switchman, whether because he is weary or agitated or actually malicious or only inexperienced, to give contrary signals, or to break his line in one way and to give the signal for its being broken in another way. To bring this about the levers are concentrated in a cabin or gallery, and placed side by side in a frame, their lower ends connecting with the switch-points and signals by means of rods and wires. Beneath this frame are one or more long bars, extending its entire length under it and parallel with it. These are called locking bars; for, being moved to the right or left by the action of the levers they hold these levers in certain designated positions, nor do they permit them to occupy any other. In this way what is termed the interlocking is effected. The apparatus, though complicated, is simplicity itself compared with a clock or a locomotive. The complication, also, such as it is, arises from the fact that each situation is a problem by itself, and as such has to be studied out and provided for separately. This, however, is a difficulty affecting the manufacturer rather than the operator. To the latter the apparatus presents no difficulty which a fairly intelligent mechanic cannot easily master; while for the former the highly complicated nature of the problem may, perhaps, best be inferred from the example given by Mr. Barry, the simplest that can offer, that of an ordinary junction where a double-track branch-road connects with its double-track main line. There would in this case be of necessity two switch levers and four signal levers, which would admit of sixty-four possible combinations. "The signal might be arranged in any of sixteen ways, and the points might occupy any of four positions, irrespective of the position of the signals. Of the sixty-four combinations thus possible only thirteen are safe, and the rest are such as might lure an engine-driver into danger."