The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-04-27

|
hese signals are always shown In one
place, which must never be changed except
by permission Of the general passenger or
division superintendent. Under no con-
slderation must train or engine pass the
signals without st opping for ord ders." Rule
69 of said company provides as follows:
Special orders will be sent in the same
wosds to each train affected. and will be
sent simultaneously to each of the operators
who are to receive it, when practica BILE. but
where it is not, the order will always be
sent first TO the train having the right to
the road. The different trains will be ad-
dressed in the order of their superiority or
receiving office will take only its proper ad-
Dress
SAFETY PROVISIONS.
By the provisions of rule No. 9 above
cited. train No.64, moving we st, had the
right of way over all trains moving
east. Under the provisi ons of the rule
last above quoted this train should have
received orders simultaneously with
those given to other trains affected. IT
such an order had been sent to No. "a
the accident would not and could not
have happened except by reason of it's
violation by those to.whom it. was.given.
Mr.. Barry. the train dispatcher, who
was at the time Oh duty, in his testimo-
ny admitted that under the require
ments of the rule, train No. "a should
have been notified of the crossing, and
that he violated the rule by falling to
give such an order, but, at the same
time, he claims that at times, it is not
practicable to strictly obey it, especial
~ when many crossing orders have to
be given at or about the same time, and
| that on such occasion it has been custo-
mary to flag the train having the right
OF way at some point, until the trains
moving in the opposite direction had
been giving crossing ORDERS In his last
statement Mr.. Barry.is corroborated by
former train dispatcher, also by Mr..
| CrossmaD, one OF the train despatchers
employed by the Maine Central Railroad
Company. Mr.. Hall says in his testimo-
ny in respect to this rule that: "In
crossing two trains, and two trains only,
they invariably, or almost invariably,
use the double order, as has been ex-
trains in the same words and at the
same time when they can, which is
nearly always; but when there are more
than two trains affected, they do not
use the double order because it is cum
bersome When there is one.train to
CROSS two OF more trains they commonly
use single orders because it is clearer,
| less cum bersome, less liable TO cause
confusion or Mistakes"
1t will be seen that though Mr.. Barry
violated the rule, as he admits. he
complied with the custom as to it's ep-
| foroement as explained by Mr.. Hall. As
appears, more than one train was to be
crossed by No. Cd that morning He
therefore tagged No.64 at Orono. as was
trains Nos. 81, SO aud ~l15. He so far
did what he deemed "practica BILE" under
| the rule as interpreted by those i'll au-
| thority over him To this extent, there
fore, we think Mr.. Barry is blameless.
| In this connection we deem it proper
to say that we are satisfied that there
are occasions when the rule as laid
with, such as Mr.. Hall suggested. How
ever, it may be somewhat questionable
| whether it would not have been better
| tonShave incorporated the exception,
mentioned by Mr.. Hall, into the rule
| itself. However that may be, the rule
as printed seems to -be one of the stand
ard rules adopted and in use throughout
! Uu6 COuutIy. las VIC udVG DtlOE5 SCdbeu,
| flags were displayed at Orono by order
| of Mr.. Barry, the Jrain dispatcher then
on duty at the officesin Portland, which
| indicated orders and which would hold
| trains at that point, and as appears,
| single crossing orders were given by him
| to the several trains that were to cross
No. 64; that shortly after giving these
several orders he was relieved. from duty
of train dispatcher by Mr.. CrossmRn,
who, some time between Gas and am. !,
| assumed the duties at that Office. At
that time, as was customary and duty,
Mr.. Barry informed Mr.. Crossman of the
orders he had given trains Nos. 81 and
115, but forgot, as he says, to mention
train No. SO. He testified: Il then
went to wash up and when train No. .64
got along to Orono, he Mr.. Crossman)
said No.64 was at Orono. mentioned
the order No. 81 had, and that lis, the
Bar Harbor train, had an order on "a to
| cross on Exchange street. Nothing fur
ther was said. He didn't ask me ii that
was all the flag was out for, and I said
nothing more. 1t is the dispatcher's
duty to look the book over to see why
| the flag is out. He can't always rely
upon what the dispatcher says, for the
order is copied in the book; 93's order
was next to the last order on the book.
II the dispatcher had looked the book
over he would have seen the order"
| This last statement may he, and doubt
less is, true. If Mr.. Crossman had ex-
amined the order book be would have
seen, as stated by Mr.. Barry, that No.
90 had orders to cross No. "a at Veazie,
as that order was then recorded in the
hook, and thereby would undou btedly
have ascertained that the flag or flags
at Orono would there not merely on ac-
court of the crossing of No. 81 at Basin
| Mills, but also on account of the cross
| ing with No. 93. For the neglect to do
| so we cannot hol1 Mr.. Crossman entirely
blameless, but be had been informed Nby
| his predecessor at the table of but two
trains that had orders to cross No. Ga.
| The Information implied that no other
train than the two mentioned were on
| the road. When he received informa-
tion that train No.37 had arrived at
Basin Mills, he assumed, and reasonably
too, that no other train was on the
road except No. .115, that was to cross
No. GA at Exchange street in Bangor
within the yard limits; therefore he saw
no reason for holding No.64 at Orono,
nor for giving that train orders of any
kind. From these facts we cannot but
reach the conclusion that the direct
cause of the accident WAS the failure of
90 NJ.