The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-12-18

block station 20 The south knovvr a.
LAWYERS. and before the block was
cleared Of that train Mattox also let inso
the same block train first 81. which. not
knowing in time that train No. 80 was
IN the block ran into Il and caused the
catastrophe
After passing RanEoon that morning
train No. 80. which, besides the engine
and tender. consisted OF a postal car. an
express car. a combined baggage and
second-class passenger car first-class
car. two sleeping cars and the prcsf-
dents car. 40. 100 (here named in their
order from the engine). at a point some
thing over q mile from Rangoon station.
separated into two parts because OF the
parting q a coupling between the ex-
press car and the combined car. The
emergency brake az once applied auto
maticaily on both sections OF the parted
train. as intended in case OF just such
contingencies. and both sections were
stopped.
Con4pany's Rules Violated.
Under these circumstances n the rules
OF the company had been obeyed no other
train could have passed Rangoon or en-
tered the block in which this disabled
train was.
The undisputed testimony shows that
no less than three different rules cf the
company were violated by Mattux. the
operator at RangOon. the Observance OF
any one Of which would have prevented
the accident.
one Of the rules CRule 1i0 provides as
follows: When a train enters the block
the signalman must give o. s. train No
-, and the time 70 next block station in
advance. and when the train has PASSED
the home block and the signalnnan
has seen the markers, he must display
the stop signal. and when the rear of
the train has passed 200 feet beyond the
home block signal he must give by Cblock
clear of -, and the time to the next
block station in the rear. This informa-
ton must be entered on the block re-
cords"
The operator at Lawyers did not give
this Information TO Mattox. the operator
at Rangoon. as 10 train No. 80
MattoX, therefore, not having received
the required information In regard to the
movements of train No. 80. violated this
rule ia regarding the block as clear OF
that train before letting IN the following
train, known as first 81.
His excuse is that the operator at
Lawyers did report train No. SO as 'by'
Lawyers. but failed to give him the time
81 passed. as required by the rule. There
is some confusion In his testimony as
TO whether this occurred before first 81
passed Rangoon or just afterwards but
the operator ar Lawyers cmphaticaIlv
NtiiitS tlaL ne sent any SuCn message as
IS claimed by Mattox. and declares that
Mattox had never even informed him
that train No 80 wanted the block, or
had entered IT,
While there exists this conflict OF evi-
dence. Operator Mattox. in his own
statement, admits that nc did not re-
celVe from the operator at Lawyers the
time train 80 passed out Of the block at
Lawyers, and excuses his failure TO Sc
cure the information by the statement
that after the operator at Lawyers had
informed him that No. % was by he
the operator at Lawyers abruptly opened
his key. ana he, Mattox. could not com
municate further with him
Rule That Applies.
Under these circumstances the fol
lowing from Rule 1874 applies: II from
the failure Of a telegraph line or other
cause, signalman is unable to com
municate with the next block station in
advance (Which In this case was Law
yers). he must stop every train approach
ing In that direction. and obtain perunls-
sion from the train dispatcher before
allowing It TO proceed
"MattoN's plain duty was. therefore. to
stop first 81 at Rangoon and not let IL