Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-01-10

No. 81 was complete in itself and did
not require No. 81 to make it under
standable. On the other hand. No. 81
was a complete running order, and
when an engineer saw 1t, he had no
reason to look for something else.
With the clearance card the engineer
should look for all of the orders list
ed, but multiplicity of written orders
delivered in the night, in the winter
time. in the cab of an engine are suf-
ficiently troublesome without making
the number unnecessarily large
We recommend that the train dis
patchers be directed to kill all super
coded orders when there is time to do
so.
Neither of these orders was sent to
the operator at the meeting point.
The evidence does not show whether
the stations at those points were open
when the respective orders were
placed. nor whether it is the custom of
this company TO place such orders at
the meeting points when possible We,
therefore, make no criticism of any
practice in this respect, directly or by
inference, in this case. But we do
recommend that such orders be placed
at the meeting points whenever posi-
BILE. and that the operators at such
points display a stop signal for the
meeting trains. This is particularly
important on a railroad which has no
automatic block signals.
I'VE now come to the most impor-
tant feature of this case 50 far as the
railroad company is concerned. The
Grand Trunk Railway System has no
automatic block signals between Island
Pond. Vermont. and Portland. Maine.
This is an important railroad thor
oughfare running from Montreal to
Portland In Maine at least, it is all
single tracked except in the Portland
yard.
MIR. c. G. Bowker, general superin-
tendent, stated at the hearing, in re-
ply to a question: no. we haven't Civ
en- any consideration to equipping this
section with automatic signals for the
reason we don't consider the traffic
sufficiently heavy enough. We don't
have automatic signals where the traf-
fic is much heavier. Furthermore,
neither do we admit automatic signals
would have prevented this accident
Nobody can tell whether this par
| ticular accident would have occurred if
, this part OF the road had been equip
ped with block signals. The probable
ity is that it would not. Finding, as
we do. that the engineer of the Offend
| ing train never saw the order to meet
at Gilead, there is no reason to as
sumo That he would not have seen and
obeyed a block signal if there had been
| one.
! "Howcver that may he, a railroad is
not reasonably equipped for the safety
| of its employees and of the travelling
public if it is not reasonably equipped
with recognized and generally adopted
safety devices. We firmly believe that
this company is not justified in its en-
tire failure to install Such devices over
this line, and that it ought to proceed
to do so at once We recommend that
it install block signals over not less
than one-half of its mileage between
the Maine New Hampshire line and
Portland, during the year 1917 and
| over the remainder thereof during the
year 1918.
The Grand Trunk Railway System
will notify this commission of its ac-
/ ceptance OF rejection Of each of the
foregoing recommendations within 10
DAYS from the date hereof. a provided
in Rule II OF the Public Utilities Com
mission