(erielack) Akron / Windham accident

[Christopher Thurner <crthurner_@_yahoo.com>]

Listers:

In Todd Hollritt's post of the FRA report re:
the above accident, I found the choice of words used by the investigators in
the 'Findings' section under item # 6. to be quite intriquing.  

I don't know if any other list members caught this or not and if so, was wondering what their thoughts are?



The statement is as follows:

    >>6. The signal system served no useful purpose in the detour operation of Extra 3657 East.<<


Now, does this apply in a general sense to operation of eastbounds against the current of traffic (i.e. the operation of the system for opposite current of traffic flow is not designed / working properly for it's most basic function, or what is was designed for, in other words, irrespective of the alignment of the switch)?

Or, did it apply to addressing whether or not the signal system would have given any indication that the switch was lined for the diverging route (i.e. a more narrow observation that it would not have given the operator in the cab an indication of a dangerous situation and an accident about to happen)?

Any thoughts.  At first glance, I tend to read (i.e.interpret) this as the former is the case.  Why say 'served no useful purpose in the detour operation'?  I think they would have said something along the lines of 'served no useful purpose in the detour operation of alerting the crew of a dangerous condition / alignment of track'. 

If the later was what was intended to be communicated, I think the author(s) or the report would have made a connection in this statement to address the link between the signal system and the switch alignment and that the signal failed to indicate or could not indicate (by design) the alignment.  

But again, as this report refers to the accident, maybe it is just simply a statement that the system was not designed or intended to communicate the switch (turnout) position?  

It's hard for me to conclude one way or another.

Also, this was the period leading up to the formation of CR and the restructuring of NE railroading and the Staggers Act and it's effect on renewing the industry.  I know from two retired rr employees, one a PC fireman and another B&O / Chessie engineer, that the 70's were not an era of safety regulations / concerns being put under a microscope like they are today.  They would often mention how malfunctioning equipment or poor track conditions causing a derailment or accident with no human injuries and little property damage would be swept under the rug.  I think given the poor condition of many of the players in the industry at that time things weren't exposed to the light of day (just my opinion).  Maybe the investigator, possibly a lawyer, I don't know what the author's background is, may have wanted to use imprecise language in this vein, so that those not as well versed in these matters would interpret the 'code' to strictly or get a clear picture of the true risk.

Any thoughts?



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org
	To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------