Railroad Forums 

  • 2/22/37 - MCCOY, IND.

  • Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.
Discussion relating to the NYC and subsidiaries, up to 1968. Visit the NYCS Historical Society for more information.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

 #1462677  by shlustig
 
Located on the Big four between Cincinnati - Riverside Yard and Greensburg. Double-track with ABS Rules.

Train #51 (Local Freight) with Eng. 1575 and 8 cars + caboose stopped at the switch of the westbound siding and prepared to set out a car by means of a running switch. The Flagman and Rear Brakeman left the Conductor in the caboose and walked ahead to assist in the move. The Engr. did not whistle out a flag and the Conductor had not instructed the Flagman to flag.

A few minutes after stopping , #51 was rear-ended by Train #99 with Eng. 2926 and 33 cars + caboose at an impact speed of 10 to 15 mph at about 7:25PM. The Engr. of #99 admitted to crowding the blocks on successive "Approach" signals. No fatalities, 2 injuries (both on the 2926), and the caboose and 2 rear cars of #51 derailed.
 #1463325  by BR&P
 
Was there something saying Rule 99 did not apply in ABS territory?

So many times incidents are caused by two separate actions, the sum of which cause the wreck.
 #1463436  by ExCon90
 
Most railroads had a provision stating that Rule 99 was complied with if sufficient flag protection was provided against trains traveling at Restricted Speed. I think mostly the flagman stood on the ground next to the caboose steps, which was technically in compliance since Restricted Speed would require a train to be prepared to stop before reaching the caboose even without a flagman. I wonder whether the fact that the engineer didn't whistle out the flag and the conductor didn't instruct the flagman to flag (does a conductor need to instruct a flagman to comply with Rule 99?) suggests that maybe that crew had been working that job together for little too long a time and everyone expected the others to do the necessary. (None of which is an acceptable reason for #99's engineer not complying with a Stop-and-Proceed signal, after admittedly "riding the yellow.")