the trucks of the cars so badly broken that it seemed impossible to determine just what produced the accident, although our experts believe that it was a broken journal, but there was no evidence, so far as we have been able to ascertain, that it had burned off."

-

August 10, 1884. At a quarter-mile east of Tonawanda, R. Shannon, brakeman, killed; was missed by the train men and was found on return trip of the train lying across the track dead, at the west end of a low bridge. From all appearances he was struck by the bridge and thrown between the cars upon the rail. The company, in response to inquiry, replied, that a warning signal had been in position at the bridge for over a year.

Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh.

Collision 12:40 A. M., of the morning of April 6, resulting in the injury of H. N. Wilcox, brakeman. A special inquiry of the Board developed the following facts leading to this accident:

ROME, WATERTOWN AND OGDENSBURGH RAILROAD,
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT,
Oswego, N. Y., July 12, 1884.

Mr. H. M. BRITTON, General Manager:

DEAR SIR-The letter of the Board of Railroad Commissioners with the report of the accident on the New York Central railroad attached, I have read carefully. While the two events are similar, the circumstances which brought them about are different. Train 60 had right of road, and by time table, should have met train 61 at Pierrepont Manor at twelve o'clock, midnight. On the night of the accident, train 60 left Watertown Junction as reported, forty-five minutes late. At this time train 61 was doing their work at Richland. They (train 61) left Richland at 11:10, or ten minutes late. Up to this time it was impossible for the dispatcher to tell at what time they would be ready to leave, to enable him to pre-arrange any orders he might at that time think prudent to give. Train 61 made the meeting point at Pierrepont Manor on time and called for orders against train 60. Up to this time train 60 had not been reported as passing Adams Centre, although they were overdue on running time. The dispatcher called up Adams Centre and asked the operator if No. 60 had passed. The operator replied "No." The dispatcher then asked, "Where have you been; have you been asleep?" The operator said, "No, sir, have been out in freight-house." Upon this assurance being given the dispatcher gave the operator an order to "flag and hold them for orders." The operator put out his red light, returned and repeated the order in due form and got the usual 0. K. The dispatcher then gave No. 61 an order to proceed to Adams. There is no doubt but that the operator performed this part of his duty correctly and in conformity with the rules, but, as he afterward admitted, he was asleep when the train passed. As to the justification for the proceeding, train 60 was overdue at this station without any apparent cause being known to the dispatcher, and it might be in this case, as in many others, as there is a heavy grade this train might be stalled and have to double into Adams Centre. Not hearing any thing from them, under the circumstances it would not have been politic for the

dispatcher to have permitted No. 61 to remain at Pierrepont Manor, as far as he could then tell, an indefinite time, or until No. 60 should appear at Adams Centre. If he had done so it would have been of little use at such a time to aid No. 61. No limit could at that time be put upon the delay, depending as it did solely as to when No. 60 would reach Adams Centre. It does not seem that this accident was caused by any defective rules or for want of any to cover the circumstances. Rule 194, on the back of our time table, is very explicit in this respect, and, if faithfully performed, is ample protection to our trains and against accidents. Our dispatchers do not put out orders at stations when it is possible to communicate with the conductor and engineer without the loss of much valuable time; but cases where station orders, to save delays, are far more numerous than it is generally known by those who do not comprehend the momentous necessities of this branch of the service, much must be left to the good judgment of the dispatchers, and our present rules and customs are so well known and understood that we feel secure in any contingency unless, as in this case, through gross carelessness, they are violated.

Very truly yours,

(Signed)

W. W. CURRIER, Superintendent of Transportation.

The conduct of the operator was unpardonable, but it was developed that he was but seventeen years of age, although looking much older. He was employed as night operator, and, as stated by the railroad, had no duties to perform until 7 P. M. It was his habit, however, to come to the station at 2 P. M., although cautioned by the agent to sleep during the day time in order to keep awake at night.

In similar cases, however, the Board has decided the rules of the road were defective in that they did not require that the train having the right of road should first receive the order changing the meeting place on the time card before the order was given to the subordinate train; also that the operator was altogether too young. See collision on Rochester and Niagara Falls Branch of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, page 215.

January 16, 1884. - About two and a half miles west of Rensselaer Falls, eight passengers injured, caused by derailment of coach and mail car. The report stated that the cause was unknown, and upon a special inquiry being made, the company made an investigation and advised the Board that nothing further could be learned, as there was no appearance of the track having spread, nor were any wheels of the train broken.

Syracuse, Ontario and New York

December 3, 1883. Three-quarters of a mile north of Ear.ville, Charles Faxon, brakeman, killed, thrown from top of freight car, derailed by broken axle. An inquiry made elicited the following facts, viz. The car was built with capacity of 20,000 pounds; on the day of the accident it was loaded at its initial point with local freight, weighing 13,719 pounds, of which amount 7,561 pounds were distributed at several stations before reaching Earlville, showing that there was but 6,158 pounds of freight in the car at the time the axle broke.*

*Diameter of axle not given.

CROSSINGS AT GRADE.

I.

CITIZENS OF THE VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT AND THE TOWNS OF PERINTON AND MACEDON AGAINST THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

April 11, 1884.

The complaint alleged that at the crossing east of village of Fairport, known as "Burbank's crossing," the New York Central crossed the highway diagonally, making the distance to be crossed 100 feet; that the road, after running parallel to the highway, approached the crossing round a curve, and that the travel had largely increased on this highway in a few years, and prayed that a flagman be stationed at the crossing.

The answer of the road was, that after investigating the crossing, the judgment of the general superintendent of the road was, that a flagman at that point was not necessary.

The Board recommended that the highway be raised for a distance of 150 feet, to a level with the tracks, and that the company should bear the expense of filling and grading. The president of the village of Fairport has not advised the Board whether the highway commissioners and adjoining owners will consent to the change suggested, though requested to do so.

II.

VILLAGE OF ANGOLA AGAINST THE LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN.

May 7, 1884."

The village of Angola, through the president of its board of trustees, Mr. H. J. Penfold, complained of the danger incident to the crossing at Main street in that village, in that through trains passed rapidly at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour, while no protection was afforded by gates or flagmen.

The company in its answer set forth that the street was sixty-six feet wide, and while not claiming that the view was unobstructed from all points, set forth, that during the thirty-three years of the existence of the road, not a single accident had occurred at that cross

ing, and further, that no petition for a flagman had been presented to the board of trustees of the village, nor had a resolution asking for one passed the board.

The inspector was instructed by the Board to make an examination of the point, and reported to the Board that shortly after the answer of the company had been transmitted to the president of the village, the board of trustees called upon the company to reduce the rate of speed to four miles for all trains stopping at Angola while passing Main street, and for all through trains to station a flagman at the crossing. He further reported that this the company had done.

The Board addressed a communication to the president of the village asking "if this action, as reported, on the part of the company had corrected the evils complained of;" and asserting that, "if all trains that stopped at Angola had been reduced to a speed of four miles an hour, while passing over the crossing, and if the crossing was protected by a flagman, in the case of through trains, it would seem to the Board that all the relief that could be justly required had been afforded."

To this the president of the village has made no reply, and the Board assumes the evils complained of had been corrected.

III.

GEORGE H. SMITH AGAINST THE BUFFALO, NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

June 7, 1884.

Mr. Smith complained to the Board that the crossing of the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia railroad at Brooks avenue, Rochester, was dangerous as trains approached the crossing around a curve, and it was not protected by a flagman.

The reply of the road to this complaint was that the general superintendent had been instructed to station a flagman at the crossing without delay.

IV.

JOHN H. WILSON, PRESIDENT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF FLUSHING, AGAINST THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY.

July 2, 1884.

This was a complaint upon the part of the village of Flushing, that the railroad crossing at Myrtle avenue in that village was dangerous and unprotected.

The company, while calling attention to the fact that it had been the practice of the company to guard and protect all crossings, which could at all be called dangerous, to a greater extent than any other road, and while expressing the opinion that there was not a pressing necessity for protection at that point, nevertheless placed a flagman at the point complained of.

V.

CITIZENS OF MONROE COUNTY, TOWN OF RIGA AND ADJOINING TOWNS AGAINST THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANIES.

November 11, 1884.

The petition herein asks that a flagman be stationed at the highway crossing immediately west of the overhead crossing of the West Shore railroad about two miles east of Churchville; also that an overhead bridge be erected at a highway crossing about a mile east of the said village. The inspector of the Board has presented a report and map of the localities, and on October 28, 1884, Conimissioners Kernan and Rogers personally inspected the same.

The first crossing near the West Shore railroad is certainly a dangerous one by reason of the obstruction to the view, which is caused by the high embankment, and bridge abutment of that company. It is difficult to see how it can be made reasonably safe without having a flagman placed there, and the Board so recommends. Were the company disposed to there erect an electric bell, which the train would ring at a distance of 1,500 feet from the crossing, the Board would approve of its trial, instead of the flagman. Such bells are said to give satisfaction where in use.

At the second crossing the approaches on each side should be widened sufficiently to permit teams to turn away from the rails, and the knolls at the junction of the slopes of the approaches and the slopes of the railroad cutting, should be removed so as to enable highway travelers to have a more open view of approaching trains. The Board believes that such measures as are suggested should be tried before it undertakes to recommend that the large expense of an overhead bridge shall be incurred.

Should the measures suggested not prove sufficient for public safety, further complaint can be made to the Board or application can be made to the courts under chapter 439 of the Laws of 1884.

The Board recommends as above indicated.