Railway time

[gilbert123]

the railway archive lists 101 accidents in which time interval played a part . the last one mentioned was in 1926. local time probably played a part in a number of these , although it may not be named as a factor. the Railway Archive is not exhaustive. neither were all accidents the subject of an investigation. there are very few stations that have never suffered an accident or incident . my own local station has had a total of 6 that I know of , most of which resulting in fatalities , and that is a relatively simple piece of main line.
a single failing rarely results in an accident , even excessive speed usually has contributory factors. multiple small failings can combine to produce a disaster. read Norwich Thorpe.

not all trains stop at all stations , and neither did they in the early days . imagine 3 stations , none of whom are keeping accurate time . a pick-up goods is dispatched from station A , followed by a passenger train ,45 mins later. the goods picks up at station B , but is dilatory in its travelling. the passenger train is not . when this train passes station B the interval has been eroded , but the passenger is allowed to continue. the pick-up arrives at station c , and is instructed to shunt clear ,by the bobby who realises the passenger train is now imminent , but a coupling breaks which leaves a number of wagons on the main line. the passenger train collides with these . both local time and time interval will have played a part , but the investigation will find the late running goods'crew , and the broken coupling to be at fault .
travel in the early days was fraught with danger . if a train was late ,it was common practice for an engine to be sent "wrong line" to look for it . private individuals could also run their own loco ad hoc if they so wished .things were frequently chaotic .read the Radstock inquiry on the SDR. Rolt quotes "lock ,block and brake " was the call from the inspectorate ,right up to 1890 , when they finally got their way . the inspectorate then found other fish to fry.
the subject of railway accidents is fascinating ,it gives an insight into how things were .each report is a snapshot of life at the time . my main interest is the 19th C railway and I have spent many years finding out what I can ,and still have barely scratched the surface . I realise this will impress few , but if you really want to know about railway history you have to go and find out for yourself. asking a simplistic question on a forum will achieve little .
Red for Danger is a good starting point ,Wikki is useful but not always to be trusted , Railway Archive is useful, Railway Inspectorate archive good , and the Board of Trade , and the National Archive also, and of course , the NRM archives , altho' these are not as accessible as I would like .Grace's Guide is also good.

 

[edwin_m]

not all trains stop at all stations , and neither did they in the early days . imagine 3 stations , none of whom are keeping accurate time . a pick-up goods is dispatched from station A , followed by a passenger train ,45 mins later. the goods picks up at station B , but is dilatory in its travelling. the passenger train is not . when this train passes station B the interval has been eroded , but the passenger is allowed to continue. the pick-up arrives at station c , and is instructed to shunt clear ,by the bobby who realises the passenger train is now imminent , but a coupling breaks which leaves a number of wagons on the main line. the passenger train collides with these . both local time and time interval will have played a part , but the investigation will find the late running goods'crew , and the broken coupling to be at fault .
travel in the early days was fraught with danger . if a train was late ,it was common practice for an engine to be sent "wrong line" to look for it . private individuals could also run their own loco ad hoc if they so wished .things were frequently chaotic .read the Radstock inquiry on the SDR. Rolt quotes "lock ,block and brake " was the call from the inspectorate ,right up to 1890 , when they finally got their way . the inspectorate then found other fish to fry.
the subject of railway accidents is fascinating ,it gives an insight into how things were .each report is a snapshot of life at the time . my main interest is the 19th C railway and I have spent many years finding out what I can ,and still have barely scratched the surface . I realise this will impress few , but if you really want to know about railway history you have to go and find out for yourself. asking a simplistic question on a forum will achieve little .
Red for Danger is a good starting point ,Wikki is useful but not always to be trusted , Railway Archive is useful, Railway Inspectorate archive good , and the Board of Trade , and the National Archive also, and of course , the NRM archives , altho' these are not as accessible as I would like .Grace's Guide is also good.

Local time plays no part in that scenario - as has been posted multiple times it's not the same as the time interval system.

Stations A, B and C can have clocks showing totally different times, but the time interval can still be worked as intended, as long as the same clock is used to dispatch all the trains from the same place and the clock doesn't run wildly fast or get adjusted forward between trains (slow or stopped is OK as it would resut in a longer interval). So the contributory factors to this accident could include clocks running fast, failing to apply the specified interval between trains, failing to shunt clear promptly and failing to protect a train on arrival - as well as the inherent unsafety of the time interval system. But not difference in time between the clocks at different stations.

 

[krus_aragon]

the railway archive lists 101 accidents in which time interval played a part . the last one mentioned was in 1926. local time probably played a part in a number of these , although it may not be named as a factor. the Railway Archive is not exhaustive. neither were all accidents the subject of an investigation. there are very few stations that have never suffered an accident or incident . my own local station has had a total of 6 that I know of , most of which resulting in fatalities , and that is a relatively simple piece of main line.
a single failing rarely results in an accident , even excessive speed usually has contributory factors. multiple small failings can combine to produce a disaster. read Norwich Thorpe.

not all trains stop at all stations , and neither did they in the early days . imagine 3 stations , none of whom are keeping accurate time . a pick-up goods is dispatched from station A , followed by a passenger train ,45 mins later. the goods picks up at station B , but is dilatory in its travelling. the passenger train is not . when this train passes station B the interval has been eroded , but the passenger is allowed to continue. the pick-up arrives at station c , and is instructed to shunt clear ,by the bobby who realises the passenger train is now imminent , but a coupling breaks which leaves a number of wagons on the main line. the passenger train collides with these . both local time and time interval will have played a part , but the investigation will find the late running goods'crew , and the broken coupling to be at fault .
travel in the early days was fraught with danger . if a train was late ,it was common practice for an engine to be sent "wrong line" to look for it . private individuals could also run their own loco ad hoc if they so wished .things were frequently chaotic .read the Radstock inquiry on the SDR. Rolt quotes "lock ,block and brake " was the call from the inspectorate ,right up to 1890 , when they finally got their way . the inspectorate then found other fish to fry.
the subject of railway accidents is fascinating ,it gives an insight into how things were .each report is a snapshot of life at the time . my main interest is the 19th C railway and I have spent many years finding out what I can ,and still have barely scratched the surface . I realise this will impress few , but if you really want to know about railway history you have to go and find out for yourself. asking a simplistic question on a forum will achieve little .
Red for Danger is a good starting point ,Wikki is useful but not always to be trusted , Railway Archive is useful, Railway Inspectorate archive good , and the Board of Trade , and the National Archive also, and of course , the NRM archives , altho' these are not as accessible as I would like .Grace's Guide is also good.

Thank you, that reply gives a lot more material for us (all) to discuss.

The first scenario you mention bears a lot of similarity to the Abergele railway disaster of 1868 (there were many other time-interval-related accidents in the nearby area: Penmaenmawr 1854, Bangor 1856 and 1857...).

In the general case, under a time-interval system, at each station the signalman/bobby should be keeping their signals at danger until X minutes have elapsed since the last train passed. A scenario where a goods train shunts at a station and needs to move within a given time limit is a subtly different situation, as you state: if the goods train's clock (or equivalent) is slow then they may think they have more time available than they actually do, making an accident at that station with a following train more likely.

I noted that the Railways Archive (in their events listing) include "inadequate time interval" among their types of causes; the only other related category I noted is "lack of timepiece", but from a glance at a few of the contained records they relate more to not knowing the time at all, as opposed to an incorrect timepiece.

Another angle to consider is the remedies that the Board of Trade advocate. The oft-repeated "lock block and brake" mantra includes replacing time-interval working with block working, which would (I think) eradicate any issue with not using a centralised railway time. Did the BoT ever advocate the introduction of railway time (as a result of accidents or otherwise) or was it a decision made by the companies? (I ask this question of the thread in general, not neccesarily gilbert123.) I expect that any such statement would have occurred early in the history of railways (where coverage by the Railways Archive website is a bit more patchy).

One source of BoT accident reports (that is free of charge) is the Hathi Trust archive. They have scans of all sorts of books from university libraries in the USA, which include volumes of reports of the British Parliament(!). If the book is old enough to fall outside of US copyright limitations, the contents are visible free of charge. (Here's a link to the BoT's reports for 1856, for example.)

Another interesting angle on time and timekeeping is where the timetable itself can encourage accidents: The 1904 accident at Tal-y-Cafn was a derailment due to going round a curve at high speed, but the timetable allowed so little time (8 mins between Tal-y-Cafn and Llanrwst*) that the train had to travel at 60mph to keep to schedule!

*Today's fastest service is timed for 10 minutes stop-to-stop on a Class 150, with no intermediate stops.

 

[gilbert123]

Local time plays no part in that scenario - as has been posted multiple times it's not the same as the time interval system.

Stations A, B and C can have clocks showing totally different times, but the time interval can still be worked as intended, as long as the same clock is used to dispatch all the trains from the same place and the clock doesn't run wildly fast or get adjusted forward between trains (slow or stopped is OK as it would resut in a longer interval). So the contributory factors to this accident could include clocks running fast, failing to apply the specified interval between trains, failing to shunt clear promptly and failing to protect a train on arrival - as well as the inherent unsafety of the time interval system. But not difference in time between the clocks at different stations.

read Rolts comments on page 47 . the two are related and indivisible

 

[krus_aragon]

read Rolts comments on page 47 . the two are related and indivisible

And that portion answers one of my earlier questions:

So long as station clocks observed 'local time' the system was a farce. Trains went forward by guess and by God where local time could vary as much as fifteen minutes between one town and another. It was the Board of Trade Inspector, Captain Melhuish, who suggested, in his first report of 1840, that station clocks should all keep London time and so originated what became known as 'railway time'.

And following thereafter, an example of an accident due to lack of proper (or railway!) time:

A passenger train which ran into the rear of a goods train which had stalled in a tunnel near Bootle only three and a half minutes behind it. In explaining this perilous proceeding to the inspector afterwards, a witness candidly admitted that the Bootle station clock 'went wildly'.

 

[gilbert123]

Thank you, that reply gives a lot more material for us (all) to discuss.

The first scenario you mention bears a lot of similarity to the Abergele railway disaster of 1868 (there were many other time-interval-related accidents in the nearby area: Penmaenmawr 1854, Bangor 1856 and 1857...).

In the general case, under a time-interval system, at each station the signalman/bobby should be keeping their signals at danger until X minutes have elapsed since the last train passed. A scenario where a goods train shunts at a station and needs to move within a given time limit is a subtly different situation, as you state: if the goods train's clock (or equivalent) is slow then they may think they have more time available than they actually do, making an accident at that station with a following train more likely.

I noted that the Railways Archive (in their events listing) include "inadequate time interval" among their types of causes; the only other related category I noted is "lack of timepiece", but from a glance at a few of the contained records they relate more to not knowing the time at all, as opposed to an incorrect timepiece.

Another angle to consider is the remedies that the Board of Trade advocate. The oft-repeated "lock block and brake" mantra includes replacing time-interval working with block working, which would (I think) eradicate any issue with not using a centralised railway time. Did the BoT ever advocate the introduction of railway time (as a result of accidents or otherwise) or was it a decision made by the companies? (I ask this question of the thread in general, not neccesarily gilbert123.) I expect that any such statement would have occurred early in the history of railways (where coverage by the Railways Archive website is a bit more patchy).

One source of BoT accident reports (that is free of charge) is the Hathi Trust archive. They have scans of all sorts of books from university libraries in the USA, which include volumes of reports of the British Parliament(!). If the book is old enough to fall outside of US copyright limitations, the contents are visible free of charge. (Here's a link to the BoT's reports for 1856, for example.)

Another interesting angle on time and timekeeping is where the timetable itself can encourage accidents: The 1904 accident at Tal-y-Cafn was a derailment due to going round a curve at high speed, but the timetable allowed so little time (8 mins between Tal-y-Cafn and Llanrwst*) that the train had to travel at 60mph to keep to schedule!

*Today's fastest service is timed for 10 minutes stop-to-stop on a Class 150, with no intermediate stops.

thanks for your reply
the GWR (who else ) introduced RT in 1840 . others followed piecemeal , but it did not pass into law until 1880. see Railway Time - Wiki.
you mention keeping signals at danger , but for many years it was the practice to show "line clear" -unless it wasn't !

additionally , even when block working was made mandatory , the pernicious "permissive block" was allowable which effectively kicked the whole thing into touch, allowing impossibly short headways on occasions

the 1870 Harrow accident occurred when a goods train ,was allowed 16 minutes from Willesden to Harrow and shunt clear of the following express ,working under permissive block. a coupling broke and an accident was the result .7 people died including the driver of the Bloomer pilot .as in 1952 , a lot of wreckage ended up on the platform , killing some waiting commuters

 

[DavidGrain]

This is a story not railway related but will be of interest because of its relevance to local time. In 1817 a servant girl Mary Ashford was murdered in Erdington. now part of Birmingham. A man named Abraham Thornton was charged with her murder. He was acquitted because he had an alibi. Mary Ashford was seen by several witnesses alive and alone in Erdington at 4.00am. Thornton admitted being with Mary Ashford and having sex with her but denied murder. His alibi was that witnesses saw him in nearby Castle Bromwich at 4.30am and it was proved that he would not have had the time to murder her and get to Castle Bromwich by 4.30. What was not realised at the time of the trial was that Erdington and Castle Bromwich were on different times and this alibi did not stack up. It is fair to say at this point that this was not the only evidence for the defence and a new book on the case is due to be published soon. This case also resulted in changes in English law in several ways but these are not relevant to a discussion about Local Time

 

[gilbert123]

I followed Krus-Aragon's link ti the B of T report for 1854 .I haven't read it all yet _there is rather a lot of it) ,but have copied one item to give you a flavour of what was happening at the time
408 accidents in a 4 year period - minor accidents did not usually merit a report, and only 2 are mentioned in Red for Danger , which is not a criticism of Rolt , but merely to say that he only scratched the surface

 

[krus_aragon]

So to summarise some of what's been discussed:

The Railway Regulation Act 1840 established the requirement for railway accidents to be investigated by inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade (and for new passenger railways to be inspected before opening)
1840: BoT inspector recommends all railway clocks be set to London time.
Standardised "railway time" was introduced by the Great Western Railway in November 1840
1846: Liverpool & Manchester, Midland Railways adopt GMT as their railway time
The Railway Clearing House (est 1842) recommended in September 1847 that GMT be adopted as the standard time by all railways in the UK. (As opposed to different railways maintaining their own different railway times) Most large railways switch by 1848.
1855: 98% of towns and cities have adopted GMT for general use (source: Wikipedia)
1880: GMT legally mandated as standard time throughout the country.

That gives a window of a decade or so in the 1840s when we can expect to find British railways using various time standards, and also find detailed reports on accidents caused by such incidents. The window of opportunity will probably be larger overseas.

My impression is that issues of safety due to no railway time are a subset of issues of safety due to time-interval working (or at least that the BoT decided that introducing block working would eradicate both issues).

 

[edwin_m]

And that portion answers one of my earlier questions:

So long as station clocks observed 'local time' the system was a farce. Trains went forward by guess and by God where local time could vary as much as fifteen minutes between one town and another. It was the Board of Trade Inspector, Captain Melhuish, who suggested, in his first report of 1840, that station clocks should all keep London time and so originated what became known as 'railway time'.

I think Rolt is incorrect or at least misleading on this point. There is an implication that the standardisation of time would improve safety, but this is not stated and no reason is given why it would do so. The Board of Trade was responsible for a number of matters related to railways, not just safety, and this recommendation could have been made on grounds of making the service more efficient and easier to use.

And following thereafter, an example of an accident due to lack of proper (or railway!) time:

A passenger train which ran into the rear of a goods train which had stalled in a tunnel near Bootle only three and a half minutes behind it. In explaining this perilous proceeding to the inspector afterwards, a witness candidly admitted that the Bootle station clock 'went wildly'.

If the clock "went wildly" then it doesn't matter what time is was set to or whether that bore any relation to adjoining stations. It is clearly stated that trains left Bootle too close together. This quote also shows that the station clock was used to time the dispatch of trains, not any watches that may have been carried by train crew that could indeed have been set to a non-local time.

While Rolt mentions a 15min time difference, this would be over a long distance. For example Bristol is at about 2.5 degrees west so its solar time would be about 10min different from Greenwich. With stations being very close together at that time, the time difference between consecutive stations observing their own local time would have been only a few seconds. Even if this somehow modified the interval between trains by the same amount, it would be tiny in comparison to the time interval, unless it was decided to have half the route on London time and half on Bristol time so there was a significant difference where they met.

 

[krus_aragon]

I accept you points broadly, but on this point:

This quote also shows that the station clock was used to time the dispatch of trains, not any watches that may have been carried by train crew that could indeed have been set to a non-local time.

The station clock, as a larger, stationary timepiece, would typically be more accurate than a pocket watch. Station staff who had need of a pocket watch would set its time according to the station clock (or other source) on a regular basis, as would any owner of a pocket watch. (Setting all staff's watches by the same clock would be desirable for reasons integral to this thread's topic, and it would be cheaper to buy one accurate clock and several standard pocket watches.)

 

[krus_aragon]

I accept you points broadly, but on this point:


The station clock, as a larger, stationary timepiece, would typically be more accurate than a pocket watch. Station staff who had need of a pocket watch would set its time according to the station clock (or other source) on a regular basis, as would any owner of a pocket watch. (Setting all staff's watches by the same clock would be desirable for reasons integral to this thread's topic, and it would be cheaper to buy one accurate clock and several standard pocket watches.)

As for why use the station clock rather than the guard's (presumed) watch, I think I'm right in saying a train could only proceed with the authority of a station's stationmaster (or a signalman under his command) in those days.

 

[Railway time]

I wanted to say thanks for all of your interesting and reasoned debate.
It seems that there are multiple instances in which a confusion between local times might have been the cause of an accident (in combination with interval timing), but none that anyone knows of which have ben directly attributed to confusion between local times. Is this a fair summary?

 

[Railway time]

This is a story not railway related but will be of interest because of its relevance to local time. In 1817 a servant girl Mary Ashford was murdered in Erdington. now part of Birmingham. A man named Abraham Thornton was charged with her murder. He was acquitted because he had an alibi. Mary Ashford was seen by several witnesses alive and alone in Erdington at 4.00am. Thornton admitted being with Mary Ashford and having sex with her but denied murder. His alibi was that witnesses saw him in nearby Castle Bromwich at 4.30am and it was proved that he would not have had the time to murder her and get to Castle Bromwich by 4.30. What was not realised at the time of the trial was that Erdington and Castle Bromwich were on different times and this alibi did not stack up. It is fair to say at this point that this was not the only evidence for the defence and a new book on the case is due to be published soon. This case also resulted in changes in English law in several ways but these are not relevant to a discussion about Local Time

This story sounds fascinating. I’d love to read more about the local time aspects of it. I read the Wikipedia page and a Few other sources online, but can’t find any mention of local time confusions there. Could you point me to the source where you read about this please?

 

[Railway time]

my name is not "mate"
accidents are rarely a result of a single cause . it usually takes a number of errors by one or more people to defeat the systems in place .
while I cannot find an example directly attributable to local time it is easy to see that it could have a bearing on time interval working, so the important factor is time.
mind you , I have not spent much time looking as I don't intend doing your research for you .
what efforts have you done on your own account ?

No offence was intended by calling you “Mate”.
I wouldn’t ask for you to “do my research for me”. I’ve spent a lot of time trawling through Wikipedia pages and skimming through books and reports of accidents. When I couldn’t find any mentions of local time causing an accident I came to the forum asking for help. I have received a great deal (including some of your later posts). I have no desire to make this an acrimonious thread, so I hope we can all work together in the search for evidence of an accident that can concretely be attributed to the use of local time. Thanks.

 

[edwin_m]

The station clock, as a larger, stationary timepiece, would typically be more accurate than a pocket watch. Station staff who had need of a pocket watch would set its time according to the station clock (or other source) on a regular basis, as would any owner of a pocket watch. (Setting all staff's watches by the same clock would be desirable for reasons integral to this thread's topic, and it would be cheaper to buy one accurate clock and several standard pocket watches.)

I agree with that. The point I was making was that the quote suggests pocket watches used by train crew such as guards were not used for time interval working. If they were, then they could have been set to, say, the local time of the guard's home station and if two trains were dispatched by guards from different stations then the interval might have been compromised. This is the only route I can think of where local time might compromise time and the quote tends to contradict it.

I would have thought it was undesirable to dispatch trains by pocket watches even if held by station staff and checked regularly against the clock. For example someone might not notice that their watch had stopped a few minutes earlier, and a train could have been dispatched when that watch said 9:10 but it was actually 9:15. Dispatching another one at 9:20 by a different watch would have compromised a 10-minute interval. It would also be undesirable to have different people dispatching trains in the same direction (shades of Norwich Thorpe and Abermule many decades later). However the time interval system is so full of holes safety-wise that this sort of thing probably didn't contribute much to the number of accidents...

 

[DavidGrain]

This story sounds fascinating. I’d love to read more about the local time aspects of it. I read the Wikipedia page and a Few other sources online, but can’t find any mention of local time confusions there. Could you point me to the source where you read about this please?

I also read the Wikipedia and some other pages on the case. My source was a lecture I attended at a local history society several years ago given by a gentleman who had researched the case. He went into a lot more detail than is reported on the internet. That is the reason I was careful to say that the alibi was not the sole evidence on which the accused was acquitted. I am also confused over the timing as my local knowledge places Castle Bromwich east of Erdington so I would expect Castle Bromwich timing to be ahead of Erdington. I know the time was a factor because it was mentioned that the witness in Castle Bromwich had checked the clock on the stable block with the chimes of the church clock.

I think we shall have to wait for the publication of the book mentioned in one of the internet posts. I have been in the Tyburn House pub where the dance took place but obviously the present building is not over 200 years old.

 

[gilbert123]

I agree with that. The point I was making was that the quote suggests pocket watches used by train crew such as guards were not used for time interval working. If they were, then they could have been set to, say, the local time of the guard's home station and if two trains were dispatched by guards from different stations then the interval might have been compromised. This is the only route I can think of where local time might compromise time and the quote tends to contradict it.

I would have thought it was undesirable to dispatch trains by pocket watches even if held by station staff and checked regularly against the clock. For example someone might not notice that their watch had stopped a few minutes earlier, and a train could have been dispatched when that watch said 9:10 but it was actually 9:15. Dispatching another one at 9:20 by a different watch would have compromised a 10-minute interval. It would also be undesirable to have different people dispatching trains in the same direction (shades of Norwich Thorpe and Abermule many decades later). However the time interval system is so full of holes safety-wise that this sort of thing probably didn't contribute much to the number of accidents...

while the above is true , there may be instances when a pocket watch would be used . the one which springs to mind is Elliot junct. (Rolt , page 121) when a blizzard brought down the telegraph , and time interval was introduced . this was a local decision in extreme conditions ,and it ended badly. nowt is said about a pocket watch being used ,but it is likely .
a point of interest is that Inspector Soutar ,who acted as Pilotman ,drove one of the East Coast locos in the Race to the North -cant remember which one tho', although it is checkable for those who are interested .

 

[edwin_m]

I took a look at the last two accidents on Railways Archive that claimed to be caused by time interval working.

Bishops Stortford was quite scary in terms of what they let happen during the 1926 General Strike. Volunteers crewing trains, and when the couldn't find anyone to man the boxes they just reverted to time interval working, which relied on the person in the station hearing the train, coming out onto the platform and attracting the driver's attention (assuming they didn't leave the red flag in the office). http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=330

The previous one was before the 1889 Act, at Enniscorthy. This was one of the "wagons must be shunted clear 10min before a passenger train is due" accidents. But while crews might have had pocket watches that might have been set to different times, there was a signalman in charge who should have been controlling movements according to the clock in the box. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=5502

The Elliot Junction report is 49 pages of scratchy small print. I'll take a closer look when I get some time. http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=75

 

[gilbert123]

I have read most of the evidence presented at the Elliot junct. enquiry . much of relates to when the driver had a drink .that he did was not disputed . the salient point was if it was before the crash or after, and the evidence is conflicting . the man was in a state of shock , and had been trapped in the cab for nearly an hour in freezing temperates.
few people - if any ,knew what was happening and nobody disseminated what they did know . the lack of fogmen and the failure by many to place detonators to protect the line ,was criticised , rightly. drivers were not told single line working was in force . no one wanted to step outside their box of responsibility .
the dispatching of trains with an interval of 10 mins,(allegedly) was also a factor , and should have been much greater .

reading between the lines it seems most likely pocket watches were used. A ltho' nothing in the evidence states this specifically .
there is a telling comment in the evidence from the Arbroath signalman regarding possible mismatch of clocks used by neighbouring signal boxes ,which I have appended as a screenprint.
the accident and the situation prevailing paint a picture of chaos . the only safe course would have been to stop all traffic , but I guess "management" would have dealt harshly with any man that did that