RE: [cpsig] Gyrolights (was Re: Domes and icicle breaker cars)
- From: "Doug Cummings" <DougCummings@xxxxxxx>
- To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:08:37 -0800
So far we've engaged in a LOT of conjecture. Nobody on this
list has yet produced ANYTHING from the CPR or other contemporary
sources stating the purpose of these roof-mounted lights.
--Agreed. So you agree no one has said these were for safety and/or
visibility reasons, as some have suggested. So offering other possibilities,
such as spotting icicles, is just as likely as any other. So, Joe, what is
the problem? In fact spotting icicles was what were told when they were
first installed and no one ever said anything to the contrary over the next
40 odd years.
JDS: You have had your questions about the use of the roof mounted
lights answered by knowledgeable old-timers. What more do you expect?
The type of company documentation you seek probably no longer exists.
The information that has been supplied to you was common knowledge
amongst concerned railway employees through the years. What we've told you
is not conjecture and when we don't know for sure, we say so. If
knowledgeable
old-timers are disagreeing with what I and other old-timers have told you,
then they are doing it very privately. I haven't had anybody genuinely
knowledgeable quarrel with the answers I or people like Roger Burrows
have given you, so what's the problem?
--The comments I am reading are pretty much "I think" comments with no basis
in fact that I am aware of. In many of the comments quote boldly say just
that, . . . "I think. . . ." I was told by railroaders back when the
gryolights first came into use that their purpose was to help the engine
crew see potential problems, specifically icicles. Others are saying it was
so people would see the train better, despite the fact why did no other
train use these lights, if that was the case I would expect all trains would
be so equipped. If they want to believe that, then we will have to agree to
disagree. Please provide facts before conjecture.
Though I'd
personally side with the PR angle. And it would work fine until The
Canadian was led by an RS10, RS18, GP9, E8, or even a steam-jenny
fitted Train Master.
JDS: You assume that ice-breaker equipped and roof mounted lights
were crucial or even mandatory equipment for units assigned to
the Canadian. They weren't, especially in an emergency.
I remember many times when the Canadian was handled
by a couple of passenger service equipped GP9 units. They certainly did not
have roof lights or icicle breakers.
--Where did I say that? I have never assumed or said they were mandatory.
--Joe you are suggesting I said things which I never said. They are comments
that others made.
Yet was the CPR not fitting RDC's with Gyrolites for improved public
crossing visual conspicuity at about the time that The Canadian was
introduced to the travelling public? Which raises the possibility that
the CPR also wanted to make The Canadian more visible to motorists?
--Again I bring up the point, if the Gryolights were to make the trains more
visible why did they not use them on ALL trains. Thus, IMHO, visibility to
the public was not the main reason they used the roof mounted gryolights.
The fact remains that generally speaking they used them only on the Canadian
and later on the RDC's. No other passenger trains or freights trains used
them with the possible exception of whenever the Dominion or another train
may have had an FP as lead locomotive. Until now their use on the RDC's has
not been a subject of discussion and we should leave it out of the
discussion. But if you want to I totally agree with your comments that in
that instance there was a definite safety issue involved.
And as suggested, if Dean and Hanna are wrong in their book's photo
caption regarding these lights' purpose, what else is also inaccurate
in that book? To assert that Dean and Hanna printed an inaccurate
caption in their book on CP's diesel locos is also to raise the
spectre of other inaccuracies contained in it. Which opens a can of
worms...
So is Dean and Hanna's book not to be relied on?
--That is a matter of individual opinion. All I can say that in their
explanation of the purpose of the roof lights there is no evidence to
support what they said in the caption, in fact ample evidence has been
provide to indicate visibility was not the reason for these lights. Again I
will say if visibility and safety was an issue why were not they not used on
other trains, or by other railroads.
JDS: Dean and Hanna's book may rightly be considered the Bible for
the first 35 years of diesel operation on the CPR. However, like any
publication, it is not infallible. The authors did their best with the
information they could get their hands on. It wasn't always complete
nor necessarily completely accurate. You wouldn't believe the
contradictions
in official records sometimes. I pretty near went crazy trying to reconcile
the differences in engineering records when I wrote the KV Mileboards book.
--I know all about contradictions. Read a Union Agreement or the law books.
That is why we have grievances and lawyers and courts whose sole job is to
interpret contradictions.
Interesting discussion. If you don't agree with my comments, fine, I may not
agree with yours either. However we are fully entitled to our opinions and
view points.
Doug
Other related posts:
