Talk:Clay Cross Tunnel
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Absolute block signalling system edit
The reason given for introducing the absolute block signalling system makes no sense. Where was the danger in re-calling the pilot? The engineer on the pilot knew about the train in front of him. The danger comes when there is a train in front unexpectedly. But there is an accident at Clay Cross Tunnel which perfectly fits and calls for an absolute block signalling: On 29th of March 1844 a train stranded in the tunnel due to a mechanical problem. The driver of the following train didn’t notice it or noticed it too late due to the smoke in the tunnel. One person died in the following rear end collision.[1] That is the kind of accident calling for an absolute block signalling system. Was perhaps this accident the reason for introducing it on the line through the tunnel? -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)