Correspondence - February 11, 1905


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Tidal Power on Rivers o1 Bay of Fundy. To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMEBICAN: Recently an article appeared in your valuable journal from a Mr. Cleaveland, relative to the great opportunity for getting power from the tidal rivers at head of Bay of Fundy, notably the Petitcodiac River, flowing past Moncton, New Brunswick. Mr. Cleavelands contention is good so far as it goes, and undoubtedly much power could be had, at certain times, but he forgot to mention that for five months of the year, practically, these rivers are one solid mass of snow and ice, hence there would be only seven months of the year the power could be utilized properly. It may be, however, Mr. Cleaveland has some plan or theory, whereby this tidal power could be still used during the five winter months. If so, I am sure all your readers and the public generally would be pleased to know his views on same, as if this difficulty could be met, there undoubtedly could be a wonderful amount of power derived from the many large tidal rivers at the head of the Bay of Fundy, such as the Petitcodiac, Tantramar, Shubenacadie, Avon, St. Croix, and many others of smaller size. I should like to hear more upon the subject. INQUIRER. New Brunswick, January 23, 1905. Tlie Automatic Train Stop. To the Editor of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Your admirable editorial entitled Schedule vs. Safety has been called to my attention. As I am the inventor of the automatic train stop used on the In-terborough tunnel to which you refer, I feel entitled to express my opinion of the manner in which you have handled the subject. The eminently successful action of the device on the express tracks in the tunnel certainly warrants the belief that it could be made to work equally as well on the local tracks, were it not for the impression now prevailing that it is necessary to keep each train in a separate section or block. Theoretically this is right, and is just what it does. In practice, the presence of a train in one section need not require that a train about to enter a section behind -it should come to a full stop, and stay there until .the first mentioned train has proceeded into the next block; for that would most certainly congest a very busy line. The proper function of the automatic train control is not to assume the prerogatives of the healthy human intelligence, but it is rather the substitution of mechanical precision for the occasional lapses or misconceptions of the human element, thereby preventing an impending catastrophe until the man at the controller can intelligently and comprehensively reassert his control and proceed under (if you please) the united judgment of himself and the train conductor, who might otherwise ordinarily remain in ignorance of the existence of the danger conditions confronting his train. At least one chief engineer of signals says, in effect, that an excessive amount of traffic justifies the taking of increased risks in order to get the companys business over the road on time. The public, however, are beginning to think that increased business calls for extraordinary precaution ; in fact, records show that the most and the worst railroad wrecks have occurred in years and on those roads put down as the busiest and most prosperous. On a road operating but two or three trains a day, it is much safer to depend upon the judgment of the engineer than it is upon roads where trains are counted by the hundreds. The latter should be required by law to use only the absolute system, which means a full stop at a danger signal. The statement of the signal engineer above referred to shows that permissive signaling is the rule on his road rather than the exception. The difference between the application of the absolute system with visual signals and the same system with visual signals and the automatic control as an auxiliary is the same, except when a misunderstanding of the visual or written orders is offset by the mechanical precision of the automatic control, which never sleeps nor becomes confused. He who says - it is impractical, is practically claiming that human ingenuity has reached its fullest limits in the present perfection of visual and audible signals, which in turn means that as traffic and speed increase, we are to be treated to increasing numbers of casualties. Where trains are run under close headway, my resetting device is essential, and may or may not be so operated as to require the intelligent action of two individuals to restore normal power and brake system conditions. The time for its operation can be reduced to two or three seconds, where the rules of a road permit a train to go on under control. This would be of slight consequence compared to the risk run by not using an automatic control. T. E. KINSMAN. 91 Liberty Street, New York.

SA Supplements Vol 59 Issue 1519suppThis article was published with the title “Correspondence” in SA Supplements Vol. 59 No. 1519supp (), p. 122
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican02111905-24338asupp

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe