Advice to the Reader on the "Catechism"

A warning posted by Vic Polewsky on the Yahoo group, reprinted with permission.

I've refrained from mentioning this catechism here since joing the group a few yrs ago because this one isn't good study material, though I suppose it's alright for non-professionals who won't ever be in a position to rely on anything from the book as authoritive, and won't argue here about something contained in the catechism is reliable.

Indeed this [catechism] book is fraught with typos, errors, omissions, and frequently misleads. For example, it suggests at p.37, that signals may be called by color, rather than by name. Granted there were some roads way back then that condoned such practise, but it's always been improper, and dangerous under various circumstances, for reasons that should be obvious to any rules student giving the matter a little thought.

Even if the book was perfect, which it isn't by any stretch of imagination it could only relate to none other than the 1950 UCOR and only some or one of the 1950 UCOR roads subscribing to its edicts. (Sorry but I don't know which ones they might have been back then.)

As another example, at p.13 q.133 pertaining to Rule 4, the published answer is incorrect. Granted you guys don't seem to ever need to use Rule 4 in your play operations but it was quite significant once upon a time when regular trains (including sections) found themselves in different situations at different places at the moment of timetable change; and getting things right, with regards to Rule 4, required spcl rules experts to be in the ofc a few hrs before the new TT came into effect and remain in position until it was ascertained that all movements came out correctly on their new schedules.

In q.134, he's got the right answer, but for the wrong reason. And reasoning is as important in a book like this as the answer itself, because correct reasoning is what'll usually get you to the correct answer(s). Otherwise it's by fluke, and that's dangerous.

The answers given for q.153 and q.155 are also wrong. Since you guys don't ever use Rule 4 (which rule is loaded down with so many variables and innuendos that large books have been written upon this rule alone), I won't belabor it; except to show that all THESE errors added onto to those in Vol I, doesn't give one very much comfort for anything upcoming. Seems that if anyone took an exam on the 1950 UCOR and used all the answers given in the catechism, you'd probably flunk.

I'll just quickly peek at another volume, considering I haven't looked at this book in ages. Now I wanted to chk out what he has to say about some TO rules, and his errors continue. E.g., Pt 3, p.77, Rule 217, q.700. Answer published is at odds with the rule, whereby it's wrong too.

Since his answers cannot be trusted to be correct, it's poor study material; you'll frequently need to cross-reference the actual rule in the rule book and THINK, before accepting the published answer. Where the catechism gives reasoning in support of an answer, it's as likely as not to be wrong and you'd be wise to ask a good rules student to verify particular ones of interest.