Here is a full signal box diagram:52D wrote:Im not sure about Musselburgh layout but i would be over the moon if someone can find a Newhailes signalbox diagram.
http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=870
I show this as c1960 but as far as I know the only significant change since the accident would have been the addition of the second goods loop which was added in 1943.
The MT6 files at Kew cover all lines that the BoT/MoT were responsible for, so include Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, after around 1919, only the reports exist and not the plans and other associated correspondence. And, to be honest, the nature of this accident is such that I would doubt any signalling changes would have been required.[/quote]billdonald wrote:Another good place to look if you are trawling the PRO at Kew is the MT6 series. This is the RI, BoT, MoT inspection reports for running lines and stations. Often when an accident occured, there may have been modifications to the signalling arrangements resulting in a subsequent inspection. The MT series in general are a goldmine in terms of local railway information regarding a railway location, although I have to say, I've no experience of the railway archieves of Scotland in Edinburgh. Thus my statements may only apply to England and Wales - I'm sure one of the Scottish and Northern Ireland bods will tell us if they hold and equivalent to MT6 in their records.
Another factor is that the poor lady who died was technically not a member of the public as she was working at the station.Saint Johnstoun wrote:As a passenger train was not involved, it is probably unlikely that due to the constraints of War, that the Ministry of Transport didn't get involved in a full enquiry. I've also checked and there does not seem to be any MOT report on this incident!
However, if nothing else, the LNER would have conducted their own investigation and there may be something on record at the Scottish Record Office. If investigation revealed a "cut and dried" case, an admission of error, there would be little to justify a public enquiry.
From the information already established in this discussion, I think we should accept the Sherriff''s comments about lack of knowledge of the intricacies of railway operation. I can only think of a limited number of possible causes:
- That the driver was not telling the truth in saying the distant was seen "off". There is no splitting distant for the junction (and I have records to show that to be the case at least as far back as 1917) so the signal would have been interlocked to only be clearable when the main line Home and Starter were off. He admits not looking at the Home so I would say there was a good chance he did not look at the Distant either. Why? Hard to say, but there are other accidents (think Harrow) which suggest that this can happen. Drivers do have other things to do other than look at signals and it must have been so easy to not be looking out at the critical moment the signal was in view.
- That the signalman put the signals back and changed the route after the train had passed the Distant signal. Why? He could have been acting nefariously, or simply thought he had the train identities confused and had made things worse by thinking he had corrected an error. There is evidence of both happening occasionally elsewhere.
- Vandalism - there is evidence of at least one accident (Smedley Viaduct) being caused by wedging of signals in the clear position.
Kindest regards,
John