Talk:1898 St Johns rail accident

Trains: in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance).

Article feedback

Again, sincere thanks to User:Rickedmo for creating this article. There's some interesting feedback in a comment by Pedantic of Purley in reply to a post at the blog London Reconnections, and also in the discussion that follows. I won't copy it here for obvious copyright reasons, but the gist is that the report, which this article is mostly based on, is potentially a bit misleading about how much blame can be placed on the override key for the Sykes "lock and block" interlocking; he says "it seems clear to me that this actually played no part in the accident". Well worth reading in its entirety. Quietbritishjim (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that at that time the signalmen in adjacent signal cabins communicated by a series of bell codes. Although the signalman at Park Bridge had rung the code to offer St Johns the next train and St Johns had rung back the bell code accepting the train, the signal controlling entry to the section where the accident happened was under the control of St Johns. Once Signalman Honey had rung the acceptance code he would have gone to his signal levers and found them locked. Hence the use of the key to unlock them. It was Honey over-riding the signalling system that allowed the accident to happen.

Although the signalman at Park Bridge had received the bell code that St Johns would accept the train, that was only to communicate the intentions of the St John's signalman (to assist with the smooth running of the railway). It was outside of the control of Park Bridge to set the signal in question to “clear” – that was solely under the control of St Johns. Rickedmo (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signals controlling the entry to a section are always under the direct control of the signalbox at the start of that section, although the levers at that box might be interlocked with the block telegraph, as indeed they were on this line. Thus, the signals protecting the section from Parks Bridge to St John's were under the control of Parks Bridge (Signalman Duval); and the signals protecting the section from St John's to New Cross were under the control of St John's (Signalman Honey). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your deeper knowledge regarding who had control of entry to the section where the accident happened. But surely, as you say, the signal would have been interlocked with the treadle operated as the train entered the next section. Signalman Honey at St Johns over-rode the treadle with the key thereby releasing the interlocking on the Park Bridge operation of the entry signal.

My understanding is that if Signalman Honey had not used the key, there would not have been an accident. That is the whole point of the interlocking. Signalman Duval at Park Bridge would not have had the ability to set the entry signal to “clear” solely on hearing the bell code from St Johns. The signal was interlocked with the treadle. The treadle was not operated but Honey used his key to over-ride it. Rickedmo (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]