The LNER Encyclopedia

I'm just not in tune with the 21st Century.

Firstly, I was planning a bicycle ride today so I could see Flying Scotsman pass south of Durham. However the travelling times have been withheld owing to the risk of trespass. I can understand this, after St Neots, but are there just more stupid people in the UK than there used to be?

Also, foolishly, I watched the BBC4 television programme on the Quintinshill disaster yesterday evening. Why does this sensationalist and revisionist stuff get made, let alone given air time? I had thought better of Neil Oliver.

Actually, the coverage of the use and non-use of signal lever collars was interesting; but the emphasis on the dangers of wooden-bodied and gas-lit stock made no mention of such stock in 1915 being the in the majority and that some such vehicles lasted so long in service. The programme also appeared to the blame the Caledonian for using such stock when it was GC stock running as a troop train. And.... and.....

Oh well, I suppose we do have quite a lot to be grateful for really.

As regards to wot happened at Quintinshill in 1915 well after occasionally reading about the Quintinshill accident for nearly 50 years now the main blame for the accident was 'dumped on' the two signalmen George Meakin & James Tinsley and fireman Hutchinson of the local for not carrying out rule 55 properly although other factors probably contributed to the accident like the lack of track circuiting (on the Up line especially) and the gas lit wooden rolling stock that ended up burning to death a number of injured soldiers that survived the initial crash and the second crash but were unable to be freed in time from the wreckage before the fire reached them a truely horriffic thought.

Mickey

ITV news this evening had a report on t'invisible' workings o' t'Flying Scotsman'. I missed it as me 'ealthy 'eart fry-up were ready and I were summonses t'kitchen. Happen mebbe someone else watched it?

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote: " .... although other factors probably contributed to the accident like the lack of track circuiting (on the Up line especially) and .... "

Quite so Mickey, though it should be borne in mind how relatively little track-circuiting existed anywhere on the main network at that time, generally speaking.

If anyone's seriously interested in weighing up much information and opinion on the Quintinshill incident, in the wake of that BBC programme's original screening and the relatively recent book which no doubt prompted it, eight forum pages of discussion can be found here : -

http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7224

StevieG wrote:
If anyone's seriously interested in weighing up much information and opinion on the Quintinshill incident, in the wake of that BBC programme's original screening and the relatively recent book which no doubt prompted it, eight forum pages of discussion can be found here : -

http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7224

...wIth a further 9 pages of discussion at http://forum.signalbox.org/viewtopic.ph ... intinshill.

With regard to Meakin's intentions as regards the 6.10 local, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the version he gave to the BoT Inquiry ("I decided to shunt the latter to allow the expresses to pass" - i.e. BOTH down expressses) and that given to the Carlisle inquest ("(Telford:) '...why did you cross the local train over? Why didn't you hold up the express?' (Meakin:) 'Because I expected the local train would follow the 5.50 express.'"). So which of these statements represent his actual intention?

I also find it interesting that Meakin's decision that the local was to be propelled over the unclipped, undetected facing point of the crossover excited no adverse comment. Was such a practice commonplace in 1915?

John Palmer wrote:I also find it interesting that Meakin's decision that the local was to be propelled over the unclipped, undetected facing point of the crossover excited no adverse comment. Was such a practice commonplace in 1915?

I never thought of that before?. Without looking up Quintinshill track diagram for 1915 i can't remember if there was a ground signal or not provided for the main to main crossover but it there was or there wasn't a 'passenger train' being 'propelled' or set-back through that crossover without the facing end of the crossover in particular being clipped & scotched was possibly a bit unusual although as John points out was that common practice back then?. Maybe it was a case of 'sloppy working' i'm guessing?.

Mickey

StevieG wrote:

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote: " .... although other factors probably contributed to the accident like the lack of track circuiting (on the Up line especially) and .... "

Quite so Mickey, though it should be borne in mind how relatively little track-circuiting existed anywhere on the main network at that time, generally speaking.

To be honest Stevie I was getting slightly confused when i said there wasn't any track circuiting particularly on the Up line which was actually correct. As you correctly point out very little track circuiting existed anywhere on britain's railways in 1915 (except maybe at a few locations) and a place like Quintinshill would probably come very low down on any list for track circuiting to be installed but the reason why I mentioned it was in a book by Hamilton Ellis called Railway Accidents Of The Twentieth Century first published in 1966 (which i have a first edition) Mr.Ellis wrote something to the effect that... Today the Up line at Quintinshill is still unprotected without track circuits as it was on that day in May 1915.

Mickey

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote:

StevieG wrote:

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote: " .... although other factors probably contributed to the accident like the lack of track circuiting (on the Up line especially) and .... "

Quite so Mickey, though it should be borne in mind how relatively little track-circuiting existed anywhere on the main network at that time, generally speaking.

To be honest Stevie I was getting slightly confused when i said there wasn't any track circuiting particularly on the Up line which was actually correct. As you correctly point out very little track circuiting existed anywhere on britain's railways in 1915 (except maybe at a few locations) and a place like Quintinshill would probably come very low down on any list for track circuiting to be installed but the reason why I mentioned it was in a book by Hamilton Ellis called Railway Accidents Of The Twentieth Century first published in 1966 (which i have a first edition) Mr.Ellis wrote something to the effect that... Today the Up line at Quintinshill is still unprotected without track circuits as it was on that day in May 1915.

Mickey

.... Also a far from unusual situation in '66.
E.g., you, me, and many others will be aware of what so much of 'the GN' main line through London, Herts., Beds., and beyond was like for track circuiting : Apart from notable exceptions, such as Kings Cross, New Barnet - Potters Bar, Doncaster station area, and the occasional Fast Line/s Track-Circuit-Block section between the old 'mechanical' boxes, T-C'g tended to be concentrated only around immediate areas of each signal box; sometimes complete coverage (of which WGC was one), others not even that, with it often being confined variously to passenger line (or even just Fast Line) facing points [e.g. no T-C'g on either end of Cemetery Box's DS-DF 'turn-out'], and/or station platforms, &/or running line stretches extending to more than 100-200 yards from the signalman, &/or at a box's first stop signals on a passenger line(s) for the application of "Welwyn" Block Controls.
Elsewhere in 1966-'72, some 'GN'' 'rush-hour'-busy(-ish) boxes had no track-circuiting at all, and even no supplementary electrical signalling / Block controls at all (not even 'Line Clear' releases on the Starting signals into the block section ahead; e.g. Winchmore Hill and Crews Hill.)

Thank you everybody, and especially StevieG for the very interesting links.

I feel that it is also useful to point out that there was so much that was difficult for everybody in 1915. The casualties, although of course quite terrible, were small compared with the Gallipoli fighting and the Western front.

Who prior to the war would have realised that so much railway capacity would be taken up moving Welsh steam coal to the north of Scotland?

drmditch wrote:I feel that it is also useful to point out that there was so much that was difficult for everybody in 1915. The casualties, although of course quite terrible, were small compared with the Gallipoli fighting and the Western front.

What I read on the Quintinshill accident the Scottish regiment that was involved in the accident was destined for Gallipoli anyway!.

drmditch wrote:Who prior to the war would have realised that so much railway capacity would be taken up moving Welsh steam coal to the north of Scotland?

Obviously all that Welsh steam coal was destined for the Grand Fleet anchored at Scarpa Flow and according again to what I read those coal trains heading north passed Quintinshill box were referred to as "Jellicoe specials" by the signalmen and other railwaymen along there route.

Mickey

With regards to 'the Scotsman' personally I prefer her running in LNER apple green as 4472 with no German smoke deflectors and no all black buffers!!.

Mickey

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote:To be honest Stevie I was getting slightly confused when i said there wasn't any track circuiting particularly on the Up line which was actually correct. As you correctly point out very little track circuiting existed anywhere on britain's railways in 1915 (except maybe at a few locations) and a place like Quintinshill would probably come very low down on any list for track circuiting to be installed but the reason why I mentioned it was in a book by Hamilton Ellis called Railway Accidents Of The Twentieth Century first published in 1966 (which i have a first edition) Mr.Ellis wrote something to the effect that... Today the Up line at Quintinshill is still unprotected without track circuits as it was on that day in May 1915.

Mr Hamilton-Ellis was mistaken. The Caledonian quickly installed a track-circuit on the Up Main as a typical railway "knee-jerk" reaction despite Quintinshill not being a place where under normal circumstances you would shunt trains in that manner (that's what the loops were for!). However, there was no corresponding track circuit provided on the Down Main until the 1970s nor at other boxes on the line - nor was it (from memory) considered important enough in those days for the Inspecting Officers to recommend such provision in the report.

John

thesignalman wrote:

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote:To be honest Stevie I was getting slightly confused when i said there wasn't any track circuiting particularly on the Up line which was actually correct. As you correctly point out very little track circuiting existed anywhere on britain's railways in 1915 (except maybe at a few locations) and a place like Quintinshill would probably come very low down on any list for track circuiting to be installed but the reason why I mentioned it was in a book by Hamilton Ellis called Railway Accidents Of The Twentieth Century first published in 1966 (which i have a first edition) Mr.Ellis wrote something to the effect that... Today the Up line at Quintinshill is still unprotected without track circuits as it was on that day in May 1915.

Mr Hamilton-Ellis was mistaken. The Caledonian quickly installed a track-circuit on the Up Main as a typical railway "knee-jerk" reaction despite Quintinshill not being a place where under normal circumstances you would shunt trains in that manner (that's what the loops were for!). However, there was no corresponding track circuit provided on the Down Main until the 1970s nor at other boxes on the line - nor was it (from memory) considered important enough in those days for the Inspecting Officers to recommend such provision in the report.

I dare say your correct John i'll have to have a quick look again at that book and see what Mr.Ellis actually wrote about Quintinshill because I wrote that post from memory with what I thought I remember what he wrote without actually checking?.

Mickey

FINSBURY PARK 5 wrote:I dare say your correct John i'll have to have a quick look again at that book and see what Mr.Ellis actually wrote about Quintinshill because I wrote that post from memory with what I thought I remember what he wrote without actually checking?.

Hi Mickey,

Here is the signalling arrangements at 1956:
http://signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=616

He may have been looking at the Down line when he wrote.

Best regards,

John

Yeah thanks John i've seen that Quintinshill diagram of yours before thats a great drawing by the way and infact ALL your track diagrams are excellent and some of them are so complicated to draw like your Goods And Mineral Junction diagram but they all look great!!.

Obviously Mr.Ellis made a minor mistake regarding the track circuiting at Quintinshill.

Mickey