Page:Report on the Shrivenham train crash of 15 January 1936 - MoT Shrivenham1936.pdf/11

 13. There was an interval of as much as four minutes between the time, 5.18 a.m., when Signalman E. F. Jefferies, of Ashbury Crossing, transmitted the Out-of-Section signal for the mineral train to Head, and the time of the entry of the express into the section at Marston Crossing, 8.22 a.m. Had Jefferies also not failed to observe that the mineral train was incomplete when it passed him, and had he warned Head promptly, the latter would have had plenty of time to correct his mistake and the accident would not have happened. I consider that the same measure of responsibility rests upon Jefferies as upon Head.

His omission was aggravated by the facts that be was only dealing with the mineral train at the time, that it passed his box at very slow speed, and that having watched the major portion of it go by, he turned away to attend lo a telephone call; further, by his own evidence, even if a tail light had existed, he only attempted to view it after the telephone conversation ceased and then at considerable range. It is significant that he admitted that he would not have failed had he watched the train throughout the whole of its passage. The available evidence does not convince me that the telephone conversation, to which he referred, took place at the time which he suggested.

Signalman Jefferies is 36 years of age, and has 19 years' service, with a good record; he had acted in his present capacity at Ashbury Crossing for nine years.

14. This accident is a reminder of the risks inherent in the failure of coupling apparatus and in the division of goods trains which are not fitted with the continuous brake. The general question of the integrity of drawgear was referred to in my Report upon the accident at Dagenham in December, 1931, in which certain statistics were also given; improvement is to be noted in the number of divisions, as reported by the Companies.

As compared with the averages for the five-year period 1930-34 of 2,639 cases of pulling out or breakage of drawhooks and bars, and of 1,266 cases of breakage of coupling links, the corresponding figures (provisional) for 1935 were 2,226 and 1,003 cases respectively; these accounted for 86.5 per cent. of the divisions of goods trains, railway and privately-owned stock roughly contributing half each. The predominance of failure in respect of drawhooks and bars continues; but these figures are only a small proportion of the yearly totals, if fractures during shunting operations be taken into account.

It was agreed that from the 1st March, 1934, all new drawhooks and bars must be made without welds from steel of 32-38 tons per sq. in. tensile, but that the fitting, as renewals, of drawhooks and bars which were in stock or on order would be permitted up to the 30th June, 1934. Following representations by the Private Wagon Owners' Associations, the latter date was first extended to the 31st December, 1931. and subsequently to the 31st March, 1935. It is specified that drawhooks and bars made of this steel are to be normalised and to withstand a proof load of 30 tons without permanent set, the pull to be from the hook and also from the Gedge slot.

Mr. A. W. Brooks, General Wagon Manager, Messrs. Stephenson Clarke and Associated Companies, Ltd., informed me that his group are complying with the applicable R.C.H. Regulation in respect of all their new construction; lie is also taking special steps to test and examine the drawgear of wagons built to the same order as No. 53107. With regard, however, to renewals, such as the hook in question, while steel hooks to the above specification are being supplied for this purpose, a small proportion of the firm's renewals are still being effected, with the approval of the Railway Companies, in wrought iron, welded or otherwise as the case may be.

I understand that while the time limit for using up the stock of drawhooks and bars was extended to the 31st March, 1935, all new drawgear after that date must be of the new design and material. But old drawgear may still be used again, provided that it can be altered in certain agreed ways, and, if the material is mild steel, that no repair is effected by welding, which is only permitted if it is known with certainty that the material is iron.

The question arises whether the general improvement in strength, which is so much desired, will be sufficiently quickly attained, unless actual substitution of the stronger equipment can be carried out before the scrapping of old wrought iron and mild steel equipment becomes inevitable, through wear or failure.