The assistant-inspector of permanent way of the South-Eastern Company was standing on the up platform, near the south end of the Redhill station, when he noticed that the up main line-signal near the siding was down, an the arm applying to the siding was at danger. He saw the goods engine move forward towards the main line, and the approaching passenger train at the same time, and also saw the South Eastern engine hit the Brighton engine. He noticed that the position of the arms on the signal post were reversed after the accident
A platform inspector of the South Eastern Company at the Redhill station, standing at the south end of the up platform, was waiting for the train from Godstone and Tunbridge, in order to attached the Reading portion to the Tunbridge portion. He noticed that the signals were down for the passenger train to approach, and saw the two engines come together almost at the same moment. The upper arm was at all right for the Tunbridge train.
In this case there appears to ve no doubt as the cause of the collision. The engine driver of the Brighton Company asserts, it is true, most positively, that the arm on the semaphore post applying to the siding in which he was standing was lowered for him to pass out to the main line; but the evidence on the other side is overwhelming. The locking apparatus in the signal cabin would have prevented the signals for the main line and for the siding from being lowered at the same time; and there can be no doubt, although the driver of the South Eastern train gave his evidence in anything but a satisfactory manner, that the signals were lowered for him to pass through the junction and run into the station at Redhill; or that the driver of the Brighton Company’s engine neglected to observe, before he got his engine into motion to pass out of the siding, that the siding signal was against him. The Brighton Company’s engine driver had been acting in that capacity for 15 months, and had previously been an engine driver for between six and seven years on the Highland Railway. He left the Highland Company’s employment in consequence of a dispute with his fireman, but it does not appear that he caused any accident on the Highland line. For the whole of the 15 months this man had been going in and out of the siding in question daily, and therefore he was perfectly well acquainted with the line and the signals.
But such a mistake on the part of the Brighton Company’s engine driver would not have led to any bad consequences if there had been safety point connected with this siding for the protection of the main line. I recommend that these be immediately supplied. They may either be worked from the signal cabby the same lever as the siding points, or to worked by a separate lever, and interlocked with the signals. In looking at the spot it would appear also to be desirable that another signal post should be added on the South Eastern line, as a distant signal at a greater distance from the junction cabin. The want of such an additional signal post had nothing to do with the present accident, inasmuch as the signals were lowered, and the driver of the South Eastern Company had a perfect right to run through the junction; but the present distant signal being only 313 yards from the signal near the siding points, it would appear better either that the present distant signal be removed to a greater distance, and be worked with a repeater in the cabin, or else that another signal post should be supplied, and the present distant signal be used as a repeater to it. It might further be a wise precaution to letter on the signal post near the siding points, marking the one main line and the other siding.