Victorian Level Crossing Fatality Procedures

[Andy873]

For this accident I've looked everywhere (as far as I know) but can't find an accident report or any articles on the inquest of the person who was killed at an occupation level crossing and was hoping you could fill in the gaps as to what would probably have happened.

The following is fact:

Tuesday night, 7th of December 1880, Henry Tomlinson a farmer at Dunkirk farm near the village of Read was struck by an evening passenger train while he was crossing the occupation level crossing that led to and from his farm. He was killed along with his horse and the cart was smashed to bits. He left a wife and five young children ranging from 10 years old to 6 months. A very sad incident.

This sad accident happened half a mile west of Simonstone station. The train was either (the papers can't agree) the 9.26 pm or the 10.23 pm from Burnley to Blackburn. The train was said to be going at a rapid pace.

Once the accident happens, what's the procedure and sequence of events?

Clearly the train has to stop.
Someone, maybe the guard jumps down and checks out the farmer etc.

Questions:

Wouldn't someone walk albeit quickly back to Simonstione station to inform the station or the box there of the accident?

Presumably, Simonstone signal box would then send the emergency bell code to the boxes either side of it, and they in turn inform their respective junction boxes? All boxes showing line blocked.

Would the police be called there and then?
Would passenger names and addresses be taken for witness statements?
If the train is reasonably undamaged, how long would it remain at the scene?
Would the train complete the journey?
An accident report is filled out by the train crew? and so on...

As said, I can't find a railway accident report, nor can I find an inquest report into the farmers death, although it's obvious what killed him.

So what would have happened after the accident please?

 

[frankmoh]

It was the Victorian times. Not much safety back then. I think everyone involved (aside from the farmer) had to carry on with their day regardless.

 

[Gloster]

Generally, unless there was a suggestion of foul play, it would be a case of getting the service running again as quickly as possible. It is only in the last thirty tears or so that complete shutdown of everything has become the norm. Even in the early 1980s we continued to run trains past a (covered) dead body or firemen extracting somebody from a car nosed into the ballast: we just told the driver to pass the site at walking pace.

Probably the guard went back and checked: if necessary he asked if there was a doctor on the train and he would also find someone from the nearest habitation to move the body, take charge of/shoot the animal (Bad luck if it is the farmer’s family.) If near a station somebody would go to that and dump it all on the station master. The driver would check the loco: remains would be removed by throwing hot water at them. The train would then proceed to the next box who would get a ganger out to check the line and remove remains.

If the train had been long in section the signalman might stop a train in the opposite direction and the crew would give a hand or be first to tell the box at the other end. The police probably would be told fairly soon but the job wouldn’t wait until they got there.

If the train was undamaged it would normally continue its delayed journey.

I doubt that passengers names would be taken as they can’t say anything useful.

Quite possibly the driver wouldn’t fill out anything except a delay form (if the L&Y used them), but he would tell his shed chargeman or whoever.

I wouldn’t expect there to be an official report for a minor incident like this: it fell well below the threshold for mandatory enquiries.

EDIT: Line blocked would only show between the two boxes either side of the incident: it might not even be used between them in the opposite direction, although a cautious signalman might block it if information is confused. The other sections wouldn’t be blocked because the line is not blocked in them: the service might be messed up, but that is not the same thing. It might be blocked between B and C, but it is perfectly ok to run between A and B and C and D. The junctions or control would probably be told if there was any likelihood of a lengthy delay so they can look at any possible alterations.

 

[stuving]

There is a report of the inquest (held the day before) in the Burnley Gazette 11 December 1880 - do you have access to that (it's in the BNA)? It does not describe what happened after the accident in much detail, but one important factor is that James Livesey, the district superintendent, was on board the train. Naturally he took command of everyone at the scene. Most of the discussion was about whether the driver, did, should, or must whistle approaching that crossing or all of them.

 

[Andy873]

Probably the guard went back and checked: if necessary he asked if there was a doctor on the train and he would also find someone from the nearest habitation to move the body, take charge of/shoot the animal (Bad luck if it is the farmer’s family.) If near a station somebody would go to that and dump it all on the station master.

I did wonder if someone might ask the passengers if any of them were a doctor or had medical experience, for the horse, I hope it wasn't left in pain for a while until came along and shot it. Sad really.

There is a report of the inquest (held the day before) in the Burnley Gazette 11 December 1880 - do you have access to that (it's in the BNA)? It does not describe what happened after the accident in much detail, but one important factor is that James Livesey, the district superintendent, was on board the train. Naturally he took command of everyone at the scene. Most of the discussion was about whether the driver, did, should, or must whistle approaching that crossing or all of them.

No I don't have full access to the BNA, but I can see snippets. I would be grateful if you could let me know what is says please.

I didn't know about the possibility of having to whistle when approaching crossings, would a WTT of the time state this?

 

[Gloster]

I didn't know about the possibility of having to whistle when approaching crossings, would a WTT of the time state this?

Later on crossings that required drivers to whistle would be marked by a metal cut-out W sign. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t any such thing on the L&Y in those days, the knowledge of when to whistle being part of driver knowledge. I have never heard of such a thing being shown in WTT’s: just imagine how many entries there would have to be in some areas. It might have been in the equivalent of the Sectional Appendix, but even then I doubt that that there would be anything more than general guidance for everywhere ‘…after dark and in fog, falling snow,…”

I also have my doubts as to whether a minor accommodation crossing would be one of those places where the driver would be expected to whistle at all times. More likely it was just expected that the driver would keep a look out at all times and, knowing there was a crossing there, be ready to reach for the whistle cord as he approached, i.e. do exactly what he did the whole journey, but not look away to check something just at that point. Users of accommodation crossings were expected to look out for themselves.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Worth noting that there was no centralised ‘Control’ organisation in those days. Incidents had to be dealt with by local staff, including waking up the Stationmaster.

 

[Rescars]

This sad event occurred in 1880, nine years before Armagh and the ensuing Regulation of Railways Act which marked the end of the pioneering approach to railway operating. As @Gloster says, it would be reasonable to assume that, at the time, the emphasis would have been on restoring normal service as rapidly as possible with the minimum of delay. Attitudes towards resolving incidents of this sort back then should perhaps be described as casual when compared with 21st century standards.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks to @stuving I'm now able to understand more fully what went on at the inquest into the farmer's death. As he pointed out earlier, the main key questions were did the engine driver whistle? Did he need to whistle? and did any of the train crew see the farmer obstruction the line. There was also the question of was there a whistle board nearby?

The driver insists he always whistles when leaving Simonstone station (just before the scene of the accident). The inquest also says the Coroner and Jurors visited the scene. The bottom line to the inquest is that a verdict of accidental death is recorded, something that the L&Y would be pleased about, but not Margaret, the deceased's wife, she's now left to run a 220 acre farm on her own with five young children and no compensation.

Later on crossings that required drivers to whistle would be marked by a metal cut-out W sign. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t any such thing on the L&Y in those days, the knowledge of when to whistle being part of driver knowledge.

It seems at the time of the accident there were whistle posts with a W painted on boards, but the L&Y state whistling when approaching level crossings in towns is expected due to heavy traffic, but not out in the countryside where traffic crossing is light.

I have never heard of such a thing being shown in WTT’s: just imagine how many entries there would have to be in some areas. It might have been in the equivalent of the Sectional Appendix

My mistake, I meant to sat appendix to the WTT, in any case, looks like you're right, I can't find any such instruction to whistle at crossings back then. Indeed, in the inquest the L&Y are asked about rules on whistling, of which the reply is they don't think they actually have an official rule covering this.

I also have my doubts as to whether a minor accommodation crossing would be one of those places where the driver would be expected to whistle at all times. More likely it was just expected that the driver would keep a look out at all times and, knowing there was a crossing there

Keeping a lookout is exactly what the driver states happened.

Worth noting that there was no centralised ‘Control’ organisation in those days. Incidents had to be dealt with by local staff, including waking up the Stationmaster.

Point taken. It seems the newspapers got the time of the accident wrong, it's stated that it happened just before 5 pm, and that it was an extremely dark night but clear. Upon stopping the train, they go and see what's gone on, I won't describe the scene as it made even my toes curl!

This sad event occurred in 1880, nine years before Armagh and the ensuing Regulation of Railways Act which marked the end of the pioneering approach to railway operating. As @Gloster says, it would be reasonable to assume that, at the time, the emphasis would have been on restoring normal service as rapidly as possible with the minimum of delay. Attitudes towards resolving incidents of this sort back then should perhaps be described as casual when compared with 21st century standards.

Restoring the normal service does look to be the order of the day back then. The guard was left with the body and after about 30 minutes the train continued on.

Apart from the accident, what I didn't know was that any local service running from Blackburn to Burnley and back, is that on the return journey the engines would run tender first. They had to do that apparently as there was no turb table at Burnley to turn engines.

The crew however do confirm something I felt sure about, they had their foot down and going around 30 to 35. From the scene of the accident going west, it all up hill almost until you get near the Blackburn end junction.

Locked gates:
Margaret the wife states that Henry always kept the keys for the crossing with him. however they weren't usually locked as they were a tight fit and no one had any business using the crossing other than them and someone who might go down to the river to collect stones for road repair, although she calls the stones gravel.

As far as I understand it, aren't occupation crossing gates supposed to be kept locked?

Finally. I've mentioned before about an incident almost four years later at the very same location when a fifty pound rock was placed on the up line late at night in time for the extra, last, Saturday night train from Burnley to Blackburn. I wonder...

 

[Dr Hoo]

I thought that Occupation Crossings (with usage solely by the occupier of the severed land) had to be ‘fastened’, which could mean latched to stop them swinging open. In certain circumstances, notably the passage of a Royal Train, all crossing would be locked and staffed, usually by platelayers.

A farmer might choose to lock his ‘own’ gates I suppose.

 

[Rescars]

Thus the "SHUT AND FASTEN GATE" signs carried by many a gate in the past. I recall walking a disused Midland line a while back where each surviving occupation crossing carried this instruction on cast iron signs on both sides of each gate. No expense spared!

 

[6Gman]

This sad event occurred in 1880, nine years before Armagh and the ensuing Regulation of Railways Act which marked the end of the pioneering approach to railway operating. As @Gloster says, it would be reasonable to assume that, at the time, the emphasis would have been on restoring normal service as rapidly as possible with the minimum of delay. Attitudes towards resolving incidents of this sort back then should perhaps be described as casual when compared with 21st century standards.

As late as the 1970s bodies were just moved away from loco/track to await retrieval; loco was changed at the earliest opportunity, driver was relieved (and would have a meeting with line manager re fitness for future work) and the job continued.

Of course, quite a lot of staff would have had military service behind them so dead/ mutilated bodies might not be a new experience. There was certainly at least one guy at Crewe who was quite unconcerned handling all manner of material.

 

[Andy873]

I thought that Occupation Crossings (with usage solely by the occupier of the severed land) had to be ‘fastened’, which could mean latched to stop them swinging open.

I suppose it could mean latched. Looking at the original drawings for the crossings for the loop line you can clearly see a metal type latch / spring to lock it in place.

Thus the "SHUT AND FASTEN GATE" signs carried by many a gate in the past. I recall walking a disused Midland line a while back where each surviving occupation crossing carried this instruction on cast iron signs on both sides of each gate. No expense spared!

Quite right, although if the railway company assigned you the crossing, wouldn't the onus be on you to make sure it's shut at all times?

As late as the 1970s bodies were just moved away from loco/track to await retrieval; loco was changed at the earliest opportunity, driver was relieved (and would have a meeting with line manager re fitness for future work) and the job continued.

Didn't know this was still going on as late as the 1970's.

Question, if the L&Y called the crossing "Tomlinson's crossing" as stated in the inquest report (after the farmer who lived nearby), do you think the three occupation under bridges (to the right of New Plantation wood) might be called Tomlinson's bridge No. 1, 2, and 3? In the absence of anything else, the L&Y had a habit of naming bridges after local farmers? and there are no other farmers on any note nearby.

Map from the NLS:

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[Gloster]

I suppose it could mean latched. Looking at the original drawings for the crossings for the loop line you can clearly see a metal type latch / spring to lock it in place.


Quite right, although if the railway company assigned you the crossing, wouldn't the onus be on you to make sure it's shut at all times?


Didn't know this was still going on as late as the 1970's.

Question, if the L&Y called the crossing "Tomlinson's crossing" as stated in the inquest report (after the farmer who lived nearby), do you think the three occupation under bridges (to the right of New Plantation wood) might be called Tomlinson's bridge No. 1, 2, and 3? In the absence of anything else, the L&Y had a habit of naming bridges after local farmers? and there are no other farmers on any note nearby.

Map from the NLS:

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

As far as the gates were concerned, as a general rule I don’t think that they were locked unless the farmer so wished. The crossings were accommodation crossings only to be used by the farmer, his employees and those with business on the farm: the farmer was responsible for ensuring that they closed and secured (by catch, etc) the gate. Nobody but those who knew what to do should use the crossing, so you don’t need to have a lock. The attitude was that people should know to shut the gate. However, if a particular gate was regularly left open and caused problems, such as animals on the line, then the farmer might get a stiff letter or a visit from the local station master. Worse, he might get a bill for any damage caused by his animals or find a claim for damages for one killed by a train declined.

Don’t assume that the bridges were called X’s 1, 2 and 3 unless you have actual evidence of that. Even then you should be careful that this was not just informal local use, rather than official railway use. However, many crossings did officially acquire the names of the farmers: this might continue long after the farmer had died and the farm sold on (possibly several times). (A curious bit of immortality.)

It wasn’t just into the 1970s that ’get the service up again’ attitude persisted: both of the incidents that I mentioned in #3 were in the 1980s.

 

[Andy873]

Don’t assume that the bridges were called X’s 1, 2 and 3 unless you have actual evidence of that. Even then you should be careful that this was not just informal local use, rather than official railway use. However, many crossings did officially acquire the names of the farmers: this might continue long after the farmer had died and the farm sold on (possibly several times). (A curious bit of immortality.)

I do appreciate how you do try to keep my feet on the ground and remind me not to make assumptions. I do however suspect that locally or even initially these bridges could have been called Tomlinson's. perhaps Dunkirk (after the farm) or even Fort's after the Fort family of Read Hall.

Going back to the inquest:

John Gibson Sutcliffe was the engine driver, he describes leaving Burnley around 4:30 pm. The engine that he drove was almost certainly a Barton Wright 0-6-2T which were popular with the L&Y especially for local services such as this one. I have a book with a photo of one going over the viaduct. It is indeed running tender first as per the account in the inquest.

The newspapers reporting the accident get the time completely wrong stating 9.xx pm or 10.xx pm and try as I might there just wasn't any train times that fit, fortunately as said, the correct time is stated by the driver.

Checking various WTT's (1885 & 1888 - the nearest I can get to), the times haven't changed at all and the driver says the train was running punctual:

Burnley Bank Top (Central) 4 37 pm
Rose Grove 4 44
Padiham 4 49
Simonstone 4 52 Accident happened around 4 54 pm
Great Harwood 4 58 Probably around 5 30pm
Blackburn 5 08 pm Probably around 5 40pm.

It is stated that after the incident, the train stayed for around half an hour before moving on, so it probably arrived at Blackburn around say 5 40pm.

It's also stated that the train leaves without the guard as he's left on site with the body, presumably he has to stay there until the body is collected? How long do you think it would have been before the body was moved?

However long it took, the guard would have to then make his way back to Simonstone station to catch another back to "Civilisation", that is, a main line station. His only options train wise are the 5 39pm and 6 48pm to Blackburn or 5 56pm and 7 46pm to Burnley. Either way, he could also flag one of these trains down? I'm sure station staff at both Simonstone and Harwood could have alerted the train crew to pick him up?

What would have happened regarding the engine when it got to Blackburn. I'm presuming the engine would have been given some sort of inspection.

One last thing, his wife states he left home to go to Clitheroe market around 8:30am with his horse and a shandry cart? a two wheeled cart? What ever type of cart it was, the L&Y staff from the train had a heck of a struggle to get it off the up line and out of the way.

 

[Rescars]

Pedant alert, but a 0-6-2T was unlikely to be equipped with a tender. If the inquest mentions a tender, perhaps the loco was not a tank engine.

 

[John Luxton]

As late as the 1970s bodies were just moved away from loco/track to await retrieval; loco was changed at the earliest opportunity, driver was relieved (and would have a meeting with line manager re fitness for future work) and the job continued.

Of course, quite a lot of staff would have had military service behind them so dead/ mutilated bodies might not be a new experience. There was certainly at least one guy at Crewe who was quite unconcerned handling all manner of material.

People have obviously changed over the years in their reactions to incidents - but back in the day the system didn't fall over for as long if there was a fatality. What was wrong with the 1970s way? I seem to recall some years ago a certain motoring pundit who has since become a farmer and pub owner getting castigated for commenting on how long it takes to sort this sort of issue out today - but he did have a point.

I imagine disrupted passengers would tend to agree.

Yes it is sad something happens but is it really necessary to spend so long investigating.

The "old railway" did seem to cope with incidents better and getting up and running ASAP seemed to be the aim.

Have we lost something? Gone soft?

Anyone know what happens in European countries or USA in such circumstances?

 

[Andy873]

Anyone know what happens in European countries or USA in such circumstances?

I was wondering when this question might be asked, I have no idea.

Pedant alert, but a 0-6-2T was unlikely to be equipped with a tender. If the inquest mentions a tender, perhaps the loco was not a tank engine.

True, but if you had asked me ten years ago before I learnt a heck of a lot more about railways and steam locomotives, I probably would have used the same phrase as the Juror did. From the very beginning in 1877 to the very last train, end of November 1957, all local services were comprised of a tank engine pulling three carriages.

 

[gg1]

Generally, unless there was a suggestion of foul play, it would be a case of getting the service running again as quickly as possible. It is only in the last thirty tears or so that complete shutdown of everything has become the norm. Even in the early 1980s we continued to run trains past a (covered) dead body or firemen extracting somebody from a car nosed into the ballast: we just told the driver to pass the site at walking pace.

Did that practice continue into the 90s?

I clearly remember travelling between Swansea and Cardiff in the mid 90s (somewhere between 1994 and 1997) where the train I was on proceeded at slow speed past a large sheet covering something in the four foot of the adjacent line, there were also emergency services in attendance. The sheet was definitely big enough to cover a human body.

 

[4069]

If it's an obvious suicide, as almost all such events are, it is still the aim to get things moving as quickly as possible. The BTP have a target of two hours to get trains running again. However, if a high-speed impact is involved, it can take a long time to retrieve everything. That wasn't generally the case 150 years ago.

 

[Rescars]

True, but if you had asked me ten years ago before I learnt a heck of a lot more about railways and steam locomotives, I probably would have used the same phrase as the Juror did. From the very beginning in 1877 to the very last train, end of November 1957, all local services were comprised of a tank engine pulling three carriages.

Fair point! Presumably it would have been beyond the scope of a coroner to investigate in detail the quality of a driver's field of vision across a tender compared with that from the rear of a tank loco cab.

 

[eldomtom2]

Anyone know what happens in European countries or USA in such circumstances?

This reddit post from a crew member in America gives some idea of the attitude there…

https://old.reddit.com/r/railroading/comments/1lzsfrp/fatalities_and_being_informed/

I am a railroader looking for the opinions of other railroaders or other people who may have something useful to say with regards to a situation I have recently found myself in. This situation involves the death of someone who used my equipment to commit suicide but unlike most of these situations, myself and my crew members had no idea it occured.

Earlier this month, while stopped, an individual hopped a fence next to our train and positioned themselves for decapitation. Their position was far enough away from the engine that there was no way for us to see this happening, thus our train did successfully kill the individual, whos body was discovered not long after.

What is strange though is that we were never informed by our employer that this occurred, despite them knowing full well we were operating the equipment at the time. I knew that the fatality occurred the day it happened but was under the impression that it occured with another train at the same location but later found out that this train/crew merely discovered the corpse. The only other train that could have been involved, given the timing, was my train.

So, I suppose I am just looking for opinions, thoughts etc. It is unfortunate the individual was killed but as all railroaders know, death is part of the job. What really caught me off guard here and what is making me unsettled is that my employer has made zero attempt to inform us of the occurrence and seems perfectly ok withholding this information. It feels really ****ing shady and very strange. Are they legally allowed to do this?

 

[stuving]

Fair point! Presumably it would have been beyond the scope of a coroner to investigate in detail the quality of a driver's field of vision across a tender compared with that from the rear of a tank loco cab.

Surely this is a linguistic matter. If "tender first" applies to locomotives running backwards, are you gong to worry that it only applies to some of them? Not only do you need to find another term (which isn't as obvious), but to know which to use you'd need to know what kind of loco it was. For outsiders, and even sometimes for railmen, that's not always possible. It must be easier to use "tender first" as a set phrase that can be used for anything running backwards.

 

[John Luxton]

This reddit post from a crew member in America gives some idea of the attitude there…

https://old.reddit.com/r/railroading/comments/1lzsfrp/fatalities_and_being_informed/

Thanks very interesting - one gets the impression the US approach is somewhat different. Obviously the driver didn't see the casualty as it seems they did the deed down the train.

 

[Andy873]

Surely this is a linguistic matter. If "tender first" applies to locomotives running backwards, are you gong to worry that it only applies to some of them? Not only do you need to find another term (which isn't as obvious), but to know which to use you'd need to know what kind of loco it was. For outsiders, and even sometimes for railmen, that's not always possible. It must be easier to use "tender first" as a set phrase that can be used for anything running backwards.

And years ago before I knew any better, I might have even simply said the engine was going backwards.

This sad incident from 1880 does make me wonder about certain things...

It's said in the inquest that the night was a dark but clear one, and when the train pulled up after the accident you could clearly see the lights of Simonstone station and the signals there just one mile away (it is a straight section of line here) .

I wonder about the wind though. I live near an airport which is served by prop airplanes. When the wind is blowing north you can't hear them until they pass overhead and never on the runway, but they sound very loud when it's a south wind before they've taken off. If you see what I'm getting at. Perhaps the wind was blowing in the direction of the train and the station and the farmer simply didn't hear it?

The other question is had the farmer had a few drinks? Robert Lee (brother-in-law) of another farm and who was with the farmer on the return trip states "we were quite sober". One paper suggests the farmer had had a few drinks, but the other papers don't report that.

The sequence of events:

Henry Tomlinson of Dunkirk farm leaves home around 8.30 am for Clitheroe on the Tuesday which is a market day.
Robert Lee, brother-in-law spots him around 11.30 am at the market.
They leave together sometime after 3 pm.
They stop off for a short break in Whalley.
Just before 5 pm Robert jumps off the cart and walks to his farm, and Henry makes his way home to Dunkirk farm.

Robert was the last to see Henry alive. From what was described in the inquest, it seems Henry was going across the level crossing, the horse was just stepping over the fourth and last rail (this was a double line branch railway), and Henry was just about on the third rail when the train struck.

Henry was found around 12 yards from the crossing in the four feet, which I take to be the phrase for the internal gap between a pair of rails?

A terrible end and a needless and avoidable incident.

 

[Gloster]

The four foot is the bit between the two rails of one line, actually 4’ 8 1/2”.

Unless the farmer was very poor or a teetotaller I would take with a pinch of salt suggestions of total sobriety. Market day was the day to chat, catch up with news, exchange thoughts and grumbles, and so on. And where better to do so than in a pub. However, that doesn’t mean that he was in any way incapacitated.

Whistles can be heard from quite a long way away, particularly with a favourable wind or no wind: I frequently hear my local steam railway, a mile away, from inside my house. If the whistle was sounded promptly it should be heard by anyone who was in the normal state of awareness needed for crossing the line, even if it was windy in the wrong direction.

Remember that coroners often played things down a bit to avoid upsetting relatives. Not referring to this case, but they might think, “It was his own fault as he was drunk to the wide and behaving like a prize idiot“, but say, “It was an unfortunate error and misjudgement on his behalf.” Hopefully they will add something like, “Nobody is at fault”, to avoid angry relatives trying to sue or harass somebody they think guilty.

 

[Andy873]

Unless the farmer was very poor or a teetotaller I would take with a pinch of salt suggestions of total sobriety. Market day was the day to chat, catch up with news, exchange thoughts and grumbles, and so on. And where better to do so than in a pub. However, that doesn’t mean that he was in any way incapacitated.

Yes, I agree with that, we've talked before about how unsafe the water was to drink and beer was the go to alternative. Market days were very popular as you could catch up with friends, get the gossip and of course share a few drinks.

Remember that coroners often played things down a bit to avoid upsetting relatives. Not referring to this case, but they might think, “It was his own fault as he was drunk to the wide and behaving like a prize idiot“, but say, “It was an unfortunate error and misjudgement on his behalf.” Hopefully they will add something like, “Nobody is at fault”, to avoid angry relatives trying to sue or harass somebody they think guilty.

I agree again, there doesn't seem to be any quizzing about did Henry have a drink or two. Most present there probably felt something for Margaret loosing her husband and being left with five children and a large farm to work.

When you read through the inquest, it's clear the solicitor representing Margaret is trying to put the blame on the railway company. Even the engine driver Mr. Sutcliffe feels the need to state that he's not near sighted, that it was dark, and even running tender first he and the fireman could see well enough down the line and that he whistled when leaving the station just one mile away, of which the lights were clearly visible.

The jury too, unable to establish whether it was compulsory for drivers to whistle or not at crossings feel the only "polite" verdict they can deliver is accidental death.

Victorian times or not, when I read incidents like this I can't help but wonder what I would do if I lived near a railway line (in this case in the countryside), and the crossing was effectively a private crossing so I could get to and from my home. I personally would at least write down the times of the passenger trains arriving at the nearby station, It's not the whole picture of course regarding traffic but it would be the lion's share, and it would give you a fighting chance at least. Am I alone on this one?

The irony of this incident is that if Henry had left for home just 30 minutes earlier it wouldn't have been completely dark and he might have seen the train.