Birmingham Gazette, Friday 7 February 1913
Bromford Bridge Collision – Jury’s Verdict at Inquest
Manslaughter – Frogman Committed for Trial.
The adjourned inquest on the victims of the Bromford Bridge Railway disaster was held by Mr. Isaac Bradley (the City Coroner) at the Victoria Courts, Birmingham., yesterday and resulted in a verdict of “Manslaughter” being returned against Albert Rainbow of Castle Bromwich, a frogman, who was committed to take his trial at the next Assizes.
It was on Monday, 13 January, that the accident occurred. A Walsall local train was dashed into by a Leicester express and two of the passengers in the local train were killed. Another afterwards died in the Queen’s Hospital. About thirty passengers were injured.
At the first inquest, which was held on 16 January, only evidence of identification was taken.
Absent Witnesses
The Coroner said that the case was adjourned three weeks ago, partly because he thought that evidence might be required from persons who had been injured. There were only two such persons who could give evidence; they were not in attendance. One was Miss Knight, sister of Miss Knight who was dead, and the other the fireman on the Leicester engine.
John Thompson, 314 Washwood Heath Road, said he was district controller of the Midland Railway, stationed at Saltley. He produced a plan showing Bromford Bridge Station and the place where the accident had happened and handed to the Coroner a copy of the general instructions which are issued to the company’s servants.
The Regulations
The Coroner read from Rule 7 which stated that “the fog signalman must see that the distance signal which had been taken off for a train to pass is placed at danger after the passing of such train. If after a reasonable time has elapsed the signal is not placed at danger, the next following train must be stopped, and the engine-driver told to proceed cautiously.” It was also laid down that the fog signalman should report to the signalman in the event of signals not being placed at danger after the passing of a train.
Edward James Aldridge, 54 Clarence Road, Derby, relief station master, said he gave instructions to the north signalman for the Walsall train to come into the platform for the purpose of picking up a horsebox. The Walsall train was stopped at 11.25, and was then sent back to get the horsebox. He saw the train draw out of the siding, and after the despatch of the Walsall train he started to cross the line.
Waved his Arms
When near the north signal box, he heard the approach of a train, but the sound of it led him to suppose that it would not pull up at the home signal, which was at danger. He started to go back along the line and blew his whistle and waved his arms in order to attract the attention of the driver. He got back about eighty yards when the Leicester train passed him. He did not see the driver or fireman, and after the train had passed he followed it to the south box, but the collision had happened before he reached the box.
Thomas Brookes, 113 St. Margaret’s Road, ganger platelayer, said on the morning in question he instructed Rainbow to go down to the down distance signal and commence fog-signalling.
He told him also to shake the wire when he got to his post, so that the signalman should know that he was there. Witness sae Rainbow go.
Signal Off
As the Leicester Train passed, he saw the dockman Baker wave his arms to attract the attention of the driver. After the accident witness was sent by the fogman Teague to protect the down passenger line. When he got to the distance signal he found Rainbow sitting in his cabin. The signal was off. He called Rainbow’s attention to the fact, and he replied that it had been off all morning, that he had tried to pull it on, but had not succeeded.
Witness tried to get the signal on by jerking the wire repeatedly. In time he succeeded: The signal went up gradually.
Conyers Kirby, the driver of the Leicester Train, 13 Hall Road, Saltley, said he had been an engine driver for 25 years and a railway servant for 42. The morning in question was “patch” – there was more fog in some places than in others. He saw the Bromford distance signal for a quarter of a mile before he got to it. It was down. He did not expect any fog signals and did not look for fogman.
Applied the Brake
The first thing he saw to indicate that there was anything against him was the man Baker waving his arms. He immediately closed the regulator and applied the vacuum brake.
The Coroner: Could you say whereabouts you were when you did that? – I should say we were passing the platform.
Were you able when you did that to see anything on the line in front of you? – No, sir.
How fast was the train going when you closed the regulator and applied the brake? – About 40 or 45 miles an hour.
When did you first know there was anything in front of you? Just as I was going under Bromford Bridge I saw the tail end of the Walsall train.
Was there anything you could have done before the accident happened? – No sir; it was all over in a second then.
Rainbow’s Evidence
Albert Rainbow was told by the Coroner that as there was some question concerning him he need not give evidence unless he liked. Witness said that he preferred to give evidence. He stated that when he got to north signal, as instructed by Brookes, he found that it was “off.” He endeavoured to put it “on.” He pulled the weight bars and the signal moved alright. The conclusion he came to was that the signalman had not yet switched “on.” Several trains passed, but the signal never went up to danger.
The Coroner: Did you do anything in consequence of this? – I came to the conclusion that the signals were alright.
Do you know the rule about what you ought to do if signal does not go up to danger when a train has passed? – Yes.
Did you do anything at all to keep that rule – No, sir. I had no occasion to do so with the signal “off.”
Coroner’s Summing-Off
In summing up, the Coroner said it was quite clear that if Rainbow’s signal had been working properly the collision would not have happened. The evidence seemed to show that Rainbow did some of his duty, but not all of it.
If the jury found that Rainbow, being the man he was, placed in the position he was, acted as a reasonable man, placed in the circumstances he was, he showed an absence of reasonable care and judgment – that he ought to have used more care and judgment – then they should return a verdict if “Manslaughter.”
The jury returned a verdict as stated.
Walsall Advertiser Saturday 1 March 1913
Bromford Smash
Signalman Committed for Trial on Manslaughter Charge
Evidence by Driver of Walsall Train
The Birmingham Stipendiary (Lord Ilkeston) on Wednesday continued the hearing of the charge of manslaughter against Albert Edward Rainbow, second foreman platelayer and fog signalman, in the employ of the Midland Railway Company, arising out of the railway disaster at Bromford Bridge in the fog on January 13th.
Three persons, Minnie Douglass (33); wife of Mr. D. W. Douglass, commercial traveller, of Lyndon Road, Sutton Coldfield, Margaret, aged 7, his daughter and Miss. Sarah Knight (61) of Wishaw, were killed in the collision, and it is alleged against Rainbow that he neglected properly to perform the duties assigned to him as a fog signalman.
Mr. J. C. Hurst (instructed by Mr. J. E. Hill the Public Prosecutor) appeared for the prosecution; Mr. S. Hosgood (Messrs. Hargreaves, Hosgood, and Co.) appeared for the prisoner; and Mr. James Hargreaves (Messrs. Hargreaves and Heaton) represented Aldridge and Kirby, drivers respectively of the Walsall and Leicester trains. Mr. Gandy (instructed by Messrs. Patterson and Brewer) appeared for the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
The first witness called was Alexander Lane, Essex Street, Walsall, the guard of the Walsall Train which stopped at Bromford Bridge to pick up a horsebox from the sidings, and as it was crossing to the main line subsequently was run into by the Leicester train.
William Aldridge, of Dale Street, Walsall, driver of the Walsall train, said both north signals were “off” as he approached Bromford Bridge. After picking up the horse-box he received the right away signal from the guard. He started his engine, and his notice was called to the south home signal forty yards before he reached it by the explosion of a detonator. He pulled up and whistled for the signal. The signal was lowered, and he proceeded. He had just pulled over the points to the main line when the collision occurred.
Replying to Mr. Hosgood, witness said that he had told the truth, and was not concealing anything from the court.
Mr Hosgood: Do you know of any breach of the rules of the railway company committed by yourself or any other persons other than Rainbow which had any effect with regard to the accident?
Witness was saying that there was no rule with regard to wrongly directed trains when Mr. Hosgood proceeded to question him in detail. In reply witness said that the distance signal was down, but the home signal for the main line was off.
Mr. Hosgood: Did that not tell you that there was something wrong with the distance signa? – I did not think it did.
Seeing that you were going to approach the platform, ought not the distance signal to have been up? – Yes.
That was an unusual occurrence. – Yes.
Was it not your duty to call to the attention of the signalman or the relief stationmaster to this unusual occurrence? – Yes, if I had thought it was wrong. I did not treat it as a defective signal.
Was it not your positive duty to report the occurrence? – Yes, if I had thought the signal was defective.
Why did not you report it? – In the first place I had instructions at Walsall not to stop at Bromford Bridge. At Castle Bromwich, however, I received written instructions to stop and pick up a horse box. When I saw the distance signal off, I thought that Bromford Bridge had arranged that I should stop. Unable to see the home signal I shut off steam and gave five short whistles and drew up. Then when I saw the signal was off for the goods line, I thought that the signalman was there and had reversed his points to let me go in. I did not think anything more of the distance signal being defective on this account.
Did you not give as your excuse on a former occasion that they were bustling away from the horsebox? – I did not give it as an excuse. I said that when I got on the goods line they called back nearly before I was over the points from the main line, as if they were in a great hurry for me to get away again.
Did it not strike you then that you should report this unusual occurrence? – No.
Accident Might Have Been Avoided
I suppose you realise now that the accident might have been avoided if you had accrued out your duty by reporting this occurrence? – If I had known the signal was defective.
That is not the point. Do you see now that if you had reported this unusual occurrence the chances are that this accident might have been avoided? – Oh, yes, I admit that.
Even assuming that everyone else had been guilty of the grossest breach of duty, if you had performed your duty, your train would have been kept at the station platform?
Witness hesitated in his reply, and the Stipendiary interpolated the question: In the ordinary course you would have been kept at the platform? To which the witness answered, “Yes.”
Replying to Mr. Hurst, witness said that, after he had given the five whistles and saw the home signal down, he concluded it had been lowered for him. That being so, he did not consider it necessary to report about the distance signal. Had he found the home signal down before whistling he would then have thought the distance signal was defective. He knew when the home signal was put down, the distance signal automatically went up in danger.
Conyers Kirby, of Hall Road, Saltley, driver of the Leicester train, was next called. He was aware, he said, that the signal boxes at Bromford Bridge were to be opened on January 13th. He had no stop between Arley and Saltley. At Bromford Bridge the north distance signal was off, but he could not see the home signal on account of the fog. He kept a look-out as they passed through for the south home and distance signals. Before he reached them, he saw a man on the horse dock waving his arms, and immediately closed down the regulator and applied the brakes. He could not see anything on the line in front of him, but as he was approaching the bridge he saw the tail end of the Walsall train. Immediately afterwards the collision occurred. Before putting on the brakes he was travelling at between 40 and 50 miles per hour.
Between 40 and 45 Miles an Hour
The fog was a great deal thicker at the north home signal than it had been at the distance signal.
Replying to Mr. Hosgood, witness said it was his duty to see how the home signal stood before passing it. On this occasion he kept a look out for it, but could not see it on account of the fog. There was no fog man at the home signal, and he would not expect to find one there. He was not subject to any speed restriction on that particular day passing through Bromford
Mr. Hosgood was proceeding with further questions about the speed of the Leicester train, when the Stipendiary remarked that he was investigating a charge against Rainbow. Negligence by others, even if it were proved, would not qualify negligence on Rainbow’s part if he were guilty of it. If that point were borne in mind it might possibly ave time and misapprehension.
Chief Detective Inspector Davis said that when he took Rainbow into custody he said: “I do not understand it.”
Mr. Hosgood addressed the Stipendiary, urging that no case had been proved against the prisoner. He spoke of a “conspiracy of silence” at the inquest, at which certain facts were not placed before the Coroner, which had been revealed at the Police Court.
Quoting the law upon the subject, Mr. Hosgood urged that it must be proved that there was deliberate or gross neglect of the railway company’s rules in order to justify the prisoner’s committal for trial. He submitted that there was certainly no breach of the rules, and that no offence had been disclosed by the prosecution. As soon as prisoner went on duty, he tested the signal. He got the arm up, and when it came down, he was entitled to assume that it was in proper working order.
Having done that, he had performed his duty, and could not be held responsible for anything that happened afterwards. Not one of the witnesses would swear that he operated the signal until 11.2, and this fact disposed of the complaint made by the prosecution that Rainbow sat in the box without doing anything.
Prisoner, when asked to plead, said: “I wish to say this. I am not guilty. I reserve my defence.”
The Stipendiary committed the prisoner for trial at the Assizes. Bail was allowed.
Newcastle Daily Chronicle – Wednesday 05 March 1913
Bromford Bridge Railway Accident
Charge against a signalman dismissed
At Birmingham Assizes, yesterday, Albert Edward Rainbow, a fog signalman in the employ of the Midland Railway company, was charged with the manslaughter of Minnie Doughty, Margaret Douglas, and Sarah Mary Knight the three passengers who were killed in a railway collision at Bromford Bridge in January, when the colliding trains were an express from Leicester and a slow train from Wolverhampton.
The prosecuting counsel stated that at the time of the accident there was a sharp frost following snow, and some fog. After collision accused said the signal had been down all the time he had been on duty, but he had taken no action. It was then found that the signal wire was frozen and did not respond to the action of the lever in the signal box.
John Thompson, district controller of the Midland Railway, admitted in cross examination that there were several irregular occurrences in connection with the working of the trains through Bromford Bridge Station prior to the collision, which if reported would have averted it.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the judge acquitted the prisoner, who was discharged.
Birmingham Daily Gazette – Wednesday 05 March 1913
Train Collision
Acquittal of Rainbow at Assizes, “Error of Judgment.” Albert Edward Rainbow. aged 29. rail servant, was found not guilty at the Birmingham Assizes yesterday feloniously with killing and slaying Minnie Doughty, wife of George Whitewood Doughty, Sutton Coldfield. and was discharged.
The case arose out of the railway disaster at Bromford Bridge. Mr. J. G. Burst, outlining the facts, said the prosecution suggested that defendant, in his capacity as fog signalman. neglected his duty in not taking the precautions he ought to have done what he found that the North distant signal was not in proper working order, with the result that there was an accident, and Minnie Douglas was killed.
John Thompson. district controller for the railway company. in cross-examination said that previous to the accident a train which ought to have gone straight through Bromford Bridge went through the station siding, and he thought the driver ought to have known that there was something wrong.
Driver’s Evidence
Prisoner in the box said the arms of the signals never went up to danger, and he assumed that the signal-box was not open. Under the circumstances Rule 7 of the company’s regulations did not apply to him, because the signal was off, and his duties as fog signalman had not really commenced.
“Honest Error of Judgment”
In answer to the Judge, prisoner said by “box being open” was meant that the signalman had not switched on. He was near the signals for two hours, but it was not his duty to move away, and he expected the signalman to switch on any minute. If he had been there a little longer, he might have begun to think that there was something wrong. Mr. Coventry said prisoner was not the only person to make a mistake on the day in question, and he submitted that he had only committed an honest error of judgement, which entitled him to be acquitted.
