The inspector went on to say that in his opinion it would have been productive of no serious danger had only the driver acted with a moderate degree of prudence. When this man discovered that his rear motor had failed his duty was to disconnect his rear motor by means of the plug provided for the purpose in his apartment. He should then have run into the station with one motor, as is often done. For some reason or other, which cannot be conjectured, the driver, instead of disconnecting the defective motor, and in disregard of the warning of the guard, made repeated efforts to bring it into use, the result being that before long the woodwork of the rear carriage was ignited by the flashes produced by the electric arc when the current was switched on to the defective motor. While the driver was so employed both he and the guard appear to have told the passengers to keep their seats, as there was no danger. Both these men and the station foreman seem to have exhibited a lamentable lack of judgment in this respect. It is impossible not to feel that the sacrifice of life might have been easily avoided. If the passengers had been hurried out of the train as soon as it became evident that it had broken down, and if none of them had been permitted to loiter about the station, their safety would have been secured. And if the train men and station foreman, who deserve credit for their efforts to prevent the fire from spreading, had only realised sooner that the train was doomed, they too had ample time to escape. The cutting off of the current did no good, but, by putting the place in darkness, rather increased the difficulties and danger of the situation. The lesson of the disaster is, that all woodwork should be removed as far as possible from the electric machinery of the railway carriages, and that for the purpose of insulation material should be employed which is uninflammable. Of blocks or stoppages on tube railways the following are examples.