• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Accidents in January

Jimbob52

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2019
Messages
48
Location
Worcestershire
Thank you to all who contributed to the ‘Accidents in the month of December’ thread.

Turning to the month of January, the most serious, in terms of the effect on the operation of the railway, is probably the accident on 6 January 1968 at the Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) level crossing at Hixon (Staffs) when a Manchester to Euston express running at about 75 mph collided with a road transporter carrying a 120-ton transformer. There were 11 fatalities.

Because HM Railway Inspectorate had itself recommended the introduction of AHB crossings, the investigation was held as a judicial enquiry under Section 7 of the Railways Act 1871, the first Section 7 inquiry since the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879. (A similar enquiry was held into the Clapham Junction accident in December 1988). Although the Report made several recommendations, the introduction of AHB crossings almost ceased.

There was a serious accident at Lichfield TV on 1 January 1946 when a goods train ran into the rear of a stationary passenger train owing to a points failure in extremely cold weather. There were 20 fatalities.

On 30 January 1958, 10 people were killed at Dagenham East when two trains collided in thick fog.

Perhaps the most inexplicable accident occurred at Sutton Coldfield on 23 January 1955 when an express from Sheffield to Birmingham failed to reduce speed for the extremely sharp curve in the station. Despite a permanent speed restriction of 30 mph (preceded by a 40 mph restriction) it was estimated the train was travelling at 55 – 60 mph. Because of engineering works, the train was on a diversionary route, running via Sutton Coldfield rather than Tamworth. The booked driver had therefore been replaced by a ‘conductor driver’ who was familiar with the route. The approach to the station was recognisable by a short tunnel but no attempt was made to reduce speed.

Finally, Ilford has the unfortunate distinction of suffering two January accidents. On 1 January 1915 a fast passenger train failed to observe a red signal and collided with a local train in the station. There were 10 fatalities and a remarkable 500 passengers who complained of injuries. A similar accident occurred on 16 January 1944 when two trains collided in dense fog. There were 9 fatalities.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,469
Location
SW London
. Because of engineering works, the train was on a diversionary route, running via Sutton Coldfield rather than Tamworth. The booked driver had therefore been replaced by a ‘conductor driver’ who was familiar with the route. The approach to the station was recognisable by a short tunnel but no attempt was made to reduce speed.
Conductor drivers sometimes find themselves driving unfamiliar locomotives, and underestimate their speed. This was a cause of the crash at Lincoln in 1962 - the conductor driver had never driven a main line diesel before.
 

Rescars

Established Member
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
1,196
Location
Surrey
Abbots Ripton 21st January 1876. Signals frozen at all clear. One outcome from this disaster was the development and adoption of somersault signals across the GNR.
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
Abermule, 26th January 1921. 17 fatalities in a head on collision on a single track line due to incompetence at Abermule station!
 

Rescars

Established Member
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
1,196
Location
Surrey
Abbots Ripton 21st January 1876. Signals frozen at all clear. One outcome from this disaster was the development and adoption of somersault signals across the GNR.
And the even more significant change to block working, that all lines were to be shown as blocked with the signals standing at danger until specifically cleared for a train.
 

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
804
My local one - Worcester Tunnel, 3rd January 1976. The pole route was out between Worcester and Droitwich due to damage from the storm on 2nd January (which was a real storm, not just it being a bit windy and someone tagging a stupid name onto it), so time interval working was in use between Droitwich and Worcester. Driver of 1055 Western Advocate (not the most inspired Western name) went through the section mind in China and went up the back of a parcels waiting at Worcester Tunnel Junction up home. Died, so nobody knows exactly why he did it.
 
Joined
11 Jan 2015
Messages
690
My local one - Worcester Tunnel, 3rd January 1976. The pole route was out between Worcester and Droitwich due to damage from the storm on 2nd January (which was a real storm, not just it being a bit windy and someone tagging a stupid name onto it), so time interval working was in use between Droitwich and Worcester. Driver of 1055 Western Advocate (not the most inspired Western name) went through the section mind in China and went up the back of a parcels waiting at Worcester Tunnel Junction up home. Died, so nobody knows exactly why he did it.
“mind in china” may need some typo correction…
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
“mind in china” may need some typo correction…
I think the OP meant lack of concentration, his ‘mind was miles away’! However there was a secondman/guard in the cab who also died, so other factors may have contributed?
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,131
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
On January 30th 1925, a train on the Burtonport extension of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway was blown off the Owencarrow Viaduct, with four fatalities.
 

Railsigns

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2010
Messages
2,509
Because HM Railway Inspectorate had itself recommended the introduction of AHB crossings, the investigation was held as a judicial enquiry under Section 7 of the Railways Act 1871, the first Section 7 inquiry since the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879. (A similar enquiry was held into the Clapham Junction accident in December 1988). Although the Report made several recommendations, the introduction of AHB crossings almost ceased.
But only temporarily. Many more AHBs were commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s, in accordance with revised MoT requirements issued in 1971 to incorporate the recommendations of the Hixon accident report.
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
Also Settle 21st January 1960, when Britannia 70052 lost part of it’s right hand motion assembly derailing a passing freight train onto it’s train. There were five fatalities.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
My theory, for what it's worth, about the Sutton Coldfield accident is this; on the planned service pattern all trains stopped there. The conductor, if, as you would expect, was a passenger driver he would therefore never run through the station without stopping. If this was the first time he had piloted a diverted train, the speed restriction through the station would never before have been relevant to him.

I think that similar logic might explain Eltham Well Hall although there were other, and more serious, factors, of course. Perhaps others' too.

-----

The Sutton accident report references staff with a very high dedication to carrying out their duties, and well beyond; it's worth reading for that reason alone.
 

satisnek

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2014
Messages
900
Location
Kidderminster/Mercia Marina
The Lichfield accident was an interesting one, as referred to by Adrian Vaughan in one of his books. The signalman was a slightly-built chap who put all his weight into pulling the levers, problem was, in so doing he couldn't tell if he was actuating points and signals or just bending rods and stretching wires. And whether No. 4 signal really showed 'off' or not will remain one of those unsolved mysteries. The Inspecting Officer has a good shot at it in the report but has to admit that it's nothing more than conjecture.
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
The Lichfield accident was an interesting one, as referred to by Adrian Vaughan in one of his books. The signalman was a slightly-built chap who put all his weight into pulling the levers, problem was, in so doing he couldn't tell if he was actuating points and signals or just bending rods and stretching wires. And whether No. 4 signal really showed 'off' or not will remain one of those unsolved mysteries. The Inspecting Officer has a good shot at it in the report but has to admit that it's nothing more than conjecture.
Quite strange how the driver of Class Five 5495 on the fish train was convinced he had a clear signal to run along the up fast, and others backed this up! The Inspecting Officer eventually concluded that No. 4 signal could not have been at clear, as the points were still locked from up fast to up slow, resulting in the rear end platform collision with the local train.
 

Rescars

Established Member
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
1,196
Location
Surrey
Some digging around on Wikipedia has unearthed some details of a nasty incident at Barnsley in January 1843, when a luggage train ran into back of passenger train in fog. According to reports at the time all the carriages were smashed to pieces and the head of the sole unlucky passenger was "cut completely off". Macabre indeed!
 

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
1,701
Location
UK
Conductor drivers sometimes find themselves driving unfamiliar locomotives, and underestimate their speed. This was a cause of the crash at Lincoln in 1962 - the conductor driver had never driven a main line diesel before.
Surely a conductor driver wouldn’t be driving the train, their purpose being to conduct the driver who is driving the train over a route they’re not familiar with? The person with the traction knowledge, i.e. the original driver, would be in overall charge of the train and should be the person in the seat?

Nobody should be driving “unfamiliar” anything, were BR that lax back in the day?
 

D6130

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2021
Messages
5,837
Location
West Yorkshire/Tuscany
Surely a conductor driver wouldn’t be driving the train, their purpose being to conduct the driver who is driving the train over a route they’re not familiar with? The person with the traction knowledge, i.e. the original driver, would be in overall charge of the train and should be the person in the seat?

Nobody should be driving “unfamiliar” anything, were BR that lax back in the day?
There was no such thing as 'Traction Knowledge' in steam days. Any qualified driver and fireman were expected to climb aboard any type of loco and - after a quick look round the cab - it was 'away we go'. However in the current rule book - and its two predecessors - it is laid down that the booked driver of the train drives under instruction from the conductor driver who signs the route. I'm afraid I can't lay my hands on my 1955 Rule Book at the moment....but I suspect the same rule might have replied.
 

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
1,701
Location
UK
There was no such thing as 'Traction Knowledge' in steam days. Any qualified driver and fireman were expected to climb aboard any type of loco and - after a quick look round the cab - it was 'away we go'. However in the current rule book - and its two predecessors - it is laid down that the booked driver of the train drives under instruction from the conductor driver who signs the route. I'm afraid I can't lay my hands on my 1955 Rule Book at the moment....but I suspect the same rule might have replied.
That might account then for the situation @norbitonflyer refers to of a steam driver crashing a diesel loco in 1962, presumably the situation regarding being traction competent was a little ‘vague’ at that time, or the driver was a something of a renegade, ignored whatever the rules were and duly came a cropper! I can’t imagine though even in those dim & distant days that drivers were expected to take the controls of new fangled diesel locos with no training.
 
Last edited:

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
There was no such thing as 'Traction Knowledge' in steam days. Any qualified driver and fireman were expected to climb aboard any type of loco and - after a quick look round the cab - it was 'away we go'. However in the current rule book - and its two predecessors - it is laid down that the booked driver of the train drives under instruction from the conductor driver who signs the route. I'm afraid I can't lay my hands on my 1955 Rule Book at the moment....but I suspect the same rule might have replied.

The report into the Sutton Coldfield accident (available on Railways Archive) provides the answer. It quotes Rule 127; which starts with the statement 'When the conductor is familiar with the type of engine employed he must work the engine'.

-------------------

As you say, in the 1960s at least it was 'look around and away we go'. The following loco. types turned up at Northampton shed off inwards workings; ex LNER B16, J39, O4 and V2 (the last of which then worked a train to Euston with a Northampton crew) and ex G.W. '2251' and Hall (although the latter did have gauging problems), and all left with L.M. staff crewing them.. Different braking, location of controls, how you got the injector to work, best method of firing - all worked out on the spot.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,795
Location
Herts
Even before BR - and in WW2 , things were obviousely important for certain flows. A Bletchley crew were at Oxford to take over a train of "government" materials for the LNER via Cambridge. Out of the blackout came some GWR relic with outside frames - a 4-4-0 - relieved crew were sharp of the engine and so they carried on with no explanation. They never really what they worked but it was certainly different to their usual work.
 

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
2,909
Location
Lancashire
Surely a conductor driver wouldn’t be driving the train, their purpose being to conduct the driver who is driving the train over a route they’re not familiar with? The person with the traction knowledge, i.e. the original driver, would be in overall charge of the train and should be the person in the seat?

Nobody should be driving “unfamiliar” anything, were BR that lax back in the day?
At Sutton Coldfield the original driver was criticised for leaving the footplate and riding on the cushions after he complained that the engine riding was tiring him
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
There was no such thing as 'Traction Knowledge' in steam days. Any qualified driver and fireman were expected to climb aboard any type of loco and - after a quick look round the cab - it was 'away we go'.
Even on passenger trains. Two well documented instances of this come to mind. On Christmas Eve 1962 the Darlington pilot A3 60045 took over a Newcastle-Liverpool train and worked it to Lime Street with a LMR crew forward from Leeds. Perhaps the fact that it was Christmas Eve played a part in their willingness to get home ASAP? Then there was the seemingly endless trek north of ‘Grange’ 6858 in August 1964 on a SO Bournemouth-Leeds train from Oxford, as far as Huddersfield, with a couple of crew changes on route. 6858 was finally removed with cylinder damage after becoming out of gauge once it left GCR metals!
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Even on passenger trains. Two well documented instances of this come to mind. On Christmas Eve 1962 the Darlington pilot A3 60045 took over a Newcastle-Liverpool train and worked it to Lime Street with a LMR crew forward from Leeds. Perhaps the fact that it was Christmas Eve played a part in their willingness to get home ASAP? Then there was the seemingly endless trek north of ‘Grange’ 6858 in August 1964 on a SO Bournemouth-Leeds train from Oxford, as far as Huddersfield, with a couple of crew changes on route. 6858 was finally removed with cylinder damage after becoming out of gauge once it left GCR metals!

Another example from memory was when 60145 worked a Derby(?) - St Pancras train. The power controller apparently thought 60145 was a mistake for 6145 (the LM never acknowledged the front 4).

The 'Hall' that turned up at Northampton was recorded in Trains Illustrated as having to take a circuitous route North to avoid passing through Castle station with its LNWR loading gauge platform coping. When ex G.W.engines turned up at Northampton the usual 'official' explanation was that they had arrived over the ex S.M.J. from Banbury but a much more likely explanation might be that they had travelled from Oxford via Bletchley. The reason for the official explanation being the former might be that admission of the latter would acknowledge that they had been allowed to pass through a large number of L.N.W.R.-gauge platforms. As an aside, the supplementary springs of an '86/2' cleared the coping edge at Northampton station up platform (1) by little more than an inch or so when they were first used on the 'Cobbler' trains, so an outside cylinder G.W. loco would have been very tight.

----

My everlasting regret is, that Sunday when the V2 was booked for the 8.05 Northampton - Euston the next morning, I didn't miss school and catch it. At the time, though, the consequences of that would be severe, possibly expulsion.
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
Another example from memory was when 60145 worked a Derby(?) - St Pancras train. The power controller apparently thought 60145 was a mistake for 6145 (the LM never acknowledged the front 4).
Wasn’t it A3 60112 that was involved in the mix up with Peak D112 at Derby, and consequently worked a morning Derby-St Pancras train? Happened just before St Simon’s withdrawal December 1964.
 
Last edited:

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,701
Wasn’t it A3 60112 that was involved in the mix up with Peak D112 at Derby, and consequently worked a morning Derby-St Pancras train? Happened just before St Simon’s withdrawal December 1964.

It was 60112, but thought it was at Holbeck.
EDIT: From memory, I also think it was a parcels, not passenger.

The report into the Sutton Coldfield accident (available on Railways Archive) provides the answer. It quotes Rule 127; which starts with the statement 'When the conductor is familiar with the type of engine employed he must work the engine'.

Random fact (which I may have related previously): A friend in my class at school, who used to live in the Brum area in those days, was with his parents in the family car crossing a railway bridge (?) at Sutton Coldfield at the precise time of this crash. As far as I remember, he said he didn't see the crash happen, just everyone heard an enormous bang as a result of the impact.
 
Last edited:

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
It was 60112, but thought it was at Holbeck.
EDIT: From memory, I also think it was a parcels, not passenger.
Found some more information! The A3 worked a morning Derby-St Pancras parcels on 7th December 1964. 60112 was then put on the 20:38 Marylebone-Nottingham Victoria parcels, and after arrival sent to Annesley for servicing. Next day it was turned out for the 11:15 Nottingham Vic-Marylebone newspaper empties, and returned north again on the 20:38 parcels. St. Simon was withdrawn 3 weeks later, and apart from 4472 was the last A3 to work on the GCR!
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,701
Found some more information! The A3 worked a morning Derby-St Pancras parcels on 7th December 1964. 60112 was then put on the 20:38 Marylebone-Nottingham Victoria parcels, and after arrival sent to Annesley for servicing. Next day it was turned out for the 11:15 Nottingham Vic-Marylebone newspaper empties, and returned north again on the 20:38 parcels. St. Simon was withdrawn 3 weeks later, and apart from 4472 was the last A3 to work on the GCR!

Oh, it was from Derby. Thks. It was also probably the first and last A3 to work down the Midland - again, apart from 4472 on specials.

In fact, I wonder if A3s were even passed to work down the Midland in 1964. I think rebuilt Scots were only cleared in 1958, after bridges were strengthened. (And I believe 46170 was banned as over the axle load limit.)
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Oh, it was from Derby. Thks. It was also probably the first and last A3 to work down the Midland - again, apart from 4472 on specials.

In fact, I wonder if A3s were even passed to work down the Midland in 1964. I think rebuilt Scots were only cleared in 1958, after bridges were strengthened. (And I believe 46170 was banned as over the axle load limit.)

I've seen a photo of a 'V2" on clearance tests at Wellingborough, early 1960s. The photo seems to show it crossing Up fast to Up Slow just North of the station. As they were never used it presumably failed the tests. Probably similar to an A3, possibly more end throw at the front on the latter.

By the way, weren't A3s allocated at Holbeck for working to Carlisle, again early 1960s?

I recollect seeing a couple of 'Britannias' on expresses at Wellingborough but their time was brief - there was something in Trains Illustrated about the many curves straining the frames, seemed unlikely. There always seemed to be a shortage of Cl 7s on the Midland - just before my spotting days someone thought that 6P + 2P equalled 7P and the results were still talked about when I started - notably that the coupling between the 2P pilot and the 'Jubilee' train engine was often slack :).
 

Harvester

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2020
Messages
1,301
Location
Notts
By the way, weren't A3s allocated at Holbeck for working to Carlisle, again early 1960s?
Around ten were transferred to Holbeck in 1960, to work the principal trains over the S&C route. They only stayed for about a year as Peaks took over the workings from the start of the 1961 summer timetable, although 60038 was retained as a standby loco until June 1963. In 1963 A1s were also cleared to work over the S&C, so a number that had become redundant at Copley Hill, moved to Neville Hill, and found employment on the S&C between 1963-65.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Around ten were transferred to Holbeck in 1960, to work the principal trains over the S&C route. They only stayed for about a year as Peaks took over the workings from the start of the 1961 summer timetable, although 60038 was retained as a standby loco until June 1963. In 1963 A1s were also cleared to work over the S&C, so a number that had become redundant at Copley Hill, moved to Neville Hill, and found employment on the S&C between 1963-65.

Thanks for that. I remember the A1s at Neville Hill, didn't realise they worked down the Midland.
 

Top