86242's Nuneaton incident and fate

[E_Reeves]

Hi all,

Just been looking into the Nuneaton train crash and found out that 86242 was the loco that went into the station canopy. Researching further on 86242 it appears it worked for Anglia in the early 2000s and has now been exported abroad.
Is this the same loco that was involved in the crash? Looking at the photos it looks badly damaged and I'd have thought it'd be a write off?

Any help appreciated as always.

Thanks

 

[Cowley]

Hi all,

Just been looking into the Nuneaton train crash and found out that 86242 was the loco that went into the station canopy. Researching further on 86242 it appears it worked for Anglia in the early 2000s and has now been exported abroad.
Is this the same loco that was involved in the crash? Looking at the photos it looks badly damaged and I'd have thought it'd be a write off?

Any help appreciated as always.

Thanks

86242 was indeed repaired and as you say, and was eventually exported (to Hungary).
The other loco involved was 86006 which was also repaired and I think became 86210 and eventually departmental 86902 (now scrapped?)
I guess that 86s were a valuable asset back then and worth repairing even if heavily damaged...

 

[Townsend Hook]

86242 was indeed repaired and as you say, and was eventually exported (to Hungary).
The other loco involved was 86006 which was also repaired and I think became 86210 and eventually departmental 86902 (now scrapped?)
I guess that 86s were a valuable asset back then and worth repairing even if heavily damaged...

86902 was indeed cut at Booth's, Rotherham last year.

 

[43096]

86242 was indeed repaired and as you say, and was eventually exported (to Hungary).

The other loco involved was 86006 which was also repaired and I think became 86210 and eventually departmental 86902 (now scrapped?)

No. 86006 became 86406 and then 86606.

 

[E_Reeves]

No. 86006 became 86406 and then 86606.

That's correct.

 

[E_Reeves]

Found this picture of (supposedly) 86006. Was this due to the crash as I thought it disconnected from the rest of the train and coasted on down the line?

Thanks

 

[Cowley]

No. 86006 became 86406 and then 86606.

Oops.

 

[pdeaves]

Found this picture of (supposedly) 86006.

That looks like a class 31 to me.

 

[Mag_seven]

That looks like a class 31 to me.

Seconded - whatever it is it is not a Class 86.

 

[DarloRich]

Found this picture of (supposedly) 86006. Was this due to the crash as I thought it disconnected from the rest of the train and coasted on down the line?

Thanks

that is a class 31 not an 86

 

[43096]

That looks like a class 31 to me.

And the livery of the van gives it away as being a photo from probably about 15 years later.

 

[E_Reeves]

I did search 86006 and that's what the caption said, but hey ho

 

[HLE]

86242 was the loco that failed causing the sleeper to have to be rescued by the other 86 on that fateful night.

Always wondered what happened to the driver? Must be a few old hands on here who would know the answer.

 

[Mag_seven]

I did search 86006 and that's what the caption said, but hey ho

Those us old enough to remember seeing these locos day in day out would have spotted it.

 

[Harbornite]

Found this picture of (supposedly) 86006. Was this due to the crash as I thought it disconnected from the rest of the train and coasted on down the line?

Thanks

Clearly not an 86, look at the bogies and almost everything else!

 

[richieb1971]

Found this picture of (supposedly) 86006. Was this due to the crash as I thought it disconnected from the rest of the train and coasted on down the line?

Thanks

Class 31, too many wheels for a start. The bogie has the curly architecture exposed which the 86 never had.

 

[bnsf734]

86242 was the loco that failed causing the sleeper to have to be rescued by the other 86 on that fateful night.

Always wondered what happened to the driver? Must be a few old hands on here who would know the answer.

The driver John McKay was in 86006 which came to rest halfway along platform 3 and 4 and survived the accident. He was subsequently charged with manslaughter for his part in the accident (going through a 20 mph speed restriction at 80 mph) but was found not guilty.

From Wikipedia:

The inquiry, conducted by Major C.F.Rose, found the accident to be due to the following causes;

• The advance warning board was not illuminated because the gas equipment which powered it was not being used properly.
• A number of drivers on preceding trains noticed that the lights had gone out, but did not report it.
• Although he claimed otherwise, it was thought likely that the driver, in his haste to make up lost time, forgot about the speed restriction without the reminder of the advance warning board.

The driver, Mr J. McKay, was later charged with manslaughter but found not guilty. A number of recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the accident were accepted by the British Railways Board, and the later installation of the Automatic Warning System ensured that drivers were given audible notice of speed restrictions.

End quote:

On a personal note I can still remember hearing the news that fateful morning 42 years ago. It was only about a mile from my home in Nuneaton.

 

[DJH1971]

No. 86006 became 86406 and then 86606.

That's what I was about to say.

With the exception of 86040 to 86048 that became 86/2's, all 86/0s went on to become 86/3's, 86/4's and 86/6's.