• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Unexplained Railway Accidents—Or Unexplained Aspects Of Otherwise Explainable Accidents

Cochise said:
Yes. I think that has been the general conclusion. My doubt is because the Inspector was aware of that, and went quite thoroughly into what rest he had taken during that period, and concluded it was more than adequate.

Also, although of course the Driver is responsible, the fireman and the guard should have been taking note - they were both aware of the speed restriction. The guard can apply the brakes as well as the driver. As mentioned above, the guard was drinking tea. With his mate in the restaurant car. While the guard on a passenger train has many other distractions, you'd have thought (as did the Inspector) that he ought to have been paying attention when coming up to a temporary diversion of this kind.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point about the guard. I did wonder about the fireman, but I suppose he could have been otherwise engaged at the time. Is there anything in the reports about him?
 
Nothing particular. He was 27 and had an excellent record. He received no criticism in the Inspector's report.

He may of course have been firing or attending to water in the boiler. He wouldn't have been drinking tea.
 
Kondoru said:
My immediate thought was a medical incident.
Click to expand...
It is of course possible. But there are other similar accidents which I'll describe later - they can't all be medical instances.

The fireman's duty should the Driver be taken suddenly ill is to stop the train and summon assistance. (on the other hand if a fireman is taken suddenly ill the driver will keep going to the next station)

But of course if the driver had a stroke or a heart attack in the two minutes between passing the signalbox and the crash he would hardly have had time to react.

The mystery with this one - even more so than Moorgate where suicide has been suggested - a theory I reject, incidentally - is that ONLY some sort of sudden illness or trance state can explain the accident. There was nothing wrong with the train, there was nothing wrong with the signals, it was broad daylight and the driver was in his place and apparently alert two minutes before the crash. He was conscientious and certainly aware of the speed restriction. It's an unaccountable lapse.

I'll do Harrow next as it has some similarities. But there the driver, assuming he had mistaken his position, had only about four seconds to observe and react to a critical signal and due to poor sight lines it would have been relatively easy for him to miss subsequent signals. Not only did Driver Swaby have the benefit of good light and excellent sight lines, he had something like 50 seconds to react, which as any car driver knows is pretty much an eternity.
 
Last edited:
If I am understanding correctly, was the engine going slower than normal at this point but still going faster than the speed restriction allowed?

This perhaps suggests the driver was asleep as the train had lost speed but wasn't actually being braked. He was in a seated position and the fireman may just have been busy and not noticed.
 
If the driver had a stroke, the fireman should have noticed - unless the driver remained seated in his chair, in an unresponsive state. Here's a clip of a car crash where the driver has a stroke, and remains seated and with his foot on the accelerator even after colliding several times with the edges of the road.
 
Last edited:
Glad he didn't seem to be badly hurt; but could you edit the link so it starts playing after the "presenter's" introduction? ("Throttle Fritz": if that's meant as an instruction, it's not a bad idea.)
 
I read about the Severn Tunnel rail accident in 1991 in a London freebie paper. An Intercity 125 train was 3 miles into the 4 mile long tunnel when it was hit from behind by a 155 Sprinter. 185 injured but no fatalities, an MD was on board to tend to one of the drivers, who managed to send a message to Control explaining his position. The paper gave an eye witness account of the passengers waiting for over two hours for a rescue party - in the dark, ankle deep in vomit, with the moans of the injured. I don't think it has been finally ruled whether the crash was signal failure or human error, but the mystery remains of why it took so long for help to arrive. Somewhere in the radio communication between the Rail Controller and the Rescue Services, the train location got mixed up - the rescue party entered the English end of the tunnel with equipment and stretchers and walked the 3 miles to the trains, whereas Control had clearly stated the accident was less than a mile inside the Welsh end of the tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Tunnel_rail_accident
 
Bad Bungle said:
I read about the Severn Tunnel rail accident in 1991 in a London freebie paper. An Intercity 125 train was 3 miles into the 4 mile long tunnel when it was hit from behind by a 155 Sprinter. 185 injured but no fatalities, an MD was on board to tend to one of the drivers, who managed to send a message to Control explaining his position. The paper gave an eye witness account of the passengers waiting for over two hours for a rescue party - in the dark, ankle deep in vomit, with the moans of the injured. I don't think it has been finally ruled whether the crash was signal failure or human error, but the mystery remains of why it took so long for help to arrive. Somewhere in the radio communication between the Rail Controller and the Rescue Services, the train location got mixed up - the rescue party entered the English end of the tunnel with equipment and stretchers and walked the 3 miles to the trains, whereas Control had clearly stated the accident was less than a mile inside the Welsh end of the tunnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Tunnel_rail_accident
Click to expand...
You'll notice in the Quintinshill accident something similar happened - due to excessive caution and mixed messages it took 4 hours for the fire brigade to reach an accident 10 miles away.
 
The description (above) of the Bourne End accident circumstances didn't mention this tidbit about notably bright sunshine causing visibility problems for other drivers on the same line.

Bourne-End-A.jpg
British Railway Disasters: Lessons learned from tragedies on the track
By Robin Jones
p. 69

SOURCE: https://books.google.com/books?id=E...CDIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swaby "bourne end"&f=false
 
EnolaGaia said:
The description (above) of the Bourne End accident circumstances didn't mention this tidbit about notably bright sunshine causing visibility problems for other drivers on the same line.

British Railway Disasters: Lessons learned from tragedies on the track
By Robin Jones
p. 69

SOURCE: https://books.google.com/books?id=EL3cDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=swaby+"bourne+end"&source=bl&ots=apSJJ7PWNR&sig=ACfU3U0qcw7Okcb1Ei0ihIgZKe8Lsa9zng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwif48qr_LbqAhUCYawKHXNtBu8Q6AEwBHoECDIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swaby "bourne end"&f=false
Click to expand...
Again, it is necessary to go back to the original report. This issue was discussed and dismissed in the report. Something I have learned in the couple of weeks since I started doing this is that - as I suppose I should have suspected being interested in history - is that everyone has an angle and will shamelessly selectively quote to support their point of view. This includes the traditional 'authors of record'.

Which is why I'm trying to approach this by describing the facts without putting my own interpretation on them - although no doubt I will occasionally fall into personal opinion even though I'm trying not to.
 
Cochise said:
This issue was discussed and dismissed in the report. Something I have learned in the couple of weeks since I started doing this is that - as I suppose I should have suspected being interested in history - is that everyone has an angle and will shamelessly selectively quote to support their point of view. This includes the traditional 'authors of record'.
Click to expand...
This is the best approach but is pretty hard because how can you know if you are being biased about something?

Thinking about it a bit more, to my mind, it could only have been that the driver was incapacitated in some way. If intentional, he'd have been going at full speed. If not intentional, he knew about the speed restrictions and would have been looking for the signals especially hard since the sun was bright. Exactly how he was incapacitated can never be known. (Edit I have just realised I am agreeing with your conclusion above but I must have missed it first time reading)

As an aside this charms me-
a fish train from Aberdeen
Click to expand...
:)
 
Last edited:
Cochise said:
Also, although of course the Driver is responsible, the fireman and the guard should have been taking note - they were both aware of the speed restriction. The guard can apply the brakes as well as the driver. As mentioned above, the guard was drinking tea. With his mate in the restaurant car. While the guard on a passenger train has many other distractions, you'd have thought (as did the Inspector) that he ought to have been paying attention when coming up to a temporary diversion of this kind.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Driver Swalby's conscientiousness was actually the problem here? No need to pay attention when you can trust your driver completely.
 
Some train drivers were well known for working every hour that God sent. Before the Hidden report, that is.
Maybe the conscientious Driver Swalby pushed this a bit too far, and had a lapse of concentration. It doesn't have to have been a stroke.

Making a mistake with speed restrictions was a possible source of error, one that the AWS/TPWS system should eliminate in the current era. In those days they didn't even have AWS.
 
Last edited:
Min Bannister said:
Perhaps Driver Swalby's conscientiousness was actually the problem here? No need to pay attention when you can trust your driver completely.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what the guard said.
eburacum said:
Some train drivers were well known for working every hour that God sent. Before the Hidden report, that is.
Maybe the conscientious Driver Swalby pushed this a bit too far, and had a lapse of concentration. It doesn't have to have been a stroke.

Making a mistake with speed restrictions was a possible source of error, one that the AWS/TPWS system should eliminate in the current era. In those days they didn't even have AWS.
Click to expand...

The Great Western had it , I think also the former LT&S. The LNER had started to install it between Edinburgh and Glasgow but was halted by the war.

The Great Western system relied on a mechanical contact as well as an electrical 'make'. It also couldn't be used on lines electrified on the third rail system. We will talk more of this when we come to Harrow, no doubt.
 
And I guess there's no such thing as the Dead Man's Handle on a steam train?

I've never driven a steam engine (although my brother has and does) but I have driven a diesel shunting engine (I wasn't allowed on my favourite Deltic...). I don't remember that much about it, but I was impressed by the Dead Man's Handle (I was quite young at the time and easily impressed).
 
catseye said:
And I guess there's no such thing as the Dead Man's Handle on a steam train?

I've never driven a steam engine (although my brother has and does) but I have driven a diesel shunting engine (I wasn't allowed on my favourite Deltic...). I don't remember that much about it, but I was impressed by the Dead Man's Handle (I was quite young at the time and easily impressed).
Click to expand...
Just the opposite. Set the controls and it will run until it runs out of steam or the water in the boiler gets too low.

There is a hilarious description in Tom Rolt's 'Red for Danger' of a runaway that fortunately hurt no-one. Basically a freight train was running away and the driver of an engine on the same line saw it coming . He reversed his engine and went off as fast as he could but realised the oncoming runaway was slowing, so he jumped out of his own cab, climbed into the runaway, and stopped it. Unfortunately his fireman misunderstood why the driver had jumped off and also jumped off, whereupon their own engine headed off down the line with no-one in the cab.

I've had a cab ride in a Deltic - honorary steam engines as far as I am concerned!
 
Going back to Quintinshill for a moment. I've been studying Rule 55 which concerns the duty of a member of the train staff having to notify the signalman of a standing train. Now the Caledonian Railway provided 'lever collars' - basically a big washer that fitted over the handle of a signal lever so the latch couldn't be pulled - if you ride a bike imagine a disk over your handlebar which prevented you pulling the brake or clutch lever. The signalman was supposed to put a collar on any lever that that would clear a signal when the line was obstructed by a train - particularly important in this case when a train had (quite properly in the circumstances) been moved to the 'wrong' line. The first signalman, Meakin, should have placed the collar on the up line distant signal when the train became an 'obstruction' on the up line as he was responsible for the manoeuvre.

Within the terms of the rule, clause 55(f) , this constitutes a 'safety device'. If such a safety device exists, then rule 55 modified by clause (f) only requires the person visiting the signalbox (in this case fireman Hutchinson) to obtain the assurance of the signalman that the safety device - in this case the lever collar - has been used. Apparently they never used the collar in this box. And Hutchinson didn't check or insist, he simply signed the book and went back to his train. According to his evidence he'd never seen the lever collars used in Quintinshill box.

Now this is vital, because if there was no such precautionary device, then the unmodified rule 55 when no safety device is in place requires that the person from the train (Hutchinson) must remain in the box until the train is cleared to go forward (and in this case regain its proper running line). It is inconceivable that the fireman wouldn't have noticed the troop train being cleared to use the line his own train was standing on had he remained by the signalman. But as it was he simply signed the register and left the box without checking the safety device was in place.

So the laxness of all three involved - - signalmen Tinsely and Meakin and Fireman Hutchinson had to work together in concert to create the disaster, because by their concerted efforts they found the gap, as it were, between the original rule and the rule that applied if the safety device was used - which it wasn't . So to me , I can't really understand why Hutchinson got off scot free when the other two were convicted of culpable homicide.

Edit: there was a second precaution, a 'blocking back' signal, but the rules were genuinely equivocal on when that should have been sent. Regardless a responsible signalman would have played it safe and sent it, but I think we can guess these two didn't do anything more than they were actually compelled to do. There was sufficient ambiguity in the rule to let them off on that one, I think.
 
Last edited:
I hoped to do one a day - i'm struggling to do one a week! But I will have Harrow up soon, as it has close similarities to Bourne End.
 
Cochise said:
Railway accidents have always been a fascination of mine since I bought L. T. C. Rolt's 'Red for Danger' when I was about twelve. i will try and put on here descriptions of several puzzling accidents, and also some tales surrounding other accidents. (Yes, there will be ghosts.)

Bear with me, I will try and put up one a day.

I have access to the original investigative reports on these accidents, so don't expect sensationalism.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the driver in the Moorgate accident was found to be under the influence of alcohol and also had cocaine in his system.
 
Gene Hunt73 said:
I'm pretty sure the driver in the Moorgate accident was found to be under the influence of alcohol and also had cocaine in his system.
Click to expand...
The alcohol in his system was very probably due to the decomposition of his body. I've never read anything about him taking drugs.
 
Beresford said:
The alcohol in his system was very probably due to the decomposition of his body. I've never read anything about him taking drugs.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that alcohol and cocaine abuse was said to be a contributing factor in the official RAIB report.
 
Gene Hunt73 said:
I'm pretty sure that alcohol and cocaine abuse was said to be a contributing factor in the official RAIB report.
Click to expand...
There was nothing I can see in the Railway Inspectorate report about drugs, I don't think he was even taking prescribed medication. As for alcohol there was some debate at the Coroner's Inquest as to whether he had been drinking and whether that would have been a contributory factor. The RI report details some of the debate.

I don't want to debate this too much on the off chance Cochise has it lined up for a later date.
 
Beresford said:
There was nothing I can see in the Railway Inspectorate report about drugs, I don't think he was even taking prescribed medication. As for alcohol there was some debate at the Coroner's Inquest as to whether he had been drinking and whether that would have been a contributory factor. The RI report details some of the debate.

I don't want to debate this too much on the off chance Cochise has it lined up for a later date.
Click to expand...
Apologies I got confused with an entirely different accident.
 
Gene Hunt73 said:
Apologies I got confused with an entirely different accident.
Click to expand...
You are getting mixed up with the 1991 accident at Cannon Street.

eburacum said:
The last fatal accident caused by a disregard of a temporary speed restriction was at Nuneaton, in 1975. These events occur so rarely nowadays that Network Rail don't seem to consider them a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuneaton_rail_crash
Click to expand...
There are various criteria for fitting TSRs with TPWS equipment. In a former job it was my task to carry out the assessments for these. You would be surprised at how much overspeeding still goes on these days, though generally without the catastrophic results of the past.
 
Min Bannister said:
Perhaps Driver Swalby's conscientiousness was actually the problem here? No need to pay attention when you can trust your driver completely.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it isn't the Fireman's job to second guess the driver, and woe betide any that did stick their oar in when they should have been tending to fire/water?

Interesting the mention of alcohol that has come up, my first thought on the cases mentioned was that the driver might have been having one of those hangover fogs. My grandad was a monumental drinker, and also a train driver, and apparently often both at the same time. He's been dead 25 years but I only found out WEEKS ago that he had a very close call when he and his commuter train should have been stopped somewhere and finally came to a halt mere inches from another train. I've no idea if he'd been for a snifter before work, or was suffering from the night before, but my Dad told me he'd DEFINITELY have been in deep shit if he'd survived the prang, though I'm sure he also said that at the time there were no legal alcohol limits like those for driving a car! Is that correct? I think there was an offence of being impaired by alcohol, but who was to say how much a man could drink before being impaired? I never saw my grandad drunk, but he could sup a pint in 3 gulps and be on his 3rd before you had finished your first half. A career drinker!
Did his close shave give him any cause to consider his drinking and work? Nope, not a chance! Thankfully, he got away with it right through his career on the rails!!

I'm sure there must be a maximum alcohol blood content for drivers now because I know of another man, who would probably about be at retirement age around now, who was also a massive drinker, but not on duty. However, because he wouldn't let his bosses dictate how he spent his weekends (ie. drinking), he would be well over the limit on his first day back on duty. Obviously, he couldn't take a train out, so with union backing, he would get 3 days off in a row (paid) - on the understanding he didn't touch a drop on day 3, so he would be fresh and alcohol-free when he returned to work. Again, not a rolling piss-artist, but someone who could put away massive amounts of booze as a matter of course. From what I can gather, drinking used to be an accepted and proud characteristic of lots of workers in the railway industry.

(I guess he was one of the last old school drivers, who could demand that sort of support from the union, and get it. I'm sure my grandad never had regular weekends off, ie. Saturday and Sunday, but I think this chap also used to play in club bands so HAD to have Saturdays off! I imagine modern employment contracts would exclude them having to bend to fit your social arrangements)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top