Why did the Wickford recovery take longer than Harrow & Wealdstone in 1952?

[Potteries 323]

Moderator note: Split from

Derailment at Wickford - Friday 14th August 2026

Been hearing apparently there's been another derailment this time at Wickford according to internals

www.railforums.co.uk

One bogie derailed on one coach at Wickford and it takes 12 days to reopen the railway. Three carriages derailed at Lewes and it takes 19 days to reopen the railway. After the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 all six lines were open just 4 days later! After the Polmont accident in 1984 the lines were reopened after just 2 days!

Both these accidents had significantly more damage to vehicles and infrastructure than at Wickford or Lewes.

 

[Bald Rick]

One bogie derailed on one coach at Wickford and it takes 12 DAYS to reopen the railway. Three carriages derailed at Lewes and it takes 19 DAYS to reopen the railway. After the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 all six lines were open just 4 DAYS later! After the Polmont accident in 1984 the lines were reopened after just 2 DAYS!.Both these accidents had significantly more damage to vehicles and infrastructure than at Wickford or Lewes.

Well, rather than saying all this behind your keyboard, why don‘t you apply for a job on the railway, and come and show us how to do it?

 

[NeakPed]

Well, rather than saying all this behind your keyboard,why don‘t you apply for a job on the railway, and come and show us how to do it?

To be honest, I don’t agree with a fair amount of what you post, but I agree 100% with this comment.

Things have changed since privatisation (some will say for the better, some will say for the worst). It is no longer one entity dealing with an incident; there are multiple parties involved, and all will want to reduce their share of the blame for it (and potential legal consequences) or maximise their share of ‘compensation’ from it. Other views are available.

And of course, there is a need to establish what has happened, and determine what can be done to prevent a repeat incident

 

[Harpo]

Although that SPT might have been more than two miles away. And another driver wouldn't have been able to make an emergency call. Let's not get into the idea that everything was always better.

I’d have ticked the ‘likelihood - minimal’ in the risk assessment to abolish that too.

 

[Kentish RYS]

One bogie derailed on one coach at Wickford and it takes 12 DAYS to reopen the railway. Three carriages derailed at Lewes and it takes 19 DAYS to reopen the railway. After the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 all six lines were open just 4 DAYS later! After the Polmont accident in 1984 the lines were reopened after just 2 DAYS!.Both these accidents had significantly more damage to vehicles and infrastructure than at Wickford or Lewes.
Our railway is run by a lot of highly paid non jobs these days who havent got a clue what they are doing.

Quick post at lunch without looking things up to check; but in addition to what has been said you are comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure someone said you need to replace all the sleepers as they were damaged in a way that required replacement. If you use wood you get away with more abuse but need more maintenance and lower linespeed. Would that be better in the off chance of a derailment?

Also I'm assuming lots of signalling and electrification equipment is required to be checked and potentially replaced. Also with modern crashworthiness you can't just drag a train around in the same way you used to be able to without adding damage (and we dont want BR Mk1s back for ease of repair they are not good in accidents).

Then you have the fact that there are less bodies around,think about the Pway (track workers) and MPD (Motive Power Depot/Department i.e breakdown gang and loco fitters) staff you could say to "we are all off to help".

Also the fact that safety on site and the longterm health of staff is more of a thing, we don't want to drop an insecure component (or even a while vehicle) on someone or give them a longterm musculoskeletal issue.

Yes it would be nice if we could reopen faster but the modern railway runs on higher standards with less staff and that can cause other things to be slower but it is a benefit over a 1940s/50s railway.

Also they probably had more practice putting stuff right due to war damage being a recent thing and how many more accidents there were

*edited to explain jargon/acronyms and add line brakes and correct dome typos*

 

[saismee]

One bogie derailed on one coach at Wickford and it takes 12 DAYS to reopen the railway. Three carriages derailed at Lewes and it takes 19 DAYS to reopen the railway. After the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 all six lines were open just 4 DAYS later! After the Polmont accident in 1984 the lines were reopened after just 2 DAYS!.Both these accidents had significantly more damage to vehicles and infrastructure than at Wickford or Lewes.
Our railway is run by a lot of highly paid non jobs these days who havent got a clue what they are doing.

Catastrophic damage means less point attempting to salvage the coaches/locomotive. It can just be cut up and shifted away. Nowadays we want to learn about crash safety and reduce the likelihood of injury/death, so we try to keep as much intact as possible.

Also you mention more damage to infrastructure, but I don't see any overheads or third rail to repair in either of those accidents. The Lewes derailment was also used as an opportunity for earthworks improvements, which no doubt delayed the reopening, but means the line won't need to be shut for engineering works to do this later.

 

[800001]

Catastrophic damage means less point attempting to salvage the coaches/locomotive. It can just be cut up and shifted away. Nowadays we want to learn about crash safety and reduce the likelihood of injury/death, so we try to keep as much intact as possible.

Also you mention more damage to infrastructure, but I don't see any overheads or third rail to repair in either of those accidents. The Lewes derailment was also used as an opportunity for earthworks improvements, which no doubt delayed the reopening, but means the line won't need to be shut for engineering works to do this later.

Over one and half miles of sleepers and track to replace, damaged OHL and masts and damaged signal cables at Wickford.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Over one and half miles of sleepers and track to replace, damaged OHL and masts and damaged signal cables at Wickford.

The comparator is what they achieve in 52 hour possession for track renewal works, which would be at least 1000 yards, so this length would have been accommodated in 3 x 52hrs possessions.

Whilst continuous working ought to be more efficient, it isn't here as the railway is a stub end, so it's actually quite inefficient from an engineering train perspective.

Then there is availability of train resources and materials at short notice in the railway of today, which has nothing sitting around anymore.

That said, 8-10 days ought to have been sufficient, but I'm afraid throwing caution to the wind seems NR policy now post these large events. TOCs tend to prefer working to worst case rather than getting caught out as well so at least passengers can be forewarned..

 

[RUK]

One bogie derailed on one coach at Wickford and it takes 12 DAYS to reopen the railway. Three carriages derailed at Lewes and it takes 19 DAYS to reopen the railway. After the Harrow & Wealdstone crash in 1952 all six lines were open just 4 DAYS later! After the Polmont accident in 1984 the lines were reopened after just 2 DAYS!.Both these accidents had significantly more damage to vehicles and infrastructure than at Wickford or Lewes.
Our railway is run by a lot of highly paid non jobs these days who havent got a clue what they are doing.

The RAIB didn’t exist back then - accident investigation and preserving evidence before handover to the infrastructure maintainer has come on a lot since back then. Maximum working times, which are in law across all industries, and minimum breaks didn’t exist back then, either.

 

[Bald Rick]

That said 8-10 days ought to have been sufficient

It was opened 10 days from when RAIB handed the site back.

 

[35B]

To be honest, I don’t agree with a fair amount of what you post, but I agree 100% with this comment.
Things have changed since privatisation (some will say for the better, some will say for the worst).
It is no longer one entity dealing with an incident. There are multiple parties involved & all will want to reduce their share of the blame for it (& potential legal consequences) or maximise their share of ‘compensation’ from it.
Other views are available.

And of course, there is a need to establish what has happened & determine what can be done to prevent a repeat incident

All true, and yet... "By their works shall ye know them" - and what we see is very protracted works. That's not an individual failing, but it is a system failing. Not just Wickford or Lewes, but the vast majority of major incidents in the last ~30 years

 

[Annetts key]

One problem these days is that Network Rail has less engineering trains (do they even own any freight locos?) and less track maintenance machines. So often have to hire in what they need. That's fine when it's planned work, but as the number that is available is finite, if they are already allocated to other time sensitive work...

The number of infrastructure staff is now a fraction of what even BR had in the late 1980s. The numbers fell under BR in the 1990s, even more were lost with with privatisation. Under Network Rail, the numbers have reduced even further.

Hiring in contractors or contract staff has the same problems as with engineering trains and machines, what is available for short notice is limited.

Taken together, this means what can be done depends on what other planned work can be delayed.

Part of the blame for the reasons behind the current situation should be directed to the various previous governments that decided saving money was the priority. Indeed, there were warnings that cutting the funding for maintenance would increase costs in the longer term.

 

[NeakPed]

All true, and yet... "By their works shall ye know them" - and what we see is very protracted works. That's not an individual failing, but it is a system failing. Not just Wickford or Lewes, but the vast majority of major incidents in the last ~30 years

I think post 192 above may be relevant.

 

[35B]

I think post 192 above may be relevant.

It's entirely relevant, but not sufficient.

 

[NeakPed]

It's entirely relevant, but not sufficient.

I agree. We are not going to put the genie back in the bottle.

Any attempt to row back what happens now will be seen as compromising safety and/or investigations.

And your solution is ?

 

[35B]

I agree. We are not going to put the genie back in the bottle.
Any attempt to row back what happens now will be seen as compromising safety and/or investigations.
And your solution is ?

I'm not sure, because I do not wish to criticise people who have worked very hard to investigate and restore service. If I were to make one suggestion, it would be that the culture that time is of the essence be restored to both recovery and the preceding investigation work, rather than that they be allowed to take as long as they require. My frustration is not that this has taken X days, it is that X days is considered not just acceptable but good.

 

[4069]

If the railway were still actually important to the short-term economic life of the country, it would be reinstated much more quickly.

But it isn't, so it's not.

 

[Horizon22]

If the railway were still actually important to the short-term economic life of the country, it would be reinstated much more quickly.

But it isn't, so it's not.

I mean it does depend where of course. A similar incident on the ECML might have had more of an "all hands on deck" approach. But even then, there would still be time required for investigation, getting resources arranged, logistics etc.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It was opened 10 days from when RAIB handed the site back.

Arghh yes the clock starts once RAIB have handed the site over and thats probably not a question that the RAIB can easily answer initially so a degree of hedging your plan as to when that might be.

 

[Bald Rick]

One problem these days is that Network Rail has less engineering trains (do they even own any freight locos?) and less track maintenance machines. So often have to hire in what they need. That's fine when it's planned work, but as the number that is available is finite, if they are already allocated to other time sensitive work...

That wasn’t an issue.

The simple facts of the matter are

1. the damage to the train was such that it needed special recovery, in part using a depot shunter brought down from Norwich
2. 2.5km of track needed complete renewal, as did two OLE masts, various signalling equipment (including everything in the track), and other stuff too. All the materials, plant, people and equioment needed for this job were rustled up within 48 hours, as was the track design. Typically for a job of this size it would be planned at least a year out.
3. there was (still is) a very long planned block of the Southminster line, which meant engineering ttrains for that had to be accommodated
4. For most passengers who use the line, there was a suitable alternative route via c2c

 

[RUK]

Given that there’s the LT&SR/Essex Thameside/North Thameside which provides an alternative railway route between London and Southend, perhaps rushing it was seen as less necessary.

 

[NeakPed]

I'm not sure, because I do not wish to criticise people who have worked very hard to investigate and restore service. If I were to make one suggestion, it would be that the culture that time is of the essence be restored to both recovery and the preceding investigation work, rather than that they be allowed to take as long as they require. My frustration is not that this has taken X days, it is that X days is considered not just acceptable but good.

I suspect part of that is due to lack of resources as a result of cost cutting.

Under BR, there were breakdown vans (re-railing equipment/cranes) located at most ’major’ depots. Now, I think that there are TWO nationwide.

I suspect that one located at Stratford (or maybe Temple Mills) would have cleared the line a lot quicker. That capability no longer exists.

We are also in a ‘where there’s blame theres a claim’ culture. Lots of box ticking to avoid paying out.

Reading the 'Fares' sub forum, I see a lot of comments about rejected delay repay, over (in comparison) small amounts. If the railway is arguing these, they aren‘t to accept any liability for incidents such as this without evidence.

As @Bald Rick states above, there was also a fair of infrastructure damage by the incident, that required resourcing. Permanent way gangs are no longer sitting about twiddling their thumbs waiting for work

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That wasn’t an issue.

The simple facts of the matter are

1) the damage to the train was such that it needed special recovery, in part using a depot shunter brought down from Norwich
2) 2.5km of track needed complete renewal, as did two OLE masts, various signalling equipment (including everything in the track), and other stuff too. All the materials, plant, people and equioment needed for this job were rustled up within 48 hours, as was the track design. Typically for a job of this size it would be planned at least a year out.
3) there was (still is) a very long planned block of the Southminster line, which meant engineering ttrains for that had to be accommodated
4) For most passengers who use the line, there was a suitable alternative route via c2c

All credit to the collective industry then if it added this workload on top of the Southminster blockade.

What was the depot shunter from Norwich - an 08?

 

[Magdalia]

The RAIB didn’t exist back then - accident investigation and preserving evidence before handover to the infrastructure maintainer has come on a lot since back then.

Accidents were investigated and reports produced.

The Harrow and Wealdstone Accident Report is here:

Report On The Double Collision Which Occurred On 8th October 1952 At Harrow And Wealdstone Station In The London Midland Region British Railways :: The Railways Archive

Archive of UK railways documents

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk

Report On The Double Collision Which Occurred On 8th October 1952 At Harrow And Wealdstone Station In The London Midland Region British Railways​

The Polmont Accident Report is here:

Report on the Derailment that occurred on 30th July 1984 near Polmont in the Scottish Region British Railways :: The Railways Archive

Archive of UK railways documents

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk

Report on the Derailment that occurred on 30th July 1984 near Polmont in the Scottish Region British Railways​

Then you have the fact that there are less bodies around,think about the Pway and MPD staff you could say to "we are all off to help".

There would be equipment to do the job too. For example, in 1961, the Great Eastern part of Eastern Region had travelling cranes at Stratford, Ipswich, Norwich, Cambridge and March. All of those resources were available because there were lots of collisions and derailments, most of them in goods yards, carriage sidings and loco depots.

 

[35B]

I suspect part of that is due to lack of resources as a result of cost cutting.
Under BR, there were breakdown vans (rerailing equipment/cranes) located at most ’major’ depots.
Now, I think that there are 2 nationwide.
I suspect that one located at Stratford (or maybe Temple Mills) would have cleared the line a lot quicker. That capability no longer exists.
We are also in a ‘where there’s blame theres a claim’ culture. Lots of box ticking to avoid paying out.
Reading the ‘fares‘ sub forum, I see a lot of comments about rejected delay repay, over (in comparison) small amounts. If the railway is arguing these, they aren‘t to accept any liability for incidents such as this without evidence.

As @Bald Rick states above, there was also a fair of infrastructure damage by the incident, that required resourcing. P/Ways gangs are no longer sitting about twiddling their thumbs waiting for work

I'm sure it is tied to both cost cutting and the availability of resources. That doesn't alter my central point - with other changes. we've lost significant capacity

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect part of that is due to lack of resources as a result of cost cutting.
Under BR, there were breakdown vans (rerailing equipment/cranes) located at most ’major’ depots.
Now, I think that there are 2 nationwide.
I suspect that one located at Stratford (or maybe Temple Mills) would have cleared the line a lot quicker. That capability no longer exists.

It’s not cost cutting for cost cutting sake. We don’t need breakdown / recovery cranes everywhere now as it is so rare they are needed. I can’t remember a recent occasion (in the last 30 years) where there was a need for two of them concurrently.

We are also in a ‘where there’s blame theres a claim’ culture. Lots of box ticking to avoid paying out.

I don’t think there will be any claims for Wickford (except on the insurance, I guess). GBR Anglia would be claiming from GBR Anglia.

What was the depot shunter from Norwich - an 08?

AIUI some little donkey thing, which was brought down by road.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It’s not cost cutting for cost cutting sake. We don’t need breakdown / recovery cranes everywhere now as it is so rare they are needed. I can’t remember a recent occasion (in the last 30 years) where there was a need for two of them concurrently.

The Kirow cranes handled the coaches at Lewes at quite a reach so much better to have a versatile crane like this that can earn its keep on engineering work and step in when incidents ocurr.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Kirow cranes handled the coaches at Lewes at quite a reach so much better to have a versatile crane like this that can earn its keep on engineering work and step in when incidents ocurr.

agreed.

 

[Haywain]

Accidents were investigated and reports produced.

Well, they were but there was not so much legislation involved so they weren't treated at crime scenes in the way they might be now.

 

[Kentish RYS]

Also possibly (and this is a guess) less information to collect by investigators?