• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

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

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,045
Location
Surrey
Also possibly (and this is a guess) less information to collect by investigators?
Back in 1952 the Harrow enquiry took place using information provided by British Railways staff thus there was no on site investigations by the railway inspectorate.

It may be only at the instigation of RAIB that formal site investigations by staff independent of the railway industry personnel took place. Thus at Wickford or any other incident you have to wait until RAIB on call inspector attends attends site they will then have to call upon other specialists potentially. Thus depending on complexity of investigation requirements a period of time elapses before the site is handed over to NR.

By comparison, the Willesden breakdown crane was on site at Harrow 30 minutes after the accident took place, but it was a vastly different railway back then of course.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
2 Apr 2018
Messages
35
I think, while it is true that there are lots of reasons why it takes much longer to recover from an incident such as this than it did in the past, the average passenger is only interested in when their train to work, college, friends family etc will operate normally again.

In most transport, things have improved over the last half century whereas this aspect (at least) of railway operations has significantly worsened.

In 1983 the Aberdeen/Inverness line was reopened in circa 36 hours after the Lhanbryde derailment which had a coach on its side and another derailed together with circa 1/4 mile of track damaged.
 

Adrian1980uk

Member
Joined
24 May 2016
Messages
843
I think, while it is true that there are lots of reasons why it takes much longer to recover from an incident such as this than it did in the past, the average passenger is only interested in when their train to work, college, friends family etc will operate normally again. In most transport, things have improved over the last half century whereas this aspect (at least) of railway operations has significantly worsened. In 1983 the Aberdeen/Inverness line was reopened in c36 hours after the Lhanbryde derailment which had a coach on its side and another derailed together with c 1/4 mile of track damaged.
Back in the 80s and before, basically someone would appear on site, walk around and say the train derailed, right guys lets get on with the clear up.

Now you go the collection of every measurement known to man, did the driver sneeze at 3 or 4 of clock, where every passenger sat on the train etc. to come to basically the same conclusion.

It's the nature of the 21st century world when an accident happens (you only have to look at road accidents now and how long roads are closed for accident investigation work, no longer is the hitting of the oncoming car the reason for the accident).
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,613
Location
Wales
Back in the 80s and before, basically someone would appear on site, Walk around and say the train derailed, right guys lets get on with the clear up. Now you go the collection of every measurement known to man, did the driver sneeze at 3 or 4 of clock, where every passenger sat on the train etc. to come to basically the same conclusion. It's the nature of the 21st century world when an accident happens (you only have to look at road accidents now and how long roads are closed for accident investigation work, no longer is the hitting of the oncoming car the reason for the accident).
And guess what? As a result we have fewer derailments in the first place, and thus less time lost to clearup.
 

thedbdiboy

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2011
Messages
1,212
Back in the 80s and before, basically someone would appear on site, Walk around and say the train derailed, right guys lets get on with the clear up.

Now you go the collection of every measurement known to man, did the driver sneeze at 3 or 4 of clock, where every passenger sat on the train etc. to come to basically the same conclusion.

It's the nature of the 21st century world when an accident happens (you only have to look at road accidents now and how long roads are closed for accident investigation work, no longer is the hitting of the oncoming car the reason for the accident).
There are so many things that are different - not least the enormous reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on both the roads and on the railway compared to the past.

It's all very well being nostalgic about the good old days when the philosophy was 'accidents will happen' and having established the immediate cause little effort was put into understanding why, but the number of lives saved by the modern approach cannot be dismissed, even if getting the balance right remains a challenge
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,749
Location
Nottingham
There are so many things that are different - not least the enormous reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on both the roads and on the railway compared to the past. It's all very well being nostalgic about the good old days when the philosophy was 'accidents will happen' and having established the immediate cause little effort was put into understanding why, but the number of lives saved by the modern approach cannot be dismissed, even if getting the balance right remains a challenge
The other big difference is that historic investigations would usually slap the blame on one or more of the unfortunate individuals on the ground, without looking at why they came to be in that situation.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,785
Location
St Albans
Back in 1952 the Harrow enquiry took place using information provided by British Railways staff thus there was no on site investigations by the railway inspectorate. It maybe only at the instigation of RAIB that formal site investigations by staff independent of the railway industry personnel took place. Thus at Wickford or any other incident you have to wait until RAIB on call inspector attends attends site they will then have to call upon other specialists potentially. Thus depending on complexity of investigation requirements a period of time elapses before the site is handed over to NR. By comparison the Willesden breakdown crane was on site at Harrow 30 minutes after the accident took place but it was a vastly different railway back then of course.
In the Harrow incident (and Lewisham in 1957) the cranes were needed on site urgently to help lift carriages off each other to assist the release of trapped passengers, the carriages being far less 'crash-resistant' than modern rolling stock.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,834
The other big difference is that historic investigations would usually slap the blame on one or more of the unfortunate individuals on the ground, without looking at why they came to be in that situation.
The flip side of that was that they were not at risk of prosecution so could me more open about any errors they had made. And no crime scene was created requiring time for police investigations.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,704
Location
Hope Valley
Are current ‘accidents’ routinely treated as Crime Scenes then?

(I am not including cases where there is a clear suspicion of line obstruction or sabotage.)
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,832
Location
West is best
After a serious incident, the Rail Incident Officer (RIO) (link to a previous topic on the RIO, see also this PDF on guidance to the emergency services) will take control of the site to coordinate the emergency services and preserve evidence.

Even if it's not treated as a crime scene and even if RAIB don't attend, Network Rail will normally conduct it's own investigation. That may include relevant TOC and/or ROC companies and personnel. Until the relevant functions and engineering disciplines have gathered the information that they want, no disturbance of the site to remove train(s), coaches, wagons, etc. or repair work to infrastructure is permitted.

Only when the RIO permits it can infrastructure repair work start. I've attended multiple derailments and incidents (including one where two engineering machines collided) and had to wait for permission before even being able to collect visual information (either as evidence or to help establishing what equipment has been damaged and will need to be replaced).
 
Last edited:

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,938
Location
Newport
I suggest the simplest answer to the exam question is, ‘Because this isn’t 1952’.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
7,490
Location
Gomshall, Surrey
A point that has been touched on is that methodologies have changed almost out of recognition since 1952 - H&S requirements especially. Recovery is a potentially dangerous process and is undertaken with many more protections and restrictions, and on-site investigations are far more painstaking and time-consuming.

It is also a valid point that people do have the option of road travel hugely more than in 1952, so a line closure following an incident is no longer the catastrophe it once was. I think, too that the Wickford derailment was quite rare in having damaged such a huge length of track, ironically because it was only one bogie that came off, allowing the train to continue at speed before halting, and thus causing a far greater length of damage than might have been the case with a bigger derailment. The OHLE element added further complication.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There are so many things that are different - not least the enormous reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on both the roads and on the railway compared to the past.

It's all very well being nostalgic about the good old days when the philosophy was 'accidents will happen' and having established the immediate cause little effort was put into understanding why, but the number of lives saved by the modern approach cannot be dismissed, even if getting the balance right remains a challenge
Interestingly, road crash fatalities have stayed at much the same level for over ten years.
 

4069

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2016
Messages
117
The flip side of that was that they were not at risk of prosecution so could me more open about any errors they had made. And no crime scene was created requiring time for police investigations.
What? The prosecution of (for instance) Driver Trew is described in a footnote to the Lewisham report (he was acquitted in a second trial after the jury in the first failed to agree).

Prosecution of the individuals involved is not a modern development, and many railwaymen have been jailed over the years.

A well-known Victorian example was the Manslaughter charge faced by signalman Holmes at Thirsk in 1892, described in detail in "Red for Danger", for which he was found guilty but discharged on the basis that he had suffered enough already.
 

Potteries 323

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2024
Messages
66
Location
Stoke on Trent
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?
Perhaps the people that attended the Polmont accident ,the Lenton South Junction accident or the Colwich accident could obviously show you more than a thing or two about reopening a railway after an accident,they must be shaking their heads at todays shambolic situation.Sadly there is possibly nobody alive today that attended the Harrow accident.Too many non jobs doing nothing thesedays and our once proud railway is now a laughing stock.Where else in the world would you have a brand new expensive railway like the Oxford-Bletchley white elephant with STILL NO TRAINS RUNNING!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

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
There were detailed enquiries after Polmont and Harrow to establish exactly what happened and it is an insult to all those that died in those two accidents to pretend that there was not a thorough investigation in those days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I suggest the simplest answer to the exam question is, ‘Because this isn’t 1952’.
Polmont was 1984!
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,749
Location
Nottingham
Does that mean that road casualties have reached the acceptable cost benefit ratio for prevention, whereas rail is expected to throw £billions at the problem?
Not necessarily. It could relate, for example, to increased use of SUVs, which are more hazardous to road users.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,954
Perhaps the people that attended the Polmont accident ,the Lenton South Junction accident or the Colwich accident could obviously show you more than a thing or two about reopening a railway after an accident,they must be shaking their heads at todays shambolic situation.

As it happens I know someone who attended Colwich (perhaps you do too?)

I am certain that he will not be shaking his head at today’s situation, as he understands the respective situational complexities.

Let’s put to one side that it was a very different accident, with much less damage to the infrastructure compared to Colwich.

May I ask how many rail accidents you have attended ?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,749
Location
Nottingham
At Polmont the cause was evident immediately. At Lenton South and Colwich, and indeed Harrow & Wealdstone, a SPAD could be established pretty quickly, just needing tests on the signalling to rule out some sort of wrong side failure. In all of these there were underlying factors to be considered, but these wouldn't have depended on detailed investigation that could only be done before the wreckage was cleared.

At Wickford and Lewes the immediate cause appears to have been a track geometry fault, with the suspicion that ground conditions were at least partly contributory. Reinstating a safe formation would have destroyed the evidence that allowed this to be proved or eliminated.
 

Potteries 323

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2024
Messages
66
Location
Stoke on Trent
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
Lots more damage to multiple tracks and junctions ,signals and equipment destroyed and many complex overhead portal structures beyond repair at Colwich in 1986 aswell as two derailed trains to recover with the associated cranes and road transport involved (as opposed to one bogie on one coach,a short stretch of plain track and just 2 OLE masts! ) yet it was all planned out and completed in a few days instead of the decades it would take with todays non jobs .
Makes me wonder how todays non jobs would cope with an accident like Colwich today.In BR days Wickford would have been reopened the next day,Lewes perhaps the next day or the day after certainly no longer.Look at all the faff with the collision at Bedford local ,roads closed for miles around (why?) how many days to reopen after after a collision between two trains minimal damage to track and trains? Under BR would have been 1 or 2 days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

As it happens I know someone who attended Colwich (perhaps you do too?)

I am certain that he will not be shaking his head at today’s situation, as he understands the respective situational complexities.

Let’s put to one side that it was a very different accident, with much less damage to the infrastructure compared to Colwich.

May I ask how many rail accidents you have attended ?
I went to have a look at the Watford derailment in 1975,with the locomotive down the embankment.People were allowed to come and have a look.I went onto the track to see the damaged Class 83 . people just got on with the job then. No roads shut for 10 miles around the crash site then!I think the line reopened the next day despite damage to overhead cables,signalling equipment and damaged track.The loco stayed down the embankment for many months yet we used to go and have a look frequently.No gestapo preventing you in those days when we were free to do what we wanted.Also went to the Nuneaton Crash in 1975 too,unhindered by anybody either despite loads more damage.As I said people just got on with the job then.A better world then.Too many people paid vast sums today to actually do nothing,with an army of nobodies under them with lanyards round their necks,diversity and equality brochures in their hands complete with the mandatory tick box forms of course, fumbling around doing nothing constructive,and whenever we have a minor incident on the railway they are clueless as to what to do because nobody has actually taught them anything useful.What hope have we got if it takes them 12 months to plan a response?
 
Last edited:

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,832
Location
West is best
Lots more damage to multiple tracks and junctions ,signals and equipment destroyed and many complex overhead portal structures beyond repair at Colwich in 1986 aswell as two derailed trains to recover with the associated cranes and road transport involved (as opposed to one bogie on one coach,a short stretch of plain track and just 2 OLE masts! ) yet it was all planned out and completed in a few days instead of the decades it would take with todays non jobs .
Makes me wonder how todays non jobs would cope with an accident like Colwich today.In BR days Wickford would have been reopened the next day,Lewes perhaps the next day or the day after certainly no longer.Look at all the faff with the collision at Bedford local ,roads closed for miles around (why?) how many days to reopen after after a collision between two trains minimal damage to track and trains? Under BR would have been 1 or 2 days.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


I went to have a look at the Watford derailment in 1975,with the locomotive down the embankment.People were allowed to come and have a look.I went onto the track to see the damaged Class 83 . people just got on with the job then. No roads shut for 10 miles around the crash site then!I think the line reopened the next day despite damage to overhead cables,signalling equipment and damaged track.The loco stayed down the embankment for many months yet we used to go and have a look frequently.No gestapo preventing you in those days when we were free to do what we wanted.Also went to the Nuneaton Crash in 1975 too,unhindered by anybody either despite loads more damage.As I said people just got on with the job then.A better world then.Too many people paid vast sums today to actually do nothing,with an army of nobodies under them with lanyards round their necks,diversity and equality brochures in their hands complete with the mandatory tick box forms of course, fumbling around doing nothing constructive,and whenever we have a minor incident on the railway they are clueless as to what to do because nobody has actually taught them anything useful.What hope have we got if it takes them 12 months to plan a response?
So you have never actually worked as a railway employee and therefore don't know what you are talking about.

I was a railway employee for over thirty years, covering the years from before BR was privatised through to only a couple of years ago.

I have been involved in internal railway investigations after incidents (none thankfully involving any loss of life) including train crashes, derailments and SPADs.

Network Rail has considerably less infrastructure staff compared to BR. It also does not have the vast stocks of spare parts compared to what BR had.

Procedures have vastly changed since the 1980s. Many of these improve the overall system safety of the railways overall, not just during an investigation. For example, the procedure for investigating signalling irregularities (called SFI - Signal Failure Investigation - used for investigating unsafe or suspected unsafe "wrong side" failures / incidents as well as crashes and/or derailments if appropriate) is far more comprehensive than the method used before the Clapham disaster.

Also the testing of both new or repaired signalling equipment have their own procedures - SWTH (Signal Works Testing Handbook) and SMTH (Signal Maintenance Testing Handbook) again, both brought in after the Clapham disaster.

The BTP and RAIB do get involved in major incidents. That never happened in BR days, the RAIB did not exist and BTP were not often interested back then.

So the investigation work and repair work takes longer, but this is due to a combination of the reasons I described above.

Just fully testing the signalling after an incident can take between 12 hours and three days depending on the complexity of the signalling that is involved.

Repairs to signalling can also take some time, especially if lineside signalling or telecommunications cables have been damaged. Considerably longer if equipment cupboards or signal structures have been seriously damaged. Again that could take days to repair.

Replacing track can take multiple days if the formation needs work or if it involves S&C.

And that assumes the required parts are available.

Out of all the serious incidents that I attended, only once was my team held up for any significant length of time from carrying out our work.

All the other times, the proper procedure to ensure no evidence was disturbed before the details were recorded were followed in a timely manner.

Trespassing on the railway was wrong in BR days. It's not something new.
 
Last edited:

MP33

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
635
I was told by a local resident at the time. That after the Ealing Broadway derailment. The rolling stock was left, and people took small items that had come loose, home with them. They took a tap from the sink, in one of the toilets.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,954
a short stretch of plain track

2,500 metres or so of complete track replacement is not “a short stretch”.


No roads shut for 10 miles around the crash site then!

Neither were there at Wickford. Why are you making things up?


Too many people paid vast sums today to actually do nothing,with an army of nobodies under them with lanyards round their necks,diversity and equality brochures in their hands complete with the mandatory tick box forms of course, fumbling around doing nothing constructive,and whenever we have a minor incident on the railway they are clueless as to what to do because nobody has actually taught them anything useful.What hope have we got if it takes them 12 months to plan a response?

Gosh you really are an angry person aren’t you. Where has the 12 months come from?


What follows now is from my experience of attending collision sites in a professional capacity (as opposed to ‘have a look’) and also my experience of renewing infrastructure, including the recovery of incident sites, over the past 30 years+


For the record, from the official accident report, at Colwich the damage was 3 overhead line structures destroyed plus two damaged, which in turn brought down 3 miles of OLE (as in 3 track miles in total between the WCML proper and the branch). The switch diamonds were completely destroyed, but being a head on collision the wreckage (and thus track damage) was contained to a relatively small area in the vicinity of the junction itself. The report confirms 180 yards (approx 160 metres) of “plain CWR” had to be replaced; the report does not indicate if this was the rails only or all of the track, but even if it was all the track, ie rail, sleepers and ballast, that is about 6-7% of the track damage at Wickford. A couple of points machines needed replacement and some other signaling cables and a small stretch of troughing route.

In terms of reinstatement, the breakdown cranes had the vehicles off about 27 hours after the collision occurred. Some were cut up in situ as they were so badly damaged, those that could be recovered were craned off to the field beside the line; easy to do as all the OLE was already out the way. Absolutely commendable, although of course back then there were lots more derailments and collisions to deal with, with more kit and people around to deal with them. And for Colwich there hadn’t been a major derailment the previous day that had already taken many of the specialist resources. Unlike Wickford. Finally there was no ‘site sterilisation’ by the police or RAIB, as we have today, back then.

From that point, it took three days to replace the 160 metres of track, put back up 3 miles of OLE, plain line the switch diamond and repair the signalling cables. I would happily back the infrastructure teams today to do that work in that time. It then took another 13 days to replace the switch diamond and restore the full infrastructure, enabling the normal timetables service to resume.

Now compare to Wickford.
The site was under RAIB jurisdiction for about 24 hours (remarkably quick, but I guess there wasn’t much to investigate at the site itself). Cranes could not be used to rerail - with remarkable misfortune the derailed vehicle came to a stand right under a footbridge, and the OLE was still up, and in any event the cranes were down at Lewes. So the recovery team had to temporarily fix the train in situ (it being badly damaged underneath), rerail it, by jacking, then drag it very very carefully (to avoid further derailment and damage) to a place it could be more easily recovered. During the rerailing operation the train sustained further damage (no fault of the recovery team), and more temporary repairs had to be made to make the train sufficiently fit to move. This was all done with commendable speed, and with teams working round the clock, presumably with lots of gaffer tape and cable ties it took two days. Of course they could have cut the thing up in situ, but that seems rather a waste of a serviceable £7m unit.

And then the repairs to the infrastructure could begin, around a mile and a half of track, overhead line masts, lots of signalling cables including fibre optics, TPWS and AWS kit, cable route and bonding.

Unlike at Colwich where the track repairs on the slow line were the sort of job where all the materials and kit needed could be comfortably brought in on one train, Wickford was a massive job. It needed delivery of 24 x 216m rails. 2 or 3 trains of flat beds just to take the old track away. Another couple to deliver nearly 3,500 sleepers. Then the small matter of about 8,000 tonnes of fresh ballast in and a similar amount of spoil out. That’s another 8-10 trains in my experience of doing these jobs.

This amount of material isn’t on the shelf waiting at ‘Tracks “R” Us‘; the trains have to be found, loaded, resourced (drivers, shunters, etc., most of whom are working commercial freight trains in the week), and planned and got to site through the normal timetable, in the correct sequence, loaded the correct way, with all the right plant there. They come from Whitemoor in north Cambridgeshire. The first train was the rail delivery train, and that arrived with the 5000metres plus of rail the day after the incident train was removed. The other trains arrived in the correct sequence shortly afterwards as per the schedule worked up by the infrastructure recovery team.

The mile and a half of track track was fully replaced within 7 days of having access to the infrastructure, (6 days of starting work), including all welding and stressing done, concurrently with replacing the OLE masts, replacing numerous signalling cables, AWS and TPWS kit, cable troughing, full testing, and proving. I have delivered jobs of a similar scale before in that sort of time - having had them planned a year or more out with detailed work schedules built and tested months in advance. The recovery team here had 72 hours notice. There is no way the recovery would have been any quicker had this happened in 1986, save for the 1 day of RAIB site supremacy.

Now, you might want to have a good think about the facts presented above, and reconsider what you’ve said about the people who work in these teams.

Alternatively you might not. In which case you could pop down to Romford Depot and give your views to some of the people involved, and see what they say back. Personally I give you one chance in three of making it out with a full complement of teeth and functioning limbs.
 
Last edited:

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,608
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Makes me wonder how todays non jobs would cope with an accident like Colwich today.

As a former railway operator, including in managerial roles, and therefore a holder of a non-job, I must defer to your clearly greater knowledge of railway engineering, operating and standards, gained from wandering around accident sites 50 years ago. In which case I am surprised you did not head to Wickford and tell the non-jobs where they were going wrong, I am sure they would have appreciated the input (perhaps in the way described by @Bald Rick).
 

Top