Accident at Sutton Coldfield

[Jimbob52]

Monday, 23 January sees the anniversary of the accident at Sutton Coldfield in 1955. A York-Bristol express derailed on the severe curve in Sutton Coldfield station. There was a permanent speed restriction of 30 mph but it was estimated the express was travelling at 55-60 mph. There were 17 fatalities.

Because of engineering works, the train had been diverted via Lichfield rather than via Tamworth. The scheduled driver was not familiar with this diversionary route so a ‘conductor’ who knew the route was driving. There was no explanation for his lapse of memory.

A memorial to the victims was unveiled in the station in 2016.

 

[LowLevel]

Significant clear thinking in a crisis and commendable behaviour on the part of the fireman and travelling ticket inspector I believe who prevented things from becoming even worse by breaking into the switched out signalbox and putting the signals back to on, stopping an approaching train alongside the efforts of some local people who also intervened.

 

[O L Leigh]

Human factors, which might have helped to answer your question, was not really much of a thing way back in the 1950s. It doesn’t help either that the primary witnesses, the footplate crew, were killed and therefore couldn’t account for themselves.

The accident investigation report itself focuses primarily on the lack of lineside signage, the physical condition and riding characteristics of the locomotive and the timing of services along that section of route. The driver himself, while familiar with the route through working local services, had not got a lot of experience in driving diverted express services, which opens up an interesting possibility that gets only a passing mention in the report.

The suggestion is that, when you are habituated to driving slower stopping services, certain aspects or features of the route can effectively cease to exist in the mind of a driver. Although there was a 30mph restriction through the station, a stopping service would always be within that limit due to braking for a stop. As a consequence, a driver could fail to acknowledge that the restriction applies. While this is fine normally, it would not be the case when driving through non-stop, as happened 68 years ago today.

But then, no-one will ever know for sure.

 

[edwin_m]

The suggestion is that, when you are habituated to driving slower stopping services, certain aspects or features of the route can effectively cease to exist in the mind of a driver. Although there was a 30mph restriction through the station, a stopping service would always be within that limit due to braking for a stop. As a consequence, a driver could fail to acknowledge that the restriction applies. While this is fine normally, it would not be the case when driving through non-stop, as happened 68 years ago today.

Interesting thought.

Here's the report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=292

The speed, however, was not reduced at Sutton Coldfield in accordance with the permanent "Appendix" restriction of 30 m.p.h. which is in force through the station on account of the severe left handed curvature, and the train entered the curve at 55-60 m.p.h., with the result that the engine and all of the coaches except the 10th were derailed to the outside of the curve between the platforms. The engine and tender were overturned and there was heavy damage to the rolling stock which included the destruction of the lst, 4th and 5th coaches. There was also considerable damage to both the platforms and to the tracks between them, and a part of the Down platform awning was carried away.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I've never really read into this, but was vaguely aware of it and had always thought it happened on the Sutton Park line rather than on the Cross City line at Sutton Coldfield station. Just shows how uninformed I am!

Presumably it is the same accident - there wasn't another serious accident at Sutton Park?

 

[midland1]

I have copy of the accident report and the person who had it before me has put a news paper report inside headed "Lost to the Railway Inspectorate".It is about the sudden death of Lt. Col. G R S Wilson who had died in March 1958. He had done the reports in to the Harrow, Barnes Sutton and was doing the report on the Lewisham accident when he died. It was thought the the stain put on him lead to his early death at 61, perhaps the last casualty of the Sutton accident. One other point I have read somewhere (it may be in the report) the someone took a photo of the train near Sutton Coldfield and you could see from the picture was still steaming well.

 

[Gloster]

I've never really read into this, but was vaguely aware of it and had always thought it happened on the Sutton Park line rather than on the Cross City line at Sutton Coldfield station. Just shows how uninformed I am!

Presumably it is the same accident - there wasn't another serious accident at Sutton Park?

There is nothing on accidents at Sutton Park or Sutton Town, which was closed in 1924, on either Railways Archive or Warwickshire Railways. Between them these two would almost certainly have mentioned anything of any import.

 

[Spartacus]

Here's the quote about the aforementioned photograph taken from the report, I wonder if anyone can track it down from that?

...a photograph was taken of the train from the Four Oaks station footbridge, and it showed clearly that the engine was still under. steam on the 1 in 100 falling gradient. The photographer was Mr. A. Reason, an engineering apprentice, who lived nearby and took a great interest in railways; he was an intelligent and careful witness. He stated in his evidence that the train was running at about 45 m.p.h. and accelerating.

 

[Bevan Price]

Surprisingly, the loco (45274), although quite badly damaged, was repaired and returned to service, even though many other steam locos were being withdrawn by 1955.

 

[47296lastduff]

Did BR have insurance cover for collision damage? If so, repairing 45274 may have cost them nothing.

 

[Magdalia]

Did BR have insurance cover for collision damage? If so, repairing 45274 may have cost them nothing.

No. With such a large rolling stock fleet the insurance premiums would have been more expensive than bearing their own risk.

Collision damage repair costs would be assessed on a case by case basis with pre-set thresholds for maximum cost. Locos would be withdrawn only if the estimated repair costs exceeded the relevant threshold.

 

[Harvester]

Collision damage repair costs would be assessed on a case by case basis with pre-set thresholds for maximum cost. Locos would be withdrawn only if the estimated repair costs exceeded the relevant threshold.

Duchess 46242 City of Glasgow must have exceeded this threshold when repaired after Harrow. A3 Grand Parade was similarly wrecked at Castlecary, although in this case a replacement was constructed with few, if any, parts from the original.

 

[D6968]

Duchess 46242 City of Glasgow must have exceeded this threshold when repaired after Harrow. A3 Grand Parade was similarly wrecked at Castlecary, although in this case a replacement was constructed with few, if any, parts from the original.

There’s a story of the wrecked Grand Parade being passed by its replacement outside Doncaster, how true it is I’ve no idea.

 

[Prince of Wale]

I think theth

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2023 ==

Wasn't there supposed to be a pilot driver on the footplate but he was unwell and sitting in the train?

 

[Gloster]

44783 was described as ’wrecked beyond repair’ in an accident at Gollanfield in 1953, but was repaired despite a twisted frame.

 

[Magdalia]

Duchess 46242 City of Glasgow must have exceeded this threshold when repaired after Harrow.

I'm more familiar with diesel locomotives, where I have seen some of the relevant papers.

As 46242 was repaired it can't have exceeded the threshold, which would be high for an express passenger locomotive. The two locomotives on the Liverpool train in the Harrow collision were withdrawn.

 

[Gloster]

I think theth

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2023 ==

Wasn't there supposed to be a pilot driver on the footplate but he was unwell and sitting in the train?

At Sutton Coldfield the pilot driver was driving the train as the booked driver did not know the road. The booked driver had, contrary to regulations, gone back and was sitting in the train.

 

[Harvester]

There’s a story of the wrecked Grand Parade being passed by its replacement outside Doncaster, how true it is I’ve no idea.

According to Yeadon’s Register Vol 1 (Gresley A1 and A3 Classes) the wreck arrived at Doncaster Works on 3/4/38. The replacement entered traffic (from the works) on 14/4/38, so it is possible the new loco passed by the wrecked Grand Parade sometime during those twelve days. Interestingly this indicates that 80 Gresley A1/A3s existed. The 78 well documented in the Ian Allan ABC, plus Great Northern rebuilt to A1/1 by Thompson, and the original Grand Parade.

 

[eldomtom2]

One thing that no one in this thread has mentioned about this accident is that it was the impentus for BR to install speed signs on the entirety of its network, which the board had previously rejected on the grounds of cost.