Cornholme Accident 1967

[euryalus]

I have been reading about an accident that occurred at Cornholme, on the Copy Pit line, on the night of 15 August 1967, when a freight train headed by class '40' No.D398 ran into a class '8F' 2-8-0 after the driver of the diesel locomotive, who had recently consumed 'the equivalent of five and six pints of beer', ignored all speed limits and ran past six danger signals. The driver received fatal injuries, and the freight train was derailed – one of its wagons ending-up on the kitchen of a nearby house, while others landed in back gardens. My question is this: would it have been usual, in 1967, for a freight train to have required the services of a second man and guard, in addition to the driver?

 

[OuterDistant]

My copy of Report to the Minister of Transport on the Safety Record of the Railways in Great Britain during the year 1967 says the train did have a guard, who had fully applied the brake in his van, obviously to no effect. The train was apparently under almost full power and had reached around 70 mph.

It does say that the loco was single manned, which I agree seems unusual on the face of it, but that's about it!

 

[edwin_m]

Can't find a report on Railways Archive or by Google search so I'm a bit in the dark on this one.

If it was an unfitted or partly fitted freight then it would certainly have needed a guard. From the post above it probably was, as a fully fitted freight would also have a fitted van with a valve for the guard to apply the vacuum brake on the whole train. I think this would stop the train even if the driver was operating the ejector to maintain vacuum.

I don't have time to study the link below in detail but it suggest that by 1967 there were some trains where the driver would be alone in the cab.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...onepage&q=railway secondman abolished&f=false

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps an application to the archivist of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society may bring some news with Cornholme being on the line of their railway and they seem to be keen on events that occurred on their former line even many years after the 1922 amalgamation date with the LNWR.

I think that there was another accident that also occurred in that area about 100 years ago.

 

[Taunton]

Few freights on that line in 1967 would have continuous brakes. A guard at the back with a van brake would be able to keep the couplings tight, but would have not a lot of impact against a loco under power, especially on a downhill. That's why, with loose coupled freights at the top of a steep bank, you needed to apply handbrakes ("pin down") to quite a number of wagons, and that would be for a loco not under power, except to get the train initially moving again.

Yes, many diesels on freight at that time, especially shorter distance ones, would be single manned, as were DMUs, the main justification for double manning on passenger hauled services was that most were still steam heated and it was the fireman's job to tend the steam heating boiler in the loco.

 

[euryalus]

It all seems a bit odd to me. Press reports made no mention of a guard or second man but, as pointed out above, the application of the guard's hand brake would have made little difference on a downward gradient. One assumes that the driver must have fallen asleep at the controls.

 

[Taunton]

There were several accidents in the 1960s with single-manned diesels, on night turns, running away under power with the driver asleep. A more simplistic deadman (easily thwarted with a heavy bag on it, should you find it a nuisance) and some poor heater design that let fumes into the cab were among issues raised and corrected. There was another on the Southern with a Class 33 I recall.

Presumably on such a manually signalled line with the train having run through so many signals there was some belling on of "Train running away on right line", whereupon the box ahead should go and put detonators down. It would also be normal to set points to divert the train into sidings, so it's surprising it managed to collide with a locomotive ahead.

 

[30907]

Presumably on such a manually signalled line with the train having run through so many signals there was some belling on of "Train running away on right line", whereupon the box ahead should go and put detonators down. It would also be normal to set points to divert the train into sidings, so it's surprising it managed to collide with a locomotive ahead.

But you need facing points for that, which traditional railway practice liked to avoid (not just the MR though they were particularly keen!). I suspect the first available would have been at Stansfield Hall Jn and going round the Tod Curve at speed would have probably derailed the train anyway.

 

[euryalus]

The class '40' pushed the Stanier '8F' for a distance of about half-a-mile, suggesting that the driver of the 2-8-0 (which was on banking duties) may have attempted to halt the freight train with its own weight and braking power (?) Press reports are not clear on this point.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I'm more than interested in this as I lived in Cornholme about ten years after this accident happened. I'd like to know exactly where the derailment occurred.If the 8F was a banker, then didn't they usually remain somewhere near the original 'Todmorden Curve'? - ie, about two miles from Cornholme.

 

[euryalus]

I'm more than interested in this as I lived in Cornholme about ten years after this accident happened. I'd like to know exactly where the derailment occurred.If the 8F was a banker, then didn't they usually remain somewhere near the original 'Todmorden Curve'? - ie, about two miles from Cornholme.

A brief report that appeared in the October 1967 Railway Magazine (p.599) states that the banking engine was returning light to Todmorden.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The British Library will no doubt have the full report available for consultation.

 

[Hall_Royd_Junc]

Seems remarkable that given this topic was only recently discussed that some images of the clear-up taken on the following two days have now come to hand from Norman Sutcliffe. These are posted here, with thanks to group for the accompanying notes:

http://www.hall-royd-junction.co.uk/Hall_Royd_Prototype/Todmorden_prototype_3.html

Norman reckons he took the photographs the follow morning, but doesn't think either loco was present, as he feels he would have photographed them. We know that 48375 was eventually returned to Rose Grove, where it became the only loco to be cut-up there. Given that the Stansfield Hall banker sidings were the closest 'safe haven', it would seem logical for both to have been dragged downhill whilst the gangs were rerailing wagons and relaying track in the up hill direction.

Previously reported here was the fact that the loco passed 6 signals at danger. Norman and I have mulled this one over, and reckon that would make the first such signal passed as the home protecting the entrance to Holme Tunnel. According to Chris Littleworth's signal box diagram book, both Copy Pit and Portsmouth boxes would have been open and manned (Copy Pit had just dealt with a banker), so given there would have been time for Cliviger to bell 'train running away' to Copy Pit, why did Copy Pit not route it down the Up loop, which appears to be in situ at the time? Or was the banker still in section, and so the interlocking prevented the route being set?

I am also certain that I have seen a photograph of the crash with D398 present in one of my vast collection of books and magazines, but, of course, can not now lay my hand on it. Does anyone recall where it was published?

Kind regards

Keith W

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thank you for taking the time to update this thread and for submitting that new link to the article and numerous photographs that were taken very soon afterwards when matters of reinstatement were taking place. The hole in the factory roof is indeed sizable.