Harrow and Wealdstone collision anniversary

[Taunton]

It was extremely unusual for steam locomotives to be written off in accidents, they were almost always capable of repair, and to lose two in a collision, as here, almost unknown; the only other I can recall was the Abermule head-on collision on the Cambrian.

The particular railway impact was this train was used by many rail staff going to work at Euston offices, who tended to live out along the line, and a number had boarded it just seconds beforehand. The last carriage of the local train was effectively a "club" for them, as such it was the oldest vehicle in the accident, an ex-LNWR wholly wooden carriage, it being honourable for the staff on railway passes to travel in the vehicle furthest from the Euston barriers, and it took the fullest brunt of the collision. I think about one-third of the fatalities were railway office staff.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The anniversary was remembered today on board the members' trip behind 71000 Duke of Gloucester. (The Duke was built as a direct replacement for 46202 which was destroyed in the Harrow disaster).

Im didn't know that. Slightly surprised they didn't give it 46202's name (Princess Anne), instead of her great uncle's, but maybe there was a plan to name the Standard Class 8s after other Dukes (there being very few princesses or duchesses left without a namesake Stanier Pacific by 1952 - Princess Marina, the Dowager Duchess of Kent being the only one I can think of). In the event 71000 was a one-off - and indeed was the only BR standard locomotive to have three cylinders.

 

[Rescars]

It was extremely unusual for steam locomotives to be written off in accidents, they were almost always capable of repair, and to lose two in a collision, as here, almost unknown; the only other I can recall was the Abermule head-on collision on the Cambrian.

It was very unusual, but IIRC, the Caledonian wrote off the locos of the local and the troop train after Quintinshill.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It was extremely unusual for steam locomotives to be written off in accidents, they were almost always capable of repair, and to lose two in a collision, as here, almost unknown; the only other I can recall was the Abermule head-on collision on the Cambrian.

The particular railway impact was this train was used by many rail staff going to work at Euston offices, who tended to live out along the line, and a number had boarded it just seconds beforehand. The last carriage of the local train was effectively a "club" for them, as such it was the oldest vehicle in the accident, an ex-LNWR wholly wooden carriage, it being honourable for the staff on railway passes to travel in the vehicle furthest from the Euston barriers, and it took the fullest brunt of the collision. I think about one-third of the fatalities were railway office staff.

Yes I remember reading that one particular office at Euston lost pretty much it’s entire staff complement.

 

[DelW]

It was extremely unusual for steam locomotives to be written off in accidents, they were almost always capable of repair, and to lose two in a collision, as here, almost unknown; the only other I can recall was the Abermule head-on collision on the Cambrian.

Especially as 46202 Princess Anne was effectively almost brand new. She had only been in service for eight weeks since completion of the rebuilding / conversion from the Turbomotive. While major components were re-used, the motion was obviously new, and everything fully overhauled.

Im didn't know that. Slightly surprised they didn't give it 46202's name (Princess Anne), instead of her great uncle's, but maybe there was a plan to name the Standard Class 8s after other Dukes (there being very few princesses or duchesses left without a namesake Stanier Pacific by 1952 - Princess Marina, the Dowager Duchess of Kent being the only one I can think of). In the event 71000 was a one-off - and indeed was the only BR standard locomotive to have three cylinders.

46202 was a one-off as well, the conversion (as above) resulted in a loco that was effectively an intermediate design between the Princess and Duchess Pacifics. She was (imo) better looking than either, and her destruction was especially unfortunate. As a one-off, she possibly wouldn't have lasted into preservation, though of course DoG did (just).

 

[DerekC]

I recall reading (I think in a book on the Turbomotive) that there was a lot of railway politics behind the decision to scrap 46202. Rebuilding was definitely on the cards to start with but Riddles is said to have pushed for scrapping and the construction of the Class 8 Pacific, which he had wanted to do for some time but had been stopped from proceeding with by the Railway Executive.

 

[Threepea51]

Especially as 46202 Princess Anne was effectively almost brand new. She had only been in service for eight weeks since completion of the rebuilding / conversion from the Turbomotive. While major components were re-used, the motion was obviously new, and everything fully overhauled.

46202 was a one-off as well, the conversion (as above) resulted in a loco that was effectively an intermediate design between the Princess and Duchess Pacifics. She was (imo) better looking than either, and her destruction was especially unfortunate. As a one-off, she possibly wouldn't have lasted into preservation, though of course DoG did (just).

Do you happen to know how 46202 performed in its rebuilt form? I’ve tried doing research but can’t find any information. I know that it was only in service for very little time, but some records of its performance had to have been made right? It had more tractive effort than a Coronation, but I believe the piston travel was shorter so it’s top speed was limited compared to the Coronations

 

[Harvester]

Do you happen to know how 46202 performed in its rebuilt form? I’ve tried doing research but can’t find any information. I know that it was only in service for very little time, but some records of its performance had to have been made right? It had more tractive effort than a Coronation, but I believe the piston travel was shorter so it’s top speed was limited compared to the Coronations

With only around 2 months running in rebuilt form and a total milage of 11000 miles, performance logs of the loco in service will be comparatively rare. I’ve never come across any, but it must have worked some test trains from Crewe, before entering service in August 1952, with that data archived somewhere!

 

[DelW]

Do you happen to know how 46202 performed in its rebuilt form? I’ve tried doing research but can’t find any information. I know that it was only in service for very little time, but some records of its performance had to have been made right? It had more tractive effort than a Coronation, but I believe the piston travel was shorter so it’s top speed was limited compared to the Coronations

As @Harvester said, there seems to be very little information about the loco in service, and indeed few photos surviving. This must be due to her short service career, but one would have expected both the LMS CME department and enthusiasts to be taking a close interest in a new one-off engine. Yet most books treat 46202 as no more than a small footnote to the original Turbomotive.

Apart from what's on the interweb, my best source of information is J W P Rowledge's book on "The LMS Pacifics". The relevant section describes the conversion, at a cost of £8,875 (!), then says:

Covering only 11,443 miles there had been little chance to see how well this hybrid ran (although no adverse comment about its performance is on record) nor to judge whether or not it had any advantage over both LMS Pacific classes, thereby to justify the cost of its conversion.

(my bold).

If lots of LMS Pacifics had survived at Barry, maybe it would have been possible to use some of the bits to recreate 46202, in the way that GWR classes have been recreated, but I don't think anyone would want to start that now!

 

[thedbdiboy]

That's something that struck me as well when reading a book about the Harrow accident. Can anyone outline what is done today after an accident that was not done in the past?

A certain amount would be due to a change in people’s’ attitudes. Even up to recent years, say the 1980s, people accepted that these things happen and we should get back to normal as quickly as possible for the sake of the living. Nowadays, we must find out exactly what happened and see if someone is to blame, so everything must be held up while the incident is minutely examined.

At Clapham Junction in 1988, the accident happened in the Monday morning peak. I think two of the four tracks were reopened on the Tuesday evening, and the line was fully open for the Wednesday morning peak. I'm not aware of this causing any problems with finding out what went wrong (although this may have been helped by the fact that the cause was in a signalbox some distance away and not at the scene).

Things had changed by the time of the Paddington accident in 1999, when if I remember rightly, the line was closed for about a fortnight, and concerns were expressed about the safety risks of the resulting overcrowding at Ealing Broadway.

It's very easy to blame the modern litigation culture but as anyone who has read the Hidden report into the Clapham accident can read, the proof of the actual root cause of the accident was actually obscured by being tampered with - the infamous 'false feed'.
There is a balance to be struck - back in 1952 the war was very recent and people were inured to pricking themselves up and carrying on around scenes that would now be grounds for trauma diagnosis. After the Paddington/Ladbroke Grove collision in 1999 the line was closed for nearly 3 weeks and this did indeed lead to a recognition that things had gone too far the other way; service recovery is nowadays generally faster.

The big change in attitudes came after the series of late 1980s tragedies that began much more to focus on ultimate culpability rather than the person that made the final critical mistake. Off the top of my head they were the Bradford stadium fire, the Piper Alpha disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize and the Kings Cross fire. We also had Clapham and then Hillsborough. It led to a sea change in the acceptance that 'accidents will happen'. Whilst it can be argued sometimes that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, these events made compelling reasons to look deeper into the 'why' before moving on.

 

[edwin_m]

It's very easy to blame the modern litigation culture but as anyone who has read the Hidden report into the Clapham accident can read, the proof of the actual root cause of the accident was actually obscured by being tampered with - the infamous 'false feed'.

Surely the false feed was the cause of the accident and was not intentional? The technician disconnected a wire and just pushed it away from the terminal without taping it off, and over the next period of time it returned to its original position.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Surely the false feed was the cause of the accident and was not intentional? The technician disconnected a wire and just pushed it away from the terminal without taping it off, and over the next period of time it returned to its original position.

Yes, but by the time the investigators examined the wiring the one that was eventually presumed to be the cause had been pushed out of the way by someone who wasn't aware of the need to preserve the evidence 'as found'. It wasn't treated as a cover up so much as a technician instinctively trying to correct an obviously unsatisfactory installation. This predated the culture of 'touch nothing until it has been examined and recorded'.
The scenarios referred to from Harrow etc where service was restored within hours was because alongside rescue efforts, people sometimes started clearing wreckage and making repairs before a proper record of the scene had taken place, and that could affect the understanding of the causes (and the liabilities).

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, but by the time the investigators examined the wiring the one that was eventually presumed to be the cause had been pushed out of the way by someone who wasn't aware of the need to preserve the evidence 'as found'. It wasn't treated as a cover up so much as a technician instinctively trying to correct an obviously unsatisfactory installation. This predated the culture of 'touch nothing until it has been examined and recorded'.
The scenarios referred to from Harrow etc where service was restored within hours was because alongside rescue efforts, people sometimes started clearing wreckage and making repairs before a proper record of the scene had taken place, and that could affect the understanding of the causes (and the liabilities).

Thanks, I understand now!

 

[43096]

After the Paddington collision in 1998 the line was closed for nearly 3 weeks and this did indeed lead to a recognition that things had gone too far the other way; service recovery is nowadays generally faster.

There wasn’t a Paddington collision in 1998. Are you referring to Ladbroke Grove in 1999?

I’d dispute service recovery being faster. How long was the railway closed for after the Carmont derailment?

 

[edwin_m]

There wasn’t a Paddington collision in 1998. Are you referring to Ladbroke Grove in 1999?

I’d dispute service recovery being faster. How long was the railway closed for after the Carmont derailment?

At Carmont they had to build a new road to get a crane in to lift the wrecked train out. The investigation probably focussed quite quickly on the drain where all the stone washed onto the track came from, at which point it would have been away from the active railway.

 

[thedbdiboy]

There wasn’t a Paddington collision in 1998. Are you referring to Ladbroke Grove in 1999?

I’d dispute service recovery being faster. How long was the railway closed for after the Carmont derailment?

Yes I meant 1999. You can't just compare the time, it's dependent on what remediation was needed. The site at Paddington was closed for investigation well beyond what was needed to physically repair the damage.

 

[43096]

Yes I meant 1999. You can't just compare the time, it's dependent on what remediation was needed. The site at Paddington was closed for investigation well beyond what was needed to physically repair the damage.

It wasn’t at Paddington!

 

[thedbdiboy]

It wasn’t at Paddington!

No, but if you look at the Wikipedia page you'll see that it is alternatively/equally known as the Paddington rail crash - after all that was the nearest big location and one of the trains involved had just departed from there. I was in the industry at the time, that was the shorthand. This really isn't a subject to get pedantic over.

 

[midland1]

No, but if you look at the Wikipedia page you'll see that it is alternatively/equally known as the Paddington rail crash - after all that was the nearest big location and one of the trains involved had just departed from there. I was in the industry at the time, that was the shorthand. This really isn't a subject to get pedantic over.

If Harrow had happened in 1999 the press may well have called Euston!