Accident Reports, where can I view one?

[Penlan]

I've seen a reference somewhere to access ALL the UK Accident Reports. But I can't find it.

The accident I'm interested in was on 26th Jan 1906, near Killay Station, The Rhyd-y-Defaid siding to the brickworks.
Near Killay Station, Swansea, Central Wales Line.
8 or more wagons were destroyed, line blocked one way for a some time.
The LNWR engines involved were Nos. 2274 & 2384.
A pointer to where I may find the report would be welcome.
Also posted LNWRSoc FB page

[iands]

2 minutes ago, Penlan said:

I've seen a reference somewhere to access ALL the UK Accident Reports. But I can't find it.

The accident I'm interested in was on 26th Jan 1906, near Killay Station, The Rhyd-y-Defaid siding to the brickworks.
Near Killay Station, Swansea, Central Wales Line.
8 or more wagons were destroyed, line blocked one way for a some time.
The LNWR engines involved were Nos. 2274 & 2384.
A pointer to where I may find the report would be welcome.
Also posted LNWRSoc FB page

Have you tried The Railways Archive website, this, I think, is what are looking for (www.railwayarchives.co.uk).

[Penlan]

27 minutes ago, iands said:

Have you tried The Railways Archive website, this, I think, is what are looking for (www.railwayarchives.co.uk).

Tried that, nothing there, I'm advised by a LNWRSoc., member it may have been 'swept under the carpet' by the LNWR, no serious injuries to personel.
The Swansea Post did have a report on the accident,

and there's a postcard out there somewhere of it.
I'm trying to track down a copy.
My main interest was the wagons damaged, they would have been identified,

if a proper accident report had been filed.
Many thanks for your reply.Insert other media

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Penlan

[iands]

Yes, in general, it seems that if no loss of life/serious injury occurred, then the BoT let the railway company concerned carryout an "internal" investigation (if deemed necessary), or just get on with clearing up the mess and restoring/repairing the infrastructure to get the trains running a.s.a.p. So in theory, there could have been an "internal" report produced for in-house use (e.g. possible disciplinary action), but would never see the light-of-day to the general public. 

[Nearholmer]

If it was on a siding, or a goods only line, and didn’t endanger passenger trains, it may not have fallen under the powers or duties of HMRI to investigate. No ‘sweeping under the carpet’, simply outside that particular regime. 

 

Before the 1974 Health and Safety at Work etc Act, such an incident might have fallen outside of any particular public reporting and investigation regime, because such things were confined to very particular places/industries/circumstances/processes,  incidents only being a matter of common law in the event of death or injury, where a duty of care might have been breached, and similarly where there was loss/damage to a third party.

 

In general, the railways seem to have compensated third parties without the need for a legal case, and likewise injured employees and widows, even in some cases where the victim was “the architect of their own downfall” by the fairly harsh standards of the day. Sometimes, relevant correspondence can be found in old company files but, from what little i’ve seen, it tends not to go

into detail about the incident unless there is a simmering argument and the railway is trying to defend its corner (fires damaging crops; livestock penetrating fences etc).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Fat Controller]

15 minutes ago, iands said:

Yes, in general, it seems that if no loss of life/serious injury occurred, then the BoT let the railway company concerned carryout an "internal" investigation (if deemed necessary), or just get on with clearing up the mess and restoring/repairing the infrastructure to get the trains running a.s.a.p. So in theory, there could have been an "internal" report produced for in-house use (e.g. possible disciplinary action), but would never see the light-of-day to the general public. 

Even now, the Railway Inspectorate or RAIB might decide not to publish a report, if the incident doesn't cause death or injury , for example. For instance, I witnessed several run-aways on the L&MMR, have never seen a HMRI Report; likewise, in the late 1960s/early 1970s, I saw the aftermath of the derailment of an oil train at Ferryside, but have never seen a report.

More recently, my wife has been looking for a Report on the derailment at Hams Hall last year, but has so far found nothing.

[Right Away]

May I jump in here with another poser that probably wouldn't have made it into the records?

 

Sometime towards the late '60s a 12 car EMU of "Nelson" stock was working an either Victoria or London Bridge to Littlehampton evening "rush hour" service when, after slowing at Preston Park for the permanent speed restriction to take the Cliftonville Spur towards Hove, the train became divided. Severing of the brake pipes brought both portions to a stand and AFAIK there were no serious injuries.

 

It was assumed in some quarters, but never confirmed, the detachment was the result of the motorman, who was rather more used to driving EP stock in the London suburban area, unfortunately putting his driver's brake valve to the release/running position before allowing sufficient time for the brakes on the entire train to apply before doing so. If this were the case, the delay in the operation of the triple valves of the Westinghouse brake towards the rear of the twelve car formation would have resulted in the brakes on the leading coaches releasing whilst those towards the rear still being applied.

 

The local newspaper, the Evening Argus. published a report on the incident at the time with comments posing questions about the actual age of the train (no pun), which in turn was responded to by readers. Online newspaper archives do not go back as far as the incident.

 

I've checked on the "Blood & Custard" website but the incident doesn't appear there. Would records of these minor incidents be available elsewhere?

[ElectroSoldier]

The only one I know is https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/rail-accident-investigation-branch

But thats a more modern site, I doubt it will have what you need.
 

I seem to remember it is possible to get the reports, I dont know if you need an account with a sponsor company to get them.

[Nearholmer]

“If this were the case, the delay in the operation of the triple valves of the Westinghouse brake towards the rear of the twelve car formation would have resulted in the brakes on the leading coaches releasing whilst those towards the rear still being applied.”

 

That might put extra strain on the coupling, but by golly gosh it shouldn’t cause it to part. There must surely have been something deeply amiss with the coupling.

[LMS2968]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

“If this were the case, the delay in the operation of the triple valves of the Westinghouse brake towards the rear of the twelve car formation would have resulted in the brakes on the leading coaches releasing whilst those towards the rear still being applied.”

 

That might put extra strain on the coupling, but by golly gosh it shouldn’t cause it to part. There must surely have been something deeply amiss with the coupling.

Don't you believe it! A friend of mine recounted the tale of when he was driving an HST at 120mph on a four track section, the Slows in a pair to the left. Ahead was a ladder accessing all tracks with a multiple unit travelling slowly in the same direction. Suddenly, this unit swung to its right only a short distance in front. Maurice threw the brake full in, as anyone would, but soon caught the dmu. By now he realised it wasn't heading for his line as thought; it was in fact being dropped wrong line on top of another unit, which had failed. He did not release the brake until the HST had come to a stand because, he believed, of the risk of dividing the train. Once stopped, he made the release and carried on to the terminus, where I believe he used some very strong language.

[ejstubbs]

Another one that doesn't seem to be in the railway archive is the fairly well-known runaway of 37113 at Waverley on 31st August 1994, which led to it eventually colliding with a northbound Cross Country HST somewhere on the ECML.  Apparently around 40 people were injured.  Even newspaper reports seem to be thin on the ground, 1994 seeming to be just long enough ago that most newspapers' online archives don't go back that far.

 

How did that one apparently manage not to be the subject of a published report?

[Right Away]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

“If this were the case, the delay in the operation of the triple valves of the Westinghouse brake towards the rear of the twelve car formation would have resulted in the brakes on the leading coaches releasing whilst those towards the rear still being applied.”

 

That might put extra strain on the coupling, but by golly gosh it shouldn’t cause it to part. There must surely have been something deeply amiss with the coupling.

Indeed. Motormen brought up on the Westinghouse brake were well aware of the time it took for the triple valves to operate on lengthy formations to avert situations such as which occurred.

 

Instructions stated "to ensure that the triple valves will subsequently release the brakes, particularly on the rear coaches, do not make any brake application of less than 15psi of train pipe pressure on trains of 8 or more cars. They were also advised not to release any brake application when nearing a dead end (buffers) as there may be insufficient time for the triple valves to reverse to allow a re-application. It was better to stop short of the mark and then pull forward when safe. This all tends to show the degree of skill demanded by that brake. 

After the last 4 Subs were withdrawn, new drivers were expected to demonstrate their ability to still use the Westinghouse brake (later referred to as "Auto brake") by switching off the EP brake on EP stock, indeed the running brake test was carried using the "Westinghouse position". 

 

Regarding the incident mentioned, it is not certain whether the coupling parted between units or within a unit. Perhaps the coupling, subjected to snatching in the past, had been weakened.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Right Away

[DY444]

29 minutes ago, Right Away said:

Indeed. Motormen brought up on the Westinghouse brake were well aware of the time it took for the triple valves to operate on lengthy formations to avert situations such as which occurred.

 

Instructions stated "to ensure that the triple valves will subsequently release the brakes, particularly on the rear coaches, do not make any brake application of less than 15psi of train pipe pressure on trains of 8 or more cars. They were also advised not to release any brake application when nearing a dead end (buffers) as there may be insufficient time for the triple valves to reverse to allow a re-application. It was better to stop short of the mark and then pull forward when safe. This all tends to show the degree of skill demanded by that brake. 

After the last 4 Subs were withdrawn, new drivers were expected to demonstrate their ability to still use the Westinghouse brake (later referred to as "Auto brake") by switching off the EP brake on EP stock, indeed the running brake test was carried using the "Westinghouse position". 

 

Regarding the incident mentioned, it is not certain whether the coupling parted between units or within a unit. Perhaps the coupling, subjected to snatching in the past had been weakened.

 

 

 

It is often forgotten that the Westinghouse had to be used when a TC formation was propelled by a 33/1.  Its use as the normal service brake therefore continued after the SUBs had gone and remained a daily feature until regular TC+33/1 operation ceased.

 

I've heard stories from SR drivers that there were incidents where accidentally using the EP brake on a TC formation propelled by a Crompton had caused the buckeye to disengage after the unbraked locomotive surged into the train.  No idea if this is just mess room exaggeration of the buffeting that would obviously occur or something that actually happened.  In the wider context of accidental use of the EP brake, it strikes me as much easier to accidentally apply the EP brake with the 5 position brake valve on older SR EP stock than on the 3 position valve fitted to 4TCs where you have to flick the brake selector switch first but I suppose it could have happened

Edited August 17, 2019 by DY444

[caradoc]

3 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

Another one that doesn't seem to be in the railway archive is the fairly well-known runaway of 37113 at Waverley on 31st August 1994, which led to it eventually colliding with a northbound Cross Country HST somewhere on the ECML.  Apparently around 40 people were injured.  Even newspaper reports seem to be thin on the ground, 1994 seeming to be just long enough ago that most newspapers' online archives don't go back that far.

 

How did that one apparently manage not to be the subject of a published report?

 

It is very strange that there is no report on that accident; Neither is there one for the similar incident in 2002 when a Class 90 ran away from the Waverley on the night shift, fortunately staff working on the line were able to get clear in time. The second incident seems to have more Press coverage as well;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2495429.stm

 

[keefer]

The incident  with 37113 was 13th August, not 31st.

Found this thread on another site: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/accident-in-edinburgh-13th-august-1994.88919/

Contains links to news reports.

 

37113 was dumped at Portobello, sample pic from  Google search: https://www.flickr.com/photos/uk-railpix/8451766526

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by keefer

[ejstubbs]

Circularity: it was precisely that thread on railforums.co.uk that piqued my interest in the lack of a report about the 37113 incident, and led me to mention it on here.

[Penlan]

I now have a copy of a PC of the accident, but as yet, have been unable to trace an official 'Report', there may be one at Kew in the LNWR files, but......
Please be aware this PC is part of the 'Gower Society' Archives and therefore please respect their ownership of this image.

 

[Edwin_m]

On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 08:55, Right Away said:

Indeed. Motormen brought up on the Westinghouse brake were well aware of the time it took for the triple valves to operate on lengthy formations to avert situations such as which occurred.

 

Instructions stated "to ensure that the triple valves will subsequently release the brakes, particularly on the rear coaches, do not make any brake application of less than 15psi of train pipe pressure on trains of 8 or more cars. They were also advised not to release any brake application when nearing a dead end (buffers) as there may be insufficient time for the triple valves to reverse to allow a re-application. It was better to stop short of the mark and then pull forward when safe. This all tends to show the degree of skill demanded by that brake. 

After the last 4 Subs were withdrawn, new drivers were expected to demonstrate their ability to still use the Westinghouse brake (later referred to as "Auto brake") by switching off the EP brake on EP stock, indeed the running brake test was carried using the "Westinghouse position". 

 

Regarding the incident mentioned, it is not certain whether the coupling parted between units or within a unit. Perhaps the coupling, subjected to snatching in the past, had been weakened.

 

 

I wonder if part of the problem was also taking power before the brakes through the train had fully released.  I believe it was possible to break a coupling by doing so with a modern powerful locomotive such as a Class 60.  

 

On ‎17‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 08:09, ejstubbs said:

Another one that doesn't seem to be in the railway archive is the fairly well-known runaway of 37113 at Waverley on 31st August 1994, which led to it eventually colliding with a northbound Cross Country HST somewhere on the ECML.  Apparently around 40 people were injured.  Even newspaper reports seem to be thin on the ground, 1994 seeming to be just long enough ago that most newspapers' online archives don't go back that far.

 

How did that one apparently manage not to be the subject of a published report?

Railwaysarchive seems to be a bit deficient on accident reports for a period in the 1990s and early 2000s which I think coincides with when HSE was responsible, between the demise of the traditional HMRI setup with its ex-military inspectors and the advent of RAIB.  Many of the reports that are available from this period are markedly inferior to those from before or since.