Leyton-Walthamstow derailment 23 Jan 2020.

[Crepello]

This event is fascinating me, due to its nature and my weekly use of this route, which is now suspended.

Accurate facts seem hard to establish; I went to the supposed site of the incident yesterday (Yunus Khan Close in Walthamstow according to Rail Archive, but it was further on from the devastation.) An engineer told me the wagon had remained coupled within the train (0531 Barking Eurohub- Acton) and it derailed at Leytonstone High Road, 2km away. I spoke later to the lady in the 'office' at Leyton Midland Road who said it came off at Woodgrange Park and a colleague had said he thought it was an earthquake as it passed overhead at Leyton! I'm not surprised as it was probably loaded with 70 tonnes of sand!

If anyone has more knowledge and any pictures (apart from the broken rail seen via Google), I'd be glad to hear.

TIA.

[EddieB]

I probably can't add much to the information you have already.  The initial report was that a freight train travelling westbound (6Z54 Barking Eurohub - Acton TC) derailed between Leyton Midland and Walthamstow Queens Road at around 6:00am on Thursday (23rd January).  It was reported that some two miles of track was damaged - hence the time estimated to replace track and renew the track bed.  The first I heard was a travel report on the radio that evening, that the GOBLIN was closed, with rail replacement buses in operation.  It appears that repairs are taking longer than first thought, suggesting that the length of line damaged was under-estimated.

As I was passing nearby on the following Sunday (26th), I noted that the access point for the works was in Yunus Khan Close.  An engineering train topped and tailed by Colas class 70 locomotives (70816 and 70810, for the record) was waiting between there and the east end of the platforms at Walthamstow Queens Road (moving off toward Barking at around 15:00).  A ro-rail digger was at work on the tracks.

 

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[billbedford]

It seems that the initial fault was near Woodgrange Park and the driver didn't notice until he'd pass Midland Road. 

 

It was an engineer's spoil train that caused the problem, it has been suggested that some of the wagons were overloaded and had to have some of the contents removed before they could be recovered. 

 

The recovery spoil train was on the A12 bridge yesterday afternoon (Tuesday) when I passed. 

 

There are photos of some of the damage on the NR website. 

[Wickham Green]

13 minutes ago, billbedford said:

There are photos of some of the damage on the NR website. 

Wouldn't have needed an overloaded spoil train to smash those sleepers by the look of it !

[billbedford]

The RAIB have launched an investigation, details here:

www.gov.uk/government/news/freight-train-derailment-near-wanstead-park

[Crepello]

Thanks guys, that's a lot clearer now. Thankfully it's just plain track from thereon or a major demolition job could have ensued.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Crepello said:

Thanks guys, that's a lot clearer now. Thankfully it's just plain track from thereon or a major demolition job could have ensued.

 

Its NOT just plain track!

 

That section of line passes over bridges that use longitudinal baulk timbers to support the rails - and these have been comprehensively trashed by the derailed wheel set.

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.railfreight.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F01%2FDamaged-track-Barking-London-.jpeg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.railfreight.com%2Frailfreight%2F2020%2F01%2F27%2Flondon-derailment-will-take-weeks-to-repair%2F&tbnid=iya1VqwgRzTUZM&vet=12ahUKEwjD2q7187znAhUL8xoKHc3dCWEQMygEegUIARDlAQ..i&docid=sePcWDnUoVP0PM&w=963&h=642&q=gospel oak to barking derailment&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwjD2q7187znAhUL8xoKHc3dCWEQMygEegUIARDlAQ

 

Unlike rails and sleepers such bridge timers are bespoke items - and much like the points at Eastleigh obtaining replacements takes time. You cannot however temporary 'plain line' bridge timbers to get things moving.....

[billbedford]

The bridge sleepers were being installed yesterday 

 

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

Hard facts are never easy to obtain in these cases, which is as it should be.  Railway staff, both the TOC's and NR's, are instructed not to discuss matters ahead of the internal and possible public inquiry in order to prevent personal opinions or misreporting by those unfamiliar with the railway, so they will be cagey in response to questions, especially from people they don't know.  One thinks of the Sevenoaks accident in 1927, in which a railway official was overheard by a reporter saying 'it's one of those damned River's again', which, along with the rumour of unstable running caused by water allegedly surging back and forth in the tanks and the company's instantaneous taking out of service the entire class within an hour or so of the incident, must have coloured the result of the inquiry.  In actual fact, the River's were not a bad design, and one test run on the GNR, with Nigel Gresley and Robert Maunsell on the footplate, ran at over 80mph tanks half full with no hint of misbehaviour.

 

The myth of the 'rolling Rivers' persists, but large tank engines in general did not pose particular problems with stability; the GW's large prairies, and Fowler's 2-6-4T on the LMS, not to mention the Metropolitan 2-6-4T which was very similar to the Rivers, never gave any such problem, and neither did the broadly similar locos on the Brighton or Glasgow & SW.  Nor did later iterations from Stanier, Fairburn, Thompson, and Riddles.  The Southern withdrew the big Brighton tanks and rebuilt them as tender locos, and never built another big tank, but continued with pregrouping 0-4-4s which one might have expected to be prone to exactly the same 'tank surge' problem.  The GW used 0-6-2T locos on passenger work in South Wales and the Birmingham district, on which the tanks were a good proportion of the weight of the loco, and no more or less a 'live load' than tanks anywhere.  Centre of gravity is pertinent to the riding of any loco, and the 56xx was quite high; if any loco was going to be a stability problem it was going to be this one, but it never was.

 

IMHO, the problem at Sevenoaks and in the other previous incidents involving the Rivers, which I believe were the heaviest axle load on the Eastern Section, was poor quality ballast and drainage on the clay subsoil of the Weald on a railway that had originally been built very much down to a cost.  The SE&CR had used beach shingle for ballast because of it's immediate availability and cheapness, as I believe did the Brighton, but the Southern standardised on the LSW's Meldon Quarry Granite after the Sevenoaks accident; of course, it took some time to replace over the whole railway and the per way dept, overlooked in the focus on the loco and it's riding, 'got away' with it, at least in terms of public approbation.

 

This is a prime example of what can be the result of ill informed or partisan comments taken out of context.  Best not to ask, naturally curious though one might be, and wait for the report, which should, at least in theory, be fair and thorough.  I have always considered the RAIB and it's predecessors to be the railwayman's friend, but there is in some quarters a culture of 'covering up' in case blame is apportioned, which is another reason that comment from railwaymen at the time should be avoided.  3rd party witnesses will comment that 'there was a bang and a cloud of dust', or 'it felt like an earthquake', which is fair enough but adds little to understanding of the incident.

Edited February 6, 2020 by The Johnster

[Pandora]

The image show a vertical  break in the rail,  and a longtitudinal break in the foot of the rail, the vertical break is a few inches from a Thermic weld ( note the   vertical extruded  band of metal  in the rail web   that is the metal  infill of the weld  ),   Is the rail break confirmed to be the  cause of the derailment? which brealk occured first, the vertical or longtitudinal?

 

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/resources/gospel-oak-to-barking-derailment-damage-4

Edited February 6, 2020 by Pandora

[billbedford]

There were a number of photos of similar damage on the NR site, some showing the flange detached from the web. To me it looks more like the derailed wheel coming off a sleeper, hitting the rail flange and thus breaking the rail. 

[Wickham Green]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

......., with Nigel Gresley and Robert Maunsell on the footplate, ...........

 

..............large tank engines in general did not pose particular problems with stability; ............................. Metropolitan 2-6-4T which was very similar to the Rivers, never gave any such problem, and neither did the broadly similar locos on the Brighton ..........

My pedant friend says the guy was Richard ( Edward Lloyd ) Maunsell !

 

The Metropolitan 2-6-4 Tanks were virtually identical to the Rivers but were only goods locos so didn't run a the sort of speed where surging would be an issue : the Brighton Ls, though WERE found to be unstable ( BEFORE the days of he Rivers ) and had to have major modifications to their waterworks in order to lower the centre of gravity.

[Southernman46]

That broken rail is a result of being hit by the derailed wagon ….. the condition and orientation of the rail heads as shown and with no obvious sign of voiding would not have caused the derailment …………… seen far, far, worse broken rails carry whole trains at linespeed satisfactorily …………..

 

it just smells of poor maintenance again (just like Eastleigh) ……………………..  also see the Bexley derailment 1998. The whole point of these wagons now being 1/2 height instead of full height like ex-stone wagons & Sheerness steel / TML opens is that they can't be overloaded and I can't imagine ANY loads examiner worth his salt in this day and age allowing an overloaden train leave site.

 

The respective NR TSM's & TME's should hang their heads in shame.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Southernman46

[The Johnster]

48 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

My pedant friend says the guy was Richard ( Edward Lloyd ) Maunsell !

 

The Metropolitan 2-6-4 Tanks were virtually identical to the Rivers but were only goods locos so didn't run a the sort of speed where surging would be an issue : the Brighton Ls, though WERE found to be unstable ( BEFORE the days of he Rivers ) and had to have major modifications to their waterworks in order to lower the centre of gravity.

Correct of course; been a few weeks since I had a senior moment like that! The Metropolitan tanks were a version of the Maunsell ‘Woolwich’ locos as were the Rivers, but had smaller driving wheels an consequently a lower centre of gravity as well.  I was unaware of stability/ride issues with the Brighton locos.

I doubt that the Rivers really were unstable at speed, and have little doubt that the formation and ballast were the real culprits, but the combination of ill reported remarks and the immediate withdrawal from service (I can fully understand and commend Maunsell’s response) damned the locos without a fair trial.  
 

The Southern Region of BR lost no time in providing themselves with the big tank engines which were so suited to the heavy fast short distance work that much of their remaining un-electrified lines provided, in the form of Fairburn and later Riddles designs built at Brighton, who were responsible for design work on the Riddles locos as well.  No issues that I am aware of resulted from this!

Edited February 6, 2020 by The Johnster

[roythebus]

This subject has been well covered on the District Dave website on the London Overground section along with decent photos of the bridge damage, broken rail and other theories. I'ts also well covered on the footplate staff-only Lost Boys Facebook group.

 

According to those fora a couple of wagons were overweight which may have been part of the cause. Several bridges were damaged in the process. questions were asked as to why the driver didn't notice the drag. I'd suggest that with so many horses available in a modern diesel, the loco may never notice it! The driver may not have the ability to look back as they could on older locos as many now have a central driving position.

 

District Dave is an open site for all to view and is very informative for all Undergound and Overground routes and lines.

[bigP]

--

Edited February 1, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[Grovenor]

Quote

I doubt that the Rivers really were unstable at speed, and have little doubt that the formation and ballast were the real culprits,

But its not much good being stable on the LNER mainline if operation on poor track on the Southern is the requirement.

[Wickham Green]

If you've ever walked over Dungeness shingle in-situ you'll wonder how anyone in their right mind ever put the stuff under railway tracks.

[roythebus]

This subject has been well covered on the District Dave website on the London Overground section along with decent photos of the bridge damage, broken rail and other theories. I'ts also well covered on the footplate staff-only Lost Boys Facebook group.

 

According to those fora a couple of wagons were overweight which may have been part of the cause. Several bridges were damaged in the process. questions were asked as to why the driver didn't notice the drag. I'd suggest that with so many horses available in a modern diesel, the loco may never notice it! The driver may not have the ability to look back as they could on older locos as many now have a central driving position.

 

District Dave is an open site for all to view and is very informative for all Undergound and Overground routes and lines.

[roythebus]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/freight-train-derailment-near-wanstead-park

 

RAIB initial report

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green said:

If you've ever walked over Dungeness shingle in-situ you'll wonder how anyone in their right mind ever put the stuff under railway tracks.

Quite. In the middle 1990s, BR,  as it then was, upgraded the mainlines from Folkestone northwards, in anticipation of the Channel Tunnel.  On  a section near us, between Westenhanger and Sandling, the renewals team found that the track sat on a mixture of loco ash and shingle, with the thinnest of layers of Meldon granite on top. They also found evidence of an earlier renewal, where some S E Railway track had simply been buried under new ballast, rather than being removed.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Hard facts are never easy to obtain in these cases, which is as it should be.  Railway staff, both the TOC's and NR's, are instructed not to discuss matters ahead of the internal and possible public inquiry in order to prevent personal opinions or misreporting by those unfamiliar with the railway, so they will be cagey in response to questions, especially from people they don't know.  One thinks of the Sevenoaks accident in 1927, in which a railway official was overheard by a reporter saying 'it's one of those damned River's again', which, along with the rumour of unstable running caused by water allegedly surging back and forth in the tanks and the company's instantaneous taking out of service the entire class within an hour or so of the incident, must have coloured the result of the inquiry.  In actual fact, the River's were not a bad design, and one test run on the GNR, with Nigel Gresley and Robert Maunsell on the footplate, ran at over 80mph tanks half full with no hint of misbehaviour.

 

The myth of the 'rolling Rivers' persists, but large tank engines in general did not pose particular problems with stability; the GW's large prairies, and Fowler's 2-6-4T on the LMS, not to mention the Metropolitan 2-6-4T which was very similar to the Rivers, never gave any such problem, and neither did the broadly similar locos on the Brighton or Glasgow & SW.  Nor did later iterations from Stanier, Fairburn, Thompson, and Riddles.  The Southern withdrew the big Brighton tanks and rebuilt them as tender locos, and never built another big tank, but continued with pregrouping 0-4-4s which one might have expected to be prone to exactly the same 'tank surge' problem.  The GW used 0-6-2T locos on passenger work in South Wales and the Birmingham district, on which the tanks were a good proportion of the weight of the loco, and no more or less a 'live load' than tanks anywhere.  Centre of gravity is pertinent to the riding of any loco, and the 56xx was quite high; if any loco was going to be a stability problem it was going to be this one, but it never was.

 

IMHO, the problem at Sevenoaks and in the other previous incidents involving the Rivers, which I believe were the heaviest axle load on the Eastern Section, was poor quality ballast and drainage on the clay subsoil of the Weald on a railway that had originally been built very much down to a cost.  The SE&CR had used beach shingle for ballast because of it's immediate availability and cheapness, as I believe did the Brighton, but the Southern standardised on the LSW's Meldon Quarry Granite after the Sevenoaks accident; of course, it took some time to replace over the whole railway and the per way dept, overlooked in the focus on the loco and it's riding, 'got away' with it, at least in terms of public approbation.

 

This is a prime example of what can be the result of ill informed or partisan comments taken out of context.  Best not to ask, naturally curious though one might be, and wait for the report, which should, at least in theory, be fair and thorough.  I have always considered the RAIB and it's predecessors to be the railwayman's friend, but there is in some quarters a culture of 'covering up' in case blame is apportioned, which is another reason that comment from railwaymen at the time should be avoided.  3rd party witnesses will comment that 'there was a bang and a cloud of dust', or 'it felt like an earthquake', which is fair enough but adds little to understanding of the incident.

No need for any opinion's about the Sevenoaks derailment because Col Sir John Pringle's Conclusion in his Report are very clear and have long been accepted by the railway industry -

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Sevenoaks1927.pdf

 

Regrettably in the event of any major derailment or collision, particularly one involving passenger trains the media - no longer just the press and broadcasters but nowadays whole battalions of halfwits with access to the 'net - are quick to shoot the first suspect they come across and pick up on whatever words they can find.  It happened in an appalling way in respect of Signalman Armitage following the Harrow triple collision, and character assassination was still well to the fore in such incidents as the Southall collision in the late 1990s and of course it goes way back into the 19th century when the press were well into instant judgement (frequently erroneous) along with calls for such things as criminal trials and severe punishment for the alleged miscreants.

 

This particular incident was, on the face of things, a plain line derailment of an engineering train carrying spoil (seems RAIB couldn't get that bit right).  Such derailments can occur for all sorts of reasons and on many instances from a combination of reasons.  In this case all the reasons might not yet be in the public domain but what we can see from the pictures published by NR is that in that small part of the area of track damage there appear to be some sleepers in very poor condition.  That was there - and we don't know where 'there' is in relation to the point of initial derailment or what factors caused the derailment.  once a train is off the road on plain line it can run for a long distance before anything untoward is noticed - that's nothing new either.

[Grovenor]

Indeed I once had a single axle off on the van dragged more than 20 kms over brand new track breaking around 50% of the concrete sleepers. Around 2 months worth of hard work by the relaying gang destroyed. The guard might have noticed if he hadn't left the van empty and was riding in the loco. (Not in the UK)

Edited February 6, 2020 by Grovenor

[Steadfast]

A point of detail if I may. The train may well have been carrying spoil but it will not have come from an engineering worksite. Those wagons are not used on such traffic these days, that work being in the hands of falcon and coalfish. 

This tweet may help on the origins of the load

https://mobile.twitter.com/dbcargouk/status/1075700299120156672

 

Jo