Jump to content
 

A nail in the coffin for mainline steam?


PhilH

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

As it's on a public forum for all to see, I don't think there will be copyright issues -  I've copied and pasted it and included the guy's name so he can take credit for it.

 

 

This is how it happened and not speculation. I was there.

The Capital Christmas Nightmare 23/11/13

Report by Justin Foulger 

 

In the morning 34067 "Tangmere" with 47580 on the back for ECS moves worked 1Z92 07:25 Weymouth to London Waterloo. The run had no problems and was on time however some were saying that she didn't sound right in some places. There was a strange clanking sound towards the front of the engine. This was also heard on the return leg. 

 

On the return working 1Z94 17:48 London Waterloo to Weymouth, it passed Fleet on time at 18:44, 1 minute early. On the approach to Winchfield station for a water stop disaster struck. The right hand connecting rod became detached from the crosshead and fell onto the down fast line and hit the 3rd rail at the same time. The rod became ditched in the ballast. The 3rd rail was damaged on the down slow line. 

 

The down slow and fast lines were soon blocked and the 3rd rail isolated. Tangmere came to a stand as the locomotives drive became disabled by this missing rod. South West Trains stopping services from Farnborough to Basingstoke calling at Fleet, Winchfield and Hook were affected all evening. Network Rail inspected the train and the track condition and they soon reopened the down fast line. This was around 20:00. Network Rail were still inspecting Tangmere's condition and what they were going to do next. 

 

Around 21:00 a decision was made to lash up what's left on the damaged side and use 47580 to push the train to Basingstoke with Tangmere in light steam, where it will be terminated. The train will then return to Southall. Around 21:30 the disconnected rod was onboard the train. A further 2 minutes of work, one final line blockage was required and a final check to be made before it continues to Basingstoke. It would no longer take on water at Winchfield.

 

At 22:20 the train was requesting permission to move from Winchfield to Basingstoke. Permission was soon granted and 47580 pushed the train to Basingstoke passing Winchfield station at 22:21, 197 minutes late. It arrived into Basingstoke platform 2 at 22:36 where the train terminated. A South West Trains service to Weymouth was held at Basingstoke for the railtour passengers to board so they could get home. It was 1W85 2135 London Waterloo to Weymouth which made a special stop at Basingstoke and departed at 22:37, 19 minutes late. 

 

The train was berthed in platform 2 from 22:36 to 23:21 while other services worked around it. A tail lamp was fitted to the front of Tangmere and the driver of the class 47 put his headlights on facing London. It left on time working 5Z94 2321 Basingstoke to Acton Lane Reception Sidings via Woking, Staines and Clapham Junction. Tangmere was in light steam and I believe it was able to run at normal line speed to Acton. It reached Acton Lane Reception Sidings at 01:14, 6 minutes late. It will go to Southall WCRC depot at a later stage. 

 

The down slow line was closed between Farnborough and Basingstoke all night as the 3rd rail was damaged and has to be isolated. The 3rd rail was fixed overnight and normal service was resumed on Sunday morning. 

 

With thanks to and sources from, UK steam info, Real Time Trains, members of the WRGEN Facebook page and Brett from SWT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Britannia have a con rod come adrift some years ago? I have it in mind that she limped home at slow speed with a con rod on one side only, usual disclaimer applies of course.

Of course with the recent discussions regarding the compensation cap for railtour operators, this little incident will do no favours whatsoever. Plus not to forget the safety aspect of the conrod coming adrift and contacting the 3rd rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Didn't Britannia have a con rod come adrift some years ago? I have it in mind that she limped home at slow speed with a con rod on one side only, usual disclaimer applies of course.

Of course with the recent discussions regarding the compensation cap for railtour operators, this little incident will do no favours whatsoever. Plus not to forget the safety aspect of the conrod coming adrift and contacting the 3rd rail.

Britannia ran on one cylinder after a big end ran hot on its first test run back in 1991. The offending connecting rod was removed at Shrewsbury and it returned to Crewe under its own power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people were very lucky there, it could have had very serious consequences.

 

The Brit incident if I remember correctly was caused by the slide bars coming adrift, leading to the eventual failure of the piston rod.  The now freed crosshead and conn rod damaged the opposite direction track, derailing a train which then bounced into the side of the Brit's train causing, I believe, several fatalities.

 

It will be interesting to see a report of the cause, did something break, or did they loose the small end pin.

 

I was quite impressed by the reported responce of NR and SWTrains to this incident, there would appear to be an element of joined up thinking on this one, I wonder if this is the new Alliance at work.

 

Chris

 

Edit.  70052 at Settle 21/1/60, interesting photos of 'candy twist' conn rod in the report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm sorry I'll read that again...

Yep, I believe the loco also made its own way back to Crewe. ( Although there was a rumor the rod hitched a lift in the support coach but you cant believe anything you read on internet forums)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I read somewhere it wasn't unknown for driver wheels to come off the axles on these engine's, I won't be booking any Steam Dreams trips behind this piece of junk thats for sure. :O

 

Not quite...fractured crank axle due to metal fatigue at axle / inside crank web seat, and that was on one Merchant Navy. fatigue was found on other members of the class leading to class withdrawal for checks/ rectification to be made. Still, why let fact get in the way of a good story....

 

34067 has been a fairly consistent performer on the mainline over the years, had a few problems but against that has probably had a heavier workload than most.

 

It is not a piece of junk, that's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As Phil says Tangmere's been known for good performance and apart from a few problems after it's last overhaul has been well regarded for reliability by the staff in Wessex. Thank goodness nothing worse happened as coming away at the front could have been really nasty if it had dug in. I had that when a pin sheared on a 7 1/4 loco and the abrupt stop as it dug itself in was bad enough with little weight behind.

The investigation report will be interesting but the strange noise may mean something was already working loose or getting beaten till it fractured. Problem is sometimes it just isn't apparent without taking things apart which they weren't going to manage during the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be very interesting to find out what was done to investigate the problem during the 5 hours she was sitting at Waterloo.

 

From the report above it sounds like just about the best possible outcome from a failure like this, the consequences of that con rod spearing down into the ballast at express speed just doesn't bear thinking about …

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I read somewhere it wasn't unknown for driver wheels to come off the axles on these engine's, I won't be booking any Steam Dreams trips behind this piece of junk thats for sure. :O

Please don't overreact.It is a dreadful misfortune for all concerned but not a tragedy,thank heavens. Junk? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Looks like somebody - or rather quite a few somebodies - has been extremely lucky.  It seems from the report above that the adjacent line was not displaced, no other train was involved (apart from subsequent delays of course), and the engine was not derailed so a lot of potentially very serious outcomes were avoided at the expense of a damaged engine and some bent/knackered conrail and most important of all no one was hurt.

 

The only bit which could be criticised in the aftermath is the time it took to make a simple decision to go forward with one side of the engine out of action but we are dealing with a railway in which steam traction is something of an alien beast and old-fashioned ideas of enginemen getting themselves out of trouble in such circumstances are long forgotten.  RAIB will no doubt have a field day quoting all sorts of procedures and bits of paperwork but I suspect all the engine owner's ducks might be in a fairly straight line and hopefully beyond all but minor criticism.  And at the end of the day as far as running the railway is concerned what happened is far less awkward than a container falling off or a derailment or a fractured axle or whatever.

 

The bigger issue is whatever some anti-steam lobby somewhere in the industry wishes to make of it - we bystanders can merely wait and see

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accidents happen, we will have to await to see what the powers that be decide was the cause and what's if anything needs to change to avoid a recurrence.

 

I don't think it will mean the end of steam on the mainline, the mainline operators aren't exactly glittering with gold at the moment given the recent incident concerning a broken 47 speeding down the WCML ending with a SPAD.

 

Ok the accident could have been much worse, but you can say that about most minor accidents, what matters is that there was no negligence involved as that could have a bearing on the future.

 

So fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Isn't it all the more worrying if all relevant ducks are correctly aligned?  After all the rod did fall off so the safety management system must either have been insufficient or incorrectly applied. 

 

Just to be clear it doesn't appear that the rod 'fell off', it became detached at the little end, ie from the crosshead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Isn't it all the more worrying if all relevant ducks are correctly aligned?  After all the rod did fall off so the safety management system must either have been insufficient or incorrectly applied. 

 

Or something has happened which is beyond past experience and which the SMS therefore didn't cover (or to be more correct the various work procedures and specs/material specs didn't cover).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

I don't feel safe knowing the track record of these Southern engines

 

 

Which is?

 

I'm not sure what is meant here, ie all 'Southern' engines, particular ones...?

 

I think you'll find the track record is pretty good. 

 

 

Edit so as to not upset members

 

 

I don't think you'll find that opinions upset people, but sweeping statements not based in fact do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the relevant historic parallel for this will be Settle in 1960, as pointed out by Chris H above, which involved the seperation of Connecting Rod and Crosshead on a Britannia with , tragically, an outcome much worse than this. The events were, however, similar.

 

I seem to recall reading the accident report which suggested that this particular incident was caused by incorrect installation  of certain bolts. Can't remember the full reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...