How valid were the criticisms that the 1984 Old Dalby nuclear flask test was too staged?

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Interesting that people call this a ‘test’. I always thought of it as a ‘demonstration’, something not as tightly controlled as a set of tests, undertaken to demonstrate what might happen in one credible scenario.

 

I used to witness a lot of tests of electrical kit, and knew very well that the precise same tests had been performed in advance, and that if there had been a failure the witnessed test would be deferred until the causative problem had been sorted out. I even told a trainee engineer “you will never see a significant failure at a witnessed test, but you can learn a huge amount by attending”, so off she went to south Wales to witness a transformer test for me (super-sleuths can possibly guess which firm!). The transformer failed, with a spectacular  bang, much to the embarrassment of all concerned, and her delight!

But in reality while some information might well have been gained within the industry the actual colliding of something with a flask was far more of a PR job than anything else.  Everybodywho needed to know knew that the flasks were 'safe' in a collision situationm both from tests and the real incident that I mentioned.

 

But a nice spectacular 'train crash' was just the sort of thing to stir public interest and get an au.  and turned out to be  more than sufficiently spectacular to prove a point - even to the naysayers.

[The Johnster]

I agree; there was a big element of 'wow, look, a train crash!' to it, like the staged head-ons popular in the States in the late 19th century, to which they sold tickets and put up bleachers.  

 

In the actual impact, a lot happened very quickly and in the following second most of it was obscured by smoke and flame, and I've never seen any official description of the actual way the locomotive broke apart, but my impression was that, on the initial impact, the bogie was bent upwards in the middle (the force required to do that to a plate frame bogie is difficult to imagine), lifting the bodyshell upwards so that it ripped it's floor out around the flask, which is what propelled the engine block over the top of the flask.  Given the very solid contruction of these 1Co-Co1 bogies, which originated on 10101/2/3 an were also featured on the Class 40s, one wonders how a more conventional integral frame bodyshell loco might have behaved, not that I'm suggesting that we try to find out!  A modern equivalent might be a Pendolino or 800 at 125 or +, and the outcome might be even more disastrous for the train.  Let's hope it never happens! 

 

My big fear is that a high-speed collision into a solid object like a flask, or a Harrow-type multiple collision could occur to a rush-hour service into London, where the train is packed with standing passengers; the result would be a death toll that would make Quintinshill look like a minor shunt.  The train would conertina it's strongly constructed integral bodyshell carriages violently, possibly upwards, slingshotting carriages about, and what happens to the passengers not in seats, especially those in the vestibules, does not bear thinking about.  Some carriages would undoubtedly break their backs from hitting solid objects side on, and there would be bogies flying around separately at high speeds as well.  Not nice.

Edited February 28, 2023 by The Johnster

[Cowley 47521]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

but my impression was that, on the initial impact, the bogie was bent upwards in the middle (the force required to do that to a plate frame bogie is difficult to imagine), lifting the bodyshell upwards so that it ripped it's floor out around the flask, which is what propelled the engine block over the top of the flask.

Completely agree with a lot of your assessment here The Johnster. I’m going to point out (before someone else does) that it was most likely the boiler that was launched from the loco. The bogie pivoting upward and launching the boiler definitely seems like the likely scenario though.

[pirouets]

http://www.nigeltout.com/html/crash-test-old-dalby.html

 

There are a good set of picture here of the aftermath if its any help.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

... My big fear is that a high-speed collision into a solid object like a flask, or a Harrow-type multiple collision could occur to a rush-hour service into London, ...

I've a feeling flasks - and other similar solid objects - would find it very difficult to find a path during London's rush-hour.

[pete_mcfarlane]

22 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My mum, who had had all of this nonsense from both sides in the newspapers and from Haw Haw in WW2, worked to the principle that you divided the claims, so that, in this instance, there had probably been 100 bombers involved, 20 of which had been shot down, half a dozen or so had limped back to base badly damaged with injured or dead crew members aboard, and a the Americans had probably lost about 75 men dead or captured. 

My late Grandmother, who served on anti-aircraft batteries during WW2, made the point that multiple batteries would engage the same group of attacking aircraft. So five batteries firing, one aircraft explodes, five kills claimed. 

[The Johnster]

Yes, exactly, precise information may not be easy to get hold of during or immediately after an action.  As well as the 'multiple claim' anti-aircraft issue, (which is understandable, you aim at an aircraft, fire at it, and watch your tracer into it, and it then bursts into flames, of course you assume you've hit it), the attacking bomber force will usually count it's aircraft off the runway and then count how many come back.  If the second number is less than the first, you have to find out what happened to the missing aircraft.  Some will be accounted for in the debriefing, if they were seen to be hit, exploded, or crashed, but in the heat of battle, especially at night, this may not be as easy as it sounds.  Your pilot is concentrating on flying the plane and your bomb aimer is concentrating on is bombsights, the gunners are probably firing at defending aircraft, and everybody has a job to do.

 

Some a/c will be lost, but not over the target.  They will have been hit by anti-aircraft fire and try to limp home, crashing on the way, or as is the nature of flying, simply crash for other reasons, or become lost and run out of fuel.   Some will land at other airfields, and some other airfields' a/c may land at yours, so counting them out and counting them in is not a reliable method of ascertaining loss.

 

It will take some time to collate and process all the information, so press releases immediately after the raid will never be accurate whichever side they emanate from, even before the propaganda people get their greasy mitts over it; once that happens you may as well forget it, you won't find out until after the war if then!

 

By the Vietnam war the mechanical and navigation problems were probably largely sorted out, but apart from that the B 52s were subject to the same deprivations and risks as the B 17s and Lancasters had been a quarter-century before.  The a/a fire was SAM rockets not 88mm shells, but once the a/c is hit, the difference is academic; you either survive the hit or you don't, you can either fly it or you can't, and if you can you can either make it home or somewhere you can land it, or you can't.  Repeat until your luck runs out or the war is over.

[simon b]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

In the actual impact, a lot happened very quickly and in the following second most of it was obscured by smoke and flame, and I've never seen any official description of the actual way the locomotive broke apart, but my impression was that, on the initial impact, the bogie was bent upwards in the middle (the force required to do that to a plate frame bogie is difficult to imagine), lifting the bodyshell upwards so that it ripped it's floor out around the flask, which is what propelled the engine block over the top of the flask. 

 

My understanding is the boiler was broken loose by the force of the impact, it was the point at which the wetrol wagon rolled over underneath the loco that catapulted the boiler out of the body.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

I've a feeling flasks - and other similar solid objects - would find it very difficult to find a path during London's rush-hour.

Spot on.  As the peak hours on most (?now all?) routes around London are 'closed' to freight trains I suspect that flasks would find it impossible to find another train to collide with at that time of day.  As would any other solid object conveyed by, or part of, a freight train.

[rogerzilla]

Funnily enough, they're repeating "Edge of Darkness" on TV at the moment, featuring a class 31 menacingly pulling nuclear flasks through London, if not in rush hour, at least in drinking hours.

[ChrisH-UK]

7 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

Funnily enough, they're repeating "Edge of Darkness" on TV at the moment, featuring a class 31 menacingly pulling nuclear flasks through London, if not in rush hour, at least in drinking hours.

Which iirc most 'footage' of the 31 was actually two shunters and some plywood. (The loco "bogies" had connecting rods and there was roll between the two body halves) 

[Matt37268]

20 minutes ago, ChrisH-UK said:

Which iirc most 'footage' of the 31 was actually two shunters and some plywood. (The loco "bogies" had connecting rods and there was roll between the two body halves) 

This one was the real deal, 

Not exactly a flask but, this is always worth watching. 

[37114]

12 hours ago, ChrisH-UK said:

Which iirc most 'footage' of the 31 was actually two shunters and some plywood. (The loco "bogies" had connecting rods and there was roll between the two body halves) 

I even seem to recall it might have been 3 shunters! It seemed a lot of effort to go to create a class 31 look alike!

[MidlandRed]

On 01/03/2023 at 13:19, The Stationmaster said:

Spot on.  As the peak hours on most (?now all?) routes around London are 'closed' to freight trains I suspect that flasks would find it impossible to find another train to collide with at that time of day.  As would any other solid object conveyed by, or part of, a freight train.

But plenty of scope for a derailment with the flask(s) colliding with some immovable object like a bridge abutment, in relatively close proximity to very significant volumes of population.

 

The times when the ‘test’ were done were different, the Thatcher Government dealing extremely unsympathetically with lots of social issues created by their actions (such as increasing interest base rates to 15%!!!), and the problems of massive protests in the context of US nuclear missiles being stationed within fairly close proximity of such Home Counties locations as Newbury!!

 

There was much disquiet about these trains rumbling through the conurbations of the country, and the problems created by sealing the waste off the coast was another issue, so the ‘test’ was an excellent PR exercise. 

 

However I seem to recall some years later a TV documentary concluding that the allegation the flask was undamaged after the collision was in fact, incorrect - I don’t recall the details or whether the damage had any level of significance. 
 

As for the timing of the trains, I recall seeing one whilst waiting for a train, within the last few years, pass through Bromley South in the up direction after the morning peak - presumably travelling from Dungeness - not likely now as Dungeness is out of operation currently - but this seems to contradict some of the comments here on timing of trains - certainly the passenger trains might not have been quite as full as in the peak then, but South London was certainly pretty busy at the time and any leak (or potential for) would affect a massive area and not just impact rail operations. 
 

Nuclear power is an interesting one - I recall a few years back my EDF bill showing the cost of each form of electricity provided - at the time nuclear was 70% of my bill and was significantly more expensive than any other form!! The Chernobyl incident (which affected such diverse items as Welsh lamb), did nothing to improve the PR of nuclear either!! It has always had a dual role, partially providing as a by product material for the nuclear weapons programme. 
 

So I am a little sceptical of it as a reasonably priced form of power - although I’m not anti it - having worked for a design consultant which was heavily involved with Hinckley Point amongst other stations, which was an on/off/on/off feast, creating massive mobilisation issues, I also realise this industry is massively costly and that from time to time the operators and their contractors (including rail) need to engage in significant PR exercises to help maintain support. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by MidlandRed

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

But plenty of scope for a derailment with the flask(s) colliding with some immovable object like a bridge abutment, in relatively close proximity to very significant volumes of population.

 

 

Quite agree - but then as that exact situation has already happened in real life and not as part of a staged test.  So what happened is known on such a situation is known  and it resulted in no loss of containment of radiation and little visible damage to the flask beyond scratched paint and sone scoring on the fins.  

 

Compared with various other traffics which at various times have been conveyed by rail and some of the distinctly dodgy stuff which travels by road the contents of the nuclear flasks are many, many, more times better protected from creating any sort of hazard in the event of something like a derailment or collision.l 

[45125]

On 28/02/2023 at 18:05, Cowley 47521 said:

Completely agree with a lot of your assessment here The Johnster. I’m going to point out (before someone else does) that it was most likely the boiler that was launched from the loco. The bogie pivoting upward and launching the boiler definitely seems like the likely scenario though.

Looking at the photos the boiler is still in the loco. The two water tanks that sit between it and the cab are also still there.

[chris p bacon]

2 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

the Thatcher Government dealing extremely unsympathetically with lots of social issues created by their actions (such as increasing interest base rates to 15%!!!)

 

And yet the Bank of England only have a 15% base rate for 3 weeks in October 1981. Of course to even the Politics up it also shows it being 15% for 7 weeks in October & November 1976 when Labour were in office.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp

[MidlandRed]

36 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

And yet the Bank of England only have a 15% base rate for 3 weeks in October 1981. Of course to even the Politics up it also shows it being 15% for 7 weeks in October & November 1976 when Labour were in office.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp 

 

I wasn’t really aiming to make a political point, more to set a historical scene - and of course the base rate was in the hands of politicians back then to manipulate as they wanted - it took Blair’s Government to place it completely in the hands of the now independent BoE.  
 

The interest rate was generally very high during the 80s, and exceedingly so in comparison with modern times.

 

However the point of this was simply to use one (of many pointers) to the need for grandiose PR exercises like the Old Dalby crash in that rather difficult period (for many although not all) in our history. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by MidlandRed

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Quite agree - but then as that exact situation has already happened in real life and not as part of a staged test.  So what happened is known on such a situation is known  and it resulted in no loss of containment of radiation and little visible damage to the flask beyond scratched paint and sone scoring on the fins.  

 

Compared with various other traffics which at various times have been conveyed by rail and some of the distinctly dodgy stuff which travels by road the contents of the nuclear flasks are many, many, more times better protected from creating any sort of hazard in the event of something like a derailment or collision.

There is a difference in magnitude and thus ultimate risk in having a nuclear leak - even from a minor break in integrity of the container - this is majorly so in a nuclear power station let alone on a train. However I agree regarding some of the concoctions which travel around our rail and road systems!

 

Have we had a flask collide with an immovable object (eg bridge parapet) - I’m aware we’ve had several passenger and freight incidents involving bridges but I’m not sure we have empirical evidence of how various items behave in such collisions - apart from the drop tests which were used to prove the flasks  in the first place (and the questioning of which led to the Old Dalby PR show). 

 

Remember Great Heck resulted in a fundamental change in how most rail over bridges (and other scenario) are protected from incursion. Standards change as a result of operational experience - the system of analysing risk for containment by vehicle restraint systems has changed fundamentally as a result of design standard review. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by MidlandRed

[New Haven Neil]

Suggest you read the thread.....

[MidlandRed]

29 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

Suggest you read the thread.....

Already did, several times but thanks for the advice (or was it a telling off 🤪)

[Cowley 47521]

3 hours ago, 45125 said:

Looking at the photos the boiler is still in the loco. The two water tanks that sit between it and the cab are also still there.

Ah ok thanks for that.

So what was the substantial bit lump of equipment that was ejected forwards then. Any thoughts?

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

There is a difference in magnitude and thus ultimate risk in having a nuclear leak - even from a minor break in integrity of the container - this is majorly so in a nuclear power station let alone on a train. However I agree regarding some of the concoctions which travel around our rail and road systems!

 

Have we had a flask collide with an immovable object (eg bridge parapet) - I’m aware we’ve had several passenger and freight incidents involving bridges but I’m not sure we have empirical evidence of how various items behave in such collisions - apart from the drop tests which were used to prove the flasks  in the first place (and the questioning of which led to the Old Dalby PR show). 

 

Remember Great Heck resulted in a fundamental change in how most rail over bridges (and other scenario) are protected from incursion. Standards change as a result of operational experience - the system of analysing risk for containment by vehicle restraint systems has changed fundamentally as a result of design standard review. 

There was indeed a flask which hit a bridge structure - if you read my earlier which mentioned it you would have known about it.  And it wasn't a parapet because the bridge it hit was an overbridge.  The incident never came to public notice - there was no need fr any sort of public inquiry and it was an internal incident like numerous others which reach the public arena but if nothing else it certainly proved the integrity of te flask.

 

I suppose the simple fact is that people don;t realise how substantial the flasks are and the thickness of the material which inevitably means ina collision of any sort they are going ro be the least likely thing to be punctured.   Don't forget the older pattern f;asks weighed something in the region of 40-50 tons which speaks for itself when you looked at the size of them.   The level of radiation checking which goes on with flasks transported by rail is exhaustive.  First when they are loaded they they are cleanedfdown, then checked all over for radiation level all over, then they are loaded to the ropad vehicle taking them to the rail terminal and are checked again before being taken off the road vehicle and finally checked yet again after loading to the rail vehicle (that was the procedure back in the days when one of my freight terminals dealt with flasks on a regular basis.

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

There was indeed a flask which hit a bridge structure - if you read my earlier which mentioned it you would have known about it.  And it wasn't a parapet because the bridge it hit was an overbridge.  The incident never came to public notice - there was no need fr any sort of public inquiry and it was an internal incident like numerous others which reach the public arena but if nothing else it certainly proved the integrity of te flask.

 

I suppose the simple fact is that people don;t realise how substantial the flasks are and the thickness of the material which inevitably means ina collision of any sort they are going ro be the least likely thing to be punctured.   Don't forget the older pattern f;asks weighed something in the region of 40-50 tons which speaks for itself when you looked at the size of them.   The level of radiation checking which goes on with flasks transported by rail is exhaustive.  First when they are loaded they they are cleanedfdown, then checked all over for radiation level all over, then they are loaded to the ropad vehicle taking them to the rail terminal and are checked again before being taken off the road vehicle and finally checked yet again after loading to the rail vehicle (that was the procedure back in the days when one of my freight terminals dealt with flasks on a regular basis.

Sorry I must have missed that post - so you’re saying it hit the abutment of an overbridge head on, or was it a glancing blow whilst passing under? It would have likely knocked a parapet over, and although that wasn’t the scenario I had in mind I suppose the wagon falling off a viaduct or bridge in a built up area might create more force when it landed. An Interesting scenario anyway. I don’t doubt there are lots of procedures - I just wouldn’t have fancied dealing with a freight train derailment involving a collision with a flask train back in those days - although I guess the days of mounds of splintered wagons and loads mixed together in such circumstances had probably gone largely by the early 80s - that’s usually what confronted investigators when they arrived on site in earlier times. 

 

I guess it’s only natural for the public (and even professionals) to be interested and even sceptical about official or political statements - after all it wasn’t too many years later the same Government was attempting to assure the public BSE couldn’t be transmitted to humans and a rather foolish Secretary of State participated in a televised PR stunt where he fed a burger from a mobile van at an agricultural show to his young daughter, in a bid to assure the public it was safe to do so. What could possibly go wrong 🙃

Edited March 3, 2023 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

The Chernobyl incident (which affected such diverse items as Welsh lamb),

 

Depends how much you believe in the transparency and honesty of the British Government and the Nuclear Power industry, both of which are, I submit, moot.  Increased levels of radiation appeared some days after the main Chernobyl leak in Welsh, Cumbrian, and Irish lamb, and there is a significant nuclear facility with a history of problems in the middle of that area.  The Gwynedd levels were significantly higher to the east, downwind, of the Trawsfynydd plant, around the Arenig area, while little effect was recorded on Anglesey, also in the path of the alleged Chernobyl cloud, and with it's own nuclear plant, Wylfa.  I'm not saying this is what happened, as there is no definitive evidence, but it must have been a temptation for some material to be released from Sellafield and Trawsfynydd while there was an opportunity to blame the Russians, who paid massive compensation to the British government to enable paying the farmers for unsellable radiated sheep.

 

 

4 hours ago, Cowley 47521 said:

Ah ok thanks for that.

So what was the substantial bit lump of equipment that was ejected forwards then. Any thoughts?

 

I reckoned at the time it was the engine block or the main generator, and I am still of that opinion.  It looked to me to be far too big to be the steam heating boiler!