Red for Danger

[RallyRob16]

Hi,

 

I have been informed that the book 'Red for Danger' is very good with technical info about the investigations carried out. The only drawback is that it only covers accidents between 1840 and 1957. I am looking for something in a similar vein but for more recent accidents. It's for my 14 year old son, so the more recent subject matter will be more interesting for him!!

 

Can anyone help with suitable suggestions?

 

Thanks

 

Rob

[mcowgill]

Have a look for a more recent edition, my copy includes accidents up to 1980, the additional material is by Geoffrey Kitchenside. I believe the paperback edition currently available is an earlier text. This is the edition I have

 

You might want to look at Ian Allan's British Railway Disasters, this covers 50 significant accidents on Britain's railways so there is quite an overlap with Rolt's book, however what it might lack in portraying the overall story and the detail of Rolt's work is made up for by excellent illustrations and diagrams which Rolt's book, originally written in the 1950s, lacks.

 

There is still nothing better than Red for Danger in this area.

 

Martin

[DavidB-AU]

O.S. Nock's Historic Railway Disasters also goes into great depth but again only covers accidents up to Hixton in 1968. Interestingly it includes 1967 high speed derailment at Didcot, which wasn't a major accident but is covered in great depth as Ossie was a passenger on the train.

 

Cheers

David

[Fat Controller]

'Danger Signals' by Stanley Hall, published by Guild Publishing, no apparent ISBN. My copy's dated 1988, so not that up-to-date. Very good at explaining thinks like signalling systems, different types of Block Working etc, and written by someone with 39 years railway experience, culminating with the post of Signalling and Safety Officer with the BRB for 5 years before retirement. The style's readable, but doesn't stint on detail. Accidents are treated by cause.

'Obstruction Danger' by Adrian Vaughan, also by Guild Press, ISBN1-85260-055-1. Another well-written book, even if the author didn't attain the giddy heights of Hall during his railway career. It covers significant British railway accidents from 1890 to 1986, with each being accorded a separate chapter.

[D9020 Nimbus]

More recent books, covering more recent accidents:

 

Tracks to Disaster - Adrian Vaughan - Ian Allan

Hidden Dangers - Stanley Hall - Ian Allan

Beyond Hidden Dangers (Railway Safety into the 21st Century) - Stanley Hall - Ian Allan

 

The 'Hidden' in these titles is a reference to the judge who conducted an inquiry into one of the major accidents of recent times--can't remember which one.

[Dagworth]

The 'Hidden' in these titles is a reference to the judge who conducted an inquiry into one of the major accidents of recent times--can't remember which one.

 

Clapham, 12th Dec 88

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=36

 

Andi

[RallyRob16]

Thanks all for your quick replies. I'll check all the titles you've collectively suggested and pick one.

 

Regards

 

Rob

[ikcdab]

By far the best one is Adrian Vaughans 'Obstruction Danger' which is afar more up to date versin of Rolts excellent original.

[robertcwp]

O.S. Nock's Historic Railway Disasters also goes into great depth but again only covers accidents up to Hixton in 1968. Interestingly it includes 1967 high speed derailment at Didcot, which wasn't a major accident but is covered in great depth as Ossie was a passenger on the train.

 

Cheers

David

The third edition of the Nock book went up to Bushey in 1980. Nock includes Didcot at least in part because he was a passenger on the train that derailed. The carriage he was in overturned but he escaped uninjured, possibly because he knew what to do, ie brace himself against the seat opposite to avoid being thrown about.

 

Much can be learned about railway operation, and how things can go wrong, through study of past disasters. Even such long-established and basic things as continuous automatic brakes and fail-safe signals (ie designed to fail at danger) owe their roots to major disasters in the 19th Century, in particular Armagh and Abbots Ripton. The Clapham Junction accident was significant because of the wrong-side failure of the signal due to errors in the wiring.

[Guest Belgian]

The third edition of the Nock book went up to Bushey in 1980. Nock includes Didcot at least in part because he was a passenger on the train that derailed. The carriage he was in overturned but he escaped uninjured, possibly because he knew what to do, ie brace himself against the seat opposite to avoid being thrown about.

 

Much can be learned about railway operation, and how things can go wrong, through study of past disasters. Even such long-established and basic things as continuous automatic brakes and fail-safe signals (ie designed to fail at danger) owe their roots to major disasters in the 19th Century, in particular Armagh and Abbots Ripton. The Clapham Junction accident was significant because of the wrong-side failure of the signal due to errors in the wiring.

Clapham was also significant in that "slam-door" stock (in reality, stock with a separate underframe) was blamed for the terrible loss of life and resulted in their early elimination.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Much can be learned about railway operation, and how things can go wrong, through study of past disasters. Even such long-established and basic things as continuous automatic brakes and fail-safe signals (ie designed to fail at danger) owe their roots to major disasters in the 19th Century, in particular Armagh and Abbots Ripton. The Clapham Junction accident was significant because of the wrong-side failure of the signal due to errors in the wiring.

 

Clapham wasn't so much significant because of the wrong side failure due to a technical error (it was far from being the first example of that) but far more so because of the reason's (as identified by the Inquiry, I understand there was quite a lot which didn't come out) for the technician's error and the impact of what happened as a result of all that. in that respect Clapham had a significant impact on the way a number of things, e.g. staff hours, were managed on the railway.

 

[Edwin_m]

Clapham was also significant in that "slam-door" stock (in reality, stock with a separate underframe) was blamed for the terrible loss of life and resulted in their early elimination.

 

Not exactly, it was about 15 years later before the Mk1-based stock was effectively eliminated (and even later on the Lymington branch).

 

Didcot did have some significance beyond O S Nock having been involved. It led to changes in the way signal route indicators were used, intended to reduce driver confusion.

[jamie92208]

O S Nock was perhaps uniquely qualified to write on the subject. Not only was he involved in the Didcot accident but as a schoolboy at Giggleswick he cycled up to Hawes Junction to look at the results of the collision there. Hawes Junction resulted in two major safety improvements, 1 was almost universal track circuiting of passger lines and the other was the speedy elimination of gas lit coaches (Though the slightly later one at Ais Gill also hastened the process.) Nock then spent his professional career as a signalling engineer so had a great insight into the whole subject.

 

Jamie

[beast66606]

O S Nock was perhaps uniquely qualified to write on the subject. Not only was he involved in the Didcot accident but as a schoolboy at Giggleswick he cycled up to Hawes Junction to look at the results of the collision there. Hawes Junction resulted in two major safety improvements, 1 was almost universal track circuiting of passenger lines

 

I think you missed "where appropriate" from the emboldened bit and an en

Not all passenger lines were/still are fully track circuited

[The Stationmaster]

O S Nock was perhaps uniquely qualified to write on the subject. Not only was he involved in the Didcot accident but as a schoolboy at Giggleswick he cycled up to Hawes Junction to look at the results of the collision there. Hawes Junction resulted in two major safety improvements, 1 was almost universal track circuiting of passger lines and the other was the speedy elimination of gas lit coaches (Though the slightly later one at Ais Gill also hastened the process.) Nock then spent his professional career as a signalling engineer so had a great insight into the whole subject.

 

Jamie

 

The recommendations in the the Inspecting Officer's Report of the Hawes Junction collision required 'the Railways' to examine a number of things and, I presume, to probably report progress to the Board of Trade. In the overall schmee of things track circuiting was only one of the things to be looked at although, for example, the GWR drew up comprehensive principles for the application of track circuits. The most important items were the use of lever collars and block instrument reminders in signalboxes and a comprehensive review and redrafting of Rule 55 plus various other matters such as - for example - the deepening of vehicle headstocks.

Incidentally I have long understood that Nock was in fact a brake engineer although he was a long time member of the IRSE - perhaps I sometime got the wrong end of the stick on that one?

 

[Edwin_m]

According to Google he wrote at least three books on signalling and his Wiki entry describes him as an author and signal engineer.

 

I presume the reference to universal track circuiting means "universal in the vicinity of signal boxes where the signalman may forget a train is waiting". Continuous track circuiting as we now understand it was probably a step too far in 1910!

[The Stationmaster]

According to Google he wrote at least three books on signalling and his Wiki entry describes him as an author and signal engineer.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what to believe on websites like those - having just done an 'update' check on what Google has about me (well it's sort of accurate but one item is nearly 5 years out of date and totally inaccurate while another website once had me down as pen name used by someone else - until I put him right!)

[Glorious NSE]

Not exactly, it was about 15 years later before the Mk1-based stock was effectively eliminated (and even later on the Lymington branch).

 

Still isn't quite gone if you look in odd corners, Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales still have 1st gen BR DMU's (not mk1's, but that style of construction) running fairly regularly AFAIK - plus there's a fair bit of Mk1 charter stock still running.

 

Beyond that there has always been something of a question mark over whether pacers and the 155s should really be under that heading also!

[Rugd1022]

Mike - are you perhaps confusing him with photographer and author Kenneth Leech? Just a thought, as I believe he worked for Westinghouse for some years. Like Nock, Leech was a prolific 'footplater' too!

 

Nidge

[The Stationmaster]

Mike - are you perhaps confusing him with photographer and author Kenneth Leech? Just a thought, as I believe he worked for Westinghouse for some years. Like Nock, Leech was a prolific 'footplater' too!

 

Nidge

 

No Nidge - a past acquaintance who was a signal engineer told me about it first a good many years ago and i also heard it from another signal engineer back in the 1990s so sort of took their words to be accurate. I know that Ossie worked at Kings Cross for some years and that is where the brake part of the concern was based although the signal part of the company did work there as well so i understand The answer might perhaps lie on 'Out the Line' which he wrote as a sort of autobiography?

 

 

[Edwin_m]

Still isn't quite gone if you look in odd corners, Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales still have 1st gen BR DMU's (not mk1's, but that style of construction) running fairly regularly AFAIK - plus there's a fair bit of Mk1 charter stock still running.

 

Beyond that there has always been something of a question mark over whether pacers and the 155s should really be under that heading also!

 

The surviving DMUs have a slightly different body construction and are also confined in passenger service to "one engine in steam" routes so chances of a collision are pretty small. The charter stock has various safety rules, for example running with Mk2 or non-passenger stock at each end of the rake. While possibly less strong than other types I suspect the Pacers and 153/155s are not in the same league as the Mk1s.

 

And to think how the accident reports from the 50s and 60s praised the strength of the "new all-steel stock" (Mk1) compared with what went before!

[Glorious NSE]

And to think how the accident reports from the 50s and 60s praised the strength of the "new all-steel stock" (Mk1) compared with what went before!

 

They probably were a big improvement overall, i'm a long way from being an expert but my impression is that a fair chunk of the "legacy" coaching stock fleet wasn't buckeye coupled for example which I suspect made a lot of difference in reducing over-riding in relatively common, relatively low speed end-on collisions. A new, consistent standard of coaching stock would have made a lot of difference there.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Hawes Junction resulted in two major safety improvements, 1 was almost universal track circuiting of passger lines and the other was the speedy elimination of gas lit coaches (Though the slightly later one at Ais Gill also hastened the process.)

Jamie

Not that speedy--both these accidents were on the Midland line and as late as 1928 gas lighting again featured in an accident on a former Midland line (Charfield).

[Fat Controller]

They probably were a big improvement overall, i'm a long way from being an expert but my impression is that a fair chunk of the "legacy" coaching stock fleet wasn't buckeye coupled for example which I suspect made a lot of difference in reducing over-riding in relatively common, relatively low speed end-on collisions. A new, consistent standard of coaching stock would have made a lot of difference there.

SR and LNER used buckeyes, whilst LMS and GWR stayed with screw couplings. It's always struck me as curious that buckeyes never seemed to be that popular on the Continent, whilst the 1st Generation DMU fleet used screws vice buckeyes.

[Edwin_m]

Many accident reports made the point that buckeyes helped the stock remain upright and in line. Others commented on the strength of the all-steel Mk1 stock compared with earlier builds that had timber frames.