Coppenhall Junction accident 26th December 1962

[Taunton]

It was of course at the start of the severe winter of 1962/3, and happened on Boxing Day 1962.

This has just jogged my memory, because I can recall that Boxing Day 1962, when we were visiting from Somerset to The Wirral, not too far across Cheshire from Coppenhall, and after a very deep frozen sub-zero Christmas Day, substantial snow started to fall after Boxing Day lunch, and continued for some days. I remember going out by tea time to measure it. It would be surprising if there was no snowfall at all over by Winsford, impacting visibility, or even impacting the recovery, yet the Report (linked above) does not mention it. It states it was cold, but gives no other information or measurement.

I find reference to curves a bit surprising because my recollection of that stretch is it is dead straight, with commonly two signals ahead visible. Here's the view up and down the line from the Nantwich Road overbridge at about the collision point https://www.google.com/maps/@53.156...=59.43095&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

You get the impression that the Inspector's report is based almost wholly just on some interviews done after the event, and some rather arch conclusions drawn. There is no comment on a Glasgow driver being as far south as Crewe, and what a long and fatiguing journey in poor conditions it would have been.

 

[Red Sparrow]

Looked at the class 40 motherlist website:
http://www.class40motherlist.com/index.html
This states D326 involved in the 26/12/62 accident ... BUT it is also reported working 1M22 The Royal Scot on 31/12/62. There is no way this could have been repaired in so short a time given the severity of the accident.
http://www.class40motherlist.com/40126.html
D215 has no workings recorded between 08/12/62 and 11/04/63.
http://www.class40motherlist.com/40015.html
D346 has a reported coal empties working on 29/12/63.
http://www.class40motherlist.com/40146.html
So out of the 3 locos stated my money would be on D215.

I thought it was odd that Class 40 Motherlist reported D326 as being involved when I looked at it earlier ( I put it down to the historic reporting of the incident ) but I didn’t make the connection with its next reported working . I agree , whichever loco was involved would surely have required a lot of remedial work before it could be put back into service ?

I have spent this morning working through the National Newspaper Archives , I can’t find any loco details in the contemporary reports but the reports on the crash itself are horribly graphic . It’s clear late December 1962 was a really difficult time to travel anywhere in Britain as the weather was terrible.

The one thing I did notice was that the official report into the crash was first reported a week after the GTR took place and that makes me wonder if that’s where the confusion arose .

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The report does talk about the signal lights reflecting in the snow at one point.
Railway staff struggling to a farm to phone the emergency services must have been hard work in the snow and frosty ground, only to find it was out of order!
Like most railway accident reports (see Red for Danger!), they are as much social commentary as technical analysis.
The poor communications must have compounded the scale of casualties in the crash.

Curiously, I too was on the Wirral that Christmas and remember the long snowfall and the deep freeze that followed.

 

[6Gman]

You get the impression that the Inspector's report is based almost wholly just on some interviews done after the event, and some rather arch conclusions drawn. There is no comment on a Glasgow driver being as far south as Crewe, and what a long and fatiguing journey in poor conditions it would have been.

Back then, of course, traincrew signed some very long distance routes, including on steam traction. Glasgow-Crewe on a diesel must have seemed pretty easy compared to (e.g.) Crewe - Perth on a steam-hauled sleeper.

 

[Merle Haggard]

You get the impression that the Inspector's report is based almost wholly just on some interviews done after the event, and some rather arch conclusions drawn. There is no comment on a Glasgow driver being as far south as Crewe, and what a long and fatiguing journey in poor conditions it would have been.

I worked in the accident section at a Divisional office in 1970-71. In the event of a 'reportable' accident (the criteria for which still apply today, and I think are on the RAIB website) the divisional office obtained the reports from people involved and then had a 'joint enquiry', with interviews. The resulting report was passed, via the General Manager's Office, to the Inspecting Officer. This report formed the basis of what was published as the Inspecting Officer's report.
It wasn't the case that the inspecting Officer started his investigations from scratch, but he relied on the BR reports; for those of you who imagined that there were investigators on stand-by who rushed off to the site of an accident as soon as it happened (rather like Sherlock Holmes) and started asking searching questions, reality will be a disappointment!
It is the case that, if you read accident reports carefully, you will see that observations about, for instance, the actions/inactions (and sometimes intelligence/common sense) of staff are made in a very subtle way. Quite often the report provides a series of 'dots', and if you join them up you will get a clear picture of the shortcomings that allowed the circumstances that resulted in the accident to occur without the criticism being pointed. Of course this didn't prevent disciplinary action against those at fault!

 

[Red Sparrow]

This has just jogged my memory, because I can recall that Boxing Day 1962, when we were visiting from Somerset to The Wirral, not too far across Cheshire from Coppenhall, and after a very deep frozen sub-zero Christmas Day, substantial snow started to fall after Boxing Day lunch, and continued for some days. I remember going out by tea time to measure it. It would be surprising if there was no snowfall at all over by Winsford, impacting visibility, or even impacting the recovery, yet the Report (linked above) does not mention it. It states it was cold, but gives no other information or measurement.

I find reference to curves a bit surprising because my recollection of that stretch is it is dead straight, with commonly two signals ahead visible. Here's the view up and down the line from the Nantwich Road overbridge at about the collision point https://www.google.com/maps/@53.1561549,-2.4711959,3a,90y,192.42h,86.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1su1SR2l2uB5mMNIfq1RH9JA!2e0!6s//geo3.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=u1SR2l2uB5mMNIfq1RH9JA&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=59.43095&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

You get the impression that the Inspector's report is based almost wholly just on some interviews done after the event, and some rather arch conclusions drawn. There is no comment on a Glasgow driver being as far south as Crewe, and what a long and fatiguing journey in poor conditions it would have been.

I worked in the accident section at a Divisional office in 1970-71. In the event of a 'reportable' accident (the criteria for which still apply today, and I think are on the RAIB website) the divisional office obtained the reports from people involved and then had a 'joint enquiry', with interviews. The resulting report was passed, via the General Manager's Office, to the Inspecting Officer. This report formed the basis of what was published as the Inspecting Officer's report.
It wasn't the case that the inspecting Officer started his investigations from scratch, but he relied on the BR reports; for those of you who imagined that there were investigators on stand-by who rushed off to the site of an accident as soon as it happened (rather like Sherlock Holmes) and started asking searching questions, reality will be a disappointment!
It is the case that, if you read accident reports carefully, you will see that observations about, for instance, the actions/inactions (and sometimes intelligence/common sense) of staff are made in a very subtle way. Quite often the report provides a series of 'dots', and if you join them up you will get a clear picture of the shortcomings that allowed the circumstances that resulted in the accident to occur without the criticism being pointed. Of course this didn't prevent disciplinary action against those at fault!

Thank you , do you recall if it was common practice to exclude the loco numbers from reports ?

 

[John Webb]

.....for those of you who imagined that there were investigators on stand-by who rushed off to the site of an accident as soon as it happened (rather like Sherlock Holmes) and started asking searching questions, reality will be a disappointment!.....

These days the RAIB does have people who can attend the scene of an incident at short notice to try and get the best level of evidence that they can. Hence generally in their modern reports the greater level of detail. It is also noticeable that the current RAIB reports never give names as the old Railway Inspectorate reports did, but use anonymous identities instead with short details of the person's previous experiences.

 

[Belperpete]

Thank you , do you recall if it was common practice to exclude the loco numbers from reports ?

It was common practice to only include relevant information, to keep the reports concise and to the point. Information not relevant to the cause would not usually be mentioned. They had to be hand-written by the inspector, often in his hotel room or on the train, and sent to head office for hand typing. They were intended for reading by the Minister, so needed to be brief - if the Minister didn't understand something, there would be a civil servant on hand to explain it.

In this particular accident, the type of loco was relevant, but there was not a problem with the individual loco that would have needed it to be specifically identified. If there had been a problem with the specific loco, e.g. a fault on the loco that was a cause of the accident, then it would likely have been identified. Likewise for the coach numbers.

Nowadays, with computerisation, there is a lot more detail, often too much "cut and paste". The RAIB reports are intended for reading by the general public, so have a lot of explanatory information. They have to show that the inspector has considered all possibilities, so there are often many paragraphs of things that weren't relevant to the accident. This can make them quite heavy-going, compared to the old HMRI reports.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Thank you , do you recall if it was common practice to exclude the loco numbers from reports ?

While Belperpete has given a fair explanation, may I just elaborate slightly?

The job of the accidents clerk was to obtain reports from everyone involved and, after analysing these, extract the relevant facts and produce a statement of the circumstances and causes. (The reports of each of those involved would naturally have an element of, shall I say, bias to try to distance the guilty). This document would then be passed to the next stage up the hierarchy - who of course was also my boss. The statement had to be concise and to the point because my boss was (or claimed to be) very busy. Indeed, any document that he considered to be too verbose would be returned with red lines or, worse, a PSM*. It follows that details such as the engine number would only be included if it was directly relevant, for example if two locos. were actively involved in the mishap and their separate movements had to be detailed, or if there was reference to a particular design feature of the loco. that was relevant - although the latter would more likely to only require identifying the type. If the mishap was particularly destructive there might be an appendix listing the damage to each loco/carriage/wagon by number, but this practice although common in Victorian times (see the very old accident reports currently appearing on railways Archive) seemed to die out.

My report was passed up the hierarchy; no doubt it would receive small amendments that justified each, more important, person claiming authorship until it was finally published by the inspecting officer (sarcasm!). The recommendations were probably also added before the document left BR.

As Belperpete mentions (as I did too in my original post) names of all parties involved were given. As an aside, that wasn't wholly a bad thing, in my opinion. Examples of actions that could be described as heroic - see the Sutton Coldfield overspeed derailment for example - or running for miles along lines in the dark for help, or carrying on with the rest of the shift after a fatality of one's colleague, are examples which are recorded.


*PSM = 'Please See Me'. Sounds like a polite question, but 'No thank you' was not an acceptable response...

 

[Red Sparrow]

While Belperpete has given a fair explanation, may I just elaborate slightly?

The job of the accidents clerk was to obtain reports from everyone involved and, after analysing these, extract the relevant facts and produce a statement of the circumstances and causes. (The reports of each of those involved would naturally have an element of, shall I say, bias to try to distance the guilty). This document would then be passed to the next stage up the hierarchy - who of course was also my boss. The statement had to be concise and to the point because my boss was (or claimed to be) very busy. Indeed, any document that he considered to be too verbose would be returned with red lines or, worse, a PSM*. It follows that details such as the engine number would only be included if it was directly relevant, for example if two locos. were actively involved in the mishap and their separate movements had to be detailed, or if there was reference to a particular design feature of the loco. that was relevant - although the latter would more likely to only require identifying the type. If the mishap was particularly destructive there might be an appendix listing the damage to each loco/carriage/wagon by number, but this practice although common in Victorian times (see the very old accident reports currently appearing on railways Archive) seemed to die out.

My report was passed up the hierarchy; no doubt it would receive small amendments that justified each, more important, person claiming authorship until it was finally published by the inspecting officer (sarcasm!). The recommendations were probably also added before the document left BR.

As Belperpete mentions (as I did too in my original post) names of all parties involved were given. As an aside, that wasn't wholly a bad thing, in my opinion. Examples of actions that could be described as heroic - see the Sutton Coldfield overspeed derailment for example - or running for miles along lines in the dark for help, or carrying on with the rest of the shift after a fatality of one's colleague, are examples which are recorded.


*PSM = 'Please See Me'. Sounds like a polite question, but 'No thank you' was not an acceptable response...

That is a really interesting insight into the process, many thanks for sharing it .

 

[Red Sparrow]

Here is an interesting thing ! If you Google Minshull Vernon Crash Shutterstock you will find a photo of the wrecked carriages . If you look to the right of the photo you can see the front of a loco . If you assume that is the loco involved in the accident it clearly isn't D326 , it looks much more like D215. Of course this might be a loco sent to recover the wreckage or one which delivered people to the accident site afterwards but seeing as the photo was clearly taken soon after the accident had occurred I would think it is likely to be the offending machine. It doesn't seem to be to badly damaged though. Perhaps someone with greater technical skills than myself could link the photo to this thread ?

 

[Bovverboy]

There's a bit about the crash here, but it doesn't include the required photo. I haven't managed to find the 'Shutterstock' image (yet).
https://www.middlewichdiary.co.uk/search/label/COPPENHALL TRAIN CRASH 1962.

 

[Bovverboy]

Here it is, I'd missed the loco, it doesn't stand out.
https://www.shutterstock.com/editor...to-it-at-minshull-vernon-in-cheshire-1798299a

 

[Red Sparrow]

Here it is, I'd missed the loco, it doesn't stand out.
https://www.shutterstock.com/editor...to-it-at-minshull-vernon-in-cheshire-1798299a

Many thanks Bovverboy , I will try and obtain an official copy of the photo after payday !

 

[Red Sparrow]

Found this in the aforementioned Railway Magazine from 2014

 

[Belperpete]

Here is an interesting thing ! If you Google Minshull Vernon Crash Shutterstock you will find a photo of the wrecked carriages . If you look to the right of the photo you can see the front of a loco . If you assume that is the loco involved in the accident it clearly isn't D326 , it looks much more like D215. Of course this might be a loco sent to recover the wreckage or one which delivered people to the accident site afterwards but seeing as the photo was clearly taken soon after the accident had occurred I would think it is likely to be the offending machine. It doesn't seem to be to badly damaged though. Perhaps someone with greater technical skills than myself could link the photo to this thread ?

Not convinced that it is taken soon after the accident. Why would rescue workers be standing on the roof of the carriage? I suspect that it is more likely to be salvage operations. I suggest that the workers are making sure the OLE is secured clear before the top coach is moved off the one below.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Not convinced that it is taken soon after the accident. Why would rescue workers be standing on the roof of the carriage? I suspect that it is more likely to be salvage operations. I suggest that the workers are making sure the OLE is secured clear before the top coach is moved off the one below.

This shot looks like the rear 7th and 8th coaches of the Birmingham train so D215/326/346 would be to the left out of shot. The accident report states the rest of the Birmingham train was able to taken to Crewe (although withdrawn from services due to broken windows etc) but that there was considerable difficulty in disentangling the telescoped coaches. This shot looks like part of that operation. The report also states that the Cl 40 leading bogie was displaced backwards by 2ft (the buffers being on it) so there would have been considerable difficulty in retrieving it as well.

 

[Red Sparrow]

The accident report states that coach 8 was pushed up over coach 7 so surely that would make the loco on the right of the photo the likely suspect or have I missed something glaringly obvious ?

 

[Bevan Price]

Not yet located my copies of Railway Magazine, etc. for early 1963, but is it possible that D326 (or D346) was hauling the unfortunate Liverpool to Birmingham train ??

 

[43096]

Not yet located my copies of Railway Magazine, etc. for early 1963, but is it possible that D326 (or D346) was hauling the unfortunate Liverpool to Birmingham train ??

The accident report specifically states that the Liverpool - Birmingham train was hauled by an electric loco.

 

[Red Sparrow]

I think I can now state with a high degree of certainty that D215 was the offending Class 40 . Here are some screen grabs from a British Movietone news report into the crash . They show D215 being pushed away from the accident by a steam train .