Historic Derailment at Euston 13 Feb 1988

[eMeS]

On 13 February 1988 we travelled from Milton Keynes to Euston for a "day out". Approaching Bletchley, we found ourselves in the carriage sidings, along with a guy on the ground looking carefully at our coaches.


At Bletchley

We continued our journey, and approaching Euston came across a derailed train to the left of us.


Approaching Euston - and well before I was computerised....

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I assume there was an RAIB report done?

 

[Efini92]

It’s well before the RAIB existed. There’s no entry for anything in February ‘88 on the rail archives.

 

[theblackwatch]

I assume there was an RAIB report done?

The RAIB didn't exist until 2005. It was established after the report into Ladbroke Grove (which was in 1999).

 

[AngusH]

(First rate photographs in the first post of this thread)


Is that the same incident as this:

Derailment at Euston in 1988

The aftermath of the derailment of a passenger train arriving at Euston station in London, UK on Saturday 13th February 1988. The train was the 0620 from Manchester Piccadilly and was hauled by class 86/4 locomotive no 86413 which was derailed together with possibly 3 coaches. The first 3 photos...

www.flickr.com

?

 

[eMeS]

(First rate photographs in the first post of this thread)

Is that the same incident as this:

Derailment at Euston in 1988

The aftermath of the derailment of a passenger train arriving at Euston station in London, UK on Saturday 13th February 1988. The train was the 0620 from Manchester Piccadilly and was hauled by class 86/4 locomotive no 86413 which was derailed together with possibly 3 coaches. The first 3 photos...

www.flickr.com

?

It looks as though it could be. I do have a few more which need some work on them before I publish.

 

[Darandio]

(First rate photographs in the first post of this thread)


Is that the same incident as this:

Derailment at Euston in 1988

The aftermath of the derailment of a passenger train arriving at Euston station in London, UK on Saturday 13th February 1988. The train was the 0620 from Manchester Piccadilly and was hauled by class 86/4 locomotive no 86413 which was derailed together with possibly 3 coaches. The first 3 photos...

www.flickr.com

?

Surely there weren't two derailments on the same day in the same location, of course it's the same!

 

[eMeS]

Here's a few more from the derailment at Euston.

 

[nlogax]

It is surprisingly difficult to find hard info on this incident even on various accident archives that are out there. Would be keen to know what caused this derailment. As a kid who spent a fair amount of time at the ends of those Euston platforms a year or two after this happened I recall the throat trackwork to me looked a bit dicey (fishplates with missing bolts, track ends that seemed to bend forever downwards when something passed over them).

 

[Andy R. A.]

Looks as if the train was running from the Up Fast Line into platform 4. Under the bridge where the third coach is were a set of single lead points no.330 next to 25 Ground signal. The leading bogie of the loco seems to have gone over 330 points okay but the other bogie and the train has then taken the path towards platforms 2 and 3. Would indicate a problem on 330 points through failure, or something hanging down under the Loco pulling the point blades out of alignment ? Just pure speculation on my part.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It is surprisingly difficult to find hard info on this incident even on various accident archives that are out there. Would be keen to know what caused this derailment. As a kid who spent a fair amount of time at the ends of those Euston platforms a year or two after this happened I recall the throat trackwork to me looked a bit dicey (fishplates with missing bolts, track ends that seemed to bend forever downwards when something passed over them).

Not every accident would be the subject of a formal HMRI enquiry so you will struggle to find details of anything that wasn’t.

 

[nlogax]

Not every accident would be the subject of a formal HMRI enquiry so you will struggle to find details of anything that wasn’t.

Details or even a pictorial record or news story. It's very strange. I guess the threshold of what made the news back then was somewhat different! Any Google search of what happened just points back right here.

 

[Mag_seven]

I can't help but noticing that they are keeping trains running into and out of the western end of the station whilst this is going on. Would they do that today?

 

[WesternLancer]

Details or even a pictorial record or news story. It's very strange. I guess the threshold of what made the news back then was somewhat different! Any Google search of what happened just points back right here.

also that era can be an 'internet black hole' with info never having been digitised. Would it have been sorted with some internal brief inquiry as to the cause and actions taken to fix it? If no injuries just a case of clean up, repair, get things moving. Might have made the railway press by way of a mention (which would not be digitised now for people to easily find on line), but not mainstream 'news' I guess.
Without rolling news or greater profusion of media to fill up space / time / columns even in the late 80s things like this would maybe not have been of much interest to the media.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Around 50 years ago I worked on an Accidents Section (Euston Division, coincidentally) so my memory is not completely clear, but
There were many minor mishaps, including derailments, in those days, and all were investigated by the section, but some mishaps were defined as 'Reportable' which meant that they had to be reported to the Ministry (of Transport), a division of which investigated accidents .
My recollection is that an accident involving train movement and passenger injury was one of the parameters for being defined as reportable. . As an aside, the Head of Section would never commit himself, and we would receive the mishap form concerned with Reportable? endorsed across it, for us clerks to decide.
When mishaps were reported to the Ministry (which included outline of circumstances and preliminary findings) in some cases the response received was that they would not be investigating separately, and would leave it to B.R.
The paperwork for all mishap investigations was filed and destroyed under the time-limits set out in legislation. I recollect that, although most investigations could be discarded after 1 year, those involving death or injury needed to be kept for 7.
It is fair to say that It would not be possible to keep all investigations in perpetuity for the simple reason that the volume of paperwork was so great. However, paperwork for the most serious accidents seemed to be kept sometimes - for instance, there was still file for the Harrow disaster in the files in my day.
Presumably the derailment did not result in any injuries and would not be 'reportable' I hope this explains why searching for an enquiry is likely to be fruitless, but nevertheless one was undoubtedly carried out.

 

[WesternLancer]

Around 50 years ago I worked on an Accidents Section (Euston Division, coincidentally) so my memory is not completely clear, but
There were many minor mishaps, including derailments, in those days, and all were investigated by the section, but some mishaps were defined as 'Reportable' which meant that they had to be reported to the Ministry (of Transport), a division of which investigated accidents .
My recollection is that an accident involving train movement and passenger injury was one of the parameters for being defined as reportable. . As an aside, the Head of Section would never commit himself, and we would receive the mishap form concerned with Reportable? endorsed across it, for us clerks to decide.
When mishaps were reported to the Ministry (which included outline of circumstances and preliminary findings) in some cases the response received was that they would not be investigating separately, and would leave it to B.R.
The paperwork for all mishap investigations was filed and destroyed under the time-limits set out in legislation. I recollect that, although most investigations could be discarded after 1 year, those involving death or injury needed to be kept for 7.
It is fair to say that It would not be possible to keep all investigations in perpetuity for the simple reason that the volume of paperwork was so great. However, paperwork for the most serious accidents seemed to be kept sometimes - for instance, there was still file for the Harrow disaster in the files in my day.
Presumably the derailment did not result in any injuries and would not be 'reportable' I hope this explains why searching for an enquiry is likely to be fruitless, but nevertheless one was undoubtedly carried out.

Interesting to read that overview of the processes. A very interesting insight into the way things were in a different 'regulatory' context. And no doubt processes were usually as rigorous as they needed to be I suspect.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Interesting to read that overview of the processes. A very interesting insight into the way things were in a different 'regulatory' context. And no doubt processes were usually as rigorous as they needed to be I suspect.

Indeed. Although the intention then was, in modern jargon, 'to learn lessons', in the event of blame the disciplinary process was invoked. Although there might have been the theoretical opportunity to cover up failures, this was never ever done in my experience; the Accidents Section investigated every mishap, and if the cause was a B.R. failure, that was the highlighted. Equally, the result of blame being attached to staff for causing an accident could well be their dismissal (after the Disciplinary Process had been carried out).
I am interested in how the modern railway behaves in these circumstances. For instance, in some recent SPaDs and collisions , which the RAIB identified the cause as at least in part to driver or planning error, I wonder whether the TOC/FOC initiates disciplinary action against those at fault. It is difficult to determine whether any regulatory body would be interested in what action was taken, and the TOC/FOC might well be more interested in not 'making waves' balanced against the possibility of a repeat offence (perhaps with more serious consequences) if no action is taken.

 

[6Gman]

The Accidents Section was widely respected across the Operations staff for their diligence and total honesty. We knew that their sole aim was to establish what had happened and why.

Sadly, post privatisation the immediate response to any incident was too often an attempt to claim "not our fault guv" played out between Railtrack, the TOC, whoever was responsible for the stock etc etc

 

[Bald Rick]

It is surprisingly difficult to find hard info on this incident even on various accident archives that are out there.

Accidents like this were a pretty regular occurrence back then. Modern Railways even had a monthly ‘accidents’ Page. Unthinkable now.

I can't help but noticing that they are keeping trains running into and out of the western end of the station whilst this is going on. Would they do that today?

For something like this, yes. See the derailment in Waterloo throat 2 years ago.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The Accidents Section was widely respected across the Operations staff for their diligence and total honesty. We knew that their sole aim was to establish what had happened and why.

Sadly, post privatisation the immediate response to any incident was too often an attempt to claim "not our fault guv" played out between Railtrack, the TOC, whoever was responsible for the stock etc etc

British Rail was often characterised as staffed by jobsworths, but in those days I rarely encountered the allegedly normal 'nuffink to do wiv me mate' response. Once the railway was divided, however, the response of either 'not my problem' or 'that's your problem', perhaps a slightly more genteel way of expressing the same intention, became common. I could give tiresome examples, but my personal record is of 27 such responses to an attempt to solve a 'problem' created elsewhere....

Accidents like this were a pretty regular occurrence back then. Modern Railways even had a monthly ‘accidents’ Page. Unthinkable now

Well, maybe. The M.R. Accidents page was, I think I remember, based on accident reports and updates issued by the Ministry. The parallel today would be the RAIB on-line digest which, as an example, this month contains reports into two derailments - one of an e.c.s. train, and one of a passenger train striking a derailed loco. But perhaps that's exceptional.
The high volume of freight and mineral traffic in those days - many more train miles - would also be relevant. About 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 tons of coal alone was moved, and other bulk traffic in considerable tonnages - iron ore, limestone (for basic oxygen steel making amongst other end uses), coke, iron, finished steel. chemicals - was conveyed. The loss of almost all of this traffic is statistically bound to improve the absolute (rather than comparative) incidence of mishaps.

 

[WesternLancer]

British Rail was often characterised as staffed by jobsworths, but in those days I rarely encountered the allegedly normal 'nuffink to do wiv me mate' response. Once the railway was divided, however, the response of either 'not my problem' or 'that's your problem', perhaps a slightly more genteel way of expressing the same intention, became common. I could give tiresome examples, but my personal record is of 27 such responses to an attempt to solve a 'problem' created elsewhere....



Well, maybe. The M.R. Accidents page was, I think I remember, based on accident reports and updates issued by the Ministry. The parallel today would be the RAIB on-line digest which, as an example, this month contains reports into two derailments - one of an e.c.s. train, and one of a passenger train striking a derailed loco. But perhaps that's exceptional.
The high volume of freight and mineral traffic in those days - many more train miles - would also be relevant. About 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 tons of coal alone was moved, and other bulk traffic in considerable tonnages - iron ore, limestone (for basic oxygen steel making amongst other end uses), coke, iron, finished steel. chemicals - was conveyed. The loss of almost all of this traffic is statistically bound to improve the absolute (rather than comparative) incidence of mishaps.

Another interesting post Merle. And I would speculate that a wagon fleet of the size required for those movements would almost inevitably (on statistical rule of chance) have wagons in a condition potentially slightly more likely to be prone to derailment - and more of them, as they would be smaller than equivalent bigger wagons than would be used today even if those goods were there to be moved, I would speculate.

As to 'jobsworths' it seems amazing that all it takes to change an industry's popular reputation is some annoyingly 'witty' stickers placed on the underside of toilet seats to change public / media attitudes (as per virgin trains.....).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of my more enjoyable weeks of training (and there were many !) , was a week spent in the Divisional Accident Section office at Brunel House , Cardiff. Far from being regarded as a nuisance - we were shown "notable" accident reports to read , some of them humbling and tragic , some educational and some downright amusing (where no one got hurt etc. -) - I thought they fulfilled an useful role.

 

[LowLevel]

One of my more enjoyable weeks of training (and there were many !) , was a week spent in the Divisional Accident Section office at Brunel House , Cardiff. Far from being regarded as a nuisance - we were shown "notable" accident reports to read , some of them humbling and tragic , some educational and some downright amusing (where no one got hurt etc. -) - I thought they fulfilled an useful role.

I have always made a point of reading old accident reports, both for notable and obscure occurrences. Full of interesting lessons. I particularly like the old RLC officers writing them and their manner of speech "I consider he is a decent sort of chap, and thus give considerable weight to his evidence"

If I can't sleep I pick a random few from the Archive to have a look through. Provoked by a post on here that I saw the other day I also read a report on the derailment of the Lincoln to Tamworth TPO in 1927 near Swinderby, on my PNB a few minutes before passing over the same stretch of track.

I was astonished to find in witness evidence that the crews and railway officials considered Lincoln to Newark to be a racing section akin to the Loughborough to Leicester "race track" - nowadays of course it is a pedestrian trundle with linespeeds between 50 and 70 mph, rather more 50 than 70!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I have always made a point of reading old accident reports, both for notable and obscure occurrences. Full of interesting lessons. I particularly like the old RLC officers writing them and their manner of speech "I consider he is a decent sort of chap, and thus give considerable weight to his evidence"

If I can't sleep I pick a random few from the Archive to have a look through. Provoked by a post on here that I saw the other day I also read a report on the derailment of the Lincoln to Tamworth TPO in 1927 near Swinderby, on my PNB a few minutes before passing over the same stretch of track.

I was astonished to find in witness evidence that the crews and railway officials considered Lincoln to Newark to be a racing section akin to the Loughborough to Leicester "race track" - nowadays of course it is a pedestrian trundle with linespeeds between 50 and 70 mph, rather more 50 than 70!

"This man was not a credible witness" - is about the ultimate put down by the old school Railway Inspecting Officers - in other words , not to be relied on.

Off topic a bit - but their workload was horrendous , apart from the accident investigation work -which was pretty large , the "normal" approval work was hefty. Yet looking through some of the original files at Kew shows a commendable level of detail and precision , coupled with the travel logistics involved. Lt Col Druitt for example (to quote one at random) did not have a laptop to hand and certainly did not have a travelling clerk to help him.

 

[LowLevel]

"This man was not a credible witness" - is about the ultimate put down by the old school Railway Inspecting Officers - in other words , not to be relied on.

Off topic a bit - but their workload was horrendous , apart from the accident investigation work -which was pretty large , the "normal" approval work was hefty. Yet looking through some of the original files at Kew shows a commendable level of detail and precision , coupled with the travel logistics involved. Lt Col Druitt for example (to quote one at random) did not have a laptop to hand and certainly did not have a travelling clerk to help him.

They were a noble profession in their own right, the inspectors of railways. Major Olver in particular is fondly remembered in the circles I move in for being a very great friend to the heritage railway movement.

Quite a lot was lost I think to the modern self assessment and commissioning of new works, having an expert and impartial eye cast over them to give approval might have prevented one or two pickles.

 

[Taunton]

it seems amazing that all it takes to change an industry's popular reputation is some annoyingly 'witty' stickers placed on the underside of toilet seats to change public / media attitudes (as per virgin trains.....).

Or red lamp posts???

 

[John Webb]

They were a noble profession in their own right, the inspectors of railways. Major Olver in particular is fondly remembered in the circles I move in for being a very great friend to the heritage railway movement.

Quite a lot was lost I think to the modern self assessment and commissioning of new works, having an expert and impartial eye cast over them to give approval might have prevented one or two pickles.

The Railway Inspectorate has been around for a considerable while. In 1990 Stanley Hall wrote "Railway Detectives - 150 Years of the Railway Inspectorate" (Ian Allan, ISBN 0-7110-1929-0) which is an interesting read into the setting up of the Inspectorate, calling on officers of the Royal Engineers, a number of whom were recruited from Woolwich Arsenal and other locations, and its subsequent history.

 

[Mineral Wagon]

Hi,





I actually saw the train come to a stand with my own eyes. I did not see the point of derailment but, given the low approach speed the train was not in motion long once on the deck. What I did see was the Orange Army at work in the vicinity of the derailment. You can see a large propane cylinder against which 86413 had come to a rest, and some other machinery. My recollection is that as the loco bounced along there was at least one track worker running like billy-o, getting away from the unfolding action. Caveat: time might have dulled the old memory, and watching a derailed train bouncing toward you is a bit overwhelming. The creator of the Flickr album linked in the original thread states that this was the 06:20 MAN-EUS service. By my 87/88 BR PTT that was due arrival into Euston at 09:04. I myself left Euston right time on the 10:30 EUS-GLC. So that gives you an approximate time range for the pictures. Yes, the station (excepting platforms 1-7 as i noted at the time) remained live. Yes, the inbound pax were simply told to climb down on to the ballast to complete their journey.

Anyhow, thanks all who contributed to the original thread, I hope you enjoy these pics.

 

[Driver 9a]

Looking at the post and pictures on this derailment a lot are asking what took place that morning. I was the driver on that train and later had to attend an enquiry about it. The cause of the derailment was the crossing breaking up under the Locomotive in 20 places. This was due to old age the crossing having been installed 20 years before the derailment.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Looking at the post and pictures on this derailment a lot are asking what took place that morning. I was the driver on that train and later had to attend an enquiry about it. The cause of the derailment was the crossing breaking up under the Locomotive in 20 places. This was due to old age the crossing having been installed 20 years before the derailment.

Thank you; that's very interesting to know.

Must have been a bit of an "Oh Gawd!!" moment when you felt the sudden roughness behind and underneath you?