Freight train derailment at Carrbridge

[Vulcan]

it was just the "oh it was lucky it was a 66" and all the other "band wagon" jumping going on that gets my back up, without any pictures or video to show how things have landed.

Aplologies if it offends you, but in any sort of crash with the loco ending up that far from the track, crew members would not be as safe in anything BR had as they are in something modern like a 66. I'm not making assumptions or jumping on any band wagon, its a fact.

 

[Old Timer]

You obviously don't recall 1S26 going down the bank at Bushey one night in late 1976.

In synopsis a Class 86 leading a sleeper train to Inverness (?) struck head-on a Class 85(?) that had derailed into its path as 1S26 approached.

The 86 derailed and went down the bank followed by the first two vehicles.

The Driver walked away.

Unfortunately I cannot recall all the details just now, but I am sure someone will be along.

In 1975 another overnight sleeper for Scotland derailed on the approaches to Nuneaton and both Class 86s went up the platform and demolished the footbridge. Again the Driver walked away.

It is very unfair to say what you have said, as modern locos and units have just built on the research that BR undertook in the 1960s and 1970s.

A comparator to the Class 66 would be the Class 47 which had a specially designed frame onto which was mounted the cab, the purpose being to protect the Driver in a collision.

 

[scottm]

It was 66048 in Stobart livery. According to the news report it was 10 wagons and they would have been empty as the train was heading back south. It was a bad enough start today for DBS that both 66048 and 92017 were running over an hour late. Thankfully the train crew are reportedly ok (apart from minor scrapes).

Looks like quite a tidy up operation on the cards there.

 

[Vulcan]

I don't remember the 70s, I was not alive, but I would say those drivers were very lucky.

I didn't intend to be unfair to BR or any of its staff or locos, but an engine dating from the 1960s can not possibbly offer the same crash protection as a modern loco.
For example, apparently much of the class 70's ungliness is due to the amount of crumple zones and crash protection in the front end. I believe the class 67's nose is also full of honeycomb crumple zone, and as they were built at the same time and designed by the same company, its a fair bet that 66s do too. All of this the likes of class 47s and 86s simply don't have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

anything BR had

Actually this may be the unfair bit of what I said, things like 60s or 58s might be better.

 

[Inverness_App]

just seen another picture (shows quite a lot), http://www.meejahor.com/?m=201001

 

[royaloak]

South of Watford 23/01/75
83003 working the 1910 Manchester- Euston was derailed after hitting some steel stillages that had fallen off 6M50 the 2012 Dagenham- Halewood Ford block train, was struck by 86209 working 1S26 2215 Euston - Glasgow sleeper braking hard but still doing 65mph.
86209 went down the embankment and the driver survived.

Nuneaton 05/06/75
86006 pulling failed 86242 and 15 coaches on the late running 2330 Euston-Glasgow went into a 20 TSR at 65 after the lights on all the warning boards had gone out and the loco ended up on the platform, again the driver walked away.

 

[Old Timer]

Royaloak
Thanks for the updates.

I was involved in the mop up of both, and can remember some of the details but memory plays tricks these days on dates.

Its a funny thing the the Overnight Scottish Sleepers during my time seemed to be involved in many of the biggies.

I think I would take my chances riding out an incident on an 86 against a 66

 

[royaloak]

I agree there is too much glass in the front of a 66, prefer smaller windows and more metal.

Looking at pictures of the accidents it really is amazing (wrong word I know its all down to design and build quality) how little damage there is considering the forces they have been subjected too, also the fact that they were rebuilt, unlike a certain pendolino!"

 

[Inverness_App]

just seen this on the stv news page

A spokeswoman for Network Rail said: "It was the 1.14pm freight service from Inverness to Mossend yard depot. It is a ten-wagon freight vehicle. We do not know the cause.

I am just wondering why it had taken so long to get from Inverness to Carrbridge? and why it only had ten wagons?

 

[Vulcan]

I agree there is too much glass in the front of a 66, prefer smaller windows and more metal.

Looking at pictures of the accidents it really is amazing (wrong word I know its all down to design and build quality) how little damage there is considering the forces they have been subjected too, also the fact that they were rebuilt, unlike a certain pendolino!"

I was suprised they didn't rebuild City of Glasgow, but I guess it's up to the TOC. On the plus side of that, if it was rebuilt we might not have the rather smart looking Pretendalino!

For comparison, http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29174&page=2, post #21, VirginTrainFreak posted a picture of a Freightliner 66 stood next to an 86. Although looks can be decieving, the 66 looks far more solid and has less glass in total in its windsreens then the 86. I know which I'd prefer to take my chances in anyway. (Although I would never turn down an 86 cabride )

 

[eos]

I am just wondering why it had taken so long to get from Inverness to Carrbridge?

Very heavy snow on the line and waiting for 37667 + snowplopugh to do its work. Nothing significant as far as 66048 was concerned - it didn't fail or anything.

 

[Inverness_App]

im back to work in the morning so will find out a lot about it then. cheers for that anyway eos

 

[Metroland]

You obviously don't recall 1S26 going down the bank at Bushey one night in late 1976.

In synopsis a Class 86 leading a sleeper train to Inverness (?) struck head-on a Class 85(?) that had derailed into its path as 1S26 approached.

The 86 derailed and went down the bank followed by the first two vehicles.

The Driver walked away.

Unfortunately I cannot recall all the details just now, but I am sure someone will be along.

Watford/Bushey crash was the result of tampering by vandals of a car part carrying freight train and pallets fell out, the 85 struck the pallets and derailed and the sleeper ran into it and down the bank.

The Nuneaton crash was a faulty gas lit TSR board on the approach to Nuneaton because of a track remodelling scheme and changes to Nuneaton PSB. The driver went through at 70mph and the train derailed, causing quite a bit of damage to the station and class 25.

 

[313103]

During my time at Marylebone, i got to know the Driver of the Nuneaton train crash, suffice to say he did not wish to talk about the accident, which i think is fair enough.

PS am i getting confused here one person mentioned that their was two engines a 66 & a 92 were these both in the consist, and how many traincrew were involved i thought it was just one (the driver), when people say traincrew it seems to imply more then one.

thanks

 

[37401]

During my time at Marylebone, i got to know the Driver of the Nuneaton train crash, suffice to say he did not wish to talk about the accident, which i think is fair enough.

PS am i getting confused here one person mentioned that their was two engines a 66 & a 92 were these both in the consist, and how many traincrew were involved i thought it was just one (the driver), when people say traincrew it seems to imply more then one.

thanks

No 92 just the 66, traincrew consisted of 2 people

 

[Smudger105e]

The confusion arises because there are only 2 DBS Stobart liveried locos, a 92 and a 66.

As regards the strength of locos, some were better than others. If you sit in the drivers cab seat of a 47 for example, you will see a substantial beam by your left shoulder. This part of the loco was very strong, but (I understand, I'm no structural engineer) the cab floor in front of this beam tended to fold up in a heavy impact, providing no driver protection at all.

Which would I prefer, a traditional BR loco (24.25.26.37,47,33,73 etc) or a 66? Not sure to be honest, but I think that the crash worthiness of the 66's had to be proved before the were NR approved, but the BR locos were made of pretty thick steel. I'll stay here sitting on the fence.

 

[yorkie]

i doubt a 92 would ever go so far North!

I was suprised they didn't rebuild City of Glasgow, but I guess it's up to the TOC.

really? not the owners (ROSCO) or insurers?

 

[Smudger105e]

DBS locos are not owned by DBS, but are leased off a Bank.

TOC's certainly have nothing to do with them!

 

[Vulcan]

really? not the owners (ROSCO) or insurers?

Oh, you know what I mean.

 

[Metroland]

Network Rail issued NIR 3350/187 containing Urgent Operating Advice, which reminded all TOC/FOC drivers of the instructions contained within Rule Book Module TW1 S18:

18.1. You must carry out the following instructions when snow is falling, or fallen snow is being disturbed by the passage of trains.

18.2. You must make a full service application of the automatic brake every 3-5 minutes and make sure that the speed of your train is reduced by at least 10mph as a result of the application. If driving a locomotive – hauled train, you can extend this interval when:

* The train is climbing a steep rising gradient, and
* The train might be brought to a complete stand as a result of using the brake.

And NR's justification for issuing this Urgent Operating Advice?

Two category ‘A’ SPADs within two weeks, the most recent culminating in a derailment of 4N47 at Carr Bridge.

http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/01/rmt-plays-politics-as-snow-falls.html

Further info on location:

Signalling control area: Aviemore, TCB single line, installed late 1970s. Signals unlit unless train approaches (AC334, AC225) , trap points provided.

Further Loops at Moy, Tomatin, Slochd, Aviemore and Kincraig, controlled from remotely from Aviemore. Fringes with Inverness SC and Kingussie

Gradients, steep, up to 1 in 60 rising and falling from Slochd summit.

Trains per day: 13 freight, 22 passenger, including Highland Chieftain HST to London King's cross and overnight sleeper from Euston.

Opening hours: Continuous

Linespeeds: Kingussie-kingcraig 100/90 mph, Kingcraig-Aviemore, 85/75/65 mph, Aviemore-Carrbridge 80mph, Carrbridge-Slochd 75/65/50 mph

 

[Vulcan]

Just seen some footage of it on the BBC news, it certainly doesn't look as dramatic in the daylight.

One thing thats confusing me, the loco is named James the Engine, yet is 66048. I thought James the Engine was a DRS loco, has the name been transfered? Also what happend to DRS's Eddie the Engine?

 

[Inverness_App]

its the same engine. just been transfered to DBSh with the change of the tesco contract. this was its first outing under DBSh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
on another note, while i was at work today another engine went down to carrbridge from inverness to collect the wagons that never came off the track.

 

[Vulcan]

Now I'm even more confused, wasn't 66048 one of the first batch of 66s ordered by EWS?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As in http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3522532330_7163b55769.jpg?v=0

 

[westcoaster]

two seperate engines run by two seperate foc's 66048 is the DB loco that crashed, recently painted for the start of the contract. The other loco is a 66/4 run by drs in the same livery and name but different number, so they are two seperate locos.

that is correct 66048 is one of the 66 ordered by ews now DB schenker.

 

[royaloak]

66048 has been, is and probably will always be an EWS/DBS engine re-liveried for the start of this new to DBS service. 66414 is a DRS engine. its just a few bits of vinyl stuck over the engine.
It is as you posted, this engine-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3522532330_7163b55769.jpg?v=0
vinyled up - http://amiddlemass.fotopic.net/p62687670.html
Not this engine- http://robertdumelow37430.fotopic.net/p62628544.html
which was the original carrier of the name

 

[CallySleeperKid]

66048 has been, is and probably will always be an EWS/DBS engine re-liveried for the start of this new to DBS service. 66414 is a DRS engine. its just a few bits of vinyl stuck over the engine.
It is as you posted, this engine-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3522532330_7163b55769.jpg?v=0
vinyled up - http://amiddlemass.fotopic.net/p62687670.html
Not this engine- http://robertdumelow37430.fotopic.net/p62628544.html
which was the original carrier of the name

Pretty simple really!

 

[Inverness_App]

sorry my mistake. i didnt realise DBSh had 66048 done like this. just seen it in the yard and thought it was the same 1.

 

[Vulcan]

ah, very good. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Old Timer]

During my time at Marylebone, i got to know the Driver of the Nuneaton train crash, suffice to say he did not wish to talk about the accident, which i think is fair enough.

I think it is fair to say that everyone on the front line had great sympathy for the situation he found himself in that night, really through no fault of his own.

 

[Boydie]

Hi everyone.
Just signed up to enter in this conversation.
To tie up the loose ends about this incident, 66048 was traveling SOUTH BOUND from Inverness. It was runing late due to severe weather and the DRS 37 on "frost patrol" wish was sent down just before it which past our shed on the Strathspey about 16:00.
The trouble started when he couldnt put the brake in. The reason has not been identified but frozen brake pipes have been mentioned a few times.
The loco came off at the catch points at the NORTH end of the station. There are houses on the road up to the station and i notice that alot of you are getting confused with this. The main village is about 1/2 mile down the road with houses scatered all round the village.
The driver and the 2nd man are both fine. The driver has a broken thumb!!!! The only other thing they needed was a clean pair of underwear!!
I visited the scene myself this morning and its total carnage. Pics are below:

Last 2 pics courtesy of Roy Brown, Carrbridge resident.