xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
If I start by guessing '1' and keep going, how many posts until I get the answer?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Railway General Knowledge.
- Thread starter 150222
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
FrodshamJnct
Established Member
LOL it’s 16. And the names were Albert and Druid. Given the lack of responses I’d say take the floor!
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
Thank you. Sticking with names and numbers, which Class 20 was named River Rother?
20064? And I think the other Tinsley green one was 20032 ‘River Sheiff’ or something like that?
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
20064 was River Sheaf. 32 wasn't River Rother, however.
DerekC
Established Member
Not at all a rubbish question - I had a very happy time reading the accident report. What a tale of early railway cockups! However I will let the team get back to happily guessing the names on the sides of tin boxes.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
I've told you the name - it is the number we are after!!!Not at all a rubbish question - I had a very happy time reading the accident report. What a tale of early railway cockups! However I will let the team get back to happily guessing the names on the sides of tin boxes.
Anyway a clue - one of the guesses wasn't too far away...
I’ll have to say open floor as I’ve not got much in the way of reception today.
DerekC
Established Member
Well, @Tom Maddox having drawn our attention to the accident which occurred in the Sutton Tunnel on 30th April 1851 (Chester Cup Day) it, seems a shame to waste the opportunity.
So having established that it was a rear end collision in a tunnel, please give the causes of the accident - I have twelve listed!
The winner being the one who gets the most right answers after a suitable period, or until boredom sets in!
So having established that it was a rear end collision in a tunnel, please give the causes of the accident - I have twelve listed!
The winner being the one who gets the most right answers after a suitable period, or until boredom sets in!
Ok let’s go for poor systems of signalling where two trains were allowed in section at the same time?
Perhaps some kind of time interval arrangement where the first train stalled (related to the above)?
Inexperienced crew that were working long hours on the first train and lost steam pressure maybe?
That’s a start anyway.
Perhaps some kind of time interval arrangement where the first train stalled (related to the above)?
Inexperienced crew that were working long hours on the first train and lost steam pressure maybe?
That’s a start anyway.
FrodshamJnct
Established Member
Great question! There’s a section on the accident in ‘Red for Danger’ by LTC Rolt. I’ll have to have a re-read later! I’ll start with overcrowding of one of the trains causing
it to struggle up the gradient out of Frodsham toward the tunnel.
Also failure of the driver/crew of the locomotive stuck in the tunnel to walk back and alert the train behind it.
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 1,906
There was no signalling, trains ran at timed intervals.
The first train stalled in the tunnel and a second attempted to push it out.
A third ran into the rear of the second
It was only at this point did any one of the train crews of the second and third trains carry out any train protection as already mentioned
The first train stalled in the tunnel and a second attempted to push it out.
A third ran into the rear of the second
It was only at this point did any one of the train crews of the second and third trains carry out any train protection as already mentioned
Last edited:
DerekC
Established Member
This is going to get complicated! So:
@Cowley gets a point for first mentioning time interval working (@34102 gets it spot on)
@Tom Maddox a point for struggling on the gradient and another for failure to protect the train
@341o2 a point for the exact description of what happened
(Crew fatigue isn't on my list and the "struggling on the gradient" wasn't primarily due to low steam pressure although that might have been a factor).
@Cowley gets a point for first mentioning time interval working (@34102 gets it spot on)
@Tom Maddox a point for struggling on the gradient and another for failure to protect the train
@341o2 a point for the exact description of what happened
(Crew fatigue isn't on my list and the "struggling on the gradient" wasn't primarily due to low steam pressure although that might have been a factor).
FrodshamJnct
Established Member
The weather was a factor as well I think. Snow/sleet if I remember correctly.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,088
No tail lights?
Drunk driver?
Defective brakes?
Lack of traction knowledge?
Drunk driver?
Defective brakes?
Lack of traction knowledge?
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 1,906
The first train was seriously overloaded, some 900 people crammed into 18 small carriages, and it is reckoned that the weight of these people compressed the carriage springs to the point where the bodywork was in contact with the wheels thus acting as a partial brake. The second train had only half the number of passengers, and the deteriorating weather did not seem to be a problem. So blame must be in part to whoever allowed such a seriously overladen train to run
Source https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_SuttonTunnel1851.pdf
Source https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_SuttonTunnel1851.pdf
DerekC
Established Member
Further points as follows:
@SteveM70 for poor adhesion - railhead condition in the tunnel and lack of dry sand (not weather as such)
@341o2 for overloading of the train - the report on what happened at Chester station when the racegoers arrived for their journey home makes your hair stand on end!
(There were tail lights on the trains, alcohol isn't mentioned in the report and neither lack of traction knowledge nor defective brakes were factors)
@SteveM70 for poor adhesion - railhead condition in the tunnel and lack of dry sand (not weather as such)
@341o2 for overloading of the train - the report on what happened at Chester station when the racegoers arrived for their journey home makes your hair stand on end!
(There were tail lights on the trains, alcohol isn't mentioned in the report and neither lack of traction knowledge nor defective brakes were factors)
DerekC
Established Member
So score now:
@341o2 - 2 points
@Tom Maddox - 1 point
@Cowley = 1 point
@SteveM70 - 1 point
You are now looking for the following to complete my list:
One cause associated with the general incompetence of the board of the Cheshire Junction Line
One cause associated with the traffic on the day
One further cause associated with the initial stalling of the first train in the tunnel
One cause associated with the way the time interval system was supposed to work
One further cause associated directly with the collision
One cause associated with protection of the tunnel
@341o2 - 2 points
@Tom Maddox - 1 point
@Cowley = 1 point
@SteveM70 - 1 point
You are now looking for the following to complete my list:
One cause associated with the general incompetence of the board of the Cheshire Junction Line
One cause associated with the traffic on the day
One further cause associated with the initial stalling of the first train in the tunnel
One cause associated with the way the time interval system was supposed to work
One further cause associated directly with the collision
One cause associated with protection of the tunnel
EbbwJunction1
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 1,565
Here's my guesses in italics ... and they are guesses!
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
Crew of the first train did not secure the brakes
Bad visibility, smoke and steam
Signalperson at tunnel exit did not raise alarm when trains did not appear
Bad visibility, smoke and steam
Signalperson at tunnel exit did not raise alarm when trains did not appear
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 1,906
But there was no signalling and it would be funny were we not discussing a fatal crash, that no member of the train crews had a watch, they were advised when to start by the stationmasters en route, and if in doubt ask a passenger the time. The stationmaster at Frodsham was critisised for not warning the crew of the Albert (the one which ran into the rear of the stalled trains in the tunnel), having witnessed the difficulty the Druid had in starting.
Furthermore, two policemen were normally assigned to watch the vicinity of the tunnel, they were relieved of this duty by the company secretary.
The driver of the Druid was unfamiliar with this loco and passenger workings. while the driver of the Albert was critisised for although he saw the tunnel was "full of steam" did not slow down (edit) until he saw the stationary train, it was the force of the Albert colliding with it that caused the damage, the injuries and fatilities
The operation of the railway, that is to say by the Directors, did not have an adequate stock of engines for daily use, let alone the amount of traffic on the day. Noone was appointed to supervise the crowds. The carriages which were hauled by the Druid were only obtained the previous day and not even checked to be free of defects. Not one of the carriages on any train had any lighting whatsoever (apart from the tail lamp). Running trains at five minute intervals without any form of signalling was deemed inadequate.
And I thought Abermule was bad!
Furthermore, two policemen were normally assigned to watch the vicinity of the tunnel, they were relieved of this duty by the company secretary.
The driver of the Druid was unfamiliar with this loco and passenger workings. while the driver of the Albert was critisised for although he saw the tunnel was "full of steam" did not slow down (edit) until he saw the stationary train, it was the force of the Albert colliding with it that caused the damage, the injuries and fatilities
The operation of the railway, that is to say by the Directors, did not have an adequate stock of engines for daily use, let alone the amount of traffic on the day. Noone was appointed to supervise the crowds. The carriages which were hauled by the Druid were only obtained the previous day and not even checked to be free of defects. Not one of the carriages on any train had any lighting whatsoever (apart from the tail lamp). Running trains at five minute intervals without any form of signalling was deemed inadequate.
And I thought Abermule was bad!
Last edited:
DerekC
Established Member
OK - so to wrap this up - @341o2 has covered most of my points:
One cause associated with the general incompetence of the board of the Cheshire Junction Line
The time issue - as @341o2 says - even then it must have been clear that accurate timing was critical to railway operation - and how can you run a time interval system if nobody knows the time!
One cause associated with the traffic on the day
The normal traffic amounted to a train every two hours in each direction and the railway methods of control were simply incapable of coping with the eight trains which left Chester between 5:45 and 8 pm. The board issued lots of advertisements and laid on extra trains but took no action whatever to ensure safe running of them. Captain Laffan (who led the investigation by the Board of Trade) pointed out that the LNWR, who also ran extra trains to the Chester Cup, called out all their platelayers to act as extra "policemen" stationed in sight of each other all the way from Chester to Crewe.
One further cause associated with the initial stalling of the first train in the tunnel
Captain Laffan took pains to argue that the "Druid" engine was incapable of hauling the weight of train which it was put onto. The Locomotive Superintendent, when interviewed, overestimated its weight and haulage capacity by nearly 50%.
One cause associated with the way the time interval system was supposed to work
As @341o2 says - the failure of the stationmaster at Frodsham to warn the crew of the "Albert" about the trains ahead. This was part of the system of control (such as it was).
One further cause associated directly with the collision
@341o2 has it - excessive speed of the third train
One cause associated with protection of the tunnel
@341o2 has it - the withdrawal (on the day of the Cup, presumably to other duties) of the policemen responsible for regulating trains through that section of line
------------
So - @34102 - the line is clear ahead for you!
One cause associated with the general incompetence of the board of the Cheshire Junction Line
The time issue - as @341o2 says - even then it must have been clear that accurate timing was critical to railway operation - and how can you run a time interval system if nobody knows the time!
One cause associated with the traffic on the day
The normal traffic amounted to a train every two hours in each direction and the railway methods of control were simply incapable of coping with the eight trains which left Chester between 5:45 and 8 pm. The board issued lots of advertisements and laid on extra trains but took no action whatever to ensure safe running of them. Captain Laffan (who led the investigation by the Board of Trade) pointed out that the LNWR, who also ran extra trains to the Chester Cup, called out all their platelayers to act as extra "policemen" stationed in sight of each other all the way from Chester to Crewe.
One further cause associated with the initial stalling of the first train in the tunnel
Captain Laffan took pains to argue that the "Druid" engine was incapable of hauling the weight of train which it was put onto. The Locomotive Superintendent, when interviewed, overestimated its weight and haulage capacity by nearly 50%.
One cause associated with the way the time interval system was supposed to work
As @341o2 says - the failure of the stationmaster at Frodsham to warn the crew of the "Albert" about the trains ahead. This was part of the system of control (such as it was).
One further cause associated directly with the collision
@341o2 has it - excessive speed of the third train
One cause associated with protection of the tunnel
@341o2 has it - the withdrawal (on the day of the Cup, presumably to other duties) of the policemen responsible for regulating trains through that section of line
------------
So - @34102 - the line is clear ahead for you!
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 1,906
I'm declaring open floor
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
If I may . .
I have read about track on here, I do like taking photos of points, the geometry, but what about ballast?
Which small town in Wales has a quarry that supplied vast amounts of stone ballast, that were taken away by train and ship?
I have read about track on here, I do like taking photos of points, the geometry, but what about ballast?
Which small town in Wales has a quarry that supplied vast amounts of stone ballast, that were taken away by train and ship?
The one I know is in the Colwyn Bay area, but I’m not sure about the train connection unless there were sidings at one time.