Tangmere

35020 sheared its crank axle at speed at Crewkerne in April 1953. The pictures look horrific of a centre driving wheel leaning outwards. A modification of the crank axle was undertaken with the entire MN class withdrawn and Britannias and the like brought in to cover duties. X-rays showed that it would have happened to some of the other MNs given time, so material failure is by no means a new concept. I can't remember what the difference was with the replacement crank axles, though.

 

One of them (can't remember which) broke a crank axle at Crewkerne, demolishing half the station canopy in the process though fortunately (as I recall) without any fatalities.

Tom

 

Bent, twisted but not broken...

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Settle1960.pdf

 

35023 was in the wars around the same time. In November 1954 it broke a tender rear axle while hauling the up "ACE" near Broad Clyst: 82017 rescued the train and took it back to Pinhoe, where 35009 took over for the resumed journey.

In December of the same year, 35025 broke a coupling rod just after Honiton on a down Waterloo - Exeter train. The flailing rod damaged the casing and flying ballast broke several windows in the train, as well as damaging 200yards of track. Shortly afterwards the boiler lagging caught fire and was only bought under control when the fire brigade arrived. Meanwhile, King Arthur 30449 (which was on a Templecombe - Exeter slow) berthed its own train in a siding, drew the express back to Honiton and then went on to Exeter wrong line. Meanwhile, the Templecombe train was taken forward by the next available engine, which was an Adams Radial Tank 30584!

(all information from DL Bradley)

Tom

 

Hmm. There seems to be a peculiar pattern emerging in that these are all BR batch MNs...

 

(Deleted)

 

3205 & 61994 in recent years. I think that there's been a third but can't be certain.
I've personally been on a loco that has dropped its rods; fortunately only doing 5 mph and it was the trailing end that came adrift. The securing bolts were found some twelve miles up the line. Could have been far worse if we'd been going in the other direction.

 

But without those missing bits the failure mode probably isn't known. (I'm speculating on that bit.)

 

35020 (of the crank axle failure) was the last of the Southern-built MNs, in 1945.

Regarding the MN coupling rod failures, the original fluted coupling rods were replaced on rebuilding with plain-section rods. Somewhere in H.C.B. Rogers "Bulleid Pacifics at work" the Bournemouth shedmaster is quoted saying that they used to straighten bent coupling rods with a screwjack against the shed wall on the original pacifics, because sending them to Eastleigh (as they were supposed to) would take too long. I don't think I'd do that myself...

 

Even more alarming was something I read many, many years ago, saying that rods were straightened between the buffers of two locos! Although I was still at school at the time, even than I had trouble believing it: hardly a precision job, for a start!

 

There's an excellent (and much overlooked) book "Bankers and Pilots" by G.C.Potts, a GCR engineman who mainly worked out of Mexborough shed. He finished his career on the Woodhead electrics, but the book is all steam. Somewhere in that book (this is from memory, and it's a while since I read it) he tells a story of banking a train somewhere when the front loco came to a sudden halt, when they walked forward to find out what had happened it turned out that the connecting rod had come loose, flailed around and ultimately buried itself in the ground. I think the loco was an 'O4'.

In the preservation era, on the GCR we used to have one of those Sentinal/Thomas Hill 'Vanguard' diesel shunters, No.11 - it went to the Nene Valley with the rest of the late Gerald Boden's fleet but I don't know if it is still there or not. It was before my time on the GC (so probably mid-80s) and the loco was repaired subsequently, but one one occasion it derailed, and when the crew were asked how many wheels were still on the track the answer was "three". Broken axle, apparently!

Didn't 'Blue Peter' suffer some fairly serious motion damage on the main line at one point?

Talk of main line steam bans if this/that/the other had happened is a gross over-reaction. Just because the modern world has developed a far-reaching and intrusive safety industry does not mean that people are out to stop you doing things. The aim is to ensure that you do things safely, and I am pretty certain that anything which runs on the main line is already maintained to a standard far in excess of the minimum requirement. Investigate cause, take appropriate and proportionate mitigating action, learn the lessons and move on.

 

Sadly that is beyond the wit of many "Chicken Licken" types on here.

 

Quite right. My bad...

 

Quote from Wikipedia re Blue Peter incident:-

"1994 accident

In 1994, during the first run of a preserved steam locomotive from Edinburgh to Newcastle, 60532 suffered extensive damage during a catastrophic uncontrolled wheelslip.
During an unscheduled stop at Durham station the inexperienced footplate crew overfilled the boiler. As the train departed south across Durham viaduct an initial slip was poorly controlled by the driver, who then reopened the regulator too early, probably worried about stalling on the bank up to Relly Mill. The force of the initial slip caused the boiler to prime, carrying water over into the regulator valve and jamming it open. This allowed passage of steam through to the cylinders, perpetuating the slip and accelerating the driving wheels. When the driver attempted to wind the reversing gear back into mid-position to halt the slip, the force of the motion spun it into full-forward position, and the driving wheels reached a rotational speed of 140 mph before the cylinder heads blew off and the motion disintegrated.
The driver suffered major injury to his arms, as a result of the screw reversing lever whipping around when he released it. The accident brought to light the importance of train crews being trained on the specific locomotives they were driving, rather than simply a common general instruction on steam locomotives. Neither the driver or fireman had ever worked 60532 before, and were unaware of the locomotive's sensitivity to priming, which led to the accident."

 

I remember the incident but don't remember the details of the subsequent inquiry. Normally there's an 'owner's representative' on the footplate who could advise an "inexperienced crew" of a loco's 'peculiarities' such as being prone to priming - did he not offer advice or was this ignored? Anyone know for sure? Ray.

 

What is a "chicken licken" type if you don't mind me asking ?

Not a swipe at fans of KFC I'm guessing ?

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The driver never attempted to close the regulator so it wasn't priming that prevented it being closed. He was hit by the flailing reverser handle and that was obviously his prime concern. The reverser catch wasn't in and he wasn't holding the handle so there was no attempt to wind it back to mid gear. The regulator was shut by the NELPG rep on the footplate but, by then, the damage was done. LNER pacifics have a reg handle on either side of the cab but the one on the fireman's side had been removed 'for Health & Safety reasons', otherwise it might have been possible to shut it earlier. All as told to me by the NELPG rep on the footplate at the time and shortly after the incident.
Can't remember the cylinder covers blowing off but that might be true.

The NELPG rep had to remind the driver about the reverser catch on several occasions prior to this event but he isn't the driver and that's all he could really do. I'm not aware that the boiler was over full nor am I aware that this loco is more prone to priming than any other loco of similar size. IMHO, this person is one of the most experienced of volunteer footplatemen and he would have been well on top of his task as owners rep.

 

People who see bad news and interpret it as 'the sky is falling in'… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

I'd probably extend Spamcan81's response to say that it's also beyond the wit of the 'elf and safety gone mad' brigade. Reactionary approaches to health and safety, 'ban 'em and hang 'em', would have responded in the way some people here have suggested, i.e. the 'sky is falling'. Instead, the outcome of reports tend to be as pmh_74 said, 'Investigate cause, take appropriate and proportionate mitigating action, learn the lessons and move on', including an assessment of risk based on any new or additional evidence discovered.

Simon

 

That was probably meant to be 'Chicken Little'.

Noel