Re: English Railway Accident

["chris 'fufas' grace" <chris@transdata.co.nz>]

Tom C wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 12:51:28 +1000, "Roy Wilke"
> <roywilke@notabitlikeanisp.net.au> wrote:
> 

> >
> >Thanks. Now for the rather horrible question: and that is how would a MkIII
> >coach stand up to a sudden deceleration and dramatic derailment? In short,
> >how safe are they?
> >
> >Roy Wilke
> >
> Pretty well. In previous accidents the strength of MkIIIs (and MkIIs)
> has been cited as one of the reasons casualties were not far worse.
> MkIs and similiarly-constructed vehicles would have separated from
> their underframes and sliced through each other.
>

The Mark 1 stock was not of integral construction, but it was
considerably stronger in end loading than any British stock that
preceded it. In addition it had crash pillars built into the ends of
each coach, and was equipped with Pullman centre buffers and buckeye
couplers. The Pullman/Buckeye combination meant that rakes of coaches
were held together in a crash or derailment rather than separating and
skidding all over the place like previous stock. The MArk !s were
considered a very safe vehicle, and, as far as I know, very few, if
any, concertinaing took place in any accident in which they were
involved. Prior to the mark 1 concertina damage was always the feature
of a high speed crash or derailment, particularly with pre BR standard
stock which, except for some Bullied SR and LMS built stock, was
usually wooden or wooden framed bodywork with little or no crash
resistance. The Mark 1 stock followed Bullied's work on the old
SOuthern Railway and was of all steel construction with extensive
welding.

The safety of the Buckeye/Centre buffer arrangement was to some extent
wasted by the Unions who refused to couple locomotives to coaches
using the buckeye and insisted on using the screw couplers. It was
very rare for the buckeye couplers fitted to locomotives to be used;
they were usually hinged down, the side buffers on the coaches
extended, and the screw couplers used, except on the Southern
push-pull services.

Even though post MArk 1 stock is safer in collision this is relative
and as far as I know the difference between later stocks and Mark 1 is
much less than that between MArk 1 and what preceded it and is more a
function of the current health and safety preoccupation with having
100% survival in accidents than anything else. (Not that that's a bad
thing).

Later stock is safer but is still subject to overriding. I seem to
recall reading that proposals have been made to build anti-overriding
cup/socket joints into the ends of remaining non multiple unit stock,
which is interesting when you consider that anti-override bars were
built into the ends of some underground stock built in the early
1900s. 

Ironically, the death count in the last series of accidents in Britain
seems to have been much higher than it has been for some time, despite
the newer rolling stock.
 
> It's also worth noting that most British passenger stock uses Buckeye
> or bar couplers which are much more rigid than the screw couplings
> still used on most continental hauled stock.


If Australian stock is built to the same standards as US passenger
stock the end loading is something like five times that used on
British railways, so it should be correspondingly safer.

-- 
For a dining "experience" visit the "Killer Prawn" in Whangarei!
Be served and charged for food *without even ordering it*!
Let the staff treat you with undisguised condescension and contempt!
Experience the total incompetence of the management! Book today!