The 60532 incident 1994

There's recently been a diversion on the 'Clan Line failed' thread, about wheelslips. To satisfy both the 35028 fans who were getting a little irritated at the lack of relevance, and the ghoulish tendency among us (Qui? Moi?), here are links to both the sound and video records of the catastrophe that befell A2 "Blue Peter".

http://www.steamsoundsarchive.com/13/audio/19940814.mp3
(Steam Sounds is a great archive, with most clips being commented on briefly and informatively)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjsNbzg1UaI.

Perhaps some media genius can put them together to produce preservation's equivalent of scraping your fingernails down a chalkboard.

What I'd like to know more about is whose determination (and money) it was that got 60532 back into service only two years later.

 

Hard working NELPG (lead by Paul Hutchinson) at Thornaby brought Blue Peter back to life. As for money I think that came from Geoff Drury assisted by compensation from BR.

 

I remember reading somewhere that the driver suffered 'serious injuries' How did these occur?

 

There's an 'account' of sorts here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A2_60532_Blue_Peter ... some of the terminology is a bit amateurish but it seems to cover the basics.

 

He broke his thumb when the reverser spun, because he had not locked it.

 

Compensation from BR? I knew that it was said to be the unfamiliarity of the crew that led to the slip getting out of control. Were they from BR then?
Is it now the understandable caution of the owners that keeps 60532 at Barrow Hill, or the simple fact that an extremely large sum would probably be required to get her out on the main line?

 

There may also be less motivation now, given that we have a new build look-a-like clone on the rails.

 

Why on earth do people want to keep on raking over the Durham incident? We know how and why - and how not to have it happen again - let's keep it that way!

As to Blue Peter not being overhauled - so near - but so far. The abortive press release by NELPG indicated the prospect of an A1, A2, A3, A4 line up - what a shame if it doesn't happen

 

Sorry Frankie, but some of us didnt/dont/we'rent even born and the occaisional rake over may help to 'keep it that way'.
A lot more dont even know theyre born with the apparent freedom to run Steam on the mainline we enjoy at the moment.

If the P2 Dont work out -then Blue Peter would be an ideal project for the a1slt engineers/fitters to go at and team up with NELPG in the process. after all, theyve only ever built a loco. not stripped one down (completely)... itll be good practice.
.

 

Having read this account, it is about as far from the truth as it can be, other than the loco slipped at an estimated 140mph. Quite simply, the loco slipped, the catch wasn't in on the reverser and the handle spun wildly. The driver was concerned at avoiding the spinning handle and took no action to shut the regulator or control the reverser. The regulator was eventually shut by the NELPG rep on the footplate but by then the damage was done and the loco had more or less stopped itself. It was perhaps unfortunate that the reg handle on the fireman's side had been removed, (LNER pacifics had a handle on either side) otherwise action to attempt to close the reg may have been quicker.

 

Whilst the facts might not warrant raking over per se the consequences need to be revisited. The incident highlighted the wide range of driving styles required to drive the various types currently on the main line ( as I believe the crew admitted their unfamiliarity with LNER 3-cylinder Pacifics ), the need for proper communication between the footplate crew and the owner's representative and the value of having someone familiar with the engine on the footplate.

A good example of this is Tyseley - steeped as it is in the GWR driving techniques. When EWS ( ? ) crews took both the King and the Castle over the S&C they had trouble keeping the loco in steam yet last year with Tyseley men aboard Castle 5043 gave a good account of itself giving 46115 a good run for its money over Shap.

I can also recall when 4472 Flying Scotsman came to Southport in 1987 it was reported that the crew, familiar as they were with LMS engines, used half a tender of coal between Manchester and Southport ( a distance of 34 miles ! ).

I think even crews driving on heritage lines will confirm that the differences in locomotives on the same railway vary by so much that there can be no "one technique fits all" and part of the driving skills of today is identifying the differences and working with them rather than fighting them.

 

Erm, maybe becuase it was 16 years ago and some people may not know what happened?

 

When someone can explain to me the scientific value of listening to or watching a superb piece of machinery destroying itself - which was the topic of the first post, as distinct from analysing, understanding, and avoiding it happening again then I might alter my stance - until then I regard that particular piece of video as tasteless and ghoulish.

If any of the intellectual giants who have foisted their opinions so tellingly on here had ever had to stand by and watch their projects being destroyed they might understand - still where there's no sense................

 

I agree it's a horrendous video, and it seems like only yesterday to us, but as the lads say, if you're only 16 now, you weren't even born then. Maybe it has merit in educating the young un's as to just how catastrophic things can get if you aren't properly trained in the relevant aspects of our 'hobby' be it driving, signalling or any other role?

 

It'd be quite good for pres lines to keep in their records to immediately show anyone who expects the phrase "I used to drive for BR" to be a ticket to climb the training ladder at ridiculous speed!

 

Actually one of the problems with some (not all, I hasten to Add) BR main line crews was that they would not take advice from the owner or his representative on the footplate. I have witnessed this in person when a support crew member who had joined the support group of a prominent main line locomotive in 1966 was ignored when he politely suggested that the locomotive was not being operated in the most efficient way (I am not going into further details). His 25 years plus experience of the locomotive (at the time of the incident) was totally ignored until the traction Inspector realised that a serious incident could occur and finally stepped in. I am sure Ian Riley, along with other support crew members from other main line locos. running in the BR era, could tell you similar stories.

Luckily the drivers we have today are rather better. I would also mention in passing that the Marylebone Crews were uniformly excellent.

 

Yep, I can relate to that.