| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by grahame at 18:54, 8th January 2023 |      |
The recommendation in this paragraph 279 did become law ...
279 Therefore, | recommend that legislation should be
introduced making it an offence for railway employees
with safety responsibilities to be impaired by the
consumption of alcohol or drugs. | do not believe this
legislation should apply to just train drivers but to all
those whose duties involve the safe operation or
maintenance of the railway.
introduced making it an offence for railway employees
with safety responsibilities to be impaired by the
consumption of alcohol or drugs. | do not believe this
legislation should apply to just train drivers but to all
those whose duties involve the safe operation or
maintenance of the railway.
| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by Electric train at 17:21, 8th January 2023 | |
The recommendation in this paragraph 279 did become law, the levels are more stringent that the Road Traffic Act also random testing is carried out on all employed in worked deemed safety critical and Network Rail has expanded this as a condition of employment so even if someone is not in a safety critical job that are still subject to random testing.
The penalty is dismissal and the offence recorded in the data base that manages the records for PTS, COSS etc
| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by grahame at 11:23, 8th January 2023 | |
In my commuting days (was that only 2 years ago?), I used to remind the young train crew - who insisted on opening the centrally locked door for me - that in my youth (was that only 42 years ago?), most rush-hour trains into London and other termini were empty by the time they came to a stop at the buffers.
Coming in to Cannon Street (or any other London Terminus), if the platform was on the port side you let the train slow well down and pushed the door open wide against the air flow before leaping out. If the platform was on the starboard side, you could start to open earlier (at righter speed) because the airflow tended to keep the door closed and you had to leap ahead of the door rather than behind it. Detailed technique varied early in the manoeuvre between suburban stock such as the EPBs which had internal strongly sprung slider handles and longer distance stock such as HAPs and CEPs (later VEPs) which had drop windows to access rotating external handles to open the doors.
Ah - the skills we have lost ...
| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by Oxonhutch at 14:53, 8th January 2022 | |
In my commuting days (was that only 2 years ago?), I used to remind the young train crew - who insisted on opening the centrally locked door for me - that in my youth (was that only 42 years ago?), most rush-hour trains into London and other termini were empty by the time they came to a stop at the buffers.
| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by 1st fan at 13:47, 8th January 2022 | |
Hadn’t used this line before the accident but a few years later I did for a week when reverse commuting to Southend. What I saw shocked me when I did, I used to stand at the furthest end of the platform waiting for the train. The passengers were opening the doors as the train was still travelling at some speed into the station. Then whilst still in motion people jumped off the train and ran towards the exit. One of the platform staff said that after what had happened there he was amazed people were so cavalier in regards to their safety.
| Re: OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by grahame at 12:55, 8th January 2022 | |
Following up on the total number of casualties (544 - 542 injured, 2 died), I wondered if that might be the highest total number for ANY rail accident. and finding a program at the BBC listing the five "worst" accidents on UK railways, that's confirmed. The death toll at each of Quintinshill, Harrow, Lewisham, Armagh and on the Tay Bridge was an order of magnitude worse, but overall casualty numbers are below those reported at Cannon Street in every case.
| OTD - 8th January (1991) - Cannon Street Accident Posted by grahame at 01:26, 8th January 2022 | |
A buffer stop collision of the 07:58 commuter train from Sevenoaks into Cannon Street - a line and service my Dad commuted on for many years and that I was pretty familiar with, and the 4EPBs that were involved - though by 8th January 1991 Dad had retired and I was near Devizes.
Reading the report at https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Cannon1991.pdf I see many old features which are characteristic of some previous accidents such as a question as to whether the driver was sober (or under the effect of alcohol or cannabis) - noting too the Eltham Well Hall rail crash, caused by an intoxicated train driver, kills six people and injures 126. (11th Jun 1972)
New aspects entered such as computer simulation looking at the effect of the crash on the passengers in the train, and witnesses asking if they can claim expenses for attending the enquiry to give evidence. The refusal of the driver to give evidence was also a new one on me.
"From the evidence available to me I can find no defect in either the braking or traction system, either permanent or intermittent, which would have prevented brakes from operating effectively. Therefore, I must conclude that [the driver] failed to make the proper brake application and that by his omission he was responsible for the accident. I am unable to reach any firm conclusion as to the reasons for his error or as to whether [the driver]'s use of cannabis was the cause of his omission...
Despite its age the rolling stock had been properly maintained and it did not contribute to the cause of the accident. Nevertheless, its now superseded design did result in more severe damage to the rolling stock and an increase both in the severity and number of injuries. In particular, the overriding of the fifth and sixth coaches occurred because of the inadequacy of the single buffer coupling and the lack of structural strength in the coach bodies."
Despite its age the rolling stock had been properly maintained and it did not contribute to the cause of the accident. Nevertheless, its now superseded design did result in more severe damage to the rolling stock and an increase both in the severity and number of injuries. In particular, the overriding of the fifth and sixth coaches occurred because of the inadequacy of the single buffer coupling and the lack of structural strength in the coach bodies."
