Ladbroke Grove (Paddington) train crash - 5 Oct 1999 - anniversaries, memories and publications

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

This sombre occasion is covered in various publications:

The Reading Post: see http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2058238_paddington_rail_disaster_10_years_on

The London Evening Standard: see http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23751599-ten-years-on-paddington-crash-survivors-tell-of-battle-to-recover.do

The Ealing Gazette: see http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2009/10/01/looking-back-10th-anniversary-of-horror-rail-crash-64767-24837148/

The Otago Daily Times: see http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/76414/nz-families-still-mourn-10-years-after-paddington-crash

The Telegraph: see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/6256396/The-pain-of-Paddington-lingers-10-years-on.html

Lest we forget. 

[Mookiemoo]

Woh!

I havent done the links but I though the paddington crash was ladbroke grove

But i graduated in 97 and had a training course in reading that autumn - I had to get the slow line cos ladbroke grove had happened.

So what was paddington - I have dial up speed so links are not a good idea!

[inspector_blakey]

Paddington/Ladbroke Grove are used more or less interchangeably to describe the accident that occurred in October 1999 where a Thames Trains service leaving Paddington passed a signal at danger and collided more or less head-on with an up FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Cheltenham service. The first two cars of the 165 unit were all but destroyed, and there was a fire on the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) that engulfed coach H (the leading vehicle at the time). The final death toll was 31. Poor sighting of the signal involved (SN109) and poor driver training at Thames (the driver involved was quite newly appointed) were both cited as factors in the accident. The full investigation was long and complex, but the various reports are available online at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1204.

The Southall rail crash (which also took place on the approach to Paddington, but has never to my knowledge been referred to as the Paddington rail crash) happened in September 1997. An up Swansea Great Western Trains (this was in the days before FGW) service passed a signal at danger near Hayes, and ended up side-swiping a goods train that was crossing ahead of it. Seven people were killed. The AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System)* on the HST set had failed the previous evening, but due to a series of oversights and errors during the night the train had entered service the following morning without this fault being corrected. ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection)* was installed and in working order on that set, but the driver concerned had not had the requisite refresher training in its use and so it was left switched off. In the absence of AWS to act as an audible prompt, it seems like the driver lost concentration and didn't register the double yellow/single yellow signal aspects; once he saw the red at Hayes he was still travelling at 125 mph and had no chance of stop in time. GWT was heavily fined on Health and Safety charges for allowing the train to remain in service without any operative form of cab signalling. Accident report and details are at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1206. Sounds like it may be the Southall accident you remember from 1997.

*AWS - automatic warning system. Sounds a bell in the cab for a green signal aspect. A buzzer/siren sounds for a double yellow/single yellow/red aspect and the driver must press a button within a few seconds to acknowledge the warning avoid an emergency brake application. Once the cancel button is pressed, all braking is left to the driver.

ATP - automatic train protection. Train speed is continually monitored by an on-board computer which, together with "beacons" on the track, calculates the safe speed for the train bearing in mind the state of the signals ahead. This is displayed to the driver on his console. As long as the train is driven within this correct speed envelope, the ATP does not intervene. However, if it detects excessive speed at any point the train will automatically be slowed down to within the calculated safe speed. If ATP is installed and functioning correctly, the chances of a signal passed at danger are very small.

[Electric train]

I am sure most of us can remember where we were when we heard the triadic news on that day.

[Mookiemoo]

I think because I was still resident in Scotland until 2001 and was not as intimate with the south east as I later became I never registered the southall accident to the extent that once ladbrook grove happened, it overtook the memory.  ALthough to this day - I never travel in the front coach of any train.

I just remember going into london on the middle saturday of the training course and having to go to waterloo because the fast line was closed - the other abiding memories of that weekend was buying an almost black hair dye in the boots on Piccadilly circus and using it - discovering it made me grey and then dying my hair plum (purple) to cover it.  I wonder why me and a a big name accounting firm I was training with never got on well!

[moonrakerz]

ALthough to this day - I never travel in the front coach of any train.

I'm afraid your logic is seriously flawed here ! There is nothing to show that the leading coach of a train is any more dangerous than the rear. In fact from an engineering standpoint I would have thought opposite was more likely - unless the train went head on into a really immovable object.

At Southall the most damage was to the 2nd & 3rd coaches.
At Ufton Nervet, the 3rd & 5th.
At Potters Bar the rear coach.

By coincidence I am at the moment reading a book about "survivability" (The Survivors Club by Ben Sherwod), I haven't come across any thing about trains but there is a section about air crashes, which is very interesting. 
It is always said that the rear of an aircraft is safer than the front. This was supported by a "Popular Mechanics" article which said that the rear passengers had a 69% chance of surviving, those in the front only 49%.
This how now been contradicted by the University of Greenwich, who say 53% in the rear, 65 % in the front.
Popular Mechanics or a University study ? take your choice !
The safest place on an Aeroplane ? - difficult to say - it all depends on the mechanics of the accident, if you knew that beforehand you wouldn't board that flight ! 

There are a few precautions you can take however.
Fly in a bigger aeroplane, more structure to absorb impact forces.
Sit within 5 rows of an exit - preferably a door, NOT an over wing exit.
Sit in an aisle seat.
Don't take your shoes off at take-off and landing.
Forget your carry-on baggage.
Wear cotton based clothing.

.........and amazingly people who worry about crashing are actually less likely to survive because they feel that they WILL die, so there is no point in trying to escape.

The US National Transportation Safety Board analysed all the aircraft accidents 1983 -2000 - 95.7% of the passengers in these survived.
Even in the 21 "serious" accidents 76.6% survived.

Flying is VERY safe - trains are MUCH safer still !

[IndustryInsider]

You're safest in an airline seat with your back to the direction of travel towards the rear of the coach I believe? Though as to what actual carriage is the safest depends on the type of crash - as moonrakerz says, the number of major accidents that involve head-on collisions means it might not be the front carriage that gets the worst damage.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I have amended the heading in my original post, so any subsequent posts will clarify that we refer to the Paddington / Ladbroke Grove crash here. 

[Mookiemoo]

I have amended the heading in my original post, so any subsequent posts will clarify that we refer to the Paddington / Ladbroke Grove crash here. 

Sorry for upsetting people but I did honestly think 1997 was the ladbroke grove crash - southall was not even on the radar!  Upton Nervet I've heard mentioned but not sure what happened.  Hatfield I do know because the old journey time from l'pool to london went up to nearly 5 hours for months - just as I needed it!

Ironically I dont get scared on flights but I dont like using the loos on trains - the old being caught dead with pants down!  If you are in a pane crash then you wll be spread over significant distance so no pants on ankles moment

[moonrakerz]

On the subject of rail, safety:

Ch Five Thurs 8th Oct 20:00.  "Megastructures - Built From Disaster", is about trains. May be worth a watch.

[moonrakerz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8290166.stm

[Chris from Nailsea]

From getreading:

Pam Warren's journey of trust

Pam Warren faced her fears this week when she took a 13-minute train journey into London ^ for the first time in 10 years. She agreed to make the journey for an ITV news documentary on the 10th anniversary of the Paddington rail disaster in 1999 in which she suffered severe burns to her face and hands.

On Tonight with Trevor McDonald, the Bradfield woman described the moment when she saw the fireball roaring through the first-class carriage towards her. She said she heard the ^very upsetting sound^ of men screaming. She said as the fireball engulfed her: ^I heard my hair crisping, I felt my skin crisping. The smell was terrible.^ And then she felt the pain.

After making the journey she spoke to getreading, explaining her misgivings. There were two reasons why she thought long and hard before agreeing to take part in the documentary.

The first and most obvious was the certain knowledge it would make her suffer distressing flashbacks to the rail crash.

The second was she was not prepared to allow herself ^ as the figurehead of the Paddington Rail Crash Survivors Group for many years ^ to be used by the rail industry to trumpet safety improvements until she was really certain things had changed.

Mrs Warren, 42, will not allow the crash to be described as an ^accident^.

The failings of the rail industry at the time ^ which led to Thames Trains and Network Rail being fined millions ^ meant to her that it was something that could have been prevented. But she does now believe the safety measures introduced since the crashes in Paddington ^ as well as Hatfield and others ^ have made railway journeys safer.

The cause of the head-on Paddington crash was a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) ^ a Signal Passed At Danger ^ when the Thames train travelling west went through a red signal and ploughed into a First Great Western express at Ladbroke Grove.

Mrs Warren said: ^There have been no accidents as a result of a SPAD occurring in the last 10 years.^

She agreed to be filmed making the journey with one proviso ^ that she would be allowed to pull out at the last moment if she was unable to go through with it. She said: ^It was very, very difficult. My psychologist was on the train with me and I kept him in sight throughout the journey.^

Mrs Warren said she took the trip from Slough ^ and not from Reading as she had on the fateful day in 1999 ^ because ^it was the shortest journey I could make^.

She said she would not be commuting but feels she will be able to make train trips in the future.

^I think at least I have put that behind me now,^ she said.

[Btline]

That description of the crash sounds horrendous.

[JayMac]

From getreading:

Pam Warren's journey of trust

Pam Warren faced her fears this week when she took a 13-minute train journey into London ^ for the first time in 10 years. She agreed to make the journey for an ITV news documentary on the 10th anniversary of the Paddington rail disaster in 1999 in which she suffered severe burns to her face and hands.

On Tonight with Trevor McDonald, the Bradfield woman described the moment when she saw the fireball roaring through the first-class carriage towards her. She said she heard the ^very upsetting sound^ of men screaming. She said as the fireball engulfed her: ^I heard my hair crisping, I felt my skin crisping. The smell was terrible.^ And then she felt the pain.

After making the journey she spoke to getreading, explaining her misgivings. There were two reasons why she thought long and hard before agreeing to take part in the documentary.

The first and most obvious was the certain knowledge it would make her suffer distressing flashbacks to the rail crash.

The second was she was not prepared to allow herself ^ as the figurehead of the Paddington Rail Crash Survivors Group for many years ^ to be used by the rail industry to trumpet safety improvements until she was really certain things had changed.

Mrs Warren, 42, will not allow the crash to be described as an ^accident^.

The failings of the rail industry at the time ^ which led to Thames Trains and Network Rail being fined millions ^ meant to her that it was something that could have been prevented. But she does now believe the safety measures introduced since the crashes in Paddington ^ as well as Hatfield and others ^ have made railway journeys safer.

The cause of the head-on Paddington crash was a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) ^ a Signal Passed At Danger ^ when the Thames train travelling west went through a red signal and ploughed into a First Great Western express at Ladbroke Grove.

Mrs Warren said: ^There have been no accidents as a result of a SPAD occurring in the last 10 years.^

She agreed to be filmed making the journey with one proviso ^ that she would be allowed to pull out at the last moment if she was unable to go through with it. She said: ^It was very, very difficult. My psychologist was on the train with me and I kept him in sight throughout the journey.^

Mrs Warren said she took the trip from Slough ^ and not from Reading as she had on the fateful day in 1999 ^ because ^it was the shortest journey I could make^.

She said she would not be commuting but feels she will be able to make train trips in the future.

^I think at least I have put that behind me now,^ she said.

I watched the ITV Tonight documentary about Pam Warren. Her courage and perseverence are to be admired.
It just a terrible shame that, as was mentioned in the programme, it is often catastrophic incidents like Ladbroke Grove that lead to great leaps forward in safety. The rail industry needs to keep it's eye on the ball all the time and not sacrifice safety for profit or operational convenience.

[John R]

I thought the program was reasonably balanced, and didn't try to dispute the view that rail safety has improved dramatically since Ladbroke Grove. (Only 1 passenger fatality due to an accident that was the fault of the railway since May 2002 is a remarkable improvement.)

Out of interest, how many HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s stop at Slough? Was the stop put on specially by any chance?