The Mystery of the 1906 Salisbury Train Crash
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2022
- Hello everyone! :D
In light of the collision between two trains that occurred near Salisbury train station in Wiltshire back in October 2021, I wanted to take a look at another time Salisbury's name entered the history books for the wrong reasons.
Therefore, we turn the clocks back to July 1906, when during a quiet night on the South Western Mainline, the peace of the early morning hours was shattered when the Ocean Special, the LSWR's Plymouth boat train, stormed through the station and jumped the tracks at the eastern end of the platforms, killing 28 people, and in so doing leaving a mystery that continues to baffle experts to this day.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated CZcamsrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Danger Ahead! (and their respective sources)
- UK Board of Trade (and their respective sources)
- Wikipedia (and its respective references) - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I can't help finding the connection between the Titanic and the SS New York popping up twice slightly eerie. Well done, many thanks.
Here's another, the Titanic left Southampton. Southampton back then was ran by the LSWR
As a small child, when I first heard of a "boat train" I imagined the rails ran into the sea and it just floated away to its destination.
I always thought that it drove onto the ship itself, and that was after I was married..... believe it or not! Lol
@@rob5944 There ARE trains that do that, the services tend to be called "train ferries" these days. The ones from Germany to Scandinavia have only stopped within the last couple of years or so, but the ones between Italy and Sicily still run.
@@rob5944 I seem to remember there was a train that was carried from Dover to Calais on a ferry.
@@DisleyDavid Yes the Night Ferry ran between London Victoria and Paris Gare du Nord. It was a sleeper service that ran from 1936 untill 1980 except during WW2.
@@grahamsmith9541
Sorry, you mean the train was loaded onto a ferry ??
How?
It's one way of answering the question of: "see how fast you can get there".
If the train crews were placing bets on who would reach the station first would it not be easier to bet against your train and simply go slower?
No - the bet would be "I can get my train there faster than you can get your train there".
I thought it was the passengers placing bets?
@@pulaski1 yes - I assume it would be bets between the passengers or bets between the train crew not bets between the train crew and the passengers. The argument that the passengers had no access to the train crew is weak as of course they had access to them at the start of the trip from the platform when is where the bets would be setup.
@@rgbaal No, the argument is conclusive. As is clearly stated in the video, there was an engine change at Templecombe, and it was this second engine that was pulling the train when it crashed. The guard of the boat train testified at the enquiry that no passengers got out of the train at Templecombe, so no, there could have been no contact between the passengers and the engine crew. The whole business about bribes and bets is a silly rumour started by the sensational press of the time. It was investigated and thoroughly disproved by the enquiry.
@@UrbanHermit50 Yes you are correct I had forgotten about the crew change. I did not think there was a bet involved in the reason for the crash, but I was just really answering foxhound's enquiry
Remember reading about this accident in LTC Rolt's Red For Danger. What a great book, wish I still had it! Thanks for another great documentary.
Me too - my dad must have had it on permanent loan from the library!
I bought a paperback version as a schoolboy in the early 1970's but alas it fell apart over the years and bit the dust in a house move. I saw a bound copy in a secondhand bookshop a couple of years ago, and pounced on it, irrespective of the price! Recommended.
Agree. Great book for anyone interested in the topic. I still have mine.
@@Clivestravelandtrains That's pretty much what happened to mine! I'm looking at some on Ebay now...
Indeed - a great book which I obtained when I was still at school in the late 1960's and a seminal work on the subject. Inexplicably I ended up with three copies over the years, and at least one was a revised version. I think I have every book on the market that relates to railway accidents, including an obscure small soft-back book on the Quintinshill crash found by a neighbour when he bought his house.
Interesting story, nicely done as always.
You sir have a knack for making obscure topics (from my perspective) fascinating. I have no idea what your career has entailed but you’ve got a gift as a teller of history.
4km to the west at Wilton the boat train would have rounded a significant curve to a new alignment alongside GWR’s line from Bristol. Did the train need to slow for that? It seems strange that the driver wouldn’t have noticed he was approaching Salisbury.
Testimony of the signalman at Salisbury was that both driver and fireman were alert, facing forward and stood looking attentively through the cab spectacles. Inexplicable.
At almost 2am and the train going 70mph, would the signalman actually seen them even with the light of the fire? Not criticising just asking
Given the time of the crash might be a bit like the Croydon tram accident, i.e. fell asleep briefly and not realized the speed
@@vixenfire
where did you get that info from ?
Video says this train went thru station at 70 mph, so impossible to hear if driver is whistling, especially in view of the noise of a steam engine
@@zerotoleranceforsataniceli4794 It's mentioned in the book:
Red For Danger.
This is a history of U.K. railway accidents by Mr. L.T.C. Rolt.
@@SuperMikado282 thanks
Another great video Rualridh! Now usually I wouldn't go to the trouble of making a video recommendation in the sea of other people chiming in what they'd particularly like to see, but it seems that in the greater rail community there is a distinct lack of video coverage regarding British steam running in North America, whilst the story of Flying Scotsman's ill-fated trips to the united states are relatively well documented, it actually isn't the first case of a British locomotive being brought across the Atlantic, in my own personal jumps down this obscure rabbit hole I've actually discovered many interesting and unique stories of British steam running in parts of America and Canada and beyond. If I've somehow managed to hook you, check out the story of 'Schools' class No. 30926 "Repton", GWR 6000 "King George V" and LSWR T3 4-4-0 No. 563 which may be a little more obscure to find but it visited Canada sometime around 2012-13. I really do believe this might be right up your ally. regardless keep up the amazing content!
You've also got the 'Royal Scot' and 'Coronation' which both ran in the US - the latter with its whole train. Going back further you had the 'carbon copy' Webb 2-2-2-0 compound supplied to the Pennsylvania for experimental purposes ("Locomotive supplied without cab' to quote their master mechanic. Of course it had a cab - or what passed for one in 19th century England!) and all those pioneering engines, from the Stourbridge Lion, Delaware and John Bull onwards supplied in the 1830's and 40's before the Americans began to build them themselves.
I just wanted to say Thank you for videos on these matters, especially Railway History, but more specifically (historic) Railway Accidents.
There is the Grantham rail accident which is so mysterious, that it is called "the Mary Celeste of Railways".
I walk by the area all the time
Just as an aside, what a brilliant move making your channel name your name was. It's memorable. I was stuck with nothing i care about to watch that i haven't already seen and your name popped into my head and now i watch this video (nice one btw)
Awesome vid. Thanks for taking the time to make and post. 👍👍🇦🇺
Another fantastic video! Keep them coming
This was mentioned briefly in The Video 125 DEV Exeter to Bassingstoke. but as i mentioned until i watched this the said DEV only briefly mentioned the 1906 Salisbury crash. So once again Ruairidh thank you for uploading this more detailed clip regarding The Salisbury Crash. Having said that this crash was only minor to The Quentin's Hill crash of 1915 and The Harrow & Wealdstone Crash of October 1952.
Thank you for another very interesting video. 1906 was the year that my father was born in New Zealand. It was also the name of a very good restaurant just north of Wellington. A bit of useless information for everyone. Have a good day from Sydney Australia.
Great work!! Love your detailed research cheers NZCH
I was working at Salisbury station and the photographs of the accident were on the walls (not the public ones). I always assumed it was owing to the competition with the GW for Ocean Liner traffic. The mysterious one at Grantham was more intriguing but I discovered that the brake pipe benind the Atlantic's tender was improperly connected. Officials were noted examining it immediately after the accident and it was taken away and subsequently kept quiet about.
The first of what are sometimes called the "Three Great Mysteries of 1906-07" with a trio of accidents, Salisbury 1 July 1906, Grantham 19 September 1906, and Shrewsbury 15 October 1907, all occurring under eerily similar circumstances; a train in perfect working order, an experience crew that were familiar with the line and sober, clear weather, seemingly no explanation for why anything should have gone wrong. And yet in all three cases the train in question ignored warning boards and signals, entering a sharp curve at excessive speed and derailing. All three accidents played a major role in the novel "Sherlock Holmes and the Railway Maniac" by Barrie Roberts.
Regarding claims of the LSWR management demanding crews do what it took to remain competitive, there is some dispute on this account, with other accounts claiming that safety was stressed above all else to the point of drivers actually being penalized or reprimanded for arriving excessively ahead of schedule.
Remember that in those days there were relatively few tracks, relatively a lot of different trains going different places for different reasons, and very little communications infrastructure as we understand it. The only way this could be made to work was for all trains to run very close to "on time". Running late meant you might be occupying a section of track where another train was about to appear, possibly in the opposite direction. Running ahead of schedule could have exactly the same results, you would be occupying track that was cleared for some other train that expected a clear run. Automatic block signals that could automatically signal this sort of thing were still in the future. As a result penalties for a driver could be severe if you didn't keep to a schedule, either by going too fast or too slow.
Did the other trains that crashed have 2 member crews also ?
You would hope that not both men were tired from doing long shifts.
@@zerotoleranceforsataniceli4794 Steam passenger trains typically had 3 man crews: driver, fireman, and guard, though the guard is not in the engine cab. At least in the US all members of the crew went on shift together, so everyone would be about equally tired. The fireman is supposed to be a second set of eyes and senses in the cab, but he can have his head down for a while when stoking, so can lose situational awareness. When he is looking out he is on the other side of the cab, so sometimes can not see signals on a curve. More than one crash has happened over the years because both the engineer and fireman missed a signal.
It is almost certain that the driver at Shrewsbury fell asleep at the regulator.
There was another factor,overlooked! In the US,there had been a number of accidents caused by crews,exceeding 8-10 hours of service,and literally asleep,on their feet! Double,and triple shifts were common on British railways,and as,an example,the Clayton tunnel[LB&SC],disaster was caused by a signalman, who had to pull a triple shift,and that was under duress,as there was no one to replace him! It took Britain almost a hundred years,to finally put limits on hours of service,also Canada,as several wrecks,and the resultant costs,finally caught up with the elites! The US Congress,did do something useful,but Parliament didn't follow through,as the problems persisted,and remained unresolved! Add,also the lack of effective brakes,and signals that could be ambiguous,it also added up! Thank you,for the information!
Only tiredness, or falling asleep explains the train entering train station at 70 mph.
The other problems would cause collisions.
Fascinating video! Motion History is simply amazing
MacVeigh - You're talking out of your bottom again !
The GWR had the Mail contract and the LSWR the passenger business for Ocean Liner traffic between Plymouth & London. These trains were "specials", as they were timed to run only when Ocean Liners called at Plymouth. The exact time of their operation also depended on the tides, and the fact that these ships could not "Dock" at Plymouth, only drop anchor in the Sound. Passengers and Mail alighting at Plymouth had to transfer to "Tenders" to actually reach the quayside, and customs, which could also delay the operation of the trains.
Both the LSWR Ocean Liner Passenger service to Waterloo & the GWR Ocean Mail trains used Plymouth Millbay station. Ocean Quay was not used for this traffic as it was totally unsuitable, due to its geographical location in relation to where the Ocean Liners had to anchor, and its limited facilities.
Quote "The LSWR line East of Exeter was much faster and more direct" Unquote.
Quote "The straight & level profile of the LSWR route" Unquote.
MacVeigh - you've been reading Thomas the Tank engine again !!
Having been a Train Driver over both routes between Exeter & Waterloo/Paddington I can say the LSWR route was somewhat shorter than the GWR route via Bristol (The Ocean Mails had to go via Bristol as the train divided there with a portion for Birmingham and the rest for Paddington). But the GWR route between Taunton, Bristol & London was built by Brunel as a virtual race track. While the slightly shorter LSWR route suffered from being Up Hill & Down Dale, (a problem for steam locos) all the way from Plymouth to almost Basingstoke.
As for the whacky nonsense about bets being taken by anyone, staff or passengers forget it. The "racing" of these trains was a result of the company rivalry between the GWR & LSWR, in a similar way to the famous "Race to the North" from London to Aberdeen a few years earlier.
And I will point out again, there were NOT two passenger trains, meeting ships. But one Ocean Mail (GWR) train which had NO passenger carriages. And one Ocean Liner Express (LSWR) which had no Royal Mail vehicles, and both trains used Millbay Harbour Station to begin their journey from. Who won the race, when these trains operated was done by timing. i.e the time each left Millbay & the time each reached their respective London termini, of Paddington (GWR) & Waterloo (LSWR), was compared to find out who had completed the journey in the shortest time.
The LSWR didn't give up running Ocean Liner Expresses in 1910, because they were a loss maker. But because they could no longer compete for this traffic effectively, due to the GWR having opened its shorter & quicker route via Westbury, and contract renewals.
CRASH DETAILS
Salisbury station has the sharp bend at the London end, followed by a tunnel a third of a mile further on, with Salisbury Tunnel Junction just beyond that. The "Hill" doesn't begin for over a mile beyond the station. The infamous bend was at that time limited to 30mph. It was quite typical for the Ocean Liner express to break the 30mph speed limit, and it was known that the train had negotiated the bend at 55mph on more than one occasion without derailing. However contrary to this daft programme, the train speed on the night of the crash was estimated at no more than 60mph. (As verified by the extent and type of damage inflicted, & the layout of the line approaching Salisbury). There being a 40mph restriction at the previous station Wilton South, and then a slight climb, before the line dropped gently for the last mile to Salisbury station.
But the most likely reason for the crash was the problem that the Driver was familiar with the Drummond T9 Class (his regular loco was a T9) & normally used on this train. But on the night of the crash he was Driving what many might think is a similar type, the "Drummond L12". But these 20 x L12 locos had a boiler pitched significantly higher than the T9 class. Meaning their Centre of Gravity was also much higher. So the Driver had obviously not taken this into consideration, and indeed may not have even been aware of the implications, which as a result were to kill him & his fireman.
TO BE A TRAIN DRIVER (until the demise of BR)
It should be noted that to be a steam loco driver in that era, was going to take at least 15 years. You had to begin as a shed cleaner, then a firelighter, then a locomotive Fireman, before you could apply for a Drivers job. Indeed even in BR days during the 1980's, you still had to complete a minimum 5 years as a secondman or 2000 turns of Duty, whichever was the greater. Before you could apply for a Drivers position. So Train Drivers were responsible people, and rarely less than 30 years old !!! 😝
A very interesting video. Thank you.
2:57 That's a beautiful photo, what a great looking 4 4 0 engine and tender!
I wonder if that poor fireman knew he was on borrowed time and wanted the other people to be treated because of it, I'm sure train crews of the era know what bad scalds and burns where like and the outcomes.
The usual motive power for the boat train was a T9, but on this occasion an L12 hauled the train. The L12 had a higher centre of gravity, whilst a T9 might have stayed on the rails. Somebody worked out that the train must have been travelling at at least 68 m.p.h.. On that day, the direct GW route from Reading to Taunton opened. After the derailment, the LSWR insisted on all trains stopping at Salisbury, and, in future, engines were changed there, rather than at Templecombe. The only exception to trains not stopping at Salisbury occurred between 1947 and 1954, when the "Devon Belle" was running. That train was required to observe a 10 m.p.h. restriction through the station. The officiak report states that Robbins just did not know the risk he was running. He knew where he was, as he gave at least one blast on the whistle.
Excellent Ruairidh, excellent.
Spooky that this happened, then just a year later (1907) due to the same cause (excessive speed on a curve) a sleeper train derailed into Shrewsbury station
Please cover Grantham too. Many similarities here.
I believe it was common for drivers to receive tips from passengers after a good run. So there was an incentive to go at high speed. One passenger who liked to get 'a good run' was King Edward VII.
Compare the behaviour of locals helping the injured with those at the major Lewisham (London) crash in 1957 where they robbed the dead and injured of wallets, purses and jewellery. Depressingly predictable when it comes to London.
3:50 Nice image of Dover castle in the background.
Could you do a video on the narrow gauge Kch4/C2 etc. steam locomotives?
The City of Truro travelled at over 100mph on Wellington Bank on its way from Plymouth to London. Was that part of the rivalry?
From what I understand, whilst this rivalry was a given, the rivalry between the lswr and London Brighton and South Coast Railway was particularly bad.
The LSWR and LB&SCR "fued" mainly centred on Havant. Where a physical pitched battle took place between the LSWR Contractors men, and LB&SCR staff, at the point where these two routes meet. But rivalry/fueds/legal battles, were common between many companies in the early years of the railways, over what each company felt was its "territory".
@@JamesSmith-mv9fp wasn’t there an impounded engine involved?
LSWR was a name rebranding by the London & Southampton which received Royal Assent to build the railway on 25 July 1834 over a year before the Great Western
A good video though the official Board of Trade report disproves a lot of the theories about the crash.
The train was not travelling especially fast before Salisbury. It left Templecombe on time and was running two minutes late at Salisbury.
I much prefer the theory that the driver momentarily forgot about the curve restriction. Although he was an experienced driver this was the first time he had driven the boat train. It was probably his first time passing through Salisbury station without stopping. On a stopping train the thirty mile per hour restriction was not something the driver needed to be aware of as the train would not be going that fast anyway so close to the station.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
But remember, fatigue will have also played a part. Today's drivers are strictly monitored to make sure they don't go over their working time without a rest break (I assume driving hours may also have to be taken into account too.)
A 9 hour stretch is enough for anyone in an electric train, let alone the harsh, exposed environment of a steam train.
The root cause was the vacuum pipe not being connected at Templecombe and in the haste to get away a brake continuity test was not carried out. As also happened in the Grantham disaster shortly afterwards. Both cases were hushed up after the event
@@timwebster8122 Can we have some genuine proof for that, please? I recall a very suspicious article in one of the railway mags about Grantham making that allegation. It was allegedly based on a word of mouth story, told by someone to someone else, on promise of not being revealed until after the first person's death. To me it's about on a par with the 'Quintinshill Conspiracy' theory, and smacks more of late 20th century sensationalism than truth. We all know why Quintinshill occurred - no cover up conspiracy was needed!
There is a possible cause in the date - this was the last chance the LSWR had to beat the GWR over its traditional route, as the Vale of White Horse cut off opened the next day. Did somebody on the platform, either GWR or LSWR, say something to Robins and Gadd about that before they pulled out? We will never know.
@@timwebster8122 To reach this conclusion you have to disregard parts of the evidence of William Harrison (the train guard) to the BoT Inquiry. We only have his word that there was a vacuum in the brake pipe after Templecombe and he was perhaps not the best witness.
I was reading the list of names on the tablet. There were 5 names "Sentell". Were they all one family?
Not really much of a mystery at all I don't think; they customarily went through Salisbury as fast as they possibly could in their 'races' with the Great Western for Plymouth boat traffic, and on this night they just pushed it a bit too far. Possibly the fact of having a larger boilered engine than a T9, which probably could negotiate the curve, was a contributory factor, with its higher centre of gravity
Whilst we look back at this disaster with a modern eye, one that is used to trains that have a speedometer and other safety-related devices fitted; back then, drivers had to use their own experience to judge what speed they were travelling at as no speedometers were fitted to locomotives at that time.
It was probably down to a combination of errors; the company rivalry to get the passengers to their destination before the other, a misjudgement of where the driver thought he was while travelling at speed, resulting in him not slowing down in time to round the curve at a safe space, and/or something happened on the footplate (such as a water gauge glass breaking just before reaching the station) that took the drivers attention away from the road ahead.
Even with today's modern trains, trains reaching tight curves that require the train to be brought down to low speeds, to round the bend, still can be caught out due to the driver not paying attention to what lays ahead.
There was a serious crash recorded on video a few years ago, of a high-speed train in Europe where the train arrive at the curve at twice the maximum speed the train should have been travelling at... Of course, this is just speculation on my part.
czcams.com/video/7-ZtCFqf7UI/video.html
@@macjim As you say. speedometers were rare. The locomotive on the night was an L12, developed from the earlier T9, but with a bigger boiler and a higher centre of gravity. All other trains changed engines art Salisbury, this service at Templecombe. There is no evidence of pressure from passengers for a fast run, as they had no opportunity to meet the crew before Templecombe, and no one wanted a bollocking from Dugald Drummond for taking undue risks. According to J A B Hamilton, they very nearly got away with their speed, calculated to be 72mph, as tests showed that the L12 started to roll at 67mph. It's very lokely that on a T9 they would have.
@@bertmeinders6758 I too have read about the higher-pitched boiler. I also believe that the train ran through the platform road rather than the through road, which had a tighter curve again at the station exit. I think the accident was 'visited again' in the railway press where I must've read it - Railway Magazine, perchance?
@@bertmeinders6758 Hamilton Ellis, I think, was an advocate of the T9/L12 theory; that the slightly higher boiler centre line, and extra weight being what made the difference. From memory, the engine's cab, as it tilted over, caught the bodywork of one of the milk vans thus dragging it further off balance. Had it not then hit the stationary goods engine, it could well have plunged into the street below. Hamilton Ellis adds that Robins and Gadd were 'caught between the tender and the backhead', reduced to such a condition that an autopsy may not have been possible. I think that Tom Rolt mentions the puzzle of why Driver Robins opened his whistle on the last mile into Salisbury - implying there was something wrong on the engine - and kept it open until he died. The dead guard was on the milk train, his van caught between the two locomotives, poor man.
The still photos are new to me, and - even though a lot of them were on the South Eastern Division, - as a Southern fan I loved the old cine films. Big Hoppers, Small Hoppers, Black Motors, G6's and all the Maunsell and Urie engines - a real treat. Thanks.
0300hr accident time? I immediately think of fatigue
What an awful tragedy.
I don't think any experienced train driver through that station would accept any amount of money to risk damaging his train. I assume it was an incapacitation of some kind, but I guess we'll never know, since no autopsy or anything was conducted.
Dude fell asleep, or at least into a 'daydream' at the controls.
Probably the first time that Salisbury has ever witnessed a tragic rail accident.
It seems that the SS New York was more than less a bad luck charm, wherever it went, accidents and close calls followed
One account I'd read about this pointed out the difference in social class between the fireman and the engineer and speculated they'd had a blazing row on the footplate, followed by a fatal bout of 'I'm not talking to you'.
That wasn't entirely unknown - I believe that the crew involved in the Great Bridgeford crash near Stafford neither spoke to or worked with each other again afterwards. Some drivers could be real tartars about rank and distinction. But just because it did happen from time to time doesn't mean it did, or possibly did, on this occasion. We'll never know.
There was no social difference between drivers (engineers) and firemen in Britain. They both followed the same career path. All drivers had once been firemen themselves.
@@UrbanHermit50 As usual with the internet, there are a lot of uninformed comments.
Grim but fascinating.
Hmm was that train lost exiting Herne Bay perhaps?
Driver error, well if it's anything like the buses then not enough time for the crew. Usual claptrap of 'Drive safe but here's the timetable' 😏
Still a mystery.
Hey should one Russell Hill accident TTC Subway
No speedometer in those days. All left to drivers discretion.
Loss of the drivers situational awareness due to fatigue.
Where there not three similar crashes in a two year period? One at Shrewsbury and can't recall the other as like a similar commenter, my copy of 'Red for Danger' has sadly long gone...
Note to self. Watch all the vid before posting #blush
Grantham, 19 September, 1906, and Shrewsbury, 15 October, 1907.
4:05 Freight cars at the end of an express passenger train... were they used to carry dead people's corpses?
In the case of the train in the film, they weren't freight cars but passenger luggage vans and guards break vans. The train is of Pullman company stock, who didn't have all-baggage vans of their own, and they were supplied by the Southern. If it was a boat train, they'd have plenty of baggage. And, yes, a number of railways in Britain did actually have dedicated corpse vans, either for long distance traffic (sending deceased Scots and north country folk home from London, for example) or, on the LSWR, for working the 'Necropolis Express' which was a sort of rather specialised merry-go-round working between Waterloo and Ningwood Cemetery in Hampshire. The North British had a real horror of a wagon for the job - a 9 foot wheelbase flat truck, with a coffin shaped hutch, which when hung on the back of an express would have oscillated like fury. Fortunately it's passenger wasn't likely to feel anything!
Oh the U.K. I thought it happened in Salisbury, Rhodesia 😆
Ok
Even then, profit over safety
Maybe it’s some sort of curse or a geographic reason
One hour and sixty six minutes? I know I'm an eejit but......
Great video! It's actually fortunate only 24 were killed. Hard to imagine the year 1906, not the 19th century, but very early in the 20th. When I think of the Edwardian era all I see are straw hats and striped swimsuits. LOL
Bad atmosphere about the station
For the train to be doing over 70 mph going through the station, when it should be doing 30 mph maximum shows something was very amiss, especially as had 2 crew.
If the driver had fallen asleep, surely his fireman colleague would not also be asleep at same time ? Or did they take little naps in turn and whoever was driving dropped off too ?
They were experienced, but both equally tired and disorientated at the same time ?
Well, they could both have had food poisoning.
They could both have been drugged.
Perhaps the GWR wanted to harm the reputation of the LSWR and so organised an accident by doing something to the engine or the crew before they took over at Temple Comb but hadn't bargained for such an extreme outcome.
They didn't take naps.
The fireman had to shovel coal and make sure the boiler was full of water and look out for signals.
The driver had to operate the locomotive and look out for signals.
This happened in 1906, your conspiracy theories belong to Hollywood movies or the internet.
@@SuperMikado282
Well, not really.
You don't give me any reason for why, the crew, who are seen to be upright, awake and looking forward, go into a station that has a bend, at what is described as being over 70 mph when they know it should be 30 mph. They know the danger.
I don't accept that trying to work out an answer that is not obvious and which no one to date has given an answer for , is " conspiracy theory".
That's a lousy excuse to not look in a direction that hasn't been looked at before.
It's that simple.
Looking at what hasn't been considered, happens to be in a not very pleasant direction.
If you said "highly unlikely", I would agree with you.
But to use a dismissive term like conspiracy theory is just a cop-out for thinking and discussion, it means you don't want to think outside the box.
@@zerotoleranceforsataniceli4794 For God's sake this happened nearly 120years ago, and has been fully investigated.
There was no way the locomotive was doing 70 mph.....it wasn't capable of it.
Why don't you read the book:
Red For Danger,
by L.T.C. Rolt, it will tell you everything.
Let these people rest in peace.
What do you hope to achieve by raking over this unfortunate accident?
@@zerotoleranceforsataniceli4794 Your comments are offensive and ignorant.
@@SuperMikado282
I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to offend.
I listened to the video and I'm sure they said that they went through the station at 70 mph. That's where I got the info from I believe, as well as the crew being seen to be ok.
I didn't expect my questions on an event over 100yrs ago would cause any offence.
I believe that the Grantham disaster of 1906 remains as much of a mystery as the Salisbury crash.
Kind of like The Moorgate Disaster of February 28th 1975 where 43 people died including the driver the one person who could have solved the mystery as to why the train failed to stop but instead continued under full power. This was on London Transport's Then Great Northern and City Branch which was built to full sized loading gauge as opposed to the loading gauge of Tube Trains.
Just slow the pace of the narration down a bit. It's too full on.
This story is just a bunch of coincidences from two different historical Incidences
Ayyy
Hilarious. Anything but carelessness. A century an more of overspeed trains, and we still feign gormless ignorance. Preventing trains from overspeeding has been mechanically possible for as long. Truth: commercial enterprises will not spend money on safety measures. When will choo-choo train enthusiasts ever learn?
Zzz DDC
I'd love to see the davits capable of holding a ship with a Gross Registered Tonnage of 10,508 tons (ie a displacement of 17,550 metric tonnes). You meant she was ripped from her moorings along side the Oceanic. Davits are small cranes that typically hold a lifeboat.
Also the SS City of New York was operated by the International Navigation Company.
Perhaps you should check you scripts before publishing. It'll stop you looking foolish.
2nd
1st
nobody cares