|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatfield rail crash |
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007) |
 The memorial garden created alongside the East Coast Main Line for those who died in the Hatfield rail crash. |
|
| Details | |
|---|---|
| Date and time: | 17 October 2000, 12:23 GMT |
| Location: | Hatfield, Hertfordshire |
| Rail line: | East Coast Main Line |
| Cause | Rail failure |
| Statistics | |
| Trains: | 1 |
| Passengers: | 170 |
| Deaths: | 4 |
| Injuries: | 70 |
| List of UK rail accidents by year | |
The Hatfield rail crash was a railway accident on 17 October 2000, at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK. Although the accident killed fewer than others, Hatfield exposed the major stewardship shortcomings of the national railway infrastructure company Railtrack and the failings of the regulatory oversight which the company had had in its initial years - principally a failure to ensure that the company had a sound knowledge of the condition of its assets - and ultimately triggered its partial renationalisation.
Contents |
A Great North Eastern Railway InterCity 225 train bound for Leeds had left London King's Cross at 1210 local time. It was travelling at over 115mph when it derailed south of Hatfield station at 1223. Four were killed and a further 70 injured. Those killed were in the restaurant coach which struck a catenary stanchion following derailment. The dead were:
Crash investigators identified the integrity and strength of the British Rail designed Mark 4 coaches for protecting occupants. Coincidentally, the locomotive in the crash was also in the Great Heck crash a few months later.
A preliminary investigation found a rail had fragmented as trains passed and that the likely cause was "Rolling Contact Fatigue" (defined as multiple surface breaking cracks). Such cracks are caused by high loads where the wheels contact the rail. Repeated loading causes fatigue cracks to grow. When they reach a critical size, the rail fails. Over 300 critical cracks were found in rails at Hatfield. The problem was known about before the accident, and replacement rails made available but never delivered to the correct location for installation. The implication that other rails might be affected led to speed restrictions on huge lengths of railway, crippling many routes, while checks were carried out on rails. The incidence of cracks similar to those that at Hatfield was alarmingly high throughout the country.citation needed
The rail infrastructure company Railtrack, having divested much of the engineering knowledge of British Rail into maintenance contractors, had inadequate maintenance records and no accessible asset register. It did not know how much other f gauge corner cracking around the network could lead to a Hatfield-like accident. Railtrack imposed over 1200 emergency speed restrictions and instigated a nationwide and costly) track replacement programme, and was subject to enforcement by the Rail Regulator Tom Winsor. The disruption to the network and the company's spiralling costs set in motion the events which resulted in the collapse of the company into administration at the insistence of transport secretary Stephen Byers MP, and its replacement by the not-for-dividend company Network Rail under Byers' successor Alistair Darling MP.
In 2003, six people and two companies – Network Rail (as successors of Railtrack) and the division of Balfour Beatty that maintained the track – were charged with manslaughter in connection with the accident (see corporate manslaughter). Charges against Network Rail/Railtrack and some of its executives were dropped in September 2004, but the other charges stood.1 The trial began in January 2005; the judge, Mr Justice Mackay, warned that it could go on for a year. On 14 July the judge instructed the jury to acquit all defendants on charges of manslaughter.2 A few days later Balfour Beatty changed its plea to guilty3 on the health and safety charges, and on 6 September Network Rail was found guilty of breaching health and safety law.4 All of the executives who had been charged were acquitted.
The court considered the extent to which the poor condition of the rail was known and any acts or failures to act that resulted.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |