GETTY IMAGES
Rescue workers surround an overturned engine after a railway accident on the London, Brighton & south Coast Railway at
Pouparts Junction near Clapham Junction, London, 19th February 1868.
Original Publication: Illustrated London News - pub. 1868
Pouparts Junction near
Clapham Junction, London
19th February 1868
Extracted and adapted from the report by
H.W. Tyler Captain
On the 19th February, 1868 a accident occurred at Poupart’s Junction, this junction, between the high level line from the
Victoria station and that which was in use previously to its construction, is about half a mile to the north of the Clapham
Junction station. The high level line was constructed at great expense, partly to avoid th sharp curve at the Stewarts Lane
Junction, and it joins what was the previous main line of the West End and Crystal Palace Railway, on a curve of which the
radius varies from 22.72 50 21.21 chains. This curves passes over a portion of embankment about 20 feet high and 93 yards
long, between the junction and a viaduct to the north of it. One the south of the junction the line is straight, passing by a
bridge over the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and then over a further portion of embankment south of that bridge.
The gradient falls 1 in 159 from the northward to a crossing 33 years north of the cabin, which forms part of the junction, and
then rises 1 in 190 towards the south.
The 8.58 a.m. passenger train from Victoria to London Bridge, started from the former station at 8.59 on the day in question,
consisting, in the following order, of an engine and tender, a third class (break), a third class, a second class, a composite,
three first class, two second class, a composite, three firs class, two second class, a third class and a third class (break)
carriages. It travelled without stopping, and in due course, until it approached the Pouparts Junction at a speed of about 20
miles an hour. As it rounded the curve above described on the north of that junction, the leading wheels of the engine dropped
off the rails to the right, on the outside of the curve, 33 yards to the south of the viaduct, and 60 yards not of the junction
cabin. The engine ran along in this condition to the crossing, 33 years from the point at which the wheel first mounted, and 27
yards north of the junction cabin. The right wheels were thrown over to the left of the rails, and as they passed through the
junction they strained the points and bent the connecting rods. After crossing the bridge over the London, Chatham and Dover
Railway, and tearing up the permanent way, more less in its course, the engine turned to the left, 80 yards south of the
junction, and ran down the embankment. It fell on its left side at the bottom of the slope, with its wheel partly in the air. The
tender followed it, remaining on its wheels on the side of the slope. The leading break carriage came to a stand behind it, at
right angles to the line, also on its wheels, on the side of the slope; and the remaining vehicles stood in their proper order on
the embankment, but off the rails.
The engine was not so much damaged as might have been expected. The funnel, feed pipes, and draw bar were broken, as well
as the tank and two springs of the tender, and the hook of the draw bat behind the tender. The total damage to the engine and
tender. The total damage to the engine and tender is estimated at 60/., and to the carriages at 40/.
The whole distance, from the paint at which the leading wheel of the engine first mounted the rail to the spot where it lay, was
only 200 yards. The engine driver notice nothing unusual until he felt a “twist” when the engine dropped off to the right of the
rails, and the the crossing turned the wheels over to the left of them. While the engine rolled about subsequently, and as it rn
down the bank, he kept hold of the regulator handle and the spring balance, and as it turned over he let go and fell upon the
hedge at the bottom of the slope. He was severely shaken and much pricked in the hedge. As he approached the spot where the
engine first left the rails he notice some platelayers at work here.
The fireman also noticed a gang of platelayers standing by the line as he approached the Poupart’s Junction, and felt the
engine “give a jump” as he passed them. As the engine ran down the slope of the embankment and fell over he was thrown
across the hand rail with his feet against the fire box; and was shaken.
The guard, who rode in the leading break carriage next behind the tender, was standing app and looking at the engine when
the accident occurred. He “the fore part of the engine begin to jump,” and noticed all that followed. He suffered, as well as
the the guard in the hind van, from the effects of the shock; but out of about 30 passengers who were travelling in the different
carriages three only have as yet complained of injury.
The engine, No. 40,was a six wheeled engine, built by Messrs Sharp, Stewart, and Co., of Manchester. The leading wheels,
coupled together, 5ft 6ins. in diameter. Te wheel base measured 6ft 6ins., between the driving and trailing wheels. The flanges
of the leading wheels were rather thin, but the tyres had recently been turned up, with shoulders under the flanges, and had
only been running after that operation for four days.
I heard of this accident on my way from Hampton court to London, and was put down on the spot an hour and twenty minutes
after it occurred, through the courtesy of the officers of the London and South Western company, from the train in which I was
travelling. A mark was then plainly visible on the outer rail of the curve above referred to, where the right leading wheel of
the engine had passed over it. After procuring a spirit level, I found the super elevation of the outer rail of that curve,
measured at short intervals from the viaduct north of the junction varied from 5 1/8ins. to 1 1/6ins., where the engine wheel
mounted, and 1 5/8 ins. where it dropped off to the right of the outer rail.
The understanding between the inspector of this portion of the permanent way and the foreman platelayer appears to have
been that the outer rail should be kept 3 ins. higher than the inner rail on this curve, running down to 2 ins. at the crossing,
and nothing at the bridge south of the junction; and there can be no doubt that if 3 ins. had been regularly maintained from
the viaduct to the spot where the engine wheel mounted the accident would not have occurred. The platelayers began to lift the
inner rail of the curve at 8.30 a.m., rather more than half an hour before the accident, and working by the eye only they lifted
it too much. There had been for some tine a gradual subsidence of the embankment on the inside of the curve; and, the
foreman platelayer was no doubt induced to raise the inner rail more than he would otherwise have done in order to allow for
such subsidence. But he did so to an imprudent extent, and the accident was the natural result of the unequal and unsafe
condition of the curve as shown by the measurement above recorded.
Looking to the position of this curve and the difficulty of maintaining a sufficient super elevation of the outer rail at the rear
junction crossing, I have recommended, as a useful precaution, and with a view to the prevention of any accident to this
description for the future, that a check rail should be added north of the junction; and I have further recommended that
printed rules should be issued for guidance of the platelayers in regard to the maintenance of the various curves on the line. I
am happy to report, in conclusion, that the engineer of the Company is prepared at once to carry these recommendations into
effect.
*The L.B.S.C.R. began place check rails not only at Pouparts Junction,
but also on similar curves at other parts of the line.