The Fampoux rail accident, also called the Fampoux disaster, took place in northern France, on , in the territory of the commune of Pas-de-Calais, when on the newly opened Paris–Lille railway, the deadly derailment of a train killed fourteen people and injured around forty.
Circumstances
Information reporting At the time, the electric telegraph between Paris and Lille was still a project,Le Constitutionnel, 27 June 1846, p. 3 . Work on the line would begin two months after the accident (Le Constitutionnel, 26 September 1846, p. 3 ). and news of the event was therefore transmitted late and imprecisely, both by authorities and by the national and .National papers often merely republished second-hand information citing their colleagues, especially local ones (see for example Le Constitutionnel, 11 July 1846, p. 2 ). However, by cross-checking sources, especially judicial ones, the essential facts can be reconstructed.
A recently opened line The State had built in successive sections the infrastructure of the Paris–Lille line and its extension to the Belgian State network and Brussels, and was authorized to grant it by a law of 15 July 1845.The law also concerned the lines from Creil to Saint-Quentin and from Fampoux to Hazebrouck (Read the law online ). On 9 September 1845, the Minister of Public Works awarded the concession to “Messrs. de Rothschild frères, Hottinguer et compagnie, Charles Laffitte, Blount et compagnie”,Award approved by royal ordinance of 10 September 1845 (Read online ). who, after some legal-financial difficulties, created the Compagnie des chemins de fer du Nord on 20 September 1845. Once the line was equipped, a ministerial decree of 31 May 1846, made enforceable by the prefects of each department crossed, provisionally organized its general policing, before its grand inauguration on 14 and 15 June 1846,See many details on the celebrations and reactions in: Works of Émile and Isaac Pereire, commented by Pierre-Charles Laurent de Villedeuil, series G, Documents on the origin and development of railways (1832–1870). Series G, vol. 2, 1912–1920, p. 1712 ff . and its opening to the public five days later.
To meet the enthusiasm for the new mode of transport, while capacity was still limited by single-track or unfinished sections, during the first weeks of operation the company had to run long, heavy trains, requiring double-headed locomotives.See Le journal des Chemins de fer, cited in Pereire, p. 1828 .
On Wednesday 8 July 1846-, a convoy combining trains for Lille and ValenciennesThe timetable details were published in Le Constitutionnel, 24 July 1846, p. 4 . left Paris-Nord station at 7.Le Siècle, 11 July 1846, p. 1 and Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 10 July 1846, p. 2 . Due to its size and weight, it was hauled by two steam locomotives, and five of its wagons had brakemen.This regulatory number was debated but later confirmed during the trial (see Pereire, p. 1849 .) It included twenty-six vehicles,Number reported at departure from Paris, notably by Le Messager, cited by La Presse, 11 July 1846, p. 2 . including baggage vans, passenger coaches of all three classes, and nine flat wagons (trucks) carrying stagecoaches,Belonging to two transport companies: the Messageries Royales and Messageries Générales Laffitte, Caillard et Cie post chaises,Including that of General Oudinot and traveling berlines of various notables.Among them the princess de Ligne (wife of Belgium’s ambassador) and her four children, the widow of Marshal de Lauriston, princess Czartoryska, and marquis de Saldanha. Some papers added the two daughters of General Jan Zygmunt Skrzynecki, commander-in-chief of the Belgian army (L'Indépendance belge, cited in La Presse, 11 July 1846, p. 2), others denied it (Le Constitutionnel, 13 July 1846, p. 2 ).
At Amiens, during reversal, two trucks were added, including one carrying a Rouen–Lille diligence.From the Messageries picardes of Jean Guérin.
The accident About eight kilometers after Gare d'Arras, which it left at 15:45, the train, now hauled by locomotive No. 44 followed by No. 48, had just descended a 4‰ grade before the viaduct over the Scarpe and was climbing a 4.5‰ embankment built across marshland before Rœux station. At 15:55,This precise time was given by a soldier traveling on the train, heard as a witness at trial (Le Constitutionnel, 13 November 1846, p. 3 ). a violent jolt occurred at the front. While the first engine stayed on track, the second, whose driver immediately reversed steam, derailed, dragging the following vehicles. Of the two baggage vans, only the first remained attached and stopped with the locomotives about 200 meters further on. The coupling bar of the second broke, and the rest of the train ran a hundred meters on the ballast before veering left down the seven-meter embankment. Thirteen wagonsAccording to “details received by the government,” published by the Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, these were “two baggage vans, one baggage van of the Messageries Laffitte and Caillard, two first-class cars, two second-class, and two third-class, one post chaise and three diligences” (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 11 July 1846, p. 2). tumbled pell-mell down the slope. Four plunged into a pond formed by an abandoned peat bog, sinking in 3–4 m of water. Five more fell in but floated on debris; the last four overturned on the slope.Detailed explanations of the chaos were given in two reports: that of Mr. Frissard to the Minister five days later (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 14 July 1846, p. 2 ), and the preliminary report at the trial (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 13 November 1846, p. 2 ).
The rest of the train stayed on the embankment; the last eight wagons did not derail.
Rescue efforts Immediately after the crash, uninjured passengers tried to free victims from the wreckage, and some were praised by the press for acts of courage.See, for example, those cited in Le Constitutionnel, 12 July 1846, p. 2 . The wife and daughter of the marquis d’Audiffret were rescued from their submerged coach by an English passenger.Confirmed by the marquis at trial (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 14 November 1846, p. 2 ).
Train staff also distinguished themselves.As the Nord Company later recalled (La Presse, 11 July 1846, p. 2 ). The conductor.An onboard agent responsible for brake handling. Their obligatory presence was codified by the ordinance of 15 November 1846 (Read online ). of the front van, Benoît Hocq, dived in and saved eight people, earning a medal and a Montyon PrizeJournal des débats politiques et littéraires, 14 November 1846, p. 2 . He was also promoted chief conductor. Greaser Carré, thrown from his footboard, plunged back and saved five.Le Moniteur parisien, cited in Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 11 July 1846, p. 2 Sub-inspector Pierre Hovelt, acting as train chief,So described by the presiding judge (Le Constitutionnel, 14 November 1846, p. 2 ). after escaping his submerged coach, organized rescue efforts.He was soon promoted to first-class inspector.
Local residents also helped: peat workers came with boats and tools, saving many from drowning. They rescued Dr. Lestiboudois, MP and physician, who then treated victims, including Oudinot’s aide-de-camp, gravely injured.Le Constitutionnel, 13 November 1846, pp. 2–3 . About forty injured received care at Fampoux and Rœux.Le Constitutionnel, 11 July 1846, p. 2 . Some remained locally,Le Progrès du Pas-de-Calais, cited in La Presse, 15 July 1846, p. 2 . others were sent to hospitals in Arras and Douai.
L’Indépendance belgeCited in La Presse, 11 July 1846, p. 2 . criticized local peasants for offering little aid.Similar criticisms arose 20 years later at the Saint-Albain rail accident.
By evening, two relief trains brought doctors, army engineers, hussars, and officials including the mayor of Arras and the public prosecutor.Le Constitutionnel, 10 July 1846, p. 2. Some wagons were re-railed and traffic resumed on the adjacent track.Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 13 November 1846, p. 2 .Cited in Le Constitutionnel, 11 July 1846, p. 2 .
The next day, a Brussels–Paris train struck a crane used for clearing, injuring three soldiers, one later amputated.Le Siècle, 11 July 1846, p. 2; La Presse, 15 July 1846, p. 2 . This caused an outcry and legal actions.One criminal: the engineer in charge was fined 100 francs (Pereire, p. 1843 ). One civil: a disabled hussar sued but lost in 1870 (Read judgment online ).
On 11 July, Minister of Public Works Pierre Sylvain Dumon visited the site.Afterwards, he supported rapid marsh drainage (Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 15 July 1846, p. 2 ).
Casualties A few hours after the accident, eleven bodies had been laid on the embankment and three others located among the wreckage. Although the recovery of the carriages had not yet begun, the authorities initially announced a death toll of 14.Le Constitutionnel, 12 July 1846, p. 1, citing Journal de Lille. Available on Gallica.
This figure was immediately disputed. Witnesses claimed that the three sunken carriages had been full of passengers, including about fifteen remplaçants (contractual substitutes engaged by conscripts for military service),E. Ollivier, La loi militaire, l’empereur et Niel, 1867. Available on Wikisource. and that many bodies remained trapped in the marsh. Others reported that the toll had risen with the deaths of severely injured passengers, such as M. Bertrand d’Aigny, aide-de-camp to General Oudinot.Annuaire militaire de la République française, 1848, p. 41. Available on Google Books. According to the Journal de la Somme, three wounded victims succumbed in the following days, bringing the total to 17.La Presse, 14 July 1846, p. 3. Available on Gallica.
Some newspapers suggested even higher figures. A reader of Le Siècle claimed, as an “eyewitness,” that the number of dead was “at least triple” the official count,Le Siècle, 11 July 1846, p. 2. Available on Gallica . while other reports mentioned 35 fatalities or 58 missing.La Presse, 12 July 1846, p. 2; 13 July 1846, p. 3. Available on Gallica and Gallica.
The company and local authorities rejected these rumors, much as they had done after the Versailles rail accident four years earlier. For example, they denied the reported death of General Oudinot’s aide-de-camp,Le Constitutionnel, 12 July 1846, p. 2. Available on Gallica. and explained that the carriage supposedly carrying remplaçants contained only baggage.Le Siècle, 15 July 1846, p. 3. Available on Gallica . A week later, after soldiers had searched the marsh, officials reported that no additional bodies were found.Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, 16 July 1846, p. 3. Available on Gallica.
Despite these denials, rumors of as many as 200 deaths persisted up to the opening of the trial in November.Le Constitutionnel, 12 November 1846, pp. 1–2. Available on Gallica. At the first hearing, the King’s prosecutor dismissed such figures as “exaggerations” and confirmed the official toll of 14 fatalities.
As for the wounded, the true number was estimated at around 40, although the court record noted only the most serious cases, stating that “ten persons were severely injured.”Le Constitutionnel, 13 November 1846, p. 2. Available on Gallica.
Aftermath Reactions Until 1838, the State had not ruled out granting itself a monopoly on the construction and operation of railways, but the law of 11 June 1842See in particular the presentation of the law, described as the "great charter of the French network" Œuvres d’Émile et Isaac Pereire, collected and commented by Pierre-Charles Laurent de Villedeuil, Vol. I, pp. 350 ff. . finally established a mixed system whereby the State would build the infrastructure (trackbed and engineering works), but companies would lay track and operate the service.