Talk:Stonehaven derailment/Archive 1

Fatalities

There are unconfirmed reports (ITV Lunchtime news) that there are two fatalities. Can we please not add such information to the article until it is confirmed by a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The death of the train driver is confirmed by a number of reliable sources. It stays in the article. It is the rumoured second death that is unconfirmed at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sky News on TV now reporting three deaths. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for amendments

Trying to use mobile web version so everything not available as normal to reference so thanks for the cite name and convert tags! Madscotinengland (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Inter7City

Appreciate the attempt at "fix" with 7 looking like an error but this is the official service name https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/scotrail%E2%80%99s-first-upgraded-inter7city-high-speed-train-ready-service Madscotinengland (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox error

Does anyone know how to remedy the "convert: invalid number" error in the infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a stray letter "s" in the infobox causing the error. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Location

The accident was at 56.9524329°N 2.3211772°W. I lack the skills to add this appropriately to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:698E:1100:6DFE:FFBF:26DE:DAF4 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a location anomaly. The article links to a track crossover at the old Carmont station, https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/C/Carmont/ https://goo.gl/maps/xgusw86mHEaJX1Mu5 but the accident location is at a bridge to the North East, back on the Stonehaven side! I suspect the train crossed from one track to the other back in the outskirts of Stonehaven, at Brickfield Terrace https://goo.gl/maps/n6qKCMAJgGFjFfdj8 This all seems very prematurely speculative: should the guesswork be deleted? --2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:8DBC:197E:20A7:348C (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, the Daily Mail has a map suggesting it was trapped between two landslides, and was heading North-East back to Stonehaven again. But Looking at the way the carriages rode over each other, I don't see how it was derailed while travelling NE ... looks SW-bound to me. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/08/12/15/31867962-8619291-image-a-48_1597242250922.jpg Is the Mail reliable? --2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:8DBC:197E:20A7:348C (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the BBC, "The Scotrail passenger train derailed about four miles south of Stonehaven station in an area of rural Aberdeenshire called Carmont." [Warning referenced link includes images of overturned train] AimeeSunflower (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The crossover coordinates are stated as such; they are not given as the location of the derailment. As for "accident was at 56.9524329°N 2.3211772°W.", what's the source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The location 56.9524329°N 2.3211772°W does match up with this map and the video footage of smoke rising. This also means that based on the drone photos of the wreckage, the train was travelling north towards Aberdeen when it derailed. Efti (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Background duplication?

The 2nd paragraph in this section seems to duplicate the first. Any issue in merging? Madscotinengland (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Madscotinengland: - be bold! Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

HST Accidents

On the article it says this is the most significant accident for a HST since Ladbroke Grove, Does Ufton Nervet not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.123.117 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both seem to have a common link, an obstruction on the line. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Train involved

I've removed the entire "train involved" section. It adds little to the understanding of the event and was entirely unreferenced. This article has been nominated for ITN, and won't be posted with vast swathes of unreferenced text. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Someone had stripped several citations from the "Response" section, leaving a number of statements apparently cited to a tweet in which none of them were supported. I've restored them. Can more care be used in such matters, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In The News nomination

This article has been nominated for Wikipedia's In The News section by Mjroots, please take part in the discussion on its nomination. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It won't be posted, but thank you all for working to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Aberdeen lockdown

Aberdeen was just finishing a local lockdown due to COVID-19, which was renewed the same day as the accident . This would have reduced numbers on what would have otherwise been a busy peak-time train. Is this worth mentioning? Startingstriker (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Condolences

Do we need to list the politicians who expressed condolences? This is simply routine, and tells us nothing about the incident. I've removed them once, but they have been restored and expanded. Likewise the Queen's comment should go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't, it's all generic stuff that they would say after any accident and I don't think it adds anything. NemesisAT (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of the lot. The Queen and Nicola Sturgeon said nothing specific, the MSP added only that it is important accident investigators do what they were going to do anyway. Johnson's words can be restored if anything comes of them (eg he or Shapps announces money for Network Rail to actually do anything additional), but at the moment it's just politician says things expected of politician. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fatal accident inquiry

Under Scottish law, a fatal accident inquiry will need to be held, will it not? Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think so. This process is led by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, who are already noted in the article as investigating, it is reasonable to assume that this is what is being done. However I can find no sources (reliable or otherwise) that mention an fatal accident inquiry in relation to this accident so no specific mention should be made in the article yet. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Carmont or Stonehaven

While it's true that Carmont is the more precise location, the common name among all the media sources seems to be clearly Stonehaven and so I propose the article be moved back to the Stonehaven derailment title. This is comparable to Grayrigg derailment which actually happened closer to Lambrigg.

If it isn't moved, then all the templates should be updated to avoid the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely WP:COMMONNAME applies, which means a return to Stonehaven derailment. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreee Carmont is incredibly specific, and does not reflect how this incident is being described. Most of the notable sources I can find are calling it the Stonehaven Derailment. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

BTP referring to it as Stonehaven as have investigating authorities https://media.btp.police.uk/r/17325/three_people_have_sadly_died_following_train_dera Madscotinengland (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it back per the consensus above. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There's some confusion with the old Carmont Station which seems to be influencing a location error in the next section. https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/C/Carmont/ --2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:8DBC:197E:20A7:348C (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no confusion. Location was close to the site of Carmont station, about 4 miles from Stonehaven. This discussion centres on the common name for the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've now move protected the article. Any further request for a move will have to go via WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to move protect an article just to protect your opinion, that is an abuse of power. Carmont is not in Stonehaven. The current title is incorrect. The Great Heck rail crash was far more widely known as the Selby rail crash but is so named because it happened closer to Great Heck, so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply, especially when Stonehaven derailment redirects to Carmont derailment (or did before it was reverted without reason). Buttons0603 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Buttons0603 I was the one who reverted it, not without reason as you claim. Whilst you obviously have a desire to have the article be titled Carmont derailment, the consensus on this page was for Stonehaven derailment, and official sources are calling it the Stonehaven derailment (or similar such as "a derailment in Stonehaven). I hope this explains the move further. AimeeSunflower (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Buttons0603 I move protected the article to prevent it continually being moved between the two titles. Current consensus is that it is at the correct title. If you think my move protecting the article was an abuse of my Admin's privileges, then WP:ANI is thataway. I'm confident that my actions will be supported. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Pragmatically, until anyone else officially calls it anything else other than the Stonehaven derailment, we should call the article what people know the incident as. If any reports are referring to this formally as the Carmont incident then we should absolutely reconsider this. Until then, Stonehaven is the colloquially and broadly geographically correct name. Madscotinengland (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Following on from this, the RAIB initial report does refer to Carmont rather than Stonehaven. On that basis, should we now change to Carmont or maintain as per WP:COMMONNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madscotinengland (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We remain at Stonehaven per COMMONNAME. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be settled but speaking as a local (actually very local), Carmont is an area, not a place. Ironically the accident occured within a few hundred metres of a house called The Old Barn at West Carmont. Carmont Station, which is an important location in this article being the location of the signal box and line crossover is 1.5 miles to the SW of the crash site whereas West Carmont and East Carmont are on the East side of Carmont Hill and very close to the crash site. Thismay be a factor worth mentioning as it has come to light that the injured offduty conductor raised the alarm by making their way back along to the signal, they couldn't have known about the Old Barn being so close. Bodging and bluffing (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodging and bluffing (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Leading power car

Does anyone know, and have a source for, where the leading power car ended up? It's not visible in any of the media I've seen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear but there is some discussion of it in this Twitter thread (don't just read the first post, I'm not certain they'd right). It's not very visible as it ended mostly under trees. The cab separated and came to rest quite a way from the rest of the power car.

This is not even approaching a reliable source, and like you I've not been able to find one of those that even mention it. I fully expect to see a labelled diagram of the accident site at some point, but probably not for a few days at least, possibly not until interim or even final reports are published. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 09:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The wreckage of the leading power car can be clearly seen on the BBC drone footage of the crash site. Efti (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

At what time frame, and where? I can see the trailing power car, still on the rails, and four passenger coaches, as currently descried in the article, but not the leading power car. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You can see the power car at 1:27 on the aerial footage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53759972. The power car can not be identified from this though. E.Wright1852 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. But that doesn't show the location, relative to the rest of the train or other features (and, for clarity is still image, not the video discussed above).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in this tweet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, the burnt twisted remains of the leading power car are just to the left of the burnt-out coach ... against the trees. You can just see its yellow nose (pointing the wrong way) in the drone shots.92.26.135.86 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The burnt out remains of the power car are visible in the crater above the orange excavator and closer to the track than the carriage on the embankment, this video footage shows it well Bodging and bluffing (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The cab section (including the yellow nose) became detached from the rest of the power car and came to rest separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Recovery

Apparently the Army are to assist in the recovery of the carriages, using a Challenger tank. Obviously that source isn't useable, but we can expect the press to pick up on this. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Names of deceased

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have removed the names of two of the deceased, noting that others have also done so before me. It is Wikipedia's usual practice not to include such names, unless they are independently noteable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and have done the same. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question here (not arguing for the names to be included). Ufton Nervet rail crash, Potters Bar rail accident, Great Heck rail crash, and Hatfield rail crash all list the deceased (in the case of Great Heck, only the rail employees are included). What rationale is there for the inclusion of fatalities in those articles but not in this one? MIDI (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A different bunch of editors, a different day, a different result. There's no central editorial control with Wikipedia, each article stands alone. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In this case I think it is worth waiting for the first official investigation reports and take our lead from them. If they mention the names then we should to, if (as usual) they do not then I don't think we should either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the names at the moment. If the names are mentioned in the official investigation report then I agree that we should include the names. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

no, I think we should. it's probably noteworthy enough to include it, plus it keeps the article in line with most other major crash wiki pages. MJ9674 (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no clear Wikipedia policy on this. Personally I don't think it's encyclopedic to include names of victims unless they are notable. Air incidents and accidents generally don't include them. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've had names of historical fatalities where noted in media in other articles. Should I be removing these from those articles? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: As noted there is no general policy on this so whether to include or not is a matter for the talk page of the articles concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: WP:NOTMEMORIAL covers this, I think?

Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

"Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)"

David Crayford ☎ 00:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's about subjects of articles, not about mention on other articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Engineering work

Would it be worth mentioning the fact that there was engineering work going on at the time. The work was intended to repair the foundations of the bridge over the Carron which the train crossed while derailed. A temporary road and access ramp down the steep slope as part of this work was highly beneficial during the firefighting and rescue operation. Many press stills and videos show the emergancy services using the temprary road and hard standing as an assembly area and access to the crash site. Initial concerns locally were that this engineering work had weakened the bridge or approach embankment but the initial RAIB report indicates that the derailment was caused by a landslip onto the track from the Northern side abot 90m to the west of the bridge. Without the access road and ramp the rescue operation would have been very difficult given the topography. The weather after the crash was very sunny and still but what wind there was blew the smoke from the fire away from the assembled emergency services and helicopter landing areas.Bodging and bluffing (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Better sources are needed. Those provided at present do not support the claims made, and two are dead links. The third is an image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh well I tried....

Not sure why the links are pronounced dead, they work for me but here they are again. Maybe there is a cache issue

I also can't see why you say the third reference is just an image when it is a BBC video plainly showing the road & ramp in use, the weather conditions and the smoke being blown away. The reference code I supplied was taken from the Embed code option on the video.

It appears that it is a requirement to quote a citation for the weather conditions even though they are plainly visible on hundreds of newspaper articles and video coverage, including the one that I referred to but quite OK to insist that the incident happened in Stonehaven when it didn't. I thought that I would try and supply a bit of local knowledge to the account but obviously editing in Wikipedia is an exclusive club. I won't be bothering again Bodging and bluffing (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bodging and bluffing: all three aberdeenshire.gov.uk links come up as unavailable. Can you run them through the Wayback Machine and see if that works? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The BBC video link is working for me now. But there is a degree of "original research" in the text; for example, we can see that the smoke is blowing away from where the ambulances are parked, but who is to say there are not also rescue workers approaching from the opposite direction? Who says that the temporary road aided the rescue workers? Who says the field is barley? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I give up!!!! I accept that there may be issues with the Aberdeenshire Council links, their website is very cranky. I can provide screenshots of the links working on my machine, but Wikipedia won't let me upload images. "Who says the temporary road helped the rescue workers?" Well I would suggest the guy reversing the fire engine down the ramp for starters. Maybe the Secretary of State for Transport who commented on the BBC while standing in front of Trusta Cottage, who commented on the "assistance of railway workers involved in nearby but unrelated railway work". I quoted that the wind blew the smoke away from the RVP, which is plainly visible. I never mentioned rescuers approaching from any other direction, which I'm sure was the case. I know for a fact the emergency services also approached along the line and I would be surprised if they didn't also try to get to the crash site from the south side of the line. There is a track through the trees that goes right to the crash site, that was never disputed. "Who says the field is Barley?" Once the police cordon is lifted I will walk over and take a picture of an individual ear. Apart from that I will no longer be trying to make any contribution to Wikipedia and I will leave it to self opinionated individuals who, for all I know, are thousands of miles away from that field that I can see right now. I thought that Wikipedia was all about the free and open expansion of knowledge and information by anyone who could contribute, obviously I was mistaken.Bodging and bluffing (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bodging and bluffing: You're not mistaken, but your understanding is partial. Please read WP:OR, which I linked to in a reply to you above, and WP:V; both of these are crucial facets of Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I must apologise, on inspection in daylight, that field isn't barley, reference to the crop removed from the article. References to documents on the Aberdeenshire Council website are obviously a problem. Links only operate if you enter the secure site through the search option. I will therefore simply change the references to the document name without a URL for each document.Bodging and bluffing (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, I'm not too sure why it matters what the exact arable crop was? It's maybe just notable that it was a reasonably flat open field, with a short crop? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Six passengers?

The Daily Telegraph says six passengers here: "It is believed that only 12 people - six crew and six passengers...". As does ITV, The Scotsman and The Guardian? Not sure why we still have that cite-needed tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Because we don't have a valid citation for the claim in the article that there were three crew and six passengers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I was in fact suggesting that one of more of the sources above could be added. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I think it might be informative to give the total number of people on the train? Hard to believe this is not known with 100% certainty. The "Statistics" section of the infobox is now accurate but, without total passengers, is a bit useless? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You were perfectly clear. You suggested several sources, none of which suport the claim [that was] in the article that there were three crew and six passengers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So we have some other reliable source, which is currently not quoted, that tells us there definitely not three crew and six passengers? We can all agree there were 12 people on the train. That's what the article should say, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source that says there were 12 people on the train? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, you mean any of the four at the top won't do? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The RAIB say there were nine people on the train, 3 crew and 6 pax. That should be good enough for everyone. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoorah. Many thanks for that. So yes, it seems a third of the people were actually killed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I note that that page was only published today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Which of those four do you believe supports that claim; based on what specific text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think they are all now superseded by the RAIB source? Or are we still seeking secondary sources that support the RAIB as primary? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The RAIB are a secondary source. Abeillio ScotRail and Network Rail would be the primary sources here. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. As you said above "That should be good enough for everyone." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the source says this: "There were nine people on the train at the time of the accident; three train crew (the driver, conductor and a second conductor travelling as a passenger on this train) and six passengers." But the infobox gives crew = 2? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

AIUI, second conductor was not on duty, and thus was travelling as a passenger. He had the knowledge of railway proceedures to go to the SB and raise the alarm. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

She. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The infobox currently says 2 crew, 7 passengers. This is likely to be because the "second conductor [was] travelling as a passenger on this train", however I think that as the RAIB are describing them as crew that we should too. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Describing the occupants as 3 crew and 7 passengers? Or as 2+1 and 6+1? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Until we have more clarity (were they on duty, or off?), "2+1" or "6+1". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So how many passengers is 6+1? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether they were on duty or off duty. We go with what the most reliable source we have (the RAIB) says: 6 passengers 3 crew. Regardless of whether they were on duty or off duty, the 3rd crewmember clearly acted like a crew member and was described as a crew member by reliable sources, so anything else would be original research. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Petition

I think it is relevant to mention the petition. There is no need to link to it though. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be relevant on the article about The Sun, if it gets independent coverage, but not here. Doubly so without a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a petition? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Context please - What petition? Who is it aimed at? What is your proposed addition to the article? Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a petition re the Scottish Sun's headline "Death Express". Already mention that thousands complained to IPSO. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless the petition is getting significant coverage in reliable independent sources and/or something significant (as determined by an independent reliable source) comes of it then I don't think it should be mentioned in this article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a petition at www.change.org titled "The Scottish Sun to Give a Better Apology Than Their Pathetic Facebook Message", but a link can't be posted here as it's blacklisted. It currently has about 56,000 signatures.On the same subject, should we really have a separate section, headed "Newspaper headline", with just two short sentences? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: - it's difficult to see where else it might fit. I expect next week's edition of Rail will have something to say about the subject. Maybe a retitle to "Scottish Sun headline" would be more accurate? Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Some might see it as part of the media's "Response". Yes, maybe Rail will. I guess the first sentence is quite long anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've retitled the section to "Aftermath" and added today's minute's silence. Details such as alternative travel arrangements made, recovery of the vehicles involved, reopening of the line can be added there. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Accident sequence

A rough drawing of the Stonehaven derailment

A schematic showing the position of the power cars and carriages of 1T08.
Not to scale, and is representational only

A schematic showing the position of the power cars and carriages of 1T08.
Not to scale, and is representational only

The accident secquence is described by the RAIB in their latest update. Should this be included in the article? Would doing so help with the understanding of what happened? Can a diagram be drawn showing the final position of the vehicles and where they were in the train, similar to that in the 2017 Washington train derailment article? Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots This is a rough drawing. Not exactly sure where the leading power ended up (I know there are some pointers, but I cannot see where on the footage. This is a PNG, but I will upload an SVG image when it is finished. In what order do you want the carriages labelled? IE, according to the RAIB, the carriage down the embankment is the third carriage from the consist, so would you like that numbered 3 or 5? Etc, Etc. Let me know what you think and I can finish later, but for now, real life is calling. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: it's not easy to see, but the front power car is upside down, between the end of the bridge and the half-burnt carriage on its side. The detached cab can just be made out at the end nearest the bridge. Keep the numbering per RAIB, it will make more sense. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding numbering I'd say: "PC1" for the leading power car, 1-4 for the passenger coaches in the order they were travelling immediately before the derailment (i.e. the one down the embankment is 3) and PC2 for the rear power car. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This is good, but shows the track as straight, not curved - a crucial factor. The 100 yards to the bridge is from the start of the bend, not the impact with the landslide. The initial impact with the parapet was not necessarily at the start of the bridge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Also you have coach 1 on top rather than underneath, 3 & 4. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Fully accept we cannot know about the bridge parapet, but the RAIB initial report states the train struck a landslip covering the down line and derailed. As the track curved to the right, the train continued in a roughly straight line for around 100 yards (90 metres) until it struck a section of bridge parapet, which was destroyed. I read that as it struck the landslip and then travelled 100 yards to the bridge. Am I incorrect? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; the report is ambiguous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We could use the actual vehicle numbers once they are officially released. That would be clearest of all. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

All points taken on board. Just roasting veg for tonight's dinner. I will adjust this later. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think with car numbers you'd also need to include a note of the train composition in the diagram, as knowing car 54321 was the one which ended up in place X is not as clear as knowing the second car ended up in place X. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mattbuck Would it be easier to add a numerical label on the diagram, then these can be listed with text when applied to the article. This will allow for updated information when it is released. Or we could wait until some time has elapsed and all information is available? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps letters ABCDEF in order from first to last, and a key at the side when available? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in the interim add a key with just "A: leading power car, B: first coach," etc, and add numbers when available. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay; I won't add another diagram just yet with those changes, in case there are any other amendments needed as required. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also added the direction of north on the newest map. The joy of all things (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth adding markers to indicate the Up and Down line? It seems to have become a point of confusion as the Up line is for travelling south and Down line for travelling north, which is not intuitive for those not familiar with railway parlance. If these are ever referenced within the article then it may help prevent similar confusion here too.Alxndr-18 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If we're taking about "first coach", "second coach" etc, they should be numbered 1-4. The powercars can be lettered A/B. Fleet numbers are too long and their meaning opaque to most readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The second version is even better. One more thought: if we loose some of the left-hand end of the tracks (maybe 50%, from the impact star, to the left-hand end), and shave a little off the right, the image ratio will be some way nearer to square, so that the detail is easier to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The position of the burnt out power car, lying in the crater is very visible in this drone footage . The first few frames also show the position of the landslip that according to RAIB initial report caused the derailment. The landslip is in the bottom right of the first few frames with the workers walking towards it.Bodging and bluffing (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Third option appended - the information about the coaches will have to wait. I have cropped it and moved stuff further in, with an annotation of the Up and Down lines. This one is an SVG, so will render at a very large size if necessary (when viewed and downloaded through Commons). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That looks good. It could do with a key (A = leading power car, B-E passenger carriages, F = rear power car) and a "not to scale" caution, but other than that I don't think it needs much if any changes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Y

@The joy of all things: Please can you update your diagram, in the light of today's report, to show the distance from landslide to bridge as 70m? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Done and uploaded to article replacing earlier version. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: Thank you. In future (especially for minor changes) I think you would be OK to overwrite the existing file at Commons, rather than making a separate upload, using the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the file page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Problematic ref

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a reference (currently [5] - BBC News (television); 1pm 2020-08-12 ) which is problematic because of a verifiablility issue. Can we reference the information to other sources please? Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Devils advocate and not my ref but as this is available on iPlayer, doesn't this make it verifiable via link? Madscotinengland (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

{re|Madscotinengland}} that would be an improvement on the current situation. In the longer term, the iPlayer link will become unavailable, so it is only a short-term fix. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Madscotinengland: as I messed up the previous ping. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The is requirement is that claims be verifiable; not that the source is permanently available (nor, for that matter free to access). By all means replace it with other sources as they become available, but it is not, in and of itself, "problematic". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We're now down to only one useage of that ref. Hopefully it can be replaced too. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's gone. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identity of leading HST power car

43140 Didcot.jpg

Taunton - Abellio ScotRail 43140-43149.JPG

Taunton - Abellio ScotRail 43140.JPG

I have seen discussion and rumours that the leading HST power car is unit number 43140. Of course we cannot possibly treat this as fact and include it in the article now, but if it is true then we should consider including an image of the power car. SK2242 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Once there is confirmation from reliable sources, then we can consider a change of image in the infobox, especially if the power car is deemed a write-off. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a picture of 43140 in ScotRail colours available too. Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Of the two images, I think the former is the more appropriate for this article as it depicts it in (approximately) the configuration it would have been at the time of the accident (i.e. attached to a rake of coaches). That it was in a different livery is a minor point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't normally chip in on rail issues, but I prefer the current image showing an actual Inter7City set in Scotland. Anyway, it's a trivial issue considering the loss of life.Tammbeck^talk 16:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense to use the Inverkeithing picture. It might be the wrong power car but it is a ScotRail train in the correct livery. But in case it will be useful, I've uploaded a crop of my Taunton picture to show 43140 on its own. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've heard from pretty much everywhere (unfortunately nowhere that counts as a verifiable source) that the 2 powercars are 43140 and 43030, with 140 leading. So yes, I think it's a good idea if the image is eventually replaced if the replacement is good enough. MJ9674 (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Rail issue 912 verifies 43140 and 43030 were the powercars involved. We now need to discuss which image to use. My preference is for "Taunton - Abellio ScotRail 43140.JPG". Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Passenger death

Opening section states "The accident was the first in the United Kingdom in which a passenger was killed since 2007". However a passenger who had just left a train was killed at Liverpool James Street station on 22nd October 2011. With the greatest respect to those involved I'm not wishing to start a discussion on what counts as a passenger death, just suggesting wording needs to be tightened for accuracy (e.g. passenger on a train?) or 2011 date given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@2ghoti: the RAIB report makes it clear that at the time of the accident, she was not a passenger, but a pedestrian on the platform. She was also intoxicated. Therefore the article is accurate, with the clarification given re the Croydon tram crash. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That said, I've tweaked the lede. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

I've done too much on this article to assess it now, but I think its at B class. Is there an uninvolved editor willing to review the assessment for this article? Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Rail magazine

The text:

An opinion piece in Rail magazine criticised the Scottish Sun and other sections of the press for their poor journalism, particularly their grasp of the technicalities of railway operations. BBC Radio 4s Today programme, BBC Scotland and Channel 4 were all criticised. Rail editor Nigel Harris praised Gwyn Topham of The Guardian for coverage that was "timely, measured, accurate and of appropriate tone".

was removed with the edit summary "remove POV reporting of media organisations opinions of one another". It seems legitimate and neutral to me; should it be restored? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: - I've restored it. Even if it is POV, it is balanced POV as it is also pointed out where part of the media reported well and was praised for such reporting. Rail wasn't the only place there was criticism reported. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Key point is that it is an opinion piece. Rather than a straight reporting of the facts, it the opinion of one person in an editorial. Much like quoting from the news section of The Telegraph is fine, but not from the editorial section. Sure, there were probably errors or less-informed comments made in the main-stream media, as there are often in the reporting of evolving incidents, but it is of very little relevance to the incident itself.

Bit rich for a magazine editor to be preaching over poor journalism when the publication he oversees also gets things wrong from time to time and does have a reputation for pushing agendas. Obviously @Mjroots: you hold the editor in high regard as you congratulated him on his Twitter feed, which is fine, but perhaps your objectivity is a bit compromised. Putteyman (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Putteyman: I don't think I am biased towards Harris, but respect that you may think I am. As I said above, there was much criticism of various areas of the press re its reporting of the disaster. The Sun was about the worst of it, but it was not alone. Much of the criticism is not reportable in the article as the sources a not useable on Wikipedia. Rail magazine is useable. The criticism is clearly identified as an opinion piece and its author is identified (RSEDITORIAL first bullet point). As I said above, it is balanced by showing both criticism and praise. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy Rail often, but did in this case; and I did read that editorial at the time, with interest. On railway matters, I would trust the opinion of Harris over any of the others, BBC included. So, Keep. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

References