This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents
- 1 Notability
- 2 Investigations
- 3 How many bans?
- 4 2010 SPAD
- 5 Clarification of train braking
- 6 Cathedrals Express
- 7 Facebook
- 8 Categories
- 9 More sources
- 10 12 July 2014 incident
- 11 7 demands
- 12 What did the driver do?
- 13 Neutrality tag
- 14 Mayflower
- 15 UK or United Kingdom
- 16 Ambiguous date
- 17 Wootton Bassett web update
- 18 What?
- 19 Final report
- 20 Pushing towards GA
- 21 Isolating the AWS
- 22 GA Review
- 23 Category:Disasters in Wiltshire
Notability
I believe that this incident is notable enough have a Wikipedia article because of the suspension of WCRC from operating on the British railway network. AFAIK, this is the first time that an operator has been banned following an incident since the break-up of British Rail. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Where does it deserve mention in other articles though?
- I think it should appear in articles on:
- WCRC
- SPAD
- Wootton Bassett junction
- Modern mainline steam operations in the UK
- Tangmere
- OTOH, I'm less convinced by it appearing in the articles for the SWML, or even the BoB class. Note that the loco identity doesn't appear in the lead of this article, as it wasn't a contributing factor. This would of course change if there turns out to be some technical link as to why the AWS was cancelled, as there had been at Milton. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: - Covered in WCRC and SPAD articles. Wootton Bassett Junction doesn't have an article, but there is Wootton Bassett railway stations which could accommodate a paragraph. There is no "Modern mainline steam operations in the UK" article, nor does Tangmere have an article. As the incident occurred on the South Wales and Great Western main lines, it is covered there, the same as with the class of locomotive involved. Agree that the fact that a steam locomotive was involved is probably immaterial, but it may be a factor due to the way AWS and TPWS were installed. The inquiry will no doubt cover this aspect. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The article actually reads far more like an article on the WCRC suspension than the SPAD. I suggest the SPAD per se fails notability since there appears to be no other page which covers a SPAD incident that didn't result in a subsequent accident. By contrast the arguments for notability above seem more about the suspension than about the SPAD. So it would seem logical to rename the article. Much of the content, like the mention of the 2010 lineside fire incident, seems unconnected to the SPAD, but relevant to the suspension. In that context the content would be primarily the ban, and then as subsections the incidents which led up to the ban, and then the consequences of the ban. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @212.159.44.170: The article at the moment is incomplete because the RAIB are still investigating the incident. Until their report is released, and the details from it are assimilated into the article, it is going to appear that the article is more weighted towards WCRC's suspension. The Bell Busk incident gives important background detail into the way that WCRC conducted their affairs at that time. It is apparent that this has changed since the suspension. I'm not in favour of moving the article, but would consider creating a redirect from a suitable title, such as West Coast Railway suspension by Network Rail, which would help the article to be found by internet search engine. Let me know what you think, no need to ping me as I've got this page watchlisted. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd support such a redirect (although redirects need terse names) - a redirect is useless if no-one will ever navigate through that name. However such a redirect belongs to a section within WCRC, more than the incident that triggered it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Investigations
In the Investigations section we seem to be saying that there are three separate investigations taking place. To a layperson (me) this sounds odd. I assume that actually they are differentiated in scope or by the authorities' differing remits, or something, rather than that it's just insane duplication for a laugh. Might it be possible to have little sentence or two placing this in context, and thus reducing confusion ... for me, at least! :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: There could be more than three, as it's quite likely that WCRC are also holding an internal investigation. RAIB, ORR and the RSSB do have different remit. The most important difference between the three is that reports by the RAIB cannot be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions. Reports produced by other agencies can be. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Uhuh, interesting, @Mjroots:, thanks. Any chance you could please add a brief explainer to the article to satisfy my Profound Inner Cluelessness? Or is it too much detail? Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's necessary at the moment. Rumour is that WCRC may well go under, which might render criminal proceedings a moot point, although there is always the possibility that certain individuals could face charges of "endangering the safety of persons on the railway". Time will tell. For now, let's leave it at three (known) investigations are in progress. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - WCRC also have started an internal investigation. Doubtful that will be released to the public unless there's a whistleblower. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's necessary at the moment. Rumour is that WCRC may well go under, which might render criminal proceedings a moot point, although there is always the possibility that certain individuals could face charges of "endangering the safety of persons on the railway". Time will tell. For now, let's leave it at three (known) investigations are in progress. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Uhuh, interesting, @Mjroots:, thanks. Any chance you could please add a brief explainer to the article to satisfy my Profound Inner Cluelessness? Or is it too much detail? Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
How many bans?
re [1]
Network Rail banned WCRC at the start of the month. It's reported that the Office of Rail and Road is considering a ban. AIUI, these are two different bans (no, I don't understand the legalistic niceties of rail licensing). It's an additional ban that might well happen, but hasn't yet. In which case, this removal as "duplication" was wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: - as I understand it, ORR can allow a TOC/OC to operate while NR bans it, but NR cannot allow a TOC/OC to operate if the ORR has banned them. edited to add Not sure if that's clear, but it would appear that the ORR carries more clout here. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
2010 SPAD
Does anyone have any details of the December 2010 SPAD. I had a look on the RAIB website and found this August 2006 SPAD, the report for which was released in December 2010. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Purley report you refer to was issued in August 2007 - RAIB reports generally take about a year. The "December 2010" date may be referring to this incident of 8 November 2010, or it may be that the December 2010 was when the current method of categorising SPADs was introduced. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further investigation, the 8 November 2010 incident wasn't a SPAD as the signals were clear at the time. I shall make enquiries elsewhere. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: I'd forgotten that one, will add it to the Hastings Line article. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I gather that the December 2010 incident was a SPAD in snow near Weston-super-Mare, which apparently the RAIB decided did not need to be investigated [2]. No RS for this I'm afraid. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm sure they will get around to it. Next edition of Rail is out this week. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: - you were correct. Rail confirmed it. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm sure they will get around to it. Next edition of Rail is out this week. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I gather that the December 2010 incident was a SPAD in snow near Weston-super-Mare, which apparently the RAIB decided did not need to be investigated [2]. No RS for this I'm afraid. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Optimist on the run: I'd forgotten that one, will add it to the Hastings Line article. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further investigation, the 8 November 2010 incident wasn't a SPAD as the signals were clear at the time. I shall make enquiries elsewhere. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarification of train braking
What does 2015_Wootton_Bassett_SPAD_incident#Fallout mean? "Many trains operated by WCRC use vacuum brakes, which means that DB Schenker are unable to operate these charters". Is the problem that WCRC stock is vacuum fitted and DBS have no vacuum fitted locos? (Seems unlikely). Or that the locos chartered are vacuum only and DBS have neither vacuum coaching stock, nor will they charter WCRC's coaches? What is a "WCRC charter" in this context (i.e. the thing that DBS would take over)? Is it a particular train (WCRC loco and stock) or a particular loco (WCRC loco) or just "run some steam", in which case DBS could operate it with their own air-braked stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- AFAIK the last locos built with vacuum brake were Class 50 - these were dual-braked, and I believe that all the preserved examples still are. From Class 56 onwards, all new Diesel locos have been air-brake only, and they've not fitted the vacuum brake to any of these. So a DBS loco with vacuum brake will almost certainly mean a Class 37, unless they hire in a preserved loco. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- DBS have a policy of only operating air braked trains. AFAIK, there is no technical reason why they could not operate vacuum braked trains, but they choose not to. DBS do operate (air braked) steam locomotives. A "WCRC charter" is a train run by WCRC, whether steam or diesel powered.Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Cathedrals Express
The train was running as part of the Cathedrals Express series. Is there any good reason that the name should not appear. Other named trains are mentioned, some even have articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Before anyone complains, the reference sourced from the Facebook page of Steam Railway magazine is only intended to be temporary. Let's be clear, Network Rail are the publisher. As soon as the letter is published on their website, or by a RS on the web or in print, it will be changed. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is supposed to be a copy of the letter, published on Network Rail's website. However, it is not displaying for me. Clicking on the letters "pdf" causes a download. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories
I don't think this page should have been placed in the various "rail accident" categories; although a serious SPAD, no collision or derailment occurred, and it stood out in those categories as the only article I could find where that wasn't the case. In particular "accidents caused by a SPAD" - it was a SPAD, and luckily didn't cause anything else. I've removed these categories from the article. Was inclined to take out "History of Wiltshire" too (is a rail operating incident really a historical event?!), but it seems like a fairly random assortment of articles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLHerne (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Restore the categories. If you insist over this trivial naming issue, then rename the categories, maybe as "incidents". However clearly the categorization is important. Even the RAIB (Who investigate "accidents" according to their name) still see Wootton Bassett, or any SPAD, as within their purview. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- @FLHerne: I agree with Andy Dingley. The RAIB are investigating it in the same way that an accident would be investigated. Are you seriously saying that the driver deliberately ran the red? Given the events subsequent to the SPAD, yes, it is an historical event. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted the removal. Whilst the categories may not be the ideal ones for this accident, they are the nearest appropriate categories. I see no mileage in creating a sub-category which is likely to remain with only one article in it. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: No, I'm saying that the 'rail accidents' categories seem, in practice, to be used for major accidents (i.e. derailments and collisions) rather than operating incidents. When reading through those categories this is literally the only article about a specific event out of 100+ pages in them in which that isn't the case, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is supported by the naming of the 'accidents involving a SPAD' category, which implicitly considers SPADs as distinct from the accidents they contribute to and that are listed. The sane response to an article being (as far as I can find) unique is not to shoehorn it into tangentially-related categories; that just causes confusion.
- I'll admit to disputing the existence of this article at all - surely the fact that it *is* unique in describing a single operating incident is an argument against that - but if it has to be one, please don't force it into unsuitable categories. FLHerne (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @FLHerne: - you are quite at liberty to take the article to AFD, but before you do so, please take the time to read the discussion at WT:UKT if you are not already familiar with it. As for the categorization issue, WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply. I've made a note at the category page defining its scope. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted the removal. Whilst the categories may not be the ideal ones for this accident, they are the nearest appropriate categories. I see no mileage in creating a sub-category which is likely to remain with only one article in it. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @FLHerne: I agree with Andy Dingley. The RAIB are investigating it in the same way that an accident would be investigated. Are you seriously saying that the driver deliberately ran the red? Given the events subsequent to the SPAD, yes, it is an historical event. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
More sources
- Westcott, Richard (11 May 2015). "Minute from disaster: What caused near catastrophe on the railway?". BBC News Online.
—Sladen (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
12 July 2014 incident
The two paragraphs about the 12 July 2014 incident look out of place to me, as they are sitting between two paragraph about the latest incident. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @John of Reading: - I understand your point, but don't know how else to present the information. Barring the last paragraph, the info was presented this way in the sources quoted. As always, improvement and suggestions for improvements are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
7 demands
According to the article, there were 7 demands. Is it known what they were? Op47 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Op47: - see the suspension notice, ref #20. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think #13 was intended. Thankyou. I would like to repeat the 7 demands here. Is that ok? Op47 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- There seems to be a problem with the citations. At the end of the paragraph "Investigations" there is a cite (#12 at the moment) to support the fact WRCC has opened an internal investigation. It actually links to a letter announcing strike action will not affect the Fort Bill to Mallaig excursions. Op47 (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think #13 was intended. Thankyou. I would like to repeat the 7 demands here. Is that ok? Op47 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What did the driver do?
As I understand it, when a train passes a "non clear" signal, there is a warning and the driver presses a button to cancel the warning. If he does not then the train stops. When I first read this article, it seemed like the driver pressed the button after braking had started. In which case, I could not understand why the system would not work normally at the next signal. Looking at the references, it looks like the driver in fact did something else, e.g. disconnect the AWS from the brakes. I would not like to say this in the article without confirmation, because that would be potentially libelous. Can any one confirm what the driver actually did? and state it explicitly. Op47 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is something that we need to wait for the report to be published before we can understand exactly what happened. As I understand it, the location of the equipment and breaking/non-presence of seals on the equipment may well have been contributory factors. Time will tell. For now, all we can do is report what has appeared in the press. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't what happens in practical terms, because of the limits of engineering and the long stopping distance for a fast train.
- There used to be two sorts of signal: home (red) and distant (yellow). Nowadays they're combined into multi-aspect signals, but the point still applies. A distant being "on" does not mean "caution, be careful", it means "the home signal ahead is on and you are probably going to have to stop at it". Because of the weight and speed of a train, the driver has to start this stopping action long in advance of being able to see the home signal – usually by reducing speed to level where their stopping distance is then within the sighting distance. Drivers of fast trains have to act at the distant warning, not later, or else they'll be physically unable to stop in time later.
- In this case, the driver did not do so. They were warned that the distant indication was on, they took action to prevent the automatic system applying the brakes, but they didn't then brake or reduce speed adequately. As a result, when they saw the red home signal on, they couldn't stop in time for it and so they overran it.
- It's most unlikely the driver "disabled the warning system" in response to the distant. That would be bizarre, but mostly just impractical to do (a short time on a moving footplate to do something complicated). What is much more likely is that either they simply acknowledged the distant warning (avoiding automatic braking) but didn't then do the manual braking that was needed to reduce speed adequately in time for the red home signal. Alternatively, the warning system was already non-functional (for some time beforehand) and so didn't enforce braking when needed.
- If you haven't read it already, the RAIB accident report on the Milton rail crash is a good background read for this situation too. That accident article, and even the RAIB report [3], should be included in this article too, as an example of AWS/ATC action and what can go wrong with it. That's also an important article that just needs expansion for WP generally. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
I came to this article because of a "did you know" on the main page. As a neutral editor, I find it hard not to see this article as an attempt to vent frustrations with WCRC (It may not be the intention, but that is how it appears). Wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox. I understand how it may be frustrating to spend ~£2000 on a rail tour with the expectation of being hauled by heritage traction and instead being hauled by a freight locomotive. This is not the place to vent those frustrations. The following can be considered egregious.
- The general tone of the article is sensationalist
- The addition of the incident to categories named accidents
- The misquoted extract from the suspension notice at the head of the ban section is clearly intended to be inflamatory
- The day by day log of one of the affected tour.
- It is as yet unclear what happened.
I have tried to improve the article, but most efforts have be summarily reverted. Op47 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree with any of your points here, except that the detail of the Great Britain VIII coverage does seem excessive. We can say that was "seriously affected", or say that there were many steam -> diesel substitutions, even cite some complaints about it, without having to list every change. The point is that the subsequent tour was affected and there were reactions to those effects, not listing the locos involved.
- I certainly don't see this as sensationalist. Comments within the railtour community may have sometimes taken the line "Nothing happened, so nothing had happened" but RAIB rightly take a very different view of such near-misses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Op47:
- The general tone of the article is sensationalist - Is it? I have striven to remain neutral when writing the article. One difficulty is that I can only report what outside sources report. The magazines used are not known for sensationalism. It is very hard to fully report WCRCs side of the story when they won't talk to the press (unless its to promote their railtours). This is one of the issues that was raised following the incidents at Bell Busk and Wootton Bassett.
- The addition of the incident to categories named accidents - This has been discussed above. It's not ideal, but it is the best we can do. WP:SMALLCAT applies.
- The misquoted extract from the suspension notice at the head of the ban section is clearly intended to be inflamatory - It is neither misquoted, nor intended to be inflammatory. It is an accurate quote from NR. It
could behas now been qualified by adding the date, as NR do not now hold the opinion that they expressed in April. I object to being accused of misquoting when there is no such misquote presented. - The day by day log of one of the affected tour. - It was an eight day tour, which is better presented in its current format rather than a blanket small paragraph. This railtour was one of many that were affected by the ban. I chose not to detail each and every tour that was affected, but as this was the biggest, thought it would illustrate the problems that the ban caused for railtour organisers, who rely on WCRC to operate the trains.
- It is as yet unclear what happened - I agree totally, and will probably remain so for many months yet. Until the RAIB release their final report and we can fully analyze what did and didn't happen, we'll have to accept the situation as is.
- As for your last statement, some have, some haven't. This is normal, the process is WP:BRD. You boldly made some edits, I reverted some of them (not all). If you wish to object to any revert, we discuss the issue here, on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Op47:
- Sorry, I am not happy with the way this subject has been treated. I have to admit the delay is partly because the responses given are rather intimidating and so are the discussions above. As pointed out in the article, WCR may be prosecuted and in effect this matter is sub judice. This article needs to be handled fairly. Remember, the jury at any trial will be people like you and me. Just because something is the truth, it doesn't need to said and certainly does not need to be said in this manner. It is not just this article that is a problem, but WCR and the various lists of accidents. I know you have done your best, but the subject needs some work.
- When I read the article I kept asking myself, what has happened to cause this fuss. It is facts about the incident that is needed. I also compared the article to e.g. Quintinshill, Connington South, Pollokshields East, Ladbrook Grove and Honeybourne 1989. What I see here appears OTT compared to how they are treated (with long standing concensus).
- Adding the article to the lists of accidents looks like an attempt to draw attention. I know you did not mean it that way, that is why I even bothering to discuss it. However, that is how it looks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a railway company. It does not have to take incidents like this seriously, railway companies do.
- The quote: The template says that pull quotes are not encyclopedic. It is more the type of thing that one expects in tabloid newspapes and not here. It is misquoted becacause you have presented it as being the start of the sentence. RT said they believe that .... I know it may not seem different to you, but as I said the matter is sub judice and it is like not saying "Allegedly" when stating something. Also, I read it that RT would not normally use language like that. If you must have the quote, at least put it in the text. I could find nothing like it in any of the other crash articles.
- I find it a little odd that you want to quote the whole ittinery of the tour and yet you wanted me to put the demands in a foot note. The demands are facts about the incident. The itinery comes over as waffle to make WCR seem more heinous. I could find nothing like it in the other articles mentioned and I see no reason to start here.
- I note that it has been written that the ban was a result of the SPAD, when it was WCR's (alleged) attitude.
- As stated above, the criteria for including an incident in a list of accidents is that an accident (crash whatever) actually happened. If you cannot see that this is not an accident then this is why I have to question the neutrality. I note that this incident where: no lives were lost, no injuries occurred and no damage was done is in the template for world crashes in 2015. All of the other incidents involved at least 1 death. I am sorry to sound like a goul, but the criteria for the template seems to be that someone died. I note that none of the other accidents in 2015 made the cut, so why this. The Pollokshields crash does not even have an article and Honeybourne does not even have a mention at all.
- Regarding PRD, as far as I am concerned you were bold, I reverted and now we are discussing. I am sorry to have to get your attention this way. Unfortunately, the article does need toning down a bit. Look forward to talking soon. Op47 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Op47: - I'm sorry that you saw my response as intimidating. It was not meant that way. I am open to discussion over issues. Lets be clear as to why the incident deserves an article. Had the SPAD happened, and WCRC not been suspended, then it might have merited a sentence in the article on Tangmere at most. It is because NR took the unprecedented step of suspending WCRC from operating that the threshold of notability was firmly crossed. It is not an accident in the sense that there was damage, injuries or death, but it is an accident in the sense that it wasn't a deliberately intentional act. Whilst a higher number of deaths gives more weight to the case for notability, a lack of deaths (or injuries / damage) does not necessarily equate to a lack of notability.
- Despite a few grumbles, no challenge has been made via AfD, so it would seem that the case for notability is accepted. We need to accept that the article will remain incomplete until such time that RAIB release their final report. This is typically going to take a year from the event. A similar situation exists at the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash article. There is nothing in the article that has not already been put before the general public elsewhere. As I stated earlier, I am happy to put both sides of the story, but it is a bit hard when one side won't talk. You will note that I have recently expanded the article including WCRCs apology. The SPAD was the catalyst for the ban, but the attitude of WCRC was a major contributory factor in its imposition. The Bell Busk incident well illustrates the (then) underlying attitude, with WCRC not co-operating fully with the relevant authorities. You need to fully read the document at ref #20 to gain a fuller picture. Reading recent reports in the railway press, it would seem that WCRC have changed their attitude in this respect, with new blood coming into the company. This can only be good for all concerned.
- You mention the various lists of accidents. If you think there is something wrong with these lists, WT:TWP is probably the best place to initiate a discussion.
- Re the seven points, if you feel strongly that they should be mentioned in the body of the article, then go ahead. It's not how I'd have done it, but neither way is any better or worse than the other. As for the quote, would the presentation of the quote in the Sloterdijk train collision article be better? I'd prefer to keep it if possible.
- Ideally, I'd like more input from other editors, so that a true consensus can be formed. I'll give TWP and UKT a shout. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think the neutrality tag can be removed. I don't see any POV problem with the article as it stands. What I would do is cut the vastly excessive detail about the effects on the railtour. The whole subsection headed "Great Britain VIII" is superfluous. -- Alarics (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that, there is no need to go into detail about this part as it is not directly relevant to the article, nor is its inclusion necessary for understanding. I would suggest two sentences at maximum on this subject, and certainly not a blow-by-blow account. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- No neutrality issues here for me either. Specifically in relation to the seventh point raised above, I disagree that it is "unclear what happened". The preliminary RAIB report makes it plain what happened: the crew disabled the AWS. A monumentally stupid action which could have resulted in significant loss of life. It is quite different from the other "accidents" mentioned above as here we have deliberately reckless action being taken. If you want real parallels it's necessary to go back as far as Connington South where a signalman moved points under a moving train, or Audenshaw Junction where another signalman mucked about with a lever frame. If this is the incident which leads to the EP valve being taken out of cabs, it needs to be properly documented as has been done here. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- "the crew disabled the AWS."
- Have they said that yet? I've seen "wasn't working", but nothing yet to imply blame for why. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- No neutrality issues here for me either. Specifically in relation to the seventh point raised above, I disagree that it is "unclear what happened". The preliminary RAIB report makes it plain what happened: the crew disabled the AWS. A monumentally stupid action which could have resulted in significant loss of life. It is quite different from the other "accidents" mentioned above as here we have deliberately reckless action being taken. If you want real parallels it's necessary to go back as far as Connington South where a signalman moved points under a moving train, or Audenshaw Junction where another signalman mucked about with a lever frame. If this is the incident which leads to the EP valve being taken out of cabs, it needs to be properly documented as has been done here. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that, there is no need to go into detail about this part as it is not directly relevant to the article, nor is its inclusion necessary for understanding. I would suggest two sentences at maximum on this subject, and certainly not a blow-by-blow account. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think the neutrality tag can be removed. I don't see any POV problem with the article as it stands. What I would do is cut the vastly excessive detail about the effects on the railtour. The whole subsection headed "Great Britain VIII" is superfluous. -- Alarics (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
"Evidence shows that the driver and fireman instead took an action which cancelled the effect of the AWS braking demand after a short period..." Lamberhurst (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Cancelling it is not the same thing as disabling it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, when approaching any signal that is not at "clear", the alarm horn sounds and the driver must press the button within a certain time. If they do not do this, the brakes are applied; but if they do press the button quickly enough, the alarm is silenced, the brakes are not applied and the "sunflower" turns from black to yellow. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- AWS equipment activates the brakes by de-energising the EP valve which causes it to open and release air into the vacuum pipe. To stop that from happening the wheel on top of the valve has to be screwed down. That this was done is confirmed by Network Rail's requests to demonstrate there is in place an effective and secure system of tamper-evident seals for train protection isolator cocks. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dead link, but that's news to me. I hadn't read anything yet that confirmed it had been disabled (not just cancelled) and also that the train crew had done it, rather than it coming off shed with it u/s. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Link now updated. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's how I recall the story as published then. It's still vague and avoids stating that the train crew had disabled any equipment (as opposed to cancelling the warning but not doing any braking). This article should be careful to avoid saying any more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Link now updated. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dead link, but that's news to me. I hadn't read anything yet that confirmed it had been disabled (not just cancelled) and also that the train crew had done it, rather than it coming off shed with it u/s. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- AWS equipment activates the brakes by de-energising the EP valve which causes it to open and release air into the vacuum pipe. To stop that from happening the wheel on top of the valve has to be screwed down. That this was done is confirmed by Network Rail's requests to demonstrate there is in place an effective and secure system of tamper-evident seals for train protection isolator cocks. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, when approaching any signal that is not at "clear", the alarm horn sounds and the driver must press the button within a certain time. If they do not do this, the brakes are applied; but if they do press the button quickly enough, the alarm is silenced, the brakes are not applied and the "sunflower" turns from black to yellow. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mjroots. Your apology was not needed, but gratefully accepted. I see a lot has been written and I will try not to write a wall of text. My apologies in advance if I fail.
- The incident is certainly notable, or at least the suspension of WRC is. It is more a matter of how the article is being handled. For example, the erruption of Eyjafjallajökull is certainly notable, but it hardly a natural disaster on the same scale as e.g. Krakatoa. In the same way, this article does need to exist, but maybe it doesn't have to be linked as far as it does.
- You mention the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash. This is the kind of article that I would expect to see here. In particular, the tone seems more matter of fact, there are no pull quotes. The aftermath is limited to stating that there were groundings, there are no itineries of tours that were affected. It also makes it clear that the cause is unknown and it does not come over as trying to pillory the owners of the helicopter. I know you wern't trying to pillory WCR, but that is how it looks.
- I read the ADA20 document which was #20 tonight. Is that the document that you intended?
- I would still prefer the quote to be kept in the text at this time. If and when it is confirmed that the drive did tamper with the AWS deliberately then that is the time to consider putting it back in.
- I take your point about discussing the lists at TWP. Not tonight though.
- I note most people disagree that this is a neutrality dispute. I am happy to remove the tag, but if it is then I will want to replace it with more specific tags in the article. Hope we are making progress. Op47 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Op47: Thanks for your comments. In light of the comments above by other editors, I will reduce the GBVIII stuff in the next few days. It would seem that we are making progress now. Before you start tagging, maybe you could raise specific concerns here and I'll then be able to consider what can be done to address them. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Think you've got a long way to go before the Wikipedia coverage of this looks anything like neutral to the semi casual observer. This and extensive coverage semi duplicating on other pages gives distinct impression of grinding axe. Maybe unfair but that's how it looks. GBVIII coverage seems utterly pointless. Apart from people who were on it who cares and relevance to incident tangential at best. All needed is a note that due to suspension rail tours were cancelled or heavily disrupted. 188.29.164.153 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Mayflower
Interesting link for the next article, https://www.flickr.com/photos/danwarman1/18789584972/ Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
UK or United Kingdom
In the very first sentence of the Lead, it needs to be made clear that this incident happened in the UK. Currently it says "Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire..." I'm tempted to add "UK" or "United Kingdom", but am not familiar with UK regions, counties, or other territorial authorities and don't know whether one should appear between Wiltshire and UK/United Kingdom. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair point. The country is specified in the next paragraph, but you are quite right that at the beginning we don't really say where it is. I suppose many of have been reading it with rather English eyes and not really seeing this. Also, we're a bit leery about specifying country, probably for a lot of reasons, and to British ears it does sound a bit odd saying Wiltshire, UK or whatever ... it's a bit like saying Boston, MA ... it doesn't sound quite right, to me at least. Having said all that (and I apologize for the waffle) I think that we could specify something .. the thing that makes me least uncomfortable would be to mention England, which I think is quite enough info. UK etc will read oddly. I'll have a go and wait for the torrent of outrage. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ambiguous date
The final paragraph of the incident section reads "The month before, a passenger train overran a signal at Tamworth, Staffordshire". Is this the month before the Wootton Bassett incident, or the December 2010 Uphill Junction incident? I'd read the sentence as being the latter, but it could be interpretted either way. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 10:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wootton Bassett web update
- Rail Accident Investigation Branch (16 October 2015). Dangerous occurrence at Wootton Bassett junction - web site update and supplementary information (PDF) (Report). Gov.uk. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
- Rail Accident Investigation Branch (19 October 2015). "Dangerous occurrence at Wootton Bassett junction, Wiltshire - Update". Gov.uk. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
—Sladen (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Sladen. Will have a read and update the article in the next day or so (unless I get beaten to it). Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What?
In addition the ORR found that the conditions would have been met for revocation of WCRC's safety certificate had been meet, which would have implications for WCRC's European train operator's licence. I doubt this is correct English grammar ("had been meet"???) - but what should it convey? --User:Haraldmmueller 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Haraldmmueller: - did you read the letter? It means that the safety certificate could have been revoked, but wasn't at that point in time. Will tighten the wording to make this clearer, but would appreciate another editor's eyes on the result. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification attempt. No, I did not read "the letter". I still think that "had been meet" (with two e's!) is wrong English, so I changed it to "had been met"; and that the continuation "which would ..." is not possible with a sentence that starts in indicative mode, so I changed that to "which could...". But if I misconstrued either the intention of the sentence or did not correct the grammatical structure, I beg your pardon! --User:Haraldmmueller 07:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Final report
The final report has been published. Lots to absorb but very critical of WCRC and driver. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pushing towards GA
With the court case due sometime this month, and hopefully this time they'll get on with it, the article is approaching completeness. I intend to push for GA, and maybe then FA in the medium term. To this end, any comments on the article as it stands at the moment would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to see an explanation as to why once braking has been applied, it is so important that the train is halted, rather than the option of pressing the cancel button to acknowledge the signal, just a bit late. I would also like to know how the brakes are released in these circumstances. I think you need to take care that implications that are not in the report are not made. For example, the report does not say that not having inspectors makes the crew inadequate. This is particularly important considering the impending prosecution of the Driver and WRCC. I am also slightly curious as to why the fireman has not been prosecuted, I would have thought he would (or should) know not to tamper with the isolating cock. Op47 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The RAIB report is long, but worth the read.
- There are two reasons that the brakes should begin to be applied on the main line: the train needs to stop, or else the AWS wasn't cancelled in time and begins application. This is an error - if it does happen, the train has to come to a stand, then sort it out. A driver shouldn't simply cancel after the application and continue.
- As to the fireman, then were they wrong to operate the isolator cock, or had they been instructed to do so? If so, who carries the blame? They were under pressure not to cause delays. There was also a view developing that because use of the cock was thought of as needed for some depot movements, it could be used similarly on the main line. This sort of operating practice is why WCRC had their licence suspended. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The report does say that not having the traction inspector on the footplate was an inadequacy, amongst other things (two support staff when only one permitted, for example). I think a lot will come out when the court case is heard. Pretty sure it will turn out that fireman was following driver's instructions, even though he should have known that what he was doing was against the rules. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- We have the result of the court case, but don't yet know the details discussed above. This is likely to be available in a couple of weeks time, when the next edition of Rail is published on 6 July. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well from the above comments it seems that the confusion over the fact that the driver IS allowed to operate the isolating cock still hasn't been resolved. I've corrected that now. You may not like it, but I think it's really important that we clear up the misunderstanding. I've added 2 rulebook references for people to look up if they want to know more. Dr Sludge (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dr Sludge: Thanks for the clarification. You state that this document is a pdf, so is it available online? If so, we need urls adding to the refs.
- I intend to expand the article a bit more once the next edition of Rail is published, then we'll push for GA. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well from the above comments it seems that the confusion over the fact that the driver IS allowed to operate the isolating cock still hasn't been resolved. I've corrected that now. You may not like it, but I think it's really important that we clear up the misunderstanding. I've added 2 rulebook references for people to look up if they want to know more. Dr Sludge (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- We have the result of the court case, but don't yet know the details discussed above. This is likely to be available in a couple of weeks time, when the next edition of Rail is published on 6 July. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- The report does say that not having the traction inspector on the footplate was an inadequacy, amongst other things (two support staff when only one permitted, for example). I think a lot will come out when the court case is heard. Pretty sure it will turn out that fireman was following driver's instructions, even though he should have known that what he was doing was against the rules. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Isolating the AWS
Dr Sludge left the following on my talk page. I would prefer to move the discussion here.
Hi there, you just altered an edit I made over the driver's actions. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this.
There are two fundamental issues that need to be hammered home about this SPAD;
1) In order to prevent the train stopping after an AWS brake demand, the driver released the brakes by isolating the AWS. (WCR traincrew had a history of performing this dangerous and forbidden procedure).
2) Isolating the AWS ALSO isolates the TPWS (because they share a master control unit)
Ok so you've altered He overrode the AWS brake demand to He isolated the AWS using the isolating cocks used for maintenance.
I can see your point, you've taken the literal path but it doesn't explain to the reader why.
What I suggest incorporates both ...He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock
Will we be able to reach agreement/compromise on this ? Cheers, Dr Sludge (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course we can reach a compromise. How would "He released the brakes by isolating the AWS and TPWS, using the isolating cocks used for maintenance" sound? Op47 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer we stick to what he did, and explain the effect that the action had, per the RAIB report. Something like "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. With the cock open, both AWS and TPWS commanded brake applications were rendered ineffective". Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- We need to be careful here. We can all understand each other because we are technical minded. We need to make this understandable to non technical people. I would like to make clear that the control used is not a control for the driver's use. Also, the use of open and close is confusing because I would expect the valve to be closed so that air cannot move to/from the AWS. Perhap: "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes, which is usually done for maintenance. The driver is explicitly prohibited from using the isolator by the rulebook. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." I know it is not as punchy as you may wish, but the reader is likely not to understand the implications without the explanation. Op47 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The driver is not prohibited from using the isolating cock - it's there principally for HIS use. (I've done it myself). All safety systems have overrides because sometimes they fail (hopefully right-side). In order to get the train moving you have to isolate the system, but usually this carries some penalty (like running at reduced speed or detraining the passengers). But you can only isolate in accordance with the rulebook, and certainly not just when you feel like it to save time !! The driver contravened Module S7 Section 5.1 by not allowing the train to stop, and then calling the signaller. He also contravened Module S7 Section 6.3 by isolating the TPWS.
- Notwithstanding that, and in the interests of finding a solution I'm happy to go with your suggestion if we lose the maintenance clause and tweak the rulebook reference. Ie, "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock in contravention of the rulebook. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." ' Are we any closer to getting there ? Dr Sludge (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead paragraph should be adjusted. Now it reads:- The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident refers to an incident in the United Kingdom where a steam-hauled charter train passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and subsequently came to a stand across a high speed mainline junction. Another train, that had right of way, had passed through the junction 44 seconds earlier and no collision occurred. The incident occurred near Wootton Bassett Junction, in Wiltshire on 7 March 2015.
- I was looking at WP:GAs about train incidents/collisions (June 2009 Washington Metro train collision, Hatfield rail crash, Eckwersheim derailment) and it seems to me that the date/time/place should be introduced earlier in the lead with more direct language, something along the lines of:
- The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident occurred on 7 March 2015 when a steam-hauled charter train in the United Kingdom passed a signal at danger and subsequently stopped, blocking a high speed mainline track.
- Please understand, this is just an example. Would love to discuss further. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lede rewritten to put date in first sentence, expanded slightly. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nicely-done. I think the change makes the incident and its notability more clear. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lede rewritten to put date in first sentence, expanded slightly. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- The dead link has to be taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah the Wayback Machine - it's great ain't it? Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- The dead link has to be taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool and found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Please see "Timeline" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- The changes make my above concerns moot. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please see "Timeline" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Thank you for fixing the few issues that I found. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
References
Ref #54 is dead: http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/west-coast-railway-court-date-deferred - No matches found. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Marked as a dead link. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Per Criteria 2b the dead link ref will have to either use wayback machine linkage or will need to be completely replaced for the article to pass a GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Timeline
I am finding the through-line of this subject hard to follow, but am not sure if this is because of my unfamiliarity with the subject or not. Will do some more readthroughs to see if I can explain my thoughts on this a little more clearly. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Further thoughts - The article shifts from the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD to the 2015 Sherwood Forester incident to the 2014 previous (lineside fire) incident. As a reader I find the timeline confusing - is this an article about the particular SPAD incident or about WCRC's various operating issues and legal difficulties? I understand wanting to provide background about WCRC's operations but am thinking the content about its other problems could be edited down somewhat. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you for the review and for explaining what you found confusing re the timeline. Have had a little think about this and have made changes.
- I moved the "45231 Sherwood Forester incident and further prohibition" section below the "Fallout" and above the Prosecution section. It has been retitled "Subsequent incident and further ban". I'm not in favour of having the previous incident section above the main incident as I feel that by doing so would take the focus away from the main incident.
- The article is about the incident, but it is also about the consequences of the incident (ban, lifting, further ban, prosecution). This is why the background info is also needed (Company attitude, previous incidents - Bell Busk was not the only incident, but it was the most significant and serves with the main incident to illustrate the underlying causes well). Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Points taken. I agree the other incidents are important to keep in the article, I was just thinking for a reader (particularly one who is unfamiliar with the subject) that the previous order of paragraphs was slightly confusing to the timeline. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Category:Disasters in Wiltshire
Should this really be in this category? Without disputing the importance of the incident, I would have thought for it to be termed a disaster loss of life, injuries or major damage would have had to have happened? Dunarc (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)