![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The tunnel is not east of the city is north north east - or north east for simplicity. Look at this map. You can see the eastern portal just to the right of 3rd Salisbury Sea Scouts and the western portal just to the left of Wordsworth Road. Emergency services are accessing the scene from London road. 10mmsocket ( talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a ref pointing to a 1L57 headcode, but most reports I've seen, and the infobox, specify 1L53. (Oh. And 1F32 vs 1F30, too). Not sure what's up with that. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 01:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
One of the Realtime Trains refs used suggests that 159102 was at least scheduled to be one of the trains involved. Can someone confirm that's the case, so we can use an image such as File:Westbury_railway_station_MMB_38_159102.jpg? MIDI ( talk) 09:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think Geograph:: Salisbury Tunnel Junction © Roy Hughes cc-by-sa/2.0 might be the right location, albeit looking in the opposite direction of the tunnel... MIDI ( talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But in an update on Monday afternoon, British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed this was not the case, and that both trains were travelling in the same direction when one train struck the side of the other, causing it to derail whilst in the tunnel., is that one of the trains was not supposed to be there). In any case, it might be more precise to say the incident happened at the junction, or at least at the north-eastern end of the tunnel. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems I didn't make my point clear at the top of this section, and that's my fault – I was looking for an image to illustrate the general location, rather than discuss the precise location of the incident (looks like no more than 50 metres (160 ft) between junction and tunnel portal). This is, however, largely irrelevant now given we've got photos of the trains involved. As you were... MIDI ( talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Salisbury District Hospital has tweeted that thirteen people were taken to hospital. Four were admitted and one has been discharged. Mjroots ( talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Accordin to the Daily Telegraph (subscription required, which I don't have, but have seen quoted on a forum), there was no collision with an object in the tunnel. This was a rear-end collision in the tunnel. Mjroots ( talk) 14:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The trains were travelling in the same direction on different tracks but collided at a Y-shaped junction approaching the tunnel, with one hitting the side of the other causing it to derail, BTP said.( [1]) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
A carriage was initially thought to have derailed after hitting something, and the second train then crashed into it, but Supt Lisa Garrett, of BTP, told a press conference "there was nothing to suggest" the train had struck an object.
I added this: Graham Braithwaite, a professor of safety and accident investigation at
Cranfield University, said that usually the "fail-safe" system in place across the network means that if signalling goes out - trains are told not to pass. Braithwaite told Sky News, "It's an unusual accident, looking at it at face value."
[1]"
But it was reverted with the edit summary "This is not an article on failsafe systems. Whilst the Prof is doubtless right, it is an inappropriate addition here, not least whilst there is no information on whether failsafe is an issue in this crash." I'm well aware that "This is not an article on failsafe systems", thanks. But I would have thought that an acknowledged expert such as Braithwaite might know what he was talking about. That SkyNews article goes into quite a lot of detail. If there has to be some kind of moratorium on comment here until we have an official interim accident report, so be it. But many RS sources are reporting there was a signalling failure.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Rail editor Nigel Harris has posted an interesting tweet. Said elsewhere he is hopeful that the RAIB will issue a statement this afternoon. Mjroots ( talk) 13:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
References
I see we say of train A, that train B "ran into its rear". That does not seem to be the case; the rear of train A seems mostly unaffected. Train B seems to have had a side-impact with one of the leading coaches of train A, after which the two trains started to zip themselves together. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says: "Railway lines through the tunnel are expected to remain closed until 8 November at the earliest."
The supporting
BBC source says: "The crash has caused major disruption, with lines through the city expected to remain closed until at least the end of Monday." So we are all agreed these two sentences are synonymous? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
14:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The railway remains closed between Salisbury and Basingstoke/Romsey(implying it is open on the other side) and
It is likely that some of the more-damaged train carriages will need to be pulled from the tunnel and lifted away by cranes. We will then have to replace any damaged track, points and signalling [...]... This is also consistent with SWR's post indicating there is single-line working [N.B. this is basically "services as normal", as it is indeed a single-track line; but here of course they are using this to explain the impact of this on pre-existing delays caused by other conditions] between Exeter and Salisbury (implying of course that trains are indeed getting there). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I added the Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal to the article, which DeFacto removed. The fact is, that is how the category is named. The signal was passed at red, i.e. it's instruction was disregarded. Whether or not this was intentional is immaterial. The category should be restored to the article. Mjroots ( talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the diagram in the RAIB investigation report here protected by copyright? The page says: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we have numbers for staff on the two trains involved? Obviously two drivers, but what about guards? Forum chat is that Mark Hopwood of Network Rail has briefed that there were three staff. Not clear whether this is referring to both trains, or one of the trains with one of the three being "on the cushions" (i.e. on duty but travelling as a passenger to Salisbury, where he was to start his next driving turn). Mjroots ( talk) 12:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Please note that the Mail Online is not being used as a reference. The reference for that section is the report in Rail. Mjroots ( talk) 08:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. [...] The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Using the Daily Fail as a primary source link to support "Daily Fail said X" (not as a source to support "X"), when this information is also reported in a secondary source, seems like one of these cases where not interpreting every rule as absolute is more in line with writing a better article - although, of course, if the reason for the inaccuracy is not the Daily Fail's fabrications being picked up, but an inaccurate early official source, then it would make more sense to discuss that instead of discussing the Daily Fail and other [reliable or not] sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the dispute at this time about whether to mention the initial wrong reporting of the story? That's reliably sourced, albeit entirely to Rail. Has this aspect of the story been picked up beyond the enthusiast/trade press? Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Initial reports of the accident, based on a leaked Network Rail log, led to highly inaccurate reporting of the accident in its immediate aftermath. The Evening Standard reported that a derailed locomotive had been left sitting duck for seven minutes after the rear carriage of a train derailed and was then run into by another train after signalling failed. Rail editor Nigel Harris pointed out that the only facts in the story were the location and services involved. The leak led to the MailOnline reporting similarly, with a "senior Network Rail manager" quoted as saying "According to my system, the signalling system was aware seven minutes before impact. It should've automatically stopped the train. It should've automatically set all signals to red. If the driver didn't see the signal, the system should've made the train stop." An initial statement put out by Network Rail also contained incorrect facts. Although it was quickly corrected, Harris said that "the genie was already out of the bottle". The Network Rail log initially reported that the GWR driver had reported hitting an obstruction and derailing. The log was updated seven minutes later to record the collision, which is where the press got their "seven minutes sitting duck" scenario. Harris called for Network Rail (and its to-be successor Great British Railways) to be given responsibility for public statements of national importance. Under the current system, Train Operating Companies, the British Transport Police, and the Office of Rail and Road can all issue statements. [1]
Initial reports of the accident, based on a leaked Network Rail log, led to highly inaccurate reporting of the accident in its immediate aftermath. The Evening Standard reported that a derailed locomotive had been left sitting duck for seven minutes after the rear carriage of a train derailed and was then run into by another train after signalling failed. [a] Rail editor Nigel Harris pointed out that the only facts in the story were the location and services involved. The leak led to the MailOnline reporting similarly, with a "senior Network Rail manager" quoted as saying "According to my system, the signalling system was aware seven minutes before impact. It should've automatically stopped the train. It should've automatically set all signals to red. If the driver didn't see the signal, the system should've made the train stop." [b] An initial statement put out by Network Rail also contained incorrect facts. [c] Although it was quickly corrected, [d] Harris said that "the genie was already out of the bottle". The Network Rail log initially reported that the GWR driver had reported hitting an obstruction and derailing. The log was updated seven minutes later to record the collision, which is where the press got their "seven minutes sitting duck" scenario. Harris called for Network Rail (and its to-be successor Great British Railways) to be given responsibility for public statements of national importance. Under the current system, Train Operating Companies, the British Transport Police, and the Office of Rail and Road can all issue statements. [1]
Do you see the difference that using notes to expand on what is being said makes. Mjroots ( talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
, without any issue. If the issue is that of avoiding having the DM as a source, then the only solution is just to cut it out instead of pretending that changing ref tags to efn is actually meaningful here.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
15:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts; so sourcing "Bad source wrote X" to [Bad Source] - with additional commentary from a more acceptable source, as here, is ok). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Notes
References
The interim report has been published. There's new photos and diagrams that might be worth extracting. Mjroots ( talk) 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Grandtubetrains: it's supposed to be BRD, not BR∞. I'm now invoking the D part.
Re your second removal of text from the "Reporting of the story" (same as first removal) - This was widely reported on in the Rail press at the time, with much criticism. I reject your claim in that edit summary that "it's not entirely neutral". Where the mainstream press was praised by the rail press, then that is given due coverage. Your gutting of the first paragraph means that much context is lost. Mjroots ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The tunnel is not east of the city is north north east - or north east for simplicity. Look at this map. You can see the eastern portal just to the right of 3rd Salisbury Sea Scouts and the western portal just to the left of Wordsworth Road. Emergency services are accessing the scene from London road. 10mmsocket ( talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a ref pointing to a 1L57 headcode, but most reports I've seen, and the infobox, specify 1L53. (Oh. And 1F32 vs 1F30, too). Not sure what's up with that. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 01:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
One of the Realtime Trains refs used suggests that 159102 was at least scheduled to be one of the trains involved. Can someone confirm that's the case, so we can use an image such as File:Westbury_railway_station_MMB_38_159102.jpg? MIDI ( talk) 09:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think Geograph:: Salisbury Tunnel Junction © Roy Hughes cc-by-sa/2.0 might be the right location, albeit looking in the opposite direction of the tunnel... MIDI ( talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
But in an update on Monday afternoon, British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed this was not the case, and that both trains were travelling in the same direction when one train struck the side of the other, causing it to derail whilst in the tunnel., is that one of the trains was not supposed to be there). In any case, it might be more precise to say the incident happened at the junction, or at least at the north-eastern end of the tunnel. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems I didn't make my point clear at the top of this section, and that's my fault – I was looking for an image to illustrate the general location, rather than discuss the precise location of the incident (looks like no more than 50 metres (160 ft) between junction and tunnel portal). This is, however, largely irrelevant now given we've got photos of the trains involved. As you were... MIDI ( talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Salisbury District Hospital has tweeted that thirteen people were taken to hospital. Four were admitted and one has been discharged. Mjroots ( talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Accordin to the Daily Telegraph (subscription required, which I don't have, but have seen quoted on a forum), there was no collision with an object in the tunnel. This was a rear-end collision in the tunnel. Mjroots ( talk) 14:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The trains were travelling in the same direction on different tracks but collided at a Y-shaped junction approaching the tunnel, with one hitting the side of the other causing it to derail, BTP said.( [1]) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
A carriage was initially thought to have derailed after hitting something, and the second train then crashed into it, but Supt Lisa Garrett, of BTP, told a press conference "there was nothing to suggest" the train had struck an object.
I added this: Graham Braithwaite, a professor of safety and accident investigation at
Cranfield University, said that usually the "fail-safe" system in place across the network means that if signalling goes out - trains are told not to pass. Braithwaite told Sky News, "It's an unusual accident, looking at it at face value."
[1]"
But it was reverted with the edit summary "This is not an article on failsafe systems. Whilst the Prof is doubtless right, it is an inappropriate addition here, not least whilst there is no information on whether failsafe is an issue in this crash." I'm well aware that "This is not an article on failsafe systems", thanks. But I would have thought that an acknowledged expert such as Braithwaite might know what he was talking about. That SkyNews article goes into quite a lot of detail. If there has to be some kind of moratorium on comment here until we have an official interim accident report, so be it. But many RS sources are reporting there was a signalling failure.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Rail editor Nigel Harris has posted an interesting tweet. Said elsewhere he is hopeful that the RAIB will issue a statement this afternoon. Mjroots ( talk) 13:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
References
I see we say of train A, that train B "ran into its rear". That does not seem to be the case; the rear of train A seems mostly unaffected. Train B seems to have had a side-impact with one of the leading coaches of train A, after which the two trains started to zip themselves together. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says: "Railway lines through the tunnel are expected to remain closed until 8 November at the earliest."
The supporting
BBC source says: "The crash has caused major disruption, with lines through the city expected to remain closed until at least the end of Monday." So we are all agreed these two sentences are synonymous? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
14:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The railway remains closed between Salisbury and Basingstoke/Romsey(implying it is open on the other side) and
It is likely that some of the more-damaged train carriages will need to be pulled from the tunnel and lifted away by cranes. We will then have to replace any damaged track, points and signalling [...]... This is also consistent with SWR's post indicating there is single-line working [N.B. this is basically "services as normal", as it is indeed a single-track line; but here of course they are using this to explain the impact of this on pre-existing delays caused by other conditions] between Exeter and Salisbury (implying of course that trains are indeed getting there). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I added the Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal to the article, which DeFacto removed. The fact is, that is how the category is named. The signal was passed at red, i.e. it's instruction was disregarded. Whether or not this was intentional is immaterial. The category should be restored to the article. Mjroots ( talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the diagram in the RAIB investigation report here protected by copyright? The page says: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we have numbers for staff on the two trains involved? Obviously two drivers, but what about guards? Forum chat is that Mark Hopwood of Network Rail has briefed that there were three staff. Not clear whether this is referring to both trains, or one of the trains with one of the three being "on the cushions" (i.e. on duty but travelling as a passenger to Salisbury, where he was to start his next driving turn). Mjroots ( talk) 12:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Please note that the Mail Online is not being used as a reference. The reference for that section is the report in Rail. Mjroots ( talk) 08:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. [...] The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Using the Daily Fail as a primary source link to support "Daily Fail said X" (not as a source to support "X"), when this information is also reported in a secondary source, seems like one of these cases where not interpreting every rule as absolute is more in line with writing a better article - although, of course, if the reason for the inaccuracy is not the Daily Fail's fabrications being picked up, but an inaccurate early official source, then it would make more sense to discuss that instead of discussing the Daily Fail and other [reliable or not] sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Is the dispute at this time about whether to mention the initial wrong reporting of the story? That's reliably sourced, albeit entirely to Rail. Has this aspect of the story been picked up beyond the enthusiast/trade press? Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Initial reports of the accident, based on a leaked Network Rail log, led to highly inaccurate reporting of the accident in its immediate aftermath. The Evening Standard reported that a derailed locomotive had been left sitting duck for seven minutes after the rear carriage of a train derailed and was then run into by another train after signalling failed. Rail editor Nigel Harris pointed out that the only facts in the story were the location and services involved. The leak led to the MailOnline reporting similarly, with a "senior Network Rail manager" quoted as saying "According to my system, the signalling system was aware seven minutes before impact. It should've automatically stopped the train. It should've automatically set all signals to red. If the driver didn't see the signal, the system should've made the train stop." An initial statement put out by Network Rail also contained incorrect facts. Although it was quickly corrected, Harris said that "the genie was already out of the bottle". The Network Rail log initially reported that the GWR driver had reported hitting an obstruction and derailing. The log was updated seven minutes later to record the collision, which is where the press got their "seven minutes sitting duck" scenario. Harris called for Network Rail (and its to-be successor Great British Railways) to be given responsibility for public statements of national importance. Under the current system, Train Operating Companies, the British Transport Police, and the Office of Rail and Road can all issue statements. [1]
Initial reports of the accident, based on a leaked Network Rail log, led to highly inaccurate reporting of the accident in its immediate aftermath. The Evening Standard reported that a derailed locomotive had been left sitting duck for seven minutes after the rear carriage of a train derailed and was then run into by another train after signalling failed. [a] Rail editor Nigel Harris pointed out that the only facts in the story were the location and services involved. The leak led to the MailOnline reporting similarly, with a "senior Network Rail manager" quoted as saying "According to my system, the signalling system was aware seven minutes before impact. It should've automatically stopped the train. It should've automatically set all signals to red. If the driver didn't see the signal, the system should've made the train stop." [b] An initial statement put out by Network Rail also contained incorrect facts. [c] Although it was quickly corrected, [d] Harris said that "the genie was already out of the bottle". The Network Rail log initially reported that the GWR driver had reported hitting an obstruction and derailing. The log was updated seven minutes later to record the collision, which is where the press got their "seven minutes sitting duck" scenario. Harris called for Network Rail (and its to-be successor Great British Railways) to be given responsibility for public statements of national importance. Under the current system, Train Operating Companies, the British Transport Police, and the Office of Rail and Road can all issue statements. [1]
Do you see the difference that using notes to expand on what is being said makes. Mjroots ( talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
, without any issue. If the issue is that of avoiding having the DM as a source, then the only solution is just to cut it out instead of pretending that changing ref tags to efn is actually meaningful here.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
15:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts; so sourcing "Bad source wrote X" to [Bad Source] - with additional commentary from a more acceptable source, as here, is ok). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Notes
References
The interim report has been published. There's new photos and diagrams that might be worth extracting. Mjroots ( talk) 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Grandtubetrains: it's supposed to be BRD, not BR∞. I'm now invoking the D part.
Re your second removal of text from the "Reporting of the story" (same as first removal) - This was widely reported on in the Rail press at the time, with much criticism. I reject your claim in that edit summary that "it's not entirely neutral". Where the mainstream press was praised by the rail press, then that is given due coverage. Your gutting of the first paragraph means that much context is lost. Mjroots ( talk) 12:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)