![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of the tunnel in use - 1970s ideal be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Scotland may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Penmanshiel Tunnel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 17, 2019 and March 17, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This tunnel was the site of a fire in 1949. ("MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. RAILWAY ACCIDENT. REPORT ON THE FIRE WHICH OCCURRED IN AN EXPRESS PASSENGER TRAIN ON 23RD. JUNE, 1949, AT PENMANSHIEL TUNNEL IN THE SCOTTISH REGION BRITISH RAILWAYS.") Various websites refer to it, but none provide any accessible detail. (Above details found at http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.h.ellison/nera/khoole/khoolecat/hleracds.htm).
Geograph images, released under CC licence, so can be copied to Commons and used here...
Having had difficulty 'visualising' the old allignment, I found this very helpful http://www.flickr.com/photos/beqi/sets/72157630911909110/detail/ I know these flickr things come and go but as an online reference I think it bears looking at for as long as it exists. Tylexman ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I can not put my hand to the details at present - maybe other can help, however a direct ECML service north of the collapse to Kings Cross was maintained with selected services running from Newcastle to Carlisle and then north up the WMCL to Carstairs and Edinburgh. -- Stewart 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) loco-hauled services too not just 125's.
OK, so there are precise geo-coords for the tunnel, but how about something less precise? I would guess that it is in the Scottish Borders region (is it?) but which county was it in before that? Were there any branch lines nearby, any other settlements?
Partly the reason for asking is to allow addition of categories such as Places of interest in <county>...
EdJogg 13:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I recommend anyone working on this article to read the official report (see External links). It is only about 7 pages long and makes for fascinating reading. While ColourSarge has done a good job of summarising it, there are more geological and construction details that can be extracted into this article to help the reader understand why the collapse occurred.
EdJogg 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Wihout re-opening the issue of the map size, I see that the header information still says "This page needs a map".
ColourSarge did indeed do a good job; my only comment would be that all the references to the HMRI report might be overkill -- they tot up to quite a lot and don't always add authority to your text. If you agree, ColourSarge, you might wish to thin them down a bit.
More geological information in the HMRI report? Yes, a bit, although the report is amazingly thin considering the amount of geological investigation that was done by BR(Sc) after the collapse, and the absence of blame surprised some people at the time.
Does anyone remember the fictional novel about it that was discovered as part of the search for geological background? It contained uncannily accurate factual descriptions of the geology and constructional difficulty, and for a while it looked as if the writer had known all about the state of the rock, and if only he had been consulted the whole collapse could have been avoided. Eventually they tracked him down and interviewed him and -- prepare yourself for an anticlimax -- he just said it was all made up.
Afterbrunel 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the geological information, this isn't really an area which I would be confident summarising - I don't want to plagarise the original report, and at the same time I don't want to paraphrase to the extent where the original meanings are distorted or lost. Anyone with more clue about geology care to have a crack at this?
How do we get rid of the bit where it says this article needs a map? (forgive me, clueless newcomer!)
ColourSarge 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
ColourSarge, you're being too modest. You did the core of a bl**dy good article, and your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
For what it's worth I think much more geological information might only confuse the non-specialist reader -- maybe it's ok as it is.
Also I am a bit uncomfortable that the original Collapse theme has been overwhelemed by lots of other detail. The truth is that this was a boring little tunnel that only had one claim to fame: the 1979 collapse. Personally speaking I would have been happier if the article has stayed that way ... otherwise where does it all end? Princess Diana passed through it by train on (date), etc etc??
Afterbrunel 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Having been offline all day, there are a few comments above I would like to respond to.
EdJogg 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has the makings of a Good Article (GA) wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment and in my opinion is nearly there, but it needs a period of stability and possibly some pictures - I see one has appeared recently. It could also do with an infobox - I've lost the link at present but there is one for UK railway tunnels. The article covers the tunnel from start to finish, but it does not say why it was built - presumably to get the railway line through the Lammermuir Hills rather than going around them.
Plagiarism is a concept that is very important in university life and I'm not suggesting that it is applicable to this article. However, having read the Official Report from start to finish, some of the paragraphs in this article appeared to be direct copy and paste, rather than paraphrases, which is why I referenced them more fully than some people would like. (I'm currently doing my second MSc, so I do have a working knowledge of what is needed).
Have a look at say Bristol Harbour (and the associated talk page) which is a Good Article, or Gunpowder and the level of referencing (and the conflict in the talk pages). Referencing is a requirement of Wikipedia and is need to obtain GA status. Unreferenced articles can be challenged, and removed: I would not like to see it happen to this article.
None of this is intended to be a criticism of any author, it is trying to be an objective statement of where to go to next. I'm trying to get hold of some 1979 railway magazines, but that is an August 2007 task; and when I find the infobox I'll add it, unless someone adds it before me. Of course the article would need to be nominated for GA status. Pyrotec 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
When you say the DYK article is "running" what does that mean? I've had a look on the main page and couldn't see it there - does it mean that it will be on the main page soon? ColourSarge 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at the Huntingdon HMRI report, Penmanshiel is certainly mentioned quite a few times, but the word tunnel does not appear. None of these fires are mentioned in my 1986 Pan Books edition of Red for Danger which is a pity; however, I would like to see confirmation that the tunnel was involved in the train fires. Pyrotec 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Have added links to this page from 1979 in rail transport page for both the initial tunnel collapse and the opening of the diversion (and therefore restoration of through services). ColourSarge 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The article now has its first image - the one of the memorial to the killed railway workers. Is this enough to remove the image needed tag, or does the article need an image of the actual tunnel itself? If so does it have to be of the tunnel when it was open, or would a picture of the disused tunnel be sufficient? ColourSarge 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of the tunnel in use - 1970s ideal be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Scotland may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Penmanshiel Tunnel appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 17, 2019 and March 17, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This tunnel was the site of a fire in 1949. ("MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. RAILWAY ACCIDENT. REPORT ON THE FIRE WHICH OCCURRED IN AN EXPRESS PASSENGER TRAIN ON 23RD. JUNE, 1949, AT PENMANSHIEL TUNNEL IN THE SCOTTISH REGION BRITISH RAILWAYS.") Various websites refer to it, but none provide any accessible detail. (Above details found at http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.h.ellison/nera/khoole/khoolecat/hleracds.htm).
Geograph images, released under CC licence, so can be copied to Commons and used here...
Having had difficulty 'visualising' the old allignment, I found this very helpful http://www.flickr.com/photos/beqi/sets/72157630911909110/detail/ I know these flickr things come and go but as an online reference I think it bears looking at for as long as it exists. Tylexman ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I can not put my hand to the details at present - maybe other can help, however a direct ECML service north of the collapse to Kings Cross was maintained with selected services running from Newcastle to Carlisle and then north up the WMCL to Carstairs and Edinburgh. -- Stewart 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) loco-hauled services too not just 125's.
OK, so there are precise geo-coords for the tunnel, but how about something less precise? I would guess that it is in the Scottish Borders region (is it?) but which county was it in before that? Were there any branch lines nearby, any other settlements?
Partly the reason for asking is to allow addition of categories such as Places of interest in <county>...
EdJogg 13:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I recommend anyone working on this article to read the official report (see External links). It is only about 7 pages long and makes for fascinating reading. While ColourSarge has done a good job of summarising it, there are more geological and construction details that can be extracted into this article to help the reader understand why the collapse occurred.
EdJogg 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Wihout re-opening the issue of the map size, I see that the header information still says "This page needs a map".
ColourSarge did indeed do a good job; my only comment would be that all the references to the HMRI report might be overkill -- they tot up to quite a lot and don't always add authority to your text. If you agree, ColourSarge, you might wish to thin them down a bit.
More geological information in the HMRI report? Yes, a bit, although the report is amazingly thin considering the amount of geological investigation that was done by BR(Sc) after the collapse, and the absence of blame surprised some people at the time.
Does anyone remember the fictional novel about it that was discovered as part of the search for geological background? It contained uncannily accurate factual descriptions of the geology and constructional difficulty, and for a while it looked as if the writer had known all about the state of the rock, and if only he had been consulted the whole collapse could have been avoided. Eventually they tracked him down and interviewed him and -- prepare yourself for an anticlimax -- he just said it was all made up.
Afterbrunel 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the geological information, this isn't really an area which I would be confident summarising - I don't want to plagarise the original report, and at the same time I don't want to paraphrase to the extent where the original meanings are distorted or lost. Anyone with more clue about geology care to have a crack at this?
How do we get rid of the bit where it says this article needs a map? (forgive me, clueless newcomer!)
ColourSarge 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
ColourSarge, you're being too modest. You did the core of a bl**dy good article, and your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
For what it's worth I think much more geological information might only confuse the non-specialist reader -- maybe it's ok as it is.
Also I am a bit uncomfortable that the original Collapse theme has been overwhelemed by lots of other detail. The truth is that this was a boring little tunnel that only had one claim to fame: the 1979 collapse. Personally speaking I would have been happier if the article has stayed that way ... otherwise where does it all end? Princess Diana passed through it by train on (date), etc etc??
Afterbrunel 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Having been offline all day, there are a few comments above I would like to respond to.
EdJogg 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has the makings of a Good Article (GA) wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment and in my opinion is nearly there, but it needs a period of stability and possibly some pictures - I see one has appeared recently. It could also do with an infobox - I've lost the link at present but there is one for UK railway tunnels. The article covers the tunnel from start to finish, but it does not say why it was built - presumably to get the railway line through the Lammermuir Hills rather than going around them.
Plagiarism is a concept that is very important in university life and I'm not suggesting that it is applicable to this article. However, having read the Official Report from start to finish, some of the paragraphs in this article appeared to be direct copy and paste, rather than paraphrases, which is why I referenced them more fully than some people would like. (I'm currently doing my second MSc, so I do have a working knowledge of what is needed).
Have a look at say Bristol Harbour (and the associated talk page) which is a Good Article, or Gunpowder and the level of referencing (and the conflict in the talk pages). Referencing is a requirement of Wikipedia and is need to obtain GA status. Unreferenced articles can be challenged, and removed: I would not like to see it happen to this article.
None of this is intended to be a criticism of any author, it is trying to be an objective statement of where to go to next. I'm trying to get hold of some 1979 railway magazines, but that is an August 2007 task; and when I find the infobox I'll add it, unless someone adds it before me. Of course the article would need to be nominated for GA status. Pyrotec 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
When you say the DYK article is "running" what does that mean? I've had a look on the main page and couldn't see it there - does it mean that it will be on the main page soon? ColourSarge 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at the Huntingdon HMRI report, Penmanshiel is certainly mentioned quite a few times, but the word tunnel does not appear. None of these fires are mentioned in my 1986 Pan Books edition of Red for Danger which is a pity; however, I would like to see confirmation that the tunnel was involved in the train fires. Pyrotec 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Have added links to this page from 1979 in rail transport page for both the initial tunnel collapse and the opening of the diversion (and therefore restoration of through services). ColourSarge 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The article now has its first image - the one of the memorial to the killed railway workers. Is this enough to remove the image needed tag, or does the article need an image of the actual tunnel itself? If so does it have to be of the tunnel when it was open, or would a picture of the disused tunnel be sufficient? ColourSarge 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)