Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quintinshill rail disaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Trains: in UK B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scotland B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject Scotland|class=B|importance=Mid|transport=yes|transport-importance=}}
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 22, 2006, May 22, 2007, and May 22, 2008. |
2005 Comments
What is Quintinshiil named for?
- a farm?
- a village?
- a creek?
Is it also near Lockerbie?
Tabletop 09:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is near Lockerbie, just outside Gretna.
- The railway company escaped responsibility for the following reasons;
- The shortage of skilled men caused by the war.
- The train was under military control so the carriages were locked.
- The carriages were wooden, gas lit compartment stock; a programme to withdraw all this stock and replace it with steel electrically lit corridor stock was delayed, again by the war.
- Britmax 12:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The railway company was not blamed either for the use of old stock (it was wartime) or for the accident itself (adequate safeguards existed and were ignored), John Thomas cites 9 seperate breaches of rules in the 30 minute period between Tinsley entering the signal box and the accident occuring. I have not seen previous mention of the troop train doors being locked, this would need a reference. Nor was the train under military control as far as its working was concerned, although undoubtedly the soldiers were under military discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Short deliberation of 8 minutes.
Eight minutes is not a long time for a jury to deliberate. Does this include the time that it took the jury to go to and from the jury room?
Abraham Lincoln was prosecuting attorney in one trial where the jury didn't even leave their seats in the court room!!
Tabletop 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to James Tinsley and George Meakin
What happened to James Tinsley and George Meakin after they were released ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrTAToad (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Mrrash (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
James Tinsley was given a job as lampman at Carlisle station and eventually died in 1961. George Meakin became a coal merchant (both from John Thomas's book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Altered James Tinsley's death as per death certificate GC Jack 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar accidents
"The Hawes Junction rail crash of 1910 also involved a busy signalman forgetting about a train on the main line, but because the signalman there was extremely busy and fully focused on his job, his momentary lapse was more excusable."
Using the phrase "more excusable" seems to make a judgment that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedic setting.
12.104.244.6 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Small error in diagram
The empty coal train in the loop should have a point where the engine is. Tabletop (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Two slight errors and one major error on animated diagram
The animated diagram shows the local train crossing over to the up main line via a set of facing points. There was no facing crossover at Quintinshill - the local pulled ahead of the trailing points shown in the diagram on the down fast line, then reversed over the trailing crossover so that it was occupying the up fast line where it was hit by the troop train. The other slight error is that there was almost a minute between the troop train hitting the local, and the late-running express colliding into the wreckage. Mrrash (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Tevildo (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Another quibble is that the trailing crossover between the Up and Down main lines is probably directly opposite the signalbox for better supervision. Tabletop (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A major error in the diagram: according to it, the second collision was caused by the 05:50 Express ex-Carlisle. However, based on the Board of Trade enquiry document, it is clear that that train passed the site at 06:39 before the first crash and it was the second express (06:05 ex Carlisle) that crashed into the wreckage of the first crash. See page 14 (actually 10th page of the enquiry PDF) and the following pages, containing the testimonies of David Wallace, George Hutchinson, Douglas Dobie Graham and Andrew Johnstone.K72571 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Dispute over number of fatalities
There is some doubt over the exact number of fatalities caused by the Quintinshill accident. Author JAB Hamilton in his 1969 publication "Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster" says that Lt Col Druitt's report gives the figure as 227, but he compiled the report very quickly and gave the number of troops killed as 215 which was later revised downwards by the Battalion to 214. I quote "The correct number is given in both the Regimental and the Battalion Histories - 3 officers, 29 NCOs and 182 men - and is also the total of the names which appear on the memorial in the Rosebank Cemetary. I can vouch for this last, because I counted them." (page 76 Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster JAB Hamilton George Allen and Unwin Ltd 1969). This is good evidence that the official report is inaccurate on this matter which is why I submitted the change to the article. Would anyone object if I put it back to 226 again? Mrrash (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the accurate figure, we should use it, although I think mentioning the discrepancy in the official report might be a good idea, as that's what people will refer to (OK, that's what _I_ referred to) as a definitive source if we don't. Tevildo (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
DoneMrrash (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Removal of sentence concerning censorship
I have removed the section concerning censorship. The accident was very well reported at the time, with the The Times having a second leader ("An Unexpected Sorrow") [From Thomas]
John Thomas has a page full of facsimiles of press reports from that time. Additionally the Illustrated London News covered the accident in some detail...
See here: http://www.iln.org.uk/iln_years/year/1915.htm
The precise military casualties were not accurately reported due to the loss of the battalion muster roll in the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.192 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Alleged callous treatment of survivors
I have not seen previously any suggestion that the surviviors were stoned, also it is reported in John Thomas's book a) that the survivors marched in good order to the barracks from the station, and b) that all the men and one of the officers were relieved of further duties, leaving only the CO and 6 officers to continue to Gallipoli. Serious allegations are made here, and if they cannot at least be given supporting references they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk)
I have added the sources for this incident. Mrrash (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hugh Urquhart
I have been looking into the Quintinshill Rail Crash.
Despite quite extensive research I have failed to find any reference to Hugh Urquhart in the Board of Trade Inquiry report or newspaper coverage.
Can you advise me of the sources for Mr. Urquhart's involvement please?
There is also another point to make regarding the late shift changeover. The arrangement between the two signalmen applied whether the local train stopped at Gretna or not. Normally James Tinsley would walk to the signal box. Occasionally the local would be stopped at Quintinshill and the signalman at Gretna would be advised to tell Tinsley —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
GC Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have asked a contributor to produce a source for a statement on this page concerning a Mr. Hugh Urquhart.
I have in my possession details of the Board of Trade Report and Inquiry into this accident. I can find no trace of any evidence given by Mr. Urquhart.
If the source cannot be identified should this reference be taken down? (GC Jack 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
GC Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Uncited and contraversial text
I have removed the following text from the article as uncited. If a reliable verifiable source can be found to support the statements then it can reinserted, but as it makes suggestions about the cause of the disaster not recognised by any of the official reports or court proceedings following the accident it should not currently remain in the article.
Removed text
|
---|
. . .the most controversial evidence was that of Hugh Urquhart, the out-door engineering chief of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, which exercised powers over the last eight miles of shared track from Gretna Junction to Carlisle. Urquhart reminded the inquiry that at certain times of the day this was one of the busiest stretches of double-line railway in Britain. While not condoning the short-cuts and fatal mistakes made by the signalmen Meakin and Tinsley, he said he was concerned that they should not be made scapegoats for errors made by higher-ranking officials. He claimed that the real cause of the bad practices was the fact that the last two express trains from Euston – the 11.45 to Aberdeen and the 12 midnight to Glasgow – were chronically bad time-keepers. This resulted in very unorthodox shunting procedures around Quintinshill.
|
That the two expresses were running late is mentioned in Lt Col Druitt's official report neither he nor the subsequent coroner's inquiry list this as a contributory factor to the accident. Neither (as stated in the sections above) is there any record of Hugh Urquhart having given evidence at either inquiry. NtheP (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Article rewrite of Jan 2012
This article has been re-written extensively including removing referenced information (e.g. treatment of survivors) apparently without discussion on this page about any glaring errors, poor English or resolved disputes requiring a re-write. The article was fairly stable for over a year. Apart from personal preferences what is re reason for the re-write and the deletion of relevant referenced information? Should it be reverted until any disputes are first raised and then resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I rewrote this because it was badly laid out with some information being repeated several times as sections had been added; with sections not running in chronological order e.g. the modern memorials; a lot of uncited material e.g. the Urquhart involvement and a lot of missing information about the subsequent legal investigations e.g. why did the criminal trial take place in Sctoland rather than England. About the only cited material I removed was the bit about the treatment of survivors because I couldn't locate the cite either in the newspaper or Hamilton's book. If you have Hamilton's book and can supply a more specific reference e.g. page number then I've no objection to it being in there but as no other source mentioned this incident I ddin't feel it was right to have it in without the reference being verified. NtheP (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This page needed re-writing.It had been added to a jumbled way and had become cumbersome. I had discussion with the editor and the reference to Urquhart had to come out.
Hamilton on page 74 of his book describes the plight of the survivors. However, there is a problem with Hamilton's book in that it contains no verification for the story. It may well be that it was carried in the Liverpool local papers can you verify that so it can be checked please?
Gordon Routeledge's book, "The Sorrows of Quintinshill" carries details of Meakin's later career in the Munitions Factory near Gretna. It was personally verified to Routledge by his mother who worked with Meakin there.GC Jack 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)86.183.30.98 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Catchpoints ?
Would the refuge loops have catchpoints at each end? Tabletop (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- They are shown in File:Quintinshill rail crash.svg which is based on the diagram in
- Nock, O.S.; Cooper, B.K. (1992) [1966]. Historic Railway Disasters (4th ed.). London: Book Club Associates. p. 91. CN 6843.
- but I don't really see the relevance - the troop train was on the up main, where it collided with the down local which had been shunted onto the up main to give a clear road for the down Glasgow express. If the up coal empties had somehow escaped from the up loop, or the down goods escaped from the down loop, catchpoints would be a factor, but those trains were both stationary. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The loops had head and tail shunts, not catch points. The loop on the up main line had an extra storage siding for broken down wagons, which were a real problem for railways of that period - interestingly the signalmen at Quintinshill did use the lever collars to remind them of such wagons in this siding.
On the day of the accident the welsh empty train used the up loop but as it was too long, it had to be shunted into the head shunt and then back into the tail.
Catch points were usually located towards the lower end of an incline to divert runaways. Trap points are used at the end of loops in many cases to prevent an overrun into the mainline. At Quintinshill the head shunt would serve as that in an emergency. GC Jack 11:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
Should the death toll be 230?
Looking through the stats on this crash it is clear that the death toll of 226 may not be accurate. Recently there has been a memorial to the four unidentified children found in the wreckage. Verified in the book by J. Thomas. They are not counted into the 226 deaths.
GC Jack 17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
- It's a moot point as the number of troops who died has never been accurately established so the overall death total is always going to be an approximation. NtheP (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but the page does state a probable 226, which is made up 214 names on the memorial, 9 civilians and 3 railwaymen. The children have never been included. GC Jack 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- B-Class rail transport articles
- Mid-importance rail transport articles
- B-Class UK Railways articles
- High-importance UK Railways articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- B-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2008)