Talk:Falls of Cruachan derailment

Train involved

Unconfirmed rumours are that it was 156 499 involved. Can anyone confirm with a RS please?

I can confirm it was 156499. --93.97.168.109 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would the article be up for deletion? (Question for new member)

93.97.168.109 by confirmation I meant show a link to a source that states the information in question. Such source not a forum, weblog, twitter etc as these are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. The article is up for deletion because an editor nominated it for deletion. You are free to contribute to the discussion and add your reasons for the deletion or retention of the article. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved admin will assess the merits of the article, and the strengths of the arguments for and against deletion and make a decision as to whether or not the article will be kept. This is normal Wikipedia process. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

156 499 confirmed by Rail magazine. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge ?

Merge with 2010 Falls of Cruachan train accident? David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just redirected it, because, barring minor details, there was nothing in it not already covered here (will cross-post this note) MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was not aware that there was another article so thank you for dealing with the redirection. On another note, I fail to see why this article should be deleted. Somebody please clarify this! Macintosher (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oban derailment; the deletion proposal was on the basis of Wikipedia:Notability (events). David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Some cited items were deleted, with the somewhat uninformative edit summary "various". Applying stage one of WP:BRD—the "bold"— with a partial revert. If anyone objects to it: on to stage two.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, sorry, it was moved, not deleted. Apologies all round: I'm up past my bedtime. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

8 August 1946

Re this addition, does anyone have explicit confirmation that this 8 August 1946 derailment was caused by a failure of the Pass of Bander system? I.e that the rocks went through the wires, rather than fell form below or to the side of the screen. This related addition to the signals article does not give me confidence that the word 'evaded' is being used in the sense of passing through the wires, and probably needs clarification. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to The Times of 9 August the first thing the driver saw was the boulder rolling down the hill: the signals could therefore have worked as intended, but not in time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to further clarify that on what I think your source says [1], please correct if it's not right. MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that goes beyond the newspaper report, which doesn't mention the signals at all. It just notes that train was already approaching as the boulder rolled down the hill:

“The 6.5 a.m. train from Oban to Glasgow was running through the Brander Pass when the driver noticed a boulder weighing about a ton coming down the hillside. He applied his brakes to try to stop the train, but he did not manage it before hitting the boulder. An engine and three coaches were derailed. No one was injured.”

The signals could well have functioned as intended on this occasion but, as this isn't specifically stated, I don't think it supports “although the boulder broke the wires activating the signals” in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So we have no actual confirmation from The Times that the signals activated or not, or even if the boulder fell from a place that would have broken the wires or not? (I think we can assume if it weighed a ton it would break the wires). Which comes to my original question, in what sense is the word 'evaded' being used in the info originally added by Hyperman 42. I'm going to ask him if he has anything to add here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The additional data in ther newspaper report above, which I had not seen when writing the original text, clarifies that the screen probably worked as designed but was not effective on this occasion because the train was already approaching, hence the word "evade" in my originl comment would be incorrect. There were however incidents in previous years of boulders actually evading the wire screen by bouncing through or over it (source: John Thomas, The Callander and Oban Railway, pp. 81-83) Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So did it come from above, or was it wired from below, as your latest edit [2] implies? (And it's also troubling if we can only say the signals 'probably' activated, either way). MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For the 1946 derailment I think it is 99% likely that it came from above if the driver actually saw it rolling down. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Coloured light signals

These are mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure to what extent they are in use: I thought RETB was the system. Can anyone enlighten me, so I don't show my ignorance by removing the reference prematurely? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I misread the Scotsman which simply says "entirely separate from the electronic signalling used to control trains on the line". (although to be pedantic, RETB does used lights). Trackmaps show that RETV is in use all the way from Helensburgh to Oban, and specifically, a token exhange on that section should occur at the passing loops at Dalmally and Taynuilt, but not at Loch Awe or Falls of Cruachan, being single tracks. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, acting on the invitation in the section above ("please correct if it's not right") and the implied invitation here, I'm about to remove the two statements I'm having trouble with—I had been waiting for clarification from the source used by Hyperman 42. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mileage origin

According to Scotrail the mileage origin is Crianlarich Junction. Callander, as shown in the article at the moment, isn't referenced. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Scot-rail page does in fact confirm the mileage origin as Callander. Notice the mileage change at "Lower Crianlarich Junction". –Signalhead ^< T > 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's plain now—sorry! Should I put the reference in? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you like. An alternative, and perhaps better, reference for the mileage origin would be the Quail Map book for Scotland. It also gives more precise mileages for the area covered by the stone signals, i.e. between 51m 72ch and 55m 73ch.–Signalhead ^< T > 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

State of stone signals at time of derailment?

The article currently states:

"However, photographs show that the signal immediately behind the derailed train was showing a danger aspect for trains travelling in the up direction (towards Glasgow), whilst the arm for trains in the down direction was in the clear position."

Contrary to the above, the picture on the cover of "The Oban Times" shows both arms of this signal in the clear position behind the derailed train. The photograph was clearly taken a short time after the derailment occurred as passengers from the train are seen sitting and standing around the track. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as rather blatant original research. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to post their theories about the accident, certainly not based on just their interpretations of photographs of the scene. MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did revert you, MMN, but then reverted myself as I see that discussion is taking place here (I should have checked but coffee not kicked in yet). As we've got the Oban Times as a source, perhaps we could mention that too. Signalhead, the derailment happened at night (or at least getting towards dusk), so does the photograph show this? How about working out a proposed wording here and agreeing on it between ourselves? Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way anything can be added of the form 'this photo shows this', let alone to start comparing and contrasting them. That is out and out 100% OR. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And re. your edit summary, "reporting a verifiable fact is not OR", it frankly is if the 'fact' being interpreted from the contents of the photo is not being covered by third parties. The use of the word 'reporting' here is extremely worrisome, and doesn't do anything to dampen my fears that this article is being used for original journalism, and not the building of encyclopoedic record of the incident. This is one of the many reasons why declaring this non-notable news incident was worthy of an article was simply wrong, because if this were truly notable, there would be third party coverage of the type you want to add. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll not push this, When Read About It Belatedly publish their report sometime in the next half-decade maybe they'll expand on the apparent discrepancy in the photos. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Signalhead, I presume you are referring to a printed edition of the newspaper, what is the date of that day's paper? Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, the apparent discrepancy in photographs could be explained by the actual on-site testing which is a routine part of the investigation, but I'm not about to start adding that to an article unless a third party does. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that too re the on-site testing, once it had been mentioned re the original aspect of the signals. Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots: I no longer have access to the printed copy of The Oban Times that I referred to; I read it while visiting my parents at the weekend. It wasn't the latest edition, but the previous one. The photograph shows the accident scene in daylight. Having travelled through the Pass of Brander by train on Friday at the same time of day as when the derailment occurred, I can confirm that it is still light at that time of the evening, this time of year. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The RAIB initial investigation [3] says that "There was no evidence that the condition of the train, signalling system or track contributed to the accident". However, there's no need to speculate, sometime in the next millenia the full report will be released. Edgepedia (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When

Has someone made a mental note to drop by and delete/merge this rather seriously non-notable article in a year or two when it's all forgotten about? There must be about five incidents a month like this in Europe [4]. Shame there isn't an algorithm that just swipes them after a suitable breathing space. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry James, I disagree. This kind of accident is relatively uncommon in the UK, with a very good rail safety record, and as such it should be retained. It was spectacular but fortunately not fatal. Time seems to have proved me correct anyway. Still here in 2018, and I have just corrected a couple of minor points. By all means merge it with something else, if you must, but please do keep the content. Tiger99 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

RAIB Report

The RAIB have released the final report on this accident - it seems the boulder started from just below the fence, and they found several other boulders hidden beneath over-grown vegetation in the area. [5] -- 12:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)