Talk:Grayrigg derailment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grayrigg derailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Carry on updating!

It's a breaking news story, but I'm going soon. I'm a slight newbie to Wikipedia, so you might want to listen to BBC News 24 and quote as appropriate. Please carry on updating! Samuel 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

[edit] Grayrigg to Lambrigg?

Just thinking that maybe the name should be changed to Lambrigg rail crash?

None of the sources we use are calling it what we are, and Lambrigg seems to be where its located with regards to what the BBC and Virgin are saying. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuelhardy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd say leave it a while until it can be assessed as to what the accident is being referred to as. No point moving it a few hours after the incident when its still unclear. Adambro 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - as I write, it's now being called neither Grayrigg or Lambrigg crash but simply "Cumbrian train crash" on the leading UK news outlets, so we can't be sure yet. 82.152.177.252 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Watching BBC News today, the live pictures and reporters on the scene are all described as coming from Grayrigg. I've not heard Lambrigg mentioned at all since last night. Thryduulf 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome on the crash/derailment debate (below), isn't it time this was renamed from "Grayrigg ..." to "Cumbria ..." (or "Cumbrian ..."), since it's now clear this is being known almost exclusively by the name of the larger region rather than the 2 "...rigg" towns? - 82.152.96.20 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cumbria" is not specific enough. Keep calling it Grayrigg. Anthony Appleyard 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments with regards to deciding on a name. Adambro 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the official report puts this issue to bed. It's Grayrigg leaky_caldron 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, otherwise you'd find far more articles on WP with more obscure or less commonly known names than they currently have! The title or terms used in any "official report" does not of itself dictate what an encyclopedic article should be entitled. - 82.152.178.86 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash or derailment

All the major UK news outlets appear to have settled on calling this the "Cumbria(n) rail/train crash/derailment" [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. If this remains the same for the next 12-24 hours (as would seem likely), the article should now be renamed accordingly, since the name "Grayrigg", while more technically correct for the exact location, is not in line with WP naming policy. 91.84.64.16 14:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC say train crash, and not derailment... Lugnuts 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - again, while derailment may be more technically precise, "crash" seems to be the preferred phrase being used in the media (see my cited reference above) - besides which, a crash does not have to involve 2 or more vehicles, as the person who renamed the article states. The OED defines crash as "(of a vehicle) collide violently with an obstacle or another vehicle." - 91.84.64.16 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The most famous crash in recent memory IMO, is the Potters Bar rail crash. This involved a single train being derailed, but is refernced as a crash and not a derailment. Lugnuts 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Cumbria rail crash would be my preferred naming based upon the above comments. Adambro 15:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not entirely sure. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), is important here. The editor who changed it from crash to derailment has also done the same regarding the Potters Bar accident. Adambro 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Greyrigg is a known railway location specific to the WCML. Cumbria could be anywhere over a very large area and several railway lines. I say Greyrigg. NoelWalley 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(<---) derailment is more informative. I did not say that a crash has to involve two vehicles. What "obstacle" did this train crash into? Since when did we worry about what the popular media called things? Andy Mabbett 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that a crash has to involve two vehicles Well, not exactly: (comment from edit summary) (moved Grayrigg rail crash to Grayrigg derailment: "crash" implies one vehicle hitting another) Lugnuts 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we worry about what the popular media called things?

The guidelines seem to make it pretty clear that we should use the common name of an event if there is one. I'd suggest this requires analysing what the media are referring to it as. Adambro 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it's only a minor point, but if I drove my car into a tree, I would call that a crash, despite no other vehicle been involved...! Lugnuts 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hatfield rail crash anyone? No doubt this will be renamed too... Lugnuts 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As Lugnuts has noted, following the comments they made in which they cited Potters Bar rail crash as an example of an article which takes its name from the common name as opposed to what might be a more technically accurate description (As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)), the user who moved this page also moved the Potters Bar article.

I have proposed this be moved back and this can be discussed on the talk page. Adambro 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite appears to be concerned with the uncontroversial naming of "events and activities such as military conflicts and terrorist incidents", such as "bombing " vs "massacre" or "terrorist outrage"; not the accurate naming of events whose name is politically uncontroversial. Andy Mabbett 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The RAIB have now updated their website with a statement that they are investigating "into the derailment of a passenger train at Grayrigg in Cumbria.". IMHO, this is good reasoning for this article to be at its present location (Grayrigg derailment), although I wouldn't object to Grayrigg train derailment as it wasn't the village that derailed. Thryduulf 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that point, and the one made by the original editor that "derailment" is the correct industry term, I believe that the overall principle outlined in the root of the naming conventions section at WP:NAME ("Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.) would seem to indicate that the existing convention of using the term "rail crash" or similar for such articles, which to my knowledge has been consistently and uncontroversially applied throughout all such articles to date until this one, should stand. - HTUK 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not used the phrase "industry term". Kindly do not put words into my mouth. Andy Mabbett 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a conflict between a generic description and a specific description of the type of the incident. "Crash" is commonly used to mean any kind of vehicle accident. The nature of the incident may vary - derailment, collision, etc. Looking at the articles already listed in Category:Railway accidents in the United Kingdom, we seem to use "crash" consistently to mean accidents in general (see e.g. Connington South rail crash, Eltham Well Hall rail crash and Goswick rail crash which were all derailments) rather than to refer to collisions specifically. For the sake of consistency, I suggest that the article should be named Greyrigg rail crash. -- ChrisO 11:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency and accuracy, all derailments should be renamed as such. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the above is to agree what it should be (either crash, accident, derailment, etc) BEFORE a page move is made. Lugnuts 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. The standard now is to use "crash", not "derailment". Andy is proposing a new standard terminology. We should ensure that this article is consistent with the existing terminology - we can then come back later to the issue of whether all the other "rail crash" articles need to be renamed. -- ChrisO 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that this and all other similar articles should be renamed from derailment to crash which covers a wide variety of situations, there is another point - the use of the word accident. Whereas many rail crashes are accidents - several have proven not to be - sabotage, criminality, negligence, are also possible causes. regards, Lynbarn 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse accident with blaimlessness. It may still be an accident even though it was somebody's fault. Except, that is, in those few cases where damage or destruction was the intended outcome. But derailments and collisions are both crashes whether deliberately caused or not. This naming discussion was at first concerned mainly with location (Cumbria or Grayrigg) and I detect that most people are agreed on Grayrigg. NoelWalley 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deciding on a name

It is now a number of days after the accident, is it now appropriate to come to a decision about the naming? We seem to have established that the most technically accurate description of the incident would be a derailment but also that WP:NAME suggests we should use the most common name of an event; "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". The last few words seen particularly important in this instance.

As I've suggested, this requires us to pay some attention to what the media are calling it. Others have also highlighted the approach taken with regards to other rail accident articles as per those listed at. I think Google News is a useful tool for looking at an overall picture of the media. The current name of this article only appears 4 times ("Grayrigg derailment"), "Cumbria rail crash" appears 40 times, and "Cumbria train crash" is found in 146 news articles.

I would suggest based on this, that Cumbria rail crash would be the most appropriate name, considering what the media are calling it but also the approach taken with similar articles in the past. Adambro 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd side with Grayrigg crash/derailment/accident, to stay consistant with the station name (compare Potters Bar, Hatfield, etc) and redirect Cumbria train crash to here. Lugnuts 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wherever its moved, its going to need admin assistance because of the redirects that have been set up. Based on Lugnuts comments, my next suggestion would be Grayrigg rail crash. Adambro 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that being guided by the official report (RAIB Interim) published today makes "Grayrigg derailment" an accurate title that will be referenced in future formal publications (and therefore what people searching wikipedia will most likley search for) leaky_caldron 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the title of the RAIB interim report "puts this issue to bed". The RAIB are not going to use anything other than the most accurate term to describe the incident so it doesn't resolve the issue. I think we are trying to find the common name of the incident which I suggest is what the media are referring to it as. I shan't quote from WP:NAME again as that would be repeating myself but I would suggest it is important. Adambro 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The RAIB are not going to use anything other than the most accurate term to describe the incident - and neither should we. We're writing an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Andy Mabbett 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of that fact Andy. I'm just proposing that as WP:NAME says that "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists", perhaps we shouldn't be using a more specialist term which isn't been widely used in the media as the name of the incident. Adambro 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

now that an official report exists surely it is likely to result in an increased take up of that desciption (which just happens to be the title of this project). Can see no good reason to change it - technically it is correct - and doesn't seem to conflict with WP:NAME in any regard. It cannot be disputed WHERE the event took place or that it was a DERAILMENT. Accident & crash are just not accurate leaky_caldron 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What does 'more accurate' have to do with it? "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" would indicate the common name is preferable to the expert name. In this case I believe the common name is probably 'Cumbria train crash'. It is referred to in the UK media as 'Cumbria train crash' more than any other title anyway;

"One dead in Cumbria train crash" BBC UK

"Faulty track has emerged as the likely cause of the Cumbria train crash" Guardian online

"One dead in Cumbria train crash" Telegraph online

plus more as above. Other variations include "Virgin train crash" Times online, "Cumbria crash" ITV, and the SUN prove diplomatic and use both "Cumbria train derailment" [7] and "Cumbria train crash" [8]. Otherwise the only examples of 'derailment' come from more technical sources such as network rail and RAIB.

Also, when I searched for this article today I first looked for 'virgin train crash' and then 'cumbria rail crash'... 'Grayrigg' and 'derailment' didnt occur to me at first... just my tuppence worth anyway. 81.96.73.176 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it a derailment that lead to a crash? Riedquat 13:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carriages

While the media constantly refers to "carriages", I'm not too happy with the term as the Pendolino is a 9-car EMU and "carriages" usually refers to loco-hauled stock; I'd normally refer to them as "vehicles" or "cars". Description of the leading vehicle as a "carriage" seems particularly jarring. What do others think? -- Arwel (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct terminology in railway parlance is "carriage." --Mjroots 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? A carriage surely lacks power (ie is hauled by a loco), while EMUs (and DMUs) haul themselves. Pickle

In old days on railways there were non-powered carriages and there were engines. What we have now are powered carriages, as is routine on roads as buses, but was impossible on railways in the time of steam because steam engines are so big in proportion to power. Anthony Appleyard 07:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Virgin website refers to the Pendolino stock as composed of "carriages" when asking users to select a carriage for detailed display of seating plan etc. When referring to a particular carriage by its designation, the website uses "Coach C", "Coach D", etc. -- MightyWarrior 13:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but surly people would also talk about "the class 390 being a 9 car set" - ie 9 cars making up a set, as these are EMUs. Virgin occasionally run old fashioned coach stock stock behind a loco where that would be the right terminology. Pickle 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cranes

Anyone like to comment on why they are talking about bringing in lifting equipment by road? What is wrong with using rail mounted cranes and kelbus equipment? Mjroots 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is that the track is too badly damaged for that. I assume they can't repair it until the on-site investigation into the track's role in this incident has been wound up. -- ChrisO 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.115.207 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Or some of the carriages rolled too far away for a rail-mounted crane to reach. Does British Railways still have rail-mounted cranes? Anthony Appleyard 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I must draw attention to the talk page guidelines; talk pages are a place to "discuss changes to its associated article", not a place for general discussion about the article's subject. I feel this discussion falls outside the accepted guidelines for talk page usage. Adambro 08:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are still rail cranes around I feel that this is relevent to the article. On second thoughts, perhaps not, with the overhead electrification making them unusable and therefore irrelevent. Riedquat 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grayrigg derailment 3 times in the same area

The heading, lead paragraph title and template heading - all in the same visual space - spoils the appearance of this article. I see no reason for the template field to be completed and the article's appearance is enhanced without it. I don't see why every field in a template is "required". Surely this depends entirely upon the context of the article and making something look readable can only promote and encourage the project rather than looking like an article prepared in a primary school English class.

leaky_caldron 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the point leaky_caldron is making but don't think it makes it look "like an article prepared in a primary school". Not including the title leaves a random ' character above the box and also makes the article not consistent with others. There must be hundreds or maybe even thousands of info boxes used and most of them include the title. Adambro 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

please forgive my exaggeration. I have reinstated the title due to the random ' but it's a shame that template design does not cater for the overall aesthetic impact. The heading and opening para. title is surely sufficient and to repeat it again, virtually at the same reading level and in a similar font does make it look amateurish. leaky_caldron 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Is there any way to number the footnotes manually? At present, the first three notes in the main article appear in reverse order, which just looks odd. (A consequence of notes 1 and 2 appearing in the infobox).– Tivedshambo (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the refs from the infobox where they are not needed since the same figures are reffed in the main article. TerriersFan 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SNLA?

The Edinburgh Evening News reports that police are investigating a claim from the Scottish National Liberation Army that they were responsible for sabotage on the points that caused this fatal accident [9] - Feebtlas 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the quote is: "Investigators now doubt that sabotage was responsible although police are looking at claims by the Scottish National Liberation Army that they were looking to cause chaos on Anglo-Scottish rail lines in the near future.", which is a non-specific threat made some time in the past. -- MightyWarrior 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Network rail inspection train

I have added a Daily Mirror reference re the fact that Network rail have now admitted that there were not only derailments in the area, but that had footage two days before of the missing stretcher and bolts from the effected points. This is looking like an almighty foul up by Network Rail - and the fact we don't mention calls for a Public Enquiry from the Hatfield relatives when that was for the same reasons looking odd. Rgds, - Trident13 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the edit you made, I can't find any evidence of the inspection being "as a result of another Virgin trains express that had derailed on the same set of points the previous weekend". Is this from the Daily Mirror reference because I can't see where it mentions this. The track inspection train is routine. Adambro 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you read the 2line piece directly below the picture right at the top of the article? --Trident13 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The following section contains some salient points but contains numerous factual errors and is written in tabloid style and is largely non-encyclopaedic, lifted from the lurid DM article. It needs to be redrafted in a more accurate fashion.

For example – it did not “emerge” on the 28 February – it was mentioned in the official report 2 days earlier.

There is no evidence of an earlier Virgin train derailment as postulated in the section - see above comment re text below picture - --Trident13 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The facts about the purpose of the train measurement train and comments from vested interest parties are intentionally sensationalised - Seems like key facts are appearing, much as thought the official report and coroners report will take a while to emerge. However, this does link further to Hatfield, on which I notice you have failed to mention. Can you Cauldron (as a point of clarity) confirm you have no connection with the rail inductry in your next edit, as your voracious editing could suggest otherwise to a neutral. Rgds, --Trident13 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I can indeed confirm, although I feel no obligation to do so, that I am in no way associated with the rail “inductry” or even industry. Apart from travelling 30,000 rail miles per year, I have no vested interest.

What does concern me is the selective use of lurid, sensationalist and frequently inaccurate or heavily biased quotations from dubious published sources with little attempt apparently made to ascertain the actual facts. Incidentally, the name is "leaky caldron" or was that just another accidental typo on your part? leaky_caldron 12:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, in needs a re-write leaky_caldron 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the caption of the photo on the Mirror article, I believe that refers to the accident that is the subject of this article, on Friday evening, not another incident. Regarding Trident13's questioning of leaky_caldron's neutrality, it seems perfectly resonable for leaky_caldron to question the Mirror article as it doesn't seem the most well written, take the title as an example. I don't think we need to know whether leaky_caldron has any connection to the rail industry, merely that they can contribute with a NPOV, and I haven't seen anything which leads me to question that.

On another point of clarity, could I ask that Trident13 add comments after those made by others not in amongst as it makes it harder to follow the discussion. Quote the comments by others in your reply if it helps. Adambro 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions/Consequences

Hey, could they use the Cumbrain Coast Line & Furness Line or Settle and Carlisle Line to dirvet trains sience the derailment?, user:jonjoe

I'm sorry, this isn't a page for talking about the accident, just for discussing improvements or changes to this article. Please see the Talk page guidelines. Adambro 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely consequences of the accident is a reasonable point for inclusion?? I would have expected the Caledonian Sleeper to have not been cancelled, for instance, yet it was at very short notice. That could easily have used the Settle line. 161.73.37.81 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One presumes that the settle route (being unelectrified as well) and the ECML were fully booked for train paths and engineering. Thus a note in the article to explain that north south routes in the UK are operating at capacity, leaving little redundancy would be encyclopedic surly? Pickle 22:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Settle-Carlisle line isn't known for running at anything like "capacity" (though perhaps a route expert will tell me that they designalled it to reduce capacity or something in the past). Though, given the crash, perhaps that changed. And the need for Diesel motive power would indeed explain why the Glasgow (Lowland) Sleeper didn't use the line. The Highland sleeper is diesel hauled for the stretch up at Fort William etc - but that's only after it divides at Edinburgh. Graldensblud 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work and good choice of words ;) Pickle 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Capacity is an issue on the S&C Line today (due to increasing coal traffic), hence there is currently a proposal to install intermediate signals that will divide the sections between signal boxes. The same goes for the Glasgow South Western Line. Note also that electric trains can be, and regularly have been, diesel hauled over the S&C Line during diversions. The article doesn't explain why the S&C Line was not used as a diversionary route, given that electric trains could have been diesel hauled. Signalhead 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with the addition of the diversions that came as a result of the accident. I can't see what is particularly worthy of note about it. I'm also not convinced that the Settle-Carlisle could be described as "the UK's third London-Scotland express route". It doesn't go from London to Scotland and I wouldn't describe it as an express route, but I don't know what the linespeeds are like. Adambro 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It answer the chap above's question in the article while still being encyclopedic. People will want to know what happened as a result of the accident. The inference from the inability to reroute the Scottish sleeper and other services is that there are insufficient train paths. People will be saying there are 3 other ways around the site and IMHO its encyclopedic to explain why trains weren't diverted ie two not electrified, not enough paths, lack of alternative traction, etc. Thus the accident provides the user with a deeper insight into the structural issues at work with "rail transport in Great Britain". Yes it perhaps is wrong to say Settle-Carlisle is mainline (it was built as one), AFAIK its mostly used for freight. Pickle 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes okay. Good points, well made. I do wonder if it could be merged into the Aftermath section somehow though. It just seems to sit away on its own, right at the end. I guess it could be useful to find some references for the content, I'll go and have a search around. Adambro 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

surely unless we know from an official source why S-C was not used then all of the above plausible reasons are pure speculation and therefore not worthy of inclusion? The best that could be said is that Network Rail and TOCs decided against using alternative routes for the majority of the services affected by the line closure. I would not support any reference to capacity, signalling, loading gauge, line speed etc. unless verified by an official source. I also disagree that the article needs to provide insight into the structural issues at work with "rail transport in Great Britain". The article is about the event, not the economic and political issues surrounding public transport in the UK.leaky_caldron 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

having re-read this section it actually makes not much sense. We know that one sleeper service was diverted via Newcastle on the ECML. This was reported daily at the time on the National Rail website. The remark about insufficient paths could only apply to day time services and there would be no point in diverting day time services from Glasgow to Euston via the ECLM because (a) there are already services from Glasgow to KGX (b) full access to London via Edinburgh, but primarily (c) diverted services would be unable to stop at Carlisle, Preston, Crewe, Rugby etc. so what would be the point in diverting down the ECML? Capacity would certainly be a limiting factor, but the practical illogically of doing it is overwhelming anyway. The reference should be removed as it is clearly non sequitur leaky_caldron 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the paragraph in question needs is a reference for there being insufficient ECML paths, if one isn't available then that sentance should be removed. I understand that the S&C was used, along with the Furness Line ([10]), but I note that isn't mentioned in the article, maybe it should be added? Adambro 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

the point I am trying to establish is that regardless of ECML path availability, the WCML services would not routinely have been diverted down the ECML because the WCML stations are on the other side of the country! It therefore follows that the capacity on the ECML is irrelevant in the context of the consequences following on from the Grayrigg (this article) accident and should be removed leaky_caldron 11:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant to refer to all services through this section, Virgin West coast is only one - local services, virgin cross country, and especially freight both coal and intermodal containers (the WCML is the only hi cubed cleared route north south, S&C is W6A, Glasgow SW is W8, ECML is W9 - data from various network rail stuff like current business plans). As the to the "inference" factor, its perhaps not for the editors to highlight this in the article but thats the implicit inference for the reader to conclude/ask. Pickle 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the number of stretcher bars

There is a useful diagram in the RAIB interim report, Figure 2 on page 5. It shows there are three stretcher bars and a lock stretcher bar. To quote directly from the report:

27. Investigation of the lock and stretcher bars in the facing points at Lambrigg crossover showed that one of three stretcher bars was missing, and bolts that secured the lock bar and another stretcher bar were not in place – some of these bolts and the associated nuts and washers were found in the ballast, but others were not. However, the RAIB search of the area has not been completed. There is no evidence that the bolts had been wrenched free. Two of the stretcher bars were fractured; in one case the nature of the fracture surface indicates that it may have been consequential to the derailment. In the other case, the fracture surface indicates that it may have predated the derailment. The latter will be confirmed by further analysis.

Which translates to:

One stretcher bar missing
Bolts securing one stretcher bar and the lock stretcher bar missing
Two of the stretcher bars fractured

So as has been noted, it isn't entirely clear, but I suspect it means that of the three stretcher bars:

One missing
One fractured
One with bolts missing and fractured

Of which one of the fractures could have been as a result of the train derailing over it, the other likely to have been fractured before the train got there. ~~The report doesn't say which of the bars this refers to though so all three stretcher bars could have been in a damaged state before the incident or only two.~~ I'd suggest a rewording but I can't think of how better to explain it. Adambro 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it goes on to say at number 28 that there "no complete stretcher bar in place between the switch rails immediately before the derailment" so all of the bars were damaged prior to whatever damage may have been caused by the train itself. So that means that the one that might have been damaged by the train was the one missing bolts. Adambro 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've spotted at least ten grammatical mistakes in the piece. I'm not going through with a fine toothcomb to reveal them all. Hopefully the intrepid band keeping updates will be a little more... Careful... About how they write their information. It's not rocket science. And if you all know so much about stretcher bars and points, it's about time you started making the same sort of efforts with your grammar. Worley-d 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'll appreciate, some of this article was written quickly in response to fast changing events. It's inevitable that some mistakes will have been made. May I suggest it would be more helpful to correct whatever mistakes you have found rather than merely informing us that there are some and leaving them for us to find. Any assistance you can provide will be very welcome. Thanks. Adambro 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grayrigg/Lambrigg

I've just removed this from the article because I feel it should be discussed further. The following was added:

Grayrigg was the claimed (by the media) site of the accident, although the actual location for the incident was Lambrigg, which has two passing loops named 'Grayrigg Loops'. It is the site of an old level crossing which closed in 1993; this could be seen in some photographs of the rear carriage of the Pendolino unit, as a stub of road.

Looking at a map, I cannot see a settlement called Lambrigg, so I think it makes sense to say it was at Grayrigg, that being the nearest settlement of any real size I can see on the map. This link shows what I believe to be the location of the crash. As can be seen, it is near to an area called Lambrigg Foot, but the nearest village is Grayrigg. To say that the media claimed it was at Grayrigg seems to suggest that the media were attempting to mislead us but I don't think that is true. Adambro 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrayrigg_derailment_4a74.html"

Categories: B-Class rail transport articles | Mid-importance rail transport articles | Railway accidents in the United Kingdom