Talk:Selby rail crash

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. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.

It is never known as the Great Heck rail crash so I have renamed to Selby, as the most popular and well-known name for this rail crash. Astrotrain 22:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? It occured at Great Heck, everyone within the railways refers to it as Great Heck - only the tabloid media call it "Selby" because they have know knowledge of the railways at all!

The general public - if they are aware of it at all - will know it as "Selby" although obviously there's no reason a redirect from "Great Heck" couldn't be set up. Nick Cooper 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add another comment here - though a comment late in the day. I've always known of this as the Great Heck rail crash and even the media has referred to it as that, I am sure of it - possibly at least local news. I've also no connections with the rail industry, so can't have got the name from there. 'Selby rail crash' sounds very unfamiliar to me...if anything I've only heard it referred to as the 'Great Heck rail crash near Selby'. Evil Eye (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fatalities anomaly

While the introduction says, "Six passengers and four railway staff were killed," the article states, "The driver of 66521, Stephen Dunn, as well as the GNER driver, John Weddle, was killed; eight passengers also died." Nick Cooper 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVT or not DVT?

The vehicle in the article is described as a DVT. However, it appears to have a pantograpgh. If so, it cannot be a DVT but is an engine and is therefore inaccurate for the article. leaky_caldron 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

on seconds thoughts, probably part of the catenary support structure leaky_caldron 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)