# Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident

Dr Sludge left the following on my talk page. I would prefer to move the discussion here.
Hi there, you just altered an edit I made over the driver's actions. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this. 
There are two fundamental issues that need to be hammered home about this SPAD;
1) In order to prevent the train stopping after an AWS brake demand, the driver released the brakes by isolating the AWS. (WCR traincrew had a history of performing this dangerous and forbidden procedure). 
2) Isolating the AWS ALSO isolates the TPWS (because they share a master control unit)
Ok so you've altered He overrode the AWS brake demand   to  He isolated the AWS using the isolating cocks used for maintenance. 
I can see your point, you've taken the literal path but it doesn't explain to the reader why.
What I suggest incorporates both ...He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock
Will we be able to reach agreement/compromise on this ? Cheers, Dr Sludge (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course we can reach a compromise. How would "He released the brakes by isolating the AWS and TPWS, using the isolating cocks used for maintenance" sound? Op47 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer we stick to what he did, and explain the effect that the action had, per the RAIB report. Something like "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. With the cock open, both AWS and TPWS commanded brake applications were rendered ineffective". Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I like that. With a small trim it could be even more more succinct.. "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. With the cock open, both AWS and TPWS brake demands were rendered ineffective". Dr Sludge (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
We need to be careful here. We can all understand each other because we are technical minded. We need to make this understandable to non technical people. I would like to make clear that the control used is not a control for the driver's use. Also, the use of open and close is confusing because I would expect the valve to be closed so that air cannot move to/from the AWS. Perhap: "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes, which is usually done for maintenance. The driver is explicitly prohibited from using the isolator by the rulebook. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." I know it is not as punchy as you may wish, but the reader is likely not to understand the implications without the explanation. Op47 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The driver is not prohibited from using the isolating cock - it's there principally for HIS use. (I've done it myself). All safety systems have overrides because sometimes they fail (hopefully right-side). In order to get the train moving you have to isolate the system, but usually this carries some penalty (like running at reduced speed or detraining the passengers). But you can only isolate in accordance with the rulebook, and certainly not just when you feel like it to save time !! The driver contravened Module S7 Section 5.1 by not allowing the train to stop, and then calling the signaller. He also contravened Module S7 Section 6.3 by isolating the TPWS.
Notwithstanding that, and in the interests of finding a solution I'm happy to go with your suggestion if we lose the maintenance clause and tweak the rulebook reference. Ie, "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock in contravention of the rulebook. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." ' Are we any closer to getting there ? Dr Sludge (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
It's already stated that an AWS brake application requires that the train is brought to a halt and the signalman contacted. Let's not over complicate things. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Operating the stopcock: Any chance of finding a WP:RS discussing anything on the following lines?

It's my impression on balance tht the isolator was probably operated by the fireman not the driver.  As I recall there are hints in WCRC's safety history generally, suggesting tht this has been the story in the past, sometimes at least: perhaps somewhere in the RAIB Report on this incident too, I'm not sure.  More specifically
•  the fireman can do it - but it's the driver tht is responsible / accountable if it's done.  That alone suggests the fireman is a slightly more likely culprit.  And
•  safety - where the drawbacks lie - is much more front-&-centre for the driver than for fireman: whereas
•  the reason for doing it is basically timekeeping: which is front-&-centre for the fireman.  More specifically,
•  unsuccessful timekeeping is much more likely to give a fireman peer-pressure problems / canteen-culture grief.  S/he is at risk of comments about skill / ability to keep the fire burning well and keep steam up - and/or simply whether s/he has the stamina / inclination to shovel enough fuel.
I'm seeing this as a safety and cultural issue specific to heritage traction.  Any thoughts? Dr Sludge?  If so it would be well worth a sentence citing a good source.
- SquisherDa (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

SquisherDa as I pointed out earlier, your edits have introduced errors in the referencing. Steam Railway Rail said nothing about the scale being logarithmic. That info was in Rail Steam Railway, as it was correctly referenced in the original text. Please do not rewrite article in such a way that errors such as this are introduced. This is a Good Article, I want it to stay that way. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Error in original corrected. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, for clarifying detail: gocha.  We're on the same side, re WP:GA!  I'll get on this ASAP: hopefully later today.  –  17:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
How's that?  I'm puzzled tht U said I introduced errors into the referencing.  As I read it, the then text had no reference at all for the log-scale sentence?  I would have been sure to fix that, but had no access to the sources.  Do U owe me an apology, or have I missed something?
And, more important: is everything OK now?  (The sentence re the Uphill Junction SPAD is unreferenced, but the reader can probably be expected to assume the following sentence's source supports both.)  – SquisherDa (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't owe you an apology. The first three sentences were all referenced to Steam Railway issue 440. AFAIK, there is no unreferenced text anywere, it is not necessary to reference each and every sentence. A single reference may cover a whole paragraph. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, well . . maybe it's not necessary to reference each and every sentence - in fact obviously it isn't always appropriate.  But the reader is sometimes then left guessing: guessing unsuccessfully in my case.  It literally didn't occur to me with this one tht the reference for the detail of earlier severe SPADs was intended to include the preceding very theoretical point about log scales.
Referencing by paragraphs could perhaps be seen as a desirable 'short cut' but best thought about with some care?
Meanwhile, if I understand aright the current position is tht I've referenced the log-scale sentence to the wrong article of the two?  I'll fix it in a bit unless directed otherwise.      done 
- SquisherDa (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Isolating cock is a specific railway term (also in other languages), which may not be subsumed under stopcock.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Murgatroyd49: I mean the concept of isolating cock (Q123146119) as marked in the technical diagram.--U. M. Owen (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I know what an isolating cock is, it is not a railway specific term, I have one on my central heating boiler. There is no article about it on Wikipedia and even if there  was MS:OVERLINK applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murgatroyd49 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: A railway air brake has 3 regulator levers and the lever for the isolating cock is therefore crucial to millions of rail cars and locomotives worldwide. I'm sorry that the English language uses a generic term for this.
An isolating cock is not like any generic stopcock; it fulfills a specific function. A railway publication wouldn't use the word stopcock when there is technical term since > 100 years. Hence I don't see the overlinking issue with this (Note: Edited my statement).--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no article to link to. Your other redlinks are pointless, there is nothing special about plastic ties and the BR rule book has no article either. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no article to link to. Redlinks are necessary or sometimes even beneficial.--U. M. Owen (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes but unlikely in this case. Try linking to an article about train braking systems and there might be some pont. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Suggestions include Railway air brake and Automatic Warning System. As for what an AWS isolating cock is and does, it's a lever that turns through 90° from fully-closed (the normal position) to fully-open (the isolated position). The term "AWS isolating cock" is mentioned 66 times in the RAIB report, beginning at section 19 - the shorter term "isolating cock" appears a further 16 times, and "cock" on its own eight more times. A photo appears as figure 12 between sections 19 and 20. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)