# Talk:Selby rail crash

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)

Within the industry it is often known, simply, as 'Heck', much as the accident at Hatfield is known simply as 'Hatfield'. I'm impressed Mr Cooper can speak on behalf of all members of the public, but I'd support the article being renamed. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The new issue of RAIL magazine, issue 665, has a feature on the accident and refers to it all the way through as Great Heck - a photo shows the plaque at the commemorative garden thanks the people of Great Heck for help and support so I think the article should be renamed, out of respect if nothing else.
So I propose that the article is renamed Great Heck rail crash (eevn though it wasn't a rail crash as such IMHO, it was a road accident with hideous cosequences). Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Good to see this has moved - agree Great Heck is the correct name for it. 157.203.254.2 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sad to see wikipedia been used like George Orwell predicted to re edit history (1984). If you search Great Heck rail crash it brings up this article but the rest of the news stories around that time will bring up Selby Rail crash. It's obvious that at the time it was called Selby Rail crash and that common (non train enthusiasts) would refer to it as Selby Rail Crash. You can't rename an article and then put a sub clause of 'more commonly referred to as Selby Rail crash' if it was more commonly known as that, then that is what it should be called. Despite how many local folk (Selby or Great Heck) and train enthusiasts say otherwise. Stop re-writing history through wikipedia edits. It was and is called Selby Rail crash, so please put the name back as that title. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.41.16 (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 

The official report refers to Great Heck not Selby - I think it's perfectly acceptable to use Great Heck in the title. Just because the media or public use a name doesn't mean it should be use - if Wikipedia is suppose to be a resource then using the offical term should be encouraged. 157.203.254.1 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Perhaps an interesting addition to the article would be the magnitude of the car driver's insurance claim/payout, which is likely a UK record, or maybe even a world record? I've seen figures ranging from £30M - £50M, so if someone has a good source then consider sticking this info in. (And I wonder how much Mr. Hart pays now? :0) ) EdX20 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to point out that the combined speeds of the two locomotives crashing into each other doesn't change the fact only the fastest moving (at an estimated 88 MPH) is the deciding factor of the amount of damage caused by the collision.
In other words, had the IC 225 hit a stationary Class 66 at 88 MPH the damage would have remained about the same. Only difference here would be if the Class 66 had more mass and after the initial impact energy was dispersed the class 66 would still have energy remaining to cause the extra damage.
It is physically proven that there is no difference between driving two vehicles into each other where each is going 60 MPH and driving one car into another stationary car at 60 MPH. The highest speed of the two bodies is what is the deciding factor. The rest is just the end product of newtons law.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.114.201 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 

You can't say the damaged "would have remained about the same" because you're thinking of the theoretical side of things with two objects colliding without influence on other things, or being influenced by their environment.
I'm not making a comment either way but as soon as dynamics come into it, in the real world, lots of other factors do too. Collision with the OHLE, the exact path following the collision, etc.. It may have seen less deathes had the Class 66 been stationary - the crew may have had chance to leave the loco and try and most to a position of safety, you just don't know. So best not to speculate I think. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe that
It is physically proven that there is no difference between driving two vehicles into each other where each is going 60 MPH and driving one car into another stationary car at 60 MPH.
until a citation is supplied. 86.152.112.92 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The article states that this was the highest speed crash "until the Ladbroke Grove disaster". The Ladbroke Grove crash happened in October 1999, sixteen months *before* Great Heck.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:383A:1900:31BD:A17C:35EE:9A9 (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 

Agreed; I have amended it to read since Ladbroke Grove. The joy of all things (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Zozzie 9t9 changed the long-standing name from Selby rail crash to Great Heck rail crash. This seemed utterly ill-conceived, given that the crash is known almost universally by the former name, regardless of whether it is geographically imprecise. Googling "Great Heck rail crash" returns 6,470 hits, but "Selby rail crash" gives a massively different 147,000! Common Wikipedia practice is to use the most pravelent name, which ""Selby" overwhelmingly is in this case. I have therefore moved the page back. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can use Google hits alone to decide this.  Paddington Rail Crash generates more hits than Ladbroke Grove Rail Crash but the crash was officialy known as Ladbroke Grove in the report.  In this case the report calls it Great Heck. ZoeL (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting it at Great Heck, but noting in the lead that it's also sometimes known as the Selby rail crash. My reasons for Great Heck are that it appears to be the official name of the incident, as used by authorities and railway publications. That being said, I do accept that at the time it seemed to be the Selby crash rather than Great Heck, possibly for reasons of nominal fluency. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
At the time, Ladbroke Grove was often referred to as Paddington by the media. ZoeL (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that it not the case that the incident is, "also sometimes known as the Selby rail crash." "Selby rail crash" is more than 22 times more prevalent than "Great Heck rail crash" and you simply cannot discount such an overwhelming difference in Google hits as you suggest. More to the point, "Great Heck rail crash" is used in isolation (i.e. without also "Selby rail crash" on the same page) in only 4,680 instances, while "Selby rail crash" in isolation returns 145,000 hits. That makes the ratio 31:1. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The number of Google hits does not give notablity.  It should be the quality of these sources.  The Rail Regulator is a very reliable source and the report published calls it Great Heck.  ZoeL (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The official reports refer to Great Heck, occasionally Great Heck near Selby, but never just Selby. Such as here http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/incident-greatheckfinal-optim.pdf
So what if Google generates more hits for the incorrect term? Does that mean we should use it here? I think we should reflect what official reports have called the incident, not the wider media.
Mr Cooper I am disappointed by your attitude here and pandering to the masses - I feel my renaming of the article was entirely justified in line with offical sources. I also think it is disrespectful to the passengers (one of whom had children who went to primary school with me) and railwaymen who died to seemingly change the location of the accident. Remember also that for communities like Great Heck such occurances leave a lasting effect and your attitude seems to disregard the wider picture.
As such I think the article should refer back to 'Great Heck rail crash'. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
How patronising. I didn't realise WP:COMMONNAME could be over-ruled by pedantic enthusiasts industry pedants. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
lol! So pedantic enthusiast? Actually a qualified engineer employed by Network Rail with experience of all sorts of areas within the rail industry.
I have read the Common Name guidance before, but 'Selby rail crah' isn't a common name in the reports I have read in the last ten years. Within the industry the accident is referred to as Great Heck or often just simply 'Heck'. I think stating the exact location isn't pedantic or patronising, but considering the serious nature of subject I think that accuracy is important. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it was more your tone which was patronising - calling on the dead to justify your argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intended as such - but I was trying to show why I think accuracy is needed in the title of the article.
I don't see what the issue of using the actual location in the title of the article is. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"Selby raily crash" is the overwhelmingly most common name by which this incident is known. generally we go for the most common name, not "the most common name in a small subset of the population." Over dinner I asked my wife, "have you heard of the Great Heck rail crash," and she looked blank, but when I said, "what about the Selby rail crash," she knew exactly what I meant. And even she's a bit of a rail geek.
Oh, and how surprising that an anon IP has just reverted one of my edits on a completely unconnected page, and made an utterly facetious "justification" of it in the edit summary. Perhaps someone should read WP:SOCK, as well.... Nick Cooper (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly I don't like the way you're trying to discredit me with the remark about an anon IP address - that's rather underhand. Sadly I had to go to bed after as I was at work at 0400 today.
It may be a geographical thing but people I know, know it as Great Heck - locally the significance of the very local connections of one of the passengers who died may have affected this. My wife, incidently, who isn't a rail geek knew it as Great Heck when asked. However what our wives think or know isn't perhaps the point.
Although some parts of the media, notably the BBC, refer to the Selby rail crash, I think it should remain on here as the Great Heck rail crash but in the opening add also/sometimes known as the Selby rail crash - this now redirects to Great Heck rail crash anyway so people will be able to find it if they only know it as Selby etc..
I agree with Zoe about the need for consistency. For things which are as serious as railway accidents I personally think it would be best to use the title used in the official HMRI, RAIB or Rail Regulator reports. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
"Underhand"? Well, let's look at the evidence:
1) At  14:34 yesterday I reverted some vandalism on Peppa Pig.
2) A t 14:49 I reverted your change of this page's name.
3) At 21:55 IP 86.141.79.152 reverts my vandalism correction on Peppa Pig.
4) At 21:59 IP 86.141.79.152 says on my Talk page: "I have undone your recent edit to Peppa Pig - I am not sure if a middle aged man is qualified to be editing an article like this."
5) At 22:08 I respond with: "Touched a raw nerve with you, did I?"
6) At IP 86.141.79.152 says: "No, it just seems a little creepy that's all. Well, do you have children and watch it with them - if you do then it's much less bad!"
So, IP IP 86.141.79.152 obviously not having to balls to say it "out loud," but clearly suggesting something very unsavoury there. And what a surprise, but IP 86.141.79.152 has in the past edited Great Heck and VolkerRail, just like you.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe this this needs kicking higher up. 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
And now another partially-dormant previously VolkerRail-editing ID turns up. Who would have expected that, eh? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
ZoeL, WP:COMMON clearly states:
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
We have multiple perfectly reliable sources that use "Selby rail crash", and they absolutely dwarf the use of "Great Heck rail crash" in more specialist circles. The above policy is quite clear that the latter gets no extra weight just because some of them may be "official." Nick Cooper (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
But the Ladbroke Grove crash although known officialy as Ladbroke Grove is commonly referred to as Paddington.  Even the media often refer to it as Paddington and most people I talk to that are not involved in the railway would also call it Paddington.  If it is to be decided on by frequency of usage then we need some consistency. ZoeL (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The plaque on the side of 66526 says "Great Heck" - the article will look odd if it says Selby all the way through until the nameplate bit. I used to be on the railway and at the time all called it Heck not Selby - trains weren't going to, through or weren't from Selby in any case. Keep the name as Heck. It wasn't a good time to be involved with the railway in some ways so its good to see an unbiased article on something like this. Grantrail-dave (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a totally spurious argument given that the version of the page before the name change always clearly identified the location as Great Heck, but then the full text on the plaque was only added today, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I told GD about this page yesterday, he (we worked at GrantRail at the same time) gave me the link to the Railway Centre's nameplate page which I, surprisingly, hadn't seen before.
Now that you've added 'widely' to the opening sentence I think it's spot on now. It acknowledges the offical name which appears on the subsequent reports as well as noting the name the media give to allow 'masses' unfamiliar with Yorkshire an idea of where it is. It is now consistent with other accidents, notably Ladbroke Grove as ZoeL highlighted. Best outcome I think! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been placed in the [[Category:Selby]] category. Notwithstanding the discussions above, Great Heck is some 8 miles by road from Selby town; shouldn't this be in [[Category:Selby (district)]]? I'd go ahead and boldly change it, but given the amount of debate above I think it wise to open this for discussion here instead. Tonywalton Talk 02:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why change it? Great Heck is on the ECML and the ECML no longer passes through Selby, I think you've just complicated the issue. All officail railway sources refer to Great Heck and not Selby it was only the media that reffered to Selby. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely that Great Heck and Selby are different places is enough to stay with Great Heck in the title which I notice some busy body has changed already.  157.203.254.1 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm making no reference to the title. I'm referring to the category the article has been placed in. Since none of the comments have made any reference at all to the category I assume that there's no objection to my going ahead and changing this in a bold manner to Selby (district). As for the title of the article itself I am leaving this strictly alone. Tonywalton Talk 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine  - I must have misunderstood and assumed it was connected with title! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is unclear on the direction the Gary Neil Hart's Land Rover was travelling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 

@Redrose64: Thanks for raising WP:CITEVAR. The reason I changed it, and what I tried to express in the edit summary, was that switching to {{rp}} reduced quite a lot of duplication (and some confusion) in the citations, with "HSE 2001", "HSE 2002", "HSC 2002" all being used in the article previously. I personally think that the new format is a lot better, and I've now also included a link to each report in the new citations.
As I've made some major changes to the article recently (and I'm currently in the middle of a change at the moment) I thought I'd make the change and see if there was any objections. Do you have time to raise any concerns on the change here? (This is going to result in a fairly big edit conflict for me to resolve, but I'm obviously happy to go back to the original style if required). FozzieHey (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The article was already using {{sfn}}, which if used correctly, will automatically reduce duplication. For example, if two different paragraphs each have {{sfn|Smith|2024|p=123}}, there will be only one entry in the references. See NBR 224 and 420 Classes for an example of sfn in full action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, do you know the best practice for reducing confusion of similar reports as I mentioned above? I notice in that article there is both "Boddy et al. 1968" and "Boddy et al. 1988", do you think that this could become a bit confusing for the reader? FozzieHey (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
If you click on either one it takes you to the relevant full citation. If you are on desktop, you should also be able to hover over the link to see the relevant full citation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I see, it still seems a bit clunky but I guess that's better than nothing. To be honest it probably confused me a bit more editing than it does reading. Thanks for your help. FozzieHey (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:CITESHORT. A high proportion of WP:TFAs use this method. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

​​This edit has me bemused, changing:

The freight train and the InterCity 225 collided...
to:
The freight train collided with the InterCity 225...
When we say object A collided with object B, there is an implication that A is moving and B is not - or at least not towards A. If one vehicle rear-ends another, or T-bones it, it is clear which is doing the colliding and which is receiving the collision.
There is not that distinction in a head-on, as here. It is inapt to say that the one did the colliding and the other was collided with.
Further, why would we maintain that the freight train, travelling on its tracks at 54 mph, dealt a collision to the Intercity, and that the Intercity, careening out of control off its tracks at 80 - 120 mph, received that collision? 
It is doubly inapt. That they collided is unarguable, falsely claiming either of them "did the colliding" serves no purpose. 
It is a fine point, but clear nonetheless - unless, as is possible, I have missed some compelling reason to specify that it was the freight train that did the colliding? And the InterCity received the collision?
Captainllama (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If it were ships and not trains, the word "collision" has a restricted meaning: both vessels need to be moving for a collision to occur. If one vessel is not moving, the term "allision" is used instead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that gem! I was not aware. Captainllama (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm alright with your change. I think it's technically more precise, as you said, although I doubt many people are reading into it that much. As an aside, I don't think there's a point in reverting an edit for "no improvement", as long as it's not *worse*. Reverting just leads to overly detailed discussions like this when we could have just let the edit stand and been done with it. For what it's worth, I saw the edit myself before it was reverted and thought it was fine. FozzieHey (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49 made this revert, claiming that The Health and Safety Commission and Highways Agency created working groups to investigate the general risks of road vehicle incursions onto railway property. is a better wording (for the lead!) than The Health and Safety Commission and Highways Agency created working groups to investigate the risks of road vehicle incursions onto railways. The source is the HSE report which has an executive summary of "At the request of the Deputy Prime Minister the Health and Safety Commission set up a working group to examine the obstruction of railway lines by road vehicles. The HSC findings have been set out in a report titled Obstruction of the railway by road vehicles." (executive summary) and "carry out comparative assessments of the risks of road vehicles obstructing the railway at specific sites" (recommendations summary). I can't access the other source (HA) at the moment but I'd be surprised if it focused on the risks of road vehicles crashing into station car parks, waiting rooms or ticket offices. The accident was a result of a road vehicle going onto a live railway line, and it makes sense that the report focused on this. So therefore should our article. I stand by my edit and I invite Murgatroyd49 to restore it. John (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The section on the Health and Safety Commission and Highways Agency reports says, as follows: (HSC and HRA) "created working groups to look into the risk of incursions onto railway property." which was my justification for a more general statement in the lead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
And that's fine for them to use that form of words. As an encyclopedia we use summary style to honestly, simply and accurately explain what they meant to our readers. They meant the risk of road vehicles crashing onto railway lines and causing a railway accident, as in this case. To say otherwise carries the slightly ludicrous implication that they were worried about vehicles entering a station car park or a fast-food outlet. They were not. And see also WP:CLOP. John (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
There is all sorts of railway infrastructure that could be damaged, with catastrophic repercussions to safety, by errant vehicles. One doesn't have to look for silly examples to prove a point. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I think my wording "...onto railways." covers it well. Other than railway lines with trains on them, what do you think they had in mind? John (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Try signalling infrastructure for starters. OHLE for another Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair suggestions. Were those mentioned in the report? John (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Were they excluded by the report? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no" and reiterate my suggestion to restore the simpler and less plagiarised wording to the article. That ok? John (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
What is plagiarised? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Look above: Article text (your version) The Health and Safety Commission and Highways Agency created working groups to investigate the general risks of road vehicle incursions onto railway property.
Source (as per your quote) ...created working groups to look into the risk of incursions onto railway property
That's way too close. I previously pointed you to WP:CLOP; we are not allowed to copy others' text like this. John (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I haven't copied anything. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
So you can't see the close paraphrasing between the two examples quoted above? John (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@John: I think there's been a misunderstanding here, @Murgatroyd49 quoted created working groups to look into the risk of incursions onto railway property from what I wrote in Selby rail crash#Health and Safety Commission and Highways Agency reports, not from any sources so WP:CLOP isn't an issue here. For what it's worth, I'm fine with your edit and I don't feel too strongly either way (as with most edits we end up discussing here!). The word "railway property" is used specifically in the HSC report, and I don't think "railways" means exactly the same thing, but to an average reader the distinction might not be necessary. FozzieHey (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, FozzieHey, that makes sense. John (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
If you tried reading the artice, rather than making wild accusations it woud help. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Good advice, I'll keep it in mind. The initial ambiguity which led to the misunderstanding was in your post of 10:51, 26 May 2025, but never mind, we got there in the end. I'll readjust the article to reflect that they weren't mainly worried about non-moving railway infrastructure in this instance. John (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)