Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

message: I notice that some are rail crashes and some are rail disasters; and that the title of this article is rail accidents. Should there not be some agreed designation? I think the official title is that used for the article: the others are more media terms. Peter Shearan 07:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also begun to add some other accidents: the Hall's Road accident occurred on the L&YR when two electric trains collided; I cannot so far find any further info. The Elliot Junction accident is reported in this article I am using a 1911 Railway Year Book for the listings, and will get around to completing such articles as I can in due course Peter Shearan 13:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the Hexthorpe accident is recorded here. I want to complete the list before attempting the articles Peter Shearan 12:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Following also now included, no articles:
*Radstock large amount of detail
*Stairfoot some information
*Newark ditto
*Winchburg short note only
*Round Oak Newspaper reports
* for Straffan see note in Ardclough 
All the additions from the 1911 Year Book, although only those with more than 10 deaths have been included Peter Shearan 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  1900-1945
*Witham
*Grantham
*Elliot Junction
*Shrewsbury
*Pontypridd
Peter Shearan 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Designation

message: Is this page intended to only include fatal accidents? or can I add the three train-vs-car accidents which happened at Shiplake in the past 15ish years? --jazzle 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon that level crossing accidents should only be in this list if they killed or seriously injured somebody on the train. - Goose 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is precedent in the list for everything, accidents without fatalities and accidents without a link to a written report, even a brief one. The great bulk of incidents recorded are, however, linked to a quite detailed article, and that is the way it should be. Are those UK motoring accidents at level crossings more worthy of an encyclopedia listing than the large number of non-railway UK motoring accidents that occur every month? NoelWalley 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a level crossing accident is still a failure of some part of the railway system, and therefore may well be significant, even if non-fatal.  Matt Whyndham (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Fatal accidents? 

message: There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accidents on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be. This is also likely to have an impact on what the criteria for inclusion (if any) should apply to this page.
The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the World list of accidents, right?  I think it's a bit train-centric, rather than truly about the railway system.  I've got some comments about the criteria for the UK list, and I'll stick them in this discussion somewhere. There are specific UK issues (e.g. industry fragmentation, missions of the various rail agencies) that need to inform this page, and the international page shouldn't set the criteria automatically Matt Whyndham (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion in (World) List of rail accidents

message: There seems to be some confusion over the actual death toll of the Cowden train crash. Much of the list on this page seems to have come from here. This site states only five died, something which I do not believe. A 3.5MB report on it can be found here however surprisingly I could not find the official death toll. The Guardian states 13. Under the Cowden Station page I wrote a short piece about the crash, however there seems to be confusion over whether the death toll was 12 or 13, could someone clarify and update this page and the cowden one. Cheers.Nicksid 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cowden

message: There does not appear to be any mention of the Penmaenmawr accident of August 1950 in which 6 people were killed on the Irish Mail sleeper service. This seems a major oversight in such a "definitive" list.
Roger
:This is a wiki - go ahead and add the details, you don't even need to create an account (although there are benefits in doing so. Thryduulf 00:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penmaenmawr August 1950

message: I've paired this list with the death-toll order list at List of British rail accidents by death toll. It would be good if someone could add entries from that list that aren't on here and vice versa. Thryduulf 01:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation with Death Toll List

message: Just wondering if this would look better as an actual table rather than a list. 17:13, 6 March 2007 User:Dommccas
*I tried it with the first section :: it made the resulting table sprawly and untidy. Anthony Appleyard 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use Table?

message: : Call me a pedant, but I really do wish that we could stick with the "standard" table. I do not approve of customising the style of the tables in terms of colour etc. The normal table style is used on WP without any headaches. I was going to change the rest of this article into a table, but am now having second thoughts. Also, the issue of "width%" is not normally a problem. The current formatting looks awful, and we now have tables that have the same fields, but are different widths. How amateurish is that! The use of "width%" gives tables that always stay in shape.Canterberry 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifying width% causes waste space in one column and excess line-folding in another column and and makes the table too sprawly. Anthony Appleyard 06:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table looks awful. None of the columns align, the white background does not define the table well and the lack of spacing looks messy. If this is the best we can do, then I would prefer that we went back to the old lists.Canterberry 10:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Style

message: The image :File:Hixon rail crash.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Hixon rail crash.jpg

message: I have noticed the addition of two recent suicides, and feel these are not appropriate for the list of rail accidents. In reality, around 3 or 4 people a week are killed on the railways through suicide or accident, and therefore we cannot possibly list each and every single incident of this nature. 
Does anyone agree that 'person hit by train' incidents should not be listed? 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.100.140 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of Suicides

message: Currently a redlink, I'd suggest that Marden railway accident would be a better title. There is much info to be found from links on the Marden railway station article if someone wants to write the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - the official report states "about a mile short of Marden", so I've changed it to Marden rail crash to fit in with the others, but nothing written yet. Goose (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on it in my sandbox. Will be my 500th article when I release it later this month. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Marden, 1969

message: WP:RAILCRASH has now been adopted as a guideline. I'm minded to propose some entries in this list for removal, subject to consensus for same. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *We may have to hang fire, an editor has objected to the adoption of WP:RAILCRASH as a guideline. It may have to be returned to the status of a proposed guideline while further discussion takes place. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RAILCRASH

message: An IP user, I suspect the same one, is adding in 10 year totals for fatalities.  I'm not really in favour of this for two reasons.  1) It smacks of ghoulishness but more importantly 2) It's always going to be inaccurate unless we have every fatal accident listed and in the imperfect world of Wikipedia it's an inaccurate statistic that risks getting used elsewhere.  I'm for taking the figures out but would like to hear other views first. NtheP (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless the figures come from a reliable source they are WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore should go. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding deaths in each period is to show how the railway in UK has become progressively safer over the decades of improved rolling stock, signalling etc. (this info not otherwise noted on this page).  The death toll is no more (perhaps less) ghoulish than the List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll?  Agree with second point but that could be applied to any Wikipedia page with data on it?  P.S. updates were done in good faith and an 'IP user' is no less an editor than another?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: British railways have become safer but raw unreferenced figures are not the best way of showing that and this page isn't necessarily the best place to discuss that - an article on Safety measures on British railways might be needed to do that topic justice.  I quite agree with you about List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll - left to me that page would be deleted.  I never assumed you weren't acting in good faith that's why I listed the topic for discussion here first before acting. NtheP (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: To be clear, adding up totals for the 10 years would not violate WP:SYNTHESIS which specifically allows 'routine calculations' (see WP:CALC.) The point about reliable sources would appear to uncited figures themselves, not just totals created from those figures. Do however see below for my table suggestion for this article which will make it easier for people to calculate various totals. PeterEastern (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatality totals 

message: According to this http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2272229 there was an accident on the ECML near Welwyn Garden City in January 1957 in which one person was killed and 25 injured. But there's no mention of it on this list. Is this an oversight? G-13114 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends.  The accident happened and is well documented but currently it doesn't have a separate article on here. NtheP (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added accident to list. Not all accidents listed here have their own Wikipedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1957 accident not listed

message: The 2011 Newport Docks 7th Jan 'rail accident' didn't involve anything to do with railway operations (the locomotive was being taken out of the hold of a ship) so does it really belong in this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed I removed it. I think a lot of the ones on here could be removed as they don't involve railway operations.G-13114 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newport Docks - Rail accident? 

message: The latest entry on the list relating to the unfortunate death of a passenger on a LM train on 11 April 2011 is now being reported in press (e.g. here and here) as non accidental and a possible suicide. As such should in remain in the list? NtheP (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like a rail accident so I'd say it doesn't belong here, it is an unfortunate suicide that happened to be done on a train.  There are many of these contributing to "About 200 to 300 people are killed on the UK's railways every year" - From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11014520.  Perhaps list should be limited to accidents involving errors or omissions in train operations rather than accidents/attacks/negligence/suicides that take place on the railway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leighton Buzzard - accident? 

message: This recent tragic accident would appear to be persons on the line hit by a train - is this notable here?  See story at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-14142324  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.169.102 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several other man hit by train stories already, so probably. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which others?  I think this (and they) should not be included - See above "About 200 to 300 people are killed on the UK's railways every year" - From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11014520  If all are included then this list becomes more subjective, potentially huge and not a list of rail accidents, it becomes accidents that happen to take place on railways.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.169.102 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with the anon above me. Incidents of people getting hit by trains when they are on the train lines are sadly very common, and the vast majority of them are no more notable than the incidents of people getting hit while on or adjacent to a busy road. Incidents like that at Elesenham a few years ago that attracted significant press coverage and was in a large part responsible for a class investigation of level crossing safety by the RAIB are worthy of mention, but not this sort of event. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident 12th July 2011 - notable here? 

message: Can I suggest that we now do a bunch of clean-up work on this article on a section by section basis. Many work would be to:
*Create an introductory paragraph for each section
*Put 'fact' tags against every entry which has no citation at present
*Try to replace every fact tag with a suitable citation
*Check facts in each entry for consistency with any main article for the subject - there are some discrepencies that I have found
*Consider removing any entries where we can't find a suitable citation
*Remove any entries from the table that appear to fail on notification grounds as proposed in WP:RAILCRASH. Some of these may reasonably appear in a introductory paragraph for the section.
*Check the totals for each section against some reliable source for the total killed allowing us to sign off the lists as being complete for all reasonable purposes?
I am happy to do one section, but not the entire article. Is anyone else up for doing other sections? if so which one would they prefer? Do place your name against one of the periods!
#Post 1995 : name?
#1949-1994 : name?
#1922-1948 : name?
#1830-1922 : name?
We should also check off this list against the List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll. We can then consider merging that article into this one which would simply be a matter to adding a summary of the worst events to the lead for this article. I have already checked all the accidents with more than 20 deaths for inclusion in this article (one was missing).
-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestions. Date formatting also needs to be cleaned up. Trim out any that fail the criteria for inclusion. --John (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a simple choice regarding dates - either we put them manually into something that reads well, ie. 20 January 2010 and the sort will fail, or we leave it as digits (2010-01-20) and it will sort properly. In the longer term someone might sort out the bug in the Dts template (described above) which stops it working properly for long lists. We seem to have no takers for a formal dividing up of the cleanup work - I guess people will do bits and pieces in the normal Wikipedia way! PeterEastern (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup drive 

message: I have now completed a sweep through List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll and come up with the following additions for this article, not all of which have citations. I will now add them to the article with suitable tagging and references. When we have done this I suggest we raise the suggestion that the other article becomes a redirect to this one.
*Port Eglinton Junction, Glasgow 6 September 1934; 9 killed, 11 injured[6]
*Leighton Buzzard, 22 March 1931; 6 killed, 26 injured[15]
*Accident at Ystrad Caron level crossing, Tregaron, Wales, 5 May 1953; 6 killed
*Dunmurry train explosion, 18 January 1980; 3 killed, 5 injured
*Chumhill railway accident, 26 March 1913; 2 track workers killed; 2 injured
*Chapel-en-le-Frith rail crash, 9 February 1957; 2 killed
*Helpringham Fen rail crash, 6 December 2004; 2 killed
*Pollokshields East, Glasgow, 11 June 1974; 1 killed 4 injured
*Braunton Road railway accident, New Years Day, 1910; 1 track worker killed
-- PeterEastern (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added these to this article. I will raise a merge request on the other article. PeterEastern (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge from 'List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll' 

message: According to a BBC article yesterday 'There were six deaths last year (not including suicides or trespass) on Britain's train network, according to the Office of Rail Regulation.' We have only 1 in this list. Any ideas how to source the rest? PeterEastern (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities in 2010 

message: There is a limitation in the template  used in the tables.  If within the templates the dates are written in the format  then after 88(!) uses of the template on a page an error is generated.  The solution is not to use dashes but pipes instead; so the example above becomes .  Note format=dmy should still be used even if one or more of the date parameters is missing. All the dates in the tables have been updated to use pipes. NtheP (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats in the tables 

message: From 22nd December to 26th January this article has ballooned from 94,126 bytes to 124,032 bytes, mostly from the login '86.27.84.55' in several sessions over Christmas and a few days ago.  Whilst much of the increase seems to fall within the existing (loose) criteria there is much detail added which falls into trivia (model of car and lorry involved), detail that perhaps would be better in the accident's own wikipedia page, information like Fife is in Scotland or a link to the general wikipedia page of the city / region / country that accident happened to be in (i.e. not a railway related link).
Do we need a clear out of these extra details (which probably add up to many Kb)?  The last time this article went over 100,000 bytes a reasonable request was to split it - or has the time come to do this?
I don't want to start the 'what accidents should be listed here' debate, which is a different point!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, if the accident has its own article (or a dedicated section in an article which primarily concerns a station or line), all that is needed here is a brief summary. For example, the entry for Winsford (1948) might state "improper use of communication cord; rear end collision". The list at the back of L.T.C. Rolt's Red for Danger comprises summaries that are mostly even shorter than that, and could well serve as an inspiration. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both.  There's a lot of stripping around locations could be done - it's very thorough and commendable but we don't need to know from this page that Abermule, for example, was in Montgomeryshire in 1921 but is now in Powys. I'd also suggest removing the chart from the top of the table as well as being OR, its source being the table below it. Nthep (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also agree. The chart would have been more useful if it covered a longer timespan. I would suggest removing the column headed "type" and limiting each entry to no more than one line of text, in particular removing duplication and the use of "see main article" templates. I would also put the Charing Cross roof accident into the table. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side point, my personal opinion is that this page was in a better state before it was tabulated. See here from 2011. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed that each entry has the date listed twice - possibly a hang-over from when it was made into a table.  I notice some agreement here from regulars in the railway pages: Is it time to have a few changes to the content of each entry.  E.G. No links to non railway pages, only 1st column for date, no 'see main article' text, 'one line' for entries with details on another page, no trivia, location text limited to nearest conurbation?  All with exceptions allowed _where absolutely necessary_.  Would this need to be agreed before going further? 2ghoti (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated 'The Big Four' as above, seems to work. Anyone want to assist with the rest of the article??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I thought Powys was disbanded years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well have done, I lost track of Welsh local authorities some tine ago. Nthep (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still one of the Principal areas of Wales. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ballooning - time to reduce or split? 

message: Is this within the scope of this article? Nthep (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You ought to have described it.  It was the Longleat ride derailing whereby a person suffered multiple fractures. Clearly unprecedented in inclusion here and not really 'UK rail' related.  Similar accidents I read at many such differently maintained attractions with individual safety attitudes. To do your homework on those they would need a separate list and I am not sure wikipedia would host it as it or others should cover ALL rides globally.- Adam37 Talk 10:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In scope? 

message: This is a question which has been asked a couple of times on this talk page, but not answered. Neither has there been any definitive answer to criteria for including entries. Could the type column be used to note significant accidents? Maybe then all the accidents reported at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ could be included? For example, I see that only one of the ten accidents at Slough appear in this list, though the other nine involved 1 fatality and 71 injuries. Alternatively, could the type column be used to indicate the main cause, eg SPAD, track defect, civil engineering defect, weather, vandalism, train defect, etc?Johnragla (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have a preference for deletion of this column, but if you can make some use of it which would not involve summarising or repeating information in the last column, please go ahead. I would however have some reservations about attaching "significant" and "minor" labels to accidents, as this could well go against WP:NPOV. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the purpose of the column named type? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060831193030/http://www.btp.police.uk:80/History%20Society/Images/History%20Society/Time%20line/Kentish%20Town%201861%20IllLonNews.jpg to http://www.btp.police.uk/History%20Society/Images/History%20Society/Time%20line/Kentish%20Town%201861%20IllLonNews.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090716195235/http://www.northumbrian-railways.co.uk:80/index.php?page=goswick to http://www.northumbrian-railways.co.uk/index.php?page=goswick
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of rail accidents by country which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Copied from an Australian Newspaper :-
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/8748803/669440#
DREADFUL ACCIDENT on THE BIRMINGHAM and LIVERPOOL RAILWAY.— 
On Tuesday night, the trains from Liverpool to Birmingham, which usually arrive in Birmingham at half-past 10 and 11 o'clock, were delayed until 4 o'clock the following morning, in consequence of a concurrence of accidents, one of an appalling nature, which befell them on their way thither between Liverpool and Birmingham. It appears, that the mixed train, conveying a great number of passengers and horses, whilst proceeding down the inclined plane, of which the whole line from Wolverhampton to Birmingham may he said to consist, came in contact with a horse, which had accidentally strayed upon the railway from the adjoining fields.
The affrighted animal fell unluckily across the rails and the engine, tender, and many of the carriages, passed over his body, and such was the violence of the shock occasioned by its resistance to the moving vehicles, that the engine shot off the lines with prodigious force, dragging with it, down to the embankment of five or six feet high, the ponderous vehicle, the tender, and several of the carriages, smashing some into splinters, prostrating others, and displacing all more or less. The tender fell upon the body of one of the conductors of the engine, who was instantly crushed to death, the other (his brother) retained his hold upon the machine, and escaped without injury. The three first carriages contained horses, which, of course, were dreadfully mangled and bruised. The next and first carriage in the train containing passengers was upset and thrown upon its side upon the railway, but, marvellous to relate, neither the passengers inside, nor the guard upon the top, who was hurled headlong into the ditch below, sustained any injury ; the numerous passengers in the other vehicle retained their seats, and, beyond the shock and alarm, and delay, sustained no inconvenience.
A few minutes after the accident, the last train from Liverpool came up, but were warned by signals in time to prevent their running down their unfortunate precursors, which now lay in the way. In order to get into the other line of railway it had to retrace the ground to Wolverhampton, and there, whilst in the act of passing from one line to the other, owing to some derangement of the moveable points of intersection of the rails, the engine and tender ran off the rails with a violence which separated them from the train, which, with its numerous cargo of passengers, was thus left without any means of reaching its destination at midnight, 14 miles from Birmingham. In this situation, the thermometer being down almost to zero, some remained quietly ensconced and half congealed in the carriages, waiting for relief, whilst others, with more zeal and wisdom, applied their shoulders to the wheel, and by the time the moon was waning, and "coming dawn" about to appear, they had succeeded in righting the ponderous mass " Saturn," or " Jupiter," I believe, which had so madly shot from its sphere. The relator, a friend of ours, who was on his way home by the last train, describes the wreck of the carriages which they had now reached, as being singular and appalling in the extreme. The engine had taken a flying leap from off the embankment, and was standing bolt upright in the field below ; to it clung the overturned tender, the blood of its victim still warm and reeking beneath its wheels, like a car of Juggernaut. Here were demolished carriages, there a noble horse breathing his last gasp, and on his back, struggling to release himself from the cords by which he was bound to the car. Here were masses of half ignited coke strewed about like volcanic cinders, there pools of water, streaming and bubbling like "geysers," and the disembowelled engine yet faintly breathing, as if in its last agonies— the innocent origin and unfortunate victim of all the mischief still lying headless and mangled on the situation where he fell. On every side were ruin and desolation— fragments of machinery, broken walls, blood and dust, whilst, to complete the picture, the locality came in to aid— the strange, unearthly light of the iron furnaces around, on all sides, mingling with the quiet moon-light, throwing over the whole an effect which a Turner might conceive, but which it would be impossible for language to describe
It is a source of congratulation that only one human life was lost, but it is a painful drawback to the advantages we derive, and the pleasure we anticipate from the general introduction of this splendid mode of travelling, that the greatest circumspection and care cannot entirely prevent the occurrence of accidents such as those we have described.— Leicestershire Mercury.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.140.37 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=7496
78.150.140.37 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birmingham - Wolverhampton. Before 23rd Feb. 1838 

message: This incident appears to be little documented, but failure to connect a brake pipe on a freight train resulted in a divided train, the rear half of which ran away and demolished key infrastructure on the freight line through Carlisle at 60mph (a 20mph line) including a river bridge. Had the rear half followed the front (as it would have to today) there would be major destruction of Carlisle Citadel station. Quite notable for what did not happen and was avoided as much as the damage caused which while extensive did not result in loss of life. Very few references, but here is a photo to verify what happened:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/16224165@N04/5544395876 and another reference here:- http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=6622
31.51.220.144 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident causing closure of Carlisle freight line 1 May 1984 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322012322/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/the-lockerbie-disaster-of-1883-1.226372?referrerPath=2.3064 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/the-lockerbie-disaster-of-1883-1.226372?referrerPath=2.3064
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231130813/http://ukhrail.uel.ac.uk/glossary/clayton.html to http://ukhrail.uel.ac.uk/glossary/clayton.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This list is perpetuating the myth that William Huskisson was the first person to be killed by a train, by excluding the pre 1830 entries.
This list should be merged with or borrow from  [List of rail accidents (before 1880)] to avoid confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMRT (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1830 accidents and fatalities 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://home.clara.net/gw0hqd/bumps/180547/180547.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131081455/http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Packed-train-hit-13-tonnes-fallen-bridge-debris/story-28632210-detail/story.html to http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Packed-train-hit-13-tonnes-fallen-bridge-debris/story-28632210-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607184755/http://www.btp.police.uk/History%20Society/Publications/History%20Society/The%20history/A%20Time%20Line%20for%20Policing%20the%20Railways%201676-1899.htm to http://www.btp.police.uk/History%20Society/Publications/History%20Society/The%20history/A%20Time%20Line%20for%20Policing%20the%20Railways%201676-1899.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The number of deaths is said to be none and five.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.37.70 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  19/11/1958 

message: , Regarding this edit on the List of rail accidents, why have you deleted it and labelled it as a hoax? Maybe a slight rewording and the addition of a cite, maybe it is not worthy of inclusion as no-one was injured, but a hoax? It wasn't on 1 April. The joy of all things (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't sourced, for a start - it looks WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It also wasn't written very well -  Then there is the last phrase -  which reads like these events occurred straight away, rather like your car had dinged a wall busting a headlamp, and so you'd taken it to Joe's Motors to be repaired. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  ....and  put it back, not that I was arguing for its inclusion, just wondered why he said it was a hoax? I have included enough cites to show reliability and I did say . The joy of all things (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sorry about that, I was busy so I only had time to revert my edit. SK2242 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal listed as a hoax 

message: I tried to work out from the top of this talk-page what are the criteria for inclusion, but failed. My motivation was removal of a level-crossing accident at Appleford, sourced only to the Accident Archive. It was a very minor accident in which one person was injured. The accident archive site contains scanned copies of accident reports of just about every reportable incident on the UK railway system since 1840, amounting to well over 9000 incidents. Presumably there is no intention to record every one of them here, as our WP list is described as being of "significant" accidents. The accident reports in the accident archive site, while very reliable, are very much primary data. I would assume this list should be of accidents sufficiently notable to have made it into books or non-trivial newspaper articles (a good definition of "significant"). Anything that cannot be sourced except to a report by the rail investigators is probably not notable enough for the list. Elemimele (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if you read the archive discussions above, this has been discussed several times before but there was never an agreement. Maybe it's worth being WP:BOLD and trimming the list down to something more sensible. G-13114 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've trimmed a few more off the end of the post-privatisation list. I've done them individually or in small batches in case people need to revert. It can be tricky to assess notability. For example, Whitacre junction is sourced to a newspaper but I don't think it's notable. Any rail accident nowadays will generate an article in the local news (if it's in London, it'll be in the national news) with reports of "major disruption", but if it's just a minor mishap that closed the line for the rest of the day, with no one injured, just a lot of angry commuters, I am not sure it's notable. On the other hand, Ely West junction is sourced only to the accident report, but it closed all navigation on the river Ouse for three months and had extended coverage at least in the local newspapers, so its lack of sourcing here is plain laziness on the part of whoever added it. Elemimele (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've readded the Kirkby train crash and 2021 Salisbury rail crash which you removed because they have over 10 injuries and their own articles. Hope that's okay! greyzxq talk 13:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes entirely, I should have checked those two. I should also have moved a better citation into this list, but I'm not sure which of the sources to use from their own articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at the Kirkby train crash article and it says that one one person was injured, so feel free to remove that. I’ll probably check every entry now to make sure the numbers of injured and dead are actually correct. About the sources to use, just use any as long as they support the info you’re citing, remember you can use more than one source if needed! greyzxq talk 15:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases such as Kirkby train crash which pass notability guidelines really ought to be listed for navigational purposes if nothing else. Garuda3 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, and I was mistaken to remove Kirkby. There are some accidents with stand-alone articles that seem to me to be shaky, for example Spa Road Junction, which I've nominated for deletion. But I'm not a deletionist by nature. My belief is that many rail accidents have been truly notable, through their consequences for society at large, or because they shaped future politics and development of the rail industry. If we distill these out and present them to our readers, they learn something. If we hide them amongst a huge morass of minor buffer-bumps, we make it very hard for our readers to see the bigger picture: i.e. we're hiding trees in a forest. But I completely welcome those editors who correct me when I take a chainsaw to the wrong tree. Elemimele (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of minor mishaps of no consequence and no secondary sourcing