Talk:Grayrigg derailment

message: 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)
thread_title: Carry on updating!

message: 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.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuelhardy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Carriages

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cranes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Grayrigg derailment 3 times in the same area

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: 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  - Feebtlas 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SNLA? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 (), but I note that isn't mentioned in the article, maybe it should be added? Adambro 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Divisions/Consequences 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ...and taking grammatical tips from someone who combs their teeth is a bit rich. Or did you mean a fine-toothed comb? ;-) Pyrope 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the number of stretcher bars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grayrigg/Lambrigg 

message: Although it's not encyclopedia content (I can't really tell you the source, nor verify it), I thought you'd all like to know that after inspection it appears that not all of the unit is salvageable, with between two and four vehicles being unusable. Where that leaves the future of 390033 I do not know, but I should imagine that it will probably be scrapped, unless Alstom rebuild vehicles along with the extra that they are planning over the next three years. Worley-d 12:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it probably would have been a Voyager but what difference to this make as to whether it is worth mentioning the details of the first train after the line reopened?  Adambro (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interest mainly, I guess. Although one could argue that the smaller unit is lighter. I don't know where I was going with this one sorry, just a suggestion. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the train

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
# Oppose - Greyrigg is more precise than "Cumbria" (and reflects a distinct anti-Northern bias in the media: they wouldn't use "Hertfordshire rail crash" for the Potters Bar rail crash!) and "derailment" is more precise than "crash". Wikipedia article names should not be dependent on the space restrctions or limited vocabulary of tabloid sub editors. Andy Mabbett 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Oppose - Greyrigg is more precise than "Cumbria" (and reflects a distinct anti-Northern bias in the media: they wouldn't use "Hertfordshire rail crash" for the Potters Bar rail crash!) and "derailment" is more precise than "crash". Wikipedia article names should not be dependent on the space restrctions or limited vocabulary of tabloid sub editors. Andy Mabbett 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 6 April 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main critia that the article must comply with to pass:
#Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congradulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!
Kindest regards,Anthony cfc (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GAC|'''Nomination''']] 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: The RAIB report into the accident has been released. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct link is now here. DWaterson (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RAIB report

message: The first sentence in the 'Incident' section is; 
"The 17:30 Virgin West Coast Pendolino West Coast Main Line InterCity service from London Euston to Glasgow Central derailed at 20:15 by a faulty set of points almost immediately after crossing the Docker Viaduct (the rear half of the train would still have been crossing the bridge whilst the front derailed at the points)"
As well as being a very long sentence, I was wondering if the part "derailed at 20:15 by a faulty set of points" was correct. I can see how it could be (derailed was the effect caused by the faulty points), but it's slightly confusing. I first ready "by" as "nearby". Perhaps throwing a "caused by" or "was" in there would clarify? Also, are the points immediately after crossing the Viaduct, or was the derailment? -LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 10:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have "by" we should also have "was". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derailed / Was derailed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grayrigg derailment. 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/20110527211512/http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/1.69817 to http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/1.69817
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) 09:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A really quick one, for personal knowledge more than anything. I'm not a train buff, so I was wondering something. Looking at the official crash report there's the 9 cars of the train. 6 of those are classed as motors (From front to back A - Driving Motor, B - Intermediate Motor, D - Intermediate Motor, G - Intermediate Motor, J - Intermediate Motor, K, Driving Motor). Does this mean that as Coach A 'leapt' from the tracks, it still had 5 other engines(?) pushing it forward (until A decoupled and the brakes kicked in)? --LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an electric multiple-unit: there are no locomotives, and no engines. Each carriage has two bogies, each bogie has two axles. Propulsion is by means of traction motors (an electric motor carried on some of the bogies, each of which drives a single axle on that bogie). Of the nine carriages, the third, fifth and seventh have no traction motors (hence are known as "trailer carriages"); the other six have two traction motors each (hence are known as "motor carriages"), one traction motor per bogie, driving the axle closest to the centre of the car. Consequently, after the first carriage was derailed, ten axles were still providing motive power until the safety systems were triggered to cut power and apply the brakes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's incredible. Thank you very much for taking the time for such a detailed explanation. So the derailment is actually a bit more complex than what I originally wrote. Coach A derails and is still being pushed by the other motors for around 4 seconds. At some point in its 190 turn, 4 seconds in, Coach A detaches from the train and the emergency brakes automatically kick in for all coaches. For the next 9 seconds momentum and the brakes battle it out. After a total of around 13 seconds everything comes to a halt. --LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 09:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases like this, it's often a good idea to read the official accident report. This one is at https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c9037ed915d4c0d000199/R202008_081023_Grayrigg_v5.pdf - search for "jack" and you'll pick up most of what you need. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coach / Motors 

message: I see there is a template for additional citations needed. There seems to be some good secondary and tertiary sources so I will have a go at doing this over the next few weeks. GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citations needed