Talk:2024 Talerddig train collision

Unverified details

Please can we NOT add unverified details to the article. I particularly have in mind the numbers of the units involved and the fact that conditions similar to the 2021 Salisbury rail crash may be a factor. If and when these are reported in mainstream media, they can be added. There is WP:NORUSH to add stuff to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you not suggest that we could use RTT to verify the numbers of the units, in which case it would be 158841 (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L40013/2024-10-21/detailed) and 158824 (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L40361/2024-10-21/detailed) Vanmanyo (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

RTT only provides details seven days previously, so in a week the reference will fail WP:V. As @Mjroots says, there really is no rush to provide the unit numbers along with a quality reference. We'll get there eventually. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vanmanyo: if all else fails, the information will be in the RAIB final report. You will notice that the photo chosen is of one of the units involved, ready for the caption to be changed when we have a reliable reference for the fact. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The points you and @10mmsocket make are completely valid I was just wondering why it had not been done. I agree though to wait and ensure we have the correct unit numbers. Vanmanyo (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Digging through RTT (which can be archived) is borderline original research and is not guaranteed to be correct. For unit allocations it merely reflects the data in the relevant system, which might be what was planned to be allocated, what was actually allocated, or a mix of both. The exact units are really not that important for Wikipedia's purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The two RTT pages have several interesting features - they show the trains as "1J25 1831 Shrewsbury to Talerddig" and "1S71 1909 Machynlleth to Talerddig", as if Talerddig (where there has been no station since 1965) was always going to be the ultimate destination; and they also show "This service was cancelled between Talerddig and ... due to leaves on the line (QH)." That is going to give much fuel to those who ridicule "leaves on the line" as a pathetic excuse. For the train from Machynlleth, why is the headcode 1S71? Surely the S denotes an inter-regional train to the Scottish Region from another Region? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's how RTT always handles partially cancelled trains, showing the ending as the point in the system (whether station or something else) closest to the place the service actually terminated.

Separately, Spirit of Railways is continually adding the unit numbers based on unreliable sources (and on the most recent occasion also original research). I've reverted them three times, hopefully it won't be required a fourth time but I'm not certain they understand. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the RTT sources will become out of date, and respectfully agree that they are not a good source, and won't be using them anymore. However I fail to understand why the usage of an image of the exact same 158 unit 14 years ago is allowed, however a photo of the exact same unit taken 3 weeks ago is not allowed? If it's a matter of the wording I used in the edit I understand, and understand changing it, but if it is entirely based on the image, I remain confused. Spirit of Railways (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Spirit of Railways: - picture quality is generally the major factor when choosing images. How recent the photo is, or who took/uploaded it to Commons does not come into it. Mjroots (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

First collision between (passenger?) trains since 1991

The BBC are reporting this as the first collision between trains (or maybe just passenger trains) in Wales since the Severn Tunnel rail accident in 1991.[1] Should this be added to the article? Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say why not? Because rail accidents are few and far between. They don't occur every day, week or even month in the UK so I'm surprised to see that we didn't have an accident between trains for over 30 years in Wales (population 3m vs 67m). The last one was in August 2020, just after the Stonehaven one. JuniperChill (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added it as a see also for now, someone can work it into the prose if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Abermule 1921

I am very much reminded of the Abermule train collision which occurred 103 years ago on the same line, but 18 miles to the east; it also involved a head-on collision between two passenger trains on a single track between passing loops. Shall we put it in a "See also" section? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely a good see also. I'll add it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the word "similar" from the Abermule blurb. Mismanagement of the token system was not involved here. Added Salisbury, in which low adhesion was a major factor. Mjroots (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Image

As the question of which image to use has been raised a few times, either on this talk page or by changing the image in the article, we should discuss this. Image quality should be the main factor. As we know (but can't yet verify) the identities of the two units involved, it is natural that we should use an image of them. For 158 824, Commons has ten images availabe at C:Category:British Rail Class 158 158824. File:158824 at Crewe.jpg is the best image, and is used in the article. File:ATW 158824.jpg was used in the article. I reverted its addition on quality grounds - it is very dark. However, it is a more recent image. As for 158 841, C:Category:British Rail Class 158 158841 only has four images. File:158841 Wrexham General 130115.jpg is possibly the best of them. Once the identities of both units involved are verified, we can use two images in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:158824 at Llandudno Junction Sep 28th 2024.jpg has also been used in the article. Again, fails on quality although it does show the actual livery carried at the time of the accident. This photo wasn't in the correct category at the time of my earlier post. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Article name

I may be opening a can of worms here that it may be better to discuss in general elsewhere, but is there any convention for naming this sort of article? With this and the three articles in the see also section we have

• [year] [place] collision {edit - this article has now moved to [year] [place] train collision}
• [place] train collision
• [place] rail accident
• [year] [place] rail crash

Should we aim for some consistency, or is there some fine distinction between accidents, crashes and collisions? — Voice of Clam (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam Salisbury has the year to distinguish it from the 1906 crash. None of the others need disambiguation. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As noted at the Talerddig railway station article, there was a previous collision near Talerddig. Year disambiguator is justified. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mjroots as that doesn't have an article, I don't think it needs more than a hat note. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: it could possibly have an article. The 2023 Voorschoten train crash article was created at that title. The creation of the 1926 Voorschoten train crash followed later. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)