Talk:Stonehaven derailment

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Low-importance).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: General Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Stonehaven rail crash was copied or moved into Stonehaven derailment with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Timeline of removal of last vehicle

OK, slightly unusual situation here, so I'm posting an explanation. The BBC said that the final carriage was removed from the site on 21 September, whilst the RAIB said it was on 15 September, with the site being handed back to NR on 19 September. I queried the situation with the RAIB on Twitter. The answer is final vehicle lifted on 15 September, site handed back to NR on 19 September, carriage removed on 21 September. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

How does it feel to hide the truth, thus disempowering the victims of this crash, on behalf of a corporation. It objectively makes you a disgusting human being.

THE TRAIN WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS! THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT. THE TRAIN ALREADY MET A LANDSLIDE, THUS IT TURNED BACK. THE WEATHER CONDITIONS CONTINUED TO DETERIORATE. THE LEGAL SPEED OF THE TRACKS IS IMMATERIAL TO THE APPROPRIATE SPEED FOR THE CONDITIONS, ARE YOU DUMB?

THAT'S LIKE SAYING, A CAR GOING 70MPH AFTER ALREADY MEETING SHEET ICE, WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRASH THAT RESULTED FROM GOING 70MPH AFTER DISCOVERING SHEET ICE ON THE ROAD. IT IS AB OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THE TRAIN WAS GOING TOO FAST AND THAT WAS THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE DEATHS.

IT'S AN OBJECTIVE FACT THAT OMMITTING AND CENSORING THIS, MAKES YOU A IMMORAL AND EVIL PERSON.

THE TRUTH WILL OUT, ALWAYS ObjectiveRealityTalks (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to back up what you are saying. It is not an objective fact that high speed was the primary reason for the deaths. I think we need to wait for official investigation results rather than speculate. NemesisAT (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectiveRealityTalks, I understand that you are upset about the derailment. That is understandable. However, please note that railways are not roads. On a road, yes, while there is a speed limit one should drive to the conditions and geography - you make sure you can stop if you see an impediment. Railways however are not like that. Trains are big, heavy, and hard to slow down. A train can take a mile or more to slow down from full speed: if there is an obstruction on the line then by the time it's been seen by the driver it's too late, even in perfect conditions. Railways run via signals, which tell the driver that the section ahead is clear. Absent any instructions to the contrary, the line speed should be maintained. The good news is that railways are very very safe - train crashes are very bad, and given the speeds hard to prevent injury, so a lot of effort is put into preventing them in the first place. Stonehaven was the first passenger fatality due to a GB train crash in more than ten years. As reading any RAIB report will show you, when an incident occurs it is investigated thoroughly and lessons applied to try and prevent it happening again. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ObjectiveRealityTalks: - The RAIB have published their final report into the accident. Please take the time to read and thoroughly digest it. Having done so, feel free to improve the article, or make a request if you are unable to edit the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final report

As I commented above, the RAIB final report has been published. There is lots to digest, but also some decent photographs which are on an OpenGov licence, and thus uploadable to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Army involvement

Not sure why the army is cited as having lent an armoured recovery vehicle to move carriages to be lifted.

This did not happen and the crane lifted them straight from where they lay. 2A00:23C8:8181:6001:0:0:0:1D9C (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is this: "The Challenge of monitoring Victorian earthworks". Rail. Peterborough: Bauer Media Group. 26 August 2020. pp. 12–13." But it does not seem to be available online. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to look at it.

I was on the scene for the removal of the carriages. If they brought an armoured engineering vehicle in they did a good job of camouflaging it. 2A00:23C8:8181:6001:0:0:0:1D9C (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also that source is dated prior to the removal. 2A00:23C8:8181:6001:0:0:0:1D9C (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being personally "on the scene for the removal of the carriages" is not considered WP:RS, although the offline source, at this stage, does not look anymore convincing. The date may be a mistake, but it does raise some alarm bells. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]