This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quintinshill rail disaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 22, 2006, May 22, 2007, May 22, 2008, May 22, 2013, and May 22, 2015. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What is Quintinshiil named for?
Is it also near Lockerbie?
Tabletop 09:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The railway company was not blamed either for the use of old stock (it was wartime) or for the accident itself (adequate safeguards existed and were ignored), John Thomas cites 9 seperate breaches of rules in the 30 minute period between Tinsley entering the signal box and the accident occuring. I have not seen previous mention of the troop train doors being locked, this would need a reference. Nor was the train under military control as far as its working was concerned, although undoubtedly the soldiers were under military discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Eight minutes is not a long time for a jury to deliberate. Does this include the time that it took the jury to go to and from the jury room?
Abraham Lincoln was prosecuting attorney in one trial where the jury didn't even leave their seats in the court room!!
Tabletop 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What happened to James Tinsley and George Meakin after they were released ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrTAToad (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Mrrash (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
James Tinsley was given a job as lampman at Carlisle station and eventually died in 1961. George Meakin became a coal merchant (both from John Thomas's book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Altered James Tinsley's death as per death certificate GC Jack 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"The Hawes Junction rail crash of 1910 also involved a busy signalman forgetting about a train on the main line, but because the signalman there was extremely busy and fully focused on his job, his momentary lapse was more excusable."
Using the phrase "more excusable" seems to make a judgment that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedic setting.
12.104.244.6 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The empty coal train in the loop should have a point where the engine is. Tabletop (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The animated diagram shows the local train crossing over to the up main line via a set of facing points. There was no facing crossover at Quintinshill - the local pulled ahead of the trailing points shown in the diagram on the down fast line, then reversed over the trailing crossover so that it was occupying the up fast line where it was hit by the troop train. The other slight error is that there was almost a minute between the troop train hitting the local, and the late-running express colliding into the wreckage. Mrrash (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
A major error in the diagram: according to it, the second collision was caused by the 05:50 Express ex-Carlisle. However, based on the Board of Trade enquiry document, it is clear that that train passed the site at 06:39 before the first crash and it was the second express (06:05 ex Carlisle) that crashed into the wreckage of the first crash. See page 14 (actually 10th page of the enquiry PDF) and the following pages, containing the testimonies of David Wallace, George Hutchinson, Douglas Dobie Graham and Andrew Johnstone.K72571 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There is some doubt over the exact number of fatalities caused by the Quintinshill accident. Author JAB Hamilton in his 1969 publication "Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster" says that Lt Col Druitt's report gives the figure as 227, but he compiled the report very quickly and gave the number of troops killed as 215 which was later revised downwards by the Battalion to 214. I quote "The correct number is given in both the Regimental and the Battalion Histories - 3 officers, 29 NCOs and 182 men - and is also the total of the names which appear on the memorial in the Rosebank Cemetary. I can vouch for this last, because I counted them." (page 76 Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster JAB Hamilton George Allen and Unwin Ltd 1969). This is good evidence that the official report is inaccurate on this matter which is why I submitted the change to the article. Would anyone object if I put it back to 226 again? Mrrash (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
DoneMrrash (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section concerning censorship. The accident was very well reported at the time, with the The Times having a second leader ("An Unexpected Sorrow") [From Thomas]
John Thomas has a page full of facsimiles of press reports from that time. Additionally the Illustrated London News covered the accident in some detail...
See here: http://www.iln.org.uk/iln_years/year/1915.htm
The precise military casualties were not accurately reported due to the loss of the battalion muster roll in the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.192 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not seen previously any suggestion that the surviviors were stoned, also it is reported in John Thomas's book a) that the survivors marched in good order to the barracks from the station, and b) that all the men and one of the officers were relieved of further duties, leaving only the CO and 6 officers to continue to Gallipoli. Serious allegations are made here, and if they cannot at least be given supporting references they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk)
I have added the sources for this incident. Mrrash (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Richards and Searle's 2013 book Quintinshill Conspiracy cites the Edinburgh Evening News writing in 1955 for the "stoning" incident. The paper states that during an interview with a survivor, he reported that the soldiers were stoned by urchins as they walked to Lime St Station Liverpool to be conveyed to Edinburgh by train. So disheveled were they that they were taken for German prisoners of war being conducted from the docks. This was Sunday 23rd May 1915. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.227.33 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2013
I have been looking into the Quintinshill Rail Crash.
Despite quite extensive research I have failed to find any reference to Hugh Urquhart in the Board of Trade Inquiry report or newspaper coverage.
Can you advise me of the sources for Mr. Urquhart's involvement please?
There is also another point to make regarding the late shift changeover. The arrangement between the two signalmen applied whether the local train stopped at Gretna or not. Normally James Tinsley would walk to the signal box. Occasionally the local would be stopped at Quintinshill and the signalman at Gretna would be advised to tell Tinsley —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
GC Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have asked a contributor to produce a source for a statement on this page concerning a Mr. Hugh Urquhart.
I have in my possession details of the Board of Trade Report and Inquiry into this accident. I can find no trace of any evidence given by Mr. Urquhart.
If the source cannot be identified should this reference be taken down? (GC Jack 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
GC Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article as uncited. If a reliable verifiable source can be found to support the statements then it can reinserted, but as it makes suggestions about the cause of the disaster not recognised by any of the official reports or court proceedings following the accident it should not currently remain in the article.
Removed text
|
---|
. . .the most controversial evidence was that of Hugh Urquhart, the out-door engineering chief of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, which exercised powers over the last eight miles of shared track from Gretna Junction to Carlisle. Urquhart reminded the inquiry that at certain times of the day this was one of the busiest stretches of double-line railway in Britain. While not condoning the short-cuts and fatal mistakes made by the signalmen Meakin and Tinsley, he said he was concerned that they should not be made scapegoats for errors made by higher-ranking officials. He claimed that the real cause of the bad practices was the fact that the last two express trains from Euston – the 11.45 to Aberdeen and the 12 midnight to Glasgow – were chronically bad time-keepers. This resulted in very unorthodox shunting procedures around Quintinshill.
|
That the two expresses were running late is mentioned in Lt Col Druitt's official report neither he nor the subsequent coroner's inquiry list this as a contributory factor to the accident. Neither (as stated in the sections above) is there any record of Hugh Urquhart having given evidence at either inquiry. NtheP (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
An Urquhart source here: https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/rail-truth-1998498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.110.205 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This article has been re-written extensively including removing referenced information (e.g. treatment of survivors) apparently without discussion on this page about any glaring errors, poor English or resolved disputes requiring a re-write. The article was fairly stable for over a year. Apart from personal preferences what is re reason for the re-write and the deletion of relevant referenced information? Should it be reverted until any disputes are first raised and then resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This page needed re-writing.It had been added to a jumbled way and had become cumbersome. I had discussion with the editor and the reference to Urquhart had to come out.
Hamilton on page 74 of his book describes the plight of the survivors. However, there is a problem with Hamilton's book in that it contains no verification for the story. It may well be that it was carried in the Liverpool local papers can you verify that so it can be checked please?
Gordon Routeledge's book, "The Sorrows of Quintinshill" carries details of Meakin's later career in the Munitions Factory near Gretna. It was personally verified to Routledge by his mother who worked with Meakin there.GC Jack 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)86.183.30.98 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Would the refuge loops have catchpoints at each end? Tabletop (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The loops had head and tail shunts, not catch points. The loop on the up main line had an extra storage siding for broken down wagons, which were a real problem for railways of that period - interestingly the signalmen at Quintinshill did use the lever collars to remind them of such wagons in this siding.
On the day of the accident the welsh empty train used the up loop but as it was too long, it had to be shunted into the head shunt and then back into the tail.
Catch points were usually located towards the lower end of an incline to divert runaways. Trap points are used at the end of loops in many cases to prevent an overrun into the mainline. At Quintinshill the head shunt would serve as that in an emergency. GC Jack 11:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
Looking through the stats on this crash it is clear that the death toll of 226 may not be accurate. Recently there has been a memorial to the four unidentified children found in the wreckage. Verified in the book by J. Thomas. They are not counted into the 226 deaths. GC Jack 17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
<ref>Source for x</ref>
and may have been as many as y.<ref>Source for y</ref>
This however assumes that the four unidentified corpses were not part of the 226/227 - see next section. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be an inaccuracy regarding this on the main page. There is no evidence to suggest that the Railway Company believed the children had stowed away on the troop train. In fact hard evidence for this entire "story" is lacking. It was not even established if one of the coffins actually contained the remains of children. It was marked "three trunks, probably children." In my opinion, as this story cannot be properly verified, it is a myth and should be described as such.GC Jack 11:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
All I am asking for is for the text stating that the Railway Company believed that they might stoways to either verified or removed. I can find no wording to that effect in the books I have. The BBC report does not in fact state anything as a proven fact, just that it is believed to be so.GC Jack 12:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That does it!! Many thanksGC Jack 12:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
Nock and Rolt neither mention the four "children" nor the "stowaways" idea. Thomas mentions the supposed identification of the four children. However, it should be remembered that these were the remains of bodies which had been burned and charred in the extensive fire. It's easy to misidentify in these circumstances - see the similar case at Charfield in 1928. Given that 50 bodies were never recovered at all (83 troops killed and identified, 82 bodies recovered but unrecognisable, the other 50 classed as "missing" to give the 215 total for the troops; Thomas p.59), the most likely explanation is that the bodies were the remains of some of the soldiers. Just what is the likelihood of 3 children stowing away on the one and only train that meets with disaster, and none of their families ever claiming them or reporting them missing? By far the most likely explanation is that they were part of the 226/227 - and that is what Thomas concludes by implication as he states that as the death toll while recognising the existence of the so-called children's bodies. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit has suggested that the Tinsley was engaged in conversation and this distracted him from his work. There is no such statement from Tinsley or brakesman Young to support this. It emerged at the Coroner's Court as a possible theory based on a statement by Meakin. The other distraction - Tinsley writing the notes - which Tinsley himself offered as a reason in the Board of Trade report is more credible. The article should make that clear.GC Jack 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the keenness to link the date of 1915 to either 1915 in rail transport, 1915 in the United Kingdom or anything else. 1915 in rail transport might be relevant enough to link to but not via the date in the lead - see WP:CONTEXTLINK. Most list articles like the two named tend to have outgoing links, not incoming ones e.g. nothing else in 1915 in the UK is linked from the articles listed in it. I haven't yet found another UK rail accident article that links to a list article via the date in the lead and I don't see any reason for this article to be an exception. NtheP (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a case for linking this into 1915 in the UK. The accident was more than railway disaster it was a military incident happening at a very low point in the war. The accident happened in a dreadful week for the Govt. The Shell Scandal brought down the Asquith regime which was forced into coalition on the following Monday. No link? Wait for the new book! GC Jack 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
On the 25th May 1915 the Inspecting Officer of Railways opened his inquiry at Carlisle. One person examined was Alexander Thorburn Gretna's Station master. He was also in charge of Quintinshill signal box. The questioning of Thorburn was poorly conducted. Asked when he had last visited the box he was unable to say when he had last been there. There was no questions posed as to where the irregular shift change over employed by Meakin and Tinsley was with Kilpatrick's assistance, was known. No question was asked as whether he knew that the shifts should change at 6:00am. Thorburn was on the platform at Gretna when Tinsley joined the local train. He was not asked if he saw him. How Thorburn could have missed the signalman entering the cab of the Cardean is unexplained. If he did, why did he not challenge the fact that Tinsley was still in Gretna some 17 minutes after he was supposed to take up his shift some 2 miles away at Quintinshill? It is clear sloppiness held sway. Later the Caledonian Railway appalled at the admission of Thorburn closed the issue by citing details from the signal box log stating when inspections had been carried out which was a least three in the previous week or so (one by Thorburn and two by the local inspector). Even then no-one asked why Quintinshill deserved such attention and why no deficiencies were found. Elsewhere someone has listed 9 deficiencies in the way the work was carried out at the signal box. A proper inspection would have found at least one - the lack of the use of the collar. See Quintinshill Conspiracy for theories as to why these inspections were carried out and why they failed to find one of the root causes of the accident. It is clear the Caledonian Railway was hell bent on seeing that the signalman were held responsible, not due to deficiencies in process, but due to negligence of behalf of two individuals. In this they focused on Meakin, the mental health of Tinsley not being an issue they they would wish to highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.227.33 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013
This article is B-Class. Can we get it to FA-class in time to be WP:TFA on 22 May 2015, that being the 100th anniversary of the accident? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
By all means improve the recent edit about the 'cause' of this horrific (and historic) accident. Whether published sources are available to substantiate a more objective analysis is a moot point - but that is no reason to over-simplify and lay the blame for the deaths of over two hundred men on the heads of two signal men! So please do not just revert! The railway company's internal enquiry laid the blame for the collision on the two signalmen, and while this is an over-simplification, it is unarguable that both men bore responsibility for the original collision between the local train and the troop carrier. The fact that so many soldiers were 'roasted to death' was the result of other factors which were not even remotely the responsibility of the signalmen. I sincerely hope you will agree. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
O. S. Nock in Historic Railway Disasters and Adrian Searle in The Quintinshill Conspiracy both mention contemporary rumours, which Searle says persist to this day in the area, that some of the soldiers deserted and hence were never found. Searle said that a local historian collected oral histories of witnesses who saw some soldiers jumping the fence and running off. However he goes on to say that the soldiers were all volunteers and unlikely to have deserted out of disloyalty, and some of the men ("most probably boys") were simply traumatised by the accident. Is this worth adding? Would these books be considered reliable sources? 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What did the placename Quintinshill mean before the accident, and before the railway came there? What is the origin of the name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hope everyone has had a chance to see this without staying up late. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05vqx7v/britains-deadliest-rail-disaster-quintinshill
In the random order that I remembered them :-
As a comment, I thought the animation remains the best description of the accident I have ever seen though it runs a little too fast for me.
Regards JRPG (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Where the cause of an 'accident' has been thoroughly investigated, and confident conclusions reached, the use of the term 'accident' becomes counter-intuitive. From Lt.Col. Druitt's words, responsibility for the first collision lay entirely with the two signalmen. Between them, they had allowed a fast moving troop train to come through on the same track that was occupied by a stationary local train. The collision (predictably) spilled over on to the North-bound track, which caused the second collision. Piper Aplha was a disaster, the Herald of Free Enterprise was a disaster, Quintinshill was a disaster. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In the lead we currently have this bald claim:
The source for this is Druitt's 1915 report, which was obviously dated 17 June 1917, only 26 days after the accident, and as such can only be regarded as provisional. The loss of the roll list in itself may have hampered initial enquiries, but naturally there will have been soldiers personal files, pension records, and other documentation, not to mention that relatives/surviving soldiers would have quickly realised absence of family members/comrades not listed or accounted for.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has a total of 218 named military personnel who can be linked to the accident, via the original Graves Registration forms (available on their website). Of these, 213 are 7/Royal Scots, two 8/Highland Light Infantry other ranks, and three 9/Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. Druitt states the fatalities include, "five officers in the 6.5 a.m. express," who are probably the latter five (i.e. three officers and two ORs).
Soldiers Died in the Great War has 207 other ranks and three officers of the 7/Royal Scots, plus one erroneously listed as 5/Royal Scots, and is otherwise missing two listed by the CWGC. SDitGW does not have any 7/Royal Scots men having died in the timeframe in question who are not corroborated by the CWGC/GR forms.
In terms of fatalities on the troop train, Druitt's Appendix I lists the following:
This gives a total of 215 - which exactly matches the 213 known 7/Royal Scots fatalities, plus the driver and the fireman on the locomotive. On the face of it, it seems that Druitt's caution over the number of dead on the troop train was misplaced, and that his figures in the report were in fact correct. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In a recent addition, I fleshed out this page based on the 2015 BBC documentary. I then rewrote the introduction, which included based on a summary of that, the addition of the line:
"A 2015 BBC documentary alleges the two signalmen were scapegoats, and blame for the crash also rested on the working practices of both the railway company and the government, who ran the railways in war-time."
The introduction changes were rejected (but not the expansion of the BBC info) on the grounds that Wikipedia "need to avoid giving undue weight to recent TV documentary. TV documentaries are often poorly done."
I find this reasoning bizarre to say the least. The BBC don't exactly have a reputation for making poor documentaries, and AFAIK this is the only documentary that has examined this disaster from a modern perspective. And obviously, a large part of the reason for it was to re-examine the inquiry against modern expectations. If there are others, I would have thought they would have already been added to the page. But unlike air disasters, rail crashes like this hardly ever get mentioned on TV, so I have no problem assuming this is the only mainstream attention this disaster has got in recent times. Therefore, not mentioning it in the introduction would be simply unsupportable. Yandrossss (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why did you completely reverse the whole edit? You referred to better citations, yet I didn't remove any, and you just restored a version that was marked as lacking a citation. And if the issue is the BBC documentary, well, obviously your reaction is out of proportion given that was only one line - and if you want to dispute it, I would argue that if you want to argue the BBC are in the habit of doing poor documentaries, or indeed that there are other better ones out there, I would expect to see some evidence of that. Yandrossss (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm rather staggered at the justification offered by Toddy1 that "TV documentaries are often poorly done." I would note that Toddy1 appears to be Russian, so is probably unfamiliar with the standards of British television in general - and the BBC in particular - in this regard, so may not be in a position to make such spurious sweeping condemnation. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
10:14, 3 September 2015 version i.e. before edits by Yandrossss |
---|
The Quintinshill rail disaster occurred on 22 May 1915 near Gretna Green, Dumfriesshire, Scotland at Quintinshill, an intermediate signal box with passing loops on each side on the Caledonian Main Line linking Glasgow and Carlisle (now part of the West Coast Main Line).
The accident involved five trains, and killed a probable 226[nb 1] and injured 246 and remains the worst rail crash in the United Kingdom in terms of loss of life.[2] Those killed were mainly Territorial soldiers from the 1/7th (Leith) Battalion, the Royal Scots heading for Gallipoli. The precise death toll was never established with confidence as the roll list of the regiment was destroyed by the fire.[1] The first collision occurred when a southbound troop train travelling from Larbert, Stirlingshire to Liverpool, Lancashire collided with a local passenger train that had been shunted on to the main line.[3] Wreckage spilled over onto the northbound line, causing a second collision only a minute later, as a sleeper train from London to Glasgow ploughed into the wreckage of the first collision. Gas from the Pintsch gas lighting system of the old wooden carriages of the troop train ignited, starting a fire which soon engulfed the three passenger trains and also two goods trains standing on nearby passing loops. Some bodies were never recovered, having been wholly consumed by the fire, and the bodies that were recovered were buried together in a mass grave in Edinburgh's Rosebank Cemetery. Four bodies, believed to be of children, were never identified or claimed and are buried in the Western Necropolis, Glasgow. Pte William Clark of the 1/7th Battalion who died from injuries received aged 24 is buried in the Edinburgh Eastern Cemetery at Drum Terrace.[citation needed] An official inquiry, completed on 17 June 1915 for the Board of Trade, found the cause of the collision to be neglect of the rules by two signalmen. Both were charged with manslaughter in England, then convicted of culpable homicide after trial in Scotland; the two terms are broadly equivalent. After they were released from a Scottish jail in 1916, they were re-employed by the railway company, although not as signalmen. A memorial to the dead soldiers was erected soon after the accident and there are more recent memorials at various locations. An annual remembrance service is held at Rosebank Cemetery. |
|
20:11, 6 September 2015 version the initial revision by Yandrossss. This is the version that Toddy1 reverted. |
The Quintinshill rail disaster was a multi-train rail crash which occurred on 22 May 1915 outside the Quintinshill signal box near Gretna Green in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, resulting in the deaths of over 200 people, the worst in British history.[1]
Quintinshill box controlled two passing loops on each side on the Caledonian Main Line linking Glasgow and Carlisle (now part of the West Coast Main Line). At the time of the accident, both passing loops were occupied with goods trains, with a local passenger train standing on the southbound main line. The first collision occurred when a southbound troop train travelling from Larbert to Liverpool collided with the stationary local train. A minute later the wreckage was struck by a northbound express sleeper train from London to Glasgow. Gas from the Pintsch gas lighting system of the old wooden carriages of the troop train ignited, starting a fire which soon engulfed all five trains. Those killed were mainly Territorial soldiers from the 1/7th (Leith) Battalion, the Royal Scots heading for Gallipoli. The precise death toll was never established with confidence as some bodies were never recovered, having been wholly consumed by the fire, while the roll list of the regiment was also destroyed in the fire.[2] The official death toll was 227 (215 soldiers, 9 passengers and three railway employees), but the army later reduced their 215 by one. Not counted in the 227 were four victims thought to be children[2], but which were never claimed or identified. The soldiers were buried together in a mass grave in Edinburgh's Rosebank Cemetery, where an annual remembrance is held. An official inquiry, completed on 17 June 1915 for the Board of Trade, found the cause of the collision to be neglect of the rules by two signalmen. With both loops occupied, the northbound local train had been reversed onto the southbound line to allow passage of the late running northbound sleeper. It's presence was then overlooked, and the southbound troop train was cleared for passage. As a result, both were charged with manslaughter in England, then convicted of culpable homicide after trial in Scotland; the two terms are broadly equivalent. After they were released from a Scottish jail in 1916, they were re-employed by the railway company, although not as signalmen. A 2015 BBC documentary alleges the two signalmen were scapegoats, and blame for the crash also rested on the working practices of both the railway company and the government, who ran the railways in war-time. |
|
17:35, 7 September 2015 version final version by Yandrossss |
The Quintinshill rail disaster was a multi-train rail crash which occurred on 22 May 1915 outside the Quintinshill signal box near Gretna Green in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, resulting in the deaths of over 200 people, the worst in British history.[1]
Quintinshill box controlled two passing loops on each side on the Caledonian Main Line linking Glasgow and Carlisle (now part of the West Coast Main Line). At the time of the accident, both passing loops were occupied with goods trains, with a local passenger train standing on the southbound main line. The first collision occurred when a southbound troop train travelling from Larbert to Liverpool collided with the stationary local train.[2] A minute later the wreckage was struck by a northbound express sleeper train from London to Glasgow. Gas from the Pintsch gas lighting system of the old wooden carriages of the troop train ignited, starting a fire which soon engulfed all five trains. Those killed were mainly Territorial soldiers from the 1/7th (Leith) Battalion, the Royal Scots heading for Gallipoli. The precise death toll was never established with confidence as some bodies were never recovered, having been wholly consumed by the fire, while the roll list of the regiment was also destroyed in the fire.[3] The official death toll was 227 (215 soldiers, 9 passengers and three railway employees), but the army later reduced their 215 by one. Not counted in the 227 were four victims thought to be children,[3] but which were never claimed or identified. The soldiers were buried together in a mass grave in Edinburgh's Rosebank Cemetery, where an annual remembrance is held. An official inquiry, completed on 17 June 1915 for the Board of Trade, found the cause of the collision to be neglect of the rules by two signalmen. With both loops occupied, the northbound local train had been reversed onto the southbound line to allow passage of the late running northbound sleeper. It's presence was then overlooked, and the southbound troop train was cleared for passage. As a result, both were charged with manslaughter in England, then convicted of culpable homicide after trial in Scotland; the two terms are broadly equivalent. After they were released from a Scottish jail in 1916, they were re-employed by the railway company, although not as signalmen. |
|
06:57, 8 September 2015 version after partial revert by HLGallon |
The Quintinshill rail disaster was a multi-train rail crash which occurred on 22 May 1915 outside the Quintinshill signal box near Gretna Green in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, resulting in the deaths of over 200 people, the worst in British history.[1]
Quintinshill box controlled two passing loops on each side on the Caledonian Main Line linking Glasgow and Carlisle (now part of the West Coast Main Line). At the time of the accident, both passing loops were occupied with goods trains, with a local passenger train standing on the southbound main line. The first collision occurred when a southbound troop train travelling from Larbert to Liverpool collided with the stationary local train. A minute later the wreckage was struck by a northbound express sleeper train from London to Glasgow. Gas from the Pintsch gas lighting system of the old wooden carriages of the troop train ignited, starting a fire which soon engulfed all five trains. Those killed were mainly Territorial soldiers from the 1/7th (Leith) Battalion, the Royal Scots heading for Gallipoli. The precise death toll was never established with confidence as some bodies were never recovered, having been wholly consumed by the fire, while the roll list of the regiment was also destroyed in the fire.[2] The official death toll was 227 (215 soldiers, 9 passengers and three railway employees), but the army later reduced their 215 by one. Not counted in the 227 were four victims thought to be children,[2] but which were never claimed or identified. The soldiers were buried together in a mass grave in Edinburgh's Rosebank Cemetery, where an annual remembrance is held. An official inquiry, completed on 17 June 1915 for the Board of Trade, found the cause of the collision to be neglect of the rules by two signalmen. With both loops occupied, the northbound local train had been reversed onto the southbound line to allow passage of the late running northbound sleeper. It's presence was then overlooked, and the southbound troop train was cleared for passage. As a result, both were charged with manslaughter in England, then convicted of culpable homicide after trial in Scotland; the two terms are broadly equivalent. After they were released from a Scottish jail in 1916, they were re-employed by the railway company, although not as signalmen. |
|
Toddy1, you're actions are confusing me. If you have any remaining objections to my changes, can you please detail them here precisely? I don't know why you've posted the four different versions above, under a post that said I had rectified your main objection - the apparent reduction in citations. Are people supposed to be commenting on them or something? I also notice you restored the note to the infobox which you claim I removed without reason - hopefully my clarification makes clear that the reason I took it out of there is the same as why I rolled it into the main text. Frankly, at this point, it's not clear to me which elements of the confusion about the precise number of deaths is backed by a source, and which is just people's speculation here - the note was tagged as requiring a citation for precisely that reason it seems. My version hopefully clarified (assuming the main article citations are correct) what is known, and what is unknown, and what implications that has on the precise death toll. But I think it's safe to assume that, for the purposes of a quick reference in the infobox - 226 is the most likely accurate number - if necessary I suppose "(see articles)" could be added to somehow note it's possibly in question. Yandrossss (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised that the book "The Quintinshill Conspiracy" by Adrian Searle and Jackanthon Richards is not referenced in this article. The BBC documentary, about which there has been much discussion, was clearly based on this book so all the arguments about whether the documentary can be cited could be avoided by referencing it. Maybe the word "conspiracy" in the title is off-putting, but it is a solid piece of well-referenced research. The article as it stands, perhaps not unreasonably, is based on the Board of Trade report. This may, according to the book, have just been a re-write of the Caledonian's internal enquiry and there are areas of concern. For instance, in the article section "Signalman's errors" we are told that the blocking back signal should have been sent after "train out of section" had been given for the coal train. This was explicitly prohibited by the Caledonian's rules (blocking back should have taken place before the local crossed over but Meakin could not do this as the section was already occupied by the coal train. In the circumstances, "train out" should not have been sent until the local was clear of the up line and it was never established who sent the signal while it was still there.)Bruern Crossing (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The sentence
"Gas from the Pintsch gas lighting system of the old wooden carriages of the troop train ignited, starting a fire which soon engulfed all five trains."
refers to five trains, although it is completely unclear that there were five trains involved.
It is necessary to first explain which five trains are involved before making a reference to "all five trains".66.37.241.35 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed a paragraph of text which appears to be original research. it cites sources, but only sources dating from before the documentary, so it cannot be based on reliable (or any) sources.
The text is:
The documentary at times showed only a superficial knowledge of railway operating practice, particularly at the time of the disaster. The sidings were being used in their normal way to hold slow-running freight trains, not for storage.[1][2] It was common practice for railways to re-employ staff after a conviction, demoted to lesser roles.[3] The multiple breaches of regulations by the signalmen were glossed over.
--MrStoofer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that Quintinshill rail disaster be renamed and moved to 1915 Quintinshill rail collision. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)) . Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. |
Quintinshill rail disaster → 1915 Quintinshill rail collision – per WP:DISASTER: "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)