Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident

Notability
I believe that this incident is notable enough have a Wikipedia article because of the suspension of WCRC from operating on the British railway network. AFAIK, this is the first time that an operator has been banned following an incident since the break-up of British Rail. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Where does it deserve mention in other articles though?
 * I think it should appear in articles on:
 * WCRC
 * SPAD
 * Wootton Bassett junction
 * Modern mainline steam operations in the UK
 * Tangmere
 * OTOH, I'm less convinced by it appearing in the articles for the SWML, or even the BoB class. Note that the loco identity doesn't appear in the lead of this article, as it wasn't a contributing factor. This would of course change if there turns out to be some technical link as to why the AWS was cancelled, as there had been at Milton. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - Covered in WCRC and SPAD articles. Wootton Bassett Junction doesn't have an article, but there is Wootton Bassett railway stations which could accommodate a paragraph. There is no "Modern mainline steam operations in the UK" article, nor does Tangmere have an article. As the incident occurred on the South Wales and Great Western main lines, it is covered there, the same as with the class of locomotive involved. Agree that the fact that a steam locomotive was involved is probably immaterial, but it may be a factor due to the way AWS and TPWS were installed. The inquiry will no doubt cover this aspect. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The article actually reads far more like an article on the WCRC suspension than the SPAD. I suggest the SPAD per se fails notability since there appears to be no other page which covers a SPAD incident that didn't result in a subsequent accident. By contrast the arguments for notability above seem more about the suspension than about the SPAD. So it would seem logical to rename the article. Much of the content, like the mention of the 2010 lineside fire incident, seems unconnected to the SPAD, but relevant to the suspension. In that context the content would be primarily the ban, and then as subsections the incidents which led up to the ban, and then the consequences of the ban. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The article at the moment is incomplete because the RAIB are still investigating the incident. Until their report is released, and the details from it are assimilated into the article, it is going to appear that the article is more weighted towards WCRC's suspension. The Bell Busk incident gives important background detail into the way that WCRC conducted their affairs at that time. It is apparent that this has changed since the suspension. I'm not in favour of moving the article, but would consider creating a redirect from a suitable title, such as West Coast Railway suspension by Network Rail, which would help the article to be found by internet search engine. Let me know what you think, no need to ping me as I've got this page watchlisted. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support such a redirect (although redirects need terse names) - a redirect is useless if no-one will ever navigate through that name. However such a redirect belongs to a section within WCRC, more than the incident that triggered it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Investigations
In the Investigations section we seem to be saying that there are three separate investigations taking place. To a layperson (me) this sounds odd. I assume that actually they are differentiated in scope or by the authorities' differing remits, or something, rather than that it's just insane duplication for a laugh. Might it be possible to have little sentence or two placing this in context, and thus reducing confusion ... for me, at least! :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There could be more than three, as it's quite likely that WCRC are also holding an internal investigation. RAIB, ORR and the RSSB do have different remit. The most important difference between the three is that reports by the RAIB cannot be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions. Reports produced by other agencies can be. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Uhuh, interesting,, thanks. Any chance you could please add a brief explainer to the article to satisfy my Profound Inner Cluelessness? Or is it too much detail? Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary at the moment. Rumour is that WCRC may well go under, which might render criminal proceedings a moot point, although there is always the possibility that certain individuals could face charges of "endangering the safety of persons on the railway". Time will tell. For now, let's leave it at three (known) investigations are in progress. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - WCRC also have started an internal investigation. Doubtful that will be released to the public unless there's a whistleblower. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How many bans?
re

Network Rail banned WCRC at the start of the month. It's reported that the Office of Rail and Road is considering a ban. AIUI, these are two different bans (no, I don't understand the legalistic niceties of rail licensing). It's an additional ban that might well happen, but hasn't yet. In which case, this removal as "duplication" was wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - as I understand it, ORR can allow a TOC/OC to operate while NR bans it, but NR cannot allow a TOC/OC to operate if the ORR has banned them. edited to add Not sure if that's clear, but it would appear that the ORR carries more clout here. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The removal of duplication was because it is covered more thoroughly elsewhere in the article. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

2010 SPAD
Does anyone have any details of the December 2010 SPAD. I had a look on the RAIB website and found this August 2006 SPAD, the report for which was released in December 2010. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Purley report you refer to was issued in August 2007 - RAIB reports generally take about a year. The "December 2010" date may be referring to this incident of 8 November 2010, or it may be that the December 2010 was when the current method of categorising SPADs was introduced. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, the 8 November 2010 incident wasn't a SPAD as the signals were clear at the time. I shall make enquiries elsewhere. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that one, will add it to the Hastings Line article. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I gather that the December 2010 incident was a SPAD in snow near Weston-super-Mare, which apparently the RAIB decided did not need to be investigated . No RS for this I'm afraid. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm sure they will get around to it. Next edition of Rail is out this week. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - you were correct. Rail confirmed it. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of train braking
What does 2015_Wootton_Bassett_SPAD_incident mean? "Many trains operated by WCRC use vacuum brakes, which means that DB Schenker are unable to operate these charters". Is the problem that WCRC stock is vacuum fitted and DBS have no vacuum fitted locos? (Seems unlikely). Or that the locos chartered are vacuum only and DBS have neither vacuum coaching stock, nor will they charter WCRC's coaches? What is a "WCRC charter" in this context (i.e. the thing that DBS would take over)? Is it a particular train (WCRC loco and stock) or a particular loco (WCRC loco) or just "run some steam", in which case DBS could operate it with their own air-braked stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the last locos built with vacuum brake were - these were dual-braked, and I believe that all the preserved examples still are. From  onwards, all new Diesel locos have been air-brake only, and they've not fitted the vacuum brake to any of these. So a DBS loco with vacuum brake will almost certainly mean a, unless they hire in a preserved loco. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DBS have a policy of only operating air braked trains. AFAIK, there is no technical reason why they could not operate vacuum braked trains, but they choose not to. DBS do operate (air braked) steam locomotives. A "WCRC charter" is a train run by WCRC, whether steam or diesel powered.Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Cathedrals Express
The train was running as part of the Cathedrals Express series. Is there any good reason that the name should not appear. Other named trains are mentioned, some even have articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook
Before anyone complains, the reference sourced from the Facebook page of Steam Railway magazine is only intended to be temporary. Let's be clear, Network Rail are the publisher. As soon as the letter is published on their website, or by a RS on the web or in print, it will be changed. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a copy of the letter, published on Network Rail's website. However, it is not displaying for me. Clicking on the letters "pdf" causes a download. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories
I don't think this page should have been placed in the various "rail accident" categories; although a serious SPAD, no collision or derailment occurred, and it stood out in those categories as the only article I could find where that wasn't the case. In particular "accidents caused by a SPAD" - it was a SPAD, and luckily didn't cause anything else. I've removed these categories from the article. Was inclined to take out "History of Wiltshire" too (is a rail operating incident really a historical event?!), but it seems like a fairly random assortment of articles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLHerne (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restore the categories. If you insist over this trivial naming issue, then rename the categories, maybe as "incidents". However clearly the categorization is important. Even the RAIB (Who investigate "accidents" according to their name) still see Wootton Bassett, or any SPAD, as within their purview. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy Dingley. The RAIB are investigating it in the same way that an accident would be investigated. Are you seriously saying that the driver deliberately ran the red? Given the events subsequent to the SPAD, yes, it is an historical event. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the removal. Whilst the categories may not be the ideal ones for this accident, they are the nearest appropriate categories. I see no mileage in creating a sub-category which is likely to remain with only one article in it. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the 'rail accidents' categories seem, in practice, to be used for major accidents (i.e. derailments and collisions) rather than operating incidents. When reading through those categories this is literally the only article about a specific event out of 100+ pages in them in which that isn't the case, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. This is supported by the naming of the 'accidents involving a SPAD' category, which implicitly considers SPADs as distinct from the accidents they contribute to and that are listed. The sane response to an article being (as far as I can find) unique is not to shoehorn it into tangentially-related categories; that just causes confusion.
 * I'll admit to disputing the existence of this article at all - surely the fact that it *is* unique in describing a single operating incident is an argument against that - but if it has to be one, please don't force it into unsuitable categories. FLHerne (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - you are quite at liberty to take the article to AFD, but before you do so, please take the time to read the discussion at WT:UKT if you are not already familiar with it. As for the categorization issue, WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply. I've made a note at the category page defining its scope. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

More sources


—Sladen (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC have woken up then? I've added a bit from that story to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

12 July 2014 incident
The two paragraphs about the 12 July 2014 incident look out of place to me, as they are sitting between two paragraph about the latest incident. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - I understand your point, but don't know how else to present the information. Barring the last paragraph, the info was presented this way in the sources quoted. As always, improvement and suggestions for improvements are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Had a go at improving this. Op47 (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

7 demands
According to the article, there were 7 demands. Is it known what they were? Op47 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - see the suspension notice, ref #20. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think #13 was intended. Thankyou. I would like to repeat the 7 demands here. Is that ok? Op47 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - If you think that the seven demands should be presented in the article I won't stand in your way. They may be better presented as a footnote rather that inline text though. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a problem with the citations. At the end of the paragraph "Investigations" there is a cite (#12 at the moment) to support the fact WRCC has opened an internal investigation. It actually links to a letter announcing strike action will not affect the Fort Bill to Mallaig excursions. Op47 (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WCRC have changed the text of that webpage. It looks like we need an expert with the Wayback Machine to try and retrieve the original. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What did the driver do?
As I understand it, when a train passes a "non clear" signal, there is a warning and the driver presses a button to cancel the warning. If he does not then the train stops. When I first read this article, it seemed like the driver pressed the button after braking had started. In which case, I could not understand why the system would not work normally at the next signal. Looking at the references, it looks like the driver in fact did something else, e.g. disconnect the AWS from the brakes. I would not like to say this in the article without confirmation, because that would be potentially libelous. Can any one confirm what the driver actually did? and state it explicitly. Op47 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that we need to wait for the report to be published before we can understand exactly what happened. As I understand it, the location of the equipment and breaking/non-presence of seals on the equipment may well have been contributory factors. Time will tell. For now, all we can do is report what has appeared in the press. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't what happens in practical terms, because of the limits of engineering and the long stopping distance for a fast train.
 * There used to be two sorts of signal: home (red) and distant (yellow). Nowadays they're combined into multi-aspect signals, but the point still applies. A distant being "on" does not mean "caution, be careful", it means "the home signal ahead is on and you are probably going to have to stop at it". Because of the weight and speed of a train, the driver has to start this stopping action long in advance of being able to see the home signal – usually by reducing speed to level where their stopping distance is then within the sighting distance. Drivers of fast trains have to act at the distant warning, not later, or else they'll be physically unable to stop in time later.
 * In this case, the driver did not do so. They were warned that the distant indication was on, they took action to prevent the automatic system applying the brakes, but they didn't then brake or reduce speed adequately. As a result, when they saw the red home signal on, they couldn't stop in time for it and so they overran it.
 * It's most unlikely the driver "disabled the warning system" in response to the distant. That would be bizarre, but mostly just impractical to do (a short time on a moving footplate to do something complicated). What is much more likely is that either they simply acknowledged the distant warning (avoiding automatic braking) but didn't then do the manual braking that was needed to reduce speed adequately in time for the red home signal. Alternatively, the warning system was already non-functional (for some time beforehand) and so didn't enforce braking when needed.
 * If you haven't read it already, the RAIB accident report on the Milton rail crash is a good background read for this situation too. That accident article, and even the RAIB report, should be included in this article too, as an example of AWS/ATC action and what can go wrong with it. That's also an important article that just needs expansion for WP generally. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I came to this article because of a "did you know" on the main page. As a neutral editor, I find it hard not to see this article as an attempt to vent frustrations with WCRC (It may not be the intention, but that is how it appears). Wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox. I understand how it may be frustrating to spend ~£2000 on a rail tour with the expectation of being hauled by heritage traction and instead being hauled by a freight locomotive. This is not the place to vent those frustrations. The following can be considered egregious. I have tried to improve the article, but most efforts have be summarily reverted. Op47 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The general tone of the article is sensationalist
 * The addition of the incident to categories named accidents
 * The misquoted extract from the suspension notice at the head of the ban section is clearly intended to be inflamatory
 * The day by day log of one of the affected tour.
 * It is as yet unclear what happened.


 * I wouldn't agree with any of your points here, except that the detail of the Great Britain VIII coverage does seem excessive. We can say that was "seriously affected", or say that there were many steam -> diesel substitutions, even cite some complaints about it, without having to list every change. The point is that the subsequent tour was affected and there were reactions to those effects, not listing the locos involved.
 * I certainly don't see this as sensationalist. Comments within the railtour community may have sometimes taken the line "Nothing happened, so nothing had happened" but RAIB rightly take a very different view of such near-misses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The general tone of the article is sensationalist - Is it? I have striven to remain neutral when writing the article. One difficulty is that I can only report what outside sources report. The magazines used are not known for sensationalism. It is very hard to fully report WCRCs side of the story when they won't talk to the press (unless its to promote their railtours). This is one of the issues that was raised following the incidents at Bell Busk and Wootton Bassett.
 * The addition of the incident to categories named accidents - This has been discussed above. It's not ideal, but it is the best we can do. WP:SMALLCAT applies.
 * The misquoted extract from the suspension notice at the head of the ban section is clearly intended to be inflamatory - It is neither misquoted, nor intended to be inflammatory. It is an accurate quote from NR. It could be has now been qualified by adding the date, as NR do not now hold the opinion that they expressed in April. I object to being accused of misquoting when there is no such misquote presented.
 * The day by day log of one of the affected tour. - It was an eight day tour, which is better presented in its current format rather than a blanket small paragraph. This railtour was one of many that were affected by the ban. I chose not to detail each and every tour that was affected, but as this was the biggest, thought it would illustrate the problems that the ban caused for railtour organisers, who rely on WCRC to operate the trains.
 * It is as yet unclear what happened - I agree totally, and will probably remain so for many months yet. Until the RAIB release their final report and we can fully analyze what did and didn't happen, we'll have to accept the situation as is.
 * As for your last statement, some have, some haven't. This is normal, the process is WP:BRD. You boldly made some edits, I reverted some of them (not all). If you wish to object to any revert, we discuss the issue here, on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Given the above responses, may the neutrality tag be removed now? Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not happy with the way this subject has been treated. I have to admit the delay is partly because the responses given are rather intimidating and so are the discussions above. As pointed out in the article, WCR may be prosecuted and in effect this matter is sub judice. This article needs to be handled fairly. Remember, the jury at any trial will be people like you and me. Just because something is the truth, it doesn't need to said and certainly does not need to be said in this manner. It is not just this article that is a problem, but WCR and the various lists of accidents. I know you have done your best, but the subject needs some work.
 * When I read the article I kept asking myself, what has happened to cause this fuss. It is facts about the incident that is needed. I also compared the article to e.g. Quintinshill, Connington South, Pollokshields East, Ladbrook Grove and Honeybourne 1989. What I see here appears OTT compared to how they are treated (with long standing concensus).
 * Adding the article to the lists of accidents looks like an attempt to draw attention. I know you did not mean it that way, that is why I even bothering to discuss it. However, that is how it looks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a railway company. It does not have to take incidents like this seriously, railway companies do.
 * The quote: The template says that pull quotes are not encyclopedic. It is more the type of thing that one expects in tabloid newspapes and not here. It is misquoted becacause you have presented it as being the start of the sentence. RT said they believe that .... I know it may not seem different to you, but as I said the matter is sub judice and it is like not saying "Allegedly" when stating something. Also, I read it that RT would not normally use language like that. If you must have the quote, at least put it in the text. I could find nothing like it in any of the other crash articles.
 * I find it a little odd that you want to quote the whole ittinery of the tour and yet you wanted me to put the demands in a foot note. The demands are facts about the incident. The itinery comes over as waffle to make WCR seem more heinous. I could find nothing like it in the other articles mentioned and I see no reason to start here.
 * I note that it has been written that the ban was a result of the SPAD, when it was WCR's (alleged) attitude.
 * As stated above, the criteria for including an incident in a list of accidents is that an accident (crash whatever) actually happened. If you cannot see that this is not an accident then this is why I have to question the neutrality. I note that this incident where: no lives were lost, no injuries occurred and no damage was done is in the template for world crashes in 2015. All of the other incidents involved at least 1 death. I am sorry to sound like a goul, but the criteria for the template seems to be that someone died. I note that none of the other accidents in 2015 made the cut, so why this. The Pollokshields crash does not even have an article and Honeybourne does not even have a mention at all.
 * Regarding PRD, as far as I am concerned you were bold, I reverted and now we are discussing. I am sorry to have to get your attention this way. Unfortunately, the article does need toning down a bit. Look forward to talking soon. Op47 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm sorry that you saw my response as intimidating. It was not meant that way. I am open to discussion over issues. Lets be clear as to why the incident deserves an article. Had the SPAD happened, and WCRC not been suspended, then it might have merited a sentence in the article on Tangmere at most. It is because NR took the unprecedented step of suspending WCRC from operating that the threshold of notability was firmly crossed. It is not an accident in the sense that there was damage, injuries or death, but it is an accident in the sense that it wasn't a deliberately intentional act. Whilst a higher number of deaths gives more weight to the case for notability, a lack of deaths (or injuries / damage) does not necessarily equate to a lack of notability.
 * Despite a few grumbles, no challenge has been made via AfD, so it would seem that the case for notability is accepted. We need to accept that the article will remain incomplete until such time that RAIB release their final report. This is typically going to take a year from the event. A similar situation exists at the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash article. There is nothing in the article that has not already been put before the general public elsewhere. As I stated earlier, I am happy to put both sides of the story, but it is a bit hard when one side won't talk. You will note that I have recently expanded the article including WCRCs apology. The SPAD was the catalyst for the ban, but the attitude of WCRC was a major contributory factor in its imposition. The Bell Busk incident well illustrates the (then) underlying attitude, with WCRC not co-operating fully with the relevant authorities. You need to fully read the document at ref #20 to gain a fuller picture. Reading recent reports in the railway press, it would seem that WCRC have changed their attitude in this respect, with new blood coming into the company. This can only be good for all concerned.
 * You mention the various lists of accidents. If you think there is something wrong with these lists, WT:TWP is probably the best place to initiate a discussion.
 * Re the seven points, if you feel strongly that they should be mentioned in the body of the article, then go ahead. It's not how I'd have done it, but neither way is any better or worse than the other. As for the quote, would the presentation of the quote in the Sloterdijk train collision article be better? I'd prefer to keep it if possible.
 * Ideally, I'd like more input from other editors, so that a true consensus can be formed. I'll give TWP and UKT a shout. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the neutrality tag can be removed. I don't see any POV problem with the article as it stands. What I would do is cut the vastly excessive detail about the effects on the railtour. The whole subsection headed "Great Britain VIII" is superfluous. -- Alarics (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, there is no need to go into detail about this part as it is not directly relevant to the article, nor is its inclusion necessary for understanding. I would suggest two sentences at maximum on this subject, and certainly not a blow-by-blow account. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No neutrality issues here for me either. Specifically in relation to the seventh point raised above, I disagree that it is "unclear what happened". The preliminary RAIB report makes it plain what happened: the crew disabled the AWS. A monumentally stupid action which could have resulted in significant loss of life. It is quite different from the other "accidents" mentioned above as here we have deliberately reckless action being taken. If you want real parallels it's necessary to go back as far as Connington South where a signalman moved points under a moving train, or Audenshaw Junction where another signalman mucked about with a lever frame. If this is the incident which leads to the EP valve being taken out of cabs, it needs to be properly documented as has been done here. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "the crew disabled the AWS."
 * Have they said that yet? I've seen "wasn't working", but nothing yet to imply blame for why. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have they said that yet? I've seen "wasn't working", but nothing yet to imply blame for why. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Evidence shows that the driver and fireman instead took an action which cancelled the effect of the AWS braking demand after a short period..." Lamberhurst (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cancelling it is not the same thing as disabling it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, when approaching any signal that is not at "clear", the alarm horn sounds and the driver must press the button within a certain time. If they do not do this, the brakes are applied; but if they do press the button quickly enough, the alarm is silenced, the brakes are not applied and the "sunflower" turns from black to yellow. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AWS equipment activates the brakes by de-energising the EP valve which causes it to open and release air into the vacuum pipe. To stop that from happening the wheel on top of the valve has to be screwed down. That this was done is confirmed by Network Rail's requests to demonstrate there is in place an effective and secure system of tamper-evident seals for train protection isolator cocks. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dead link, but that's news to me. I hadn't read anything yet that confirmed it had been disabled (not just cancelled) and also that the train crew had done it, rather than it coming off shed with it u/s. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Link now updated. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's how I recall the story as published then. It's still vague and avoids stating that the train crew had disabled any equipment (as opposed to cancelling the warning but not doing any braking). This article should be careful to avoid saying any more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mjroots. Your apology was not needed, but gratefully accepted. I see a lot has been written and I will try not to write a wall of text. My apologies in advance if I fail.
 * The incident is certainly notable, or at least the suspension of WRC is. It is more a matter of how the article is being handled. For example, the erruption of Eyjafjallajökull is certainly notable, but it hardly a natural disaster on the same scale as e.g. Krakatoa. In the same way, this article does need to exist, but maybe it doesn't have to be linked as far as it does.
 * You mention the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash. This is the kind of article that I would expect to see here. In particular, the tone seems more matter of fact, there are no pull quotes. The aftermath is limited to stating that there were groundings, there are no itineries of tours that were affected. It also makes it clear that the cause is unknown and it does not come over as trying to pillory the owners of the helicopter. I know you wern't trying to pillory WCR, but that is how it looks.
 * I read the ADA20 document which was #20 tonight. Is that the document that you intended?
 * I would still prefer the quote to be kept in the text at this time. If and when it is confirmed that the drive did tamper with the AWS deliberately then that is the time to consider putting it back in.
 * I take your point about discussing the lists at TWP. Not tonight though.
 * I note most people disagree that this is a neutrality dispute. I am happy to remove the tag, but if it is then I will want to replace it with more specific tags in the article. Hope we are making progress. Op47 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. In light of the comments above by other editors, I will reduce the GBVIII stuff in the next few days. It would seem that we are making progress now. Before you start tagging, maybe you could raise specific concerns here and I'll then be able to consider what can be done to address them. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Think you've got a long way to go before the Wikipedia coverage of this looks anything like neutral to the semi casual observer. This and extensive coverage semi duplicating on other pages gives distinct impression of grinding axe. Maybe unfair but that's how it looks. GBVIII coverage seems utterly pointless. Apart from people who were on it who cares and relevance to incident tangential at best. All needed is a note that due to suspension rail tours were cancelled or heavily disrupted. 188.29.164.153 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Mayflower
Interesting link for the next article, https://www.flickr.com/photos/danwarman1/18789584972/  Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

UK or United Kingdom
In the very first sentence of the Lead, it needs to be made clear that this incident happened in the UK. Currently it says "Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire..." I'm tempted to add "UK" or "United Kingdom", but am not familiar with UK regions, counties, or other territorial authorities and don't know whether one should appear between Wiltshire and UK/United Kingdom. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. The country is specified in the next paragraph, but you are quite right that at the beginning we don't really say where it is. I suppose many of have been reading it with rather English eyes and not really seeing this. Also, we're a bit leery about specifying country, probably for a lot of reasons, and to British ears it does sound a bit odd saying Wiltshire, UK or whatever ... it's a bit like saying Boston, MA ... it doesn't sound quite right, to me at least. Having said all that (and I apologize for the waffle) I think that we could specify something .. the thing that makes me least uncomfortable would be to mention England, which I think is quite enough info. UK etc will read oddly. I'll have a go and wait for the torrent of outrage. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the "Wiltshire, England" and "Wiltshire, United Kingdom" forms are in common use elsewhere; but don't use "Wiltshire, England, United Kingdom". -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Noooooooooooo definitely not. And if you go that way you then have to continue with Europe, Earth, Solar System etc ... :) 21:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiltshire, United Kingdom is fine. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the comments. Yes, to non-UK eyes like mine, it's just a little too ambiguous. Akld guy (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous date
The final paragraph of the incident section reads "The month before, a passenger train overran a signal at Tamworth, Staffordshire". Is this the month before the Wootton Bassett incident, or the December 2010 Uphill Junction incident? I'd read the sentence as being the latter, but it could be interpretted either way. &mdash; An  optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 10:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the latter, but I'll clarify the text. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wootton Bassett web update


—Sladen (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Will have a read and update the article in the next day or so (unless I get beaten to it). Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What?
In addition the ORR found that the conditions would have been met for revocation of WCRC's safety certificate had been meet, which would have implications for WCRC's European train operator's licence. I doubt this is correct English grammar ("had been meet"???) - but what should it convey? --User:Haraldmmueller 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - did you read the letter? It means that the safety certificate could have been revoked, but wasn't at that point in time. Will tighten the wording to make this clearer, but would appreciate another editor's eyes on the result. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification attempt. No, I did not read "the letter". I still think that "had been meet" (with two e's!) is wrong English, so I changed it to "had been met"; and that the continuation "which would ..." is not possible with a sentence that starts in indicative mode, so I changed that to "which could...". But if I misconstrued either the intention of the sentence or did not correct the grammatical structure, I beg your pardon! --User:Haraldmmueller 07:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Met" is correct. I'm sure that the letter said "would", but am having trouble getting it to display at the moment, so I won't press the point for now. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Final report
The final report has been published. Lots to absorb but very critical of WCRC and driver. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Op47 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Pushing towards GA
With the court case due sometime this month, and hopefully this time they'll get on with it, the article is approaching completeness. I intend to push for GA, and maybe then FA in the medium term. To this end, any comments on the article as it stands at the moment would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to see an explanation as to why once braking has been applied, it is so important that the train is halted, rather than the option of pressing the cancel button to acknowledge the signal, just a bit late. I would also like to know how the brakes are released in these circumstances. I think you need to take care that implications that are not in the report are not made. For example, the report does not say that not having inspectors makes the crew inadequate. This is particularly important considering the impending prosecution of the Driver and WRCC. I am also slightly curious as to why the fireman has not been prosecuted, I would have thought he would (or should) know not to tamper with the isolating cock. Op47 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The RAIB report is long, but worth the read.
 * There are two reasons that the brakes should begin to be applied on the main line: the train needs to stop, or else the AWS wasn't cancelled in time and begins application. This is an error - if it does happen, the train has to come to a stand, then sort it out. A driver shouldn't simply cancel after the application and continue.
 * As to the fireman, then were they wrong to operate the isolator cock, or had they been instructed to do so? If so, who carries the blame? They were under pressure not to cause delays. There was also a view developing that because use of the cock was thought of as needed for some depot movements, it could be used similarly on the main line. This sort of operating practice is why WCRC had their licence suspended. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The report does say that not having the traction inspector on the footplate was an inadequacy, amongst other things (two support staff when only one permitted, for example). I think a lot will come out when the court case is heard. Pretty sure it will turn out that fireman was following driver's instructions, even though he should have known that what he was doing was against the rules. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have the result of the court case, but don't yet know the details discussed above. This is likely to be available in a couple of weeks time, when the next edition of Rail is published on 6 July. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well from the above comments it seems that the confusion over the fact that the driver IS allowed to operate the isolating cock still hasn't been resolved. I've corrected that now. You may not like it, but I think it's really important that we clear up the misunderstanding. I've added 2 rulebook references for people to look up if they want to know more. Dr Sludge (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. You state that this document is a pdf, so is it available online? If so, we need urls adding to the refs.
 * I intend to expand the article a bit more once the next edition of Rail is published, then we'll push for GA. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I left the urls out because RSSB keeps moving them around (I think they don't like other sites linking directly into them). They're done now & I'll try to keep them updated. Good luck with the GA push.Dr Sludge (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone familiar with the Wayback Machine can future-proof the link. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Isolating the AWS
Dr Sludge left the following on my talk page. I would prefer to move the discussion here.

Hi there, you just altered an edit I made over the driver's actions. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this.

There are two fundamental issues that need to be hammered home about this SPAD;

1) In order to prevent the train stopping after an AWS brake demand, the driver released the brakes by isolating the AWS. (WCR traincrew had a history of performing this dangerous and forbidden procedure).

2) Isolating the AWS ALSO isolates the TPWS (because they share a master control unit)

Ok so you've altered He overrode the AWS brake demand  to  He isolated the AWS using the isolating cocks used for maintenance.

I can see your point, you've taken the literal path but it doesn't explain to the reader why.

What I suggest incorporates both ...He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock

Will we be able to reach agreement/compromise on this ? Cheers, Dr Sludge (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course we can reach a compromise. How would "He released the brakes by isolating the AWS and TPWS, using the isolating cocks used for maintenance" sound? Op47 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer we stick to what he did, and explain the effect that the action had, per the RAIB report. Something like "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. With the cock open, both AWS and TPWS commanded brake applications were rendered ineffective". Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I like that. With a small trim it could be even more more succinct.. "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. With the cock open, both AWS and TPWS brake demands were rendered ineffective". Dr Sludge (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful here. We can all understand each other because we are technical minded. We need to make this understandable to non technical people. I would like to make clear that the control used is not a control for the driver's use. Also, the use of open and close is confusing because I would expect the valve to be closed so that air cannot move to/from the AWS. Perhap: "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes, which is usually done for maintenance. The driver is explicitly prohibited from using the isolator by the rulebook. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." I know it is not as punchy as you may wish, but the reader is likely not to understand the implications without the explanation. Op47 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The driver is not prohibited from using the isolating cock - it's there principally for HIS use. (I've done it myself). All safety systems have overrides because sometimes they fail (hopefully right-side). In order to get the train moving you have to isolate the system, but usually this carries some penalty (like running at reduced speed or detraining the passengers). But you can only isolate in accordance with the rulebook, and certainly not just when you feel like it to save time !! The driver contravened Module S7 Section 5.1 by not allowing the train to stop, and then calling the signaller. He also contravened Module S7 Section 6.3 by isolating the TPWS.
 * Notwithstanding that, and in the interests of finding a solution I'm happy to go with your suggestion if we lose the maintenance clause and tweak the rulebook reference. Ie, "He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock in contravention of the rulebook. This isolated the AWS and TPWS from the brakes. With both the AWS and TPWS isolated, brake demands were rendered ineffective." ' Are we any closer to getting there ? Dr Sludge (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already stated that an AWS brake application requires that the train is brought to a halt and the signalman contacted. Let's not over complicate things. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Operating the stopcock: Any chance of finding a WP:RS discussing anything on the following lines?
 * It's my impression on balance tht the isolator was probably operated by the fireman not the driver. As I recall there are hints in WCRC's safety history generally, suggesting tht this has been the story in the past, sometimes at least: perhaps somewhere in the RAIB Report on this incident too, I'm not sure.  More specifically
 * • the fireman can do it - but it's the driver tht is responsible / accountable if it's done.  That alone suggests the fireman is a slightly more likely culprit.  And
 * • safety - where the drawbacks lie - is much more front-&-centre for the driver than for fireman: whereas
 * • the reason for doing it is basically timekeeping: which is front-&-centre for the fireman.  More specifically,
 * • unsuccessful timekeeping is much more likely to give a fireman peer-pressure problems / canteen-culture grief.  S/he is at risk of comments about skill / ability to keep the fire burning well and keep steam up - and/or simply whether s/he has the stamina / inclination to shovel enough fuel.
 * I'm seeing this as a safety and cultural issue specific to heritage traction. Any thoughts? ?  If so it would be well worth a sentence citing a good source.
 * - SquisherDa (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - SquisherDa (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Disasters in Wiltshire
Should this really be in this category? Without disputing the importance of the incident, I would have thought for it to be termed a disaster loss of life, injuries or major damage would have had to have happened? Dunarc (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was certainly a disaster for WCRC, what with them being banned from the UK railway network. Caused major damage to their commercial reputation. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
as I pointed out earlier, your edits have introduced errors in the referencing. Steam Railway Rail said nothing about the scale being logarithmic. That info was in Rail Steam Railway, as it was correctly referenced in the original text. Please do not rewrite article in such a way that errors such as this are introduced. This is a Good Article, I want it to stay that way. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Error in original corrected. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, for clarifying detail: gocha. We're on the same side, re WP:GA!  I'll get on this ASAP: hopefully later today.  –  17:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How's that? I'm puzzled tht U said I introduced errors into the referencing.  As I read it, the then text had no reference at all for the log-scale sentence?  I would have been sure to fix that, but had no access to the sources.  Do U owe me an apology, or have I missed something?
 * And, more important: is everything OK now? (The sentence re the Uphill Junction SPAD is unreferenced, but the reader can probably be expected to assume the following sentence's source supports both.)  – SquisherDa (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't owe you an apology. The first three sentences were all referenced to Steam Railway issue 440. AFAIK, there is no unreferenced text anywere, it is not necessary to reference each and every sentence. A single reference may cover a whole paragraph. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmm, well . . maybe it's not necessary to reference each and every sentence - in fact obviously it isn't always appropriate. But the reader is sometimes then left guessing: guessing unsuccessfully in my case.  It literally didn't occur to me with this one tht the reference for the detail of earlier severe SPADs was intended to include the preceding very theoretical point about log scales.
 * Referencing by paragraphs could perhaps be seen as a desirable 'short cut' but best thought about with some care?
 * Meanwhile, if I understand aright the current position is tht I've referenced the log-scale sentence to the wrong article of the two? I'll fix it in a bit unless directed otherwise.    ✅
 * - SquisherDa (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident per nom. This RM has been open for 2.5 months. Despite fierce opposition, it has been reasonably argued by supporters that the proposed title much better satisfies the WP:CRITERIA than the current one, and that "SPAD" fails the WP:RECOGNIZABLE test. As a neutral closer, I remain unconvinced by the opposing argumentation that "rail incident" is not a neutral description of an incident that occurred at a railway amd that it somehow fails AT criteria. While there were a few proposed alternatives, there is sufficient consensus among the editors to move to the proposed title (or, at least, move away from the original title). No such user (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident → 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident – The first three WP:CRITERIA for a good title are quite rightly recognizability, naturalness, precision – in this order. 'SPAD' means nothing to any non-railway-expert (arguably the vast majority of WP readers) and is ambiguous even for geeks, considering that it's also the name of a family of famous World War I fighter aircraft. If the reader has to open the article to figure out that it's talking about railway mishaps, then the article has a poor title. Deeday-UK (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412  T 05:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom, no other article at Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal uses "SPAD", which is certainly not a common term for most readers. 162 etc. (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the term "rail incident" implies a fault with a rail. "Railway incident" might be more acceptable, but doesn't sound natural and is imprecise. The fact is the incident here is a near-miss, and it's something which does not have a non-expert terminology. It's not like "derailment" which is obvious in its meaning. I don't see why the proposed name would be better. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, 'rail incident' does not imply a fault with a rail just like the Rail Accident Investigation Branch does not investigate only faulty rails. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Rail Accident Investigation Branch does not investigate only faulty rails" correct but irrelevant because the operative phrase there is "rail accident" not "rail" or "rail incident", you're comparing apples to oranges. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, SPAD is a specific railway industry acronym, rail incident will be more widely understood. Riorgisinx (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are any of ... rail signalling incident. ...Tangmere locomotive incident or ..train incident (Someone could have stood on a bridal dress that day?) acceptable or better alternatives?Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - let's avoid acronyms when we can. I'd be perfectly happy with '...train incident' if people think that 'rail' might be misleading. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've been thinking long and hard about this one; "rail incident" gives the impression that a rail was the cause of the incident, which was not the case. If we are to avoid "SPAD", which is a perfectly good term, let's call it what it was, - "2015 Wootton Bassett signal overrun incident". Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who may wish to comment on the above. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly catchy, but it's better than "rail incident". Perhaps "incident" should be dropped entirely, leaving just 2015 Wootton Bassett signal overrun? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would work. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that would work. To add options train reporting number 1Z67 could also be used as part of the title (similar to aircraft incidents).Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to dropping "incident". Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I maintain my support of the original proposal. "Rail" in this context is understood to mean Rail transport, not Rail track or Rail tie. 162 etc. (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to that list Rail industry, rail jobs and similar phrases. I really see no problem with 'rail incident' (almost 20,000 hits on Google: https://www.google.com/search?q="rail+incident" – Cannot link it properly ), but 'train incident' would still be better than the current title. In any case, in my view the priorities are: 1) Make it clear this article is about trains, 2) Make it clear it is about a hazardous occurrence, so signal overrun alone is inadequate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go with mattbuck's '2015 Wootton Bassett signal overrun'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , how does "rail incident" make it clear it's a hazardous occurrence? It's so generic it's meaningless. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. "rail incident" is both a failure of recognisability and a gratuitous failure of precision - it doesn't tell the reader anything useful at all because it is so generic and, per others, is arguably misleading (while it might not imply anything about the rails to everybody is most certainly does to me and at least some others) and a failure of WP:COMMON. "Train incident" would be marginally better, but is still vague, imprecise and also fails WP:COMMON. The WP:COMMON name in railway sources is very clearly "SPAD" or "signal passed at danger", there is no common name in non-specialist sources with "near miss", "signal passed at danger", and "ran a red light" seem to be most commonly used descriptions but only the first comes close to being used as a name (and the last is not encyclopaedic language, certainly for railways). "Signal overrun" is the least worst alternative but the status quo or "2015 Wootton Basset signal passed at danger incident" are the only two that are actually in accordance with the WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMON article titling policy requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Rail incident" doesn't tell the reader anything useful at all? How useful do you think "SPAD incident" is to the reader, I mean the average reader? --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It tells them it was a SPAD. If they know what that means then they're sorted. If they don't, and they are somehow finding a link to the article without any context at all they can either look up what SPAD means or just read the article. This is no different to articles like 2001 Omsk An-70 crash, 1960 U-2 incident, INS Godavari (F20), Spectral leakage, or any other article with a title that requires knowledge or context to understand. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In Britain at least, it is not uncommon for delays to a train to be attributed to an "incident" which could mean a disruptive passenger, a person under a train, a broken rail, a broken down train, a signal passed at danger, a signal failure, a person taken ill on a train, a derailment, a train crash, or just about any other reason why trains might be delayed. It's a completely meaningless term. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An article about spectral leakage can only be titled as such; that's a no brainer. An article about a historical event, instead, does not need to be titled using obscure technical acronyms (the U-2 article could do with some clarification too). A good analogy is the term CFIT in aviation: despite there being dozens of articles here about such accidents, not a single one contains that term in its title. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The logic of this escapes me. You list the meanings, and then say the term is completely meaningless. Can't have it both ways. The term incident is obviously less specific than some specialists in the area would like to use in communicating with other specialists. But can you suggest a better one for an article title in a general encyclopedia? SPAD may mean Signal Passed At Danger to you and obviously does, but to the average reader it is meaningless. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I list a selection of some of the very many possible meanings, omitting many. It's meaningless because the title is so generic the word "rail" doesn't convey any useful information whatsoever. It fails all the criteria that the OP claims the current one does and it also fails the common name criteria that the current title doesn't. Yes "SPAD" conveys no useful information to some non-specialists, but "rail incident" coveys no useful information to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So by meaningless you seem to mean possibly misleading. It's an overstatement. SPAD on the other hand is quite unrecognisable to many readers. Of course rail incident means something, and to me at least it means exactly what is intended here. It's not a rail accident because there was no damage or injury. And as noted above, rail is quite specific enough in rail industry and similar phrases. Andrewa (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is both meaningless (as in conveys no useful information) and possibly misleading (conveys incorrect information) depending how you interpret it, yes. Just because "rail industry" is not ambiguous does not mean the same applies to "rail incident" (as has been noted multiple times). I and others have responded to everything else you say multiple times already, until you choose to stop repeating what you've previously said and ignoring what others say it's not worth saying any more. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I've explained why every single one of the arguments you've made against the current title applies either equally or more to the proposed title and why the proposed title also fails part of the policy. Specifically, the current title is the common name, unambiguous, meaningful to many without context, meaningful to everyone else with context and not misleading to anyone. The proposed title is not the common name, is ambiguous such that it's meaningless to many and misleading to many others. In response you've repeated the arguments made in the nomination, said you don't like the current name and completely ignored everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is quite simply untrue, as perusal of the discussion will show. The rest says nothing new. Andrewa (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the last sentence was untrue then you'd be able to quote where you have addressed the WP:COMMONNAME issue and engaged with comments about ambiguity with something other than variations of "you're wrong" and comparisons to other phrases (which have been repeated and expanded upon despite being told they are irrelevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is unrecognisable to the general reader. There is nothing wrong with the proposed new title 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident, and nobody has come up with a better one. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is meaningless to the general reader and specialists and it fails the WP:COMMONNAME part of the policy. It has no advantages over the present title but does have disadvantages. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody has come up with a better title because the article is at the best title. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I meant that IMO nobody has come up with a better title than 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident. But that's a far better title than the current title 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident, because it avoids the jargon term SPAD among other reasons. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While "2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident" does avoid jargon it is, as repeatedly explained, objectively worse than "2015 Wootton Basset SPAD incident" because it is not the WP:COMMONNAME, is ambiguous and, depending on interpretation, either misleading or meaningless. Also you have still not explained why we should avoid jargon in article titles when there are thousands of other articles at titles that require exactly equivalent subject matter knowledge to understand? Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One advantage of the proposed title surely is it avoids jargon? Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two possible interpretations of the proposed title (rail incident): one is factually incorrect, the other provides no useful information. That makes it a bad suggestion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to address the question of jargon at all. But it raises two other issues. The claim that it is factually incorrect seems to assume (again but quite explicitly here) that we're dealing only with readers who are some sort of rail fan, and expect a particular technical meaning of incident. We're not. We are a general encyclopdia. The other claim, that it provides no useful information to other readers, is I think dealt with above, but just to reiterate, no, they will understand what is meant. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mattbuck, the average reader is perfectly familiar with the term incident and also understands rail as a short for railway or railroad (even more examples: rail passenger (720,000 hits on Google), rail fares (250,000 hits) etc), so arguing that rail incident is meaningless does not hold water. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is no "technical meaning" of "incident" or "rail incident" what it means depends on how you interpret it, one interpretation is misleading the other is meaningless - whether you read it as a specialist or a non-specialist doesn't matter because both interpretations are equally plausible for both groups. I don't know how many times I need to say that other terms that happen to include the word "rail" are irrelevant before you stop trying to claim they some how say anything useful. If you think that avoiding jargon is important that's fine, but you still need to come up with a title that avoids jargon while still meeting WP:COMMONNAME, being unambiguous and not being misleading. The current suggestion does none of these three things. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So recapping: 'SPAD incident' is strictly accurate but incomprehensible to the vast majority of readers. 'Rail incident' is generic ("something to do with trains went wrong") but vastly more understandable. Because a title is not required to  give all the technical details of an event, I find the latter more appropriate for the job, considering that we are writing an encyclopedia for everybody, not just for train buffs. Over to you for the closing arguments. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And again you are ignoring that rail incident can very easily be read as "something went wrong with a rail", which is not the case here - it is worse than the current title because it is wrong. If you interpret it as "something happened on a railway" then it is worse than the current title because it's very unspecific - I'm sure there were several "rail incidents" at Wootton Bassett in 2015. COMMONNAME would also indicate you need to find a commonly-used name, which "rail incident" most certainly is not. Wootton Bassett SPAD is much more likely to be used. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I've left a neutral message at WT:UKRAIL asking for more input into this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I know what SPAD means, but SPAD isn't just jargon, it's British jargon. This is a unique situation in that normally we're writing about running a red because of the resulting calamity. Thankfully that didn't happen here. The general audience will have no idea what a SPAD is. Surveying the non-specialist sources used in the article I find terms such as "running red light" (spad is used later), near miss, "ran red light", "ran red light" ("passed a signal at danger" used in the text). I can't access the text of the Daily Telegraph. Sources written by and for railway enthusiasts and the like will call this a SPAD, but that term doesn't appear to have made its way to the general public. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Running a red light" is generally used to refer to road rather then rail. Even then it is regarded as more American than English useage. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , in terms of the specialist press, yes, but these are British sources referring to "running a red". I would say that there really isn't a US English version of "signal passed at danger"; the concept exists of course, but there's no corresponding phrase. I think "near miss" or "near collision" might be a reasonable alternative title. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident. Have struck my original vote as there was a fair bit of discussion since and the proposed name seemingly changed. Riorgisinx (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the original proposal, 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident. I'm someone with a passing, although not expert, interest in UK rail topics - I watch Geoff Marshall's YouTube channel for example. But I didn't immediately know what a "SPAD" was. So expecting a non-UK reader, or someone not interested with rail transport, to recognize the present title would be a major stretch. It also falls foul of MOS:ACROTITLE for the same reasons. The proposed title is accurate and gives readers info on what sort of article it is before clicking through. It's also WP:PRECISE, because there is no other notable 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident with which it might be confused. The title doesn't have to describe the entire incident in full, it only has to be reasonably recognizable and identify the subject, which the proposed one does. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except, as repeatedly detailed the title is neither accurate nor precise and does not reliably identify the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you've "repeatedly detailed" it by responding to everyone who doesn't agree with you, yes. But I don't see anywhere where you've made an objective refutation of the core rationale of the move request and its adherence to policy. No doubt the term "SPAD" is meaningful to you, but the point is that it isn't meaningful to an ordinary person in the street, whereas "rail incident" is, so the proposed title satisfies WP:RECOGNIZE better. It was an incident, involving rail, so it's certainly accurate. And it's also precise enough in this case, per the definition at WP:PRECISE, because there were no other recorded notable incidents involving rail in Wootton Bassett that year.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring that while "rail incident" might be recognisable to some non-specialists it is also actively misleading to people who are specialists. We don't introduce falsehoods into our articles because some people who don't know much about the subject find it easier to understand an incorrect name than a correct one. I'm not sure how you can say that the proposal is compliant with policy when myself and others have spent so much effort explaining repeatedly and in detail how it objectively fails the naturalness, precision, and conciseness and WP:COMMONNAME requirements. The proposal meets recognisability for some people and fails for others, so is at absolute best, the same as the current title which is recognisable for some and not others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If using this terminology is an "actively misleading falsehood", how is that Network Rail themselves use the term "rail incident" and even have a "Rail Incident Officer" to deal with them when they occur? And said Rail Incident Officers are called upon in cases of SPADs as well: (see page 22, section 98). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the original proposal per nom. Rublov (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
I missed before the suggestion of 2015 Wootton Bassett signal overrun above. I note that it has some support above and no opposition that I can see. It avoids the jargon term SPAD and seems a good possibility to me. Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's better than "rail incident" but not an improvement on the current title to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's better than "rail incident" but not as good as the current title. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's go back to first principles and read what the Article titles policy actually says and compare all the proposals against the criteria set out there:
 * Note that we don't have to title articles for people who know nothing about the subject. WP:COMMONNAME expands on this criterion.
 * Note that being concise is not sufficient on its own.
 * Note that being concise is not sufficient on its own.
 * Note that being concise is not sufficient on its own.
 * Note that being concise is not sufficient on its own.
 * Note that being concise is not sufficient on its own.

If anyone does know of any similar articles please share them, but I can't think of any other individual SPAD in Britain since at least privatisation (early-mid 1990s) that (a) did not lead to a crash and (b) comes close to encyclopaedic notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem, this is an almost unique situation. Looking at your table, I would leave as is. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As another alternative from an uninvolved user. I've read the article and SPAD is jargon that has to go. The RAIB report calls it an incident. The place where the incident happened was specifically Wootton Bassett Junction. So, putting those together try 2015 Wootton Bassett Junction incident. - X201 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My first choice is to leave the article at its current title. Jargon is not banned, and sometimes unavoidable. Iff the article must be moved, the only acceptable suggestion made so far is the signal overrun title. We don't need to be ultra-precise with the location. There is only one Wootton Bassett, so that meets the recognisability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, that table is so biased it's ridiculous: you say it yourself that 'Rail incident' is concise but you still put No, not to concede a single green, and I challenge you to find much evidence for your claim that many non-experts are familiar with the term "SPAD". On the contrary, see below how 'rail incident' is familiar to the general public: A more objective table would rather be: --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples of common usage of the phrase 'Rail incident' with the suggested meaning
 * BBC - "A major rail incident which sparked a massive fire and diesel spillage could affect journeys on the line until Christmas"
 * BBC - "the last time more than one passenger died in a single rail incident"
 * BBC - "Barrow and Dover were postponed because of a rail incident at Milton Keynes affecting trains."
 * The New York Times - "compared to pipelines, rail incident rates are higher"
 * The New York Times - "Brewster is scene of rail incident" ('2D' omitted as probable scanning error)
 * The Economist - "rail incidents, particularly for Amtrak, [...] seem to be ever more common."
 * The New Yorker - "neither form of oil transport is especially safe: rail incidents are more frequent, but pipeline incidents spill more oil"
 * Speech at a UK Conservative Party conference - "When the next rail incident occurs, we will not rush to feed the frenzy of dangerous speculation" The Guardian
 * Trainline.com portal - The browser window's title reads "Rail incident Details"
 * Journal of Transport Geography - "we identify a relationship between sea-level change and rail incidents over the last 150 years"
 * I don't entirely agree with that matrix, but it's a lot closer to reality than the one above. The claim above that Signal overrun is recognisable but less so; many non-experts are familiar with the term "SPAD", suggesting that the general reader is more likely to recognise SPAD than signal overrun, is particularly bizarre.
 * But signal overrun now seems to please nobody, and SPAD is unrecognisable by any reasonable measure, so maybe we're stuck with incident. Andrewa (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Deeday's table is hilariously wrong and "incident" is literally the worst of all worlds for the reasons you've spent every comment ignoring and I don't have time to repeat. Remeber we aren't writing titles for people who arrive with no context but for people with some knowledge of the subject - every single one of them will already know that there was some sort of incident on the railway, many of them will know what a SPAD is and those that don't can either look it up or, you know, read the [expletive deleted] article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ps re conciseness I put "no" for the reason I explain - it means "concisely identifies the subject" but "rail incident" fails to identify the subject so it fails the requirement in the same way that calling the article "Bob" would. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This does actually contain something new. (But not the gratuitous insult that I'm not reading your stuff. I am, carefully. Although much of it is repetitive. And it's very tempting to be equally repetitive in reply, but I do try to just reply to those things that you haven't already said unless I have something new to say in reply.)
 * Remeber (sic) we aren't writing titles for people who arrive with no context but for people with some knowledge of the subject... No, although it seems that this is what you'd like us to do. We are writing article titles for all readers, not just for those who know what SPAD means.
 * And that seems to be the core issue here, and thank you for putting it so concisely. Andrewa (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An internet search for "Wootton Bassett" and "train" produces zero results for "rail incident". "SPAD" gets a good number of results, and "dangerous occurrence" gets a few. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These are rather peculiar searches IMO. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The searches demonstrate eloquently that your preferred title is a complete failure with regards WP:COMMONNAME (a part of the policy you seem to be studiously ignoring for some reason) but the current title is in accordance with it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do they? Only one of them is explicit, we need to guess what the others actually were... not a good start. That one was an "wootton bassett" train using Yahoo, and gives me more than million hits, and if I add rail incident it gives 143,000, not zero as (apparently?) claimed. Why we are even searching on train rather than rail or using Yahoo! rather than Google is not explained. It doesn't seem to demonstrate anything to me, other than that these particular searches were a waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason we are using Yahoo is beause when I first started using the internet towards the end of the last century, Google did not exist. The search term used is for the scenario of a non enthusiast who knew there was an incident involving a train at Wootton Bassett, but was unsure of the details and wanted to find out more. Yahoo is a perfectly good search engine. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally quoted the relevant policy above. Here it is again: "". Someone familiar with the subject will recognise "2015 Wootton Basset SPAD" but will not recognise "2015 rail incident". For almost everybody else the only ways they will find this article are:
 * Via random article (in which case the title is irrelevant)
 * By following a link from another article's prose (in which case there will be enough context that they will know what SPAD means)
 * By following a link from a list (in which case they will already know this is an incident of some sort on the railway, so "rail incident" will either tell them absolutely nothing or mislead them into thinking it was an incident involving the track)
 * By searching for information about this specific incident (in which case they will either be familiar enough with it that "SPAD" is meaningful, uncertain whether 2015 rail incident is the incident they are looking for or mislead into thinking the article is about a different incident.)
 * So literally nobody is helped by "2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident" (and some people will be mislead) but "2015 Woottoon Basset SPAD incident" is at worst neutral and at best actively helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you are trying to say, but I think the underlying assumptions here are wrong. I don't agree that in the first case, use of Random article, the title is irrelevant, it's the first thing they see and will decide whether they read the article or look for another. But not the most important case anyway. For the second case, following a Wikilink from another article, let us look at the evidence. The first article on my list of what links here was Potters Bar rail accidents, which currently uses the term signal passed at danger but does not mention the jargon term SPAD at all, nor did the second Hatfield rail crash, it wasn't until the third West Coast Railways that the term was used at all (and I'm not sure that it should be even there). So your assumption that there will be enough context that they will know what SPAD means is quite simply incorrect. And so it goes on. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're reading articles about rail crashes that use the term "signal passed at danger" and can't understand that SPAD is the same thing then nothing we title this article will help. It's noteworthy also that you are still completely ignoring all the reasons why your preferred title is contrary to policy and worse than the current one in every objective respect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I should point out that this is a Good Article. It was assessed and passed as such under this title. Part of the WP:WIAGA process is that WP:TECHNICAL has to be met - the article has to be understandable to an appropriately broad audience. The title is part of the article, and that too has been assessed as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The GA discussion is at Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident/GA1. But the use of jargon in the title doesn't seem to have been raised or addressed. Perhaps it should have been? Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While jargon was not specifically called out, the review did look at the writing and terminology used and found it all in compliance with the manual of style. There is no prohibition on the use of jargon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're reading articles about rail crashes that use the term "signal passed at danger" and can't understand that SPAD is the same thing then nothing we title this article will help. Simply untrue. I am something of a rail fan myself, in fact I'm looking forward to a short rail tour pulled by 3801 in just a few weeks. But when I first saw SPAD in this RM I guessed it probably meant a piece of equipment. That you are knowledgeable on this doesn't mean that the rest of us are ignorant. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mssing the point is an improvement on ignoring it, but its still a point missed. You were, by your own comment, not reading articles about rail crashes that use the term "signal passed at danger". You're still ignoring WP:COMMONNAME though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose a little poll
This is getting complicated. There's another good suggestion here above, with the comment SPAD is jargon that has to go. So we could shortly be talking about not just three possible names, but four.

The main issue as I see it is whether it's good to have the word SPAD in the title. So I propose a little sub-poll. Please just !vote once, and give a brief rationale. Discussion of these !votes belongs in the section. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove SPAD from title

 * Support. It is jargon, unrecognisable to many readers, and there's no evidence that it's part of the common name. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No evidence that SPAD is part of the common name, other than all the evidence posted earlier in the thread? Googling for various phrases related to this incident without using "SPAD" the only candidates for a commonly used name are "SPAD" and "signal passed at danger". There are many other descriptions used but none of them more than once. Notably this is also the case when the search term is 2015 Wootton Basset Rail incident -Wikipedia. The only uses of "Wootton Basset rail incident" as an exact phrase that google knows about are on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please discuss in the discussion section. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – unrecognisable and unnecessary jargon. The article is about an event, an incident on a railway: where's the need to explain the technicalities of it right from the title? --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom. Riorgisinx (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom. “SPAD” is about as bad as jargon gets. Moonraker (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Retain SPAD in title

 * Support As I explained above, passing a GAN means that WP:TECHNICAL has to be met, including the article title. Jargon is not banned. SPAD is explained mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede, and fully explained in the second. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Mjroots, WP:COMMONNAME, recognisability and essentially all the other parts of the article titling policy that the current title meets but the alternatives proposed do not. Specifically, we are (per policy) writing the title for people who are familiar with the subject and, for them as well as others, "rail incident" fails to identify the subject and (for some at least) is actively misleading. I wouldn't be opposed to "signal passed at danger" but that's less preferred due to unnecessary verbosity (the policy prefers concise titles). Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On that “we are (per policy) writing the title for people who are familiar with the subject”, I disagree, WP is a general encyclopaedia, not a library of specialist texts. Moonraker (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the article titling policy then you need to take that up on the policy talk page, we don't get to pick and choose which policies to follow based on which we personally like or dislike. "Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia not a library of specialist texts" is correct but completely irrelevant to the article title (it is all about the article content). We title our articles for people who are familiar with the subject can easily find the article to read about it, those who are not familiar with the subject will find the article through search engines, redirects and links because there will not be a single specific name that they are all using (because they are not familiar with the subject). Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Any other relevant thoughts on whether or not we should retain the word SPAD in the title. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If SPAD is removed from the article title it must be replaced by an alternative that is in accordance with the article titles policy. No such alternative has been proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:AT require this? Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I see now that wasn't brilliantly phrased, I mean that if we change the title of this article then the new title must be compliant with WP:AT, "2015 Wootton Bassett incident" would (I hope obviously) not be and so we need to replace "SPAD" with something different. For the reasons explained repeatedly and at length above, replacing "SPAD" with "rail" does not produce an appropriate title. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an opinion of yours rather than a requirement of the policy. Andrewa (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would it not be a requirement for a title to comply with the article title policy? If you want to remove the word "SPAD" from the article title (which you unquestionably do), and the title without that word ("2015 Wootton Bassett incident") would not comply with the article title policy (it obviously wouldn't) then there are only two possible options:
 * Replacing the word "SPAD" with a different word (or words) that does comply with the policy; or
 * Changing the title to something completely different (nobody has proposed doing this). Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are three definite proposals so far: 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident, 2015 Wootton Bassett signal overrun and 2015 Wootton Bassett Junction incident. And yes, all of them replace SPAD with something more likely to be recognisable to the reader. How is this contrary to policy? Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you withdrawing your claim that the requirements of the article title policy are not requirements but merely my opinion? You still appear to be claiming that the three alternatives are somehow better than the current title despite all the evidence to the contrary. I could repeat the evidence but as you haven't listened the previous times I don't think you'll listen this time either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I made no such claim. I'm not sure I can contribute any more to this discussion, other than to encourage others to participate despite the possibly rather unpleasant consequences. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - "possibly rather unpleasant consequences"? What do you mean. The discussion has been carried out in a civil manner as far as I can see. There have been no threats to block participants for their expressing their opinions. I agree with the first part of your second sentence, but would extend that to all participants. It's probably past time to close this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just mean that there's a disrespectful tone to many of the posts above, where for example my motives and honesty are questioned, and this is unpleasant, and I'm sure any who agree with me will be asking themselves, Do I really want to receive the same? and will be very tempted to find better things to do. I have no intention of asking for any blocks to be imposed, and I certainly can't do it as I'm involved, nor have I any intention of escalating it beyond a user talk page discussion, which is of course the first step. But as the policy at wp:NPA puts it, Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. My concern is that we are all volunteers here, and whenever personal attacks are made this discourages other contributors from contributing their thoughts at all, and makes it hard to determine whether consensus was really achieved. But it's not worth making a thing of it here, and this is not the place for it. We need to move on. Andrewa (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone wants engage with the arguments why the proposals are non-compliant with policy then there will be no reason for anyone to say anything that could be construed as disrespectful. If however they simply repeat the same incorrect assertions time and again without addressing what the objections to them are then it will not be those responding to them who are being disrespectful to collegiate discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that fails to address the issue. But here is not the place for such discussion. Take care. Andrewa (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * As there seems to be a consensus that “SPAD” won’t do, it is surely just a matter of agreeing a new title. My suggestion would be 2015 Wootton Bassett railway signalling incident. Moonraker (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly there is no such consensus because everything other than "SPAD" fails the WP:COMMONNAME requirement of the article titling policy. Equally, there isn't consensus that the article should continue to use "SPAD" because some people apparently dislike that it is the common name and/or think we should use something other than the common name for other reasons. Railway signalling incident is not the worst suggestion made here, but it is incorrect because it wasn't an incident with the signalling system, the incident was with a train passing a signal at danger. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - apart from the incorrect placing of AWS equipment, which the RAIB said had no bearing on the event, in what way did the signals themselves (not the observance thereof) have anything to do with the event in question? Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, and . Then my next suggestion would be 2015 Wootton Bassett signal passed at danger. I see we have the main article for such a "SPAD" at Signal passed at danger, while SPAD is a disambiguation page. Surely the main objection to "SPAD" is that almost no general reader will understand the acronym, so isn’t the answer to use the full term? Moonraker (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "signal passed at danger incident" (like everything that isn't "SPAD") fails the COMMONNAME requirement but is otherwise better than everything else suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Isolating cock
Isolating cock is a specific railway term (also in other languages), which may not be subsumed under stopcock.--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean the concept of as marked in the technical diagram.--U. M. Owen (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I know what an isolating cock is, it is not a railway specific term, I have one on my central heating boiler. There is no article about it on Wikipedia and even if there was OVERLINK applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murgatroyd49 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A railway air brake has 3 regulator levers and the lever for the isolating cock is therefore crucial to millions of rail cars and locomotives worldwide. I'm sorry that the English language uses a generic term for this. An isolating cock is not like any generic stopcock; it fulfills a specific function. A railway publication wouldn't use the word stopcock when there is technical term since > 100 years. Hence I don't see the overlinking issue with this (Note: Edited my statement).--U. M. Owen (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no article to link to. Your other redlinks are pointless, there is nothing special about plastic ties and the BR rule book has no article either. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no article to link to. Redlinks are necessary or sometimes even beneficial.--U. M. Owen (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes but unlikely in this case. Try linking to an article about train braking systems and there might be some pont. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggestions include Railway air brake and Automatic Warning System. As for what an AWS isolating cock is and does, it's a lever that turns through 90° from fully-closed (the normal position) to fully-open (the isolated position). The term "AWS isolating cock" is mentioned 66 times in the RAIB report, beginning at section 19 - the shorter term "isolating cock" appears a further 16 times, and "cock" on its own eight more times. A photo appears as figure 12 between sections 19 and 20. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)