Talk:Penmanshiel Tunnel

Other events
This tunnel was the site of a fire in 1949. ("MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. RAILWAY ACCIDENT.  REPORT ON THE FIRE WHICH OCCURRED IN AN EXPRESS PASSENGER TRAIN ON 23RD. JUNE, 1949, AT PENMANSHIEL TUNNEL IN THE SCOTTISH REGION BRITISH RAILWAYS.") Various websites refer to it, but none provide any accessible detail. (Above details found at http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.h.ellison/nera/khoole/khoolecat/hleracds.htm).


 * This website includes a reference to the 1949 accident including the number injured (7) but again no further detail...is it good enough as a reference or do we need a document which describes the incident? http://www.basedn.freeserve.co.uk/railway.htm ColourSarge 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also found it in my copy of Red for Danger by L.T.C. Rolt. Will add in due course... EdJogg 10:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures - with potential for article
Geograph images, released under CC licence, so can be copied to Commons and used here...
 * Penmanshiel monument
 * The new alignment (not a very good photo)
 * Geograph page for gridref NT7967 -- includes both memorial tablets on the obelisk and a view of a coal train heading north on the new alignment

Pictures - online reference only

 * Pre-collapse!! A4 60004 "William Whitelaw" emerging from Penmanshiel Tunnel (22 June 1959) -- clearly shows relationship between railway, tunnel and road bridge. Found on the Scottish Railway Preservation Society site, so they might be persuaded to release it...
 * Pre- electrification: "40 004 rounds the Penmanshiel Deviation on the Leith-Haverton Hill ammonia tanks. The memorial to the two victims of the Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse can be seen in the right background. 10th August 1984"

Having had difficulty 'visualising' the old allignment, I found this very helpful http://www.flickr.com/photos/beqi/sets/72157630911909110/detail/ I know these flickr things come and go but as an online reference I think it bears looking at for as long as it exists.Tylexman (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Diverted Services
I can not put my hand to the details at present - maybe other can help, however a direct ECML service north of the collapse to Kings Cross was maintained with selected services running from Newcastle to Carlisle and then north up the WMCL to Carstairs and Edinburgh. --Stewart 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) loco-hauled services too not just 125's.


 * I saw mention of such services during my on-line research last night, but nothing very specific. The truncated services (which I have added to the article) were noted on more pages, but, again, not very specifically. However, there were special working timetables printed, as a Google will show them for sale at various auction houses and bookshops! -- EdJogg 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't it the sleeper trains which were diverted to allow them to continue to pick up at Peterborough?ColourSarge 12:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a reference on this website http://www.derbysulzers.com/200179.html to services being diverted via Carlisle but not sure if it's good enough to count as a reference source? The bit in question is the penultimate paragraph under the 1979 heading.ColourSarge 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also referred to here under 17th March 1979 http://130.209.236.149/ewan/chronology/range.asp?start=1970&end=1979 ColourSarge 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Page 14 of this document http://www.mdrs.org.uk/documents/donkey106.pdf also states that some services were diverted via Newcastle and Carlisie, and even Leeds and the Settle & Carlisle line...ColourSarge 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is it?
OK, so there are precise geo-coords for the tunnel, but how about something less precise? I would guess that it is in the Scottish Borders region (is it?) but which county was it in before that? Were there any branch lines nearby, any other settlements?

Partly the reason for asking is to allow addition of categories such as Places of interest in ...

EdJogg 13:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the community website for Grantshouse (http://www.grantshouse.info/) states on the first page that the village is in Berwickshire. Not sure whether this was a county proper at the time of the accident. ColourSarge 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Berwickshire was abolished in 1975. See also Eyemouth. Pyrotec 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes as has been said, it's in Scottish Borders; before the Scottish Local Government re-organisation it was in Berwickshire.


 * Branch lines nearby? Not really. Other settlements, well Grantshouse is a mile or so south, and Cockburnspath is a little more to the north; both very small populations. I think that in the film "The Elizabethan" we were running two minutes down after Newcastle, but due to the stout efforts of the driver and fireman, passing Cockburnspath we are running on time! [cue stirring music].


 * Afterbrunel 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that. I have modified the lede to suit, and added a couple of appropriate categories. Some editors have problems with including the historic counties, but I think it is helpful for anyone doing research. I have also shrunk and moved the map, as it was rather dominating. We can move it back down when an appropriate pre-'79 picture of the tunnel is found. EdJogg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted the map to be full size; It took me quite a long time to do. I guess that with a photograph, a thumbnail gives the user an idea of what it contains and lets him decide whether he wants to use bandwidth to see the real thing. In the case of a diagram, the thumbnail isn't much use because the print is illegible, unless the user is using a very large monitor; and as it's a gif, it's quite a small file so the bandwidth issue isn't as important. Afterbrunel 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At full size the map dominates the article, which is why I reduced its size. Since then the fixed size has been removed to allow the user-defined 'thumb' setting to work. This is appropriate for most images, where it is easy enough to see what the image is at a small size. However, I agree that there should be exceptions, and this map is one of them! The user should not have to click on the image to be able to make use of it.
 * EdJogg 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommended Reading
Can I recommend anyone working on this article to read the official report (see External links). It is only about 7 pages long and makes for fascinating reading. While ColourSarge has done a good job of summarising it, there are more geological and construction details that can be extracted into this article to help the reader understand why the collapse occurred.

EdJogg 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wihout re-opening the issue of the map size, I see that the header information still says "This page needs a map".

ColourSarge did indeed do a good job; my only comment would be that all the references to the HMRI report might be overkill -- they tot up to quite a lot and don't always add authority to your text. If you agree, ColourSarge, you might wish to thin them down a bit.

More geological information in the HMRI report? Yes, a bit, although the report is amazingly thin considering the amount of geological investigation that was done by BR(Sc) after the collapse, and the absence of blame surprised some people at the time.

Does anyone remember the fictional novel about it that was discovered as part of the search for geological background? It contained uncannily accurate factual descriptions of the geology and constructional difficulty, and for a while it looked as if the writer had known all about the state of the rock, and if only he had been consulted the whole collapse could have been avoided. Eventually they tracked him down and interviewed him and -- prepare yourself for an anticlimax -- he just said it was all made up.

Afterbrunel 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With reference the the links to the HMRI report, I will accept guidance from you guys and any other contributors who have a view point on this. Initially I didn't put the references into the actual paragraphs - I think they were added later by another user?  As this is my first Wikipedia article, I wasn't quite sure on how many times you should reference the document so I just put on the external reference - if people think there are too many, just right or not enough citations then I will go with the consensus.

With respect to the geological information, this isn't really an area which I would be confident summarising - I don't want to plagarise the original report, and at the same time I don't want to paraphrase to the extent where the original meanings are distorted or lost. Anyone with more clue about geology care to have a crack at this?

How do we get rid of the bit where it says this article needs a map? (forgive me, clueless newcomer!)

ColourSarge 14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the references in. The problem was that the early paragraphs in this wikipedia article article appeared to be a straight copy and paste from the HMRI report. Which is a breach of their Copyright; and editors are entitled to remove the offending paragraphs. However, the problems of plagiarism are discussed above so I don't want to do an overkill. The article started off as an article about the tunnel collapse and is now being expanded into an article about the tunnel (from start to finish). My aim was, and still is, to expand the article using additional references and to avoid a wholesale copyright breach of the HMRI report.Pyrotec 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that some of this article is written based on information provided on other web sites. Some of them don't provide any references and some of what they state is contradicted by published references. Putting in references is not a psuedo means of providing authority it is about verification. Pyrotec 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ColourSarge, you're being too modest. You did the core of a bl**dy good article, and your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

For what it's worth I think much more geological information might only confuse the non-specialist reader -- maybe it's ok as it is.

Also I am a bit uncomfortable that the original Collapse theme has been overwhelemed by lots of other detail. The truth is that this was a boring little tunnel that only had one claim to fame: the 1979 collapse. Personally speaking I would have been happier if the article has stayed that way ... otherwise where does it all end? Princess Diana passed through it by train on (date), etc etc??

Afterbrunel 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well for a boring little tunnel a lot of info has been generated. Perhaps Di did go though it, but as she did not get married until 1981 she would not have been a princes. However, I do happen to agree with you that for a first attempt, its a good article that ColourSarge produced. Pyrotec 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having been offline all day, there are a few comments above I would like to respond to.
 * My suggestion of 'recommended reading' was just that. I read through the HMRI report and found it extremely interesting, and I just wanted to suggest that you all might find it interesting too. I apologise that my initial comment can be read as negative criticism of ColourSarge's summary of the HMRI report. There was never any intention to belittle ColourSarge's original work which was, for a first article, extremely good, and with little really 'wrong' with it.
 * I suggested that more geological and construction information could be included to help explain why the collapse had occurred. This was only after I had read the report and found that there was more detail that might be usefully added to the article text to provide a more rounded article. It should be possible to pick out the salient geological points without requiring great knowledge on the part of the reader -- if in doubt, you can always use a wikilink!!
 * None of this article is plagiarism, which is claiming that someone else's work is your own. If it is not possible to take someone else's copyright written work and re-word/re-write it for WP then we might as well all pack up and go home, as that is the only permissible content in WP -- all else would be Original Research.
 * Over-referenced? This is a tricky one. WP is gradually becoming more strict about enforcing the need for verifiable references. But how many facts in an article need to be individually referenced? Is it possible to use one reference for several facts, or several paragraphs? I have rationalised them a bit, please feel free to restore any if I've gone too far the other way.
 * There is only one 'unsourced online reference', the remainder of the article has been based entirely on paper sources, albeit several of them existing as on-line copies. This one reference has been changed to an external link.
 * 'Collapse theme overwhelmed by lots of other detail'? This is inevitable if it is to be an article about the tunnel, rather than just its collapse, although I don't think 'overwhelmed' is the right word, but 'put into context' might be. Surely WP is about providing information, and it is much easier to expand an article about the tunnel in general (as has been shown), than one about the collapse on its own.

EdJogg 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * When I originally started this article, I did so as the Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse, and was somewhat sceptical about converting it to an article about the tunnel itself, as my interest was primarily in the collapse and events surrounding it.


 * However, I now believe that the primary purpose of this article should be to describe the tunnel - if at some point the article gets too big then we could always branch out into another article on the collapse and reference it from this one? However, I don't think we're at that point yet.ColourSarge 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA status
This article has the makings of a Good Article (GA) WikiProject Trains/Assessment and in my opinion is nearly there, but it needs a period of stability and possibly some pictures - I see one has appeared recently. It could also do with an infobox - I've lost the link at present but there is one for UK railway tunnels. The article covers the tunnel from start to finish, but it does not say why it was built - presumably to get the railway line through the Lammermuir Hills rather than going around them.

Plagiarism is a concept that is very important in university life and I'm not suggesting that it is applicable to this article. However, having read the Official Report from start to finish, some of the paragraphs in this article appeared to be direct copy and paste, rather than paraphrases, which is why I referenced them more fully than some people would like. (I'm currently doing my second MSc, so I do have a working knowledge of what is needed).

Have a look at say Bristol Harbour (and the associated talk page) which is a Good Article, or Gunpowder and the level of referencing (and the conflict in the talk pages). Referencing is a requirement of Wikipedia and is need to obtain GA status. Unreferenced articles can be challenged, and removed: I would not like to see it happen to this article.

None of this is intended to be a criticism of any author, it is trying to be an objective statement of where to go to next. I'm trying to get hold of some 1979 railway magazines, but that is an August 2007 task; and when I find the infobox I'll add it, unless someone adds it before me. Of course the article would need to be nominated for GA status.Pyrotec 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! That's a genuine surprise -- I'd only set my sights on a Main Page DYK entry (which is currently 'running' BTW).
 * GA - I've seen what others need to do ( User:Bulleid Pacific is keen on getting articles to GA status) so it's a new challenge to aim at.
 * Sections 'copied' from official report - needs someone to compare and rewrite as needeed. I didn't realise it was a serious issue here. Will do myself if no-one else gets round to it first!
 * Pictures - there are another four on Geograph, although one is not very good for our purposes. We could do with a friendly photographer visiting the area...or somone trawling flickr.
 * Referencing - I don't think there is any danger of this article being removed as 'unreferenced'. Depends whether you trust the copies of the official reports on the website that holds them, and I can see no reason why they would want to maintain false copies.
 * Stability - this will come soon, the page isn't yet a week old and we're still adding the basic framework. The DYK, if it happens, will be in the next day or so, so I'll try to complete the main stuff outstanding tonight (pictures, remainder of fire report, maybe plagiarism checks)
 * EdJogg 15:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nomination
When you say the DYK article is "running" what does that mean? I've had a look on the main page and couldn't see it there - does it mean that it will be on the main page soon?ColourSarge 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to look it up as well. It is Did you know, i.e., a featured article status.Pyrotec 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'running' was not appropriate shorthand, I was in a hurry. What I should have said was that I have put forward a nomination for this page for the Main Page 'Did You Know? section. This is only open to new articles (and massively expanded stubs) created 'within the last five days' and properly referenced. Have a look at Template talk:Did you know for the nomination and procedure. From what I have seen of the process, if any nomination survives without attracting negative criticism, then it is likely to be chosen for the main page. Lack of comment is usually a good sign. If chosen, it should be up on the main page on the 16th, probably for about six hours, during which time the extra visibility may well bring in some new visitors. On the Main Page, the section sits below the Featured Article, but does not indicate that the article chosen is 'featured' itself.
 * EdJogg 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that the article is currently live on the main page Did You Know? section, and should remain live until around 2322 tonight.ColourSarge 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1949 Train fire
Having looked at the Huntingdon HMRI report, Penmanshiel is certainly mentioned quite a few times, but the word tunnel does not appear. None of these fires are mentioned in my 1986 Pan Books edition of Red for Danger which is a pity; however, I would like to see confirmation that the tunnel was involved in the train fires. Pyrotec 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Woops I should have read the article first. However, having now done so, is the introduction correct - was there a tunnel investigation?Pyrotec 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is most frustrating that the official report is not available online, as this would undoubtedly have indicated how much the tunnel had to do with the incident, if anything. Maybe I've been wasting my time and we should take the section out....?


 * ...sudden change of tack while despondently responding...


 * ...just opened my copy of Red For Danger again. Looking at page 264, in the final chapter of the book, which is titled "Recent Accidents, 1944–57", the paragraph that starts four pages of coverage on these frightening fires starts like this:
 * "Between 1949 and 1951 a remarkable series of fires occurred on express passenger trains. The first fire gutted two coaches of an Edinburgh to King's Cross express at Penmanshiel tunnel on the evening of June 23rd, 1949. It was a fine, warm summer evening and the train was about two and a half miles beyond Cockburnspath on the East Coast main line, when fire broke out in the corridor of the tenth, brake-composite coach and spread with such extreme rapidity and fierceness that within seconds the whole coach was enveloped." (which is where I pick up the story).


 * The only reason for quoting from the Huntingdon report was because the Penmanshiel report was not available. It would be helpful to know whether the fire occurred north or south of the tunnel, or was carried through it.


 * However, I do note your comment, and the word 'subject' is incorrect in the introduction. The fire investigation would have concentrated on the train, although the railway infrastructure would have been considered if thought to be a contributing factor. 'Location' is a bit weak as an alternative, but is more accurate than 'focus'. Any other ideas?


 * EdJogg 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with your changes and I understand the problems that the lack of the official report are causing. I have a 1986 Pan Books version of Red for Danger, which followed the 1966 New Extended Edition version that you are using and unfortunately none of these three events are listed; neither do they appear in Stanley Hall's three books - Railway Detectives, Hidden Dangers and Beyond Hidden Dangers - so I ended up reading the Huntingdon report and posting questions here.Pyrotec 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inbound links
Have added links to this page from 1979 in rail transport page for both the initial tunnel collapse and the opening of the diversion (and therefore restoration of through services).ColourSarge 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image needed tag
The article now has its first image - the one of the memorial to the killed railway workers. Is this enough to remove the image needed tag, or does the article need an image of the actual tunnel itself? If so does it have to be of the tunnel when it was open, or would a picture of the disused tunnel be sufficient?ColourSarge 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not find a relevant picture (any of the above) and link it into the Infobox. It will then appear inside the Infobox; and cancel the image needed flag. If someone objects strongly then they will either insert a better picture or re-enable the flag.Pyrotec 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, will have a look at doing that but I am very wary of infringing copyright on stuff like this...will have to read the guidelines as to what is permitted.ColourSarge 18:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I left out copyright. If you live locally and can photograph the remains without trespass, then you can allocate the appropriate copyleft (- I think) to any photographs that you take and then upload it. Image uploading is not something that I do very often, so I have to print out the relevant Help page - uploading images (or something similar). If you select someone else's historical photograph then copyright is very important. And, if the correct copyright-allocation statement is not added to the image it is likely to be deleted.Pyrotec 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mention above, there are four more (Geograpph) images waiting to be added to this article, with three of them (probably) being placed in a gallery at the bottom. The fourth is a view of the tunnel 'today', which is fairly un-eyecatching.
 * The article does still need an image added, to show the tunnel itself. In the External Links section, the one of the A4 by the tunnel would be ideal, but is copyright to the preservation sociey....
 * Uploading images is pretty straightforward. They should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, if possible, from where they may be accessed directly. Any photos you create yourself can be released under a 'Creative Commons' licence. Click on the memorial image for further information.
 * EdJogg 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the image needed tag as a consequence of EdJogg's work in adding the galleryColourSarge 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)