Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster

Deficiencies in the supervision of Quintinshill signal box
On the 25th May 1915 the Inspecting Officer of Railways opened his inquiry at Carlisle. One person examined was Alexander Thorburn Gretna's Station master. He was also in charge of Quintinshill signal box. The questioning of Thorburn was poorly conducted. Asked when he had last visited the box he was unable to say when he had last been there. There was no questions posed as to where the irregular shift change over employed by Meakin and Tinsley was with Kilpatrick's assistance, was known. No question was asked as whether he knew that the shifts should change at 6:00am. Thorburn was on the platform at Gretna when Tinsley joined the local train. He was not asked if he saw him. How Thorburn could have missed the signalman entering the cab of the Cardean is unexplained. If he did, why did he not challenge the fact that Tinsley was still in Gretna some 17 minutes after he was supposed to take up his shift some 2 miles away at Quintinshill? It is clear sloppiness held sway. Later the Caledonian Railway appalled at the admission of Thorburn closed the issue by citing details from the signal box log stating when inspections had been carried out which was a least three in the previous week or so (one by Thorburn and two by the local inspector). Even then no-one asked why Quintinshill deserved such attention and why no deficiencies were found. Elsewhere someone has listed 9 deficiencies in the way the work was carried out at the signal box. A proper inspection would have found at least one - the lack of the use of the collar. See Quintinshill Conspiracy for theories as to why these inspections were carried out and why they failed to find one of the root causes of the accident. It is clear the Caledonian Railway was hell bent on seeing that the signalman were held responsible, not due to deficiencies in process, but due to negligence of behalf of two individuals. In this they focused on Meakin, the mental health of Tinsley not being an issue they they would wish to highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.227.33 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013‎
 * Well, the Inspecting Officer made an acid comment in his report that it was hard to see how this would not have come to the attention of the Gretna statiomaster (Thorburn). But it's quite clear what happened; Meakin and Tinsley bent the rules to make things easier for them with the shift changeover, and the statiomaster and signalman, Kirkpatrick (who were both neighbours of Meakin and Tinsley) turned a friendly blind eye to it because with all the other available safeguards nobody could see any harm in it. The unauthorised shift change was entirely the decision and responsibility of Meakin and Tinsley. They had lever collars available but the evidence showed that they habitually failed to use them; they thought they were unnecessary. Quintinshill actually became on object lesson for all railways and staff that rules are there for a purpose and if you bend them, there can be unforeseen consequences. Hyperman 42 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Searle and Richards book
I am surprised that the book "The Quintinshill Conspiracy" by Adrian Searle and Jackanthon Richards is not referenced in this article. The BBC documentary, about which there has been much discussion, was clearly based on this book so all the arguments about whether the documentary can be cited could be avoided by referencing it. Maybe the word "conspiracy" in the title is off-putting, but it is a solid piece of well-referenced research. The article as it stands, perhaps not unreasonably, is based on the Board of Trade report. This may, according to the book, have just been a re-write of the Caledonian's internal enquiry and there are areas of concern. For instance, in the article section "Signalman's errors" we are told that the blocking back signal should have been sent after "train out of section" had been given for the coal train. This was explicitly prohibited by the Caledonian's rules (blocking back should have taken place before the local crossed over but Meakin could not do this as the section was already occupied by the coal train. In the circumstances, "train out" should not have been sent until the local was clear of the up line and it was never established who sent the signal while it was still there.)Bruern Crossing (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only skimmed the book (i don't have a copy) and while it probably has some valid points, it does seem to set out to be a bit sensationalist and determined to prove Meakin and Tinsley to be scapegoats. If I find a copy cheap I'll take another look.  You're right though that the BBC programme was heavily based on it and I think it would be good to redress that. Nthep (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got a copy
 * but I've not yet even skimmed it. I got mine cheap at some point between 30 May and 3 June 2015, in The Works, Didcot (other cheap bookshops are available). -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly the book sounds as if it is rewriting history from a POV perspective. For example, the blocking back signal cited above should undoubtedly have been sent. The only reason there was confusion about who sent the out of section signal was because of the signalmen's irregular changeover. The Board of Trade inspectors were thorough and expert and did not need to merely base their findings on a Caledonian inquiry. The various books on the accident over the years have been unanimous in concurring with the verdict. I suppose one could quote the book as a source for the documentary, but I feel loath to reference dubious work. It is unfortunate that the BBC chose to draw heavily on it, though conspiracy theories make a good story. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now started reading it, and am looking for mentions of "blocking back". This is also in connection with . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now started reading it, and am looking for mentions of "blocking back". This is also in connection with . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2015 BBC documentary - original research
I have removed a paragraph of text which appears to be original research. it cites sources, but only sources dating from before the documentary, so it cannot be based on reliable (or any) sources.

The text is:

The documentary at times showed only a superficial knowledge of railway operating practice, particularly at the time of the disaster. The sidings were being used in their normal way to hold slow-running freight trains, not for storage. It was common practice for railways to re-employ staff after a conviction, demoted to lesser roles. The multiple breaches of regulations by the signalmen were glossed over.

--MrStoofer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point. The BBC documentary was deeply flawed in that it put forward several ideas which were discredited or disproved long before, or were simply inappropriate if viewed in the correct 1915 (wartime) context rather than 2015. So in that sense it would not be unreasonable to refer to the original sources even though they were pre-documentary, as for example one might refer to historical sources from the time of an event to argue against a wacky interpretation produced many years later. But yes, I see your point that this could certainly constitute "original research" or interpretation, and it would be better to cross-reference some other published comment made in response to the programme that directly makes the same arguments. Hyperman 42 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  ping me! 18:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Quintinshill rail disaster → 1915 Quintinshill rail collision – per WP:DISASTER: "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like." In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, there were two collisions, so the proposed title would be wrong. G-13114 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because this was multiple crashes & a fire. I don't know why you want to add the year when this clearly fits WP:NOYEAR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose (and I almost never use the word "strong" when !voting). It wasn't a mere "collision" with perhaps some dented panelling and three people complaining of minor bruises; five trains were involved, of which three carried passengers; and in terms of lives lost, this was the single worst rail accident in the UK, ever. Worse than Armagh 1889; worse than Harrow & Wealdstone 1952; worse than Moorgate 1975. The worst accidents since Moorgate, Clapham Junction 1988 and Ladbroke Grove 1999 (both still fresh in some people's minds), pale into insignificance by comparison with Quintinshill. Of the major rail accidents over the last 200 years, only the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 had a lower survival rate. If any article deserves the title "disaster", Quintinshill is it. Indeed, L.T.C. Rolt in Red for Danger uses words like "holocaust", "catastrophe" and "calamity" in addition to "disaster" for Quintinshill; and Rolt was not a sensationalist tabloid news writer. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - I would agree with all the above comments. There are multiple works and references which use the term disaster and it is still used to this day in connection. Indeed I have never heard it called anything but the Quintishill disaster (with or without rail or railway being included) and indeed it is referred to as such by institutions including the Imperial War Museum, the National Archives and the National Records of Scotland. It is a major event in Scottish history and railway history and is something people are going to search Wikipedia for. Equally there is no reason to include 1915 in the name of the article as there has been no other Quintinshill disaster that it is ever realistically going to be confused with. Dunarc (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There has, in fact, been at least one other accident at Quintinshill, but the 2002 one was so minor (one train, no passengers, no injuries let alone fatalities) that it would definitely not warrant a standalone article, and would barely warrant a sentence or two in a more general article. So 1915 would indeed be a redundant disambiguation. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. A comparable example where no year is needed would be Hillsborough disaster which everyone would understand to refer to the 1989 tragedy that led to 97 deaths rather the 1914 incident at the same ground when 70 fans were injured when a wall collapsed. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2023 (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.

Death Toll
The infobox says 226 fatalities. The article says the "official death toll" was 227, then reduced to 226, but that this does not take into account the four unidentified children. Shouldn't the infobox read 230, then? 204.116.251.194 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see previous discussions on this page and its archive. There's never going to be an exact figure and 226 is the best total that is supported by sources. Nthep (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, my apologies, I didn't notice the archive. 204.116.251.194 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)