Jump to content

Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 Comments

What is Quintinshiil named for?

  • a farm?
  • a village?
  • a creek?

Is it also near Lockerbie?

Tabletop 09:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is near Lockerbie, just outside Gretna.
The railway company escaped responsibility for the following reasons;
The shortage of skilled men caused by the war.
The train was under military control so the carriages were locked.
The carriages were wooden, gas lit compartment stock; a programme to withdraw all this stock and replace it with steel electrically lit corridor stock was delayed, again by the war.
Britmax 12:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The railway company was not blamed either for the use of old stock (it was wartime) or for the accident itself (adequate safeguards existed and were ignored), John Thomas cites 9 seperate breaches of rules in the 30 minute period between Tinsley entering the signal box and the accident occuring. I have not seen previous mention of the troop train doors being locked, this would need a reference. Nor was the train under military control as far as its working was concerned, although undoubtedly the soldiers were under military discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short deliberation of 8 minutes.

Eight minutes is not a long time for a jury to deliberate. Does this include the time that it took the jury to go to and from the jury room?

Abraham Lincoln was prosecuting attorney in one trial where the jury didn't even leave their seats in the court room!!

Tabletop 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to James Tinsley and George Meakin

What happened to James Tinsley and George Meakin after they were released ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrTAToad (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mrrash (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Tinsley was given a job as lampman at Carlisle station and eventually died in 1961. George Meakin became a coal merchant (both from John Thomas's book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Altered James Tinsley's death as per death certificate GC Jack 15:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar accidents

"The Hawes Junction rail crash of 1910 also involved a busy signalman forgetting about a train on the main line, but because the signalman there was extremely busy and fully focused on his job, his momentary lapse was more excusable."

Using the phrase "more excusable" seems to make a judgment that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedic setting.

12.104.244.6 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small error in diagram

The empty coal train in the loop should have a point where the engine is. Tabletop (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two slight errors and one major error on animated diagram

The animated diagram shows the local train crossing over to the up main line via a set of facing points. There was no facing crossover at Quintinshill - the local pulled ahead of the trailing points shown in the diagram on the down fast line, then reversed over the trailing crossover so that it was occupying the up fast line where it was hit by the troop train. The other slight error is that there was almost a minute between the troop train hitting the local, and the late-running express colliding into the wreckage. Mrrash (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tevildo (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another quibble is that the trailing crossover between the Up and Down main lines is probably directly opposite the signalbox for better supervision. Tabletop (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major error in the diagram: according to it, the second collision was caused by the 05:50 Express ex-Carlisle. However, based on the Board of Trade enquiry document, it is clear that that train passed the site at 06:39 before the first crash and it was the second express (06:05 ex Carlisle) that crashed into the wreckage of the first crash. See page 14 (actually 10th page of the enquiry PDF) and the following pages, containing the testimonies of David Wallace, George Hutchinson, Douglas Dobie Graham and Andrew Johnstone.K72571 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over number of fatalities

There is some doubt over the exact number of fatalities caused by the Quintinshill accident. Author JAB Hamilton in his 1969 publication "Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster" says that Lt Col Druitt's report gives the figure as 227, but he compiled the report very quickly and gave the number of troops killed as 215 which was later revised downwards by the Battalion to 214. I quote "The correct number is given in both the Regimental and the Battalion Histories - 3 officers, 29 NCOs and 182 men - and is also the total of the names which appear on the memorial in the Rosebank Cemetary. I can vouch for this last, because I counted them." (page 76 Britain's Greatest Rail Disaster JAB Hamilton George Allen and Unwin Ltd 1969). This is good evidence that the official report is inaccurate on this matter which is why I submitted the change to the article. Would anyone object if I put it back to 226 again? Mrrash (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the accurate figure, we should use it, although I think mentioning the discrepancy in the official report might be a good idea, as that's what people will refer to (OK, that's what _I_ referred to) as a definitive source if we don't. Tevildo (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoneMrrash (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sentence concerning censorship

I have removed the section concerning censorship. The accident was very well reported at the time, with the The Times having a second leader ("An Unexpected Sorrow") [From Thomas]

John Thomas has a page full of facsimiles of press reports from that time. Additionally the Illustrated London News covered the accident in some detail...

See here: http://www.iln.org.uk/iln_years/year/1915.htm

The precise military casualties were not accurately reported due to the loss of the battalion muster roll in the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.231.192 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged callous treatment of survivors

I have not seen previously any suggestion that the surviviors were stoned, also it is reported in John Thomas's book a) that the survivors marched in good order to the barracks from the station, and b) that all the men and one of the officers were relieved of further duties, leaving only the CO and 6 officers to continue to Gallipoli. Serious allegations are made here, and if they cannot at least be given supporting references they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.252.14 (talk)

I have added the sources for this incident. Mrrash (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richards and Searle's 2013 book Quintinshill Conspiracy cites the Edinburgh Evening News writing in 1955 for the "stoning" incident. The paper states that during an interview with a survivor, he reported that the soldiers were stoned by urchins as they walked to Lime St Station Liverpool to be conveyed to Edinburgh by train. So disheveled were they that they were taken for German prisoners of war being conducted from the docks. This was Sunday 23rd May 1915. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.227.33 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2013‎

Hugh Urquhart

I have been looking into the Quintinshill Rail Crash.

Despite quite extensive research I have failed to find any reference to Hugh Urquhart in the Board of Trade Inquiry report or newspaper coverage.

Can you advise me of the sources for Mr. Urquhart's involvement please?

There is also another point to make regarding the late shift changeover. The arrangement between the two signalmen applied whether the local train stopped at Gretna or not. Normally James Tinsley would walk to the signal box. Occasionally the local would be stopped at Quintinshill and the signalman at Gretna would be advised to tell Tinsley —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GC Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a contributor to produce a source for a statement on this page concerning a Mr. Hugh Urquhart.

I have in my possession details of the Board of Trade Report and Inquiry into this accident. I can find no trace of any evidence given by Mr. Urquhart.

If the source cannot be identified should this reference be taken down? (GC Jack 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

GC Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited and contraversial text

I have removed the following text from the article as uncited. If a reliable verifiable source can be found to support the statements then it can reinserted, but as it makes suggestions about the cause of the disaster not recognised by any of the official reports or court proceedings following the accident it should not currently remain in the article.

Removed text
. . .the most controversial evidence was that of Hugh Urquhart, the out-door engineering chief of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, which exercised powers over the last eight miles of shared track from Gretna Junction to Carlisle. Urquhart reminded the inquiry that at certain times of the day this was one of the busiest stretches of double-line railway in Britain. While not condoning the short-cuts and fatal mistakes made by the signalmen Meakin and Tinsley, he said he was concerned that they should not be made scapegoats for errors made by higher-ranking officials. He claimed that the real cause of the bad practices was the fact that the last two express trains from Euston – the 11.45 to Aberdeen and the 12 midnight to Glasgow – were chronically bad time-keepers. This resulted in very unorthodox shunting procedures around Quintinshill.

That the two expresses were running late is mentioned in Lt Col Druitt's official report neither he nor the subsequent coroner's inquiry list this as a contributory factor to the accident. Neither (as stated in the sections above) is there any record of Hugh Urquhart having given evidence at either inquiry. NtheP (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite of Jan 2012

This article has been re-written extensively including removing referenced information (e.g. treatment of survivors) apparently without discussion on this page about any glaring errors, poor English or resolved disputes requiring a re-write. The article was fairly stable for over a year. Apart from personal preferences what is re reason for the re-write and the deletion of relevant referenced information? Should it be reverted until any disputes are first raised and then resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this because it was badly laid out with some information being repeated several times as sections had been added; with sections not running in chronological order e.g. the modern memorials; a lot of uncited material e.g. the Urquhart involvement and a lot of missing information about the subsequent legal investigations e.g. why did the criminal trial take place in Sctoland rather than England. About the only cited material I removed was the bit about the treatment of survivors because I couldn't locate the cite either in the newspaper or Hamilton's book. If you have Hamilton's book and can supply a more specific reference e.g. page number then I've no objection to it being in there but as no other source mentioned this incident I ddin't feel it was right to have it in without the reference being verified. NtheP (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page needed re-writing.It had been added to a jumbled way and had become cumbersome. I had discussion with the editor and the reference to Urquhart had to come out.

Hamilton on page 74 of his book describes the plight of the survivors. However, there is a problem with Hamilton's book in that it contains no verification for the story. It may well be that it was carried in the Liverpool local papers can you verify that so it can be checked please?

Gordon Routeledge's book, "The Sorrows of Quintinshill" carries details of Meakin's later career in the Munitions Factory near Gretna. It was personally verified to Routledge by his mother who worked with Meakin there.GC Jack 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)86.183.30.98 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catchpoints ?

Would the refuge loops have catchpoints at each end? Tabletop (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are shown in File:Quintinshill rail crash.svg which is based on the diagram in
  • Nock, O.S.; Cooper, B.K. (1992) [1966]. Historic Railway Disasters (4th ed.). London: Book Club Associates. p. 91. CN 6843.
but I don't really see the relevance - the troop train was on the up main, where it collided with the down local which had been shunted onto the up main to give a clear road for the down Glasgow express. If the up coal empties had somehow escaped from the up loop, or the down goods escaped from the down loop, catchpoints would be a factor, but those trains were both stationary. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The loops had head and tail shunts, not catch points. The loop on the up main line had an extra storage siding for broken down wagons, which were a real problem for railways of that period - interestingly the signalmen at Quintinshill did use the lever collars to remind them of such wagons in this siding.

On the day of the accident the welsh empty train used the up loop but as it was too long, it had to be shunted into the head shunt and then back into the tail.

Catch points were usually located towards the lower end of an incline to divert runaways. Trap points are used at the end of loops in many cases to prevent an overrun into the mainline. At Quintinshill the head shunt would serve as that in an emergency. GC Jack 11:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Should the death toll be 230?

Looking through the stats on this crash it is clear that the death toll of 226 may not be accurate. Recently there has been a memorial to the four unidentified children found in the wreckage. Verified in the book by J. Thomas. They are not counted into the 226 deaths. GC Jack 17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

It's a moot point as the number of troops who died has never been accurately established so the overall death total is always going to be an approximation. NtheP (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the page does state a probable 226, which is made up 214 names on the memorial, 9 civilians and 3 railwaymen. The children have never been included. GC Jack 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)
What is needed is a source which states a single total. Taking one total and adding four to that falls within original research, because we don't know that the first count didn't include those four. If different sources show differing figures, we can say something like
the total dead has never been positively ascertained, but was at least x<ref>Source for x</ref> and may have been as many as y.<ref>Source for y</ref>
The number of names on the memorial is not conclusive proof of the number of soldiers who died, because the regimental roll was lost in the fire. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a shot at amending the lead. I don't think OR is an issue. Druitt's report is good in breaking down his total of 227, the reduction of army casualties by 1 by the War Office and the existence of the 4 children's bodies is documented by Thomas. I don't think it's SYN or OR to put this figures together to say that the total was probably 230. NtheP (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This however assumes that the four unidentified corpses were not part of the 226/227 - see next section. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Unidentified Children

There appears to be an inaccuracy regarding this on the main page. There is no evidence to suggest that the Railway Company believed the children had stowed away on the troop train. In fact hard evidence for this entire "story" is lacking. It was not even established if one of the coffins actually contained the remains of children. It was marked "three trunks, probably children." In my opinion, as this story cannot be properly verified, it is a myth and should be described as such.GC Jack 11:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the stowaway bit is a myth - that there were four unidentified bodies described by Thomas as "little girl, unrecognisable" and "three trunks, probably children" isn't, I believe, an issue as it's a cite from an reliable source. I think it was Nock or Rolt who mentioned stowaways which is perhaps where it has grown from and now propagated by the BBC (see the link to the "lost children memorial" in the article. NtheP (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking for is for the text stating that the Railway Company believed that they might stoways to either verified or removed. I can find no wording to that effect in the books I have. The BBC report does not in fact state anything as a proven fact, just that it is believed to be so.GC Jack 12:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at my last edit to the article. NtheP (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does it!! Many thanksGC Jack 12:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Nock and Rolt neither mention the four "children" nor the "stowaways" idea. Thomas mentions the supposed identification of the four children. However, it should be remembered that these were the remains of bodies which had been burned and charred in the extensive fire. It's easy to misidentify in these circumstances - see the similar case at Charfield in 1928. Given that 50 bodies were never recovered at all (83 troops killed and identified, 82 bodies recovered but unrecognisable, the other 50 classed as "missing" to give the 215 total for the troops; Thomas p.59), the most likely explanation is that the bodies were the remains of some of the soldiers. Just what is the likelihood of 3 children stowing away on the one and only train that meets with disaster, and none of their families ever claiming them or reporting them missing? By far the most likely explanation is that they were part of the 226/227 - and that is what Thomas concludes by implication as he states that as the death toll while recognising the existence of the so-called children's bodies. Hyperman 42 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably correct but needs citing rather than our speculation on what Thomas meant. NtheP (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsley's Distractions

A recent edit has suggested that the Tinsley was engaged in conversation and this distracted him from his work. There is no such statement from Tinsley or brakesman Young to support this. It emerged at the Coroner's Court as a possible theory based on a statement by Meakin. The other distraction - Tinsley writing the notes - which Tinsley himself offered as a reason in the Board of Trade report is more credible. The article should make that clear.GC Jack 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the keenness to link the date of 1915 to either 1915 in rail transport, 1915 in the United Kingdom or anything else. 1915 in rail transport might be relevant enough to link to but not via the date in the lead - see WP:CONTEXTLINK. Most list articles like the two named tend to have outgoing links, not incoming ones e.g. nothing else in 1915 in the UK is linked from the articles listed in it. I haven't yet found another UK rail accident article that links to a list article via the date in the lead and I don't see any reason for this article to be an exception. NtheP (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case for linking this into 1915 in the UK. The accident was more than railway disaster it was a military incident happening at a very low point in the war. The accident happened in a dreadful week for the Govt. The Shell Scandal brought down the Asquith regime which was forced into coalition on the following Monday. No link? Wait for the new book! GC Jack 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

It's not the what, it's the how. The above is grounds for a new section about the political/public impact of the accident. My concern is about the how - linking to years in lead paragraphs is just not done as per the link above. It's in 1915 in Scotland as a category, 1915 in rail transport is in the see also section, it's how much of a significance should the year be given in the lead? NtheP (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Centenary TfA?

This article is B-Class. Can we get it to FA-class in time to be WP:TFA on 22 May 2015, that being the 100th anniversary of the accident? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

moved from User talk:Redrose64#Quintinshill
With the centenary of the accident coming up I'd loved to get this article to at least GA by then. FA and TFA would be great but I'm not sure if it can be done in time. One of the issues is the recent book The Quintinshill Conspiracy: The Shocking True Story Behind Britain’s Worst Rail Disaster and how to incorporate any of it's contents into the article. User:GC Jack is one of the authors of the book but it's only this morning that I became aware that he sadly died just prior to the publication of the book. I haven't read the book yet (Jack did say he'd let me have a copy but his death explains why this didn't happen) but looking at the reviews it gets a bit of a mixed press and I'm not sure how to include some of it's opinions e.g. were Tinsley and Meakin scapegoated? without falling foul of WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE as there is only the one source to go on when the older publications, Thomas, Rolt etc are all silent on these issues. Nthep (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in! Will see what I can add from The Times. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 100th anniversary - let us look at the accident more objectively. 'Cause' is typically multi-layered, and multi-factorial.

By all means improve the recent edit about the 'cause' of this horrific (and historic) accident. Whether published sources are available to substantiate a more objective analysis is a moot point - but that is no reason to over-simplify and lay the blame for the deaths of over two hundred men on the heads of two signal men! So please do not just revert! The railway company's internal enquiry laid the blame for the collision on the two signalmen, and while this is an over-simplification, it is unarguable that both men bore responsibility for the original collision between the local train and the troop carrier. The fact that so many soldiers were 'roasted to death' was the result of other factors which were not even remotely the responsibility of the signalmen. I sincerely hope you will agree. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What internal inquiry? The official inquiry conducted for the Board of Trade (a Government department) by Lt.-Col. E. Druitt (an officer of the Royal Engineers), states on page 25 "The responsibility for the collision lies entirely with the two signalmen, G. Meakin and J. Tinsley". No way have we oversimplified this clear statement. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: - I expect that the IP editor watched the documentary on BBC4 last night. In modern parlance, there were causal factors and contributory factors. Referring specifically to this accident, the direct cause was the negligence of the two signalmen involved. Contributory factors include, but are not limited to, the construction of the carriages, gas lighting, possible medical condition for one of the signalmen. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it. I had assumed that it would be on the anniversary, not the day before. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well worth a watch - should be available on BBC's iplayer. Other factors mentioned were the sheer volume of traffic (two Jellicoe specials in the passing points - one full and one empty ), pressure to get the sleeper expresses through, the dangers of shift changes, and the tendency for organisations not to police their safety rules, and to ignore rule-bending except when things go wrong. Robevans123 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Britain's Deadliest Rail Disaster: Quintinshill with three broadcasts so far (one being Scotland-only) and no more scheduled. This means I need to stay up late, since if I watch it before midnight, my broadband provider charges extra (I get up to 10GB per month between 07:00 and midnight, but midnight to 07:00 is unlimited). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody - I am quite content. As one of you surmised I watched the documentary, and I watched it very carefully, rewinding whenever I needed to be sure I had picked something up correctly. Obviously some material in a TV documentary can not be substantiated from written sources, so can only find a place in the talk pages. In particular, the doc. reported that one UK railway company at the time banned the use of collars on the levers; it was also reported that in some signal boxes collars were simply not provided. Collars were available at Q, and it may be that they were not used on the fateful morning because neither signalman was in the habit of using them. Meakin probably did not have the imagination to envisage the possibility that the man taking over on the next shift might suffer an 'unbelievable' memory lapse (whether due to a hypothesised medical condition, or whether simply unexplained). Some obligation must lie with a company (even then, as now) to not only provide safety mechanisms, but to ensure that they are 'working'; and are not being undermined by the human factor, or any other factor. The exact extent of that obligation is impossible to actually pin down. The TV documentary makers, if I understood them correctly, thought that it was noteworthy (albeit from a modern perspective) that the extent of the Railway companies safety obligation was not tested by any inquiry, nor raised in any court. It was suggested, by one of the 'talking heads' that some kind of backroom deal was done before the trial of the signalmen - in my view it was a serious flaw in the programme that this suggestion was just left hanging; neither challenged as improbable, nor supported by hard evidence. Perhaps documentary makers are fond of conspiracy theories, but I am not! 86.17.152.168 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some soldiers never found - deserted?

O. S. Nock in Historic Railway Disasters and Adrian Searle in The Quintinshill Conspiracy both mention contemporary rumours, which Searle says persist to this day in the area, that some of the soldiers deserted and hence were never found. Searle said that a local historian collected oral histories of witnesses who saw some soldiers jumping the fence and running off. However he goes on to say that the soldiers were all volunteers and unlikely to have deserted out of disloyalty, and some of the men ("most probably boys") were simply traumatised by the accident. Is this worth adding? Would these books be considered reliable sources? 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last survivor of the incident, Peter Stoddart, was interviewed by Michael Simkins in 2001. Simkins wrote in The Guardian: 'Stoddart had little recollection of the next 30 minutes. I asked him about a story I had heard of an officer who went about the scene shooting men trapped in the burning wreckage. "That was true. I saw that. He was a Scottish gentleman, eventually a millionaire. But he had to." There was a suspicion of a chuckle in his voice as he added: "And there were one or two other survivors who made themselves scarce. They took their opportunity."' See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/18/transport.uk JezGrove (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it in Nock. On what page does he suggest that some of the soldiers deserted? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quintinshill (the place)

What did the placename Quintinshill mean before the accident, and before the railway came there? What is the origin of the name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: It was probably unknown outside the immediate area, with the nearby Gretna and Gretna Green (less than a mile distant) being far better known; as for the railway, it was never a station, but a pair of goods loops with the requisite signal box to control them. Thus, the only railway staff who would know about it would be the drivers and signalmen, plus those who worked out the timetables.
Current maps by the Ordnance Survey show Quintinshill Bridge, which is over a very minor road; but the OS 1:2500 map of 1859, which is old enough to show the railway before the loops and signal box, does show a house named "Quintinshill" adjacent to that minor road, at approximately 55°00′48″N 3°03′33″W / 55.0133°N 3.0591°W / 55.0133; -3.0591, which is not shown on current maps. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later, and clearer, maps than the 1859 1:2500 show the house on the west side of the minor road.
Where does 778 metres (now in the article) come from - is it OR? In any case, it's an overestimate. My OR on this map
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101089045
shows that the distance between 'box and house is less than 500 metres.
86.148.154.38 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Iplayer & scapegoat agreement

Hope everyone has had a chance to see this without staying up late. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05vqx7v/britains-deadliest-rail-disaster-quintinshill

In the random order that I remembered them :-

  • Tinsley may have suffered from epilepsy.
  • The defence barrister's work was poor he may have been unwilling to criticize those from his social class
  • There was probably a scapegoat agreement to blame the men who would continue to be employed after they had left prison in order not to highlight the many deficiencies in the rolling stock.
  • A statement that in such a small rail community the management would have been well aware of the fiddling of the train register but needed to be able to plausibly deny it.
  • Collars were not thought particularly important
  • An enquiry now would be far broader and would come to different conclusions

As a comment, I thought the animation remains the best description of the accident I have ever seen though it runs a little too fast for me.
Regards JRPG (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quintinshill_rail_disaster&oldid=663932166"