![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 5, 2016, October 5, 2019, and October 5, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no mention in the article of the lack of ATC on the Thames Train, nor of the fact that the area was fitted with ATC when resignalled. I seem to recall that in the Southall crash the ATC was not operational on the HST, but was it in this accident? If the Thames Train had had operational ATC the disaster would have been averted. Could someone add this or indicate where to check the details? Sangwine 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that an anon editor has recently changed the age of crash victim Simon Wood from 50 to 40. A Google search on "Simon Wood" +"Ladbroke Grove" shows up a Guardian article which gives his age as 40, all other references which quote an age are copies of the Wikipedia article, where I probably mis-typed the age in the first place. Therefore Mr Wood probably was 40 at the time of the accident, and Google results should not be used to revert his age. Apologies to Mr Wood's family for any distress caused. -- Arwel 22:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More detilas of the Cullen report would be in order, if anyone has them, please. Andy Mabbett 22:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
A mention for any main authors of this article, following the HSE's removal of responsibility for railway safety, the Cullen report is no longer hosted on their site. Whether it is still hosted on the internet on the new RAIB website, I'm not sure. Alspittle 21:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Mawkish and no real use to the article. So I've removed it. Dave 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone provide the quotation from John Prescott immediately after the crash where he threw cost-benefit analysis of safety measures out of the window, and signed the railway up to a "no expense spared" safety regime? 194.217.39.228 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit uncomfortable with "... contributory factors, blaming Thames Trains' driver training procedures (Driver Hodder had only qualified two months earlier)."
Presumably once he had fully qualified, he could properly drive one day later, couldn't he? Afterbrunel ( talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not - I've added a phrase to explain why Thames' Trains failed to give Driver Michael Hodder the necessary skills he should have had.
Ivor the driver (
talk)
07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The Geographic channel has recently (re-)screened a 1-hour feature devoted entirely to the crash. Perhaps an editor would like to dig out the relevant references 81.158.1.186 ( talk) 15:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - forgot to log in, Here is my ID Flying Stag ( talk) 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have always understood that this accident was 'head-on'. However, this week I have viewed a TV programme about the crash on the Geographic channel (see my edit at "Dramatisation" above).
The TV programme gives conflicting diagrams of the track layout at the scene of the crash. The first is a 3-D simulation which appears to show the Bedwyn train on a track converging with the one carrying the HST. This gives a potentially 'head-on' scenario, although in fact the HST was past the point of convergence, so in fact the impact was more of a glancing effect.
The second TV diagram however gives a different picture, viz: a close-up diagram of the layout as seen by the controller. In this diagram, the two trains are shown on PARALLEL tracks, giving no obvious direct possibility of collision. BUT this diagram shows a simple crossover between the converging trains allowing a transfer either way between the two parallel tracks. From the TV presentation it would seem that the two points (switches) were set 'in opposition', such that the HST would retain its position on its track, whereas the Bedwyn train would move over from its track to the other one (which is what happened), and forcing the second set of point blades as it passed through them.
This raises two questions on which I seek info from editors: 1, Is the 'controller's diagram' correct, in other words, does the layout consist of a crossover between two parallel tracks?
and, if the answer to 1 is YES, how does this fit with the long-established safety practice dating from the 19th century by which signals are interlocked with potential movements, and which I now explain further.
The conventional rules of interlocking mean that with the critical signal SN109 at red, then BOTH points would be locked AGAINST the crossover, thus protecting both trains. Put another way, it should not be possible for the signal to change to amber UNTIL a) there were no conflicting movements under way, and b) BOTH points had been changed to allow safe passage for the Bedwyn train. Since it seems agreed that the signal was in fact showing red, then is should not have been possible for the points to have been changed while a conflicting movement (the HST) was under way. Incidentally, the concept of a 'conflicing movement' was defined in the 19th century as anything moving within 440 yards, though this distance has no doubt been increased to meet modern speeds.
Do the formal reports cover the issue of interlocking. I guess they must do, but am not in a position to check out the detail.
I hope someone can help. Flying Stag ( talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is mention of multiple CBAs that all said nah, too much cost for the possible benefits. There is mention of (inconsequential) fines levied. There is mention of 31 people killed and hundreds injured.
There is no mention of lawsuits nor awards to family and people for being unlawfully killed or injured. *That* should have resulted in 10s of millions of 'cost' at least. Am I to believe - is this article to indicate - that if you are killed/injured on the wrong side of CBAs that there are no penalties levied? It is extraordinary that none of this is in the article. (Cough, what industry group wrote this?) Shenme ( talk) 01:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't make sense of the following text (or arithmetic) involved. Suggest re-wording or correcting the maths.
The drivers of both trains involved were killed, as well as 29 others (24 on the Turbo train, 9 on the HST as a result of the impact, with a further fatality as a result of the fire) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.142.159 ( talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
We currently have 'more than 258' in the lead and 523 in the infobox. The HSE report lists the number of passengers and staff in each coach, the numbers killed and either the number injured or uninjured in paragraphs 4.52 to 4.59. I'm not sure if it's OR to work out the number injured where necessary and add them up but it would seem to be the most reliable source.
Coach | Passengers | Staff | Total | Uninjured | Injured | Killed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power car | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
H | 36 | 36 | 30 | 6 | ||
G | 42 | 42 | 2 | 40 | ||
F | 30 | 2 | 32 | 4 | 28 | |
E | 85 | 85 | 29 | 56 | ||
D | 74 | 74 | 22 | 52 | ||
C | 64 | 64 | 23 | 41 | ||
B | 40 | 40 | 17 | 23 | ||
A | 47 | 1 | 48 | 19 | 29 | |
Turbo Front | 25 | 1 | 26 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
Turbo Middle | 60 | 60 | 2 | 55 | 3 | |
Turbo Rear | 62 | 62 | 4 | 57 | 1 | |
Total | 565 | 5 | 570 | 122 | 417 | 31 |
Cavrdg ( talk) 13:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I suppose WP:CALC is the policy. -- Cavrdg ( talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the explanation for the failure to get the coordinates correct? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)