Talk:Stonehaven derailment

Rail magazine

The text:

An opinion piece in Rail magazine criticised the Scottish Sun and other sections of the press for their poor journalism, particularly their grasp of the technicalities of railway operations. BBC Radio 4s Today programme, BBC Scotland and Channel 4 were all criticised. Rail editor Nigel Harris praised Gwyn Topham of The Guardian for coverage that was "timely, measured, accurate and of appropriate tone".

was removed with the edit summary "remove POV reporting of media organisations opinions of one another". It seems legitimate and neutral to me; should it be restored? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: - I've restored it. Even if it is POV, it is balanced POV as it is also pointed out where part of the media reported well and was praised for such reporting. Rail wasn't the only place there was criticism reported. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Key point is that it is an opinion piece. Rather than a straight reporting of the facts, it the opinion of one person in an editorial. Much like quoting from the news section of The Telegraph is fine, but not from the editorial section. Sure, there were probably errors or less-informed comments made in the main-stream media, as there are often in the reporting of evolving incidents, but it is of very little relevance to the incident itself.

Bit rich for a magazine editor to be preaching over poor journalism when the publication he oversees also gets things wrong from time to time and does have a reputation for pushing agendas. Obviously @Mjroots: you hold the editor in high regard as you congratulated him on his Twitter feed, which is fine, but perhaps your objectivity is a bit compromised. Putteyman (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Putteyman: I don't think I am biased towards Harris, but respect that you may think I am. As I said above, there was much criticism of various areas of the press re its reporting of the disaster. The Sun was about the worst of it, but it was not alone. Much of the criticism is not reportable in the article as the sources a not useable on Wikipedia. Rail magazine is useable. The criticism is clearly identified as an opinion piece and its author is identified (RSEDITORIAL first bullet point). As I said above, it is balanced by showing both criticism and praise. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy Rail often, but did in this case; and I did read that editorial at the time, with interest. On railway matters, I would trust the opinion of Harris over any of the others, BBC included. So, Keep. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Timeline of removal of last vehicle

OK, slightly unusual situation here, so I'm posting an explanation. The BBC said that the final carriage was removed from the site on 21 September, whilst the RAIB said it was on 15 September, with the site being handed back to NR on 19 September. I queried the situation with the RAIB on Twitter. The answer is final vehicle lifted on 15 September, site handed back to NR on 19 September, carriage removed on 21 September. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

How does it feel to hide the truth, thus disempowering the victims of this crash, on behalf of a corporation. It objectively makes you a disgusting human being.

THE TRAIN WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS! THAT IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT. THE TRAIN ALREADY MET A LANDSLIDE, THUS IT TURNED BACK. THE WEATHER CONDITIONS CONTINUED TO DETERIORATE. THE LEGAL SPEED OF THE TRACKS IS IMMATERIAL TO THE APPROPRIATE SPEED FOR THE CONDITIONS, ARE YOU DUMB?

THAT'S LIKE SAYING, A CAR GOING 70MPH AFTER ALREADY MEETING SHEET ICE, WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRASH THAT RESULTED FROM GOING 70MPH AFTER DISCOVERING SHEET ICE ON THE ROAD. IT IS AB OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THE TRAIN WAS GOING TOO FAST AND THAT WAS THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE DEATHS.

IT'S AN OBJECTIVE FACT THAT OMMITTING AND CENSORING THIS, MAKES YOU A IMMORAL AND EVIL PERSON.

THE TRUTH WILL OUT, ALWAYS ObjectiveRealityTalks (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You need sources to back up what you are saying. It is not an objective fact that high speed was the primary reason for the deaths. I think we need to wait for official investigation results rather than speculate. NemesisAT (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ObjectiveRealityTalks, I understand that you are upset about the derailment. That is understandable. However, please note that railways are not roads. On a road, yes, while there is a speed limit one should drive to the conditions and geography - you make sure you can stop if you see an impediment. Railways however are not like that. Trains are big, heavy, and hard to slow down. A train can take a mile or more to slow down from full speed: if there is an obstruction on the line then by the time it's been seen by the driver it's too late, even in perfect conditions. Railways run via signals, which tell the driver that the section ahead is clear. Absent any instructions to the contrary, the line speed should be maintained. The good news is that railways are very very safe - train crashes are very bad, and given the speeds hard to prevent injury, so a lot of effort is put into preventing them in the first place. Stonehaven was the first passenger fatality due to a GB train crash in more than ten years. As reading any RAIB report will show you, when an incident occurs it is investigated thoroughly and lessons applied to try and prevent it happening again. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@ObjectiveRealityTalks: - The RAIB have published their final report into the accident. Please take the time to read and thoroughly digest it. Having done so, feel free to improve the article, or make a request if you are unable to edit the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Final report

As I commented above, the RAIB final report has been published. There is lots to digest, but also some decent photographs which are on an OpenGov licence, and thus uploadable to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)