Talk:Armagh rail disaster

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for rejig

Quite simply, the previous version blamed the accident on

1. the engine being under-powered
2. the brakes on the rear portion of the train being inadequate

The BoT inspector considered both of those possibilities, was able to disprove them by direct experiment, and recorded this in the accident report Rjccumbria (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article says:

Two other witnesses said that the driver had asked for a second engine if more carriages were added and had been refused by the stationmaster, as none were available; the driver (in supplementary evidence given "through the railway company's officers") denied this.

What, exactly, was "denied"? (That he "asked for a second engine" is untrue or that "none were available" is untrue?)

Jmatxx (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"He [McGrath] admitted that he had not asked for assistance over the bank with the fifteen coaches" (J.R.L. Currie, The Runaway Train, p.93). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

McGraths testimony on the point as recorded by the Accident report is (for what it is worth) By the Company's Officers - I was doubtful about my engine being able to take 15 vehicles up the bank. I did not ask for any assistance. Mr. Elliott consulted me if I wanted assistance, and I said, " I think my engine will take them up." Rjccumbria (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the accident report is a WP:PRIMARY source, whereas Currie's book is a WP:SECONDARY source, so under Wikipedia rules, Currie is preferable. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikilinks given link to a discussion of source hierarchy which call for users to apply common sense, which I would not have thought supported talk of 'rules' and 'strictly speaking'. The question under discussion is what the driver denied; that can be answered best by repeating the very words of denial without further interpretation - that use of the primary source is entirely consistent with the relevant Wiki guidance. It is of course open to Wikipediaers to hold that give a choice between an official and contemporaneous record of the witness's statements and a subsequent interpretation a century later of what the witness did or did not admit they believe common sense directs them to prefer the later account, but I believe it is still worth recording the witness's actual words for the benefit of those of a contrary opinion. He had 3 bites at the cherry in the course of the investigation

1. original testimony - I had great confidence in the engine I had, and thought I should be able to get up the bank with the 15 vehicles
2. By the Company's Officers.-I was doubtful about my engine being able to take 15 vehicles up the bank. I did not ask for any assistance. Mr. Elliott consulted me if I wanted assistance, and I said, " I think my engine will take them up."
3. On recall (after practical experiment had shown that the train should have been able to make 15 mph over Armagh bank, and with Mr Elliott in jail) - After, in the first instance, stating that the 15 vehicles would be too much for my engine to take up the bank, I, after talking the matter over with Mr. Elliott, consented to take them

and it is clear that the Railway Inspector did not accept any of those accounts, taking the view that there had been an initial request for assistance which the driver had been argued out of by the stationmaster Rjccumbria (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Handbrakes

Did the carriages have handbrakes (besides the brake vans) have (in addition to the vacuum brakes), and if so, should these handbrakes have been applied before the rear seven carriages were uncoupled? Tabletop (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. On passenger trains in Great Britain and Ireland, it was normal for handbrakes to be fitted only to brake vans ... which is why they were termed "brake vans". Before the introduction of continuous brakes, it was common for trains to have two, three or more brake vans. In England, the LNWR (if I recall correctly), specified one brake van for every four passenger carriages. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths

I've just reverted this edit. Maj.-Gen. Hutchinson's report (dated 8 July 1889) states (p. 42) "Up to the present time no less than 78 deaths of passengers ... in the excursion train have taken place, and in addition to these, 260 passengers ... are returned as having been more or less seriously injured"; Hutchinson lists 78 names on pp. 56-57 as "killed in Accident or died since". Rolt states (p. 191) that "eighty lives were lost". Currie (pp. 14, 109) also shows 80; and on pp. 129-130 restates that figure, and lists 80 names of "the dead".

The discrepancy between the 80 names listed by Currie and the 78 listed by Hutchinson (the two listed in the former but not the latter being William John Twynam and Mary Anne Kirkland) may be hinted at by the words "Up to the present time" at the start of Hutchinson's comment on p. 42; Currie's list is qualified as "complete to the beginning of September 1889", which probably means that Twynam and Kirkland were among those counted by Hutchinson as "seriously injured", and that they died between 8 July and 1 September 1889; and it may also mean that further deaths followed. But without a source for 89 dead, we cannot use that figure but must go with either 78 or 80; I would favour 80. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armagh rail disaster. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102130841/http://www.nmni.com/acm/Collections/Transport/Railway-disaster to http://www.nmni.com/acm/Collections/Transport/Railway-disaster

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Map Needs Updated

The map shown on the article shows Ireland partitioned which wasn't the case at the time of the accident. I'm not sure how to do this update myself. Paddy Eire 14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paddy Eire: First, find a suitable map - perhaps File:Counties of the island of Ireland.svg. Next, go through Template:Location map/Creating a new map definition and set up the relevant data file (no, I've never done that before). Finally, amend the line |pushpin_map=Island of Ireland. Alternatively, send it to Template talk:Location map or if that fails, try WP:HD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is to show the present-day location of the event. Afterbrunel (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)