Bedford (Elstow) collision reporting by Daily Express: is this accurate or misleading?

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess it could have been worded slightly better to state “automatically changed and then remained at red” but again you have to be careful it doesn’t get too convoluted and unclear whilst trying not to get into technical detail that the readership wouldn’t understand.

I agree. Yes, that line of the article is incorrect as written, but in a way that is bordering on pedantic, because it doesn't change any substantial impression that people are going to take away from the report. The key things that almost any non-railway person is going to see are. Train in front stopped. Train behind passed a red signal and crashed into it. That leaves as the main unknown the question of why the train behind passed the red signal - which is a broadly correct reading of the situation. None of that is changed by that one sentence that incorrectly indicates the light changed to rather than remained at red.

If it had been a mistake that gave a significantly misleading impression of what caused the accident, or who is to blame (or if the article had tried to scapegoat any individual or oganisation without sufficient evidence), then there would be strong justification for complaining about the article. But it doesn't do any of that.

 

[midland1]

Daily Telegraph has a strange extra snippet (and sensationalist headline) but doesn't seem to be from the RAIB report. Even if it was obvious what it meant it doesn't sound like it would have made any difference to this incident:

A formal letter issued to Network Rail in January 2013 by the Rail Safety Standards Board (RSSB) said that to comply with modern safety standards, an “additional signal section” – meaning an extra signal light – needed to be installed on the “Up Fast approach to Bedford South Junction”.

But Network Rail told the RSSB it opposed this, leading the safety body to conclude: "Such changes would be substantial and disproportionate to the benefits offered."

Rail chiefs refused new signals near fatal crash site

Rail chiefs overruled a safety recommendation to install extra signals near the site of the fatal train crash in Bedford, The Telegraph can disclose.

www.yahoo.com

Could this mean a banner repeater.

 

[Annetts key]

Could this mean a banner repeater.

See this post

 

[Starmill]

By contrast, if an Express journalist merely slaps up some copy about the crash, even if it contains a glaring error, there's no actual ban on referring to it in Wikipedia. If no other "reliable source" (or the RAIB) actually contradicts the glaring error, then you can acknowledge this journalism exists on Wikipedia. You could write "according to the Daily Express [complete garbage]". It's then up to Wikipedia readers how much store they put in it.

There's a tad more to it than that, in that I'd expect there to be a competing citation introduced if the Express were cited saying something obviously ridiculous. Contributors then might support that over the Express one. However yes in principle you're right it's possible the Express might write something baseless, which is cited, and then nobody bothered to try to cohesively challenge it with other evidence. In fact that seems to be exactly the trap that a very small number of articles fall into, occasionally some fairly high-profile ones.

 

[Magrar]

There's a tad more to it than that, in that I'd expect there to be a competing citation introduced if the Express were cited saying something obviously ridiculous. Contributors then might support that over the Express one. However yes in principle you're right it's possible the Express might write something baseless, which is cited, and then nobody bothered to try to cohesively challenge it with other evidence. In fact that seems to be exactly the trap that a very small number of articles fall into, occasionally some fairly high-profile ones.

Well yes to be clear, the scenario is only where there's no other reliable source contradicting the Express.

It's a fatal flaw that few realise exists on Wikipedia, an unfixable flaw for as long as they cling to the concept of sources being reliable or not. That replaced their far more robust, but way more time consuming, prior approach of examining context and use, as well as source reputation.

I.e., shall we assume that absent any contrary indication, a piece of sports trivia printed in the Daily Express, is correct? Sure. Shall we do the same for the finer technical details in their rail crash reporting, particularly where the Express journalist has no evident experience in such things, and there is ample evidence, albeit in the form of inadmissable forum chatter, he has made an error? Probably not.

There is a biography on Wikipedia for a formerly very prominent public facing scientist whose career was ended overnight due to a serious conviction involving child pornography. He was famous enough to get in depth profiles in the likes of The Guardian, which is how a person is typically deemed worthy of a Wikipedia biography. A permanent irrevocable place in history.

But since his conviction was only reported on by The Sun and Daily Mail, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it never happened. You cannot even acknowledge the reports exists. So his biography just randomly ends without explanation. And will do so, forever.

So when the day comes that AI or Google helpfully refuses to show you results in sources an authority figure like Wikipedia deems unreliable, then this manner of his career ending goes from merely being very hard to find, to extremely hard to find.

Wikipedia editors are never more dangerously irresponsible, than when deciding which source is reliable or not.

 

[Starmill]

Well yes to be clear, the scenario is only where there's no other reliable source contradicting the Express.

It's a fatal flaw that few realise exists on Wikipedia, an unfixable flaw for as long as they cling to the concept of sources being reliable or not. That replaced their far more robust, but way more time consuming, prior approach of examining context and use, as well as source reputation.

I.e., shall we assume that absent any contrary indication, a piece of sports trivia printed in the Daily Express, is correct? Sure. Shall we do the same for the finer technical details in their rail crash reporting, particularly where the Express journalist has no evident experience in such things, and there is ample evidence, albeit in the form of inadmissable forum chatter, he has made an error? Probably not.

There is a biography on Wikipedia for a formerly very prominent public facing scientist whose career was ended overnight due to a serious conviction involving child pornography. He was famous enough to get in depth profiles in the likes of The Guardian, which is how a person is typically deemed worthy of a Wikipedia biography. A permanent irrevocable place in history.

But since his conviction was only reported on by The Sun and Daily Mail, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it never happened. You cannot even acknowledge the reports exists. So his biography just randomly ends without explanation. And will do so, forever.

So when the day comes that AI or Google helpfully refuses to show you results in sources an authority figure like Wikipedia deems unreliable, then this manner of his career ending goes from merely being very hard to find, to extremely hard to find.

Wikipedia editors are never more dangerously irresponsible, than when deciding which source is reliable or not.

The Dr Marek Kukura case could be cleared up within the current customs of Wikipedia I think. It just needs someone to go to the Court and cite the guilty plea he entered. But you're right in principle, of course, that it's completely daft to come to that.

 

[MarkyT]

Is there some confusion about the definition of "next" here?

According to the RAIB: "RAIB’s preliminary examination has found that train 1B67 was standing next to WH152 signal when the accident occurred."

The point of impact was thus ~5*26m from WH152, at which point 1H46 was (according to the RAIB) estimated to be doing 49mph. So had 1B67 continued but only as far as the next section by that moment, WH152 would have been correspondingly red and 1H46 would have had about 150 yards to stop so as to avoid having passed both it and WH154 at danger.

The collision therefore intervened before the passing of a further signal (at whatever aspect). That's how I read the relevant remark by @MarkyT

That is exactly what I meant. What this may mean is that even if 1B67 had come to a stand fully to the south of WH152 in its unexpected stop, there's still a chance 1H46 would have hit it after passing two signals at red. Hence, it's not just the first signal after the junction that carries the heightened risk.

 

[cornishjohn]

Is there some confusion about the definition of "next" here?

Maybe, maybe not. Top of my mind was the assertion that 76 mph was too fast for double yellows. The section 154 - 152 looks to be about 2/3 mile, so braking at 154 would have comfortably stopped the train in a single section. Equally, 152 - 148 also looks to be about 2/3 mile, and I HAD taken "next" to be "148".

It seems braking actually commenced about (very imprecise here) 1000 yd (so [equally imprecise] c. 27 sec if constant speed) after 154. Too late for 152 but still well in time for 148.

Daily Telegraph has a strange extra snippet (and sensationalist headline) but doesn't seem to be from the RAIB report. Even if it was obvious what it meant it doesn't sound like it would have made any difference to this incident:

This seems a real red herring as the RSSB derogation seems to refer to signal section 158 - 156 which the collision train never traversed, only achieving the up fast AFTER bedford south junction. In any case we have an agreed explanation, and alternative mitigation, for not complying with the standard.

 

[Magrar]

The Dr Marek Kukura case could be cleared up within the current customs of Wikipedia I think. It just needs someone to go to the Court and cite the guilty plea he entered. But you're right in principle, of course, that it's completely daft to come to that.

You really can't do that for a situation like that. It has to appear in a reliable source.

You could do this for clearing up potentially confusing reporting about an RAIB report. It still has to be a respected person going there, reading it, and publishing their findings, then citing that on Wikipedia.

As a self published but reliable source, you're then allowed to write on Wikipedia, "according to report in the Daily Express [insert complete garbage] but according to [named respected person] [something correct]."

The Marek case confuses Americans in particular, who make up the majority of Wikipedia editors, because they're not used to a world where you can't just look up the details of a court judgement online.

They can't get their heads around the fact that in the UK, we rely on journalists to report what happens in a place like a court room. So when the handful of UK newspapers they deem reliable either decide something isn't important, or more likely these days, lack the resources to be there in person, that's that.

 

[Annetts key]

Could this mean a banner repeater.

In addition, this was not about providing extra signals or signal sections, but was about approach locking.

Approach locking is only relevant if the signaller routes a signal across a junction or points and that signal clears to a proceed aspect (or would have) and then the route is cancelled. The purpose is to maintain a safe route for the train through the junction (it locks the route) even though the signal is now at red because the train may not be able to stop.

Comprehensive approach locking includes a "look back" to see if there are any approaching trains. If there is no train (track circuits clear), the approach locking can be released, as there is no train to provide a safe path across the junction.

So irrelevant to what happened in the accident.

 

[sharpener]

A fast-accelerating merging and closely following maneuver like this may sometimes see the 1st signal after the junction stepping up from red to yellow right in front. That could reinforce the assumption, and perhaps they may fail to recheck that it has actually cleared after first seeing it at red in that short window of visibility.

I also worry that the late braking and high speed of collision implies the 360 may not have been on course to stop at the next signal either.

The distance from WH154 to Wh152 is about 1300m. The 810 is about 120m long so if its front was in the vicinity of WH152 the rear was about 1180 m from WH154.

According to @cornishjohn's figures the 360 would have taken 471 yards = 431m to stop from 76mph. If we assume that the AWS would take 2s to apply the brakes if the horn is not acknowledged and 1s from then to develop full braking force the 360 would have travelled 102 m in that time. Or less if the train was still accelerating and had not yet reached 76mph.

So it would have come to a stand 533m from the AWS magnet at WH154. Assuming the magnet is somewhere near the signal that is less than half the space available to stop i.e. it would have been over 500m away from the 810.

Hence can we conclude that 1H46 probably didn't brake as a result of the AWS at signal WH154? Since we know it was showing red as the train passed then either the AWS was faulty or the warning was cancelled by the driver.

 

[Starmill]

You really can't do that for a situation like that. It has to appear in a reliable source.

You could do this for clearing up potentially confusing reporting about an RAIB report. It still has to be a respected person going there, reading it, and publishing their findings, then citing that on Wikipedia.

As a self published but reliable source, you're then allowed to write on Wikipedia, "according to report in the Daily Express [insert complete garbage] but according to [named respected person] [something correct]."

The Marek case confuses Americans in particular, who make up the majority of Wikipedia editors, because they're not used to a world where you can't just look up the details of a court judgement online.

They can't get their heads around the fact that in the UK, we rely on journalists to report what happens in a place like a court room. So when the handful of UK newspapers they deem reliable either decide something isn't important, or more likely these days, lack the resources to be there in person, that's that.

Judgements and sentencing remarks are considered as acceptable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia though aren't they. It's simply that practical barriers to inserting them exist. Hopefully those can be broken down further in the future as the current system leaves much to be desired.

Either way the use of Wikipedia is a bit off topic in this thread.

 

[alxndr]

So it would have come to a stand 533m from the AWS magnet at WH154. Assuming the magnet is somewhere near the signal that is less than half the space available to stop i.e. it would have been over 500m away from the 810.

AWS magnets are typically 182m from their associated signal. Google maps agrees this is the case for both signals involved.

 

[MarkyT]

Hence can we conclude that 1H46 probably didn't brake as a result of the AWS at signal WH154? Since we know it was showing red as the train passed then either the AWS was faulty or the warning was cancelled by the driver.

I agree. The train appears to have been driven as if it had passed a yellow at WH154, was holding speed, but was not expecting to stop as the faster train in front raced ahead, opening up the gap.

What aspect was WH152 displaying at the time and how far away could it be seen, mounted high up on a gantry? The failed train appears to have not passed the signal, so WH152 was very likely displaying a green after it stopped, perhaps clearly visible to 1H46 over the roof of the short 810 formation. So 'read through' may be a factor in why there was no appreciable slowdown before the final major brake application.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we're probably done here. We've dissected the awful state of much media coverage and now we're moving onto matters that would be better left for the RAIB to investigate and report on rather than guessing and basically falling into exactly the same issues that the media themselves have been getting involved in.