AGA Brakes: Wikipedia claims?

[MrPIC]

Hi everyone, came across something odd on the Abellio Greater Anglia wikipedia entry, can anyone shed any light on it? I've heard nothing about this and can only assume it to be untrue (as is common on wikipedia I know!).
quote from wiki:
In September 2015 AGA endangered public safety twice by running trains with know defects to the braking system (due to the age of their rolling stock). AGA refused to comment to complaints and calls to invest in new rolling stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abellio_Greater_Anglia

 

[me123]

It's Wikipedia. It sounds like nonsense posted by a disgruntled commuter who doesn't like the noise of Mark III brakes and complained, or something equally rubbish. Note that the comment is unreferenced, and as such should be taken with extreme caution. Particularly since, having had a look at who made the edit, it's been added only today by an unnamed user (identified only by their IP address) who isn't active on Wikipedia normally.

In fact, as this is unsubstantiated, it could surely be considered defamation, unless of course the unidentified updater has evidence that this actually happened? I would have taken the liberty of removing it anyway, as it's unreferenced and as such goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, but presumably another forum user appears to have beaten me to it!

 

[Edward101]

Hi everyone, came across something odd on the Abellio Greater Anglia wikipedia entry, can anyone shed any light on it? I've heard nothing about this and can only assume it to be untrue (as is common on wikipedia I know!).
quote from wiki:
In September 2015 AGA endangered public safety twice by running trains with know defects to the braking system (due to the age of their rolling stock). AGA refused to comment to complaints and calls to invest in new rolling stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abellio_Greater_Anglia

Citation needed (!) is what I will say Sounds very unlikely on a network where safety is paramount at all times. I would suggest this is an anti-Greater Anglia rant rather than a genuine concern, but I might be wrong. The Mk3 sets they use on the Norwich runs may be tired, but I don't feel unsafe using them.

Of course if anyone is aware of this actually happening, or can cite an article in which it was mentioned, then please feel free to enlighten us! I somehow doubt such an article exists...

 

[ainsworth74]

It has been removed from the page now. It must have been someone disgruntled with them as it was in the header of the article rather than the history section which would have been the logical place to put it.

 

[MrPIC]

I thought it smelt like bull, and unfortunately that is one of the risks of wikipedia. Oh well, thanks to whoever sorted it!

 

[D365]

Could it have been "Andrew Gwilt" of Global Rail News [comments section] fame?

 

[dk1]

There are some pathetically angry people out there :roll:

 

[TheNewNo2]

There are a surprising number of disgruntled passengers who vandalise Wikipedia.

That said, the vandalism I'm most confused by is a string of IPs who consistently add incorrect entries to tables of rolling stock on TOC articles. They seem to particularly like the idea of 319s going to Chiltern, and I think 150s to Southern or something.

 

[D365]

There are a surprising number of disgruntled passengers who vandalise Wikipedia.

That said, the vandalism I'm most confused by is a string of IPs who consistently add incorrect entries to tables of rolling stock on TOC articles. They seem to particularly like the idea of 319s going to Chiltern, and I think 150s to Southern or something.

There was a notorious chain of vandalism from an 'IP hopper' not long ago (might be the same individual that you've mention) consisting of elaborate fictional SWT/Southern region rolling stock transfers!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Wikipedia is brilliant! As long of course as the info is accurate and has to be substantiated with evidence, hence the citations and the references.

The issue is where people are editing and adding entries that have no factual evidence, such as in this case.

 

[Clip]

There are a surprising number of disgruntled passengers who vandalise Wikipedia.

That said, the vandalism I'm most confused by is a string of IPs who consistently add incorrect entries to tables of rolling stock on TOC articles. They seem to particularly like the idea of 319s going to Chiltern, and I think 150s to Southern or something.

Someone off here perhaps with one of their flights of fancy? Read a stock thread and then try and match them next time

could be a new forum game

 

[43074]

Could it have been "Andrew Gwilt" of Global Rail News [comments section] fame?

It can't have been, the sentence is grammatically correct, uses punctuation and doesn't leave you gasping for oxygen having read it! Nor is it crammed full of various fictitious TOPs class numbers.

 

[455driver]

It can't have been, the sentance is grammatically correct, uses punctuation and doesn't leave you gasping for oxygen having read it! Nor is it crammed full of various fictitious TOPs class numbers.

Unlike yours!

 

[43074]

Unlike yours!

Oops!

EDIT: now it is!

 

[TheNewNo2]

Wikipedia is brilliant! As long of course as the info is accurate and has to be substantiated with evidence, hence the citations and the references.

The issue is where people are editing and adding entries that have no factual evidence, such as in this case.

I've written several articles on Bristol area stations which end up with stupid numbers of references. The problem with Wikipedia of course is how patchy it is - for instance I've done the Severn Beach Line to Shirehampton, but haven't bothered with Avonmouth on.

In fact I'm bored now, I might go do that.

 

[eastwestdivide]

It can't have been, the sentance is grammatically correct, uses punctuation and doesn't leave you gasping for oxygen having read it! Nor is it crammed full of various fictitious TOPs class numbers.

Unlike yours!

If we're being pendantic, it was grammatically correct, just orthographically incorrect!
Possibly an example of Muphry's law, which states that corrections to spelling etc. nearly always include an error themselves. And so on ad infinitum.




Yes, pendantic was intentional! Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

 

[causton]

Edit: nevermind