This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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. BetacommandBot16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, the previous version blamed the accident on
the engine being under-powered
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)[reply]
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?)
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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
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."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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 Eire14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
