Talk:Abergele rail disaster

Position of extra coaches

I don't believe that the additional coaches added at Chester were in front of the locomotive. Some accounts of the disaster refer to 'four extra carriages were attached to the front of the train' eg: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northwest/sites/abergele/pages/traindisaster.shtml but I don't think that means 'to the front of the engine'20.133.0.14 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a misconception - common among non-railway folk - that the term "train" includes the locomotive (or worse, that "train" is a synonym for "locomotive"). The train is the collection of vehicles (whether coaches or wagons) hauled by the loco, so the phrase "attached to the front of the train" means "attached between the locomotive and the first coach". Placing vehicles in front of the loco, other than when shunting within station limits, was forbidden on most lines - it obscured the driver's view. When it was done, as for example on a motor train (Auto-train on the GWR), the vehicle(s) propelled would be provided with a driving cab at the leading end. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times archive contains its coverage of the event by cut and paste from a London paper. The account given there explicitly states that the train had two guards vans, with one immediately behind the locomotive, and the 4 carriages added actually went immediately behind the front guards vanRjccumbria (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal aftermath

There seem to be a few loose ends and I am finding it hard to tie them up. Article says the brakesmen were not prosecuted. The following website York University Institute of Railway Studies reproduces a portion of the The Railway Times, 5 August 1868, p. 928 LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN.- The coroner's inquest into the origin of the catastrophe at Abergele concluded yesterday. Evidence was taken on Thursday respecting the properties of the petroleum which caused the conflagration. It was shown that 1,700 gallons of oil were consumed, a quantity which, in the opinion of one of the witnesses, must have proved instantaneously fatal to the passengers in the burning carriages. The breaksmen of the goods train, acting by legal advice, declined to give evidence. The resident engineer stated that the end of the train left on the line must have had the break screwed down, otherwise the trucks would not have stood on the incline. He added, if the three waggons "kicked off" to join the two others had been sent gently along the line, they would not have started the trucks containing the petroleum. The evidence was brought to a close by the examination of Mr. Mason, assistant-manager, and Colonel Rich, Government Inspector, both of whom stated that if the two breaksmen in charge of the goods train which preceded the mail had done their duty, and had followed the printed rules, the accident would have been prevented. The coroner's assessor having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of Manslaughter against Richard Williams and Robert Jones, breaksmen of the goods train. The men were committed for trial at the assizes. The jury also strongly censured the station-master for the transgression of the company's shunting rules.
so is there anything further known; for example why and at what point was the prosecution dropped ?

Googling to see if there is any further info out there on this reveals instead an NZ paper reporting subsequently that the stationmaster, having been prosecuted, had been acquitted. Is anything more known on this ?

Rolt mentions that not only was the siding at Llandulas defective in not making any provision for shunting other than on the main line, the railway company had not declared its existence to the Board of Trade, and consequently it had not been inspected/accepted by the Railway Inspectorate before coming into use. That was contrary to the law; did it lead to a prosecution? Rjccumbria (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Driver's name

This article currently quotes the driver as Arthur Thompson in the "Collision" section but the final paragraph of the "Fire and casualties" section has him as Albert Thompson. A quick Google suggests that Arthur is correct. Can anyone confirm? Prh47bridge (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a contradiction tag on this pending a resolution. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abergele 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/20071012050456/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/wales/northwest/sites/abergele/pages/traindisaster.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northwest/sites/abergele/pages/traindisaster.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)