Steam in level-crossing crash
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:34 pm
'including a party of twenty people with the driver and foreman in the engine room.'
How many!
You have to wonder if the driver was slightly distracted.
The Bristol Railway Archive
This is the original forum of the Bristol Railway Archive that existed between 2003 and 2013. I finally rescued it after it seemed unrecoverable after a large crash. I have made it available for viewing. It is locked, all posts to the new version please!
https://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/forum2013/
Steam in level-crossing crash
https://www.bristol-rail.co.uk/forum2013/viewtopic.php?t=1273
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:44 pm
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:27 am
I would be surprised if 20 people could fit inside the cab of a Standard 4mt tank, particularly if it was running. However, this could be a challenge for students as an alternative to a phone box.
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:31 pm
With or without the fire? 
Media Reporting
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:53 pm
I always think it's a shame the media in general can't be a bit more accurate when reporting matters rail-related.
For example, any fule know a steam engine doesn't have an "engine room" and certainly not one capable of containing 20 people! It leaves me wondering just what was going on though ....
Reporters generally just show their ignorance - they have no gist of what the correct railway terminologies are that would actually make sense.
The Evening Post is always "at it" hopelessly confusing "train" with "locomotive" and stating "signals were red, or at stop". This dangerously confuses rail with road terminology in the public's mind and as we all know, the two don't mix.
Your average TV or newspaper hack wouldn't recognise a locomotive if one hit them!
For example, any fule know a steam engine doesn't have an "engine room" and certainly not one capable of containing 20 people! It leaves me wondering just what was going on though ....
Reporters generally just show their ignorance - they have no gist of what the correct railway terminologies are that would actually make sense.
The Evening Post is always "at it" hopelessly confusing "train" with "locomotive" and stating "signals were red, or at stop". This dangerously confuses rail with road terminology in the public's mind and as we all know, the two don't mix.
Your average TV or newspaper hack wouldn't recognise a locomotive if one hit them!
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:43 pm
Obviously the beeb read this web site for info, the article has now been corrected. 30 to 50 passengers including a party of 20 and the driver and fireman in the CAB.
And there was expecting to see another beeb gaf.
And there was expecting to see another beeb gaf.
Beeb gaff ...
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:48 am
Yes I spotted it had been corrected too. I thought I was suffering from delusions, as it was corrected within minutes of my last post. RSS I guess?
Orwellian or what? Still, at least it's now giving somewhat more accurate info. These sort of incidents do nothing to help the railway preservation movement and inaccurate reporting helps even less.
Orwellian or what? Still, at least it's now giving somewhat more accurate info. These sort of incidents do nothing to help the railway preservation movement and inaccurate reporting helps even less.