Serious Train Crash

Discussion Forums Forums TV Newsroom Serious Train Crash

This topic contains 39 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  Mr Byrne 12 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20118 Reply

    fusionlad
    Participant
    #20119 Reply

    fusionlad
    Participant

    Nice to see Sky News were back on form for this terrible incident. First with the pictures by quite a long time tonight.

    From Sky News website.

    #20120 Reply

    HBox
    Participant

    Yes, I noticed. BBC were behind, as usual, so were ITV and when they did show it they still carried on showing adverts (just awful).

    They also broke a story in Iraq shortly after the train crash also, I don’t think any of the other “news channels” did, I’m referring to you BBC and ITV.

    #20121 Reply

    rob237
    Participant

    fusionlad+Nov 6 2004, 09:53 PM–>(fusionlad @ Nov 6 2004, 09:53 PM)
    Nice to see Sky News were back on form for this terrible incident…………

    From Sky News website.

    If by “on form” you mean the usual inane questioning from the studio presenter, wanting immediate answers and demanding speculation from the early contributors, then you are right!
    Clearly in possession of the notorious ‘Burley/Stanford’ attack list.

    Tonight’s presenter {King?} keen to project “…yet another rail accident”, until he realised a car was involved. Next stage was to infer the Rail network should not permit ‘half-barrier’ crossings. He eventually stopped short of suggesting the speed of the train was a relevance.

    Watch out for the ‘ambulance chaser’ legal scum, usually led by the disgraceful Ms Christian, crawl from the woodwork come Monday morning.

    #20122 Reply

    Johnnie
    Keymaster

    very terrible incident, reports now say that 6 people have died.

    The coverage has been great, Gordon Radley joined Allan King at midnight.

    #20123 Reply

    kev667
    Participant

    No music at the top of the hour (00:00) Allan has stayed on, with Gordon Radley coming on for Lisa.

    #20124 Reply

    Johnnie
    Keymaster

    Gordon’s alone now (01:00) Ross is still near the scene, Juliet still at the hospital.

    #20125 Reply

    Easty
    Participant

    Kay and Martin would have been fanatastic and would have bought very excisiting lively coverage.

    I find Allan Kings mature style dull and boring. They should have bought in the big guns

    Edit – my post made no sense sorry.

    #20126 Reply

    Tanya
    Participant

    Where were Kay and Martin yesterday at live coverage on train crash??

    The breaking news has started in Allan King’s shift and all the interviews, explanations and live coverage from the studio were brilliantly and very professionally done by him and Lisa.
    _______
    Tanya

    #20127 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    What was wrong with Alan Kings coverage? I thought the questions he asked surivivors were the ones we wanted to know. I’m using his performance last night as an example of why I rank him so highly amongst the Sky presenters. Yes he is mature – so we get the news.

    #20128 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    Getting back to the story though, what is up with your rail network. I travelled on it alot years ago. I always thought it was very large and extensive, good value as well, with good competition, then again I always thought your trains were old, late and crapmed.

    Since then you have had so many train crashes and the next time I go to the UK (as a foot passenger) I will not take the train. I’d actually be afraid. – And that is coming from a regular train passenger and I’ve travelled by train in many different countries.

    #20129 Reply

    HBox
    Participant

    Were Kay and Martin on this weekend daytime then? I’ve been at work so have not seen much.

    #20130 Reply

    rob237
    Participant

    Perhaps when the dust from the Ufton Nervet tragedy has settled Sky News might commission an investigative, and objective, programme as to why we seemingly tolerate 3,400+ annual road deaths, and yet go somewhat OTT when less than 1% of that figure perish annually on the rails?

    #20131 Reply

    NEWSBOY2
    Participant

    We don’t “tolerate” road deaths and its not going “ott”. Millions have to use the train each day (me included), its shatters our confidence and faith everytime something like this happens. Why should it be a lottery to get on something so mundane as a train?

    Public transport is safer than using a car, so its seen as more pressing when passengers die. Imagine how cheated you’d feel if you lost a loved one, or suffered a serious injury all because you went on a train?

    #20132 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    Well, I don’t use comutter rail. I use InterCity services. Travelling from city to city.

    But I have used Commuter rail Inter-city and the london underground in the UK. I will avoid ever using the train in the UK again. I was actually talking to a friend from England today and he was saying that the the rail network has went down the pot due to privitisation. And I see his point – cutting corners etc.

    Besides, over here a few years ago they upgraded the inter-cities brought in new engines and carriages for the Dublin to Cork and Dublin top Belfast lines. But before they made those lines high-speed they upgraded the railway tracks. I’m under the impression that you in the UK forgot to upgrade your tracks before you decided to buy new trains and increase the speed. Could that be true?

    #20133 Reply

    JamesH
    Participant

    Mr Byrne+Nov 7 2004, 10:22 PM–>(Mr Byrne @ Nov 7 2004, 10:22 PM)
    I will avoid ever using the train in the UK again.

    Why? You are more likely to die or be injured if you travel by road.

    #20134 Reply

    lakewood
    Participant

    Couldnt agree more – I was watching Allan King and the feeling I was getting was that all he was looking for someone to say that the railway system was again to blame – Why let facts get in the way of a good story again – seems to be Sky’s motto. And just as a general point – at what point do the public start to take responsibilty for their own stupid actions and stop looking around for someone else to blame all the time – seems to me that – if the reports are confirmed – the guy in the car was determined to commit suicide – then no one could have forseen this accident – if he ignored flashing lights, barriers and klaxons and decide to weave through them all and then get hit by the train then its his own stupid fault. this discussion in this instance about safety seems irrelevant.

    #20135 Reply

    rob237
    Participant

    Perhaps when the dust from the Ufton Nervet tragedy has settled Sky News might commission an investigative, and objective, programme as to why we seemingly tolerate 3,400+ annual road deaths, and yet go somewhat OTT when less than 1% of that figure perish annually on the rails?

    #20136 Reply

    NEWSBOY2
    Participant

    I think we all what to know why his sucide had to affect the innocent? We don’t tolerate road deaths, but using public transport is deemed safer, and when things go wrong for whatever reason it just seems more pressing.

    #20137 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    “I was watching Allan King and the feeling I was getting was that all he was looking for someone to say that the railway system was again to blame”

    Well firstly I reiterate that I thought Allan Kings coverage couldn’t have been better. I don’t really understand what you are getting at there, perhaps you could elaborate but before you do that, cehck this site:

    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1158707,00.html

    and even at that they left out a few. You might understand waht he was getting at.

    I think that lying on the railway is the oldest trick in the book for suicides or even murders. Stopping your car onto the tracks kills the people on the train as well as yourself. I do not think that there should be level crossings on high speed lines. Over here on the high speed inter-city lines, there are very few level crossings. Commuter rail is a a different story, they’d have time to stop or slow down to minimum damage. There is no way that a high speed train can slow down and it won’t be the last time that some lunatic decides to park his car on the train tracks or it could happen by accident.

    A few months a go over here there was a narrow escape on a level crossing in Sligo when a truck broke down on the tracks. Luckily a railway perosn was near by and he flagged the train to a hault. It could have been even more disastrous than the incident we just witnessed.

    #20138 Reply

    Forum Member
    Participant

    I mailed Sky News with this early today:
    I offer this comment as an enthusiastic protagonist of Sky News as the UK’s undisputed leading News broadcaster.
    I live 8 miles from the site and am familiar with the area, and with the operation of Type 43 (HST) train sets.
    I was surprised initially that your News team was unaware that this type of train, which has been in use for nearly 30 years, consists of a power car front and rear, plus eight (Mk3) coaches of various types in between.
    Ross Appleyard was making a strong point about why the rear power unit was continuing to push the train into the accident. I suggest that he had no evidence whatsoever for this assumption. The rear unit’s power would most likely to have already been shut off by the time of impact, but it is the inertia of a train weighing around 200 tonnes, possibly travelling at around 100mph which was “pushing” it into the scene.
    I feel it would have been more relevant to ask why the buckeye couplings fitted to all modern trains of this type failed to ensure that the units remained attached to each other and hence reduce the amount of crushing and twisting.
    Also, Kay Burley’s interrogation of Andy Trotter was unnecessarily persistent and drawn out. It was clear that he was not going to comment on some aspects of the situation, but she asked at least five more questions that were appropriate.
    She also referred to him as a Chief Constable at one point when his rank as DCI was on the screen.
    Your graphic representation of the mechanism of the crash was also presumptive and inaccurate.
    You changed it later in the day on Saturday, but it still purported to show how the train collapsed with I suggest very little in the way of facts to go on.
    Your own footage showed no evidence at all of the train running on to its left side as the graphics portrayed.
    The track and side ballasting is seen as completely undamaged until the facing point set at the entrance to the 1,8km long down petroleum siding for Aldermaston Wharf where the train came to rest.
    Although the points appear to be correctly set, it appears to be the pointwork which caused the actual derailment rather than the impact with the vehicle.
    Your early bulletins suggested that the car was placed down the track from the crossing, but there was again clearly visible a wheel and tyre with part of the front suspension very close to the crossing, and the remains of what appeared to be the rear half of the vehicle nearby.
    Both of these would indicate that it was on the crossing rather than a way down the track.
    It is a small point, but the graphics showed US-style GM Supervan ambulances with alternating red beacons as opposed to the EU standard of progressive or rotating blue, and the crossing warning red lights flashed as pairs rather than alternate as is again EU standard.
    In summary, you make too many uninformed assumptions, push indecently hard for comment, and use inaccurate tools which tend to spoil an otherwise superb piece of journalism.

    #20139 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    OK. Thats very criticising. Are you a railway engineer?

    #20140 Reply

    Steven
    Participant

    transplan+Nov 8 2004, 09:06 PM–>(transplan @ Nov 8 2004, 09:06 PM)
    I mailed Sky News with this early today:
    I offer this comment as an enthusiastic protagonist of Sky News as the UK’s undisputed leading News broadcaster.
    I live 8 miles from the site and am familiar with the area, and with the operation of Type 43 (HST) train sets.
    I was surprised initially that your News team was unaware that this type of train, which has been in use for nearly 30 years, consists of a power car front and rear, plus eight (Mk3) coaches of various types in between.
    Ross Appleyard was making a strong point about why the rear power unit was continuing to push the train into the accident. I suggest that he had no evidence whatsoever for this assumption. The rear unit’s power would most likely to have already been shut off by the time of impact, but it is the inertia of a train weighing around 200 tonnes, possibly travelling at around 100mph which was “pushing” it into the scene.
    I feel it would have been more relevant to ask why the buckeye couplings fitted to all modern trains of this type failed to ensure that the units remained attached to each other and hence reduce the amount of crushing and twisting.
    Also, Kay Burley’s interrogation of Andy Trotter was unnecessarily persistent and drawn out. It was clear that he was not going to comment on some aspects of the situation, but she asked at least five more questions that were appropriate.
    She also referred to him as a Chief Constable at one point when his rank as DCI was on the screen.
    Your graphic representation of the mechanism of the crash was also presumptive and inaccurate.
    You changed it later in the day on Saturday, but it still purported to show how the train collapsed with I suggest very little in the way of facts to go on.
    Your own footage showed no evidence at all of the train running on to its left side as the graphics portrayed.
    The track and side ballasting is seen as completely undamaged until the facing point set at the entrance to the 1,8km long down petroleum siding for Aldermaston Wharf where the train came to rest.
    Although the points appear to be correctly set, it appears to be the pointwork which caused the actual derailment rather than the impact with the vehicle.
    Your early bulletins suggested that the car was placed down the track from the crossing, but there was again clearly visible a wheel and tyre with part of the front suspension very close to the crossing, and the remains of what appeared to be the rear half of the vehicle nearby.
    Both of these would indicate that it was on the crossing rather than a way down the track.
    It is a small point, but the graphics showed US-style GM Supervan ambulances with alternating red beacons as opposed to the EU standard of progressive or rotating blue, and the crossing warning red lights flashed as pairs rather than alternate as is again EU standard.
    In summary, you make too many uninformed assumptions, push indecently hard for comment, and use inaccurate tools which tend to spoil an otherwise superb piece of journalism.

    I can’t believe that you sent that. Are you for real?
    Couple of points: Sky were involved in a breaking news story and in an effort to get information out as soon as possible, after all that’s what we, as the general public, want, may occasionly get some of the minor details slightly incorrect.
    Secondly, I think you’ve missed the initial point of the story; a train crashed/collided/struck (however you wish to describe it) into a car and killed 5 people!

    #20141 Reply

    Mr Byrne
    Participant

    It killed seven people I believe.

    #20142 Reply

    HBox
    Participant

    I think member number 428 is being a little pernickety. It’s obvious that Sky are going to disregard that statement, and file it in the recycle bin. No offence intended.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 40 total)
Reply To: Serious Train Crash
Your information:




Add New Topic Login Register