Talk:Chalfont & Latimer station

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit / in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	London Transport Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I've moved this page in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject London's aim for consistency on names for combined stations. Timrollpickering 17:30, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chesham shuttle

This has stopped, with direct trains to London and Watford instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltern Railways' line to Aylesbury

That's not the only destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents and incidents

Gareth Griffith-Jones, as you've removed my addition of the "Accidents and incidents" section, I'm invoking the D part of WP:BRD.

An accident or incident doesn't necessarily have to result in a crash for it to be notable (q.v. 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident). In this case, there is damage to trackwork, which pushes the event towards the "accident" category. There is also more information available which leads me to think that this one is far more serious that appears at first glance. Obviously forums are not reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, which is why I've not used anything from there as a source, only the BBC, which is a reliable source. I'm expecting a formal announcement from the RAIB that they have opened an investigation. Their announcement may shed more light on the incident, and a report can be expected in about a year.

Please have a read of the forum thread. The second comment - Unsurprisingly there's tons of speculation without cigar on there. Even Mr Edwards source has got it slightly wrong, those actually in the know are quite rightly staying quiet on public domains for the time being. The last thing investigators need right now is a hounding from the press. - gives a lot of weight to my thinking re the seriousness of the event.

That said, can the section please be reinstated? Mjroots (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until RAIB publish some information, then decide. The incident happened less than 3 days ago, and the RAIB haven't even listed it on their website as under investigation yet. At present they'll do a preliminary investigation to determine the seriousness of the incident, and whether to carry out a full investigation or just issue a safety alert (e.g. a failure in communication). At present there's nothing to indicate this was anything like as serious as Wootton Bassett, so any comparisons are meaningless. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Mjroots on this one. We're not creating an article about the incident, we're noting it in the relevant station's article. That does not require the incident to demonstrate notability independent of the station, it just needs to be sourced and relevant. It happened at the station, and has been widely reported, hence relevant to my mind. This is likely the first major operational incident at C&L in over a decade. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a rolling 24 hours news medium. The "incident" has just happened in this week. Let the dust settle and we'll look at it again later this summer, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion; the material is well sourced, neutral, not undue, and most importantly, relevant. ——Serial^# 09:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones:, Voice of Clam - the RAIB have launched a full investigation into the incident. IMvHO, this pushes it past the threshold for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Go-ahead! Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the entry and rewritten it a bit. The Chiltern train was stopped by an automatic trip cock. Not sure whether this needs to be included here. Also distances might be mentionable (signal 930m from station, train stopped after 310m before proceding). If any editor feels they can improve on what is written then feel free. Am neutral re a full article at the moment. This is something that can be decided once the final report is published in about a year's time. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's WP:RECENTISM. It was a SPAD, no more serious than many that have taken place in various locations over the decades. The long term implications, if any, are not yet known. However I'm not going to revert. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chiltern train was stopped by an automatic trip cock - I think that two items of apparatus have been mixed. The automatic device is the train stop, which is mounted outside the right-hand running rail and interlocked with the signalling such that it is raised when the associated signal is at danger; when the signal goes to caution or clear, the train stop is lowered. A tripcock (usually written without the space) is the device mounted on the right of the train's leading bogie (it's part of the thing that looks like a shoebeam in this pic) and is not automatic - when a train stop is raised and the front of the train passes it, the tripcock strikes the train stop and is opened, thus venting the brake pipe to atmosphere, so bringing about an emergency stop. It's a system which has been in use on the Metropolitan since 1908 (and the District since 1905-06), and rarely fails.

stopped but then proceded After a train is stopped by the tripcock, this needs to be manually closed, for which the driver needs to leave the cab, and to do that, he needs the authority of the signaller. The driver can't simply reset it from the cab, wait for the signal to clear and carry on, pretending that nothing has happened. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - I don't profess to be an expert on LU matters, which is why I erred on the side of caution and left the tripcock/stopcock thing out. One thing is clear, is that the driver should have got permission to proceed after the train was stopped by the safety system, but he did not do so, hence the full RAIB investigation. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]