text:
Brugg District

Brugg District is a district in the Canton of Aargau, Switzerland. The capital of the district is the town of Brugg.

Geography
Brugg District has an area,, of 149.29 km2. Of this area, 42.6% is used for agricultural purposes, while 41.3% is forested. The rest of the land, (14.1%) is settled. It is located around the rivers Aare and Reuss. The northern part of the district, north of the Aare, lies in the Aargau part of the Jura mountains.

Demographics
Brugg District has a population of 46,471.

, there were 1,635 homes with 1 or 2 persons in the household, 8,736 homes with 3 or 4 persons in the household, and 6,792 homes with 5 or more persons in the household. The average number of people per household was 2.41 individuals. there were 7,550 single family homes (or 36.4% of the total) out of a total of 20,725 homes and apartments. There were a total of 194 empty apartments for a 0.9% vacancy rate.

Of the school age population, there are 3,374 students attending primary school, there are 1,246 students attending secondary school, there are 780 students attending tertiary or university level schooling in the district.

Economy
there were 22,875 residents who worked in the district, while 17,446 residents worked outside the Brugg district and 14,574 people commuted into the district for work.

Religion
From the, 13,426 or 30.4% were Roman Catholic, while 20,463 or 46.4% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 72 individuals (or about 0.16% of the population) who belonged to the Christian Catholic faith.

Mergers
The following changes to the district's municipalities have occurred since 2000:

 * 2006: Stilli merged into Villigen
 * On 1 January 2010 the municipality of Umiken merged into the municipality of Brugg. On the same date the municipalities of Hottwil in the Brugg district and Etzgen, Mettau, Oberhofen and Wil in the Laufenburg district merged to form the new municipality of Mettauertal. This resulted in Hottwil transferring from Brugg to Laufenburg.
 * On 1 January 2013 the former municipalities of Gallenkirch, Linn, Oberbözberg and Unterbözberg merged to form the new municipality of Bözberg.
 * 2014: Oberflachs and Schinznach-Dorf combined to create Schinznach.
 * On 1 January 2018 the former municipality of Scherz merged into the municipality of Lupfig.
 * On 1 January 2020 the former municipality of Schinznach-Bad merged into the municipality of Brugg.
 * On 1 January 2022 the former municipalities of Bözen, Effingen and Elfingen in the Brugg district and Hornussen in the Laufenburg district merged to form the new municipality of Böztal.

title: Brugg District


text:
File:32X Virtua Fighter.png

Summary
screenshot 32X Virtua Fighter, made myself.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:32X Virtua Fighter.png


text: File:Findingneverlandposter.jpg

title: File:Findingneverlandposter.jpg


text:
Patent Busting Project

The Patent Busting Project is an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiative challenging patents that the organization claims are illegitimate and suppress innovation or limit online expression. The initiative launched on April 19, 2004 and involves two phases: documenting the damage caused by these patents, and submitting challenges to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The EFF's basic assumption is that many such patents are invalid due to prior art which has historically been difficult to document in software and internet fields. (Many patent owners file patents to cover seemingly trivial concepts without any intention of enforcing the patents, but rather to use as part of a larger patent portfolio in their own defense against potential future patent lawsuits.)

Status
The effort began with a "patent busting contest" where the public was encouraged to submit proposals of the worst offenders. Of these, EFF chose the top "10 Most Wanted" list of patents based on patent viability, whether the patent owners intend to enforce these patents, and how much of a threat they are to potential infringers.

By April 29, 2006, EFF had announced formal challenges to two of the listed patents: Test.com's patent on administering online tests, and Clear Channel's patent on recording and distributing CDs of live shows.

On October 23, 2007 The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the EFF's request for the reexamination of NeoMedia's patent #6,199,048. The Office also granted request for the reexamination of Hoshiko's (Ideaflood) patent #6,687,746 that covers the automation of subdomain registration.

On February 4, 2009, The United States Patent and Trademark Office upheld NeoMedia patent #6,199,048, although with limitations imposed upon the claimed material.

Ten Most-wanted Patents

 * Acacia Research: Audio and video receiving and transmission system
 * Clear Channel Entertainment: System and method of creating digital recordings of live performances
 * Acceris: Method and apparatus for implementing a computer network/internet telephone system
 * Sheldon F. Goldberg: System and method for playing games on a network
 * Ideaflood: System apparatus and method for hosting and assigning domain names on a wide area network
 * Neomedia Technologies: System and method for automatic access of a remote computer over a network
 * Test.com: Method for administering tests, lessons, assessments
 * Nintendo: Software implementation of a handheld videogame hardware platform
 * Firepond: System that uses natural language processing to respond to customers' online inquiries by email
 * Seer Systems: System and method for generating, distributing, storing and performing musical work files

Fate
EFF lists Acacia Research and Firepond's patents as having been made invalid, Ideaflood and Clear Channel's as "busted", NeoMedia and Seer Systems' have been "narrowed", Acceris, Test.com and Sheldon F. Goldberg's have "Reexam granted". Only Nintendo's patent of the original ten has no status update, but more are listed.

title: Patent Busting Project


text:
Talk:Minister of Health (Canada)

Taken from "Minister of Health" (which was mainly linked to by articles on UK ministers):

" Minister of Health Canada: Pierre Pettigrew member of Cabinet of Canada (2003-) in the first Paul Martin Ministry. Assisted by Minister of State Carolyn Bennett (Public Health) (a priority in the wake of SARS & BSE and in anticipation of pandemic influenza like the Spanish Flu and Minister of State (Development of Drug Agency) to improve regulation of pharmaceuticals. " Timrollpickering 22:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Minister of Health (Canada)


text:
User:Michael Krewson

Born summer of 1977, Worcester, Massachusetts

Currently resides in Northwest Alaska.

Education Haverhill High School 1986-1989 University of Arkansas - 1997-2001 Harvard Medical - 1996

title: User:Michael Krewson


text:
Church of Our Lady and Saint Nicholas, Liverpool

The Church of Our Lady and Saint Nicholas is the Anglican parish church of Liverpool. The site is said to have been a place of worship since at least the 1250s. The church is situated close to the River Mersey near the Pier Head. The Chapel of St Nicholas (Patron Saint of Sailors) was built on the site of St Mary del Quay, which in 1355 was determined to be too small for the growing borough of Liverpool. It is recorded in the National Heritage List for England as a designated Grade II listed building, and is an active parish church in the diocese of Liverpool, the archdeaconry of Liverpool and the deanery of Liverpool North. It is part of the Greater Churches Group. From 1813 to 1868 the church was the tallest building in Liverpool at 174 feet [53 m], but then surpassed by the Welsh Presbyterian Church in Toxteth.

St Mary del Quay
In 1207 Liverpool received its charter from King John. By the 1250s a small stone chapel known as St Mary del Quay had been built (the first place of worship on the current site of the church). It probably stood near the site of the present tower, overlooking a quay on the River Mersey. The chapel was used as the main centre of worship until 1355. A new chapel dedicated to St Mary and St Nicholas was built on land granted to the burgesses by the Duke of Lancaster. It was under construction for more than a century.

In 1361 a plague hit the town and the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry licensed the burial ground. The chapel was consecrated the following year. By the late 15th century, a north aisle, the same size as the original nave, had been added, and three chantry altars had been established. Each chantry had its own priest paid for by a wealthy patron. In 1515 a fourth chantry was built.

Reformation and beyond
During the English Reformation, the chantries were abolished. The building was adapted in stages to suit the form of worship found in the Book of Common Prayer. Between 1673 and 1718, the building was extended piecemeal, and galleries were built to seat the increasing population of Liverpool. A spire was added in 1746.

In 1699 Liverpool, now with a population of about 5,000 people, was created an independent parish with (unusually) two parish churches and two rectors. Our Lady and St Nicholas (the "Old Church" or St Nicks) and the new parish church of St Peter's were established as the parish churches. In 1775, the parish decided to rebuild the walls of the existing church. The galleries were kept, as the congregation paid pew rents. A new roof was set atop classical columns, which rested on medieval bases. The reconstructed church had walls four feet longer than the original structure.

By the year 1865, there were 27 churches in the parish, housing around 275,000 people. Since 1916 Our Lady and St Nicholas has been the Parish Church of Liverpool. St Peter's, which was situated in Church Street, was demolished in 1922, having served as pro-cathedral for the Anglican Diocese of Liverpool.

Fatal accident
Over the years, as new churches were built, the "Old Church" continued to serve a congregation. Members repeatedly warned officials that the spire was unsafe. On Sunday 11 February 1810, as the bells rang and people were gathering for the morning service, the spire crashed into the nave below, killing 25 people. Twenty-one were under 15 years old, and most were girls from Moorfields Charity School. The original ring of six bells, dating from 1636 to 1724, was destroyed in the disaster. An eyewitness account is found in Stonehouse's Recollections of Old Liverpool.

Between 1811 and 1815, a new tower and lantern were built at the north side of the church. The tower was designed by Thomas Harrison of Chester. The last remains of the original chapel of St Mary del Quay, which had been used as a tavern, were demolished. Within the tower, a new ring of 12 bells was installed, cast by Dobson of Downham Market. The Tenor bell was recast by Warners in 1912.

Over the years, several small changes were made to the church for liturgical reasons. The most notable changes occurred between 1851 and 1852. The Parish Centre was built in the 1920s to accommodate community life and a church school. Apart from these changes, the church remained the same between 1815 and 1940.

Closure and transformation of the churchyard
The churchyard used to be surrounded by walls. From 1758 to 1772, a battery of guns stood on an area of the burial ground (now covered by road) to defend the river. Until 1767, when Georges Dock was built where the Liver Building now stands, the River Mersey reached the church garden walls at high tide. In 1849 the churchyard was closed to burials. In 1891 it was transformed into a public garden in memory of James Harrison, whose shipping company had its offices facing the churchyard until the early 21st century.

Destruction and rebuilding of the church
During World War II, the bells were removed for safety, but they were never rehung. Following a German air raid on 21 December 1940, the main body of the church was destroyed by fire, leaving only the parish rooms, vestries and the 19th century tower. Rebuilding did not begin until March 1949, and the completed church, dedicated to 'Our Lady and St Nicholas', was consecrated on 18 October 1952 (the Feast of St Luke). A new ring of 12 bells was cast by John Taylor and Co. of Loughborough.

The new church was designed by architect Edward C. Butler, who introduced major changes to its design. Rather than the traditional practice of placing the altar at the east end (for the light of the rising sun and to signify the Resurrection), Butler placed it at the western end of the church. Unlike churches in which the pulpit is traditionally the most prominent feature, Butler emphasised the sanctuary. He excluded the galleries, which had helped seat the historically large congregations. This decision reflected the smaller contemporary congregations. The nave was designed as 46 ft (14m) taller in the new church. The positions of the organ and Refectory were changed; situated above the Narthex (entrance vestibule), they reduced the seating space within the church.

Exterior and interior detailing
The exterior of the church is notable for its distinctive lantern spire, which can be easily spotted from the river, despite being overshadowed by many taller buildings of the city's business district. The nave and the sanctuary house fixed woodwork carved with the vine as the dominant motif, referencing Christ: "I am the vine, you are the branches". In the southeast corner of the church is a stained glass window: Our Lady stands in glory as in Revelation and St Nicholas holds a ship. An inscription reads: "For the Healing of the Nations". A war memorial for the Cunard Steamship Company, placed in the church in 1989, is in the north east corner. The church organ is by Rushworth and Dreaper of Liverpool, and is dedicated to the memory of Charles W. Bridson, organist 1902–1949. Hanging between the nave and the sanctuary is the Rood, a figure of Christ with Our Lady and St John. The Rood is carved from the old oak bell frame from the tower. The church was rebuilt with one chapel to the north of the sanctuary and another to the south. On the south is the chapel of St Peter, commemorating the old co-parish church of St Peter's, which stood on Church Street. The 18th-century wooden table was once the altar there. The Sacrament is reserved here, and the chapel is used for weekday Communion services. Charred timbers from the old church were used to form the cross on the wall.

The chapel to the north was that of St George, commemorating the former, nearby church of that dedication demolished to make way for the Queen Victoria monument at the head of Castle Street. This commemoration of two historic churches was disturbed by the introduction of a new dedication for this chapel in 1993. In that year the Maritime Chapel of St Mary del Quay was dedicated as part of the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. It memorialises the medieval shrine. A statue of Our Lady, cast in bronze, is shown standing in the prow of a boat. The statue was created by Liverpool artist Arthur Dooley. The furnishings in the chapel are by Robin McGhie. The chapel contains a Book of Remembrance, listing the names of mariners lost at sea.

Behind the church's high altar is an icon of the crucifixion painted by the Romanian artist Tatiana Nichita, donated in commemoration of Merseyside Police Constable Neil Doyle, who was murdered in Liverpool city centre while off-duty, and whose funeral took place at the church.

The church is linked to the famous phrase, "I'll be waiting till Dick docks", meaning "I'll be waiting a long time". This refers to the ship the Richard Donnelly, which is said to have sunk in Liverpool Bay. Another version of this phrase is used when an unlikely promise is made; "I'll repay that loan soon!" "Oh, yes – when Donnelly docks!" implying that the action is never going to happen. A gilded copper weather vane in the form of the ship is on top of the tower of St Nicholas'. The weather vane measures 4 ft 4 (1.3m).

The vane probably survived the fall of the tower in 1810. It was renovated before re-erection; the sails are dated 1815. Historic photos show ships as weather vanes on the Bluecoat Hospital and one of the Goree warehouses. The vane was added to the church in 1746 when the spire was built on the tower. The illustration in Enfield's History of Liverpool 1773 clearly shows the ship.

Despite the traditions, no record of a Liverpool ship named Donnely or Richard Donnelly has been found. This has been confirmed by Mr Tibble, Director of the Liverpool Maritime Museum. Unfortunately for local mythology, there is some serious misunderstanding about the weather vane.


text:
User talk:Ericg/archives/2004/July-Oct

Hawker Sea Fury
Can you indicate the licenses for the images you uploaded? At the very least, it would be polite to credit Mr Leeuwen for Image:Seafury_2.jpg. And some of the text is still a bit close to http://www.laahs.com/art20.htm, not enough to be a copyright violation perhaps but if I can find the source, it's probably too close. Finally, it would have been nicer to fill out the tables rather than delete them. Sorry if I'm being a bit critical. If you need any help resolving these issues, just ask me or try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Geoff/Gsl 03:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for crediting the images. If you want to indicate your photo is released under the Creative Commons License, there are a number of templates you can use (depending on which version you want to use):

 * (see Template:Cc-by-sa)
 * (see Template:Cc-by-nd)
 * (see Template:Cc-nd)
 * (see Template:Cc-sa)
 * (see Template:Cc-nc)
 * (see Template:Cc-nc-sa)

 * See Image copyright tags for the rest. If you know an image is public domain, use the  template.  Another useful one is if you know it is free for non-commercial use, use.

 * As for the rest, my plagiarism fears are allayed (thank you). I was aware you deleted an empty data table but my thinking was that an empty table would prompt someone to fill in the fields.  Thanks again and apologies for the criticism. Geoff/Gsl 03:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Glad to be of help with the image tags. Thanks very much for contributing your excellent photos.  As for use of the standard data table, there is no obligation to use it.  On the other hand, someone who does like it may come along and reinstate it.  Such is life on WP.  However, I think the "Related content" footer-table should be restored.  It provides a concise, standardised way to navigate from the article rather than having a list of "See also" links. Geoff/Gsl 05:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * PS. Another tip (which you can ignore at will).  There is a series of "years in aviation" articles that are for aviation-related events which don't merit a place in the main year article.  Typically you would link to 2003 in aviation using 2003 which then appears as just 2003.  Most years are starved for content so feel free to add details of aviation events, etc.  Geoff/Gsl 05:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Air footer
Hi eric - yes, the footer is problematic. It was originally designed for a different "skin" from the one that the 'pedia is now using. I put forward a suggestion that it needs attention on the Wikiproject Aircraft talk page a few days ago, but with little response so far. I might have a go at it myself (although table design isn't something I claim to have any particular talents in!) If you think you can come up with something, please suggest it for discussion. Cheers --Rlandmann 04:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm very impressed! Thank goodness for the benefit of fresh eyes. I'd definitely support a suggestion of a change in this direction --Rlandmann 05:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New sports planes
Hi eric! Your two latest entries take our September new articles tally past August's :) Yay! --Rlandmann 23:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Murphy Moose
I also got the metric specs from Murphy's site, but was curious to see that they also list imperial first. Up to now, I've been relying on the fact that Canada's been officially metric since 1970, but doing a little digging, it seems that the process is far from complete (with at least two deadlines for complete metrification lapsing in the 1990s) and has plenty of zealots on both sides of the fence :) Thanks for the heads-up.

I still think metric-first for Canadian aircraft makes more sense (if that's the direction that the country is headed), but maybe we need a Canadian to clue us up! --Rlandmann 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Interestingly, the page I referenced above contains this entry:
 * Maximum Range (NM/SM/KM) 1000 / 1150 / 2130
 * Which can't possibly be true. The nm to sm calculation is correct, but the conversion to km is way out. Shades of the Gimli Glider? ;) --Rlandmann 02:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scaled Composites Proteus
I'm pretty sure I got it from Aviation Week, though I'd have to dig back to find the specific article. In any event, it's mainly in reference to the wing design. You can see that they are clearly derived. I clarified the page just a bit. -Joseph (Talk) 19:24, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Rutan Quickie
I handily admit that I might be off on that one. The older aircraft are harder to find info on, and my expertise really lies in newer Rutan aircraft. In this case, it did say "Rutan" before I got there, and gave no indication of the Quickie company. Also, Rutan/Scaled seem to use that model nomenclature often, but if this was offered by another company, it would be an exception in the same vein as the Starship, V-Jet II, etc. Also, in that case, the name of the article itself was wrong. -Joseph (Talk) 06:03, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
 * The Aerofiles link at the bottom of our own Scaled page is one of them. But it looks like you're right. I'll adjust the article some. -Joseph (Talk) 14:18, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ericg/archives/2004/July-Oct


text: Category:Lists of phrases

title: Category:Lists of phrases


text:
User talk:Louison

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 22:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Louison


text:
Talk:Ladbroke Grove rail crash

ATC
There is no mention in the article of the lack of ATC on the Thames Train, nor of the fact that the area was fitted with ATC when resignalled. I seem to recall that in the Southall crash the ATC was not operational on the HST, but was it in this accident? If the Thames Train had had operational ATC the disaster would have been averted. Could someone add this or indicate where to check the details? Sangwine 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Simon Wood
Note that an anon editor has recently changed the age of crash victim Simon Wood from 50 to 40. A Google search on "Simon Wood" +"Ladbroke Grove" shows up a Guardian article which gives his age as 40, all other references which quote an age are copies of the Wikipedia article, where I probably mis-typed the age in the first place. Therefore Mr Wood probably was 40 at the time of the accident, and Google results should not be used to revert his age. Apologies to Mr Wood's family for any distress caused. -- Arwel 22:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enquiry
More detilas of the Cullen report would be in order, if anyone has them, please. Andy Mabbett 22:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

External Links Section Out of Date
A mention for any main authors of this article, following the HSE's removal of responsibility for railway safety, the Cullen report is no longer hosted on their site. Whether it is still hosted on the internet on the new RAIB website, I'm not sure. Alspittle 21:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Links updated to their new location at http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/ -- Arwel (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * can also be found at http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=142 194.217.39.228 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of victims
Mawkish and no real use to the article. So I've removed it. Dave 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

John Prescott Quote
Can anyone provide the quotation from John Prescott immediately after the crash where he threw cost-benefit analysis of safety measures out of the window, and signed the railway up to a "no expense spared" safety regime? 194.217.39.228 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur?
I am a bit uncomfortable with "... contributory factors, blaming Thames Trains' driver training procedures (Driver Hodder had only qualified two months earlier)."

Presumably once he had fully qualified, he could properly drive one day later, couldn't he? Afterbrunel (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not - I've added a phrase to explain why Thames' Trains failed to give Driver Michael Hodder the necessary skills he should have had. Ivor the driver (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dramatisation
The Geographic channel has recently (re-)screened a 1-hour feature devoted entirely to the crash. Perhaps an editor would like to dig out the relevant references 81.158.1.186 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to log in, Here is my ID  Flying Stag (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Important technical point for railway nerds
I have always understood that this accident was 'head-on'. However, this week I have viewed a TV programme about the crash on the Geographic channel (see my edit at "Dramatisation" above).

The TV programme gives conflicting diagrams of the track layout at the scene of the crash. The first is a 3-D simulation which appears to show the Bedwyn train on a track converging with the one carrying the HST. This gives a potentially 'head-on' scenario, although in fact the HST was past the point of convergence, so in fact the impact was more of a glancing effect. The second TV diagram however gives a different picture, viz: a close-up diagram of the layout as seen by the controller. In this diagram, the two trains are shown on PARALLEL tracks, giving no obvious direct possibility of collision. BUT this diagram shows a simple crossover between the converging trains allowing a transfer either way between the two parallel tracks. From the TV presentation it would seem that the two points (switches) were set 'in opposition', such that the HST would retain its position on its track, whereas the Bedwyn train would move over from its track to the other one (which is what happened), and forcing the second set of point blades as it passed through them.

This raises two questions on which I seek info from editors: 1, Is the 'controller's diagram' correct, in other words, does the layout consist of a crossover between two parallel tracks?

and, if the answer to 1 is YES, how does this fit with the long-established safety practice dating from the 19th century by which signals are interlocked with potential movements, and which I now explain further.

The conventional rules of interlocking mean that with the critical signal SN109 at red, then BOTH points would be locked AGAINST the crossover, thus protecting both trains. Put another way, it should not be possible for the signal to change to amber UNTIL a) there were no conflicting movements under way, and b) BOTH points had been changed to allow safe passage for the Bedwyn train. Since it seems agreed that the signal was in fact showing red, then is should not have been possible for the points to have been changed while a conflicting movement (the HST) was under way. Incidentally, the concept of a 'conflicing movement' was defined in the 19th century as anything moving within 440 yards, though this distance has no doubt been increased to meet modern speeds.

Do the formal reports cover the issue of interlocking. I guess they must do, but am not in a position to check out the detail.

I hope someone can help. Flying Stag (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See the HSE report; the layout is shown on page 51 in Acrobat Reader, numbered 47 bottom centre. The route taken by the DMU is the black dashed line; that of the HST is the grey dashed line. At the point of collision, the six bidirectional tracks from Paddington (indicated as "Line 1" to "Line 6") are coming down to four (Up Relief, Down Relief, Up Main, Down Main - although it looks like six tracks at the bottom, the leftmost two are the carriage roads to Old Oak Common). The HST was coming in on the Up Main, and the DMU, originally on Line 4, had moved to Line 3, which was one of those that didn't continue westwards. So, it's kind-of a parallel track, in that it is parallel east of the crossover. Signal SN109 aside, a contributory factor was that points were set which directed the DMU towards the up main; but they could have been set for the down relief, and if this had been done the Bedwyn train would have moved away from, instead of towards, the HST. See the Cullen report, section 3, particularly 3.13 et seq. The collision was not-quite head-on: see sections 4.2 and 4.4 -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cost/Benefit Analysis ?
There is mention of multiple CBAs that all said nah, too much cost for the possible benefits. There is mention of (inconsequential) fines levied. There is mention of 31 people killed and hundreds injured.

There is no mention of lawsuits nor awards to family and people for being unlawfully killed or injured. *That* should have resulted in 10s of millions of 'cost' at least. Am I to believe - is this article to indicate - that if you are killed/injured on the wrong side of CBAs that there are no penalties levied? It is extraordinary that none of this is in the article. (Cough, what industry group wrote this?) Shenme (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * None of them. We have some core policies, these include neutral point of view, no original research and verifability - any content added to the article must satisfy all of these. It is possible that no reliable sources have yet been found for the information that you wish to see. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article seeks to report "what happened"; that includes the reported results of CBA. I cannot see that it gives any endorsement of those results, nor of the applicability of CBA to the problem.
 * Having said that, since I did much of the donkey work of precising the Cullen Report, I presume that it is my good faith that is being challenged, so perhaps I had better reply. I have no connection with the rail industry, but used to work in another regulated industry and have been round the block a few times with our regulator on CBA and ALARP. Consequently, my personal view (which I hope I was careful not to reflect in my edits) is that CBA can be a "false friend" because too rational; its fundamental flaw (at least in the UK) is that the Health and Safety at Work Act requires that risk to the public be eliminated so far as is reasonably practicable, and the judge of reasonableness is - in the last resort - not sums done by experts, but the gut instincts of a jury who have had the issues explained to them. Quite how that lends itself to an accusation of my being an "industry group" (or part thereof) is not immediately obvious to me, and I would welcome an explanation.
 * The article is not the most appropriate place for an exposition of the CBA methodology applied and if anybody wishes to follow up what the flaws in Cost Benefit Analysis might be, I would suggest that there are other - better - places to pursue this in Wikipedia. For the record, CBA does assign a value to prevented/avoided fatalities: the Joint Inquiry report noted that the value of a prevented fatality (VPF) used by the Dept of Transport etc in 2000 was £m 1.15 (report para 4.23) for road projects and - "to reflect extreme public reaction to accidents involving multiple fatalities, including the fact that the victims have no control over events" - £m 3.22 for "fatalities arising from rail accidents".(para 4.25)
 * (Further, there is published work on the disconnect between what the Great British public thinks are the priorities for rail safety improvement, and what CBA shows would be the most cost-effective safety measures. Most deaths of members of the public on railway property are (if trespassers and suicides are discounted) due to 'slips trips and falls' (followed, I think, by legitimate use of footpaths crossing the tracks) and simple measures can be identified against them which give a greater reduction in deaths per year for a fraction of the cost of train protection systems. But giving the public what the experts think is best for them, rather than what the public wants, smacks of the formerly rejected doctrine that "the man in Whitehall knows best" ) Rjccumbria (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a PS - a search on the internet shows a number of law firms saying what compensation they secured for their clients. There is no obvious sign of any referenceable total for compensation paid, but from the sums reported it would seem unlikely to have exceeded the notional £m 3.22 per fatality. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are not right to believe that. You have not done enough research on the news reports of the time, and later. Indeed the article does not say that. You are to believe that Thames Trains was expected to pay 80% of a reported £60 million in compensation for the accident, and that Railtrack would have to pay the rest. But, even that might not be all, I have seem reports of individual compensation awards that were described as substantial but undisclosed --Terry Patterson (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of fatalities/maths unclear
I can't make sense of the following text (or arithmetic) involved. Suggest re-wording or correcting the maths.

The drivers of both trains involved were killed, as well as 29 others (24 on the Turbo train, 9 on the HST as a result of the impact, with a further fatality as a result of the fire) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.142.159 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ladbroke Grove rail crash. 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/20130308170207/http://www.ciras.org.uk/about-ciras to http://www.ciras.org.uk/about-ciras/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Number injured
We currently have 'more than 258' in the lead and 523 in the infobox. The HSE report lists the number of passengers and staff in each coach, the numbers killed and either the number injured or uninjured in paragraphs 4.52 to 4.59. I'm not sure if it's OR to work out the number injured where necessary and add them up but it would seem to be the most reliable source. Cavrdg (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MATH is not OR. Thanks for making the table. — howcheng  {chat} 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose WP:CALC is the policy. --Cavrdg (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinates were off by over 300 m.
What is the explanation for the failure to get the coordinates correct? Abductive (reasoning) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ladbroke Grove rail crash


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GHGLUG

GHGLUG
Another non-notable user's group. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:30, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless something is added that shows it is more than just a generic GNU/Linux users' group. --Slowking Man 23:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep This one is more verbose than Silicon Valley Linux User Group. Would also accept a merge into Linux User Group or into a List of Linux User Groups. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 02:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It isn't notable. -- WOT 03:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability.  SWAdair | Talk  03:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 03:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GHGLUG