Talk:Staplehurst rail crash

Claims that Dickens was travelling with his mistress are unsubstantiated.

Dickens was travelling at the time of the crash with Ellen Ternan and her mother, both London actresses. They were returning from France, where the women had been living (possibly at Dickens' expense) for some time. While it is true that Dickens and Ellen had been very close companions, it is very unlikely that they ever physically consummated their relationship.

It is true that Dickens' friendship with Ellen was the final catalyst that destroyed his marriage to Catherine. However, Dickens' life is well documented in numerous letters and notes, still extent, between him and numerous associates. Not a single one of these documents makes the slightest allusion to a physical aspect of Dickens' friendship.

In the context of the Victorian way of life, it's important to understand that women who had physical relationships outside of marriage were regarded as little better than prostitutes. Dickens was acutely aware of this, and so it is most likely that, despite his undoubted love for her, Dickens relationship with Ellen remained platonic.

The suggestion of mistress is an understandable inference drawn by less careful biographers. However, it remains at best conjecture and not fact. HopperStu 09:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Staplehurst not Dickens

You may be right but I have removed the ref since this is not the place for such a point to be made. It depends what you mean by "mistress". Peterrhyslewis 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Staplehurst not Dickens

No "may be" about it -- you won't find any reliable written proof. I agree that this artical is about a train crash in Staplehurst with a famous victim, though. So, to avoid perpetuating a possibly flawed bit of history, I've changed it to say "companions". Stuart 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Location

In placing the {{coord}} template I've assumed that it was on the westernmost of the two bridges over the Beult, on the grounds that it would be known as the Headcorn crash if it was the east bridge. Can someone confirm that? TIA 82.13.16.186 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a mention here of the accident being 2 miles from Headcorn station. I make the west bridge 2.05 miles while the east one is about 1.4 miles. There's also a reference to there being 32 timber baulks carrying the rails between brick piers being replaced. Looking on GoogleEarth, the west bridge has 7 piers and so 8 spans. 8 spans by 2 tracks by 2 rails gives 32 while the east bridge has only 4 piers and 5 spans. Both those point to it being the west bridge.--Cavrdg (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Good sleuthing, I'd never have though of counting the piers! Thanks, it's a relief to know I was right. 82.20.52.30 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Presage

A rather odd word not in common use. Its dictionary meaning is about 'prediction' but that doesn't fit well in context. If we mean to 'be a common factor in' it would be clearer.--Rjstott (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

telegraph poles not spaced unusually

The article correctly describes that "the labourer was only 554 yards (507 m) away" but suggests that the inadequate distance arose from "having counted telegraph poles that were unusually close together." The reference to Kitchenside is correct, and Kitchenside does suggest this reason on the page specified. He writes: "the flagman had been set in position by reference to the telegraph poles, which were spaced not by the usual distance but by a mere 50 yd (46 m) or so." But the newspaper reports of the crash specifically recognize 10 telegraph poles as 500 yards, and a book on the telegraph (Railway track and track work by Edward Ernest Russell Tratman) declares that 50 yards is normal spacing (p.362). The newspaper reports In the South Eastern Gazette report that the signalman always went back ten telegraph poles--this distance was never what the rule book specified--which was 1000 yards--and that he was unaware he was supposed to go further. Suggestion: the clause about inadequately spaced telegraph poles should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.h.grossman (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Staplehurst 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://archive.is/20120904183558/http://www.mytimemachine.co.uk/dickens.htm to http://www.mytimemachine.co.uk/dickens.htm

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

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) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition for the “In fiction” section

The accident is portrayed in the novel “Serial Monogamy”, written by Kate Taylor, published in 2016. Minicarmen (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You'd need to have an independent source that discusses it, per WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)