Talk:Slip coach

Still formally allowed?

Is there anything in H&S law that specifically outlaws the practice today?Graldensblud 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but then Health & Safety legislation avoids specific permissions or prohibitions, putting the onus on an operator to set up a safe system of work. The practice was discontinued because of the operational inconvenience as unit trains became more prevalent; it required a locomotive specifically to wait for the slip's arrival, to shunt it to a bay platform or another train; it required a dedicated guard for the slip vehicle; and as modern traction made the station call by the main train of lesser impact on throughout journey times. I think the artricle needs beefing up quite a lot, though. Afterbrunel 07:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice edit, Devoxo; good to have the first and last specifically stated. Afterbrunel 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a type of equipment

This article describes a practice and not necessarily a type of equipment, and therefore should not be classified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.240.194 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the navbox should probably refer to passenger vehicle types, not equipment, so the article is fine, the navbox title needs amending. I suspect 'equipment' was chosen to avoid having to use 'coach types' or similar and falling into the trap of picking either a US, UK or international term which someone would object to. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Slip coaches in America?

The 1881 timetable of the New York and New England Railroad denotes for one express train that in the East Thompson, Ct., station "the train does not stop, but the rear cars are detached" (Traveler's Official Guide, June 1881, page 32). That sounds to me that the same technique was used as in Great Britain. Maybe someone has further information about that. --Thogo 13:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ireland?

This article focusses on slip coaches as being a particularly British and Irish technique. I can think of examples from England (but not Scotland or Wales offhand) and one in Ireland (to Warrenpoint). Any more? Any in Europe or the US? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re Ireland: I have added the D&KR though that was only practiced in the 1850's and maybe the 1860's and WP:ORIGINAL that might only have been at Kingstown (and of course was hte whole train to run round the locomotive) ... I also recall I think the GS&WR may have practiced it but I may misrember. In general services not too time critical.23:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley, done a little for Ireland, probably missed the West Clare who would have inadvertently practiced slip. Dunno about Continental, Americas, Asia, Antipodeans.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Edited photo needs to be labeled as such?

Upon viewing the full resolution of the current main photo used, it clearly shows signs of being a composite. E.g. the supposed slip coach is in focus while most of the photo is not, then the three people in front are in focus again. The steam exiting the locomotive is cropped off the top of the photo while e.g. the hill on the right is not. Comparing the shoulder of the right-most person with the train tracks, the train tracks seem to show JPEG artifacts much more severely than the person themselves. The slip coach seems to have a person edited into its door, which can be seen way too clearly given the lighting and contrast of the windows to the left and the right. The steam exiting the locomotive has way more detail than the locomotive itself. I suggest removing the photo, or clearly labeling it? Nempnet what do you suggest? Moritz.suess (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the source now, the creator https://www.flickr.com/people/156515782@N02/ actually clearly states: "A few thoughts, yes all the images here have been altered in photoshop to a greater or less degree, but nothing wrong with that, I prefer to call them “illustrations” rather than photographs, I am interested in all things old or vintage and the good people of 1940s re-enactor groups are a fertile source of inspiration, my aim is to increase and reinforce the vintage experience by removing any inappropriate modern details, such as present day dress, buildings, cars etc. or, more commonly, to remove a re-enactor completely from his or her original background and paste them into a genuine period photograph." Moritz.suess (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moritz.suess: This is WP:NOTAFORUM a forum for discussing Flickr Images. If you are suggesting this is a possible candidate for the main image here then please specifically make that suggestion. While the image is "claimed" to be public domain on Flickr I am far from convinced the uploader (who is not the original creator as far as I am aware) can actually evidence the image is public domain and therefore is unlikely to remain unchallenged on commons and would likely be rejected, but I may be wrong. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)

@Moritz.suess: Thanks for pointing this out. I have removed the image. Nempnet (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moritz.suess: I think I misinterpreted what you were saying and I apologise. You were quite right to raise that here. I am less concerned about the labelling, which would have been appropriate, but I am more concerned about a valid license. Thankyou and apologies again. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The two coaches are actually the same coach. The detached one has been reduced and slightly rotated, and a different end glued on. It has errors: there is no crossmember to the bogie frame, nor does it have a wheel on the far rail for the second axle. The body side also does not match up with any slip coach diagram that I can find. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If I am beginning to get my head round this the image seems to be a faked representation of "real life" image. As such shouldn't be used. There may be (rare) cases where images could be constructed to prove a point but it would be necessary to caption it if necessary as it would be need to be explicitly made clear that is an artificial representation. It is also a pre-requisite source image(s_ have the correct licences to allow this. These are my quick thoughts anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)