Talk:List of rail accidents (2000–2009)/Archive 1

message: Some one needs to get a copy of the book "Red for Danger" and incorporate many other crashes mentioned therein.
Syd1435 04:24, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
----
I'm adding a Washington DC metro subway one. Unknown if there is a seperate page for those.  List of subway accidents does not exist.66.173.192.96 00:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  early comments 

message: Is "stop train" a term that is specific to European railroads?  The grammar seems a little odd to me as a native English speaker.  I read the entry as one train collided with another train that was not moving, the stationary train was a stopped train.  Is that right?  Thanks. (Note that I left a similar message on the user's talk page to ensure that the question is seen) slambo 20:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
:You're referring to the 1976 Schiedam crash, yes? A "stoptrein" is a Dutch term for a train which stops at every station. I presume it was mistranslated into English - in the UK we'd call it a "local train". -- Arwel 20:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  Thanks for the clarification. slambo 20:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- A local train is sometimes called a stopping train Tabletop 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stop train" vs. "stopped train" 

message: The automatic TOC was looking rather ungainly.  The new TOC summarizes the page quite nicely.  The only thing that I might try to improve on it would be the color scheme, but I don't have a good palette handy.  slambo 17:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:I just nicked the colour scheme from the toc at List of songs whose title includes geographical names, although I agree its not the nicest in the world! I've made a mockup at User:Thryduulf/rail accidents toc using the colour scheme from the info box to see how it looks. Feel free to play around with the colours on that page. Thryduulf 01:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects in the next week, I will replace the current "list of songs grey" version of the TOC with the "custom grey/yellow" version at User:Thryduulf/rail accidents toc. Thryduulf 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice TOC switch 

message: On my most recent edit to this page today, I noticed that it said the article is now at 51kb long.  I think it's time to split it, and suggest we split by century: List of rail accidents: 19th century, List of rail accidents: 20th century and leave the 21st century events here (we could make a List of rail accidents: 21st century page, but then what would be left here?).  Thoughts? slambo 14:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, and we'd leave the entire contents block on the article, just update where the links point to. slambo 14:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this page is getting to long.  I think that the main page should contain one accident of each type plus accidents from which important lessons are learned. Other accidents, such as level crossing collisions which are otherwise all the same might go into a page for each (major) country, such as list of Russian rail accidents. Accidents is smaller countries might go in files for suitable time periods such as List of rail accidents 1901-1950.
Tabletop 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is getting long 

message: I have noticed that some reports are written in the present tense and some in the past. Compare:
* The train passes a red signal; the driver is killed.
* The train passed a red signal; the driver was killed.
I think these should be changed so all entries are the same, but which?
Also, what is the correct way of writing numbers?
* Seven dead and forty-three injured
* 7 dead and 43 injured
* Seven dead and 43 injured
* Some other combination
I am sure newspapers etc., have a rule, is it numbers under 10 are written as words and all others as numbers, or something else?
-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to stick with the present tense as that's what's used on other timeline pages throughout WP.  When I have time, I will sometimes go through this list and "re-tense" sentences into present tense, but usually only update the listings around whatever I'm editing at the time.  I haven't seen it mentioned in WP:MOS yet, but it seems to make more sense to me (see above).  As for the numbers, I'll usually use digits for numbers greater than ten, and words for numbers between zero and ten.  However, I will rarely mix words and digits myself, preferring digits. slambo 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past and present tense; numbers. 

message: Since I didn't see any mention on the news sites of an accident occurring today in Chicago, I've reverted the edit that added such a mention.  If there really was an accident today, we need more details and a reference.  Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 19:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago rail accident today (Dec 9, 2005)? 

message: Yesterday, an emergency vehicle drove throught an open drawbridge in Jersey City, NJ.  This reminded me of a similar accident occuring in Bayonne, NJ, in which a train drove through an open drawbridge killing 53, as I recall.  I have no exact date, though and am having difficulty finding corroborative news articles.  John07801 (Speak) 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Rail Accident 

message: The death/injured numbers are too high. In all my sources there are 186 killed and 106 injured people. By the way, on the same day(!) another heavy desaster occured in Germany. Near Markdorf (Bavaria), a frontal collision of a special passenger train with a freight train resulted in 101 killed and 28 injured people. (Source for instance:  Schatten der Eisenbahngeschichte. Ein Vergleich britischer, US- und deutscher Bahnen. (by Hans Joachim Ritzau, first published in Pürgen in 1987).) (A translation of the title would be: Shadows of railroad history. A comparison of British, US and German railroads.) Best regards, --Thomas Goldammer 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genthin desaster (22 Dec 1939) 

message: Following from comments above, this page really seems to have got too long and is inconsistent in style.  Brief summaries of major crashes of historical importance are cheek-by-jowl with woffles on minor derailments or detailed accounts.  It's getting hard to see the wood for the trees.
I suggest that this page should concentrate on brief 2-line summaries of key international accidents.  Detailed descriptions of accidents should be cross-referenced either by country or individual accident.  A list of US rail accidents needs to be set up (like the British one) and the longer descriptions and minor shunts like Manassas need to be shifted to that.  The significant accidents can be cross-referenced from this page.  Maybe a statement of intent is needed at the top to encourage people not to add trivia to this particular page.  Hyperman 42 02:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongly suggest reorganisation 

message: Ive found a website that has lots of pictures of derailed trains. Storm05 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Derailment Photos

message: Alright, at 121 kilobytes this thing was a _tad_ bit long. 
I've stripped the content prior to 1950 and put it in List of pre-1950 rail accidents, changed the TOC headings so that every year can be jumped to right from the TOC (before that, this only worked for the 1990s and 2000s) and removed some fluff from the USA entries (which, in my opinion, do need a lot of copyediting).
--Doco 19:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken down the list 

message: Why do we need to put in years that were no notable accidents (i.e. 1959)
24.47.134.240 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years without accidents 

message: Going by naming conventions, I believe that this article should be moved to "List of train accidents." --Gurubrahma 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing with the current title tram and light rail accidents are within scope (I can't remember if there are any or not) rather than just accidents involving trains. Thryduulf 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for move 

message: Has anyone heard of this accident?
http://home.no.net/lotsberg/artiklar/andersen/en_table_1.html => 1984
Looks like one that ought to be listed...
:I agree. This is a wiki, be bold and add it yourself. Thryduulf 13:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Benedetto tunnel accident 

message: I've added a  tag for two reasons.  First, there is quite a bit of bad spelling on the page which needs to be fixed (including one example on the map (Axidents)!).  Second, I believe that there are "accidents" in the list that should not be there.  See the next section (Criteria for inclusion).  Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: For ease of discussion, this section has been moved to /Criteria for inclusion. Thryduulf 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: Do they qualify as accidents, when there was clearly a terrorist motive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 (talk • contribs) 
:You know, you're right, they weren't accidents.  However, they were significant events that affected rail transport in the area, just as the Spanish (2004) and Russian (2005) events, which are also listed here.  I guess I'm undecided on whether they should stay here or not.  Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been debating this with myself for a while as well. Perhaps we should have (a better worded) List of terrorist incidents on the railway section? Off the top of my head, I'm not certain there are enough significant incidents (the countless IRA bomb warnings are not significant imho) for a stand-alone list. Unless there was a combined public transport list - there have been a number of bus bombings in Israel/Palestine (and I think Sri Lanka as well) for example. Thryduulf 13:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are many more that are attributed to Maoist or Naxalist sympathizers in mainland India (Google News lists many each day, and I see there are two more listed today).  The three that are in the list now are those that received the most widespread media attention as far as I can tell.  I wouldn't mind so much if they were split out to a separate list, but I'm not sure that would be better.  As to the proposed list name, I dislike the word "terrorist" as it's been associated with far more now by our lovely King George II that would not have earned that monicker in the 1990s (such as a sit-in to prevent trucks carrying hazardous materials from entering certain wildlife areas; environmental issue protesters have been labeled "domestic terrorists" by the current regime).  But back to the issue at hand, strictly speaking, these incidents aren't accidents.  This brings up another question about inclusion; should we include events in this list that were caused by deliberate sabotage? Slambo (Speak) 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the "terrorist card" comments (I could say whole lot, but that is a discussion for another place. At least President Tony isn't quite that bad. Yet.), the sabotage question is a good one. They deserve to be listed somewhere, so perhaps renaming the list to "List of rail accidents and incidents" would be good. It would also neatly solve the problem of the London bombings et al, but we would have to agree criteria for inclusion. Imho the bar should be set higher than just a SPAD that leads to no accident (according to the Rail Safety and Standards Board there were 21 'Category A' in January 2006]]), but we have to be able to include significantly notable events that led to no fatalities. Thryduulf 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be in a separate section. If we include terrorist incidents shouldn't we also include all the incidents due to acts of war - there must have been hundreds in World War II alone
Exile 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London bombings 

message: It seems to me that this page is getting excessively long and nit-picky.  I specifically reference the "March 15, 2006 – Manassas, Virginia" incident, though there seem to be dozens of others along the way.   To include such minor incidents at all seems unnotable, and to compare it with larger train disasters like the Glendale accident makes it all the worse.  What if there were a List of automobile accidents, on which everyone would add the minor fender-benders he saw on his way to work that morning?  Worst of all, the large number of accidents in 2004 - 2006, at least in comparison to the early years, makes present-day rail travel seem unsafe.  I think that the page needs cleanup. -- Runnerupnj 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps we should set a threshold of 1 fatality to a rail passenger/driver, signifcant national media coverage and/or a significant long term impact on policy/operations (I'm thinking along the lines of the national chaos caused by Hatfield in the UK or an accident that results in the withdrawal of all of a certain class of loco/unit. Not a month of disruption to the services on one line). Obivously accidents that don't meet these criteria but are otherwise particularly noteworthy (e.g. the first) can go in. Thryduulf 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a bit long; perhaps an initial split by century would be helpful?  I've been using the amount of media attention as a rough gauge on whether or not to include items into the list.  The great overwhelming majority of incidents that I read about are only reported on one or two rail-related websites; incidents that I see reported in multiple media sources are more likely to be significant to the average reader.  One tool I use for prominence is a Google News search for +railway | +railroad -"underground railroad" -"Railroad Earth".  However, I also usually tend to skip over incidents where it's one person driving around the gates at a level crossing, walking along the right of way or otherwise acting stupidly around the trains unless there's a significant impact to rail traffic or unless it involves significant personalities (I almost added the incident earlier this week where "Miss Deaf Texas" Tara McAvoy died after being struck by a UP train; see: Trains NewsWire, Texas School for the Deaf and several others). Slambo (Speak) 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we remove everything where no passengers and less than 6 people outside the train were killed. We should not have freight train derailments or level-crossing accidents with a car. If several passengers were injured or other major reasons we could keep them. I aggre that it is strange that there are so many from the 21st century. It seems that every time a rail accident is reported in media it appears here. /BIL 12:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing a long distance train journey tomorrow. Do I dare to do that? The number of accidents per year increases heavily. 217.208.214.180 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten, prioritize 

message: Could we agree on a method of citing references?  The primary methods are either a footnote, or just a link within the line.  I'm guilty of using both, but we should be consistent.  (Personally, I prefer the second method - the first method requires two clicks and the footnotes are often just a link to the article anyway with no extra information.) Rmarquet 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should standardise, and I've got no preference for which so I'm happy to go with the inline link. 82.2.173.196 21:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference method 

message: 84.0.219.238 seems to be making an excessive number of edits to little effect.  Any idea what the edits are meant to achieve, apart from cluttering up the history list? WLDtalk|edits 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 84.0.219.238 

message: Why did someone combine the pages?  I can't find any discussion about it, but there's plenty on this page about splitting them, and no reason given for the combine.  Here is the last non-split version of this page - can we revert and fix the garbage that's there now?  (Yeah, I'm frustrated - I put in a decent amount of time getting that split page to look right and all, and now it's been undone, and badly, for no obvious reason.) Rmarquet 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even notice when I made the small formatting change to get the whitespace displaying properly again.  It seems that someone was a little too bold considering the consensus that we've developed on this talk page for the split in the first place. Slambo (Speak) 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent combine of the pages? 

message: The latest addition appears to be a direct copyvio from the Boston Herald, so I've reverted its addition. Slambo (Speak) 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback reason 

message: I just added a derailment from a CBC article about the February 7, 2001 Don Valley Derailment. It needs a citation. The article is here http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2001/02/07/010207train.html Thank you Kenny Sullivan 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Need For Toronto Derailment February 2001 

message: I've done a lot on this article, especially in researching and listing the earliest accidents in the 1800s, but I notice a recent proliferation of incidental accidents - suicides on the tracks, people killed in platform accidents...  A circa 1927 grade crossing accident with a stranded car was deleted from the list last year.  I fear that we don't have the room or the level to start listing every trespasser fatality that occurs.  That is really beyond the scope of an encyclopedia.
I haven't made any deletions yet - but I throw this issue to the floor for discussion.
Mark Sublette 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidental accidents

message: Is this also known as Rolling resistance, possibly?  It seems to me to be the same sort of thing, and is related to wear and tear of materials.  Reason I mention it is that one of the incidents listed has "rolling contact fatigue" as the reason for the accident, when the link is not available on wikipedia.  If these are one and the same, maybe it would be an idea to either set up a redirect or correct the link to show the new name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.145 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling contact fatigue 

message: http://www.kttc.com/News/index.php?ID=23687
More recent train accident in the US.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.10.100.242 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in here 

message: The article as a whole is very poorly referenced. I propose that it be given the same treatment as the Glossary of UK railway terminology article was. All unreferenced entries tagged to highlight them and after a suitable period of time has elapsed to allow refs to be provided, unreferenced items are removed to a subpage of this talk page where they can be held until references can be provided, at which point the can be readded to the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: To avoid getting too big, this file should be restarted in say 2010 as List of rail accidents (2010-2019) and so on.
List of rail accidents (2000–present) should be renamed List of rail accidents (2000-2009).
Tabletop (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid getting too big. 

message: It is a list of rail accidents.
*  October 23, 2004 – Nagaoka, Niigata: During the Chūetsu Earthquake Eight of ten cars of the Toki No. 325 train on the Jōetsu Shinkansen were derailed. None of the 154 passengers were killed or injured.
Do things like that really need to be entered?  Perhaps a loose definition of "notable" should be proposed.  Klosterdev (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; the list will get rather messy if we are to start documenting all train accidents. For example, the French Wikipedia has a list of principle accidents as well as specialized lists by country -- for example, fr:Liste des accidents ferroviaires en France (List of rail accidents in France) versus fr:Liste des principaux accidents ferroviaires (list of principle rail accidents). Does this model seem reasonable? 83.203.183.112 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This accident is actually notable since it's the only time a Shinkansen train in service had been derailed for a non-man made reason (one train had overrun and become derailed) and also the only time someone aboard a Shinkansen had come close to getting injured from a non-self inflicted cause (like opening the door and jumping out to commit suicide when the train is moving). In short, despite no fatality or injury, it's the only instance of "Shinkansen accidents". --Revth (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the reason for the notability of the accident (which I do not doubt), I suggest that fact be noted somewhere on the page and appropriately cited. Actually, most of these things need notability and citation checks, it would seem. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a list of notable rail accidents 

message: I have got the impression that 100 times as many people are killed who are hit by trains (in cars or walking) by accidents than people killed onboard because of accident, and then are suicides not counted. Should we mention this if a source can be found?By the way, some such accidents are in our list. Should they be in, considering they are common? In Sweden alone, 101 people died on railways in 2007 alone, of them about 70 suicides and about 30 accidents (Olyckor på järnvägen minskade 2008(Swedish)). 4 people died onboard trains during 1990-2008 in Sweden. --BIL (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims outside trains 

message: One of the nice things about marking items in this list with country flags, is that it helps people learn the flags.  What about extending this to display state and provincial flags, such as 
*   Australia, Northern Territory or 
*   United States, Florida?    Tabletop (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  State flags 

message: Similar to the recent cull of entries on the List of rail accidents (2010–2019), I propose to cull non-notable entries from this list. All entries proposed will be listed here and a week allowed for discussion. Generally, articles falling within WP:RAILCRASH criteria C will be targeted. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed cull of entries

message: April 26, 2008 – Collision between a InterCityExpress train and a herd of sheep at the mouth of the German longest rail tunnel, 19 of the train's 135 passengers being lightly injured. Four people suffered fractures.
How many sheep suffered? Simply south (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baaaaaa! 

message: Regarding this entry
* Jan 6, 2006 – Burbank, California: A Metrolink train stuck a passenger car at the dangerous Buena Vista crossing in this Los Angeles suburb, killing 1.  This confusing and badly designed crossing had several previous fatal and non-fatal accidents and Metrolink had ignored NTSB recommendations to improve it.
As I've mentioned in the past, I haven't been anywhere near California in my life, but I can scan a Google Street View as much as the next person, and I saw a "North Buena Vista Street" crossing squeezed tightly between North San Fernando Boulevard, San Fernando Road and I-5(Golden State Freeway). I don't know about this being a "confusing" crossing, but it does look like a poor design. Assuming this is the crossing they're talking about, I'll see if I can find anything on the NTSB trying to get Metrolink to improve it. ----DanTD (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burbank, California; Jan 6, 2006