Talk:Lathen train collision

message: The section Firefighters used turntable ladders and aerial platforms to reach the wreckage, which was at an elevation of four feet. seems incorrect, as it appears much higher in the pictures. The BBC link in the page also says Damaged carriages were left balancing on track 5m (16ft) in the air, hampering rescue efforts.  So either it's 4 meters, or forty feet. Identity0 09:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feet or Meters? 

message: This page was recently renamed by someone who has been permanently banned; he was mistaken about naming conventions. Please see the naming convention for disasters, that states that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. Also, it is recommended that discussion & consensus should occur before any pages are moved. I'll move this back if there is no objection. Highspeed (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections noted. Done. Highspeed (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Naming: February 2009 

message: The first paragraph of this article appears to be messed up, with an obviously incorrect number of fatalities and some visible tags. I don't know the actual number of fatalities or I'd fix it myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.96.66 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism repaired Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up first paragraph: March 25, 2009 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www1.ndr.de/ndr_pages_std/0,2570,OID3129340_SPC3131186,00.html
** In 2006 Lathen maglev train accident on 2011-05-26 02:07:04, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Lathen maglev train accident on 2011-06-14 04:50:01, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: As I read the article, I'm having difficulty imagining exactly how the accident happened - the logistics, if you will.
1: Perhaps the map/diagram from the  Emsland test track article (this one) can be updated to include location of the depot side-track, location of the crash and direction of the two vehicles.
2: "When these works are finished, it has to wait before the last turnout". This is very unclear. There is a turnout at each end of the loop and one at the depot in the southern end of the straight section. Which part of track was the maintenance vehicle supposed to have stopped at, and where did the accident happen?
3: Had the MV already finished work and headed back, in progress, or just heading out on the track, where the train was already running/located?
(4: I have expanded a sentence on the article, to include that there is also a depot.)
If anyone have read the official report or later news, perhaps explain this question in the article:
5: If the MV was in one of the loops (or had "waited before the last turnout"), would the train still have hit the MV?
-- Katana (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a schematic map of the test tracks (added to this section now). The maintainance vehicle had finished and it was waiting at the turnout ("Weiche") to the depot ("Versuchszentrum"). Technically it was at pile 120. The workers moved to the rear of the vehicle - so they could not see the platform ("Besucherzentrum") where the people were boarding the train. When the tracks were energized the train driver and station director would have been able to see the vehicle. In don't know if the train had first run through the small loop - I guess so. Guidod (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash details unclear - suggestions for improvement 

message: Most, if not all (!), accident articles include passenger counts.  Then as one sees the victim counts one can get an impression of how destructive the unfortunate incident was.  Here, I couldn't find the passenger count for the train.  Only the passenger count for the maintenance vehicle is listed: 2.  Of which 2 survived.  
Now, the train passenger count is implied, as deep down the article it says that no-one survived unscathed.  So if one adds the fatalities + the injured, and assuming the "no unscathed" sentence is accurate, one can guesstimate the passenger count (but does that include the 2 maintenance vehicle workers?).
The way this article is written is all so very strange and alien to the way most accident articles are.  No wonder the sections above claiming for additional clarity! XavierItzm (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing statistic