Talk:List of rail accidents (before 1880)

message: I dont know what sources was used for this, but I used 2 books on this railroad and both had July 2 
Trans-Anglo Books By Rail to the Boardwalk (1986) Richard M. Gladulich 
and 
West Jersey Chapter-NRHS Atlantic City Railroad (1980) Library of Congress Control Number 77-79997
Also it was a ACRR train not a WJ&S train as before I fixed it.
N2icv (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Winslow Junction Train Derailment

message: :Image:AK trains2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AK trains2.jpg

message: The image :Image:Atsf19.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Atsf19.jpg

message: Was linking to Münchenstein, now links to Münchenstein rail disaster.    Tabletop (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved links. 

message: As it is being policed presently, these articles are of minimal value for research into rail crashes over certain periods.  Either these articles are an encyclopedic list of rail crashes during a time period or they are not.  The title is very misleading to general users if Wikipedians are to continue using their own personal opinion of what is notable for inclusion.
Either the content needs to be improved to reflect the title, or the title must be changed to reflect the content (based on whatever criteria people are deciding to use).  DiverScout (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better if it were agreed upon what constitutes notability for inclusion in this article. If every minor shunt on every railway network from the dawn of railway transport to 1950 were included, the article would grow to several megabytes. I doubt whether an interminable list of inconsequential bumps would be regarded as any "improvement". Personally, I would suggest that the crash must involve loss of life, or result in wide-ranging changes to railway operation or equipment, or be the subject of some other notable work of art. HLGallon (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case the article title and lead would require amending to demonstrate the limitations of the article.  As stands a lay-person researching rail accidents on Wikipedia is led to believe that only these accidents took place. DiverScout (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article (as stands) 

message: The above comment about "ongoing discussion" was from 2 years ago, but the usage of the flags here is still inconsistent: Should we have only countries, or sub-countries (England/Scotland/Wales, States)? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags? 

message: Removed the following as they appeared non-notable :-
* April 23, 1853 – Rancocas Creek, New Jersey: Engineer of Camden & Amboy's 2 p.m. train out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania misses stop signals and runs his train off of an open drawspan at Rancocas Creek. Fortunately, there are no fatalities.
*  May 9, 1853 – Secaucus, New Jersey, United States: A Paterson and Hudson River Railroad emigrant train has a cornfield meet with an Erie Railroad express in Hackensack Meadow near Secaucus, killing two brakemen, but no passengers.
*  December 1853 – Secaucus, New Jersey, United States: The same two trains that crashed on May 9, 1853, a Paterson and Hudson River Railroad emigrant train and an Erie Railroad express, collide again, within one mile (1.6 km) of last spring's wreck site near Secaucus. A brakeman and one passenger die, 24 others are injured. 
*  1911 – Port Glasgow, Scotland: Local man John Sanderson is run over by a goods train. 
*  December 6, 1927 – Augusta Township, Ontario: A 63 year old farmer named James Patterson was "run over by train and mangled" according to a death certificate filed in Grenville, Augusta. 
Thanks
GrahamHardy (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The December 1853 accident would appear to be notable as a passenger was killed. Therefore I will re-add it to the list. Agree on the removal of the others. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 15, 2010 trim 

message: *  1928 – Lindfield train disaster, Sydney, Australia: collision when train speeds after stop-and-proceed-at-red signal. 
I checked the archive of the Sydney Morning Herald for the entirety of 1928-29 and there was no mention of a train crash there. I can only assume it's an error. Reynardo (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindfield Crash 1928 

message: I've been through the list and tagged many entries as needing references. It shouldn't be too hard to provide a decent ref for all entries where there is not a stand-alone article. I see no reason why this list should be exempt from WP:V. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: Just a minor point, but  "November 31, 1916 – Herceghalom, Austria-Hungary: The train arriving from the funeral of Franz Joseph I crashes into the fast train to Graz. 71 people killed." - Did the 31st November *really* happen or does this error need addressing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.241.154 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 31 November. Most likely a typo of 21 November. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 31, 1916 – Herceghalom, Austria-Hungary 

message: December 1945 SAL Silver Meteor crashed into the SAL Sun Queen killing 6 and injuring many. Added by an editor, but without ref or location, so I moved it here. Ning-ning (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAL crash, 1945

message: * September 4, 1891,France - troop train derails near Culmont-Chalindrey north-east of Dijon and falls down steep embankment. 200 killed.  http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/39438644?searchTerm=transporter%20train&searchLimits= 
 
There do not appear to be any French sources for this accident on the web; original report in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper has an addendum saying that the report has not been confirmed. Ning-ning (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times, 5 September 1891, p5, states that it was a hoax. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: French derailment 1891

message: As this article is over 130 KB, I propose that it be split into List of rail accidents (pre-1900) and List of rail accidents (1900–1949). This would reduce the time taken for the page to load, ease maintenance and assist in adding citations. — Iain Bell (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea- I suspect there's quite a few accidents not yet put into this list. Ning-ning (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it doesn't use a , and I hadn't found that page yet, as it is not linked to from its subpages.  The same set of links are more or less replicated at the top of each of these articles, not all of which link to List of train accidents by death toll.  Splitting these articles up into more sub-pages, would mean more maintenance, until a common template is used in the dab page and at the top of its sub-pages.  Tim PF (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: "It is the worst ever train disaster to date", this must refer to either the UK or Scotland or bridges falling down or something else. It cannot be "ever in the world", as the implication is now. I hope someone more comfortable with the article will fix this (or just say I'm wrong.) Greswik (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the claim- there's an even worse one just above it in the article, also involving a bridge. Ning-ning (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means the worst in the UK to that date (and for almost a decade — see :List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll), but the use of the present tense for these lists means that it is difficult to change the wording to concisely express this. Tim PF (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1879  "It is the worst ever train disaster to date," 

message: I am currently getting ready to split off the segments of this article between 1880 and 1899, so prepare to rename this article "List of rail accidents (before 1880)." ---------User:DanTD (talk)  23:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After some struggles, it's . ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1880-1899 split coming 

message: The following entries have been removed as they were unreferenced. They were almost all tagged as long ago as September 2010. Feel free to find references and re-add them. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced items removed

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of rail accidents by country which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: It is beyond my novice skills, Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMRT (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone update the TOC please to include 1813? 

message: There's an inconsistency in the account of the 1833 Parr Moss accident - an eastbound train at Parr Moss would not have been approaching from Bolton.  It would plausibly have been going to Bolton, via Kenyon Junction and Leigh.
However, it's also possible that the words "westbound" and "eastbound" are transposed - if it was the eastbound train that had broken down, then the straying passengers could plausibly have been struck by a train coming from Bolton.
Does anyone have a copy of the source book, to check whether this inconsistency lies in the original text, or if not, which way around the error is?
Quackdave (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As the source book sounded interesting over and above the ability to check this entry, I have now acquired a copy.  The train which had failed had come from Liverpool, and the train which struck the wandering passengers was indeed coming from Bolton, therefore it's the "eastbound/westbound" in the article that are at fault.  I'll go and swap them around. Quackdave (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parr Moss, February 1, 1833 

message: In the late 1880s early 1900s sometimes there wasn’t enough gravel under The railroad ties.
A rail would come loose and pop up through the railroad car.
We would call this some idiom today. 24.190.199.158 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we would call it "very bad track maintenance". For a rail to come loose in that manner would mean that the spikes securing it to the ties were all loose or missing, and that the bolts through the joint bars were also loose or missing. The lack of ballast (n.b. not gravel, it's far too fine) would be much less of a cause. See Railway track. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old railroad Idioms