This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Halle train collision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Halle train collision was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 February 2010. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2019 and February 15, 2020. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the 2010 since this seems to be the only collision ever in Halle.-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This page has been moved multiple times in the last hour; I have fixed as many of the double redirects as I know of, but please be aware of the multiple pages now directing to this page:
After a few days these redirects would be suitable for speedy deletion as they were formed through page move disputes. - Nyx aus 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to settle on a title once and for all, because constantly moving the article means edits can get lost very easily (as can be illustrated by this). "Halle, Beligium" doesn't sound great I agree, but I also agree that we can't simply use Halle, when there is a German city that is about 6 or 7 times bigger. I suggest moving to Buizingen, because even though most media are reporting Halle, it actually occured in Buizingen, which is a town in its own right. Thoughts? -- Daviessimo ( talk) 11:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only has the page now moved again, but the "editor" concerned has deliberately edited the redirect to prevent the article being moved back (see WP:POINT). In these circumstances, it should be moved back to "Halle train collision" and move protected for at least as long as it remains on the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Some sources indicate a third train might have been involved somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.133.61 ( talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In WP, original research (OR) is not allowed. However, having a brain is required. As editors, we have to think then write.
As far as I know, the station is NOT called Brussels-South. It is either Midi or Zuid. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/february/15/no_trains_to_brussels.aspx calles it Bruxelles Midi and this is a UK source, not a French language source. Furthermore, look at the signs at the station which say "Midi" or "Zuid" and does not say "South"
I have changed the infobox to reflect this. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says "Also, some suggest that the incident was caused by the icy, snowy weather; however this is not believed to be the cause of the incident." At face value this doesn't make sense - I assume it means something like "...however, official sources don't believe this to be the cause of the incident." I went to the given cite, De Morgen, but it doesn't seem to say anything about the weather. Anyone know what's up? Olaf Davis ( talk) 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
How in this day and age do two, let alone three, trains collide. Who was proverbially asleep at the switch?-- 98.114.134.238 ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the class is of each train involved? Are there articles in en:Wiki covering these? Mjroots ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The loco involved was an HLE 21 or SNCB Class 21, more specifically locomotive 2119. The coaching stock was M4. The loco was on the back pushing its train and the driver was in a first class driving trailer. Had the loco been at the front, the death and injury toll would have been much less but at the cost of this loco. There is an article on Wikipedia in English on Class 21 and most other SNCB electric classes because I totally redid the little that previously existed about them.
The EMU involved was AM 62 214. The driver saw the accident approaching and got out of his cab thus surviving although seriously injured. There were many news photos and videos at the time showing this. I no longer remember the numbers of the two AM 66 units. All AM 62-63-65 units have been withdrawn. Most Class 21 locos are no longer in passenger service except for some peak hour trains. Others are running freight services. I passed through Buizingen and Hal on an identical train of Class 21 and M4 going to Tournai and Mouscron on my way to work earlier that morning. Until service was fully restored I had to go to and from work via Mons, Charleroi and Ottignies. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of amateur photos of the collision on Flickr, but none of them (as far as I found) have been released cc-by. We ought to talk to these people and get them to release them. All they have to do is change a Flickr setting. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The image of an explosion in the article was uploaded in 2007, so I don't think it has to do with this collision. Why is it here? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Any information if cab signalling (TBL1/TBL1+, see Belgian_railway_signalling#Cab_signalling) was in use on that section and the role of it in (not) preventing the collision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivullinen ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Installation of TBL 1+ started after this accident and is now more or less complete so it had to be TBL. AM62 214 and oter members of the oldest EMU classes were not equipped with TBL as thier retirement was in sight but it was another decade before the last ones were withdrawn. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there any chance a map could be made for where this crash was located and which lines were disrupted because of it? I've been surprised that this spot was such a critical choke point. — Mulad (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
As for the coordinates of the crash site, they are uncertain at the moment (or, at least, not public). The coordinates on the article are for the wreckage, and were calculated from this Google Earth image published by Le Soir on Monday morning: I just shifted them over to be on the railway lines rather than the street address. It appears (from the SNCB statement) that the impact happened at least a couple of hundred metres nearer to Halle station, and that the wreckage was pushed forward by the momentum of the larger train. Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't is more appropriete to call this article Buizingen train collision as the collision took place in Buizingen, not Halle? The media is starting to referate Buizingen instead of Halle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.172.147 ( talk) 07:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can work it out, using google overhead imagery, this photo Is taken from here facing towards buffers about 70 metres generally sw of the photographer. Markers from this photoset include the track layout, number of tracks, and apparent presence of a service road, as well as the given location (Buizingen / Halle). I don't believe there's anywhere else on the lines near Buizingen / Halle that matches for this shot.
The Thalys/ Eurostar lines are the SE set, follow the imagery on google south to Halle station, it's clear, there's a wall (shadow line visible) along the adjacent platform edge, probably to protect people on the platform from the airflow caused by passing TGVs.
Looking at a timesonline image, the gantry which has come down doesn't extend over the LGV lines (on the left in this image), and it's the 4th of a series of such gantries counting up from the bottom of the picture, so I'm placing the point of impact about here on the google imagery.
The gantry which has come down is probably the one on the bridge side of that point.
Unless anyone else has a better reading from the picasa photo set, the timesonline image and the google overhead imagery? DMcMPO11AAUK/ Talk/ Contribs 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"The collision occurred about 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) from Brussels, on the Brussels–Mons line (line 96)". Not so. BK (kilometer post) 13 is at the Brussels end of the station platforms at Halle and there are clearly visible markers on both sides. The collision was between the stations of Hal and Buizingen. Buizingen is north of Hal and there are markers for Km 11.1 and Km 11.2 on the platforms going toward Halle. The accident had to take place between BK 11 and BK 12 if it happened closer to Buizingen than Halle as most press reports mentioned. If the collision occurred at or near BK 14, it would have been south of Hal and the junctions with lines LGV 1 and 94. I have changed the text of the article to show the accident took place near BK 12. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Michou 13 ( talk) 19:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed the redlinks from the article. I've reverted twice. Per WP:REDLINK, all redlinks in the article are valid ones, and should stay as they encourage article creation. Mjroots ( talk) 06:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems the entire chapters "Damage and service disruption" and "Investigation" were deleted by the user @152.26.41.253. I don't want to edit the article myself but just want to point at the problem. -- Sivullinen ( talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a Railway Gazette International article on the accident here. Some of the material in it has already been reported, but there's some additional stuff, and it's the first reasonably technical description I've seen in English. I won't go ahead and incorporate the material into the article straight off, but there might be a case for using some of it. Grover Snodd ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ]
I have doubts about this assertion:
The latest reports attribute the failure [on March 15] to electromagnetic interference from high-speed trains on the parallel line: it is to be noted that the Eurostars running on that line lack electromagnetic shielding.
The sources given are, firstly, the RTL article, and secondly, the Eurostar Independent Review. The RTL article does establish that the March 15 signal failure was caused by EMI but refers only to "les TGV" (presumably including Thalys) rather than Eurostar specifically. However, the bigger problem I have is with the use of the Independent Review, which essentially, insofar as it relates to electronics, deals only with whether they are sufficiently protected against snow-laden cooling air (which they clearly aren't). I don't think its possible to infer anything about EM shielding from the review. I also doubt Eurostars could have been running around for 15 years without any shielding (which is what the phrasing implies to me). Seeing as sources are actually cited, though, I didn't want to tag the text Wikipedia:Citation_needed. I do realise Template:Failed_verification exists, but it looks to me like a "nuclear option," and I'd be a bit reluctant to use it, particularly as I'm not that experienced an editor. Grover Snodd ( talk) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The short piece goes on to mention that the unions are suggesting that this might mean that the driver didn't pass a red light at all. In short, it doesn't support the interpretation that was being placed on it: it is one hypothesis among many others and should not be privileged. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
All motorized rolling stock operating on the SNCB is tested for electromagnetic interference between Ath and the TGV base at Coucou, which is quite close to the station of Silly. That was going on long before this accident happened. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This page from the European Railway Agency's ERADIS database now has links to the full French and Dutch versions of the investigation report, plus an English summary. Grover Snodd ( talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The infobox says 18 deaths (and now the lead does too, but only because I copied it from the box!) but in Casualties it says 19. Can this be resolved, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Halle train collision. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.infrabel.be/portal/page/portal/pgr_inf2_e_internet/pag_news/pag_news_display?piv_itemid=113281568&piv_dutch=1&piv_french=1&piv_german=0&piv_english=0&piv_pgid=1411When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Halle train collision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Halle train collision was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 February 2010. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2019 and February 15, 2020. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the 2010 since this seems to be the only collision ever in Halle.-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This page has been moved multiple times in the last hour; I have fixed as many of the double redirects as I know of, but please be aware of the multiple pages now directing to this page:
After a few days these redirects would be suitable for speedy deletion as they were formed through page move disputes. - Nyx aus 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to settle on a title once and for all, because constantly moving the article means edits can get lost very easily (as can be illustrated by this). "Halle, Beligium" doesn't sound great I agree, but I also agree that we can't simply use Halle, when there is a German city that is about 6 or 7 times bigger. I suggest moving to Buizingen, because even though most media are reporting Halle, it actually occured in Buizingen, which is a town in its own right. Thoughts? -- Daviessimo ( talk) 11:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Not only has the page now moved again, but the "editor" concerned has deliberately edited the redirect to prevent the article being moved back (see WP:POINT). In these circumstances, it should be moved back to "Halle train collision" and move protected for at least as long as it remains on the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Some sources indicate a third train might have been involved somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.133.61 ( talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In WP, original research (OR) is not allowed. However, having a brain is required. As editors, we have to think then write.
As far as I know, the station is NOT called Brussels-South. It is either Midi or Zuid. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/february/15/no_trains_to_brussels.aspx calles it Bruxelles Midi and this is a UK source, not a French language source. Furthermore, look at the signs at the station which say "Midi" or "Zuid" and does not say "South"
I have changed the infobox to reflect this. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says "Also, some suggest that the incident was caused by the icy, snowy weather; however this is not believed to be the cause of the incident." At face value this doesn't make sense - I assume it means something like "...however, official sources don't believe this to be the cause of the incident." I went to the given cite, De Morgen, but it doesn't seem to say anything about the weather. Anyone know what's up? Olaf Davis ( talk) 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
How in this day and age do two, let alone three, trains collide. Who was proverbially asleep at the switch?-- 98.114.134.238 ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the class is of each train involved? Are there articles in en:Wiki covering these? Mjroots ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The loco involved was an HLE 21 or SNCB Class 21, more specifically locomotive 2119. The coaching stock was M4. The loco was on the back pushing its train and the driver was in a first class driving trailer. Had the loco been at the front, the death and injury toll would have been much less but at the cost of this loco. There is an article on Wikipedia in English on Class 21 and most other SNCB electric classes because I totally redid the little that previously existed about them.
The EMU involved was AM 62 214. The driver saw the accident approaching and got out of his cab thus surviving although seriously injured. There were many news photos and videos at the time showing this. I no longer remember the numbers of the two AM 66 units. All AM 62-63-65 units have been withdrawn. Most Class 21 locos are no longer in passenger service except for some peak hour trains. Others are running freight services. I passed through Buizingen and Hal on an identical train of Class 21 and M4 going to Tournai and Mouscron on my way to work earlier that morning. Until service was fully restored I had to go to and from work via Mons, Charleroi and Ottignies. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of amateur photos of the collision on Flickr, but none of them (as far as I found) have been released cc-by. We ought to talk to these people and get them to release them. All they have to do is change a Flickr setting. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The image of an explosion in the article was uploaded in 2007, so I don't think it has to do with this collision. Why is it here? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Any information if cab signalling (TBL1/TBL1+, see Belgian_railway_signalling#Cab_signalling) was in use on that section and the role of it in (not) preventing the collision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivullinen ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Installation of TBL 1+ started after this accident and is now more or less complete so it had to be TBL. AM62 214 and oter members of the oldest EMU classes were not equipped with TBL as thier retirement was in sight but it was another decade before the last ones were withdrawn. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there any chance a map could be made for where this crash was located and which lines were disrupted because of it? I've been surprised that this spot was such a critical choke point. — Mulad (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
As for the coordinates of the crash site, they are uncertain at the moment (or, at least, not public). The coordinates on the article are for the wreckage, and were calculated from this Google Earth image published by Le Soir on Monday morning: I just shifted them over to be on the railway lines rather than the street address. It appears (from the SNCB statement) that the impact happened at least a couple of hundred metres nearer to Halle station, and that the wreckage was pushed forward by the momentum of the larger train. Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't is more appropriete to call this article Buizingen train collision as the collision took place in Buizingen, not Halle? The media is starting to referate Buizingen instead of Halle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.172.147 ( talk) 07:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can work it out, using google overhead imagery, this photo Is taken from here facing towards buffers about 70 metres generally sw of the photographer. Markers from this photoset include the track layout, number of tracks, and apparent presence of a service road, as well as the given location (Buizingen / Halle). I don't believe there's anywhere else on the lines near Buizingen / Halle that matches for this shot.
The Thalys/ Eurostar lines are the SE set, follow the imagery on google south to Halle station, it's clear, there's a wall (shadow line visible) along the adjacent platform edge, probably to protect people on the platform from the airflow caused by passing TGVs.
Looking at a timesonline image, the gantry which has come down doesn't extend over the LGV lines (on the left in this image), and it's the 4th of a series of such gantries counting up from the bottom of the picture, so I'm placing the point of impact about here on the google imagery.
The gantry which has come down is probably the one on the bridge side of that point.
Unless anyone else has a better reading from the picasa photo set, the timesonline image and the google overhead imagery? DMcMPO11AAUK/ Talk/ Contribs 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"The collision occurred about 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) from Brussels, on the Brussels–Mons line (line 96)". Not so. BK (kilometer post) 13 is at the Brussels end of the station platforms at Halle and there are clearly visible markers on both sides. The collision was between the stations of Hal and Buizingen. Buizingen is north of Hal and there are markers for Km 11.1 and Km 11.2 on the platforms going toward Halle. The accident had to take place between BK 11 and BK 12 if it happened closer to Buizingen than Halle as most press reports mentioned. If the collision occurred at or near BK 14, it would have been south of Hal and the junctions with lines LGV 1 and 94. I have changed the text of the article to show the accident took place near BK 12. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Michou 13 ( talk) 19:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
An editor has twice removed the redlinks from the article. I've reverted twice. Per WP:REDLINK, all redlinks in the article are valid ones, and should stay as they encourage article creation. Mjroots ( talk) 06:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems the entire chapters "Damage and service disruption" and "Investigation" were deleted by the user @152.26.41.253. I don't want to edit the article myself but just want to point at the problem. -- Sivullinen ( talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a Railway Gazette International article on the accident here. Some of the material in it has already been reported, but there's some additional stuff, and it's the first reasonably technical description I've seen in English. I won't go ahead and incorporate the material into the article straight off, but there might be a case for using some of it. Grover Snodd ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ]
I have doubts about this assertion:
The latest reports attribute the failure [on March 15] to electromagnetic interference from high-speed trains on the parallel line: it is to be noted that the Eurostars running on that line lack electromagnetic shielding.
The sources given are, firstly, the RTL article, and secondly, the Eurostar Independent Review. The RTL article does establish that the March 15 signal failure was caused by EMI but refers only to "les TGV" (presumably including Thalys) rather than Eurostar specifically. However, the bigger problem I have is with the use of the Independent Review, which essentially, insofar as it relates to electronics, deals only with whether they are sufficiently protected against snow-laden cooling air (which they clearly aren't). I don't think its possible to infer anything about EM shielding from the review. I also doubt Eurostars could have been running around for 15 years without any shielding (which is what the phrasing implies to me). Seeing as sources are actually cited, though, I didn't want to tag the text Wikipedia:Citation_needed. I do realise Template:Failed_verification exists, but it looks to me like a "nuclear option," and I'd be a bit reluctant to use it, particularly as I'm not that experienced an editor. Grover Snodd ( talk) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The short piece goes on to mention that the unions are suggesting that this might mean that the driver didn't pass a red light at all. In short, it doesn't support the interpretation that was being placed on it: it is one hypothesis among many others and should not be privileged. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
All motorized rolling stock operating on the SNCB is tested for electromagnetic interference between Ath and the TGV base at Coucou, which is quite close to the station of Silly. That was going on long before this accident happened. Michou 13 ( talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This page from the European Railway Agency's ERADIS database now has links to the full French and Dutch versions of the investigation report, plus an English summary. Grover Snodd ( talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The infobox says 18 deaths (and now the lead does too, but only because I copied it from the box!) but in Casualties it says 19. Can this be resolved, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Halle train collision. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.infrabel.be/portal/page/portal/pgr_inf2_e_internet/pag_news/pag_news_display?piv_itemid=113281568&piv_dutch=1&piv_french=1&piv_german=0&piv_english=0&piv_pgid=1411When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)