![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
- A local train is sometimes called a stopping train Tabletop 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC) - A local train is also called an all stops train Tabletop 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
is there any reason why most of the article is in the present tense even though the crashes happened in the past? tommylommykins
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)
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)
This is my first visit to the List of rail accidents page, and it strikes me how there seem to be so many accidents happening in 2005 compared to the rest. I know wikipedia is biased towards current events, so can understand why we have more on the 21st Century than the 19th Century. But we're 4 months from the year end, and it already has over double the amount of accidents compared to 2004, was 2004 so long ago? Although we may just be having a very bad year. - Hahnchen 01:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've also noticed on my first viewing of this page, that there is an inconsistency in the small flag picture symbolising the country where the accident occurred.
Some show an English St. Georges Cross and some show the Union Jack. I say we should replace all the English/Scottish/Welsh flags here with the Union Jack. The railway in Britain is called British Rail and I think it would be more natural for the country flags to refer to Britain rather than the individual countries.
For example, I was looking for the Quintinshill rail crash on the list, the most deadly rail accident to occur in Britain. It took a slight while longer to find, because firstly I looked for the Union Jack, and then the St. Georges Cross, and then finally realised it was in Scotland. What do you think? - Hahnchen 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
An anon changed a couple from UK to Wales and England. I've reverted and left a note on the anon's talk to join the discussion here. Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Use both together
/
.
--
86.29.251.116
07:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that some reports are written in the present tense and some in the past. Compare:
I think these should be changed so all entries are the same, but which?
Also, what is the correct way of writing numbers?
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)
I just stumbled on this article and thought it's not far off being up to featured list status. Congatulaions to the editors. A few things it does still need though:
-- â Moondyne 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think they should go. They will only confuse people who do not come from those countries. tommylommykins(sorry about the name)
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)
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)
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 PĂŒrgen 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)
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)
I think this list is very interesting and informative, but do feel it is somewhat unwieldly, and could used breaking in fifty year segements or so. The information presented is largely very good, although there are a few individual articles about events here that aren't linked to, I tried to add them in, but I doubt I got all of them. Anyway, good job, well done-- Jackyd101 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I also came across this website, which lists a number of Indian accidents, some quite serious, which aren't on your list. Its here just in case you find it useful.
Ive found a website that has lots of pictures of derailed trains. Storm05 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
They don't really have to be there, but since this is a work in progress, there is a strong likelihood that incidents from these years will show up eventually, thus including them now, saves time later-- Jackyd101 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Going by naming conventions, I believe that this article should be moved to "List of train accidents." -- Gurubrahma 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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've added a {{cleanup}} 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)
I don't believe that the recently-added map of accidents by country is a good idea. It is based solely on the accidents listed on the page at a particular (unspecified) point in time (a further accident was added since the map was created), and has little relevance given that the list itself is not in any sense representative of the number of accidents in each country; rather it is almost certainly skewed according to the countries of contributors to this English wiki. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For ease of discussion, this section has been moved to /Criteria for inclusion. Thryduulf 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Do they qualify as accidents, when there was clearly a terrorist motive? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk âą contribs)
Exile 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As this file is growing rather large, what about a split 2000 and before, and 2005 after?
The split files should have tidy names:
Tabletop 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
List of rail accidents (by years) |
---|
1801-1950 · 1951-2000 · 2001-present |
It seems to me that this page is getting excessively long and nit-picky. I specifically reference the "March 15, 2006 â 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)
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)
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? WLD talk| edits 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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) (Correction - that link is the first time the pages were combined. The last "good" page would be right before that one.) Rmarquet 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps this has already been discussed elsewhere, but it seems to me that there is no distinction between the words "disaster" and "crash." For example, Waterfall train disaster had seven dead from a derailment, while Dete train crash had over forty dead from a head-on collision. I'm sure to the families involved, all crashes are "disasters." Perhaps it would be better to uniformly use the word "crash" or "accident" when an incident involves a failure of the rail system, and reserve "disaster" for incidents involving natural disasters or terrorism. Cmprince 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of comment or dissent, I have deleted the two minimal items I don't see in the scope of this project. Mark Sublette 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
We're getting trespasser accidents listed again... Mark Sublette ( talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette ( talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
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? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.145 ( talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, rolling contact fatigue is a previously misunderstood or undiagnosed condition in which the rail fails not simply at a flaw resulting in cracking, but in that it shatters completely into many fragments... Mark Sublette ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.kttc.com/News/index.php?ID=23687
More recent train accident in the US. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 206.10.100.242 ( talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 (2000âpresent) should be renamed List of rail accidents (2000-2009).
Tabletop ( talk) 06:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a list of rail accidents.
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)
Suggestion The similar article List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has a guideline that only accidents which are notable enough to have their own article should be included in the list. Copying that guidleine would allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff here too. 82.1.63.98 ( talk) 13:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
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 pÄ jÀrnvÀgen minskade 2008(Swedish)). 4 people died onboard trains during 1990-2008 in Sweden. --
BIL (
talk)
23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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
Oppose Country flag is sufficient. Mjroots ( talk) 11:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the recent cull of entries on the List of rail accidents (2010â2019), 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)
April 26,
2008 â 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)
Das autos?-- 82.11.109.194 ( talk) 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this entry
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)
Comments please on removing accident listed as 'November 7, 2008 â An 18-year-old woman loses part of an arm when she falls between a train and the platform at Wokingham Station in Berkshire.' as it does not seem to be due to rail operations - more an accident that happened to take place on a railway. Also does not seem notable enough. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
- A local train is sometimes called a stopping train Tabletop 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC) - A local train is also called an all stops train Tabletop 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
is there any reason why most of the article is in the present tense even though the crashes happened in the past? tommylommykins
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)
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)
This is my first visit to the List of rail accidents page, and it strikes me how there seem to be so many accidents happening in 2005 compared to the rest. I know wikipedia is biased towards current events, so can understand why we have more on the 21st Century than the 19th Century. But we're 4 months from the year end, and it already has over double the amount of accidents compared to 2004, was 2004 so long ago? Although we may just be having a very bad year. - Hahnchen 01:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've also noticed on my first viewing of this page, that there is an inconsistency in the small flag picture symbolising the country where the accident occurred.
Some show an English St. Georges Cross and some show the Union Jack. I say we should replace all the English/Scottish/Welsh flags here with the Union Jack. The railway in Britain is called British Rail and I think it would be more natural for the country flags to refer to Britain rather than the individual countries.
For example, I was looking for the Quintinshill rail crash on the list, the most deadly rail accident to occur in Britain. It took a slight while longer to find, because firstly I looked for the Union Jack, and then the St. Georges Cross, and then finally realised it was in Scotland. What do you think? - Hahnchen 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
An anon changed a couple from UK to Wales and England. I've reverted and left a note on the anon's talk to join the discussion here. Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Use both together
/
.
--
86.29.251.116
07:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that some reports are written in the present tense and some in the past. Compare:
I think these should be changed so all entries are the same, but which?
Also, what is the correct way of writing numbers?
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)
I just stumbled on this article and thought it's not far off being up to featured list status. Congatulaions to the editors. A few things it does still need though:
-- â Moondyne 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think they should go. They will only confuse people who do not come from those countries. tommylommykins(sorry about the name)
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)
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)
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 PĂŒrgen 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)
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)
I think this list is very interesting and informative, but do feel it is somewhat unwieldly, and could used breaking in fifty year segements or so. The information presented is largely very good, although there are a few individual articles about events here that aren't linked to, I tried to add them in, but I doubt I got all of them. Anyway, good job, well done-- Jackyd101 02:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I also came across this website, which lists a number of Indian accidents, some quite serious, which aren't on your list. Its here just in case you find it useful.
Ive found a website that has lots of pictures of derailed trains. Storm05 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
They don't really have to be there, but since this is a work in progress, there is a strong likelihood that incidents from these years will show up eventually, thus including them now, saves time later-- Jackyd101 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Going by naming conventions, I believe that this article should be moved to "List of train accidents." -- Gurubrahma 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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've added a {{cleanup}} 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)
I don't believe that the recently-added map of accidents by country is a good idea. It is based solely on the accidents listed on the page at a particular (unspecified) point in time (a further accident was added since the map was created), and has little relevance given that the list itself is not in any sense representative of the number of accidents in each country; rather it is almost certainly skewed according to the countries of contributors to this English wiki. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For ease of discussion, this section has been moved to /Criteria for inclusion. Thryduulf 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Do they qualify as accidents, when there was clearly a terrorist motive? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.204.87 ( talk âą contribs)
Exile 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As this file is growing rather large, what about a split 2000 and before, and 2005 after?
The split files should have tidy names:
Tabletop 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
List of rail accidents (by years) |
---|
1801-1950 · 1951-2000 · 2001-present |
It seems to me that this page is getting excessively long and nit-picky. I specifically reference the "March 15, 2006 â 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)
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)
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? WLD talk| edits 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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) (Correction - that link is the first time the pages were combined. The last "good" page would be right before that one.) Rmarquet 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps this has already been discussed elsewhere, but it seems to me that there is no distinction between the words "disaster" and "crash." For example, Waterfall train disaster had seven dead from a derailment, while Dete train crash had over forty dead from a head-on collision. I'm sure to the families involved, all crashes are "disasters." Perhaps it would be better to uniformly use the word "crash" or "accident" when an incident involves a failure of the rail system, and reserve "disaster" for incidents involving natural disasters or terrorism. Cmprince 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of comment or dissent, I have deleted the two minimal items I don't see in the scope of this project. Mark Sublette 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)C. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
We're getting trespasser accidents listed again... Mark Sublette ( talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette ( talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
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? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.145 ( talk) 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, rolling contact fatigue is a previously misunderstood or undiagnosed condition in which the rail fails not simply at a flaw resulting in cracking, but in that it shatters completely into many fragments... Mark Sublette ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Mark Sublette Mark Sublette ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.kttc.com/News/index.php?ID=23687
More recent train accident in the US. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 206.10.100.242 ( talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 (2000âpresent) should be renamed List of rail accidents (2000-2009).
Tabletop ( talk) 06:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a list of rail accidents.
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)
Suggestion The similar article List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft has a guideline that only accidents which are notable enough to have their own article should be included in the list. Copying that guidleine would allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff here too. 82.1.63.98 ( talk) 13:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
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 pÄ jÀrnvÀgen minskade 2008(Swedish)). 4 people died onboard trains during 1990-2008 in Sweden. --
BIL (
talk)
23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
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
Oppose Country flag is sufficient. Mjroots ( talk) 11:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the recent cull of entries on the List of rail accidents (2010â2019), 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)
April 26,
2008 â 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)
Das autos?-- 82.11.109.194 ( talk) 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this entry
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)
Comments please on removing accident listed as 'November 7, 2008 â An 18-year-old woman loses part of an arm when she falls between a train and the platform at Wokingham Station in Berkshire.' as it does not seem to be due to rail operations - more an accident that happened to take place on a railway. Also does not seem notable enough. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.99.20 ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)