Talk:Lists of rail accidents by country

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The file names are in two formats. This should be standardised as List of rail accidents in X.

Tabletop (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm planning on making a "List of rail accidents in the United States" page. It will be in my sandbox for now, if anyone would like to check it out. Eli81993 talk 16:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus that the current naming is accurate and acceptable. — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The use of the term "accident" is loaded and often not correct. The term can be seen to imply that the event was unavoidable, when a chain of events that led to the incident often includes many actions that were in fact avoidable. As such, "accident" often violates WP:NPOV and is thus generally avoided by scientists. The term "incident" is neutral and should replace "accident". See also the related category discussion, where "road accidents" were renamed to "road incidents". I note that the Indian list already uses "incidents". As part of this mass move request, I have adjusted some of the titles to achieve a mostly common naming format (railway -> rail; train -> rail) using "List of rail incidents in Foo", but have left the "American railroad" terminology and the Australian naming convention unchanged. Schwede 66 19:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This article looks at the use of the term "accident" for road traffic, and explains the origin of the term. Schwede 66 09:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure about this as accidents and incidents are not the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Incidents is a much wider category than accidents alone. For instance the West Clare Railway was prone to be blown off its tracks near Quilty (but that is not stated there yet), usually without serious trouble. But that were incidents, not accidents. And off course you have the famous railway incident know as Are Ye Right There Michael.

Secondly, you do not explain at all why Irish railway accidents suddenly has to change in List of rail incidents in Ireland. Especially because Ireland is about the island of Ireland, while the article is explicitly about the Republic of Ireland. The Banner talk 20:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second query, I did consider the most appropriate naming for the Irish article and I'm by no means an expert on Irish history. I did note that the article is not just about the Republic of Ireland, but includes the earlier provinces of Leinster, Munster and Connacht plus a handful of counties. The article Republic of Ireland starts with the sentence "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, ..." and I therefore suggested "Ireland". But that is not the main point here ("accident" versus "incident" is) and if another descriptor for this particular case is more appropriate, I'd happily support that. Schwede 66 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 'Incidents' opens up the category to editors who will feel free to include such things as terrorist attacks and hostage situations that may not even result in damage to the trains, telephoned threats that result in train stoppages and timetable disruption, and congested platforms caused by trains being cancelled due to some irrelevant cause such as a road accident or bridge failure. Some of those things may be significant enough to be notable, but these lists are intended to be about injuries and fatalities and damage to rolling stock, and having as the primary cause an unintended interaction of the train with its surroundings. 'Accidents' is the most-encompassing word. Akld guy (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate for an article to define its scope if there could be ambiguity, and many of the list articles do that already; those that do not, the scope could easily be added. The Irish article, for example, states that it "is currently limited to accidents where at least one train occupant was killed. It does not include acts of terror". Problem solved. Schwede 66 09:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not in lists

The Hunchback of Rio Grande. Denver & Rio Grande Western F7 #5661 after striking a standing train at Thistle, Utah on December 19th, 1963. (The unreferrenced reason for crash:stuck switch) https://www.trains.com/ctr/photos-videos/photo-of-the-day/crumple-zone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/karvz1/the_hunchback_of_rio_grande_denver_rio_grande/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.142.36 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask this at List of American railroad accidents. But is does not look like a serious accident. Beside that, your sources are unsuitable. The Banner talk 11:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas and Pacific Work Extra 523 and Missouri Pacific Extra 1902 East head on collision in Taft, Louisiana February 21, 1973. Three crew members on Extra 1902 East were killed, and two other crew members were injured. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] Given the three fatalities and damage from this accident, I believe it should be added. VTBurtonRA (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://www.railroadworkersunited.org/railroaders-killed-on-the-job

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=ydEspInr4RAC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=taft+louisiana+train+wreck+1973&source=bl&ots=q81N_VpLwg&sig=ACfU3U1vcjtBUxx4YGzBptc2H6P3Ge_PhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuqrCC2ufyAhXZTTABHUGmDeYQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=taft%20louisiana%20train%20wreck%201973&f=false

[3] ttps://trid.trb.org/view/14248

[4] ttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/505b96a8c4aa40a37a143c49/t/5c4405a640ec9a88e4b93812/1547961767099/1973+-+Feb+21+-+Taft+LA+-+NTSB.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]