Talk:Kerang train accident

Australia: Victoria / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Kerang train accident is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This image doesn't look right[edit]

Being run on overseas news website - [1]. There's no bridge there, at least according to what I can see in Google Maps. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree i'm sure I've seen that somewhere before, fake i think. Hossen27 07:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The train in the image referred to above is a freight train. Wasn't the train involved in the accident a passenger train? From my travels along that particular line by train, freight and passengers aren't usually combined. -- Longhair\^talk 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not uncommon for media to include inaccurate images, on an earlier TV bulletin they had footage of [Vlocity] cars instead of what it was, a loco-hauled passenger train

Bramley 11:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Sky News reference about tipped engines[edit]

I didn't reference the claim that the train had 3 carriages and 1 loco, but should I put a reference next to something I am deleting (as it is wrong and conflicting). Consider this quote from the Age article (more up-to-date than the Sky article)

"The V/Line train, consisting of a locomotive and three carriages, had left Swan Hill..."

This conflicts with the earlier Sky report, hence I want to delete it. Bramley 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've boarded the Swan Hill to Bendigo often on Tuesday's at 1pm, this beign the first time in a month I hadn't, and I can assure you that there is First Class, B Carriage and C Carriage, and an engine. Shazza|

Reformatting etc[edit]

Have done what I can with it - with 12 hours of hindsight it was possible to improve it as things became clearer. Orderinchaos 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to add the new stuff myself but some new stuff - [2]. Ursula McGuinness says 8 inquiries now (off radio, needs to be sourced.) Orderinchaos 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another source - this time the BBC [3] Orderinchaos 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs pics[edit]

This looks in desperate need of some pictures. Anyone know where to get some? -Viva43 00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of someone getting out there to take some, or them becoming available under an appropriate license (which is highly unlikely). Anyone know a wikipedian in the area or have friends who'd be able to get some imagery for upload? Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems unlikely we'll find any freely-licensed images; Flickr yields nothing. However, we might be able to claim fair use on some specific photos given the temporal nature of the accident.--cj | talk 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because most of the images that we've seen is video off the news. Someone make do with this perhaps? http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200706/r148674_526457.jpg , Since oddly enough it's on ABC even though having been taken off a Ch9 feed. Comradeash 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better; it's a Channel nine picture used by Sky News in their newscast and photographed then posted on the ABC website. How come they don't have to abide by copyright restrictions like we do? Iorek85 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12[edit]

Unfortunately twelve people are reported to have died as a result of this tragedy. I've updated the box, but not the main text.

See: <url>http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21869502-5013099,00.html</url>

Why should it be 12 in the box but 11 in the text? Now someone has changed the Main Page back to 11 to match the text. Art LaPella 05:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best leave the article in its entirity as 11 because at this point the 12 appears to have been a typo in the Herald Sun article. You will notice that the article did not mention the death toll rising, and that other reports since have stuck with a toll of 11. Tinkstar1985 07:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the infobox back to 11 as all later reports have stated there were eleven fatalities. --Richmeister_talk 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "Why should it be 12 in the box but 11 in the text? " - because the article referenced by the text (a report from the Victoria Police published by the Aged Newspaper) only mentioned 11 deaths. So saying that the Victoria Police reported 12 deaths would be inaccurate, because at the time of the Aged article, they had reported only 11. The sentence would need a complete context rework. Or something. :)

It is another ponderance altogether whether there were 11 or 12 deaths. Even today's Herald Sun (12 June 2007) says eleven deaths. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21889480-2862,00.html

So either Friday's Herald Sun article stating 12 deaths is wrong, or today's article stating 11 is wrong. I haven't found a reference, such as a list of names. --203.10.224.60 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any less sad, but only 11 people have died as a result of the Kerang train accident. There has been one report of 12, but every news bulletin since: online, in print, and on television (and I mean every news bulletin across every channel in Victoria) has reported 11 deaths. There is still no list of names because the authorities are still working on identifications. Tinkstar1985 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the semi-trailer fit in?[edit]

"A southbound V/Line passenger train and a northbound B-Double road train collided at a level crossing.." Alright so 2 trains collided, then why is a semi-trailer driver being charged and was injured? Where did the semi-trailer fit into the accident? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.155.106 (talk • contribs).

A road train is another word for a semi-trailer :: maelgwn :: talk 11:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See road train. -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it was not a road train - if you do look at the road train article you will find that road trains do not operate in Victoria, Two-trailer road trains, or "doubles" are allowed in all Australian states except Victoria and.... While we do have a B Double type consist, these are not the same as a road train. Semi-trailer is the most accurate term, and I think is what is in current use in the article. Tinkstar1985 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Kerang level crossing accident"[edit]

Can this page be renamed as above, since the current name implies that no road vehicles were involved at all?

Tabletop (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boom gates[edit]

There are boom gates according to this link: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=level+crossing+at+Kerang&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=-35.701638,143.879871&spn=0,359.845505&z=13&iwloc=C&layer=c&cbll=-35.701348,143.879743&panoid=bnyUaT0vlsgPppUPj2YNUA&cbp=12,174.49,,0,8.4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.76.241 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But were there boom gates at the time of the accident; not fitted later perhaps? Tabletop (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a picture at the time of the accident showing or not showing any boom gates? Tabletop (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit on road at crossing?[edit]

Has speed limit on road been changed since the accident and what was it and what is it now. Tabletop (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jury visit site of accident.[edit]

The road was closed for two hours while the Jury made a site visit. ^[1] Tabletop (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jury visited the site on more or less the same time and day as the accident, so they would get (IHO) the same impression of the glare problem, weather permitting.

The Jury has to be informed that booms, cutting down of trees, and other things have been changed since the accident.

References

^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/27/2581649.htm

Defence blames "wicked deficiencies" at crossing.[edit]

Defence blames "wicked deficiencies" at crossing, which will be revealed later?

^[1] ^[2]

References

References[edit]

Distance red lights visible?[edit]

Different witness give different distances that red xing lights are visible for. ^[1]

Defence attorney Forrest: 100m.

Other witnesses: 150m - 200m.

Remember that northbound road has 15 degree bend in it about 150m from the xing.

What is braking distance for truck at different speeds?

By comparison, here are some normal traffic lights on Milperra Road, Milperra, a straight suburban road with an 80km/h speed limit.

Victoria St to Queen St (600m) (LED) [4]

Queen St to Marigold St (950m) (LED) (traffic lights starting to look like pin pricks)

Tabletop (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.watoday.com.au/national/truck-hitting-train-was-like-a-bomb-going-off-20090526-bm3t.html?page=2

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerang train accident. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for //

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kerang train accident. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/27/2581649.htm

[2] ttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/27/2581649.htm

[3] ttp://www.wintv.com.au/national/news/item/7497/

[4] ttp://www.watoday.com.au/national/truck-hitting-train-was-like-a-bomb-going-off-20090526-bm3t.html?page=2

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]