Jump to content

Talk:2015 Philadelphia train derailment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.20.250.51 (talk) at 02:23, 15 May 2015 (→‎Accident?: full stop). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How many cars?

Seven cars NOT including the locomotive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh death

Where is the confirmation for the 7th death? Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political impact

Just for the record. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of crash location?

I know that AMTRAK doesn't own all the rails that its trains travel on; outside of the Northeast Corridor, most if not all of the rails on which AMTRAK trains travel are owned by cargo rail lines like Norfolk Southern and the like. If possible, can a better researcher than myself please try to determine who or what entity owns the stretch of rail on which the crash occurred? Regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Northeast Corridor at this point is in fact owned by Amtrak. Dough4872 20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amtrak owns the NEC mainline at the location; Conrail Shared Assets owns the freight sidings and the section of the Atlantic City Line that diverge there. See PA State Rail Map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Amtrak does own this stretch of track. So what? How is it relevant to this article? I think it should go in Northeast Corridor article. Epic Genius (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germanwings style deliberate crash

CNN pundits have compared the crash to Germanwings, since train always has only one driver. Despite lots of accounts blaming the driver, they all seem to falling short of accusing him of deliberate crashing of the train. Among all possible reasons for driver taking curve too fast, isn't a deliberate action always a possibility? Bachcell (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility sure, but will not be mentioned here until either confirmed, or mentioned in more than just CNN. I also highly doubt it was an intentional attempt to crash it, more likely just recklessly going fast, to get there early or for fun or whatever train drivers do after hours of sitting up there. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without delving too far into speculation, there are a fair number of ways it could have happened accidentally. On any cab signalled line like this one, there is no way that engineers would intentionally go too fast for fun or whatnot; they would trigger an overspeed penalty fairly quickly. But accidentally doing it on a section of track without PTC protection is certainly possible - it's exactly what happened at Spuyten Duyvil and we know that was an accident. Microsleep, or loss of situational awareness, or somehow forgetting about the speed restricted curve and thinking he was on the 110mph track ahead (heading in that direction, the limit is 110 after Shore interlocking 0.3 miles to the west, so he may have momentarily gotten a 110 mph speed code visible before the restricted curves) could all do it. In any case, it's just mindless CNN speculation at this point. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"CNN pundits have compared the crash to Germanwings ..." Go no further with this; those first two words have utterly doomed any chance that this might be worthy of serious consideration for the article. The only way it could have been worse was by beginning with "Don Lemon said that ..." Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: See similarly off-base theory about the Valhalla train crash here. Anyone suspect anything? Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Pi's theory sounds more like what actually happened. The engineer, sleep-deprived, might have misread the signs and thought that he was on the 110 mph straight track on the right, when, in fact, he was on the 30 mph curve on the left. Until we get definite results back, though, everything is speculation. Epic Genius (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to blame Congress.
Any word on how fast trains normally take that turn? Apparently happened in a "decayed industrial neighbourhood", and the thing about old junk is it suddenly breaks, even though it didn't break the last hundred times you did the same to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: The speed limit was 50 mph I believe, though last time I rode on the Silver Star (Amtrak train) we went about 55-ish... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding all speculation, of course, isn't it right that the article include some basic information on the engineer, that he suffered significant head and leg wounds, including a concussion, and apparently has no memory of what happened? He also gave a blood sample, reportedly negative for drugs and alcohol, and turned over his cellphone. The New York Times also reported that he was "distraught" on hearing the presumed cause of the accident, i.e. excessive speed. Surely we can include some of these basic facts? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are non-controversial and important. But presuming the cause isn't. For the record, my last post about how sometimes old junk breaks isn't part of Obama's grand villainous scheme. Or anyone's. It just sometimes does. We'll know about that stuff later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Shuttle Buses

Diff
Should we include information relating to the response from other companies and how the line was covered for while it will be down for maintenance? That was badly worded, just see the diff. I say yes, it is part of the response and is covered in similar articles. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a national encyclopedia, not a local newspaper. Shuttle bus info is extremely trivial and thus not Wiki-worthy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merely because other articles list such ridiculously insignificant trivia in error does not justify listing similar nonsense here.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is an International (even global) encyclopedia. Tvx1 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's a detail reported in multiple news media. If people don't hail from the Philly area, they can see a map. Do we delete station and route information from railway line articles because some readers don't come from the area near that railway line? No. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable because this is a current event (though not all the details should be added), and WP:NOTTRAVEL is also not applicable because it gives absolutely nothing in the way of travel information. Epic Genius (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Again, Wiki is NOT a newspaper. Not every tedious, irrelevant detail reported by the news media belongs here. Wiki is also not Amtrak; any details about service substitutions can be garnered from their website. Your arguments are absurd.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Please refrain from posting trivial details, such as which shuttle buses are being substituted for trains: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wiki is a national encyclopedia filled with significant facts about important subjects.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you don't want the info included but keep in mind not all editors share the same time zone as you. I am at work now taking a small break so cant go into detail but please be patient to let other editors weigh in on this before undoing further edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My last revision was actually in made error. I merely intended to make a syntax fix.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I realize that this title is in accord with how the media is describing this, but it seems to be at odds with our other rail-accident articles. None of them use so broad a geographical identifier, preferring in a large city to use a neighborhood rather than the city name—i.e. not "2013 Bronx derailment" but December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, Kew Gardens train crash instead of "Queens train crash" and Chatsworth train crash instead of "Los Angeles train crash".

Should we not follow the same pattern with this one? Should there be any other sort of rail disaster in Philadelphia later this year (other than the daily disaster that is SEPTA ("Service Ephemeral; Please Try Again")) we'll have to rename the article in any event.

The 1943 wreck at almost the same site is Frankford Junction train wreck. Wouldn't it be more in keeping with our rail-disaster naming for this to be "2015 Frankford Junction derailment"? And technically the 1943 wreck was a derailment as well, so that should be "1943 Frankford Junction derailment." Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While a good idea, it seems recent ones have followed a new naming scheme, see: Denver train crash, 2015 Los Angeles train crash, 2015 Halifax train crash, 2015 Oxnard train derailment etc etc. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: How about 2015 Port Richmond train derailment? Many media are reporting that as the location instead of at Frankford Junction, though 2015 Frankford Junction derailment can be a redirect. Epic Genius (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NOT a good idea to obscurely title the article. The current title is probably as good as any, but I would have preferred something like the the "2015 Philadelphia Amtrak Train Wreck"".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have never used the name of the railroad in question in the article title and we're not starting now.

While I like Port Richmond as I suppose it's in keeping with all the other articles (I mean, Philadelphia's a big city, it has lots of neighborhoods and there's probably been train wrecks in a few of the other ones), the recent trends noted above seem to suggest this is something better discussed at the WP:RAIL level to get a better consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accident?

While likely to be deemed an accident, as of yet I don't believe that intentionality has been absolutely ruled out. I am primarily referring to the change of section title: 'Context' > 'Derailment' > 'Accident'.  —Comments?  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment&oldid=662389665"