Jump to content

Talk:2017 Washington train derailment/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Do we really need "train" in the title?

What else derails besides trains? Do any of our other articles on derailments have "train" in the title? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Things metaphorically derail. "2017 Washington derailment" sounds like the whole state derailed, which it basically did some years ago but we don't have an article on that. Train is not absolutely vital in the title but the slight of overdetermination isn't harmful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, I found these:
Extended content
So I guess we do say "train" and "derailment" in a lot of articles. As far as I can tell, GAs (Grayrigg derailment and Eckwersheim derailment) and FAs (all examples are crashes, not derailments) omit "train" and only say "derailment", so I'll grant that point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Positive train control

From the WSDOT blog 8:50 pm 12/18:

Maybe this belongs in the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of anything much more relevant or important than this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but we need a different source to a blog. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
WSDOT actually sourced it to Sound Transit and Amtrak. Just a matter of locating that. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Seattle Times has a strongly worded op-ed on this today: Train derailment near Olympia: Officials pushed 'aggressive' timeline before safety technology was ready: Monday's deadly derailment came just months before critical safety technology known as positive train control is scheduled to launch on the route.. They said "yet another fatal crash that could potentially have been prevented by positive train control, including Amtrak's worst accident in recent years, when a train derailed at more than 100 mph in Philadelphia in 2015, killing eight people. Like Monday's accident, that train was going more than 50 miles over the speed limit when it derailed on a curve" and that Sound Transit pushed the schedule to make a deadline for Federal reimbursement. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
If true, it absolutely needs to be added to the article and emphasized that PTC was installed, but not yet operational. There are some media outlets with conspiratorial leanings that are running riot with theories about rail sabotage, but the available evidence points to operator error, which could have been mitigated had PTC been active on that section of rail. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
What about ATC (Automatic Train Control), the older system. In the 2015 Philadelphia crash, it was eventually revealed that ATC hadn't been installed on the northbound track, but had been installed for many years on the southbound track. (the reason, apparently, is that older locomotives were not powerful enough, leaving the Philadelphia station, to get up to a sufficient speed on the northbound track to exceed the allowable speed. The crash occurred because a more-powerful locomotive began to be used on that line.) While PTC hadn't been installed on that Philadelphia route at that time, had ATC been installed it would have prevented that crash. And, after that Philadelphia crash, within just a few days the ATC system was installed on that northbound track, indicating that there was no barrier to having done so at that time. For some reason, some people (defenders of the railroad status quo, perhaps those associated with railroads or railroad unions) wish to focus on the newer PTC system, as if it was/is the only thing that would have stopped these crashes. Epanue (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates precision

Re: [1]

There is a longstanding community consensus that coordinates precision should decrease as "object size" increases. This concept is described at WP:OPCOORD, where it recommends that we should aim for a "resolution" of one-tenth of the object size. The tables just below that, at WP:COORDPREC, show recommended precisions for various latitudes and object sizes. The decimal-degrees-format table clearly shows that, at this latitude (refer to the column for 45°), six decimal positions is recommended for objects smaller than about 3 meters. In this case, the relevant "object" is the crash site, which is considerably larger than 3 meters. Per the table, four decimal positions is good for objects roughly between 30 m and 300 m.

I approached User:Pigsonthewing on his talk page, pointing to COORDPREC, and his unresponsive response was "Six DP is fine."[2]

I don't see why this should be an issue, but it appears necessary to come here to get compliance with a clear guideline and community consensus. Please support the consensus or say why this case should be an exception to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Another useful source is https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/8650/measuring-accuracy-of-latitude-and-longitude. The fourth decimal place is worth up to 11 m: it can identify a parcel of land....The fifth decimal place is worth up to 1.1 m: it distinguish trees from each other. We really don't need to get down to inches here, unless we're going to identify the exact spot the first car left the rails and ignore all the others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"unresponsive response" Whatever one of those is. The distance between the rails of a standard-gauge railway track is 4' 8 3/4" - well under 2 metres. 6 DP is not in breach of any guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see that the distance between the tracks is relevant to an incident that took up that much area. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The article subject is a derailment, not the space between two rails. The relevant "object" is clearly the entire crash site. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The derailment occurred on the rails. The clue is in the name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
And you can state to within 10cm where the cars left the track? I'm impressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That seems to show, in google maps, the wrong point, though. Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify which version, and why the point is wrong? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The more precise location given in Pigs&cet's version heading this section takes me to a point on a rail, on the bridge; the cars had actually derailed before the abutment. Unless you are showing the exact spot where the cars left the rail, which this obviously is not, such a degree of precision is at best needless, and at worst misleading. Anmccaff (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, you said it much better than I did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
But that's not a relevant issue, as the article is about far more than the point where the train left the rails. It also includes vehicles on the roadway, the positions where cars came to rest, etc. Coordinates always refer to the totality of the article subject, and that applies to both the marker position and the coordinates precision. Thus simply adjusting the six-position coordinates would not be a solution. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...all of which can be meaningfully located by getting within about 10 yards of the center of mass of the whole mess, yupp-yupp-yupp-yupp-yupp. Those last figs ain't sig. Anmccaff (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The only relevant question is "what is the relevant object?" Once you've answered that question, all that remains is (1) estimating the object size, which can be done easily using the "Measure distance" tool in Google Maps, and (2) the simple table lookup. You locate the marker as close as possible to the center of the object with the selected precision.
For "event" articles, I have always defined the "object" as the smallest imaginary circle that encloses all of the event, and until now I have encountered no objection to that. For this article, that circle has a diameter of about 40 m. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The enclosing-circle method seems reasonable to me, and roughly correlates to the size of the trestle, which is what I would have used before reading this conversation. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What trestle? There's never been one there. Anmccaff (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's 4 in favor of reducing precision to cover the entire area, one in favor of keeping it to a particular spot on the bridge. I'll go ahead and reduce it pending further discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Estimated passengers?

an estimated 77 passengers on board the train (emphasis added) Has the number of passengers still not been determined and announced? It's not like this is a ferry disaster or catastrophic fire where the number of people could be difficult to determine. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Many RS sources give 77, e.g. The Daily Telegraph. In fact, I can't find a different number. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{American English|form=editnotice}} Thank you--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

no Declined Unnecessary. This a run of the mill content dispute. Proceed accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know why there are editors who think there is anything grammatically wrong with saying "the train was going 80 mph (130 km/h)". If you're going to be a grammar nazi, it behooves you to learn the rules and standards of English grammar. You may then cite these rules when correcting others. Cite which grammar rule you think applies, and cite any authoritative dictionary that says this use of "going" is colloquial or slang. Perhaps it doesn't sound British enough or academic enough for you bu this article is written in American English.

    "Another editor agrees with me" is not an argument. If that is the best you can do, it shows that you don't have a leg to stand on. Cite evidence that there is anything wrong with "going". Please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why there is one editor who thinks there is anything grammatically wrong with saying "the train was traveling at ..." which was the existing text prior to this little fracas [3]. WWGB (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Dennis Bratland changes "traveling at" to "going" here.
User:WWGB changes it back to "traveling at" here.
Dennis Bratland immediately reverts here.
User:Akld guy changes back to "traveling at" here.
Dennis Bratland reverts here.
WWGB again restores to "traveling at" here with a caution that Dennis Bratland has been reverted by two editors.
Dennis Bratland again insists on "going" here.
User:Anmccaff reverts back to "traveling at" here.
Dennis Bratland is clearly edit-warring against consensus and has left semi-abusive edit summaries misrepresenting the reasons given by other editors. Akld guy (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Akld guy, if you want to make a 3RR report then make it at 3RR/N. Everyone who reverted is edit warring. That includes you. If you think edit warring is bad than don't ever touch the revert button. If you have reverted, then don't scold anyone else for reverting. Violating the 3RR is another matter, and nobody has yet done that, so what of it? I think we all know not to cross that line.

WWGB. I didn't say it's grammatically wrong. I said it's pompous. It's two words where one suffices. It's four syllables doing a job that can be done with one syllable. WP:MOS says "plain English works best". Going is plain English. "Traveling at" is what you would say if you were getting paid by the word and weren't worried about wasting your reader's time. Wikipedia:Writing better articles says it very clearly: be concise. Don't say "Computer architecture refers to the theory behind the design of a computer." Say "Computer architecture is the theory behind the design of a computer." "Refers to" is two useless words where you could use one simple word. The principle is well established in Wikipedia's MOS and style guides.

We have editors from Australia and New Zealand insisting on "traveling at" on an article that is most definitely supposed to be written in American English. The argument that "going" is colloquial is false. The argument that "going" is not encyclopedic is false. Nobody has cited any reputable style guide or dictionary that justifies this wordiness. Why is that? Why are there editors so passionate in their blind faith that meaningless words adding no information are so vitally necessary? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Christmas spirit evident here is heart-warming.
Akld guy: Dennis is correct that reversion is not the appropriate response to edit warring (if you disagree, read the first paragraph at WP:EW). As far as I'm concerned, he who participates in an edit war forfeits the right to call out others for participating in it. But I'm open to being corrected; feel free to point to something in policy that says that a "consensus" can be determined by the numbers on each side of an edit war.
I personally choose my battles carefully and I wouldn't have chosen this one. The reader benefit at stake is minuscule. But since it's already started...
Merriam-Webster "go", intransitive verb sense 1: "to move on a course : proceed...". It provides "go slow" as an example, and "go fast" can be inferred as another example, "slow" and "fast" being grammatically equivalent. Unless someone wants to claim that "80 mph" is not grammatically equivalent to "slow" and "fast", it can be inferred that Merriam-Webster says that "going 80 mph" is just fine. That dictionary always notes AmEng/BritEng differences, and it says nothing about that for this sense. It also says nothing about it being colloquial, slang, or informal. I'm perfectly happy with deferring to Merriam and Webster as a neutral arbiter in matters of vocabulary. The question is not "what's wrong with 'traveling at'"; there is nothing "wrong" with it. When push comes to shove, as it has here, the fewest words and syllables wins. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I quite like "doing". Even fewer letters and syllables, and equally petty to argue over. Merry Christmas all. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
What's with the furphy about using fewer words, letters and syllables? This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. 124.169.149.243 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the phrase I originally added "traveling at". I even remembered not to use the Br. Eng spelling of "travelling". The phrase is more encyclopedic than "going" or "doing". Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoting NTSB; when the brakes were applied

I restored the NTSB quotation.[4] The article's summary may not be an accurate reflection of what the NTSB said. The train is traveling down the tracks at 80 miles per hour (36 m/s). Six seconds (200 meters) before the train derails, the engineer comments that it looks like the train is going too fast. NTSB does not say the engineer starts braking at that moment; instead, brakes are applied just before the recording ends. The recording ends as the locomotive is starting to tilt and the crew braces for impact. The recording apparently ended when the locomotive entered the trees that ripped the roof off. You can see two sections of the loco's roof just inside the trees (about 100 meters / 2.5 seconds after derailment); a third, peeled back, section is still attached to the locomotive; you can look into the cab (KOMO photo 28). (Tilting the train can also happen on the tracks, but it is unlikely that the recording would stop while still on the tracks.) The engineer apparently not commanding the e-brake suggests the engineer did not recognize fully the danger (or wished to avoid an e-brake while in a curve); NTSB is otherwise silent about the magnitude of commanded braking. Also, there is a dead man's switch#Vehicles issue -- letting go of the throttle should apply the e-brake. NTSB is silent about what conditions caused automatic application of the e-brake. There are many scenarios, but the NTSB narrative does not say the engineer applied the brakes at the six second mark, and there is an interpretation that the brakes were not commanded until after the lead locomotive had derailed. Glrx (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the recording made? What causes the recording to stop? Does the train have a ruggedised recording device, like the black box in an aircraft? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. what's an e-brake?
There's a difference between the sensors (e.g., camera) and the recorder. The recordings are made at the blackbox, but sensors are located throughout the train. "The National Transportation Safety Board released Friday details gathered from the locomotive event data recorder and inward- and outward-facing cameras on Amtrak Cascades passenger train 501 that derailed Monday in DuPont, Washington."[5] Presumably, the outward-facing camera is looking down the tracks (think dashcam). The inward-facing camera is looking at the crew and the console. Both cameras would be mounted high up (e.g., the ceiling) to get a good view. The NTSB does not say it, but the camera connections to the recorder are probably lost when the roof is ripped off. The train would have a ruggedized recording device/blackbox, but the blackbox could no longer record the cameras when the connection is broken. Think of an airplane losing its right wing; the right aileron sensor might still be able to report deflection, but when the wing separated, the connection to the blackbox was lost, so nobody was listening or recording that information. Ripping off the roof may have interrupted other train sensors; it depends on where the cabling was done. On an airplane, the black box is located aft; that may also be true for trains. If the wires reporting the throttle position and other console information ran through the ceiling, then those reports would have stopped at the same time. The e-brake is the emergency brake. The NTSB currently believes that the engineer did not command e-brake, but the NTSB did not issue a definitive statement. Maybe the engineer issued an e-brake after the recording stopped. Glrx (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, a useful analogy. So two camera feeds and some data (engine parameters, or just speed?) Is there a voice track (radio?) or is this recorded separately at the control centre? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
NTSB: "Inward-facing video with audio captured the crew’s actions and their conversations. A forward-facing video with audio captured conditions in front of the locomotive as well as external sounds." I don't know what other parameters were recorded but I'd expect a lot -- including some independent accelerometers. NTSB reports are very good at reporting all the relevant details about the equipment, but that report is a long way away.
Train console and other details will be interesting, too. I'm a bit skeptical about some details. I'm not sure a deadman switch should trigger an e-brake (engineer dying from a heart attack need only slow train to a stop; issuing an e-brake risks breaking bones). I'd expect independent throttle, brake, and e-brake console controls; I'd also expect a console e-brake to be a big red button that once pressed stays pressed.
Glrx (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
NTSB does say why emergency brake engaged:[6]
Preliminary indications from the rear locomotive event recorder show the train was traveling at about 80-mph before a sudden reduction in brake-pipe which initiated the emergency train brakes. The reduction in the brake pipe does not appear to be engineer induced.
Sounds like George Westinghouse's railway air brake system worked. Separating cars parted the air line, so all cars applied their brakes.
Glrx (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaugural

Inaugurate is not strictly a political or presidential term. The OED says "To initiate the public use of, introduce into public use by a formal opening ceremony (a statue, fountain, building, etc.)." It comes from Latin "inaugurāt-, participial stem of inaugurāre to take omens from the flight of birds, to consecrate or install after taking such omens or auguries". The word only means it is ceremonially the beginning of a thing, in contrast to the actual first run of the train, which was one of several test runs on the tracks, prior to the firs scheduled paid passenger service. Multiple sources (see citations) called this the inaugural run of the service. This is particularly relevant to this crash because two of the fatalities were train enthusiasts who were present for this ceremonial or formal initiation of service. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The other alternative is "maiden", but this is normally used for ships and aircraft. As sources use inaugural, we should too, clarifying it was the inaugural service run over that particular section of track. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Maiden is about a ten thousand times more loaded word than inaugural. As you say, I agree. Much of this would be moot if we had good sources telling us in precise, plain language what the exact nature was of each of the previous trips across this route by what combinations of locomotives and/or cars, compared with the precise nature of this run was. Based on what I've seen so far "inaugural run" is the best we can do but if we can be more specific then that is exactly what makes Wikipedia better than general sources for this kind of thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2017

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: no consensus. This debate does not appear to be gaining ground toward agreement. As with any no consensus decision, there is no prejudice toward continuing to attempt to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 Washington train derailment → December 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment – The Amtrak Cascades service involved in the derailment has been referred to more than the greater location of Washington state as the primary topic of the story in many reports of the incident in the hours and days following. Even when reporting locations, reporters and news outlets have often preferences a referral to Tacoma or Olympia over Washington state. Even with "Washington" in the title, comes the confusion, especially for readers outside of the United States with Washington, D.C.. The Amtrak Cascades service itself is world-known, especially among train enthusiasts, and will probably fit better in the title as the identifier, rather than the location, as there have been a couple of other derailments in Washington state alone in 2017, including two freight train derailments causing major disruptions in Stevens County and Benton County in March and April, respectively. There was also a non-fatal derailment of an Amtrak Cascades service in July, prompting the specification of "December 2017" in this case.

Alternate proposals include 2017 Tacoma train derailment or 2017 Olympia train derailment for a more specified location to address vague location concerns, though, there have been articles on similar topics that used things other than location to identify the incident, such as services involved (1982 Washington Metro train derailment, 1970 Lehigh Valley Railroad derailment, and 1953 New York Central Railroad accident), which is why my main proposal was to name it after the notable service involved, the Amtrak Cascades. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist comment. Members of WikiProjects Death, Disaster management, Transport, Trains/Operations/Passenger trains, United States and Washington have been notified in an effort to garner consensus in this debate.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there was an earlier one in July. MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I would also add "2017" to the start of the title. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • To me, "Washington" is not clear enough. Is it a state, a city, a monument, a name of a business, a living person? If you want to keep "Washington" then make it "state of Washington" or something. Mikus (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I think there was a style decision somewhere to use parenthesis as in Washington (state) everywhere. Which is ugly, but it is what it is. Some articles seem to have avoided it, such as List of mountain peaks of Washington so I might be wrong or there may be exceptions or whatever ☆ Bri (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I would say "train" is necessary. What do you think of when you see 2017 Washington derailment? delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 12:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • alternate suggestion While the proposed title is an improvement, in looking at similar disasters like the List of airplane crashes, most of them include a flight number. 2017 Amtrak 501 derailment is a bit more concise. Years hence when people are searching for this, they may be more likely to remember the year rather than having to lead with the month and year. Kusskedp (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)kusskedp
I note that Category:Railway accidents in Washington (state) isn't exactly overflowing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The point is that someone searching for the event may not know or care for the state, but may know the route number. Makes sense to me. Mikus (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I'm wholly unconvinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, someone searching for the event may not know or care for the route number, but may know the state. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The number of readers who know the state massively outnumber those who know the route number. Jim Michael (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
How many realise it's the state and not the (capital) city? Akld guy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The large majority, because Washington, D.C. isn't often referred to simply as Washington. Jim Michael (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Non-US readers, of which I am one, don't realise that. In fact I would expect to see Washington for the city and Washington State for this incident. Akld guy (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you often hear or read Washington, D.C. referred to merely as Washington? I only hear/read it referred to as Washington, D.C. or merely as D.C. When the in the form of Seattle, Washington or Spokane, Washington then it's very clear that it's Washington state. Including DuPont, Washington in the title would remove any ambiguity. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This New Yorker who travels to both Washingtons somewhat often hears it all the time. I'd even say that Washington State is more ubiquitous than Washington DC.MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Good points all. Reminds me of trying to name a child or the software programs I write. Fraught with tradeoffs and in the end maybe no right answer. May I suggest that the keystrokes invested in this are better spent improving the articles.Kusskedp (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)kusskedp
Did you mean to vote "oppose"? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your talk about hair-splitting makes it sound like you don't want the name changed.) TypoBoy (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the vast majority of people haven't heard of DuPont, but have heard of Washington. Jim Michael (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: - I expect the vast majority of people haven't heard of Meerbusch, Morlanwelz, Piéton, or Strépy-Bracquegnies either. It doesn't really matter. Another problem with "Washington" is that it is not immediately obvious whether it's the city or state that is meant. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
"Washington" is rather ambiguous, though, and while most Americans would generally understand for that name to refer to the US state, most people from other countries would assume that "Washington" refers to the US capital instead. "DuPont" is not only less ambiguous, but is also more concise on the exact location of the crash, as the state of Washington is a fairly large place. From what I know, articles about disasters are generally titled after the exact location where the event happened. A quick look at List of rail accidents (2010–present) shows that article titles mostly are named after the exact location of the disaster, or the city/town the disaster happened nearest to, and not the general area of where it happened. (Typed this before Mjroots posted their comment, but I agree with their examples too) Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Some more examples, plucked randomly from the list mentioned in my previous comment: 2011 Alawwa rail accident, Alfarelos train crash, Granges-près-Marnand train crash, Casselton train derailment, Medak district bus-train collision, Dien Sanh train crash, Hermalle-sous-Huy train collision, 2016 Hoboken train crash, Hitrino train derailment, 2017 Leuven derailment, 2017 Adendro train derailment, Joo Koon rail accident, and Perpignan crash. I doubt most people will recognise any of these places. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as a more specific title; we can leave a bazillion redirects around to point to the more specific and accurate name, which the proposal seems to be. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The naming guideline for this type of event is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Bridge and train. Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention. The default name should contain the term "train wreck", unless a more specific description such as "derailment" or "collision" is supported by the facts alone without interpretation. "Train collision" includes incidents where a train collided with another vehicle, such as a bus. If an event is commonly known by another name historically, such as a "Great Train Wreck," in reliable sources, use that name. Based on a quick browsing of article names in Template:2017 railway accidents (looking at what displays when the cursor is placed over the link & assuming the link is to the page name, not a redirect) and that template for preceding years (2016, 2015, and 2014), it looks like the vast majority of articles use the municipality and not a larger political subdivision and about half of articles (especially in the US) include the year (I didn't check these articles to see if the year is necessary because of a conflict with another article title). I didn't check any talk pages to look for past naming discussions.
2015 Thalys train attack is the only article that uses the train service in the title other than for metros/subways, but that's presumably because it was a high-speed train, an incident in the passenger compartment, and the train probably passed through a couple municipalities before coming to a stop. Several incidents on metros use the metro name for some reason: 2014 Moscow Metro derailment, Busan Subway fire, and 2014 Seoul subway crash. O'Hare station train crash and Denver train crash (Denver station in Johannesburg, South Africa) use the station name. 2016 Union Pacific oil train fire uses the railroad company's name. 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident uses the name of a rail junction. 2016 Chester, Pennsylvania, train derailment includes the town and US state, but should probably be changed to just "2016 Chester train derailment".
The only articles using a regional/country name (that I recognize, I didn't click to view every article in the templates) are 2015 Tennessee train derailment, 2014 Ukraine train bus collision, Medak district bus-train collision, 2014 Katanga train derailment (occurred in D.R. Congo, which is mostly jungle, so it probably wasn't near a town), 2015 Phachi collision (article doesn't state what town it was near), Semnan–Damghan train collision (name includes relatively close towns at ends of the rail line). As you can see, the article names for rail incidents is not uniform, but I believe that they should be standardized as much as reasonably possible. For this article, I think "DuPont train derailment" is preferrable because it adheres to a standardized article title. The year shouldn't be included, but since many US rail incidents include the year in the title, I wouldn't object to "2017 DuPont train derailment" as a second choice. [Note: I'm busy and may not reply to comments to this post for a few days.] AHeneen (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: In the UK we don't have "train wrecks" we have "train crashes". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with most of the points raised above by those opposing (and so won't repeat them); find the reasons advanced to date for not adhering to Wikipedia naming conventions unconvincing; and personally feel that the alternatives suggested are confusing. (Ie as a non-US resident I know where Washington is, do not confuse it with Washington DC, and prior to reading this talk thread had never heard of the Amtrak Cascades service nor most of the places suggested for inclusion in a new title. Including "December" would indicate to me as a reader that there had been more than one derailment in the area in 2017.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alternative I agree with AHeneen that we should stick with Wikipedia's established naming policy, but with the addition of the year – "2017 DuPont train derailment". It's concise, specific, and consistent with the vast majority of other similar article titles. Ian Page (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The 2016 Chester, Pennsylvania, train derailment should not have Pennsylvania removed from it, because it would be misleading due to the fact that Chester most often refers to the English city. Denver train crash now has the much more appropriate title Johannesburg train crash. If this article is to have DuPont in its title, it also needs Washington - because the city of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants in Washington isn't the most common use of DuPont, nor is it the only settlement called DuPont. The title would be DuPont, Washington train derailment - there would be no need for the year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In general, rail disaster articles do not mention the state/region/province of the town or municipality where the disaster took place in or near to. Feel free to take a quick look at List of rail accidents (2010–present) (or any lists that deals with before 2010), and you'll find that most of the articles there simply name the town/municipality, without mentioning the state/region/province. For example, the Dien Sanh train crash is not called the Dien Sanh, Quảng Trị train crash. Similarly, the Hitrino train derailment is not called the Hitrino, Shumen Province train derailment, and neither is the 2016 Hoboken train crash known as the 2016 Hoboken, New Jersey train crash. I would say that the two examples that you've listed are exceptions, which should also be properly renamed to remove the state name. As for the issue of DuPont being ambiguous, while there are other cities and towns in the United States with similar names, none of them have the exact same spelling as "DuPont"; they're either "Du Pont", "Dupont", or "DuPont [something]". Unless there are other DuPonts in the United States that also have had rail disasters happen in or near them, disambiguating "DuPont" by adding the state name is unnecessary. Besides, "Washington" itself (edit: I'm talking about "Washington" when used alone, like in the current title) is not ambiguous, either. Are you referring to the state, the US capital, or the numerous other towns and cities around the world with the exact same name? Maybe for Americans, it's clear that it's the state that's being referred to, but for most people in other countries, "Washington" refers to your capital. Either way, it's obvious that there will be some amount of ambiguation, and a confusing title is something we generally want to try to avoid. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 06:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
When in the form of DuPont, Washington, it's clear that the latter is the state. The problem with omitting the state is that the vast majority of people won't look for it under that title. DuPont is a very small city that few people outside Washington have heard of. Jim Michael (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're understanding my argument clearly, let me elaborate. "Washington", when used alone (like with the current title, right now), is ambiguous, since it can refer to a great many things, as I've said above. "DuPont" does not need "Washington" behind it for disambiguation, since only one place in the world (this town near the crash) uses the exact spelling "DuPont", while other similarly named places are spelt as either "Du Pont", "Dupont", or "DuPont [something]", as I've also said above. The article title shouldn't have "Washington" behind "DuPont", either, because that's not convention, as I've once again said above. 2011 Alawwa rail accident, Alfarelos train crash, Granges-près-Marnand train crash, Casselton train derailment, Medak district bus-train collision, Dien Sanh train crash, Hermalle-sous-Huy train collision, 2016 Hoboken train crash, Hitrino train derailment, 2017 Leuven derailment, 2017 Adendro train derailment, Joo Koon rail accident, and Perpignan crash, all do not include the state/region/province name in the article title, despite all of these towns and locations being almost certainly unknown to most Wikipedia readers, probably unless you happen to actually live there. And these are just a few examples I randomly picked out from a very extensive list. Please read my comments above first, because I have already addressed all of your points. Also, I have never said anything about "DuPont, Washington" being ambiguous, and the not-widespread knowledge of the existence of a town called "DuPont" is an irrelevant issue too, because nobody has ever raised any concerns about the hundreds of other rail disaster articles that have titles mentioning not-well-known town names, which you're free to browse yourself. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 18:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think that the type of train is so important that it should be in the title? That isn't well-known, so few readers would type that into the search box. We don't usually include the type of train, the name of the train line etc. in titles of train crash articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm hovering over my answer to that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"Washington" shouldn't really be in the article title, as I've explained just two threads above. "2017 DuPont train derailment" is the best possible title that sticks with regular naming convention for rail disasters, in my opinion, also explained above. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 16:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The initial proposal is far too specific; I don't need December, I don't need 2017, I don't need Amtrak, and Cascades doesn't follow the rule (Cascades is a big region: "major mountain range" going from British Colombia to Northern California; using the line name is unusual). The !vote alternatives are varied enough that a new, specific, naming request should be made. I'm troubled that DuPont is a small town and may not be the best moniker, but it is more specific than Washington. DuPont, Nisqually, Mounts Road, Eagle's Pride, or Point Defiance Bypass train derailment could be used. I think the conductor used Nisqually in the radio call, so I'd lean toward Nisqually train derailment. And redirects are cheap. The year need not be included if the location is specific enough (i.e., not Washington). Glrx (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if DuPont is included (regardless of whether or not Washington is), then we don't need the month or year. Jim Michael (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
"Cascades" refers to the name of the route, not the region. "Amtrak Cascades" is basically the equivalent of giving the airline name and flight number, which is standard for plane crashes. --Surachit (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorta (an airline flight number is not a route, as multiple flights generally fly the same route), but it's probably as close to equivalent as we could get. The train number is a closer analogue to the aircraft registration number than to the flight number.
But it's a good point that the community and Wikipedia readers have long been happy with the British Airways Flight 2276 convention for airline crashes—despite the fact that all of the same issues could be raised there—and a ton of editor time has been saved by that convention. Somehow, editors aren't shocked by the omission of all time, location, and incident-type information from the titles of aircraft incident articles, and, somehow, there is no reader protest movement about the difficulty of finding them. This is why I generally abstain from these RMs; they are largely molehill->mountain exercises. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Well... I'd say, not exactly. "Amtrak Cascades" is the equivalent of giving the air route for aviation, so for example, "Singapore-Jakarta" or "Tokyo-Sapporo". It's a bit hard to find an exact equivalent, since the Cascades route is only operated by Amtrak, while air routes are almost always operated by multiple airlines. But anyway, the reason using the flight number for aviation disasters is standard procedure, is because a single flight number is only used by one aircraft at any given time. So for example, Emirates Flight 521 was a flight from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai. An Emirates aircraft flying that exact route, in that exact direction, at roughly the same time in a day, uses that same flight number. So if you have 7 flights in a week, once per day at 15:00, going from Thiruvananthapuram to Dubai, all those flights use the same flight number, even if different aircraft are used. If you have more than one flight per day, flying the same air route in the same direction, you assign another flight number for them. It's all a little complicated, but basically boils down to that a flight number is only ever used by a single aircraft at any one point of time. So even if different aircrafts are used on different days for the same flight number, in the event of a crash, the flight number will only ever refer to one single aircraft. As airlines usually decommission flight numbers after severe crashes, there's no worry about having another aircraft with the same flight number also experience a crash sometime in the future.
Using a flight number like "EK 521" is completely uninformative and has all of the same issues here about readers not having context or information about the article. But the point of the article's title isn't to make the reader find the article easily, it's to disambiguate the article from other articles. Since we don't have train numbers for rail movements, the next best thing is to just use a short, concise title which is very unambiguous and specific. Here, we need "DuPont" to disambiguate this train crash from any other train crashes that happened or might happen in the future in the US state of Washington. That's why almost all rail disaster articles are titled with the obscure name of the small town the accident happened near, and not either the nearest large city, or the state/region/province the disaster happened in (unless the province happens to be really small, then that's fine). I agree that the year isn't completely necessary, but most rail disaster articles do tend to have the year in their title, because the year allows disambiguation between this particular crash and any other train crashes that happened or might happen in the future in this place. This is less important, but the year also gives more information and is more specific; having the year narrows down the number of rail disasters that the title might be referring to, and from looking at "2017 DuPont", you can know that "oh, was it that recent crash in Washington state?", instead of "DuPont", which you might not really understand and for all you know could refer to a 1800s crash in France. So either "DuPont train derailment" or "2017 DuPont trail derailment" are fine with me, though I would prefer the latter, since it's more specific. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 08:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
As Mandruss pointed out, using a flight number like "EK 521" is completely uninformative and has all of the same issues here about readers not having context or information about the article. Hey, make whatever argument you like, but it's misleading to say I "pointed [that] out". To the contrary, what I said was very different from that. Maybe you meant something other than "pointed out". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I apologise for that. I think I didn't quite understand your argument properly, that was my mistake. Fixed it now, thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 13:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I support this title as well, and I freely concede "2017 DuPont, Washington Amtrak Derailment" is more precise than the current title and the proposed one.TH1980 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Procedurally, this would require a new WP:RM, as editors have commented and !voted on only the initial proposal? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
That violates MOS:COMMA and WP:USPLACE. It needs a comma after "Washington". I'm surprised no one has pointed that out already. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Not specifically this title, although it would undeniably be an improvement. Washington is undeniably a large area, and an ambiguous area. This is also not the only significant Amtrak Cascades wreck which occurred in this state in this year, so either month or exact location is an absolute necessity for disambiguation. It is confusing enough that in the first day after the wreck, many news sources were showing photos of the wrong wreck!MrLincoln (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For those who wouldn't be familiar with the event initially, I think the current title is sufficient. From a generalization standpoint, I would assume 2017 Washington Train Derailment would be something someone would search vs. December 2017 Amtrak Cascades derailment. Plus, it's already part of the Amtrak Cascades article, so mentioning the make in the title again (to refer to this article) would seem redundant. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirects appear as results when using the search box on Wikipedia, so if someone starts typing "2017 Washington...", then 2017 Washington Train Derailment would appear. AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not exactly correct. Please see further detail at Wikipedia talk:Names of articles on recent events#Redirects and the search box behavior. Redirects are not listed in the search box results unless redirects are the only thing that matches the typed characters. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply - @RickyCourtney:, if there is no article for the "derailment of an Amtrak Cascades train in Washington in July", then having the title the way it is will probably not be an issue. If it is an issue, then we can add "December" to the title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a change. We don't usually use bare state names in this sort of title and "Washington" is easily mistaken for meaning the city. I have no preference as to which change. --76.69.117.217 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE
WP:COMMONNAME
WP:COMMONNAME
WP:COMMONNAME
Or if you want, WP:CRITERIA The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
In international (BBC, independant) and most media washington or washington state is used, not cascades (I've heard of the incident but literally never heard of amtrak cascades, and would not know what such an article would refer to; i knew what the current title was referring to, however). If washington is confusing, then it should be 2017 Washington state train derailment. Otherwise, there's no need to use a such an obscure, utterly unrecognizable (to me, atleast) name. This is not for train enthusiasts (like that quote from WP:CRITERIA says). If someone gets washington and washington d.c confused, what makes you think they've heard of "amtrak cascades"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose; "Washington" is a much more common name and train accidents (or accidents in general) are usually referred to by their location, and not whatever train line or company (or whatever "Amtrak Cascades" is). A move would make it significantly more confusing for a person uneducated about trains, such as myself. PCN02WPS 06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Relist break

I'd oppose dupont train derailment. The name needs to be recognizable - per WP:COMMONNAME and so the reader doesn't have to check to make sure they're at the right place. "dupont, washington" would be fine - washington needs to be there somewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I've no objection to "DuPont, Washington" if that makes the location clearer. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
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.

Cause

Given the engineer's statement, can we state the cause as "Excessive speed on curve due to loss of situational awareness"? Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best to leave out any determination of cause until an official statement is given by the NTSB. Closetsingle (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Third victim: Benjamin Gran

I added a reference to this person. His case became well-publicized by the news media. http://komonews.com/news/local/mom-says-son-killed-in-amtrak-crash-had-turned-his-life-completely-around 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:A983:F192:A06B:1725 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Washington_train_derailment/Archive_2&oldid=1136475113"