Talk:Halle train collision

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

Year in title[edit]

I removed the 2010 since this seems to be the only collision ever in Halle.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is wrong, there have been other fatal train collisions in the past (1929) in Halle, but this is the only one that received international media attention. Pevernagie (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects[edit]

This page has been moved multiple times in the last hour; I have fixed as many of the double redirects as I know of, but please be aware of the multiple pages now directing to this page:

After a few days these redirects would be suitable for speedy deletion as they were formed through page move disputes. - Nyxaus 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I think we need to settle on a title once and for all, because constantly moving the article means edits can get lost very easily (as can be illustrated by this). "Halle, Beligium" doesn't sound great I agree, but I also agree that we can't simply use Halle, when there is a German city that is about 6 or 7 times bigger. I suggest moving to Buizingen, because even though most media are reporting Halle, it actually occured in Buizingen, which is a town in its own right. Thoughts? --Daviessimo (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Halle is the province that the town of Buizingen is in, and Buizingen would be a more specific article title. - Nyxaus 11:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid confusion: Buizingen is one of the precincts of the city of Halle. Halle is a city in the province of Flemish-Brabant. 193.190.253.146 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However broadcast media are reporting the incident using either Brussels or Halle, it may be appropriate to leave the page title as "Halle" whilst it is still a current event. - Nyxaus 11:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Halle is next to Buizingen, a lot bigger, and indeed outside of Belgium it is usually referred to as Halle. Even while there are other Halle cities, I support using Halle anyways. The chance is fairly limited that there ever will be a train disaster in another Halle, and it would be unnecessarily confusing to insist on a title that does not relate to the reports currently in the media. Andreas Willow (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the list of Belgian rail accidents here includes a 1929 collision in Halle with 11 fatalities, so maybe '2010 Halle train collision' would indeed be a more accurate/unambiguous title. (Not that the 1929 accident is ever likely to have its own article on English WP - it doesn't have one on Dutch or French WP either - but just saying....) Draggleduck (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I would suggest the title is not changed for, say, the rest of the week. Afterwards, if some other Halle train accident gets a Wikipedia page, this can become a DAB page. Andreas Willow (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't disagreeing with you (as long as a redirect gets you where you want to be, what's the difference really?) but there does seem to be a lack of consistency inasmuch, for example, as 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion seems to have been accepted without argument as an article title, even though there doesn't appear to have ever been any other Connecticut power plant explosion. Draggleduck (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has the page now moved again, but the "editor" concerned has deliberately edited the redirect to prevent the article being moved back (see WP:POINT). In these circumstances, it should be moved back to "Halle train collision" and move protected for at least as long as it remains on the Main Page. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted out now. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third train?[edit]

Some sources indicate a third train might have been involved somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.133.61 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was a third train heading behing one of the other two, which managed to stop in time with no injuries to the passangers (Source: Le Soir) Physchim62 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third train can come from 2 places. There was a train on a parallel track just at the time of the accident. That train made an emergency stop and avoided any damage from the debris. It is also possible that some sources have seen the wreck of train 3678 as 2 trains since you have a red MS62 and a white MS66 sticking up in the air together.62.235.147.246 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name?[edit]

In WP, original research (OR) is not allowed. However, having a brain is required. As editors, we have to think then write.

As far as I know, the station is NOT called Brussels-South. It is either Midi or Zuid. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/february/15/no_trains_to_brussels.aspx calles it Bruxelles Midi and this is a UK source, not a French language source. Furthermore, look at the signs at the station which say "Midi" or "Zuid" and does not say "South"

I have changed the infobox to reflect this. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe you should first change the name of the article it points to! Brussels-South is a simple translation of the name in Flemish, and a reasonable translation of the name in French: it is a perfect compromise for an English language encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In real life, this is confusing. I needed to get off at the central station. I saw the Midi sign and thought "Midi looks like 'Middle' in English so this must be the central station". Then as I was getting off the train, I saw "Zuid" which looks like "south". Where am I???? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You had it coming, dude : you shouldn't have been expecting something to look like English in à city whose official languages are French & Dutch. When I visited Helsinki, I didn't look for something that sounds like an English word, otherwise I would still be turning around Helsinki looking for an exit sign. And still, as far as I know, Helsinki is fairly bilingual as well (Swedish/Finnish, or am I wrong ?)94.108.176.63 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official languages are French and Flemish. Though Flemish is similar to Dutch in many ways, there are sufficient differences for them not to be the same language. 86.177.29.137 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I still speak dutch as a first language. In school they still teach dutch instead of flemish. We use a dutch dictionary and our green book is written by both belgian and dutch linguists. We use the same grammer rules hence in Flanders the official language is simply dutch. And if you don't beleive it, read up on our constitutian. WP also has some fine articles about it btw. 195.62.68.244 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy weather[edit]

The article says "Also, some suggest that the incident was caused by the icy, snowy weather; however this is not believed to be the cause of the incident." At face value this doesn't make sense - I assume it means something like "...however, official sources don't believe this to be the cause of the incident." I went to the given cite, De Morgen, but it doesn't seem to say anything about the weather. Anyone know what's up? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs rewording. Le Soir has a "well informed source" who suggests that a power cut (due to the weather) could have caused a signal failure. [1] Physchim62 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Some people, no matter how well informed they are, just doesn't make Wikipedia material. WP:WEASEL --193.9.230.100 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by "signal failure" it is meant that there was no light showing, the rule in the UK is that such a signal is to be treated as a danger signal. As we are in the EU, I would expect that to apply across the entire community. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How?[edit]

How in this day and age do two, let alone three, trains collide. Who was proverbially asleep at the switch?--98.114.134.238 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one can answer that question yet unfortunatly. It could be a driver error but also a technical malfunction of the signal or a switch. 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)~

Trains involved[edit]

Does anyone know what the class is of each train involved? Are there articles in en:Wiki covering these? Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above has mentioned "MS62" and "MS66", but this means nothing to me... Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible SNCB Class AM62 and SNCB Class AM66, which are electric multiple units. AM62 (in French), AM66 (in French). Mjroots (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. EMU class number starts with AM (automotrice) in french and MS (motorstel) or MR (motorrijtuig) in dutch (depending on the source). One train was made up of one AM62 and two AM66. The other was a push-pull train of a Loc type 21 and M4 passenger cars. None of this equipment has an article in en:Wiki 91.87.137.176 (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on the SNCB Class 21 locomotives though. OK, how do we get this info into the article and source it? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyone halfway familiar with Belgian rolling stock can look at the many published photographs and identify the equipment on sight, but there is no way to get that information into Wikipedia because it would be original research :-( This is an excellent example of why I HATE Wikipedia's insanely strict original research policy :-( :-( Nude Amazon (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The loco involved was an HLE 21 or SNCB Class 21, more specifically locomotive 2119. The coaching stock was M4. The loco was on the back pushing its train and the driver was in a first class driving trailer. Had the loco been at the front, the death and injury toll would have been much less but at the cost of this loco. There is an article on Wikipedia in English on Class 21 and most other SNCB electric classes because I totally redid the little that previously existed about them.

The EMU involved was AM 62 214. The driver saw the accident approaching and got out of his cab thus surviving although seriously injured. There were many news photos and videos at the time showing this. I no longer remember the numbers of the two AM 66 units. All AM 62-63-65 units have been withdrawn. Most Class 21 locos are no longer in passenger service except for some peak hour trains. Others are running freight services. I passed through Buizingen and Hal on an identical train of Class 21 and M4 going to Tournai and Mouscron on my way to work earlier that morning. Until service was fully restored I had to go to and from work via Mons, Charleroi and Ottignies.Michou 13 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

There are lots of amateur photos of the collision on Flickr, but none of them (as far as I found) have been released cc-by. We ought to talk to these people and get them to release them. All they have to do is change a Flickr setting. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to begin with, we could use some pictures of the trains types involved. I'm sure there are some on commons..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion picture is from 2007[edit]

The image of an explosion in the article was uploaded in 2007, so I don't think it has to do with this collision. Why is it here? Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it doesn't belong here; removed. Nibios (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cab signalling[edit]

Any information if cab signalling (TBL1/TBL1+, see Belgian_railway_signalling#Cab_signalling) was in use on that section and the role of it in (not) preventing the collision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivullinen (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infrabel have said that the line was equipped with cab signalling – they didn't specify whether it was TBL1 or TBL1+ – but that one of the trains wasn't. They didn't say which one, but it's not hard to guess... Physchim62 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that information should be added to the artictle if there's some reliable source to cite. --Sivullinen (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do later on. There are multiple reliable sources from the Belgian media, the same ones which are already referenced in the article, plus the reference given in Belgian railway signalling#Cab signalling. I've got a couple of other bits I want to do first, and I'm waiting to see if anything more concrete information on the trains comes up first. As ever in the aftermath of a major accident, it is too easy to fall into speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Installation of TBL 1+ started after this accident and is now more or less complete so it had to be TBL. AM62 214 and oter members of the oldest EMU classes were not equipped with TBL as thier retirement was in sight but it was another decade before the last ones were withdrawn.Michou 13 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map?[edit]

Is there any chance a map could be made for where this crash was located and which lines were disrupted because of it? I've been surprised that this spot was such a critical choke point. —Mulad (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this, busy now but will do this later; will add it hopefully by the end of the night (22:00 GMT). - Nyxaus 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tip: the area is well covered in Openstreetmap.org [2]. This material can be used under cc-by-sa, and it's possible to have it converted to SVG to make quite professional-looking Wiki maps from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main line from Halle to Bruxelles-Midi is the one that passes through Lot; The line passing through Beersel is line 26, a major freight route bypassing the centre of Brussels; the first line to split off to the west just south of Halle goes to Enghien then Tournai; the second line line splitting off to the west is the high-speed line to Lille; the line that continues heading south goes to Braine-le-Comte then Mons and finally Quiévrain. Physchim62 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently doing a map showing the whole train line from terminus to terminus, on the same Belgium SVG map currently displayed however zoomed to relevant section; if someone would like to do a zoomed in version showing the multiple train lines around Buizingen they are welcome to. I am doing it this way as I cannot find accurate geographical co-ordinates of the crash and any detailed picture would be unreliable. - Nyxaus 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, that would be great! Something like the map on the BBC pages, you mean? Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm basing my map on google images and the BBC layout (I don't think there station markers are very accurate), I checked their train line and its mostly right, just changed it a little bit. The town/station markers are co-ordinate correct, but of course the actual line graphics have been simplified; drawing the real whole line would take forever!! Almost done... - Nyxaus 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded map to File:Halle train crash train map.png, this shows some borders of Belgium however does not look good on article page unless it is sized 500px+ which is too big. Cropped image down, uploaded File:2010 halle train crash.png. Old map file name is File:2010 Halle train collision locate map.png. If anyone can suggest improvements will be happy to alter image, just post on my talk page. - Nyxaus 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the coordinates of the crash site, they are uncertain at the moment (or, at least, not public). The coordinates on the article are for the wreckage, and were calculated from this Google Earth image published by Le Soir on Monday morning: I just shifted them over to be on the railway lines rather than the street address. It appears (from the SNCB statement) that the impact happened at least a couple of hundred metres nearer to Halle station, and that the wreckage was pushed forward by the momentum of the larger train. Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this but I've already done a general train map from terminus to terminus, if I get bored I'll try to do a closer more correct version. - Nyxaus 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get an SVG of the image version to easily localize the names of the cities present on the map? Frór (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the map was created in Photoshop CS4 an not in Illustrator (for speed) and doing so would require creating it from scratch which I just don't have time to do. The map I created was edited from the Belgium locale map (you can find a link to this on the image's commons page) 1000px version then cropped, if someone wants to download that SVG and copy my lines and town markers they're welcome to. If anybody would like to request the PSD file just ask. (N.B. It is impossible to convert PSD to SVG and again, for speed, I did not use vectors.) - Nyxaus 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Isn't is more appropriete to call this article Buizingen train collision as the collision took place in Buizingen, not Halle? The media is starting to referate Buizingen instead of Halle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.172.147 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current title is incorrect for two reasons:
  1. Buizingen is part of the municipality of Halle. One reason for having the current title on Monday was the importance of the statement by the mayor of Halle about the number of possible dead, hours before there was any official death toll.
  2. The only public statement about the location of the accident says that the collision occurred at "the exit of Halle station".
I've no problem with changing the title if there becomes a clear preference in the media for "Buizingen train crash" over "Halle train crash", but I don't see such a clear preference yet. I also think we should wait for it to drop off the In the news section of the Main Page before moving it: that gives a couple more days to judge how other people are referring to it. Physchim62 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take, for example, these headlines from Belgian press stories today (Wednesday 17): Le Soir (in French) [3] [4] [5]; De Morgen (in Dutch) [6]; Het Laatste Nieuws (in Dutch) [7] (dossier of articles); La Libre Belgique (in French) [8]. All of these refer to the "Halle catastrophe" or the "Halle train crash". From an admittedly very quick survey, I couldn't find a single story in the Belgian online press that referred to Buizingen in the story title or headline. Physchim62 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

As far as I can work it out, using google overhead imagery, this photo Is taken from here facing towards buffers about 70 metres generally sw of the photographer. Markers from this photoset include the track layout, number of tracks, and apparent presence of a service road, as well as the given location (Buizingen / Halle). I don't believe there's anywhere else on the lines near Buizingen / Halle that matches for this shot.

The Thalys/Eurostar lines are the SE set, follow the imagery on google south to Halle station, it's clear, there's a wall (shadow line visible) along the adjacent platform edge, probably to protect people on the platform from the airflow caused by passing TGVs.

Looking at a timesonline image, the gantry which has come down doesn't extend over the LGV lines (on the left in this image), and it's the 4th of a series of such gantries counting up from the bottom of the picture, so I'm placing the point of impact about here on the google imagery.

The gantry which has come down is probably the one on the bridge side of that point.

Unless anyone else has a better reading from the picasa photo set, the timesonline image and the google overhead imagery? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're certainly right about the high-speed lines: they are the pair on the south-east (left-hand side on satellite images with north at the top), and the front carriage of the Leuven–Braine train is currently resting on one of them. You can see this by scrolling down the satellite images to Halle station, where the pair of through lines passes "behind" the station.
As for the rest, it is somewhat speculative: we will have an answer from official sources at some point, no doubt. I did a similar exercise, and put the point of impact a little more to the north-west, roughly where Delleputstaat comes closest to the rail lines, but it is utter WP:OR without external confirmation. The only official bit of information we have at the moment is that the accident happened at a set of points (railroad switch) to the north of Halle station. Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The collision occurred about 14 kilometers (8.7 mi) from Brussels, on the Brussels–Mons line (line 96)". Not so. BK (kilometer post) 13 is at the Brussels end of the station platforms at Halle and there are clearly visible markers on both sides. The collision was between the stations of Hal and Buizingen. Buizingen is north of Hal and there are markers for Km 11.1 and Km 11.2 on the platforms going toward Halle. The accident had to take place between BK 11 and BK 12 if it happened closer to Buizingen than Halle as most press reports mentioned. If the collision occurred at or near BK 14, it would have been south of Hal and the junctions with lines LGV 1 and 94. I have changed the text of the article to show the accident took place near BK 12. Michou 13 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Michou 13 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks[edit]

An editor has twice removed the redlinks from the article. I've reverted twice. Per WP:REDLINK, all redlinks in the article are valid ones, and should stay as they encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Seems the entire chapters "Damage and service disruption" and "Investigation" were deleted by the user @152.26.41.253. I don't want to edit the article myself but just want to point at the problem. --Sivullinen (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Gazette article[edit]

There's a Railway Gazette International article on the accident here. Some of the material in it has already been reported, but there's some additional stuff, and it's the first reasonably technical description I've seen in English. I won't go ahead and incorporate the material into the article straight off, but there might be a case for using some of it. Grover Snodd (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ][reply]

Eurostars and "lack of shielding"[edit]

I have doubts about this assertion:

The latest reports attribute the failure [on March 15] to electromagnetic interference from high-speed trains on the parallel line: it is to be noted that the Eurostars running on that line lack electromagnetic shielding.

The sources given are, firstly, the RTL article, and secondly, the Eurostar Independent Review. The RTL article does establish that the March 15 signal failure was caused by EMI but refers only to "les TGV" (presumably including Thalys) rather than Eurostar specifically. However, the bigger problem I have is with the use of the Independent Review, which essentially, insofar as it relates to electronics, deals only with whether they are sufficiently protected against snow-laden cooling air (which they clearly aren't). I don't think its possible to infer anything about EM shielding from the review. I also doubt Eurostars could have been running around for 15 years without any shielding (which is what the phrasing implies to me). Seeing as sources are actually cited, though, I didn't want to tag the text Wikipedia:Citation_needed. I do realise Template:Failed_verification exists, but it looks to me like a "nuclear option," and I'd be a bit reluctant to use it, particularly as I'm not that experienced an editor. Grover Snodd (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just used the even more nuclear option of deleting it completely. I'll quote both the original French from the cited source and my translation into English:
Buizingen: les pannes du feu provoquées par les TGV ?
Cette explication est avancée par le quotidien flamand Het laatste Nieuws. Le feu de signalisation de Buizingen est tombé en panne lundi, pour la seconde fois en quatre jours.
Le feu de signalisation de Buizingen est tombé en panne lundi, pour la seconde fois en quatre jours. Officiellement, on ignore encore ce qui perturbe systématiquement ce signal. Le parquet étudie la possibilité d'expliquer les pannes du feu par "un champ magnétique provoqué par le passage d'autres trains, éventuellement de TGV" RTL Info
Buizingen: breakdown in signalling caused by the TGV?
This explanation is put forward by the Flemish[-language] daily Het laatste Nieuws. The signal at Buizingen broke down on Monday [15 March] for the second time in four days.
The signal light at Buizingen broke down on Monday, the second time in four days. Officially, no one knows what is causing the repeated problems with this signal. The prosecutor is studying the possibility of explaining the signal failures by "a magnetic field caused by the passage of other trains, possibly the TGV.

The short piece goes on to mention that the unions are suggesting that this might mean that the driver didn't pass a red light at all. In short, it doesn't support the interpretation that was being placed on it: it is one hypothesis among many others and should not be privileged. Physchim62 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All motorized rolling stock operating on the SNCB is tested for electromagnetic interference between Ath and the TGV base at Coucou, which is quite close to the station of Silly. That was going on long before this accident happened.Michou 13 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report[edit]

This page from the European Railway Agency's ERADIS database now has links to the full French and Dutch versions of the investigation report, plus an English summary. Grover Snodd (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note that said report is not intended to investigate blame, but to look into the cause to prevent a repeat of what went wrong. 195.62.68.244 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths[edit]

The infobox says 18 deaths (and now the lead does too, but only because I copied it from the box!) but in Casualties it says 19. Can this be resolved, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halle train collision. 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) 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halle_train_collision&oldid=1205609676"