Jump to content

Talk:List of rail accidents (2010–2019)

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

Proposed cull of entries

[edit]

Per discussion at WP:RAILCRASH I propose to cull a number of entries from this list on the grounds of non-notability. I appreciate that WP:RAILCRASH has not been adopted, but it seems to be accepted that WP:GNG applies. Notice of this proposal will be posted at WT:TWP and WT:UKRail. The list of entries proposed for removal is:-

  • February 20, 2010 - Melbourne, Florida: Three teenage girls die when a FEC freight train strikes them as they walk on the tracks on a bridge over Crane Creek, off the Indian River near US-1 (non-notable due to trespass by victims)
  • February 25, 2010 - Norwood, Pennsylvania: Two teenage girls die when a southbound high-speed Acela passenger train running between Boston and Washington strikes them as they walk on the tracks near the Norwood SEPTA station (non-notable due to trespass by victims)

The 17 January event would also fail as non-notable under WP:RAILCRASH criteria C3, but it is mentioned in an article on a series of accidents in Uttar Pradesh, therefore gaining an exception and remaining on the list.

If any editor wishes to object to the proposed removals, please explain why they should be kept. If there are proposals to remove any other entries please present them here with reasons. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections in over a week, so the entries were culled. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the same non-notability grounds as discussed above, I propose to cull the following entry from this list:

  • July 10, 2010. 25-year old Josh Owens is struck and killed by a Canadian National Railway freight train in Riverview, Michigan while walking on the tracks near the intersection of Pennsylvania Road and Electric.

Truthanado (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently marked some accidents with the mark Notable?. I soon will remove them unless someone remove the Notable? mark. The reason is that they were without casualties nor any long traffic disruptions, and that there are hundreds if not thousands of such accidents worldwide annually. --BIL (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the notable tags on the following, with reasons given:
  • January 2 - multiple incidents in the same region on the same day make each notable
  • January 17 - deaths resulted, 5th similar accident makes it notable
  • May 4 - rarity of accidents in Australia makes this notable
  • July 25 - rarity of accidents in Netherlands makes this notable
  • November 22 - death resulted, makes it notable
I also added a notable tag on the August 13 London Underground incident, no one was injured and this is uncited Truthanado (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to define the November 22 accident not notable, a train strikes and kills one person. Hundreds if not a thousand people are killed when hit by trains in the US only per year.--BIL (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added tags to the Feb 5 and 6 (both 2011) ones. Both are all too common and non notable (even with minor evacuations which are done, almost, automatically if a train derails carrying any kind of chemical). I'd also support the removal of the Nov. 22 one. Doesn't seem notable, even though a person died.

Tunisia, 2 October

[edit]

I did see an article about a derailment in Tunisia on the BBC website yesterday, but am unable to find it now. Can anyone find a ref for this one?

It wasn't 2 Oct, but 24 Sept. Now added to list. Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derailment near Weatherby, OR, Dec. 31, 2010

[edit]

http://www.ktvb.com/home/Interstate-84-closed-from-Ontario-to-Baker-City-due-to-train-derailment-112725844.html Bizzybody (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FGW derailment

[edit]

Some First Great Western derailed yesterday and the line's still shut. Can someone get full details on Twitter @nationalrailenq please? Tez011 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallingskeid

[edit]

Nothing on the fire there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.200.139 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article getting too big?

[edit]

Is this article getting too big, and will it eventually grow too large to be manageable?

Here are the sizes of this and similar articles, all as of 8 July 2012:

Only 2-1/2 years into its projected 10-year coverage, this article will end up being around 300,000 bytes long at its current growth rate. That's beyond the capacity of some browsers, and well beyond what Wikipedia guidelines recommend.

Suggestions:

  1. Break up the article into one sub-article for each year in the decade; the main article would become an index to the sub-articles
  2. Change the rules so that less is reported in the article
  3. Do nothing and let nature take its course

Comments are welcome.

Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse suggestion #1 and #2. Maybe we could have time slabs of two or five years because, on the other hand, single lists for each year would possibly become very short. We should however concentrate on the really notable accidents, let's say only those where persons were injured or got killed. Technical faults with only minor material damage should be rooted out unless there are multiple reliable sources featuring the event. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to categorise accident articles by cause

[edit]

I have made a proposal to categories rail accident articles by cause. Please comment at Category talk:Railway accidents by type. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with other similar articles

[edit]

For years, the following comment has appeared at the top of this and similar articles:

For consistency with other similar "List of rail accident" articles, please use:

- {{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate=}} for all web references;
- Month Day, Year format for dates (ex: January 2, 2010);
- present verb tense (ex: collides instead of collided).-->


Over the years, Wikipedia editors have conformed to these guidelines.

Recently, some editors have changed present tense to past tense, as well as the date formats, both of which are clear violations of the above guidelines.

I am in the process of changing verb tense back to present tense, and request all editors to follow the guidelines in the future.

Typical Wikipedia guidelines require that the community should reach consensus before changing pre-existing edit guidelines. Thank you. Truthanado (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia guideline that recommends using present tense for past events? Why? 129.219.155.89 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's called historical present. That's a frequently used way to narrate past events. De728631 (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precautions

[edit]

What sort of safety precautions do rail operators observe? Do they have maps showing the curves, with speed limits and/or tips on when to apply the brakes?

Are there any sort of automatic speed control systems in use, or being developed? The GPS coordinates could tell the train what speed it should be going at (or below), and this information could automatically reduce the throttle or apply the brake.

How is it possible for the entire brake system to fail? (All of this is in reference to the Bronx MetroNorth crash yesterday, when the engineer said he applied the brakes but they failed; and passengers said the train was going faster than usual.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent terminology

[edit]

The author(s) need to pick terminology and stay with it. Bus/lorry/semi, etc. Many examples of author(s) vacillating between British and American usage. I would think that if the article is about American events that it should maintain American terminology. 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced items removed

[edit]

The following entries were removed as they were unreferenced. Feel free to reference and re-add them. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 23 December 2010 – Estonia – A passenger train runs into a freight train near Aegviidu in northern Estonia. Two empty passenger cars are destroyed and six empty cargo cars derail. The passenger train driver dies, and the freight train conductor and his coworker are injured.
  • 19 February 2012 – Indonesia – Two coal trains collide near Niru Station, South Sumatera Province. Four crewmen die, and two locomotives (CC201 89 11, GE U18C type locomotive and CC202 16) are damaged and later scrapped in Lahat Locomotive Works.

Bad update inappropriately "fixed"

[edit]

This revision deleted parts of three items that had appropriate references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rail_accidents_(2010%E2%80%93present)&oldid=629305582

It looks like a subsequent editor tried to fix the broken ref without noticing what really happened. Further cleanup attempts have only increased the obscurity of the original mistake (or vandalism?). The article needs to be rolled back to before this bad revision, and then the remaining unrelated good edits reapplied. I'd "be bold" and do it myself but I'm not sure how. 129.219.155.89 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

[edit]

Does anyone know why the link to the 2015 section isn't showing in the TOC? Mjroots (talk)

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Apr 27, 2015 accident

[edit]

http://wnep.com/2015/04/27/incredible-video-captures-train-being-blown-off-elevated-bridge-during-storm-in-new-orleans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.185.58 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put that ref in the article. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why list non-notable accidents?

[edit]

I fail to see the point of listing incidents that aren't notable enough to result in a page of their own. Sure, I understand that some resulted in deaths, injuries, and disruption, but if there's no page to shed light on the uniqueness of the circumstances, should they be on the list?. Even here in New Zealand, a trespasser dies on the tracks about every two weeks, but there's no way I'd consider adding each incident. Should the article list only accidents that result in their own page? I say yes, because that's the way notability is established, and furthermore that's what the article should be - an index to rail accident pages. Akld guy (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is far too inclusive as it stands, but disagree with the suggestion that it should be purely an index. For some events the level of detail seen here is exactly as much as is notable, and it's much more convenient to have all these short items grouped together. I would rather see some sort of hard-and-fast criteria established, but that's been proposed before and there's never been consensus on what they should be. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the very reason for the existence of lists is to be able to list events that aren't notable enough on their own to have a separate article. LjL (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Kamnet (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LJL, but my questions is, who decides what's notable enough for a list? There are two accidents on the Main Line of the Long Island Rail Road from the Summer of 2015 that aren't listed here, both of which were disruptive to commuter traffic on Long Island. One is a derailment in New Cassel, New York that's often misrepresented by news reports as being in Hicksville, New York, and the other is a small plane that crashed into a grade crossing near the former Grumman Bethpage Airport. I can see why neither of them deserve articles, but their exclusion from the list is puzzling. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a level crossing incident on my country, the Philippines, but it was removed for being a "trivial" incident. Do incidents to be listed need many deaths or be disruptive?. There are cases of one fatality incidents on this list. It would fit WP:RAILCRASH criteria B2 (The accident causes a death of the general public.). There is nothing trivial here.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:RAILCRASH was not adopted as a guideline and even there it says that the "death of a member of the public crossing the [rail] line, whether legally or not" is a non-notable event that should not be included in Wikipedia. And I tend to agree with that rationale because level crossing accidents are way too common to be a noteworthy type of railway incident. @DanTD: However, if an event causes a major disruption for public transport that in the end lasted for more than one or two days I think it should be listed here. De728631 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of rail accidents (2010–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.
The casualty count doesn't match the reference. There's not much to be done about this, except to find a new source. The citation only verifies very little. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of rail accidents (2010–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of rail accidents (2010–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

[edit]

Request received to merge articles: 2015 Heimdal train derailment and List of rail accidents (2010–present); dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article redirected here for almost a year until some brilliant user decided to make this an issue recently. The article 2015 Galena train derailment was redirected around the same time and it still redirects to this page as of right now. I don't know how the article even survived the AfD in the first place. It was clearly in favor of deletion or a merge which is why both articles were redirected instead. It was already an unnotable event last May, it is long forgotten history now. The article needs to be deleted or merged ASAP. Enough energy has been wasted on an issue that was already over long ago. TL565 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of rail accidents by country which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon tram crash

[edit]

Should the 2016 Croydon tram derailment be removed from this list? It is covered in the List of tram accidents, which is a more appropriate list IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of rail accidents (2010–present). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of rail accidents (2010–present). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" accidents

[edit]

I'm raising my undo of Tomcollett's edit because I misunderstood his rationale, making my rationale for undoing incorrect. Therefore I'm going to justify here why I consider all five should be kept. From the top:-

  1. An apparent wrong-side failure. Included due to rarity.
  2. The train was derailed in a level crossing collision, two wounded.
  3. Seems a major enough derailment to include, 25 injured so at least notable enough for this list.
  4. Train derailed in a level crossing collision.
  5. Derailment of a high-speed train, two injured.

With level crossing collisions, generally if there is a collision and the train is not derailed, then I'd say that these fall below the notablilty threshold. However, there may be the odd exception, such as the Roudham collision, where the signalman had incorrectly given permission for the tractor to cross in front of the train.

Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree for now. Waiting to know others point of view. Wykx (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping them for now, but only because they are recent and readers may therefore come here to seek out details provided in the refs. I don't agree on the grounds stated by Mjroots, and a year or two from now, these will no longer be notable and should be deleted. There are far too many insignificant events in these articles. @Mjroots:, in English, "wounded" is reserved for injuries sustained in battle, and "injured" is used for all other classifications of injuries, including accidental, suicidal, and inflicted deliberately by someone else. Akld guy (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A right-side failure, but some carbon-based unit decided it would be more convenient if it were a wrong-side failure. Not notable.
  2. See 4. Not notable.
  3. Seems big enough to include.
  4. It's not uncommon to see one or two axles derail in a level crossing accident; there have been several more in the Netherlands recently, not listed here. It's no longer so that road vehicles weigh 1 tonne and rail vehicles 120 tonnes; both could easily weigh 30 tonnes nowadays. As long as the train remains upright and mostly aligned with the tracks, that would not a a cause for notability. So not notable.
  5. That this was a high-speed train is irrelevant as the incident didn't happen on a high-speed line or the entry/exit of one. Unless this appears to have a special cause or leads to important changes, not notable.
PiusImpavidus (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of rail accidents (2010–present). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge 2017 Biloxi train crash into List of rail accidents (2010–present); dated: December 2017. Proposer's Rationale: Though a tragic incident, not enough evidence of meeting WP:EVENT. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. What should happen is that the article gets WP:SPEEDY deleted on account of being not notable. It's an unfortunate accident but one of the kind that happens almost daily somewhere in the world. The accident is notable enough to appear as an entry here, with the red link being removed later if the article gets deleted. Akld guy (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2019

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move. No consensus on when, but most participants agree that the current title is not going to be an issue until 2020. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail accidents (2010–present) → List of rail accidents (2010–2019) – Mainly due to length issue. We can start a new list in 2020 for that decade. This move shouldn't be too controversial, but I can forsee objections, so best we thrash the issue out here. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions

[edit]
  1. Why was bold face used for links throughout the article?
  2. Why are the country names italicised?
  3. Why are the entries written in the present tense?

80.189.156.156 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bold face was used to highlight accidents that actually had articles. Now that you have removed the bolding it's impossible to distinguish the notable entries from those that are not particularly significant. This radical change of format that affects a great many entries should have been discussed here first. Akld guy (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are entries that are not particularly significant even there? This is not a radical change of format - the MOS makes clear that bold face should only be used in particular circumstances, and this is not one of them.
These lists are virtually unreadable anyway - a wall of text that defies easy extraction of information. For an actual radical change of format, I suggest they would be far better presented as tables, like in List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. 80.189.156.156 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSBOLD says that bolding should be avoided (their word, not prohibited) for emphasis in text, meaning prose. But this article is not text, it's a list, and I think we can use bolding to highlight links to articles to distinguish them from entries that don't have articles. You have taken the most restrictive interpretation of MOSBOLD. Akld guy (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the MOS says bold face can or should be used in this way. The meaning you intend is not clear or intuitive, and you haven't answered the question of why there are even non-notable incidents in the list. 80.189.156.156 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the bold link to existing articles are helpful. This is commonly done, such as at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_by_location. Entries without links are not necessarily not-notable; I'm sure articles could be written on many of them. Rail accidents were fairly well documented. I don't really see it as an improvement to add red-links to all the entries without linked articles.
As far as the lists being hard to read, I agree. Anyone who want to put in the effort to convert these to bulleted lists or tables would probably not receive any objections.
I agree they are historical and should be written in past-tense. I have already changed hundreds of entries to past-tense, in most of the 19th century lists. There is more to do. But some editors feel timelines should be written in present-tense and there is not consistency within WP about this. MB 14:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2016, Oulu

[edit]

R2016-06 Collision of a freight train with wagons standing on the tracks in the Oulu freight yard on 13 August 2016 in English. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cull again

[edit]

Currently removing crashes with no clear number of casualties or significant damage of environmental type or would force evacuations to residents. Borgenland (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of rail accidents (2020–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_(2010–2019)&oldid=1242665880"