Talk:2005 Glendale train crash

Trains: Operations / Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Disaster management Low‑importance

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

California: Los Angeles Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Article Name: January-February 2005

The article name, "Glendale train crash", is extremely general and is not specific. First off, there are many "Glendale"s throughout the USA. Second, "train crash" does not specify this very crash. Therefore, I am suggesting the title be changed to, "Glendale, California Metrolink crash", or "Glendale, California Metrolink train crash". Are there any objections? --Lan56 04:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless and until there is another train crash that happens somewhere else called Glendale I don't see any need to change it. If, for example, there is a train crash in Glendale, Rhode Island then we may have a need to disambiguate, but the press will very quickly attribute a name to it that may not need to be disambiguated. For example if the crash happens to a named service it might become known as the Great Eastern rail crash, or the time it happens may lead to be given the name the Easter Day rail crash, for example. Thryduulf 10:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to keep the article name as it is because it is consistent with the other articles listed in Category:Railway accidents. When we need to add another article for another Glendale crash, we can disambiguate then. slambo 14:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, then let it stay. --Lan56 00:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Occurred in Glendale

The reports that I've read on this incident so far place the accident scene in Glendale, California, not Burbank. One of the two Metrolink trains was outbound from Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal bound for Burbank, while the other Metrolink train was inbound from Moorpark, California. The UP train was parked on the siding and was not manned at the time of the collision. (ref: [1]). Perhaps a page move would be in order to more properly reflect the location of the event. slambo 18:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not only did this not happen in Burbank, but this is not the "Burbank train crash." The following occurred in Burbank:

"Jan. 6, 2003: A Metrolink train carrying morning commuters smashes into a truck and derails in Burbank, killing the motorist and injuring 32 people on board as it litters 1,000 feet of track with flying metal." -AP Wire [2]

Agreed. The early press report, on which I based the first cut of the article, said Burbank, but presumably was confused between location and destination (or I was). I think renames like this are to be expected when dealing with breaking events. -- Chris j wood 10:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we report coincidental events?

The current section 'Casualties' includes:

Coincidentally, it occurred on the deadliest day for U.S. forces in the Iraq war. It was one of two major disasters in California during that month. The other was the mudslide in La Conchita that killed 10 people on January 10 (a total of 28 Californians died during major rainstorms in January).

My feeling that this is, in anything other than a very short term perspective, pretty irrelevant to an encyclopedia. IMHO, we ought to be writing for a target audience who is going to be reading this article in months or years to come. And I cannot see that the fact this happened the same day as a helicopter crash (however bad) in Iraq, or the same month as a mudslide, is going to mean anything to them. In a Wikinews news story, writing for the 'now' audience, things might be slightly different.

What do you think?. Should we drop these sentences or do they serve a purpose I'm missing?. -- Chris j wood 10:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would agree, especially considering that coincidences like this are not reported in any of the other Category:Railway accidents articles that I've looked at. If someone is interested in other events that happened on the 26th, he/she can look at the January 26 page. slambo 11:18, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

However, it might be worth noting the similarities to Ufton Nervet rail crash, also caused by a suicide attempt when a driver parked his car on a grade crossing in front of a high speed passenger train. slambo 11:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken both of those comments on board in the article now. -- Chris j wood 12:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Similar accidents

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In a collision between a train and a road vehicle, the train may or may not push the road vehicle out of the way or the train may or may not get derailed, possibly with a spectacular pileup. Consider:

Lismore accident where whole freight train concertinered into a pile.
Kerang rail accident where glancing blow from truck peeled open passenger carriages like can of tuna.

Is there a list of level crossing accidents? Yes there is! This type of accident is hard to find in List of rail accidents and List of road accidents! Tabletop (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re: References

I'm not so sure that removing the link to the LA Times collection of articles was a good idea. The articles were used as reference material for this article, and the link was listed in the References section, not See Also or External Links. Is there a reference for the latest edit that states that parking on the tracks may have been intentional and not a suicide attempt? A quick look over at the BLE's website shows a reprinted AP article that confirms it, so I'm adding that as a reference now too. slambo 15:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

How many passengers killed?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A total of 11 passengers were killed in the collision.

Given that one of the victims was a conductor, and thus not a "passenger" (in the sense of one who has bought passage), perhaps the victims should be classified differently, e.g., "people," or "people on the train," etc. 71.142.78.181 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Similarities to Selby...

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Also to the Polmont rail accident. I've added this in as a "second example" if you will. Feel free to revert, but at least let me know ;) Cheers, Worley-d (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Legal issues

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rkallp This site reports that the lawyers for the passengers were able to show that the train-driver could have avoided the accident.

Tabletop (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cab cars aka driving-trailer cars.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cab cars are an operational convenience and they make turnarounds quicker at terminals, and avoid the need for runaround loops or relay engines.

Cab cars can be weight to reduce derailment risks in a collision, but such derailments cannot be totally avoided, as occurred with the Lismore, Victoria#accident.

Trains do come off second best at some level crossing collisions, such as at Kerang rail crash

Cab cars can be kept less than full in the driving direction.

The likelihood of derailment depends on number of level crossings, risk factors, and line speeds.

One big locomotive could be replaced by two smaller ones, such as XPT or HST.

Twin locomotive operation reverts to cab car if lead locomotive fails.

One might put the locomotive in middle and have two cab cars, each pushing only half as much. However, passenger gangway is split.

The number of carriages between the cab car and the locomotive would be significant.

Check rails at the level crossing and extending either side might be helpful.

The speed might be less when the cab car leads, particularly near level crossings.

Cab cars might also have cowcatchers to push obstacles out of the way if possible.

Tabletop (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article Naming again: February 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This page was recently renamed by someone who was permanently banned; he was mistaken about naming conventions. Please see the naming convention for disasters, that states that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. Also, it is recommended that discussion & consensus should occur before any pages are moved. I'll move this back if there is no objection. Highspeed (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No objections noted. Done. Highspeed (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply