Talk:Bad Aibling rail accident

Clean-up

The single sentence paragraph starting "When the two passenger trains collided... needs to go. However, there are several references there which may prove useful. Therefore I will delete the one reference already used elsewhere, leaving the rest in place for when things have settled down a bit and there is time to fully digest them. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that the article has developed, I removed the offending paragraph. Posted this diff here in case anyone wants the old sources in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Units

This is a bit WP:OR at the moment, but should make it easier to have a clear idea what's likely to be reliable when textual information eventually becomes available. This EPA photo by Peter Kneffel shows the scene from above, looks east-to-west: [1]. From bottom-to-top (east-to-west) are visible two rail trollies, a three-carriage incident train, a six-carriage incident train, and two more rail trollies (the first with stretchers and the second without) and a overhead support mast on the south side (outside of the bend) with a distance marker panel. To the left (south) are two boats on the power-generation bypass canal, the bank of the canal with its narrow access way. There are four fire engines, two ambulances, and other sorted cars plus the large numbers of rescue personnel. The slightly offset concave bends of the canal and railway at this point are visible. When the trains collided, the foremost carriage of each train went to the right; except for the upper-left edge of the westbound carriage which was peeled off.[2]

Very few photograph from the inside of the bend are available; however there is one from Josef Reisner, looking east.[3] And another one of the inside of the bend, [4] shows number 505, and [5][6] on the outside of the bend showing the full 94 80 1427 505-1 D-BOBY[7]; which this another site[8] has down as belonging to unit ET 355(.2) owned by Alpha Trains Europa.

The unit number "ET 325" can be seen in head-on television footages, along with the pair of trollies being pushed at the west end.[9] With some care the UIC number can be read off the side in [10]

Drehscheibe Online at [11] has already been updated, "94 80 1427 005-2 D-BOBy --- Bayerische Oberlandbahn GmbH --- ET 355 --- Stadler 39407-39409 Bj.2014 --- Abn: Velten 27.06.2014 --- 09.02.2016 Frontalzusammenstoß mit 1430 025 bei Bad Aibling " and "94 80 1430 025-5 D-BOBy --- Bayerische Oberlandbahn GmbH --- ET 325 --- Stadler 39595-39600 (39601) / Bj.2013 --- Abn: 17.02.2014 --- 09.02.2016 Frontalzusammenstoß mit 1427 005 bei Bad Aibling"

DO appears to reached the same conclusion, somewhat faster (and probably on the basis of more direct information). —Sladen (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-emptively hat unit-lengths discourse before it causes subsequent confusion. —Sladen (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It wouls appear that three units were involved then? Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, my confusion, thought it was 1x3 and 2x3, not 1x3 and 1x6. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of ET 355

3 July 2015 image of ET 355 relicenced under CC-BY-2.0 by Daniel Schuhmann

I've asked Daniel Schuhmann, the photographer of this [12] picture of ET 355 to consider changing the licence to CC-BY/CC-BY-SA to allow its use on Wikipedia. Another possible contact I found was Sören Heise with their photograph[13] of ET 355; does anyone fancy giving it a go? —Sladen (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No photo on Commons, but there is a photo on Flickr. If the owner can be persuaded to change the licence to a Wikipedia compatible one, we can use it. Possibly we could use it under a non-free fair use claim. Other than that, there is this photo of ET 354 which could be cropped and used. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Daniel Schuhmann about relicencing of first image; which I've now manually uploaded to Commons as Flickr2Commons seems to be broken and returning "null". I will ask about the second image that Mjroots found. —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A request to Sören resulted in a negative answer. --84.172.139.197 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of ET 325

These two images [14][15] taken by photographer Paul David Smith show the full length of ET 325 and in daylight. I've asked the photographer to consider re-licencing as CC-BY/CC-SA too. —Sladen (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a positive reply from Paul David Smith and he has changed the licence on these two [16][17] when anyone wants to go ahead with an import. The second one of these is probably the most useful for the article. —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Map

I'm wondering if |map_type=Germany might be preferable for higher-level context? —Sladen (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I don't think many people will be familiar with where Bavaria is in Germany. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way. People should know major country sub-divisions, but a Germany map will work too. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Name change to Bavarian?

Does it make sense to move this to "2016 Bavarian rail accident"? Most international news headlines have been saying either German or Bavarian, and not going down to the Bad Aibling level. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but no harm in creating a redirect from that title. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Very unlikely. The long-term WP:COMMONNAME of incidents such as this is generally the (small) location where they occured: Eschede train disaster, Lockerbie bombing, Eckwersheim derailment, Potters Bar rail accidents, … Wider areas do not produce handy unique names. —Sladen (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Timetable

The two services would normally have run as Meridian 79505 (eastbound) and Meridian 79506 (westbound); timings from DB planner:

M 79505: München Hbf 05:39 (pl.36), Bad Aibling Kurpark at 06:40, scheduled into Kolbermoor (pl.1) at 06:44
M 79506: Rosenheim 06:37, Kolbermoor (pl.2) 06:40‒06:45, scheduled into Bad Aibling-Kurpark at 06:48.

In normal operations the Westbound would arrive at Kolbermoor and wait in Platform 2 for five minutes until the eastbound had passed it. —Sladen (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A survivor from the accident has confirmed that M 79506 departed without crossing M 79595 (ref name="bbc-35530538", currently ref [7]). Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's more from the interview with Joe Adediran in [18], but not covering the part about passing. —Sladen (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

More important is Bad Aibling Station, the last place before Kolbemoor where the trains COULD cross. The 7905 is scheduled to leave Bad Aibling at 6:38, was circa 4 minutes late, thus entered the single track block at circa 6:42 before the 79506 which entered it on time at 6:45.

Template:Bad Aibling rail accident RDT

I've recreated an initial Template:Bad Aibling rail accident RDT, but failed to get it to integrate nicely into |map={{Bad Aibling rail accident RDT}}. Would somebody else be willing to help try and integrate it? —Sladen (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You could just add it under the navbox, but it needs a proper header first. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: - the arrows at Bad Aibling are on the wrong track! Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots, the arrows are consistent with my (present) understanding of the platform numbers, and the platforms at which the two trains were scheduled to use. Do you have other information? —Sladen (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Only that right hand running is normal in Germany. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Aibling rail accident
km to Holzkirchen level-crossing 27.8 Bad Aibling level-crossing 28.6 Bad Aibling-Kurpark level-crossing sewage works 30.3 Site of collision Mangfall river │ Stuckholz forest 32.4 level-crossing 33.0 Kolbermoor to Rosenheim

Both of the stations feature a track layout where the north side of loop is arranged being the through-route across the set of points; and with the south side of the loop being the diverging-route which requires slowing down, which is less preferable and not ideal for time-keeping unless necessary. Reviewing the schedules for morning, we can see that all westbound services (with the farther still to go along their journey) get the benefit of the through-route at both passing loops (for a westbound service this makes it appear to "run on the right"). They get the through-route despite having to wait for 4/5/7 minutes at that station:

• Westbound Kolbermoor departure platform
  • all p.2
• Westbound Bad Aibling arrival platform
  • all p.1

Whereas for eastbound services nearing the end of their journey that need to fit around the westbound services, they are given various platform combinations:

• Bad Aibling eastbound departure platform
  • 05:38 p.1
  • 06:13 p.2 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 06.38 p.1
  • 07:13 p.2 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 07:45 p.2 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 08:13 p.2 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 08:40 p.1
  • 09:13 p.1 (nothing to pass)
  • 10:10 p.1 (nothing to pass)
• Kolbermoor eastbound arrival platform
  • 05:44 p.1 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 06:18 p.2
  • 06:44 p.1 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 07:18 p.2
  • 07:50 p.2
  • 08:18 p.2
  • 08:46 p.1 (gets looped to pass waiting westbound)
  • 09:18 p.2 main-route (nothing to pass)
  • 10:15 p.2 main-route (nothing to pass)

The first seven half-hourly trains each get one main-route and one diverging-route, depending on where they are scheduled to pass the on-coming train. In the mid-morning the trains switch from half-hourly to hourly, and there is no requirement to pass at either location. The hourly eastbound trains can therefore get the main-route all the way through, just like their return westbound workings do. For the incident trains timetabled to pass at Kolbermoor, the diverging-route must be taken at Kolbermoor, but the preferred/main-route can still be taken via p.1 at Bad Aibling. —Sladen (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Polishing

With an article such as this, it is inevitable that a number of non-English sources will be used. All non-English refs need a translation of the title added, coded by |trans_title=. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Mj. But do we really also need a huge quote in German, as well as a translated title? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The primary reason for having the |quotes= has been because a lot of the articles have a habit of being retrospectively ammended! I've trimmed the |trans_title= done using semi-colons, and we could probably do the same for the German |title=. —Sladen (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The trimming is a good idea. German newspapers seem to be keen on their +++ separators. But unless there are contentious contradictory statements of fact, I would have thought that an amended WP:RS would warrant an update to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Police press release (was, probably more tomorrow) the latest hard facts put out. The press worked from this afterwards—it has the details about the break down the fatalities, and the status of the remaining casualties which didn't get consistently transcribed by the other sources (who were off talking about extra tutors/students in the cab being to blame; and are which are now off speculating about signalling dispatchers/drivers/N.E.Others). —Sladen (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The overriding of the protection system doesn't look like speculation. An eyewitness survivor, interviewed in English on tonight's BBC News at Ten, seemed to say that his train waited only for three minutes, instead of the usual five, before it set off from the safety of the double track pull-in section i.e. before the moving train had safely passed it: [19]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted above, following investigator's clear statement! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think the westbound departing from Kolbermoor is in doubt (the present location confirms that it moved). The mechanism by which the cab equipment or operator did/did not receive a movement authority; how the equipment or operator interpreted/didn't interpret the movement authority; and the signalling system preventing/not preventing aren't known/identified/confirmed/published yet. Can we get away with stating that various newspapers have speculated on various possibilities, and that the causes are still not known/identified/confirmed/published? —Sladen (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have added material which says "it was reported that ...", but there's no reason why we could not say "it was reported by Hannoversche Allgemeine that ...", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be made clearer that the opposing signals are interlocked and such interlocking cannot simply be over-ridden by the area controller. Danger or stop signals can be passed in certain circumstances subject to strict rules otherwise failure would imobilise the entire line. It is unclear what happened here but the area controller could authorize such a movement and I presume it is the prosecutors belief that such authorization was wrongly given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a time stamp on the text in that Bavarian Police source, which is a major surprise and a shortcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp of the Press Release comes from the timestamp given in the corresponding Police Twitter link.[20] —Sladen (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's WP:OR to connect those two. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we could just point to the Twitter link where the Police announce and link to the content of their press-release (meta, but not content). That way we'd be able to report that the Police made a statement, and that it said "(Stand 17:05 Uhr)", and that there was a URL in the announcement "polizei.bayern.de/news/presse/ak …". (And by not clicking the link it wouldn't be WP:OR…?) —Sladen (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Part of the value having the {{cite}} with a |quote= in the Wikipedia history is that we can re-verify of the existance of the source at Special:Diff/704114278 with a timestamp that is within 55 minutes of the claimed publication time.

I guess we could. If we really need that level of detail in the chronology of the article's construction then, yes, I suppose that's useful. I think most people are just reading to get the most up-to-date information. Many sources initially make mistakes when reporting a disaster. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities

(Preemptively added this here). Some newspapers overnight were reporting a further increase in deaths to 11; however the Police statement made at ~08:21 CET [21] states that it remains 10 without expectations of increase. —Sladen (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it should not be changed unless there is an official source for it. The press are not an official source. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Some German-based English sources have now re-report/gone back to the Police statement. [22] is using 10…18…63. —Sladen (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

[23] seems to finally cast light on the numbers. The person who died later, was thereafter recorded as a death, and so the counts of those those remaining injured decreased by one, from 81 to 80, and from 18 to 17. —Sladen (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Investigations

BBC TV news just stated that a criminal investigation has also been opened. Any online sources for this? Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See present cite #1. —Sladen (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've noted that there are two investigations, BFU and police. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does the guard ride in German trains of this kind ?

It says the driver and guard of both trains were killed. So that is 4 out of 10 deaths ?

Where does the guard ride in these trains ? In the front with the driver ? In the back of the train ? Wandering around inside checking tickets ?Lathamibird (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In these long open-plan/glass multiple-unit vehicles, the guard is frequently to be found in the front cab, either standing or seat on the jump seats for reasons of ease of communication, personal safety, extra spotting, companionship/comradery. —Sladen (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's useful information. If you have a source, I wonder could it be added as a footnote? I suspect many readers would expect the guards to have been at the rear of the train. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not yet. Depends if the media pick up on the topic. (Though I suppose the concept of riding up front could be said to be a bit older: de:Schlepptender#Kabinentender). —Sladen (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And I thought he was the guy who was traditionally in charge of the brakes. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some oral tradition in [24]. —Sladen (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is 'guard' even the correct terminology? Is it the correct translation of the German? In some countries, including my own, there is no longer a guard but there is a train manager. Akld guy (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's usually "Zugbegleiter"? (literally = "train companion"?) I think on many UK trains he'd be called the conductor or ticket collector. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the German word and the translation. I'm not so sure you're correct on the UK terminology though. Ticket and swipe card checking may be a separate occupation performed by others, whereas this Zugbegleiter may only be responsible for the safe running of the train and the safety of passengers in the event of a breakdown. Akld guy (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(Yes, of course. UK rail travel is not like it usually is in Germany - staffing is not like it was in the glory days of "The Age of the Train." We're lucky to even get a driver most of the time). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) In France he'd be the fr:Chef de train, I think?

guard or conductor is a good term. One of the important duties of a conductor are, as that WP page explains, Ensuring the train follows applicable safety rules and practices. However, as German term I would use "Zugführer": There can be only one "Zugführer" (head conductor) on a train, to keep responsibilities clear (e.g. who closes the doors, if this is not the duty of the driver/engineer); but in addition, there can be many "Zugbegleiter" (conductors/guards). --User:Haraldmmueller 08:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Haraldmmueller: Thank you for clarifying that. It sounds very similar to the situation here: one Train Manager, but many staff who step outside the carriages to observe passengers alighting and step back in to turn a key to signal that the doors may be closed again if nobody is running along the platform and any disabled person is safely on/off. Then there are Ticket Inspectors who examine (cash) tickets and check swipe cards on a handheld device to make sure nobody is free-riding. Then there are the Security people who can be called if non-payers or other troublemakers need to be ejected. The situation today is more diverse than many decades ago. Akld guy (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a small commuter train, so there usually are only one driver per train on board, no additional staff. However, in the case of this incident, one driver was accompanied by an instructor (for regular supervising/controlling purposes, nothing special) and the other train had an additional driver, by the way also an instructor, in the passenger compartment riding to his next shift. All four died. There were no guards, conductors, security employees or other staff in the trains. --217.87.207.104 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Employees

Something is wrong here about the dead railway employees. It says: "...including the guard on each train and all four drivers, as both trains had instructors present in addition to the drivers..."- German media report: four dead railway employees, the two drivers, a driver instructor and another driver who was a passenger.ManfredV (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

ManfredV, do you have the URL (web link) to the news article so that we can correct it here on Wikipedia? —Sladen (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Its from german wiki and they refer to several german media. Of course informations change from day to day.ManfredV (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Current article confuses "guards" and "instructors". Some news articles says "instructors" and some other news articles says "guards". However they seem to be the same persons. Current article says a total of six employees - two guards and four drivers (including two driver instructors) were dead. I think "a total of four employees - two drivers and two instructors/guards" is correct. By the way, the German wiki says a total of four employees, "two drivers", "a driver instructor" and "a driver among the passengers".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, rather than what Wikipedia states, what is more important is what the actual available cites state. Once there are clear unambigious citations are available, that trump the present citations, then updating the article is the easy part. —Sladen (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: There is a confusion because there are two version of news articles which say "drivers and guards" and "drivers and instructors", although they are the same.

• "The drivers of both trains and two train guards were among those killed"
• "Both trains in Tuesday's crash had both a driver and a driver instructor on board"

The following news says employees involved in the accident are four.

• "A total of four employees of Meridian are affected. Two drivers and a teaching drivers of the BOB are among the ten deaths."

So the current description "including the guards on each train and"" should be removed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/705400201 I've tried simply "several railway employees" until there is a more recent, unambiguous, and WP:BLPEL-compliant source available. Hopefully that meets the requirement for the moment. —Sladen (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I fixed above link to a German news. If you read the article, you might change your mind. Thanks.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any german media that report about dead "guards" (conductors? ticket collectors? security men?). Must be a wrong translation or misunderstanding. All german media talk about four dead railway employees, among them the two drivers. But there was a confusion: two instructors, one on each train (so originally by drivers labour union leader Weselsky but the only source for this) or one instructor and another driver who was passanger (so most other sources). Unfortunately neither BOB nor authorities give accurate information yet.ManfredV (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems the BBC got it wrong here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a small commuter train, so there usually are only one driver per train on board, no additional staff. However, in the case of this incident, one driver was accompanied by an instructor (for regular supervising/controlling purposes, nothing special) and the other train had an additional driver, by the way also an instructor, in the passenger compartment riding to his next shift. All four died. There were no guards, conductors, security employees or other staff in the trains. --217.87.207.104 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Might be worth clarifying in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Names of victims

In the past hour, there have been several edits by multiple users adding a prominent list of the names of the victims and their ages (all without inline citations). Although these people are no longer living, our biographies of living persons policy still applies to recently deceased persons, and we must take into consideration the privacy of the families of the victims still living as well. Additionally, per WP:BIO1E, if these victims are only notable in connection with this rail accident, then we ought to discuss them in the context of this article, if at all. There is no encyclopedic need for a standalone article. Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. WP:BDP and WP:BIO1E apply. Independent biographies of the victims are not appropriate.- MrX 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note I nuked all of the articles on the individual victims and temporarily blocked the user who was doing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: (or any admin watching) - do we need to change the visibility of the edits that name the victims? Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The number of names inserted was greater than the number of deaths as announced by the Police at the time; therefore contained the identities of living people—if indeed the list is accurate. On this basis, I think it might be sensible to revdel (plus the corresponding article creations already deleted). —Sladen (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done a revdel on all contributions by Werther Hartwig. Not sure how to handle the article deleted, so will ask at WP:AN for assistance/guidance. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots. Special:Diff/704340425 should probably be RevDeled as well. Mz7 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been done. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you please do the same with his contributions to my user page? I'd prefer not having the list there for people to find. Thanks! KungAvSand (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@KungAvSand:  Done, but I had to add a full stop as it wouldn't let me insert a space to do a null edit. You can't revdel the current version of a page, hence the need for a null edit. Feel free to remove the full stop. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove unsourced list of victims

Specifying the unsourced, and either incorrect or not yet published, in any case not widely disseminated names of victims violates WP:BLPNAME amongst other policies. Please remove if reintroduced by Werther Hartwig or any other user, unless it can be shown that the names are widely disseminated per WP:RS. --PanchoS (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless they're notable for things other than dying in this accident, they shouldn't be included. RotubirtnoC (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with RotubirtnoC. No victim gets mentioned by name unless they have, or can be shown to be notable enough to have, an article. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mangfall canal

Maproom, could you help myself and others understand the intent behind Special:Diff/704387061 (change from "Mangfall Canal"→"Mangfall River". We can see from OpenStreetMap [25] that the watercourse adjacent to the incident location on the railway line is the straight-sided canal with dikes either side, and that the next watercourse south of that is the non-canalised river itself. Would anyone be able to suggest an unambiguous wording. —Sladen (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that I was mistaken. The word "Canal" is used in German for a channel of a river, and the article Mangfall makes no mention of any artificial waterway. But your OpenStreetMap link clearly shows an artificial waterway. I shall undo my edits. Maproom (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You have already improved the wording - I'm happy to leave it that way. Maproom (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Further death

I've updated the article to reflect the death of an eleventh victim in hospital. I chose a reference that did not have his name in the title. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Than you, Yngvadottir. I've added the police updated (which is anonymous too); and reduced the injured/serious injured counts by one. —Sladen (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've updated {{In the news}}. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There's also another Police (full) Press Release [26]; which gives the numbers as 11,(82),20,62; plus districts for the two non-local people to have died. So things should need a further update shortly. —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Names

You can revert my edits if you think it essential, but I am certain that those long numerical names in references make these references nearly useless. I do a lot of editing. I often copy a reference from one article to another. With those long numerical names this is impossible. Five references named "police-" long impossible number. If this number is necessary to locate the reference than it belongs in the reference. If there is no field in the reference template then the template needs revision. This is as bad as using the ISBN as a reference name for a book, in an article with a dozen books in the references. The point of naming a reference is so that an editor can reuse a reference, and not duplicate it. But the editor must be able to quickly identify the original, to acertain if it is the one they want. These huge numerical names make that impossible. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nwbeeson, the story has moved quickly, with multiple updates within the same day and in several source languages. Looking at the first cites modified (top of Special:Diff/705012397), the naming follows pretty standard timestamp numbering, they are all in the form name="author-year-month-day-hour-minute-updated-fatality-count", viz:

1. <ref name="policeA"/>←<ref name="police-20160211-1723-11"/>, 11 February 2016, 17:23 CET, giving eleven deaths
2. <ref name="policeB"/>←<ref name="police-20160211-1317-11-82-20-62"/>, 11 February 2016, 13:17 CET, giving eleven deaths, 82 injuries, 20 seriously, 62 less seriously
3. <ref name="policeC"/>←<ref name="police-20160210-10-0"/>, 10 February 2016, giving ten deaths, and zero missing
4. <ref name="policeD"/>←<ref name="police-20160209-pr-10-63-17-1"/>, 9 February 2106 press release

The naming used therefore makes it extremely easy to know which is the latest information chronologically, especially then there have been multiple updates from the same author on the same date and it is preferable to differentiate between them. Naming in the form name="PoliceX" does not achieve that, particularly so when the letters "D, C, B, A" have inverse correspondence to time ordering. —Sladen (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to explain my method of referencing. When a particular source is used a number of times to reference from, it becomes necessary to differentiate between the stories. Thus three difference stories from The Times would be referenced by date - Times020715, Times 040715, Times 090216. If there were two separate stories in the same day's edition of The Times they would be referenced as Times090116a and Times090116b. For websites which give each story a number, such as the BBC, I use that number, - BBC30551970, BBC30552040, BBC30552107 etc. This make it easier to ensure that you are referencing the correct information to the correct story. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite naming

(edit conflict) Nwbeeson, could you help myself and others understand the intention behind Special:Diff/705012397? Reviewing this diff it would appear that: (a) the edit summary referenced a Talk page section ('see talk page "Names"') that did not exist at the time (Old revision of Talk:Bad Aibling rail accident); (b) inserted a newline between a sentence and its cite; (c) obfuscated a large quantities of cite |names=—likely to make future editing difficult, with a return to a risk of duplicates/swapped references in the naming. (eg. name="welt-20160209"→name="Welt"). —Sladen (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this notable? There are far more significant things—with many more deaths and injuries, for that matter—that occur in other parts of the world, and yet this is given an entire article and (unlike on news sites) even front-page access? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.250.223 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because we have two modern trains, equipped with sophisticated signalling systems that ended up in a head-on collision on a single line. Something that should have been impossible. While a large number of death gives weight to the case for notability, a low number (or lack) of deaths ≠ a lack of notability. It is even possible for an event causing no deaths, no injuries and no damage to be notable. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Theory

There are a number of sources in the German media that can hardly be double checked and some are even contradictory to each other. The investigators have *not* presented an official description of the events that have led to the accident. However there are theories floating around of what has happened - probably something like this will be the article in a few weeks (or months):

The signal centre is watching over the section from Kolberboor to Heufeld (that's why the German Wikipedia has it in the track description). The main station in Rosenheim dispatches its trains to four different tracks, so at the start of events the train dispatcher (signalman) did not have that train on the switchboard. For unknown reason the drive path was already set for that direction, so the exit signal from Kolbermoor was green. The other train from Holzkirchen enters the controlled section at Heufeld being a few minutes late. The train dispatcher is focusing on it so that it could possibly reach Kolbermoor in time, where the two trains are supposed to meet as a passing place. He wants to set the track on the switchboard but the system is prohibiting it because it is already set for the other direction. He tries two times (that's on the recordings) and he assumes there is an error in the signalling system - it is unknown if such a thing has happened before but later investigations concluded that the signal system had no problem at all. Because the train in the direction to Rosenheim is blocked on a red signal in Bad Aibling he decides to use Zs1 to allow the train to proceed. All is well now until the train from Rosenheim comes in. The train dispatchers makes a formal acceptance to the new train which is calling at Kolbermoor anyway, so he has a bit time. The other train is now at Kurpark and it is blocked on a red signal, again. He looks over the switchboard and pulls Zs1 again - "durchwinken" (wave through) as it is called. Almost at the same time that he has allowed the train to proceed on command, he recognized that the train in Kolbermoor is moving. He didn't give it any sign. Investigators did not find any problem with that however (as the exit signal from Kolbermoor was green). Suddenly the train dispatcher realizes that that the two trains are on course to a collision - about 120 seconds left. He uses the GSM-R radio, sets the emergency broadcast channel and issues a alarm call. One of the train drivers does actually hear that slowing down the train to 50 km/h. It is unknown whether the call did reach the other train driver but there are documents of dead zones for GSM-R radio reception specifically on that section Kurpark to Kolbermoor. He can only wait to find the results and in the first interrogations by the police he uses his right to refuse to give evidence (Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht), confessing about a week later to the state attorney (the local prosecutor in German law) being accompanied by his lawyers (the plural was used in the press conference). The story of the train dispatcher sounds correct, as the state attorney puts it, and it is currently under investigations whether the other evidence matches with it. Consequently the state attorney has refused to give details about the events - probably there is a slight difference between the initial assumptions of the investigators and the story of the train dispatcher. From the wording it could be that one or the other actions was a few seconds later than assumed, or that some actions are even swapped. Because the clocks on the train event recorders and the signal box recorder are not fully in sync, it may come out one way or the other. Guidod (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So the subject is sub judice and we won't see a full description until there is an official report? Sounds very familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. trying to avoid WP:FORUM, but I'm very surprised to learn that the train event recorders and the signal box recorder are not synched and that there are dead zones for GSM-R radio reception. I guess both of these "facts", if they are true, may or may not be relevant. We just don't know yet).

In the press conference the investigators had emphasized that there is a lot of evidence to look through and that they are working on aligning the recordings second by second. It did sound like they need much more time before it could go to court. In any case, the original "human error" is quite clear: Zs1 was not needed on that section. All the other actions and preconditions may just define the degree of guilt. Since the details may change from current "rumours" in the newspapers to the final report, it may be best to just leave them out of Wikipedia for a while. Specifically GSM-R radio reception - the information had been floating around in railway blogs for about a week now, and yesterday one newspaper was citing an internal report about dead zones to have been measured at some point in the past on that section. However the railway officials have denied it saying that they are constantly shifting the transmission power of their GSM-R stations trying to minimize dead zones as well as interferences with other radio channels. So it is very inconclusive whether there had been problems in radio reception at that point at that time. Guidod (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think everything currently in the article is supported by WP:RS, but do you dispute that? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The current description in the article is quite reliable, it don't expect it to change with more details coming up in the future. And it has good references to check them. I am not going to dispute the current state. - Just a warning however: don't trust the newspapers to be correct. There had been articles in reputable media where German railway people instantly said "it can not be that way" or "rather improbable". And of course, reporters do not generally need to be experts in railway terminology. So I am not keen to just add any information into the Wikipedia article just because it has formally a proper citation. May be you want to shift the balance a bit further (like adding a hint on dead zones?) but I don't quite like to. Guidod (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sometimes difficult to judge the reliability of non-English language newspapers. Does de:wiki give any advice? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on the de:wiki talk page were quite heated (there is even an archive now). Specifically, they decided to *not* add a hint on dead zones in the German article. It's one of the many thing that they decided to not be relevant enough (or reliable in other circumstances). Guidod (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that officially en:wiki takes no notice at all of other language wikis. But many thanks, Guidod, for clarifying all of this. It is very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I now see that the text "but at no more than 100 km/h (62 mph), which is the speed limit for uncontrolled territory (without PZB) in Germany." has been removed, with the edit summary "That is wrong. Train may continue at full speed." Do we have any sources which support either claim? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The original claim is referenced to the Press Conference in German hosted om YouTube. @Guidod: can you confirm this please? Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a current "Signalbuch", so I'll ask the railway guys of what the current operation manual says. The Press Conferences reference goes for the last three sentences, in my original text I had separated those with a long hyphen. The first part is a general explanation about Zs1, as an English reader can not easily look that up. And you need to know that when the local prosecutor comes around saying that the normal operations of Zs1 were not followed while not saying anything specific (he mentions something like 'if typical operational actions would have been followed then the accident could not have happened').

P.S. perhaps one should make a transcript of the press conference along with a translation, but where to put it? Guidod (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Following Zs1 a train driver has a speed limit of 40 km/h over the following line of switches (because german switches are built for at least 40 km/h), then is allowed to usual speed on this track. There were no switches, so the train may be sped up to the regular speed limit on that track instantly after passing the signal. The speed at the incident site is limited to 100 km/h, just before and after the curve it's 120 km/h. Both trains may have gone with 100 km/h legally at the site of the incident. As far as I know, at least one driver has heard the emergency stop call by radio and braked down to a lower speed until the accident happened. PZB was in effect on that track, so no need to fall back on emergency procedures for a missing one. Just the procedures for Zs1 have had to be followed as described ("40 km/h over the following line of switches"). --217.86.87.51 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Synced recorders ...

Just out of curiosity: "... but I'm very surprised to learn that the train event recorders and the signal box recorder are not synched ..." Why are you surprised? This is standard for probably all railway systems in the world. Syncing them (to, say, sub-second difference) would not help anyone and is prohibitively expensive. --User:Haraldmmueller 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, please excuse my ignorance. Surprised only because, in the world of aviation, everything tends to use a broadcast UTC signal as a time code. Provided both the train event recorders and the signal box recorder have accurate clocks, I guess they can simply be synched later for the purposes of accident/incident analysis? Perhaps, in any case, sub-second accuracy is simply unnecessary in rail travel analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It is common for different recording systems not to all be on exact UTC (or any other time zone). The investigators know this and will synchronize them to get the true picture. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Aviation is very different from railway technology (as is car technology and technology for water vessels). In general, aviation has invested much more into broadcasting systems, simply because there is no other way to communicate with planes. Maybe the central misunderstanding most people have with trains is the following: In planes, cars, and ships the pilot(s) - and the pilots only - are at the center of decision making. The assumption and law is therefore that the pilot must be enabled as much as possible to decide correctly in all circumstances (therefore, we give pilots and ships radars - so they can "see" in the dark and in inclement weather). In contrast, a train driver is never given the responsibility of deciding when and where to proceed with his train - this is always the responsibility of some "signal box" (using various technologies). Therefore, sending all sorts of information to the train driver is not useful, and so it has not been done (and will not be done). A sub-second-precise time signal is just one example of such a superfluous piece of information. --User:Haraldmmueller 18:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that very clear explanation. I had no misapprehensions about signals to the driver, just about time synchrony between on-train recorders and signal box recorders. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

GSM-R

• "Erfolgloser Notruf: Kein Funkloch beim Zugunglück von Bad Aibling". Der Spiegel (in German). 5 March 2016. Retrieved 6 March 2016.
• "Bayerisches LKA misst nach: Kein Funkloch auf Unglücksstrecke bei Bad Aibling". T-Online. 6 March 2016. Retrieved 6 March 2016.

The second re-reports the first, and includes the "no comment" at the last paragraph. —Sladen (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dispatcher playing a game on his mobile phone?

Der Spiegel (is this a WP:RS?) is reporting that the dispatcher was playing a game on his mobile phone at the time the train was permitted to pass the red signal. Story here in German. I've not run it through a translator yet, so only understand the very basic gist of the story atm. Pinging Haraldmmueller - can you shed any light on this? Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Has featured in BBC News reports today, e.g. this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just found that thank you, Martinevans123. Am on to it. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The print edition of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" of today (13th April, 2016) and the online version says in its longer article (my translation):

"Due to the narrow temporal correlation, one has to assume that the accused was distracted from dispatching the meeting of the trains by [playing the game]", said the leading prosecutor on Tuesday. [...] According to the investigators, following these findings, he is no longer only blamed of a momentary failure, but accused of a considerably more severe neglect of duty.

--User:Haraldmmueller 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that he has been detained until a criminal trial/pre trial hearing takes place. Is this correct? Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because of this accusation of "severe neglect of duty," the prosecution has demanded and been granted that he is put in pre-trial custody (I hope the English terms are correct). --User:Haraldmmueller 09:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In UK we would generally say he was being "held on remand." "Neglect of duty" is more acceptable, see Breach of duty in English law. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If the phrase used in Germany translates as "severe neglect of duty", then we should use that. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I guess some kind of footnote could be used to explain the English law equivalent. Except that that would be too Anglo-centric - there is no reason why English law is any more relevant to an understanding of this incident than is US law, Canadian law, Australian law, etc. , etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If the signalman/dispatcher is prosecuted, I suggest that a separate section be added under the investigation section, per the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident article. Prosecutions in the UK are extremely rare. I suspect that a similar situation exists in Germany. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Without having researched it, I'd say that in Germany, prosecution is typical whenever a person is at fault in a railway accident. However, in almost all accidents, the behaviour is found not to be "grossly neglient" ("grob fahrlässig"), but only "neglient" ("fahrlässig"), which is punished with less than one year and, typically, a few months on probation, which in turn does not have severe job consequences, but only additional training, maybe re-taking of exams, and a corresponding entry into the personal file. --User:Haraldmmueller 07:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

conviction

Basically, the train dispatcher created a situation that was a little more complex than usual, and a few minutes later he was not able to reconcile it. Without the minimum of actions to avoid common problems he sent the train from Bad Aibling on to the section that was already occupied by the other train - by overriding an automatic red signal.

The state attorney wanted 4 years, the defence asked for probation. It's now at three and a half years in prison. Guidod (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been updated, with sources. Are you suggesting a separate section is needed for the conviction alone? I think the existing "Investigations" section should at least be split into "Trial and conviction". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a separate (sub?)section is warranted for clarity. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)