Talk:June 22, 2009 Washington Metro train collision/Archive 1

Archive 1

News

I'm not sure that this is encyclopedic. It may be that this could be merged with the Metro article as one sentence..."In 2009, two trains collided resulting in two deaths." However, WP likes news so let it be. User F203 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, news reports are pouring out (google lists >900) and the article was recently created so the influx of IP editors who don't know the policies of the site will C/P news reports. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Public transit incidents of this magnitude do not happen very often. If individual airline accidents are notable, then certainly this incident is as well. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability contoversy and decision to keep

I'm glad this article was not deleted. Something like this transcends the immediacy of a news event and becomes a historically notable and significant event which deserves to be recorded and included in encyclopedic form. The structure of this article has evolved nicely in just one hour's time and is a good framework for future edits.--Msr69er (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The AfD nominator of this article is a newly registered user (and probably single-purpose). There is definitely no reason to delete this article as this is the worst accident in Washington Metro. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If this would have happened in any other country than the US or more than a few years ago there would be no such article. Typical example of Wikipedia trying to be a newspaper, reporting on events as they happen when almost nothing is really known with any certainty. It is telling that for example a natural disaster (the worst landslide ever) that killed 28000 people (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khait_landslide) has only a two sentence article, only because it did not happen in the US and it did not happen recently. And btw, I am newly registered, relucantly, because apparently Wikipedia does not allow unregistered users to nominate newscrap for deletion. Not my fault. Isnotnews (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We welcome your contributions to that article; that sounds like a notable and worthy thing to write about. --Golbez (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you are right that WP has a slant towards recent events. However, this is not the forum to discuss such issues. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename -> 2009 Washington Metrorail derailment and collision or just 2009 Washington Metro derailment and collision

To match other articles, subway is not the proper term to call the Metrorail. Plus it was a derailment that resulted in a collision.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to suggest using "2009 Washington Metrorail Crash." ZStoler (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the generic "2009 Washington Metrorail accident" would work better, but I agree the formal name "Metrorail" should be used. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done ZStoler (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be moved to "2009 Washington Metro collision" since this is a strictly fact based title. An accident is an unforeseeable unintended consequence. We do not know if a deliberate or negligent act was causal, and therefore should not presuppose, much less in effect conclude, that this was in fact an accident. I know that in informal usage, the word "accident" is often associated with, and even used interchangeably with, "tragedy" (as in "tragic accident"), but both are subjective judgments which should be avoided in the more formal type of writing suitable for an encyclopedia.

If Metrorail is the official title, then the Washington Metro article should be renamed, but this article title should remain consistent with that one as the model. There is no need to be overly specific by expanding the title to include "derailment" as well--the collision is the more important aspect. Dhaluza (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this. The first sentence of the Initial inquiry section states that "the cause [is] not known"', and later on "for unknown reasons the second train collided". Labelling this incident as an accident would be highly presumptuous. I see no problem with 2009 Washington Metro collision; it is purely factual, not overly-specific (like "derailment") and not ambiguous (like "incident"). Cycle~ (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed move. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We need an administrator to achieve this. ZStoler (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we had a bold move to 2009 Washington Metro train collision, which appears to solve everyone's concern. Removing proposed move template. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Article Box

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by the Washington Metro subway crash are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier has asked people who are trying to locate family members not to show up at the scene. Instead, call: 202-727-9099.

Wikipedia isn't a place for information about where or who too call in an emergency situation. It is an encyclopedia. A lot of places have the same information as the top of the article listed has, plus it doesn't belong there. I am going to remove it please discuss below if someone disagrees. ZStoler (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What is that? Am I completely losing or are a serious amount of changes happening? --candle•wicke 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was this removed from the article? Wikipedia certainly is not the place for this information, but because information can be quickly added and would qualify as an "instant" information source, should we not tell people where to get information? --Delta1989 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In articles like this it is common to have such an announcement while the event is unfolding as some people may come here for such information. Wikipedia can be an encyclopedia in a day or so when people have stopped dying on the metro. I think the article can be the place for this for a short period. |→ Spaully ^τ 00:17, 23 June 2009 (GMT)

No, this isn't the place for it. Wikipedia is to document information, this is simply going above a lot of wikipedia agreed upon standards. This information can be found in a lot of places, in almost all online news articles and on the D.C. Metro website(WMATA). ZStoler (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick Addition: This would be more appropriate for wikinews, and this article doesn't come up on a google search for "Metro Crash", so I doubt someone would come to wikipedia to look for it first. ZStoler (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be the place for it, but being "instant", we should at least have this disclaimer. In fact, this is why we should put up a disclaimer. This is a current event, and people need information that we don't have. Why should we not tell people where to find it? --Delta1989 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid its just going back to the old encyclopedia example. You can't open up an encyclopedia and get an emergency number, same principle. Just because its on the internet doesn't change the fact its an encyclopedia. ZStoler (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: You could add a link to the bottom of the article pointing to directions on the WMATA website. ZStoler (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A link at the bottom is far less effective. In response to ZStoler, this may be an encyclopedia, but it is one of a very different type. Information can be handed out instantly, and it is this speed that should require this disclaimer. We are an encyclopedia - but we are an instant one, unlike a print one. It's a bit like comparing a donkey to a Concorde. And anyway, we can take it down tomorrow once the dead and wounded are counted. --Delta1989 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews would be more effective for this, we haven't put up a disclaimer like that at the top of an article for a long time. Another editor might take down your edit as well because it doesn't fit Wikipedia editing style. ZStoler (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support putting this information box in this article. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but a first source for information for many people. I think it's good to do things for altruistic reasons even if it's not strictly encyclopedic. It would greatly help a family member of a passenger if they could find this info easily rather than spend time Googling for it, and it's more likely they'll find this first rather than Wikinews. DisgruntledWaterlooStudent (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't even get this article in search engine results. ZStoler (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you search DC metro in Google, you get to this page through the CE tags.--The lorax (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean there are people who already know Wikipedia exists, and might go to its home page as a source of info. If you've never heard of Wikipedia and tried searching for this info online it might be hard to find. I went to the DC Metro website and clicked on their news report and it didn't have this info. DisgruntledWaterlooStudent (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am typing my stance on this information box here. This shouldn't be up because its not encyclopedia content. It can be found on many news articles and government websites. The red box distracts from the article and doesn't meet many editing practices. It is written in an american perspective not pertaining well to other countries. It is also not well formatted. ZStoler (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think the box is not only distracting, but should not be included because it is not encyclopedia content. I would suggest an external link to an official source, however. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I do not know what happened to the number on the metro site but it was there, they must have taken it down. ZStoler (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this (I don't, but whatever), but the only way you can be a true "encyclopedia" is to wait until a current event is over. There are so many things on Wikipedia that are not "encyclopedic", but this is one of them. You can't just say "We're an encyclopedia" and automatically be one. (By the way, at this point there's no reason to have the box up anyway. I'm sure they've found everyone.) --Delta1989 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reason to have a box up stop discussing it. 97.77.96.235 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews Item

• Article Here

Assistance with it appreciated, Contact numbers for concerned relatives would be useful to add. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update 39 [8:20pm] MPD is now requesting you call 311 to inquire about loved ones potentially injured or killed today. Do NOT call the SOC. If you’re out of the District, please call 202.737.4404 which is the Metro Accident Information Line.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Title Change to Match Washington Metro

A good idea, actually, now that I think about it. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing but important detail

Which train ended up on top of the other train, the stationary or moving train? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The moving one ended up on top. [1] ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am adding that detail to the infobox. The term is telescoping. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

There were some reports of 9 fatalities, but those reports seem to have been rescinded. Washington Post is reporting "at least seven" here but other sources still seem to show six. All reliable sources support "at least six" as accurate, so I'm changing the 9 in the main article to "at least six" until we have some convergence of the reliable sources. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Radio reports this morning say currently 9 dead, with about 70 injured. I'll get some cites. The text of the Mayor's 8:00 AM press conference is probably online. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. It's been revised. Seven deaths is the current official total. [2] —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See here. Metro's general manager confirmed nine deaths at a 9:30 AM EDT press conference. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN has reported seven deaths aswell. ZStoler (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN and The Washington Post, both reliable sources, currently conflict as to whether the count is seven or nine. Until they agree, I think we should stick with "at least seven" and note that a conflict exists. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you can report both, "The Washington Post says that seven were killed, but CNN states that the total is nine" (or whatever they say). Cla68 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On the radio (say, about 9am Eastern), they were saying that 9 from earlier was an error (2 of the people who had been included in the 9 were alive and are in critical condition at hospitals), so seven was the number as of then. Sorry I don't have this in a citable form. Agree that "at least seven" is the right thing to say for now - no point in worrying about it or adding a lot of text when waiting a day or a few should get a "final" total. Kingdon (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I noted the conflict and cited both sources. But yes, a "final" total should be available soon. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)}

CNN now says nine. Updating. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We should continue to monitor WMATA's faq section on this website which is updated as new information becomes available. They currently have the count at 9, but since several people sustained life threatening injuries this number may go up. WMATA will not update their site until this information is confirmed, which is more reliable than using the local or popular media. You can monitor their information from here: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/faqs/preview.cfm?faqID=57 Jmoasahkua (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Overview of Command/Control system

Can anyone type up a sourced section on how this section of the Red Line works and what safety devices exist? Example: here in Atlanta: Marta typically uses computer control where the driver only operates the doors, tells the train to GO, and sometimes drives the train short distances when the computer stops short of the station platform. Computers control the train between stations, obeying speed control instructions and block control from central command. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, in addition to the exact details of how the ATO (automatic train operating system) works, are the 1000 and/or 5000 series of solid construction (i think it's called monocoque or something) - what i'm getting at it the pictures look like the rial crashes in the UK which involved lots of BR MK 1 rolling stock, where the under frames would separate from the bodies, while later rolling stock is of one piece construction. 91.109.211.88 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The signaling system is from Alstom / General Railway Signal.[3]. See also Washington Metro signaling and operation. --John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's more info in the NTSB report from a previoius Metro collision.[4]. The signaling system is quite conventional - fixed blocks, audio-frequency track circuits, coded audio-frequency signals from wayside to train. --John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This info would only be relevant as it is related to the cause of the crash. Otherwise, it should be at Washington Metro signaling and operation. I'll add a wikilink to this page here. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. It's too early to say. Although the fact that this isn't Metro's first parked-train on same track collision despite signaling with automatic train stop is relevant. --John Nagle (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Information is starting to come in from the NTSB. See [5]. The word "anomaly" is used, in connection with testing each block with a shunt across the rails. At least one track circuit did not perform correctly. The NTSB spokeswoman is clearly talking about a track circuit as discussed in Wikipedia, that is, the train detection side of the system. (There's another system which feeds signal information back to the train.) That part of the signaling system, incidentally, isn't computerized at all - it's built from General Railway Signal hard-wired relays like these.[6]. Such relays are supposed to be fail-safe devices. But those relays were supposed to be replaced after 2000 due to a problem with the unauthorized use of cadmium plating in vital relays, which affected many railroads.[7]. This was a known problem with the Washington Metro in 2000.[8]. All of those relays were supposed to have been replaced. It's too early to put this in the article proper, but it's useful to have the references available. --John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

More from the NTSB.[9] The track circuit under the stalled train had failed. A test train placed on that block didn't trip it. This is a huge deal. Those things are never supposed to fail to detect a train. Failures are always supposed to cause an indication of "train present". The technology is a century old and, by intent, brutally simple. --John Nagle (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion is starting to focus on the rail bond between adjacent blocks.[10]. Although a rail bond failure, either open or shorted, shouldn't cause a false clear in an audio-frequency track circuit. Adjacent blocks are supposed to be on different frequencies. --John Nagle (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, no Tim Russert repeat

The Tim Russert article used to have a problem where people kept adding tributes. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bono, Sting, Bruce Springsteen, Paris Hilton, and many others' comments were added. Let's not let this happen here. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of politicians' "I'm saddened" comments. WP is not a memorial. It would possibly be noteworthy only if a foreign dictator said "I'm happy that it crashed" but even then it might not be noteworthy, just sicko. User F203 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Train operator vs train driver

Resolved

 – This issue appears to be resolved. 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, the train operator is the company responsible for providing the service using the train in question. The train driver is the person at the controls. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Metro calls them "operators." Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a local thing - Metro train drivers are frequently referred to as "operators". They don't actually drive the trains some of the time - the trains are controlled automatically. (Which looks like it might be part of the problem here, actually.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. I guess it's obvious now where I live. :-) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Me, too, I s'pose... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Images?

There were a couple of good (though low-res) ones on Flickr last night, if anyone wants to look into that. I'm going to try and get a picture of one of the service advisory boards today, too. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Low-res is better than no-res. Free licenses? I'll take a look. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The one I checked yesterday was - the little dollar sign with a strikethrough. Can't check again, as Flickr's blocked at my office. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see those - those are incompatible with WP, unfortunately. They also look like copies of news photos. I'll keep looking. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not going to find free images for this, I have looked hard... ZStoler (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could just add some general washington metro picks to let people know what we are talking about. Remember (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have found a picture licensed under the creative commons and uploaded it. ZStoler (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gawker images are not necessarily free. See this: "Important Note: this does not include the right to republish images from GM sites, for which GM may not the copyright holder, except in the context of a screenshot of the whole site." Thus, copyright cannot be established on this image. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We could always write one of the news organizations and ask...think WTOP would be amenable to providing an image? It's a long-shot, I know, but I can't think of anything else. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I say go for it. I'll keep running my search for free images every few hours. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - after dinner tonight I'll look into it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A few points to consider... first of all, all things come to he who waits. When the NTSB completes its report on the accident, there will be several good public-domain photos of the incident. Also, in lieu of actual accident photos, I might have photos of some of the cars in question in my photo files, but I'll have to dig when I get home. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No photos of the accident cars from happier days in my library.  :-( SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume that a photo of any 1000-series car would be appropriate, if captioned as being a car of the same design, rather than being one of the accident cars itself. They *do* all look the same as each other, after all... rdfox 76 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a photo of a 1000-Series car (striking) and a 5000-Series car (struck) would be appropriate. Lemme see what I can come up with (let's put a new one and not reuse one we already have on here). SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly made the article look prettier! Added photo of the collision site from a railfan trip I took last year, added a photo of the shuttle crowds, and added photos of typical examples of 1000 and 5000-Series rolling stock from the Rail Rodeo at Branch Avenue Yard. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stealing a photo makes all of us look like thieves. Let's not steal! Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not the "Nerdy Schoolboy's Theft and Plagiarism Depository". Instead, a photo of a Metro train car could be used. Even better would be a 1000 series car. Eventually, there will be a free use photo when the investigation is published. User F203 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I take TIND to heart, and know a usable picture or four will eventually emerge. I'll keep searching (and searching and searching) until I eventually stumble upon one. A generic photo of a 1000-series car would be fine in the meantime. And F203, I dare you to start the "Nerdy Schoolboy's Theft and Plagiarism Depository." :) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Another way is to have an external links section at the bottom. There we can put links and a description such as "www.-----.com/traincollision Photo of train wreckage" User F203 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Look at the end of the article. These 7 photos are large and show the train as well as injured people. User F203 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Injuries and using clear language when available.

WMATA has repeatedly announced that 76 people reported injuries and 51 were hospitalized. This should be the number used throughout the article. I am suggesting the removal of the vague language "More than 100 people were injured, dozens of whom were described as "walking wounded"." I have a potential cited replacement:

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority states that 76 people reported injuries, 51 of whom were hospitalized. http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/faqs/preview.cfm?faqID=57#497

I will wait for agreement before i make this change Jmoasahkua (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree if the statement appears accurate. User F203 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't wait. Update NOW, and cite that release! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

important story and data in FrederickNewsPost

At www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=91910 , an anonymous source is quoted concerning some details about the recent misbehavior of two circuits associated with the site of the collision. In addition, links on that web page enable viewing of what appear to be real time event logs of data reported from the two misbehaving circuits. These two log files appear to be 'leaked', in that no direct attribution is provided.

Dunno whether Wikipedia policy permits mention of anonymously provided stuff like this in articles, but if yes, this key information should be added to the article. Publius3 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can find, there is no current active policy or guideline discouraging anonymously sourced information from reliable sources. That's the tipping point. The article's source was anonymous, but the article is a "reliable source" as Wikipedia defines it. If it were some blog, then no. But since it's a reliable source, then all is well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I linked to that article yesterday from this talk page. But I'd hold off on putting the information from those "anonymous" faxes in the article. Give it about two days, and there will probably be a more solid source. --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)