Talk:2015 Philadelphia train derailment/Archive 1

How many cars?
Seven cars NOT including the locomotive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seventh death
Where is the confirmation for the 7th death? Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of crash location?
I know that AMTRAK doesn't own all the rails that its trains travel on; outside of the Northeast Corridor, most if not all of the rails on which AMTRAK trains travel are owned by cargo rail lines like Norfolk Southern and the like. If possible, can a better researcher than myself please try to determine who or what entity owns the stretch of rail on which the crash occurred? Regards, 72.0.15.8 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Northeast Corridor at this point is in fact owned by Amtrak.  Dough   4872   20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Amtrak owns the NEC mainline at the location; Conrail Shared Assets owns the freight sidings and the section of the Atlantic City Line that diverge there. See PA State Rail Map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Amtrak does own this stretch of track. So what? How is it relevant to this article? I think it should go in Northeast Corridor article. Epic Genius (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Please refrain from posting trivial details, such as which shuttle buses are being substituted for trains: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wiki is a national encyclopedia filled with significant facts about important subjects.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't want the info included but keep in mind not all editors share the same time zone as you. I am at work now taking a small break so cant go into detail but please be patient to let other editors weigh in on this before undoing further edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My last revision was actually in made error. I merely intended to make a syntax fix.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

passenger car integrity
The New York Times on Thursday 14 May on page A15 quoted Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter saying, "... it's incredible that so many people walked away." This is a horible accident, I don't want to minimize that, and it is clear that positive train control is needed. I do think, though, there may be something in the way these cars are designed that has improved crash survivability over earlier designs. Consider the numbers of deaths in some other crashes, for instance Amagasaki_rail_crash. The circumstances may not be completely comparable, but in the Amagasaki crash two cars were crushed by the following cars, and many more people died, even though that train was not going nearly as fast. Amtrak is always under a lot of pressure to lower costs, and their budget is being cut, it appears. If they have spent extra money on safer cars, this seems like a time to thank them for that, and to consider how to make it possible for them to continue.

On the subject of positive train control, the following article on page A15 talks about that technology and the enourmous costs of implementing it. It cites the freight industry as needing to equip something like 26,000 locomotives. I am pretty sure that Amtrak has fewer than 100 locomotives in the Northeast Corridor. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the expected payoff from adding positive control to passenger trains in the Northeast Corridor versus all freight trains. I suppose that discussion belongs in a separate article.

--AJim (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The first car was like completely destroyed. Barely anything left. The engine and a remarkable number of cars ended up upright and pretty unmangled, though. I didn't know an engine could scrape across so so many tracks at 102 instead of instantly overturning. 205.197.242.169 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is better than Amagasaki's case. Michael Nutter's analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Amagasaki accident, two cars became flattened by ramming into a building.
 * "The front four cars derailed completely, with the first two cars ramming into the apartment building and becoming almost completely compacted by the third and fourth cars, which were themselves pushed from the rear by the fifth car."


 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the Amagasaki crash was different. In that crash, the rear cars of the train telescoped in the front cars. In the Philadelphia crash, the trains just literally flew off the track. Epic Genius (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Positive train control (specifically, ACSES) is installed on part of the NEC already, and has been for quite a while. It was a surprise to many folks who follow passenger rail development in the U.S. that it wasn't present in this location. The line is equipped for cab signaling and should be able to stop a train if it were to approach/pass a stop signal, but wasn't capable of enforcing specific speed limits. The existing signaling infrastructure still could have been configured to warn the engineer as it approached the curve. (According to this discussion, such a setup exists for the southbound direction at this curve where train speeds need to drop from 110-125 mph down to 50. Apparently a similar setup for northbound was deemed unnecessary since the authorized speeds don't get so high before the curve.) PTC is a good idea in general, since it improves the capacity and efficiency of existing rail lines while also improving safety. Unfortunately, it hasn't been developed or adopted very quickly in the U.S.—the technology was still in flux just a couple years ago, and the early systems hadn't been interoperable. Things are stabilizing, though. The large railroads have been very profitable in recent years, so they are able to absorb the cost pretty well, even if they complain about the 2008 mandate that will go into full effect at the end of this year.  As for the cars, American passenger cars are built with very high buff strength to try to have them retain their shape during collisions, though they have typically lacked crash energy management (crumple zones, among other features). Only in recent years have American passenger rail cars been designed to include those features. Nonetheless, even a well-designed car may not provide enough protection when traveling at over 100 mph.  My best guess, which may not be correct, is that the most heavily-damaged rail car hit a vertical support for the catenary wires -- if that's the case, the best answer probably would have been to have a breakaway support, something that's common with light poles and signage along highways. The catenary system installed along the line between Philadelphia and New York is very old, and probably wasn't designed with that in mind. &mdash;Mulad (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically, what you are saying is that since the antiquated overhead catenary pole could not automatically break away, the car was broken by the pole instead? And I agree, PTC is a good idea, but then again, the federal government did not require it until that 2008 mandate due to the large number of devastating train crashes before then. Epic Genius (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting that as a possibility for the car that got so heavily smashed up. We'll see what the NTSB ultimately says. &mdash;Mulad (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings style deliberate crash
CNN pundits have compared the crash to Germanwings, since train always has only one driver. Despite lots of accounts blaming the driver, they all seem to falling short of accusing him of deliberate crashing of the train. Among all possible reasons for driver taking curve too fast, isn't a deliberate action always a possibility? Bachcell (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibility sure, but will not be mentioned here until either confirmed, or mentioned in more than just CNN. I also highly doubt it was an intentional attempt to crash it, more likely just recklessly going fast, to get there early or for fun or whatever train drivers do after hours of sitting up there. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Without delving too far into speculation, there are a fair number of ways it could have happened accidentally. On any cab signalled line like this one, there is no way that engineers would intentionally go too fast for fun or whatnot; they would trigger an overspeed penalty fairly quickly. But accidentally doing it on a section of track without PTC protection is certainly possible - it's exactly what happened at Spuyten Duyvil and we know that was an accident. Microsleep, or loss of situational awareness, or somehow forgetting about the speed restricted curve and thinking he was on the 110mph track ahead (heading in that direction, the limit is 110 after Shore interlocking 0.3 miles to the west, so he may have momentarily gotten a 110 mph speed code visible before the restricted curves) could all do it. In any case, it's just mindless CNN speculation at this point. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "CNN pundits have compared the crash to Germanwings ..." Go no further with this; those first two words have utterly doomed any chance that this might be worthy of serious consideration for the article. The only way it could have been worse was by beginning with "Don Lemon said that ..." Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: See similarly off-base theory about the Valhalla train crash here. Anyone suspect anything? Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, Pi's theory sounds more like what actually happened. The engineer, sleep-deprived, might have misread the signs and thought that he was on the 110 mph straight track on the right, when, in fact, he was on the 30 mph curve on the left. Until we get definite results back, though, everything is speculation. Epic Genius (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This one seems to blame Congress.
 * Any word on how fast trains normally take that turn? Apparently happened in a "decayed industrial neighbourhood", and the thing about old junk is it suddenly breaks, even though it didn't break the last hundred times you did the same to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The speed limit was 50 mph I believe, though last time I rode on the Silver Star (Amtrak train) we went about 55-ish... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Avoiding all speculation, of course, isn't it right that the article include some basic information on the engineer, that he suffered significant head and leg wounds, including a concussion, and apparently has no memory of what happened? He also gave a blood sample, reportedly negative for drugs and alcohol, and turned over his cellphone. The New York Times also reported that he was "distraught" on hearing the presumed cause of the accident, i.e. excessive speed. Surely we can include some of these basic facts? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are non-controversial and important. But presuming the cause isn't. For the record, my last post about how sometimes old junk breaks isn't part of Obama's grand villainous scheme. Or anyone's. It just sometimes does. We'll know about that stuff later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Over the years, my friends and I had been on the very tracks where the crash occurred hundreds of times and seen thousands of Amtrak, SEPTA, NJ Transit, and freight trains roll by the sharp curve, in which you cannot see more than a block or so ahead. We used to hang out on the awesome overhead pedestrian bridge, a local legend. I don't ever remember seeing any train going faster than around 35 MPH within the curve, despite the alleged 50 MPH suggested speed limit. As I have been saying from the get-go, even before the "experts" chimed in, the train derailed because it was speeding. No official determination has yet been made about whether or not the derailment was accidental, but there is absolutely no mystery about why the train derailed. The equipment worked just fine for what it was intended for.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's a controversial truth, in light of how it'll play into the "How to best spend $14 billion" debate. It'll be blown out of proportion for political means, like any timely disaster. Editors shouldn't avoid the subject, just give a little more caution to what they're adding and why, relative to the simpler things you mentioned. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo! News posted a Reuters story about half an hour ago, that the train may have been struck by a projectile shortly before the accident, and so may another train in the vicinity. I've just added a mention of that to ¶1 of § Derailment. --Thnidu (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirects created
I have created the following redirects for alternate names for the train and this incident: AHeneen (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Amtrak Northeast Regional 188
 * Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188
 * Northeast Regional Train 188
 * Northeast Regional 188
 * Amtrak 188
 * 2015 Amtrak derailment
 * 2015 Amtrak train derailment
 * 2015 Northeast Regional derailment
 * 2015 Northeast Regional train derailment
 * 2015 Amtrak derailment and 2015 Amtrak train derailment should be tagged R with possibilities, since there may theoretically be more. Epic Genius (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the "188" redirects should be directed to the named train itself. -User:DanTD (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Shuttle Buses
Diff Should we include information relating to the response from other companies and how the line was covered for while it will be down for maintenance? That was badly worded, just see the diff. I say yes, it is part of the response and is covered in similar articles. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a national encyclopedia, not a local newspaper. Shuttle bus info is extremely trivial and thus not Wiki-worthy: Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, merely because other articles list such ridiculously insignificant trivia in error does not justify listing similar nonsense here.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is an International (even global) encyclopedia. Tvx1 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's a detail reported in multiple news media. If people don't hail from the Philly area, they can see a map. Do we delete station and route information from railway line articles because some readers don't come from the area near that railway line? No. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable because this is a current event (though not all the details should be added), and WP:NOTTRAVEL is also not applicable because it gives absolutely nothing in the way of travel information. Epic Genius (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Again, Wiki is NOT a newspaper. Not every tedious, irrelevant detail reported by the news media belongs here. Wiki is also not Amtrak; any details about service substitutions can be garnered from their website. Your arguments are absurd.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The shuttle bus section seems increasingly trivial and irrelevant. It can be distilled into a sentence or two.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Political impact
Just for the record. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 
 * 


 * Same refs, with add'l info per template:
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add frivolous details
Kindly refrain from posting frivolous details that only belong in a newspaper or even an industry publication, such as the prior Congressional political fight over the use of Amtrak's safety systems. I repeat: Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that you are looking way too much into the policy. While I am glad you are taking your concerns here please keep WP:COOL, it is better to discuss things first before deleting large portions of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Some rookies continue to add trivial silliness that is not encyclopedia.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your work to improve this article. However, I'm no rookie, and let me put on the record that you are doing a poor and seemingly arbitrary job of deciding what is and it's important. If you're deleting whole potentially useful paragraphs without a talk page discussion first - which you have done several times - then you need to take a big step back. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was merely trying to weed out painfully tedious, obviously insignificant facts, such as laughably technical info about the tracks. Other editors have seemingly agreed with my edits as per their retention of most of them. I apologize for being a bit gung ho.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As I was sitting here eating my hot dog (light mustard, heavy on the relish and just a sprinkling of onions), I was wondering why you keep calling them frivolous details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Derailment versus accident
No formal determination has been made that this incident was accidental, only an informal one based on preliminary info. As such, this Amtrak incident should be called a derailment unless a final "accident" determination has been made by federal authorities.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See also: §Accident? above. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct as of now. However, should this be ruled an accident, I think the header can be changed. Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know Epic, accidental implies innocence and the crash is still under investigation. If it is ruled accidental then I would have no problem but for now my opinion is to wait on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless something like Germanwings happened. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on the intent), the engineer survived... Epic Genius (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This may now be a moot point. Latest NTSB press release refers to this as an accident: NTSB to Hold its Last Media Briefing on Amtrak Accident in Philadelphia.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, it is an accident, according to the NTSB. Let's fix the header in that case. Things may change, though. Epic Genius (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please leave it as "derailment" which most accurately describes what happened. "Accident" implies an external cause, such as a collision with an obstacle (eg. fallen tree, road vehicle or another train), the toppling of a trackside pole or structure onto the train, the parting of the train due to coupling failure, or some other cause. I'm writing from New Zealand and the current title, "2015 Philadelphia train derailment" is most apt. I am not interested in searching for this article on the basis of the suburb or locality it happened in, as suggested by some editors. Akld guy (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We were talking about the first header's title, not the article's title, but this is OK anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've redacted a statement here because it makes an inappropriate and unsubstantiated attack on the train's engineer. Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to speculate or rumormonger about what happened, particularly when such speculation involves entirely-unsupported and highly-negative claims about a person's behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The redacted statement was not posted by me. I made no comment whatsoever about the engineer. Akld guy (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was noting it about the original post on this thread. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the derailment is officially ruled an accident or intention, the incident should still be called a derailment in the article's title, unless you want to call it an accidental derailment. Naming the incident an "accident" is not specific enough, so why not just label it what it definitively is? --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Projectiles
The timing and locations of these 3 separate instances are intriguing, to say the least. Anyone know of freeware we can use to rip this graphic? Almighty Camel (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is the whole issue of "the projectiles" not even mentioned in this article? Or, at least, I cannot seem to find it.   I also read that this derailment happened in a location that attracts a lot of incidents in which people throw projectiles at passing trains.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's relatively new info located as part of the Investigation section, which seems appropriate and will be expanded in the future. The info has also been added to the top of the Derailment section, which is undue. IMHO Almighty Camel (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.  I see it now.  Maybe we should add the part about this derailment happened in a location that attracts a lot of incidents in which people throw projectiles at passing trains.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that inclusion of this info in the 'Derailment' section is undo undue* at this point. Since there is currently no causality linking the projectile to the derailment, this would be an implicit WP:SYN, IMHO.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * * The misspelling of "undue" as "undo" is extremely confusing when we're talking about editing, revisions, and possible reverts and undo's. --Thnidu (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, it's both. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of implicit synthesis, there are (according to Wikipedia) seven other poltergeists in Pennsylvania. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, as they are sometimes called, “crackheads, folks shooting up, doing whatever they do, throwing things.” A whole new sort of rock epidemic, it seems. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even President Roosevelt (the 1905 one) wasn't immune to this side of the tracks. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! How did you come up with such an inedible incredible-y obscure reference? —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was in the middle of the New York Times story I linked (the 2015 one). Apparently happened in about the exact same place. Or, if you mean the Franklin Roosevelt "ghost train" I mentioned in the edit summary, that's still physically underground, but not figuratively anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We cannot "rip" the graphic
We cannot use that graphic, as it's copyrighted and per the fair-use criteria we could easily create one of our own using OpenStreetMap and other tools (much as has already been done with the map of the crash site) to impart the same information. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be more efficient to use Attached KML and do something like in 2015 Baltimore protests, which is, plot the points onto Bing Maps or WikiMiniAtlas. Epic Genius (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede
The lede is way too short for an article of this length. It is understandable that editors want to get the details into the article when it is being heavily edited - nothing wrong with that. I added a bit about excessive speed being involved, but reverted me. Per WP:BRD, we are now here - D. Should the lede mention the fact that the train was traveling (Am. Eng. splg) at an excessive speed? Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was just a brainfart on my part. Thought I was only reverting "travelled" to "traveled". Fixed now. Sorry for the confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you OK with changing "correct speed" to "speed limit"? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be OK. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A lead is supposed to encapsulate the entire article in one to four short, declarative paragraphs: Manual of Style/Lead section. I may get around to expanding it a bit.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And you have. Looks fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, looks much better now. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Derailment: Speed, Sumwalt
In the section currently titled "Derailment"—

Both the 106 and 102 mph speeds were preliminary estimates from an initial download of data from the event recorder. Sumwalt clearly pointed this out in his first news briefing on May 13. Specifically he said, "I will indicate that these are preliminary, uh, figures of speed, uh, subject to further validation, but we're pretty close on that. That's our first look at it. Uh, it's a pretty complex, uh, thing. You don't just press a button and it spits out a speed. We have to measure the wheel speed and then put that into a formula, but we're pretty confident that the train was traveling pretty close to those speeds within one mile, one or two miles per hour." See NTSB YouTube media briefing 4:36 - 5:05 minutes. NTSB official channel Follow up briefings and tweets from NTSB have carefully avoided using the 106 number, but rather simply say "exceeding 100 mph".

Robert Sumwalt is not, nor was he, the lead onscene accident investigator. Beginning at 1:46 in the above referenced news briefing video, Mr. Sumwalt names the lead investigator as Mike Flanigan. This is corroborated by the NTSB Press Release as the go-team was assembling. In that same NTSB Press Release, Robert Sumwalt is identified as "the principal spokesman during the on-scene phase of the investigation."

Jhscarborough (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I touched it, it didn't say "onscene". Just lead investigator. Generally. This seems to still be common in Google News stories as of yesterday. Different phase now? I don't quite know how accident investigations work. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Accident?
While likely to be deemed an accident, as of yet I don't believe that intentionality has been absolutely ruled out. I am primarily referring to the change of section title: 'Context' > 'Derailment' > 'Accident'. —Comments? —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, everything seems to be indicating that it was strictly an accident. -User:DanTD (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly; "seems to be indicating" is hardly encyclopedic.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Speeding here seems to be a deliberate act, but that does not automatically mean the crash was deliberate based on the speed. While rail traffic is a very different form of travel, the vast majority of drivers who speed are simply in a hurry, not rushing to commit a crime.Juneau Mike (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be up to us to decide. We have listed "cause = under investigation", which means (to me) "yet to be determined".  Note that NTSB: and Amtrak: do not refer to this as an accident (yet); do we know something that they don't? I don't believe that this is the result of a deliberate act, but what I/we believe does not belong in an encyclopedic article.   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the derailment is officially ruled an accident or intention, the incident should still be called a derailment in the article's title, unless you want to call it an accidental derailment. Naming the incident an "accident" is not specific enough, so why not just label it what it definitively is?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly support avoiding the over-used term "accident". It’s not either-or, and the NTSB will certainly base its conclusions on its recognition that there is a continuum between a totally deliberate act on the one hand and an inevitable sort of human error on the other hand, including a range of things like “texting the girlfriend” to “didn’t get enough sleep because getting pissed the night before” to “the company demands excess work hours”. “Accident” is almost always an unhelpful word.alacarte (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming
I realize that this title is in accord with how the media is describing this, but it seems to be at odds with our other rail-accident articles. None of them use so broad a geographical identifier, preferring in a large city to use a neighborhood rather than the city name—i.e. not "2013 Bronx derailment" but December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, Kew Gardens train crash instead of "Queens train crash" and Chatsworth train crash instead of "Los Angeles train crash".

Should we not follow the same pattern with this one? Should there be any other sort of rail disaster in Philadelphia later this year (other than the daily disaster that is SEPTA ("Service Ephemeral; Please Try Again")) we'll have to rename the article in any event.

The 1943 wreck at almost the same site is Frankford Junction train wreck. Wouldn't it be more in keeping with our rail-disaster naming for this to be "2015 Frankford Junction derailment"? And technically the 1943 wreck was a derailment as well, so that should be "1943 Frankford Junction derailment." Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , While a good idea, it seems recent ones have followed a new naming scheme, see: Denver train crash, 2015 Los Angeles train crash, 2015 Halifax train crash, 2015 Oxnard train derailment etc etc. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about 2015 Port Richmond train derailment? Many media are reporting that as the location instead of at Frankford Junction, though 2015 Frankford Junction derailment can be a redirect. Epic Genius (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is NOT a good idea to obscurely title the article. The current title is probably as good as any, but I would have preferred something like the the "2015 Philadelphia Amtrak Train Wreck"".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have never used the name of the railroad in question in the article title and we're not starting now. While I like Port Richmond as I suppose it's in keeping with all the other articles (I mean, Philadelphia's a big city, it has lots of neighborhoods and there's probably been train wrecks in a few of the other ones), the recent trends noted above seem to suggest this is something better discussed at the WP:RAIL level to get a better consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as I love being more specific when it comes to neighborhoods in cities on these topics, Daniel Case has pointed out two other names that are being given for the disaster. So for the time being, I'm willing to settle for "2015 Philadelphia Amtrak train derailment," or even just "2015 Philadelphia train derailment" as it currently stands as of this writing. -User:DanTD (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article's title is fine as it is. It is absurd to suggest changing it to "2015 Frankford Junction derailment", as the vast majority of would-be readers would then have no clue about the article's contents and would have trouble finding info about the derailment via a Web search. I used to live near the derailment site, and even I would have trouble finding the article with the proposed title.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. It should be at "2015 Port Richmond train derailment", because it is per precedent and because sources state Port Richmond, Philadelphia, is the exact location. Epic Genius (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious! Some people who live IN Philadelphia have not heard of Port Richmond, much less know that the Philly derailment occurred there. The title is fine as it is.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia ain't a court. There is no "precedent", only guidelines and editorial consensus.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the current title is fine, I know its not the same as the 1943 one, but in my opinion it is too vauge to a worldwide audience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Philadelphia". The main purpose of the title of an encyclopedia article is to enable readers to find it quickly and easily. I've lived in this city for thirteen years and I didn't know Port Richmond was part of it. And people from other cities, other states, other countries, other continents: Ten years from now, when they're looking for information on this event, how likely is it that they'll remember the name of a neighborhood they never heard of before or since reading about it, or for that matter even while reading or hearing about it when it was news? How many news reports about it worldwide have mentioned "Port Richmond"? Not many, I'd bet. How many beyond the immediate area  featured the name? NONE, I'd bet any amount. "Philadelphia". --Thnidu (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I've lived in this city for thirteen years and I didn't know Port Richmond was part of it" In what part? Chestnut Hill? If so I wouldn't be surprised ... there are neighborhoods in Queens and Staten Islands whose existence lifelong Upper East Side residents would probably hear of for the first time if some disaster happened there. Your failure to have heard of Port Richmond in 13 years of living in Philly does not mean it shouldn't be in the article title. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All irrelevant. Please read the rest of my comment, and pay attention to it. You can start at the top. Here, I'll help you: The main purpose of the title of an encyclopedia article is to enable readers to find it quickly and easily. --Thnidu (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was that your personal experience should not alone be the determinant of what we title an article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was using myself as a corroborating example of PhiladelphiaInjustice's comment of 16:22, 15 May 2015. The substance of my argument is my first sentence, requoted above, and all the rest of my comment is to support it. --Thnidu (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken. However the two of you are just two Philadelphians out of thousands. New York and Los Angeles are much larger cities, with even more people who are perhaps not totally savvy about the name of every neighborhood in them, but that did not stop us from using "Spuyten Duyvil" and "Chatsworth" in those article titles from their creation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable for an article about a neighborhood, but that's not what this is. This is an article about a major calamity in a world-class city. People hearing or reading about the event, or remembering hearing or reading about it, will certainly remember that it was a calamity, almost certainly remember that it was a train accident, and almost certainly remember that it was in Philadelphia. Calamities, train accidents, and Philadelphia are already in their vocabulary and their personal knowledge base.

Port Richmond is not. The world-unrenowned name of the neighborhood will be of almost ZERO utility in the title, certainly orders of magnitude less than that of the world-class city - unless (Fate prevent it!) there is another train accident this year in a different area of Philadelphia. Unless you have foreknowledge or expectation of such a horror, you have no argument.

You've already had this argument with  (above), and I won't repeat the arguments they made then or the ones that I've been making and you've been ignoring. --Thnidu (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "That's perfectly reasonable for an article about a neighborhood, but that's not what this is. This is an article about a major calamity in a world-class city." You misunderstand. I was referring to our articles on the train wrecks in recent years: the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment and 2008 Chatsworth train collision, not the articles about those neighborhoods. If New Yorkers and Angelenos can be comfortable with the use of those neighborhoods in the titles of article about train wrecks within or adjacent to them instead of the names of their large, sprawling cities, certainly Philadelphians, if they are truly residents of a "world-class" city, can do likewise. As for Eordred, he hasn't chosen to continue this the way you have. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, clarification comes! I confess that I have not reread this section from the top in several days. Had you, in your previous post or elsewhere in our exchange, mentioned the relevant crash articles that you were just talking about (December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, Kew Gardens train crash, Chatsworth train crash) instead of the articles about the neighborhoods themselves (Spuyten Duyvil, Chatsworth), I would have gotten your point and replied differently.
 * So now I have one word to say to us all that I think will resolve this whole issue satisfactorily to all: INTERMISSION! #REDIRECT! (h/t: Shevelove, Gelbart, and Mostel) --Thnidu (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would always have been the case. Thanks for coming around and understanding. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making this matter more complicated than it has to be. There is no reason to dilute the article's title to an unrecognizable form. The obvious fact is that "2015 Philadelphia train derailment" will be more familiar and accessible to everyone than "2015 Frankford Junction/Port Richmond Accident". We do not need a Caltech study to prove that fact. The exact location within the city can be ascertained by reading the first paragraph or two of the article.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's "the obvious fact", why (as I've repeatedly pointed out above) are we all OK with naming other train accidents that took place in New York and Los Angeles (both of which could eat Philadelphia for lunch wiz wit' by the neighborhoods in which they occurred rather than those cities as a whole? It seems to me from reviewing all those articles that this is a longstanding tradition in railroading, to use as exact a geographical designation as possible. Besides, as noted above, moving the article will leave a redirect behind, so it's not like we're confusing anybody as long as we remember to follow the principle of least astonishment. I have also noticed that the Philadelphia media have been careful to describe the crash as occurring in "the Port Richmond neighborhood". Hopefully I will be able to post some examples later today. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, other articles have nothing to do with this one. Just because other editors do something one way does not make it right. From Article titles:
 * A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:


 * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
 * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
 * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
 * --PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I repaired the bullet points and their indentation. --Thnidu (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Next time you link and repost something, I suggest you actually read it, because right up there in the text you reposted is one final bullet point that is, frankly, more like a bullet hole in your argument, because it shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Since you clearly didn't read it, I'll call your attention to it by reposting it myself:
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
 * So how do you reconcile that with "[O]ther articles have nothing to do with this one. Just because other editors do something one way does not make it right"? Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had indeed read the entire guideline post. To what "other articles" are you referring? I suspect that there may be hundreds or even thousands of other train-crash articles. Have you seen all of their titles? The first four guidelines in the post trump the last one. It is an absurd idea to use such an obscurely-referenced title for this article. The current title is perfect. Period.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "To what 'other articles' are you referring?" OK, since your response makes clear that, contrary to your claim, you did not read what you reposted (if you had, you'd understand there is no hierarchy to those values, i.e., none of them "trump" each other), I must take it as a given that you haven't bothered to read the rest of this thread, either, I will list a bunch of train-crash articles where a very specific geographical term was used instead of a larger area, such as a large city:
 * 1943 Frankford Junction train wreck, not "1943 Philadelphia train wreck". Most relevant here.
 * December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, not "December 2013 New York City derailment" or even "December 2013 Bronx derailment"
 * Kew Gardens train crash, not "Queens train crash"
 * 2008 Chatsworth train collision, not "2008 Los Angeles train collision"
 * Times Square derailment, 1991 Union Square derailment, Malbone Street Wreck, all instead of "YEAR New York City subway wreck."
 * I submit that these establish a pattern of more specific naming of train-wreck articles when the wreck takes place in a large city. And Philadelphia is a large enough city for us to make that distinction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, to further reinforce my point that you linked those bullet points without having really understood them, see this a graf or two below: "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent." Kinda makes it more obvious that consistency counts, no? Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, I invite you to peruse, another large sprawling city with many-named neighborhoods, which have lent their names to articles about rail accidents within them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia-area media references
As I said, it seems like the Philadelphia-area media are taking care to use "Port Richmond" as the site of the accident:


 * "Several area hospitals treated those that were injured in a deadly train derailment in Philadelphia’s Port Richmond neighborhood Tuesday night." – KYW-TV


 * "PORT RICHMOND (WPVI) — As investigators try to determine whether Amtrak train 188 was hit by something just before it crashed, for the first time we're hearing the frantic call made by transit police about another incident on the same night." – WPVI-TV


 * At least six people were killed and dozens injured, eight critically, when a northbound Amtrak train derailed Tuesday night in Port Richmond." – The Philadelphia Inquirer


 * Train 188 was traveling from Washington D.C. to New York City when it derailed in the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia around 9:30 p.m. on the 2000 block of Wheatsheaf lane.." – WTXF-TV

So, that's three of four broadcast network affiliates and the city's daily newspaper. I think there's a good case for using "Port Richmond" as the location of the accident. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And look how the City Paper headlines its story:
 * Mayor Nutter confirms seven people died in the Port Richmond train derailment. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a national encyclopedia; what the local media says and does is irrelevant in the matter of naming the referenced article. The only change to the title that I would agree with would be to include "crash" ("derailment-crash" would also work). "Philadelphia" must remain in the title.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a national encyclopedia—to believe it is is systemic bias, so until you go back and strike that through you're guilty of that and you are a horrible person. It is an international encyclopedia. There might be people reading this who think "Philadelphia" refers to Amman, who don't even know that there's an American city by that name. They don't care about the distinction between the city and one of its neighborhoods. And insisting on using Phialdelphia in the article title won't make them. I really can't understand your insistence on this. It seems to have no rational basis; you seem to be motivated only by a sense of civic pride. You forget that even after we rename the article, your preferred title will remain as a redirect. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Amtrak funding issues
The article states:

The day following the derailment, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed a pre-approved measure to cut $260 million from Amtrak's $1.36 billion 2015 budget. Democrats had requested that the budget be increased by $1 billion to $2.4 billion. Some Republicans criticized Democrats for linking the budget to the crash during the budget discussions. Democrat Nita Lowey said: “While we don’t know the cause of this accident, we do know that starving rail of funding will not enable safer train travel".

So I added the following:

In 2012, the Washington Examiner criticized Amtrak for buying soda at a cost of $3.40 per serving, which is several times higher than the normal price that everyone else pays.

71.182.244.82 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A good faith edit, but reversed, as I just can't see how the price Amtrak pays soda pop is relevant here. We're editing an encyclopedia entry on the crash and derailment, not broadly editorializing on Amtrak's relative inefficiencies. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It has nothing at all to do with the crash. See WP:COATRACK.- MrX 03:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Even better, it's false. Like the second commenter says they have to pay a litany of costs like wages for servers and maintaining inventory etc. From a claimed purchasing consultant (the Examiner commenter). 205.197.242.169 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with X here, please don't include the soda thing as it falls under WP:COATRACK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at the bit above, is there a source out there that can be useful in telling that this meeting would have happened crash or no crash? To clarify, this wasn't a reaction, but has been having some political effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching the article because I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, though it pains me to side with a Republican. I think the sockpuppet's point is that once you've said that the two parties disagree about funding, you've covered the relevant material and quoting Lowey strays into POV - since there is room for debate as to whether funds could be spent more efficiently, and therefore not "starve" the railway. I would eliminate sockpuppet's remarks, but Lowey's as well, and just leave the rest of the paragraph - the parties disagree as to whether there is room for cost-cutting without compromising safety. alacarte (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloated "See also" section
Do we need all of the examples of trains that derailed as a result of speed or can we narrow this down a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest creating Category:Train accidents due to excessive speed or something of that effect to whomever did the digging to find all these examples. Edit semi-protected (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there would be so many until I started looking them up in other articles. I counsel against creating a category; it probably won't survive WP:OCAT. Instead, I'd have no problem putting them in a navbox. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That works too, I will create it later today if someone else doesn't do it first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just about comment to that effect here, so I am going to clean it out since there seems to be no objections to removing that information a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Need for a category
In an interesting followup on this, I have found that there is indeed, which, while it is a subcategory of , is not so much a type of accident as a cause ... so perhaps the category we were discussing isn't so farfetched after all (Although I'd suggest at the very least renaming that category ... not everybody outside Britain knows that "SPAD" stands for "signal passed at danger", or more prosaically running a red).

However, the real crying shame is that the "by type" category does not yet include one for "derailments", despite that being one of the most common types of train accidents. So I think we definitely should create one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ as of today. I have also broken all of them down by country. And in the process of going through all these, I found that many overlap with bridge disasters. And those bridge disasters are also subcategorized by cause. As are airliner accidents, although they lack a "by cause" category. So I think we can definitely do the same with train wrecks. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary report
The preliminary report has been released by the NTSB. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A second preliminary report has also been released. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)