Talk:2016 Croydon tram derailment/Archive 1

Location diagram
The location diagram is incorrect - the tram derailed between Sandilands Tunnel and the junction - ie. on the southern leg of the Y junction not the northern leg as shown. I don't know how to correct it though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Expanding
The article could be fleshed out by adding details of the emergency service response, and hospitals to which the victims were taken. Rumour has it that tram 2531 was involved. If confirmed, this picture is about the best of the ten available at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you look on RailUK forums to find out about the tram number? If so, then that was me who started that. I could just about make out the numbers on the front when the helicopters were above. I wasn't sure whether it was 2531 or 2551 but the thing that made it believe it was 2531 was that the number 5 and the number next to it did not look the same.2531 had also just been refurbished as I saw it just a few days ago. Class455 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm on RailUK forums as a member. I'm sure the number will be confirmed in the fullness of time. There's no rush to add info. Accuracy is more important than speed. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2551, according to the picture on the RAIB page at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-tram-accident-in-croydon --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Image sourced, info added. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ufton Nervet
Before anyone starts changing Great Heck to Ufton Nervet, the latter was not an accident, and there were six unintentional fatalities in that event. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Accident location diagram
Also, the diagram seems to show the tram was on the right-hand track; they drive on the left here. 194.176.105.141 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the caption for that image to try and address this point. The tram was driving on the left-hand track but came to rest on top of the right-hand track. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the tram was running on the right-hand track. I corrected the diagram. Thank you for the heads-up.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the aerial shots in news coverage, the position of the tram on the diagram is wrong. It's not as much inline with the straight approaching Sandilands (i.e. it should be rotated clockwise somewhat), and the rear of it should be further to the right. Considering this was a derailment on a curve, it's important to get the final position right. The current diagram gives the impression that it came off towards the end of the curve, which is clearly didn't, notwithstanding the fact it appears to have hit the outside opposite curve and then pivoted (anti-clockwise) somewhat against the overhead wire post. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the problem. But it is difficult to fix under the certain constraints (location of the head of the tram, center of the tram on the right-hand track, length of the tram (30m) and so on). Anyway, I fixed a bit.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible DYK nom?
I know this is a tragic incident but could we possibly create a fact for DYK out of this article, as it is new, such as

"Did you know that a Bombardier CR4000 was involved in the 2016 Croydon tram derailment"? or other ideas.

What do you think? Class455 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, if some of the passengers are still in danger of dying, and while there is a potential criminal prosecution that won't begin before next May, I'd probably avoid that for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If DYK is appropriate (and I don't have a strong opinion on that) I think a stronger hook would be something along the lines of "Did you know that the 2016 Croydon tram derailment was the first accident in the United Kingdom in which tram passengers were killed since 1959?" Or "...the 2016 Croydon tram derailment was the deadliest tram accident in the United Kingdom since 1917?". The model of tram involved is simply not interesting for the majority of people. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ineligible for DYK now that it's been on ITN (with the possible exception of reaching GA status). DYK is a very low hanging fruit. ITN is a much harder achievement. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks guys! Class455 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Main location diagram
Unless you are pretty familiar with Croydon, I'd suggest the map is a rather meaningless collection of roads and train lines. Would it be possible to add one or two locations? I'm sure there are folks who could do in 5 minutes what might take me an hour (if I was lucky). Alternatively, it's location relative to London as a whole might be much more informative? (Now I see the options, which are ideal). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think both maps would benefit from some place name(s). But maybe that's contrary to some MoS guideline? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a drawback of how the maps are made. The template generates them automatically by just adding a dot to a blank map at the right grid co-ordinates. You can't do more than that without editing the blank map - and that would change every map on every language Wikipedia. Smurrayinchester 12:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guessed as much. Just an idea. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Skull images
I've again removed a Wikiproject template which displays two images of skulls on this page. We expect anyone with a CoI in this article, including witnesses to and victims of the incident, those involved in the aftermath, and relatives of those killed, to use this page to request changes. We should not be presenting them with such images - you don't see skull images in any related press coverage, for example. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's officially the responsibility of Wikipedia Project "members" (a rather amorphous concept) to add the Project banners, if there is agreement by the project to do so. But I get the impression that some projects seem to operate in name only. The usefulness of adding WP:WikiProject Death here seems a bit debatable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Death, transportation disasters where one or more people died fall within the remit of that WP. Therefore I am going to reinstate the template. Any further edit warring over it and the banhammer comes out! Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Andy Mabbett is objecting to the page being in the project, but in the project's choice of icon, and I have to admit I agree with him. In some browsers, the page loads with the collapsible sections open, and only close up after a noticeable delay. I don't know how likely it is that any of the casualties families will look at this page, but it's certainly not doing Wikipedia any favours if they're presented with a grinning skull. I'm inclined to add a parameter to WikiProject Death to allow suppression of the image. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a good compromise. Maybe a discussion at WT:DEATH about the project's image would be worth a try too? Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems very sensible. It's certainly not just an issue with this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't discuss it, I just went ahead and did it, on the grounds that it doesn't change any existing use of the template anywhere else, it just gives an extra option. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:INVOLVED before repeating threats of that nature. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way do you consider that I am involved? What threat? I issued a clear warning (I've stated a consequence to carrying out a particular action, and am prepared to follow through with enacting the consequence should the warning not be heeded, should it prove necessary to do so. I am confident that such action would stand up to scrutiny). Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked you to read and understand WP:INVOLVED. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read it, and as I understand it, I'm WP:UNINVOLVED. Now, do you want me to spell out your edit warring or not? It's WP:BRD not WP(BR)nD. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm closing this thread as the issue has been resolved and the discussion is not relevant to this page. Please take any further arguments elsewhere. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference style
- what I meant by my edit summary was that a style had been established for how references are done in this article. You arbitrarily changed that, I reverted such change. In the spirit of WP:BRD, you should have raised the issue for discussion, not reverted. My opinion is that reference styles, once established, should not be changed without good reason and prior discussion. Therefore I ask that you revert your edit and discuss the issue. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not "arbitrarily" change anything, nor did I change the style of citations. I bundled bundle-able citations, gnome-ishly improving the encyclopedia. The bundles introduced use the same bundle style, and the citation style throughout the article remains unchanged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case, how does the system you used allow for multiple uses of the same reference? Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When they need to be reused, they are then simply unbundled. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Naming victims and driver
Can we have agreement that none of the victims (including the driver) are named in the article, unless they already have an article in their own right? Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, yes, but this should be reconsidered in a few circumstances -
 * If the driver or other survivor subsequently becomes notable beyond the accident
 * If the driver is charged and convicted then it may be appropriate to name him at that time.
 * If one or more victims names become prominent in the media then it may be appropriate to name them - e.g. a "Justice for Joe" or other eponymous campaign. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm... all existing notables are accounted for? If I'm reading correctly, there are still eight that might die and turn out to be famous TV chefs or summink. Samsara 08:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Should a wikinotable person be a fatality, it is correct that they are named. Non-wikinotable people do not need to be named. Driver a possible exception on conviction, but not before. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The (still unnamed) driver was a 42-year-old and from Beckenham: Are these details notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The tram driver's name has been reported by the media. Given the latest claim, it is even more important than ever that it is not added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's no surprise that "the media" in this case is The Sun. Although as far as Sunday Mirror is concerned, "a source close to the probe said it was believed" the driver "fell on the accelerator after blacking out". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're happy to use The Sun on Sunday as a source here? That's who Metro very plainly attribute. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the source is. BLP is what concerns us, per consensus reached above, driver shall remain nameless in this article, and on this talk page, unless convicted - q.v. 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. My question was about the alleged texting? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Metro is a much better source than the Sun, but no objection to a better source than Metro being used. Note that I only stated that it was a claim, not a fact, in line with the source used. Hopefully all will be a lot clearer once the RAIB interim report is published. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it's a better source, if it can be shown to have different, and better, sources. But I interpret "Detectives are investigating the driver’s phone records, The Sun on Sunday reported" to mean the source of this story is The Sun on Sunday. I don't think it's very clear Metro has verified this with any other source. No official source will be available. And I'm not sure that the interim report will make this clearer. I guess we'll just have to wait. I'm just very surprised, with this whole matter being sub judice, that we are not being 100% careful over this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that a Sun "journalist" has asked someone associated with the investigation (BTP or RAIB, but unlikely both) whether the driver was on his phone, that source has said something along the lines of "We'll be looking at his phone records.", and the reporter has taken this as proof positive the driver was texting while driving. Obviously the investigation will look at all potential factors as a matter of routine, however unlikely they are in individual circumstances in the same way that the police will breathalyse everyone involved in a road accident whether there is any suspicion of them drink driving or not
 * As for how we put this in the article, I think we should make it clear that unlike the possibility of the driver having blacked out this is not coming from the investigation directly but via a single newspaper. Something along the lines of "It was reported in The Sun on Sunday that...". Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've revision deleted the driver's name from the article history per the consensus here that naming them is contrary to the BLP policy. I've also renamed this section of the talk page to make it easier for anyone looking for discussion about this decision to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, I've no objection to naming The Sun on Sunday as the source of the mobile phone allegation. As for the story that he blacked out, the source of that is his colleagues, and it is reported in the Sunday Mirror.
 * Do we need an edit notice saying not to add names to the article? It can link to this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to an edit notice, but unless it is added again I don't know that it is actually needed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We also need to keep an eye on the Tramlink article. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RAIB interim report
The RAIB interim report has been release here. I don't have time to enter the findings in the article at the moment, but some important points worth mentioning are: Optimist on the run (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tram was travelling at 70kph at the time on the accident, where the line speed is 20kph
 * There were around 60 passengers on the tram at the time
 * No evidence of track defects or obstructions
 * No evidence of brake failure
 * The CCTV on the tram was apparently not working
 * The report does not reflect on suggestions that the driver was asleep/blacked out/texting.


 * I think the number of pax is going to be nearer 70 (seven dead, 51 taken to hospital, 7 made their own way to hospital, unknown number uninjured). Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the load limit for this service? I find it quite a surprise that, an entire week after the accident, no-one can tell us officially how many passengers were aboard that tram. Is the driver supposed to monitor overcrowding (I'm not sure how), or station staff, or who? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, our article says the tram has 70 seats and a 200+ capacity so it seems unlikely that it was overcrowded. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would be nice to know if all passengers were seated? I guess I was really wondering what would have happened if there had been 200+. Who knows? (- a tram accident expert, perhaps). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * p.s. BBC News at Ten tonight made it quite clear that there were "no mechanical failures". But I can't find that in the report. Surely that would be a key finding that should be mentioned in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - para 30. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Para 29 says "... initial investigation has not indicated any malfunction of the tram’s braking system"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Using The Sun as a source
Should we use The Sun as a source for covering that newspaper's video about the driver almost falling asleep? The story is covered by several other outlets that are regarded as more encyclopedic sources, and we would usually refrain from using a tabloid such as The Sun or the Daily Mail, particularly where biographies of living people may be involved. An editor wants to use The Sun in this instance, but I've just removed it ... twice. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there an official hierarchy of UK sources for Wikipedia? Comments here and in the main text suggest the Guardian is regarded as better than Metro but The Sun or the Daily Mail are regarded as unacceptable and unquotable. Not disagreeing with this view (as far as The Sun goes, though the Daily Mail provides a lot of thorough reporting even if one disagrees with their politics), but is there anything official on this somewhere, rather than individual opinions? Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC) In this particular case The Sun appear to have been chronologically first with the story and it then appears to have been backed up by the other sources, so I'd like some firm justification for why it should always be omitted. Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might find Identifying reliable sources a good place to start. Generally it's a good idea to avoid tabloid sources whenever dealing with biographies, or events such as this one, as their reporting can be sensationalist. Since in this case other outlets have backed up their story then there's plenty of others for us to choose from. There are instances when it would be fine to use a tabloid, such as when writing about a television programme that's been reviewed by someone writing for the publication. Hope this helps. I'm disappearing off to bed in a few minutes and won't be around much tomorrow, but if you need any further help on this you could always ask at WP:HELPDESK. They're usually pretty good. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I had been searching around and found the relevant bits on tabloids. One thing does still surprise me - do Wikipedia really regard free newspapers like the Metro and Evening Standard as more reliable sources than the middle market tabloids like the Daily Mail/Express? Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IMvHO, in this case The Sun was an acceptable source because there was indisputable video evidence backing the story. Generally tabloids are to be avoided wherever possible though. The Evening Standard has been established for many years and can be considered reliable. The Metro is not so long established, but generally reliable. The fact that a reader pays for a paper or not doesn't enter the equation. All newspapers could be free as the bulk of their income is from advertising. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm being a bit too cautions. I was thinking if this went forward for FAC at some future point they'd suggest removing it, but that's a long way off. This is Paul (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cause
Can we state a cause in the infobox yet? My attempt to was reverted by. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still under investigation, isn't it? We should wait for the final reports of the investigations to be published I think. -- de Facto (talk). 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The RAIB have already said the the tram was doing 3½ times the speed limit on the curve. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true. But I tend to agree with DeFacto. Although the interim report mentions only speed as a possible factor, and indeed gives urgent safety advice about speed control, it does not present a conclusion as to a cause or causes. It clearly shows that it has only "initial findings". And, of course, most people might want to know why the brakes were not applied at the right time and that is all just speculation at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to say the immediate cause was excessive speed, as it is stated as fact that the tram was travelling in excess of the speed limit and there are no identified track or wheel defects that would give another cause for the derailment. Why the tram was travelling excessively fast ("causal factors" and "underlying causes" in RAIB terminology) remains unknown (or at least has not yet been stated in reliable sources). Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could that be condensed into a suitably succinct entry for the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Excessive speed on curve; underlying causes under investigation"? Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like an accurate and concise way of saying it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualty figures
There's an obvious discrepancy in the casualty figure - even if no-one escaped uninjured, 58 injuries plus 7 fatalities is more than the 60 passengers (plus the driver) that RAIB estimate were on the tram. I suspect that those taken to hospital may have included the fatalities, though this is obviously speculation. I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but the lead needs improving, as currently it looks like Wikipedia can't add up. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the pax figure is an estimate, and seems to be on the low side. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * if you consider the RAIB figure to be inaccurate then take it out. Personally I feel that they have more up to date figures and would go with their value of 51 injured and 7 fatalities out of 60, but I'm not going to war about it. However whichever sources we go for, we need to be consistent. At the moment we're not. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - the figures are 7 killed, 51 taken to hospital, 7 made their own way to hospital. I take it that were are assuming that the latter were injured. RAIB are saying that there were also some uninjured passengers, and that there were "about 60" passengers on the tram. If the true figure is nearer 70, "about 60" is not unreasonable. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The RAIB aren't stupid, and are fully capable of adding up. If their figures added up to nearer 70, I'm sure they would have said so. However we cannot go on stating "There were seven fatalities with 58 other people injured. The tram had about 60 passengers aboard..." in the lead, and this needs to be resolved. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lede tweaked by removing number of pax. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * seems I owe you an apology. Latest report states that there were around 70 on the tram Optimist on the run (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Second interim report
A new report has just been issued by RAIB:. I don't have time to review at present. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a read through and updated the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)