Talk:Great Belt Bridge rail accident

Article title
I've move protected the article. It has been moved four or five times since creation. The current title would seem to fit with our naming conventions for rail accidents and WP:UE. Any further move may be done with consensus via WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I moved the article because "Great Belt Bridge" (apparently) usually refers to the suspension bridge to the east of the bridge where the incident actually occurred; so using "Great Belt Bridge" might be technically inaccurate and/or misleading. The official names of the bridges are "East bridge" and "West bridge" in Danish, which are probably not very useful in this context. Jc86035 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Danish Wikipedia and its sources also use "Storebæltsbroen" ("Great Belt Bridge") as the location of the accident. The title "Great Belt Bridge rail accident" is appropriate and I agree with the decision to move protect the article. Tammbeck (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, that sounds reasonable, and also as a way to make it consistent with the naming of the article of the link itself. It is my impression that "Great Belt Bridge" formally refers to the two bridges in union, but in every-day usage (I am Danish) it is also used to refer to the East Bridge alone, or to the entire link - depending entirely on the context. Since the accident happened on the bridge, and the tunnel was not involved, sources have been using bridge, and so should we. Fixed link is also a more technical term than bridge, and should be avoided unless necessary. ― Heb the best (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, all moves were made in good faith, but we admins don't get much say in giving reasons when performing admin actions. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's neither anything funny about this accident nor about the Ponte Morandi one - but it is odd how en.wikipedia editors in both cases have had discussions (more heated in the other case) about the best way of referring to a bridge that is part of a longer connection (Morandi Bridge is part of Polcevera Viaduct). Just an observation.--Nø (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The semi-trailer
The lead says:
 * a passenger train collided with a semi-trailer that had fallen off a freight train

That may be true, but according to media reports, it seems likely that the trailer at impact still was on the freight train, but sticking out. E.g., this seems to be what is implied by the loco driver on the passenger train. Here's one source - in Danish:. The article, as it stands, does not reflect that the two trains actually met at the time and place of the accident. This may - or may not - be important; ongoing investigations should show. At any rate, it seems like a different accident from one in which a long gone freight train has left something on the tracks.--Nø (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Other media reports (eg. from DR ) do indicate that the trailer had fallen off the train. I think we need to mention both possibilities at this point. Sakkura (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the DR source, the direct quote goes:
 * Den har enten ramt toget, eller også er toget kørt ind i den, siger Bo Haaning.
 * i.e.,
 * It [the trailer] either hit the train, or the train drove into it, says Bo Haaning [of the Accident Investigation Board].
 * Now, that is far from clear, but I believe he must be referring to the same two possibilities. I'm not sure how to edit the article, or with what source - but I believe it is misleading as it stands.--Nø (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * While we await the final findings of the investigation I'd suggest we keep it a bit vague, rather than laying out the possibilities of what might have happened. How about:
 * ...a passenger train collided with a semi-trailer which had become dislodged from a freight train. Tammbeck (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that! Still, I think the article could make it clearer that the two trains were at the location simultaneously; I dno't think that is clear at the moment.--Nø (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Se my edit. It can still be improved, I think ― Heb the best (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wind speeds
Can someone check if the wind speed match the Danish sources? I think it's a bit unusual that the average wind speed was nearly exactly the same as the wind gust speed -- gusts are by definition stronger than average.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was noticing that too. But that is indeed what the Politiken source states. The other two just states that the wind was below the limits. Here is a translation of the first paragraph of the Politiken source:
 * When a freight train with empty bottles wednesday morning drove to the west towards Fredericia and was passing the Great Belt, the wind speeds in the gusts at as much as 20.9 meter per second. If the average wind speed measured over 10 minutes had been micropically closer - 21.0 meter per second - the train had to decrease its speed when crossing the bridge. From the maximal limit on 120 kilometers per hour to 80.
 * I think the gust speeds are correct, since a spokesperson from Banedanmark is quoted for the same number in this article:
 * When the wind blows with speeds over 21 m/s in average in an interval of 10 minutes, trains must speed down to 80 kilometer per hour. An alarm sounds when we must act. It didn's.
 * We have afterwards been able to see that there have been measured 20.9 meter per second in invididual measurements, but lower in the intervals of 10 minutes.
 * Perhaps the Politiken source is wrong about the middle wind, we I have found no sources disputing it. ― Heb the best (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... this source states that the middle wind was about 20.9 m/s at the time of the accident, based of insight in wind measurements. ― Heb the best (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good that wind speeds are converted from m/s to ft/s; but I feel it would better assist understanding if these were double converted, from km/h to mph, as these are more usual measurements for wind speeds.Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand. Do you propose that wind speeds are given both as m/s, ft/s, km/h and mph? Or which units do you think should be used? ― Heb the best (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wind data have been released: It seems that earlier in the night the wind were stronger. At 3:38 gusts were at 26.3 m/s. Only once (3:31-3:32) did the 10-minute average exceed 21 m/s. If we only look at data from 6:00 and onward, the strongest gusts were 24.1 m/s at 6:08, and the highest 10-minute average were 20.9 m/s at 6:38, below the limit. At the approximate time of the accident, gust were 20.7 m/s at 7:32 and 7:33, and 20.9 m/s at 7:34 and 7:35. Here the 10-minute average was 17-19 m/s, well below the limit. I will adjust the article.  ― Heb the best (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Quality ranking
I don't think this article should be ranked as a start-class anymore. Since I am both relatively new, and the largest contributor to this article, I would kindly ask another editor to reassess the ranking. Thank you. ― Heb the best (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've re-assessed it as B-class. I don't have much experience assessing articles, but I think it just about fits the criteria. Usually B-class articles seem to be a little longer, though. Jc86035 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just about B class, and will move into firmer B class territory as the articls is improved. Good work so far. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The location map
To other talk page watchers: I'd just like to note that the coordinates shown in the infobox's map are transcluded from Wikidata, and I added them to the Wikidata item based on approximation of the centre of the irregular star symbol in the map in this article. If anyone has a better source for the precise location of the accident, please update the Wikidata item. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

New related incident, ban reinstituted
There has been a minor incident again with the same kind of pocket wagon on the same bridge, leading the Danish authorities to reinstitute the ban on pocket wagons for the time being. I wonder how much coverage that aftermath should receive in this article. Sakkura (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth a mention, especially since we don't have an English language article for "pocket wagon". (There are articles in 5 other languages, eg. da:Lommevogn.) Maybe a new section for "aftermath" or something like that? Tammbeck talk  20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the lead. Tammbeck  talk  11:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)