Talk:Kasganj level crossing disaster

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes
The offcial investigation report here states that the gates were open to road traffic and not protected by rail signals. This is significantly different to the the article's description of the bus driver ramming the closed gates. Is there literature to back up the article's account?

Indian rail safety record
The figures from the statutory body responsible for reporting and investigating rail accidents in India, published here, show less than 200 rail accidents in the year 2006-07, and the figures for the two previous years are nearer 200 than the 300 quoted in the article; can any light be shed on the source of the 300 figure?

In describing the record as "abysmal", has consideration been given to the total distance covered by Indian rolling stock per annum? "Abysmal" sounds like WP:POV unless India is demonstrated to compare badly with other countries' performance on a like-for-like basis (e.g. accidents / fatalities per 1000 rolling stock miles or some similarly scaled measure). -- Timberframe (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, in response to your question the answer is I don't know. I wrote this over two years ago when I was very new to wikipedia and it was part of series of articles I created on railway accidents in India. The statistic (and the adjective) certainly come from one of the websources I used in creating these articles but I cannot remember which one now. As I used the BBC as a source for almost all these articles the likelihood is that the statistics and phrasing come from a reliable source, but I cannot speak to their provenance. I am no longer actively invovled in these articles myself, but if you have an interet in to topic by all means improve the article in whatever way you can.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd101. Thanks; I just wanted to touch base with you before I update the article in case there was a good reason not to quote the investigation report's version. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)