Talk:2023 Odisha train collision/Archive 1

Archive 1

"According to Pramila Mallik, Odisha state's disaster management minister, 288 people were killed in the accident. While more than 900 others were injured."

I'm guessing the period should be a comma? 2A01:E0A:9A9:8870:1DE8:8A63:8DBF:F357 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah DS_X1 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Train Collision Odisha.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Point of information: The image on Commons was initially tagged for speedy deletion, but a quick inspection of its source (a Youtube screen capture from news outlet Kalinga TV) shows it was a valid use of that organization's CC-BY licensed video. Instead of just removing the speedy deletion template, I formally nominated it for deletion, simply to let the process validate that it was OK to keep in Commons. So while I was both the nominator for deletion, and the one who put it in the infobox here, I maintain that the image is valid and should be kept. So that might help explain the odd paradox that I both nomindated it for deletion and used the image. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Background

(Redacted) - I guess it is a WP:COPYVIO actually. See page history to read. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shaheen of Iqbal: I do not think that this information is particularly relevant to this accident. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, many media outlets see it as relevant and we go by what the sources say. Shaheen of Iqbal (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This is missing the point. When we do not know the reason for accident yet, it is stupid to blame British infrastructure. Further, accidents due to falls from trains and collisions between trains and people on the track are completely irrelevant to this case. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shaheen of Iqbal: The article also mentions "Later this year, the country will open Chenab Bridge – the world’s tallest railway bridge – in the country’s Jammu and Kashmir region.". May be that also counts for the background section then? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You can tell that to the CNN. No one is blaming nobody. It clearly states them to be "factors often cited in accidents" occured previously. The same way Pakistan is blamed on articles for every terrorist attack in India even before the investigation is completed and without evidence, it is completely relevant to mention the 2021 figures. Shaheen of Iqbal (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with @CX Zoom here – this commentary seems a bit too far afield and preachy to be included in the background, especially with the gratuitous reference to British colonial rule and the lack of connection to "falls from trains and collisions between trains and people on the track." In the spirit of WP:BRD and not edit warring, it's best to discuss this on the talk page and not keep adding it in. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Major news sources in India using "Odisha" as the location

The major India news outlets are either using "Odisha" or some variation of "Odisha's Balasore" in the headline, indicating that "Balasore" is probably not generally recognizable as a location even for those in India. Top headlines include:

• Odisha train accident: 70 dead, over 350 injured as trains derail in Balasore [1]
• Photos: 70+ killed, over 600 injured in Balasore triple train crash in Odisha [2]
• Odisha train accident live updates | 70 killed, 350 injured in Balasore district [3]
• Coromandel Express collides with goods train in Odisha's Balasore; 132 injured, several killed [4]
• Odisha: 70 dead, over 350 injured after 3 trains collide near Bahanaga station in Balasore [5]
• Odisha Train Accident LIVE: Over 50 Dead, 600 Injured As Trains Collide; NDRF Teams at Site, Rescue Ops Underway [6]

Given WP:COMMONNAME, I'm going to be bold and move the article name to 2023 Odisha train collision. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes odisha is the name of the state where the incident took place.

Wikipedia - Odisha

And Balasore is a city in Odisha.

You did the correct job. 2023 Odisha train accident seems accountable.

Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Would we write "Tennessee train collission" if it happened near Knoxville? Balasore is a town of almost 150.000 inhabitants. Matthiasb (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

One cannot just go by raw city numbers, however. Countries like India and China are massive. While Knoxville is the 127th largest city in the United States, Balasore as a city of 150,000 in India makes it only the 407th most populous city in India. Those headlines from news outlets in India led with Odisha for a reason. FWIW, we have 2023 Ohio train derailment as the title for that large scale disaster, and not 2023 East Palestine rail derailment. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This crash happened in Balasore district, but not in Balasore city. It's the only notable train crash in the district, but not the only one in Odisha. Using Balasore in the title is better because it's much more precise & avoids the need for the year to be in it. A significant minority of Indian mainstream news outlets are using Balasore in their titles. Sources in other countries don't because the vast majority of people outside India haven't heard of the city or district. Most of those use India in their titles instead, but we wouldn't consider including India in the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We have WP:COMMONNAME as a policy and I showed the prominent examples above where Odisha-centric headlines comes up at the top of Google News. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not seeing the use of Balasore, without Odisha, being used in the same way. Also, WP:NCEVENTS says to use when/where/what unless "in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." We have not reached the point where "Balasore train collision" is recognizable on its own, so we should have the year in the title. This may change as time goes on. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't dispute that considerably more media articles include Odisha in their titles compared to Balasore, but some use Balasore without Odisha. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It may be that over time (perhaps sooner than later) that Balasore becomes more prominent than Odisha, and we can then re-evaluate the title. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

ToDo

The following is a list of things need to be done. I have exams, and would need to log-off. Feel free to do these if you can, else I would try to attend these issues about 2 weeks later (or earlier only if I can get any time).

• Use a newer source in "Response" section. The cited info is now outdated, and more happened in later stages as more NDRP teams, and even Army troops, and Air Force helicopters were called in for rescue operation. Apparently, forces were also sent from West Bengal.
• Passengers taken to hospitals in various districts of Odisha, and in West Bengal isn't mentioned in "Response" section.
• Several other Indian politicians including Railway Minister, and CMs, MPs, etc. of various states expressed condolences. Find a source and add to "Reaction" section.
• Many politicians including PM, Railway minister, Odisha CM, a team under a West Bengal MP, etc. visited the site. Find a source, and add in the "Reaction" section.
• More trains are expected to be cancelled/diverted/short-terminated/rescheduled as tracks aren't cleared yet. Update as required.
• Other states, including Tamil Nadu mourned. The CM cancelled all government events for the birth anniversary of a former CM (his father). BJP also cancelled events marking its 9 years at central government. Add these alongside Odisha in "Aftermath" section, along with other states/polities you might find a source for.

—CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Stationary Freight Train

Is it permissible to wonder if the "Stationary Freight Train" referred to briefly in news articles was "stationary" in the wrong place at the wrong time, and might have caused the accident? I will withdraw this comment if it is out of place. 24.108.18.81 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It is permissible to ask questions here, which is better than adding speculation to the article. We need to be patient and await the release of further information to the media. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest reports say that it started when the express struck the freight, but that this happened because the express was somehow diverted onto the loop-siding where the freight was innocently waiting. 24.108.18.81 (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Improper image

The lead image File:Odisha Train Collision.jpg appears to be improperly downloaded from Twitter and the license information on Commons is inaccurate. I thought the uploader had done their due diligence, but alas they did not. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons and Bagumba has appropriately removed the image here. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: At a minimum, just check if its from FB, IG, or Twitter, as none of those offer free licensing designation on their platform. —Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent title

All the articles about equivalent rail disasters in India have been named "rail disasters". For example, "Firozabad rail disaster", "Khanna rail disaster", "1999 Gaisal train disaster" etc. All of these disasters were caused by collisions too. Hence, to maintain consistency, this article should be named "2023 Odisha train disaster" or "2023 Odisha rail disaster". Aslamulin (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, our NCEVENTS policy says, "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like." If we find that the mainstream media and politicians are predominantly using the term "disaster" then we should follow. But until that happens, we should probably stick to our own guidance. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Titles of train crashes are inconsistent. Should we use crash or collision? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as the word "accident" is not used, as many editors seem to be wantonly applying in the body of the article, I think either are fine. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Check the last para of the introduction in List of railway accidents and incidents in India. Nir007H (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

True, although you'll notice all the articles that have "disaster" in the title are pre-2000 and more than 20 years ago, whereas the "derailment" (Jnaneswari Express train derailment) was in 2010. It's a good illustration that given time and distance, the name that becomes known in the historical record will emerge. It is too early to make that determination for this current article unless we see the mainstream media use the word "disaster" as a label. So far, "accident" and "crash" are prevalent, with no appearance of "disaster" in any headlines I could see in Google News. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of those injured

NBC News[7] has given a specific number for those injured;

 At least 288 people died on Friday and 747 were injured when two passenger trains derailed, trapping people under mangled coaches and flipped rail cars, Indian Railways said Saturday afternoon.[8]

Should this replace the estimated 900 throughout the article? DS_X1 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is better to stick to the generally agreed number, currently 900. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC News said, hours ago: "more than 1,000";
and wrote, 5 hours ago: "At least 288 people were killed and 1,000 injured";
31 minutes ago: "At least 288 people were killed and more than 800 injured" ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

4 hours ago it reads: "Meanwhile the death toll has been revised down to 275 after some bodies were counted twice, officials said. // Of the 1,175 injured people taken to hospital, 793 have been discharged. Some families are still searching for their loved ones." ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 15:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Archiving of external video

I added two external videos, is there a way to archive it properly? @Fuzheado: can you help? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove the NDTV one? It's closely accurate but not totally. The second train Bengaluru-Howrah superfast express is shown to arrive AFTER first collision, however these 2 had already crossed and last 3 boggies of Superfast had suffered. This is mostly because the animation was done before the Railway Board Briefing on 4th June's briefing. Obscure edits (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I notice someone has added a simplified diagram instead, so the animation might not be needed any longer. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also the wrong way round - a mirror image of the simplified diagram which is correct, so it's potentially confusing. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

train drivers and guards names still not available

train drivers and guards names still not available 103.252.26.115 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC) these people also dead in accident?

We don't need this information in the article. See WP:BLP1E. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Wrongly veered into the loop"

How was it possible for the signal to display one route and the points to be set to another? "Veered" makes it sound like the driver had a steering wheel. Thoughts? SN54129 11:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Veered is the term used in RSs. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, by the ToI, which I note also uses the word entered ([9]). 'Entered' is clearly the more encyclopedic term and less prone to misunderstanding. It is also used by a plethora of other sources ([10],[11],[12],[13], etc), so we'll change it now. SN54129 13:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In 'Investigation section:

"...was initially given the signal to proceed on the main line it was coming on. However, for unknown reasons, the signal was then taken off for the main line and the route was switched to a loop line that is adjacent to the main line."

I know that's what's being reported in some outlets, but it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with information from elsewhere, which suggests the detection (system for indicating which way the points are set to the interlocking and the operator) of the points was bypassed in error, effectively the interlocking was being told the points were set 'straight' for along the main line, when in fact they were set 'turnout' into the loop (where the freight train was). Because the interlocking had the wrong information, it would allow the signal to clear for route along the main line. The driver would have known nothing about it unless/until they saw the points set wrongly just before they reached them, even then they may not have seen them and been unaware until the loco lurched to the left.

There is video playback of the interlocking event recorder around on the net (Twitter I think), that clearly shows routes being set and signals clearing for the straight routes. Despite the complete destruction of the points in question during the derailment, the 'detection' was never lost, the only reason for that is the equipment on the ground wasn't actually being detected, ie it's bypassed. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is not a reliable source, but this Tweet gives a plausible explanation as to the cause of the accident. Can we find any RSs that are backing it up? Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Odisha Train Collision In Balasore.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wording

"The Shalimar-Chennai Coromandel Express had received signal indication to move on to the mainline towards Chennai"

Just want to be sure about what happened in the "Crash" section of the article. Was this train already traveling on the mainline? The graphic seems to show that, and then the sentence after stating that it was switched onto the loop/siding implies that. If that is the case, "move on to" probably needs to be changed to "proceed" along the mainline toward Chennai. As currently written, it's not as clear as it could be an almost kind of implies that we're dealing with a third line, here, which I'm not sure is the case. Criticalthinker (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Death toll

I read somewhere that Indian government is trying to hide the death toll for saving the compensation money to be given to victims. There were a lot of labourers which had no reservations in the train and their bodies are not properly counted. The government is only counting the people who had their tickets booked. However I cannot find much to prove this. zoglophie 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Purely my pov, but if someone was riding illegally and possible unsafely, why should they get any compensation? WWGB (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think compensation is the issue - the issue is the true death toll: The authorities initially put the death toll at 288 but later revised it down to 275. The explanation they gave was that some bodies had been counted twice. However, there has been speculation that some victims without tickets were removed from the total in order to reduce the compensation bill. The article can only state the revised figure of 275 as that is the total now reported in reliable sources. Stanley Oliver (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "anti-collision" system in railways

I've seen mention of such a system on several sources, but such a system does not exist and never existed in railways. Perhaps the original author was just referring to the signalling system itself (meaning points, train detection, interlocking). Eventually one could think of ATP (automatic train protection), which essentially is a system mitigating the risk of train driver error. The term "anti collision" makes people think of something like a radar, used in aircraft or eventually in automobiles... would be useless on trains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.172.143 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

They are almost certainly speaking of automatic train protection. I agree that that would be better wording and those would be helpful edits. At the same time, I think most readers would know what is meant, so it's not something so ambiguous or even incorrect that it would warrant the kind of admonishment you've given. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It also wouldn't help in this circumstance, since the same fault which allowed the green signal with the points wrongly set would also prevent an overlaid protection system from stopping the train. UK ATP and TPWS get their information from the signal wiring, they aren't completely separate duplicated signalling systems because their aim is only to prevent or at least mitigate driver error.

Any system is only as good as the information provided to it, in this case it looks like someone made a mistake and bypassed the points detection input to the interlocking. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Also not an RS, but the following has been posted on a UK rail forum, allegedly copied from a Facebook post.

"This accident happened after reconnection of maintenance work where maintainer unintentionally bypassed point NWKR instead of any LC boom related relay where the actual maintenance was going on, resulting the signal was clear for up main line with facing point reverse (in actual this should been Normal but due to loop at location interlocking system detected it as normal and signal cleared for max permissible speed) and this lead to passenger train collided Up loop goods train and bogies of UP main train jumped to Down main line and hit to last bogie of another running train which was running parallel to it. The mistake from Maintainer happened due to wrong nomenclature at location (This information I have received from my sources, validity of this will be subject to any final report published )"

It would appear that this had been written (and/or translated) by someone whose first language isn't English, but it makes sense and fits with the playback video in the tweet.

The last sentence before the disclaimer reads as though there was an error in the drawings which has possibly mislead a technician and caused the wrong bit of equipment to be bypassed.

I think the pure technical cause will now be well known and understood internally, the focus will be on why, and who, what procedures weren't followed etc.

Some poor soul is going to be carrying the weight of all those deaths on their shoulders for a lifetime, just to put a human perspective on it. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, an ATP wouldn't have avoided the accident if the cause was a failure in maintenance.

It is very much possible, for instance, to reconnect a point in a way its actual position is the reverse of what is read back to the interlocking. Normal maintenance procedure calls for a final acceptance check before the route goes back into operation. Thats where you would detect that kind of failure. 79.226.172.143 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's happened in the UK too (points wiring transposed), fortunately without serious consequences. Odisha is slightly different, in that rather than swapping the detection over, I'm reading the available information as that, owing to work being done which would affect the system, someone has decided to temporarily bypass an interlocking input (because the legitimate connection would be disconnected), but that they have bypassed the wrong thing - points instead of level crossing barrier.

Two questions which are relevant - if the work had been completed the temporary arrangement should have been removed, and also that as the points were actually set Reverse (for the loop), that input would also have been sent to the interlocking as well as the 'false' Normal. Very often there is checking within the interlocking that only one condition is present, since to have both at the same time is an obvious fault condition, this then invalidates the information such that neither condition is accepted, and the signal is held at Red. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "anti-collision system" sounds familiar, but has no meaning in railways. I was asked if they have radar... so I guess its indeed ambigous. 79.226.172.143 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So, undetected faulty wiring of points and signalling system then? Shades of the Clapham Junction rail crash? Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

'Shades of', yes, but also quite a lot of differences. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have looked for information on this 'anti collision system' (Raksha Kavach). It appears to use GPS to broadcast the position of trains such that two are prevented from approaching each other too closely, so it is not a 'simple' overlay system driven by the signalling - but there must be input from the signalling system in order to prevent 'false positives' - activating the brakes when there is no need to do so.

The system is able to determine which line a train is on via GPS, transmitters are sited at both ends of a train and the system monitors proximity. So, it works well for head-on and tail-end collision caused by driver error (passing signal at danger). In the case of Odisha, it wouldn't have been able to predict the last minute switching of the express to the loop, it would have become aware of that at around the same time the driver did so it wouldn't have helped. There are now political debates in India regarding non-installation of 'Kavach' and blaming this incident on that lack and it's probably going to become a major issue for political reasons, even though it's irrelevant in this case. A pity if it overshadows determination and dissemination of the real cause. 146.90.71.128 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2023 (withdrawn)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 90.255.15.152 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Odisha train collision → Odisha rail disaster – Consistency. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DISASTER: "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like." WWGB (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Firozabad rail disaster

  Khanna rail disaster

  1999 Gaisal train disaster

  Quintinshill rail disaster 90.255.15.152 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unless it becomes the common name. Move to Balasore train crash due to accuracy & concision. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DISASTER as mentioned by WWGB. iWillBanU (User:Mattx8y) ^{what did i fuck up now} 13:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WWGB. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DISASTER, which flatly contradicts the Op's nomination reason. This can now be closed due to the nomination itself being erroneous, I suggest. SN54129 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:SNOW close. This article doesn't need an RM banner on it for 7 days. IP please register an account. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as too early to determine if the target became the predominant usage WP:UCRN. The current title satisfies WP:NCE. Balasore train * seems not to be the common reference by the majority of the RS as opposed to Odisha train * — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DISASTER. The same IP made a move request here to The Weeknd, and was not moved as WP:SNOW. Same might happen here. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  That was not me Special:Diff/1154951399 90.255.15.152 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Disaster is objectively (OED) "a calamitous event, especially one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship, as a flood, airplane crash, or business failure." I think the loss of life here is "great" and the speeds of the vehicles speak to a calamity. I own two classic works on railway accidents: O. S. Nock's "Historic Railway Disasters" (London:Arrow Books (1978), but originally pub. Ian Allen 1966), in the preface to which Nock departs from his own title, talking of collisions and accidents for the most part; and L. T. C. Rolt's "Red For Danger", which is subtitled "A History of Railway Accidents and Railway Safety Practices" (London:Pan Books (1966), but originally pub. John Lane The Bodley Head 1955). I recommend the use of "accident" or "collision" as the least sensational words; then "crash"; then "disaster". "Catastrophe", "calamity" and "tragedy" are on the sensational side. Jeepvee (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RDT of the involved station

22B 22A 20B 21B 24Y 24X 17B 18B 17A 18A 16B 16A

The accident was said to be triggered by the point "17A". Johnson.Xia (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Two pictures of Modi

Two pictures of Modi mourning seems like undue weight in an article with only four figures, especially when they are the only photos in the article. Dcs002 (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The second photo in particular tells us nothing new and is not descriptive of the overall situation. However, the article begs for more illustrative photography overall. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should not put undue weight on photographs of the PM in this article. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "See also" section

Can we please not bloat this with lots of links to unrelated incidents. I've removed the tsunami train wreck link. There is nothing in common between the two events there. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal - add the Harrow and Wealdstone rail crash to the "See also section". Is there consensus for this? Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

How about other three-train crashes, such as the Clapham Junction rail crash? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I am against mentioning any of these seemingly related accidents. There are no objective criteria to determine which accidents should be mentioned and which shouldn't. Who decides which accidents are similar?

If there are reliable und relevant sources that compare two accidents we can describe in the article body what makes them similar and why they are compared. A "See also" section provides no such context. Are the readers supposed to find out the connection between these accidents themselves? The links to the lists are fine but we should not bloat this section with an arbitrary collection of other accidents. --PhiH (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)