This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
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)reply
@
Heb the best and
Mjroots: 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)reply
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)reply
(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)reply
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)reply
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:
[1]. 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)reply
Other media reports (eg. from
DR[2]) 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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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. DaßWölf20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
Wind data have been released:
[3] 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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?
Tammbecktalk20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply