Talk:Malbone Street Wreck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
Contents |
[edit] Deadly crash
- It was the most deadly rapid transit railroad wreck in world history, until the Amagasaki rail crash in Japan on 2005-04-25.
This is incorrect. If the Amagasaki rail crash (107 killed) is also considered rapid transit, then so should the Yokohama rail crash in 1963 be, where 161 people were killed. They were the same types of trains (commuter trains). I shall remove this sentence. -- KittySaturn 14:49, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
[edit] Recent additions
An editor added the following unsourced information, which I have reverted given the lack of a source. Marc Shepherd 21:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] December 1st, 1974
On December 1st, 1974 a train of R32's were running on ther present day Franklin SHuttle. The lead car failed to negtiotate a switch and train hit the same spot as the 1918 wreck. Car 3669 was damaged and could not be repaired. Service was suspended for a few hours, and single-track operation was run at night. Service was fully restored the next day.
-
- This is backed up by http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=796509, though not in as much detail. Zenyu 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2005
Last year a 2 car set of R68's crashed into the wall close to the 2 previous 2 accidents. No one was injured or killed.
[edit] Speed of Train
On 31 July 2006, user 64.115.206.253 edited the page changing the stated speed of the train from "an estimated 30-40 mph" to 70mph (a barely believable figure which probably far exceeds what these trains were capable of). Other webpages on this topic agree with the original figure of 30-40. I have therefore reverted these changes. TomH 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a sensible reversion. Marc Shepherd 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- FYI, the 70 mph figure is mentioned in this contemporary New York Times article. It's presented without qualification in the headline, but the body of the article makes it clear that it's just a claim made by "a naval officer who was a passenger". (The squeamish beware: the description of the accident in that article is gruesome.) —Eric S. Smith 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
