Talk:Big Bayou Canot train disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
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 |
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request. |
 |
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request. |
Is it Conot or Canot?. I wrote this article and the World Almanac says Conot, more Google hits on Canot though 129.177.61.124 10:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I say it's Canot, I'm from Mobile, and the name sounds much more familiar.
The NTSB uses "Canot" in its report on the accident ( http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1994/RAR9401.htm ), as do other news sources referring to the incident. Almost all Google hits for "Conot" are from Wikipedia's mirrors. Therefore I believe "Conot" is a mistake.
[edit] Analysis
I don't see the basis for this article including "it is likely that the size and number of barges pushed by one tug had increased over time in excess of what the bridge could handle in a collision" added by User:Tabletop in the analysis portion of the article.
I am not aware of any changes in the loading criteria for barge impact on railroad bridges -- is there really a factual justification for this comment (if so, eliminate the "it is likely...") or is this pure speculation which doesn't belong in this article? —Mmathu (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
