Talk:2004 Sri Lanka tsunami train wreck

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka High‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka 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.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster ?

Is it appropriate to call this a rail disaster? There was nothing wrong with the train or its operation. Were those killed by the tsunami while on vacation part of a hotel disaster? Would Queen of the Sea tsunami incident be more accurate?--Wickifrank (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. To be honest at first I was really certain it wasn't a rail disaster. Then I thought about it and thought, why not? But then i decided that it isn't really a rail disaster at all. It's been two years since you've asked the question so maybe time to move it? Cls14 (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of train

When I initially created this article I provided Samudradevi as the local name of the train, with no attribution as to what language it is. Someone has since ascribed this as being the Tamil name, but given the part of the island the train was running in I would have thought it was more likely to be in Sinhalese. Can someone provide definite information either way? -- Arwel 03:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am Sri Lankan (Sinhalese). Samudradevi is a Sinhalese word. It may mean the same thing in Tamil as well - I don't know Tamil.

Name of the train is not Queen of the Sea (or in Sinhalese Samudra devi), it had no name its identified as train no 8050. --නිපුන දොඩන්තැන්න (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

It is somewhat mysterious that so many people died on this train. The Head Guard (one of the few survivors) has reported that the train was halted for 20 minutes after the first wave struck. The third wave (20 minutes after the first) was the massive one which caused the deaths). The driver stayed in his compartment, apparently waiting for orders, but he had no mobile phone. It is said that there was a lagoon on the land side of the train, so that an exit in that direction wouldn't have been easy. Whatever the reasons, there appears to have been a feeling among the passengers that they would be safe if they stayed on the train.

They were tragically wrong. When the tsunami struck it said to have been 20 feet high, not as high as the 30-foot wave which hit the South-east coast of the island and, also, the train was 200 metres inland. It is likely that if passengers had got off the train and taken shelter on the landward side of it would have had a better chance of survival. The compartments filled with water instantaneously and most drowned inside. Even swimmers had little chance within a closed space.

Sena Fernando http://www.bestlanka.com

Double counting

Perhaps, to avoid misleading the statistics, this accident should be mentioned as a train accident, but should be counted as a tsunami accident. Tabletop 04:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this

Since the disaster some local people have claimed that their relatives would not have died if the train hadn't been there because they would have headed to higher ground instead and described the train as a "curse" on the town.

"Instead" of what? I don't understand what this sentence is getting at. Are the local people claiming the train passengers would not have died if they weren't on the train? --Doradus (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that the local people who were not on the train went to the train to help/talk to people. If the train hadn't have been there then the local people would have cleared off. Cls14 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The train stopped at unusual place due to first tsunami wave. People claiming that official have to reverse the train to last stop Ambalangoda or move ahead to next stop Hikkaduwa as those stations were not affected much from tsunami. --නිපුන දොඩන්තැන්න (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that people sought shelter from the oncoming waves by climbing atop or hiding behind the train, which they believed was fastened to the rails securely enough to withstand the tsunami; as it played out, however, they were tragically wrong. The complaint is that, if the train weren't there, those people would not have tried using it defensively and would have instead fled to higher ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.114.2 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Samudradevi

Samudradevi (Queen of Seas) is the office train which runs between Colombo and Galle on all the week days. Morning from Galle to Colombo and evening from Colombo to Galle. It does not run on weekends and Public Holidays, though on Saturday same train makes a journey to Colombo from Galle with less compartments, but that one is not called Samudradevi.

The railway disaster happened on a Sunday and a Public holiday (boxing day) and the train which was distroyed by the tsunami was running from Colombo to Galle in the morning and the time was around 9:30 or 10:00 am., when it was striked by tsunami in Thelwaththa, Paraliya. This one is a special train that runs on holidays and weekends

Its not a special train. Its a daily running train called Train no. 8050. Not Samudra devi. --නිපුන දොඩන්තැන්න (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar isn't second highest

I could be wrong about this, but according to List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Rail accidents and disasters, there were other rail accidents that had higher death tolls 108.75.255.42 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fatalaties

Why does it say "at least 1,700+"? If there were about 1,500 paying passengers in the beginning, and then people got on and off the train at stations and there was an unknown number of unpaid passengers, and about 150 survived, then why 1,700 at least? The only known number is 900 recovered bodies, so this is the lower limit. It has to be "at least 900" and "probably / possibly 1,700 or more". --92.73.29.235 (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]