# Bullet train wrecks.



## Jim G. (Jul 23, 2011)

SHANGHAI — At least 11 people have died after two high-speed trains crashed into each other in China's eastern province of Zhejiang on Saturday, causing two carriages to fall off a bridge, state news agency Xinhua said.

Another 89 people have been sent to hospital.

In earlier reports, the Chinese D train was travelling from the capital city of Hangzhou to Wenzhou when it lost power due to a lightning strike, The Telegraph in London reported.

A second train collided from behind, pushing the D train's cars off the bridge about 8:30 p.m., according to the state news agency.

Four cars on the second train also derailed but no further details were available, Xinhua reported


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 23, 2011)

This comes as no surprise whatsoever since the thing is in China. From day 1 that system was a major disaster waiting to happen. I'd feel safer riding the oldest trapped out Amtrak Baggage car than anything in China.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 23, 2011)

A little more info:

The location is stated to be at Wenzhou which is south of Shanghai along the coast, assuming there is not another Wenjhou on a high speed railway line somewhere else. Looking at the China Railway system map on wikimedia, I do not see another Wenjhou. Looking at the same map, the line is shown as being a 200 km/h to 250 km/h speed new line between Ningbo (near Shanghai) and Xaimen as part of a Shanghai to Shenzhen (opposite Hong Kong) line. The second train was stated as being a Beijing to Shanghai train, which makes no sense for a location south of Shanghai. The time was stated as being around 8:30 Saturday evening, which would be 8:30 EST Saturday morning in the US.

I am not going to speculate out loud about what went haywire.

I would rather ride a train in China than an internal airline flight in China.


----------



## Spokker (Jul 23, 2011)

George Harris said:


> I would rather ride a train in China than an internal airline flight in China.


I'd just rather not be in China.

The rise of China has been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## nolatron (Jul 23, 2011)

George Harris said:


> I am not going to speculate out loud about what went haywire



Few articles are saying lightning struck a train and disabled power on it. A 2nd train came from behind and struck it.



> The accident, the first major mishap to hit China's fast-expanding high-speed railway network, took place after one bullet train lost power after being struck by lightning, and was subsequently rear-ended by another train, the official Xinhua agency reported.





> China's state-run Xinhua news agency said an older generation bullet train was hit by lightning late Saturday while traveling between the provincial capital of Hangzhou to the city of Wenzhou in the country's eastern Zhejiang province.
> They said the disabled train was then hit by a second high-speed train, forcing two of its rail cars off a bridge.


Death toll is up to 32 as well.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 23, 2011)

George Harris said:


> A little more info:
> 
> The location is stated to be at Wenzhou which is south of Shanghai along the coast, assuming there is not another Wenjhou on a high speed railway line somewhere else. Looking at the China Railway system map on wikimedia, I do not see another Wenjhou. Looking at the same map, the line is shown as being a 200 km/h to 250 km/h speed new line between Ningbo (near Shanghai) and Xaimen as part of a Shanghai to Shenzhen (opposite Hong Kong) line. The second train was stated as being a Beijing to Shanghai train, which makes no sense for a location south of Shanghai. The time was stated as being around 8:30 Saturday evening, which would be 8:30 EST Saturday morning in the US.
> 
> ...


According to Xinhua one of the trains was a Hangzhou to Fuzhou in Fujian Province train and the second (the one that was not disabled) was heading from Beijing to Fuzhou.

Outside of a four hour ATC delay on a flight from Xiamen to Shanghai I never had an issue on the several Chinese domestic flights I have taken. Though twice I was on China HSR train that broke down one from Shanghai to Nanjing and the other from Hangzhou to Shanghai. While very impressive I'm wary of the HSR for some other reasons relating to the scandal surrounding the former HSR chief.



Spokker said:


> I'd just rather not be in China.
> 
> The rise of China has been greatly exaggerated.


Great thing is you never have to be in China. However, the rise of China has not been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 23, 2011)

Here's link to latest update, 32 people killed, at least.

http://news.yahoo.com/least-11-dead-trains-collide-eastern-china-155440905.html

Maybe someone here can explain why there wasn't a safety provision to stop all trains in the case of a power outage somewhere along the line?

The latest story said the lightening strike knocked out safety provisions to stop trains, but that doesn't seem to make total sense?


----------



## NY Penn (Jul 23, 2011)

LA Resident said:


> Here's link to latest update, 32 people killed, at least.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.co...-155440905.html
> 
> ...


Well, we know how reliable China's news reports are, so....


----------



## Anderson (Jul 23, 2011)

*sighs* Napierville. This is Napierville, almost to a "t". 64 years later, but the incident profile is almost identical. Mind you, this isn't to deny the 79 MPH speed limit, but where was the damn ATS with a super-fast train like that?

Edit: To be clear, I suspect that the Chinese aren't using any form of ATS on their HSR lines...which is just plain stupid from top to bottom.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 23, 2011)

nolatron said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to speculate out loud about what went haywire
> ...


The question is why the second train did not stop. It should have under any normal signal and train control system used anywhere. The why for that is what I don't want to make guesses about.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 23, 2011)

tp49 said:


> According to Xinhua one of the trains was a Hangzhou to Fuzhou in Fujian Province train and the second (the one that was not disabled) was heading from Beijing to Fuzhou.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Jul 23, 2011)




----------



## Anderson (Jul 24, 2011)

George Harris said:


> nolatron said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


Well, you've basically got two possibilities:

1) The Chinese aren't using ATS. Incredibly stupid, but might be the case if some dolt decided to cut corners.

2) The ATS failed and they didn't issue a slow order when it went down (say, cutting the top operating speed to 120 MPH or less). Also incredibly stupid, but quite believable...I'd bet on either untrained dispatchers or a _very_ bad mentality in the dispatching office on this one.

In short, someone screwed up royally.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 24, 2011)

If or when they figure out who screwed up, and how (and why), what will that person's/those persons' likely fate be? A date with a firing squad?


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 24, 2011)

_These 3 grafs from NY Times tell you all you didn't really want to know about Chinese safety measures..._

Other reports on the site said the ministry was burying the wrecked trains near the site, prompting critics to say that the wreckage should have been carefully examined for causes of the malfunction. The Railway Ministry said the trains contained valuable “national level” technology that could be stolen and thus had to be buried — even though foreign companies have long complained that the technology was actually stolen from their trains.

More confusion emerged over efforts to portray nature as the culprit in the accident. Xinhua reported Saturday that the first train lost power when it was hit by lightning, and national television broadcasts emphasized pictures of lightning storms in the area. But later reports by Xinhua said the supposedly stalled train was under way when it was struck by the other train. Also left unexplained was why railway signals did not stop the second train before it hit the first one.

An editorial titled “No Development Without Safety” on People’s Net, the government-run Web site affiliated with the party’s leading newspaper, People’s Daily, said the Railway Ministry had warned of the risks of lightning in a notice four days before the crash. It said new procedures were needed to prevent accidents. But it noted that these measures had not been put into effect, implying that the railway had no emergency plans in place for trains struck by lightning.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 24, 2011)

Possibly, but probably not (so long as there wasn't corruption involved..._that_ gets you a date in a heartbeat). More likely a very disgraced firing. That said, if they _did_ plan for ATS and there was a scheme to cut the system and pocket the cash, those squads might be having more dates than a Times' Square hooker on a Friday night.


----------



## eagle628 (Jul 24, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Possibly, but probably not (so long as there wasn't corruption involved..._that_ gets you a date in a heartbeat). More likely a very disgraced firing. That said, if they _did_ plan for ATS and there was a scheme to cut the system and pocket the cash, those squads might be having more dates than a Times' Square hooker on a Friday night.


Three people fired already, who are "subject to investigation." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/chinese-toddler-rescued-train-crash


----------



## Anderson (Jul 24, 2011)

eagle628 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly, but probably not (so long as there wasn't corruption involved..._that_ gets you a date in a heartbeat). More likely a very disgraced firing. That said, if they _did_ plan for ATS and there was a scheme to cut the system and pocket the cash, those squads might be having more dates than a Times' Square hooker on a Friday night.
> ...


Well, that was quick. Can't wait to see the outcome of _this_ little show.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 24, 2011)

Someone will be blamed. That is a cultural and political necessity.

Just because someone is charged does not mean that particular person had anything whatsoever to do with the problem. They would simply be the person nearest to the problem that did not have enough clout or information on the higher ups to save their own bacon.

Note in the pictures that the track is ballasted, not concrete slab based.

The location is about *edit to correct distance: 603 km = 375 miles by rail* south of Shanghai on the line along the coast that is shown as being a 200 to 250 km/h line, so it is not one of the top level high speed lines.

It is not just the Chinese that bury their mistakes. Several years back a Baltic Sea ferry that sank was covered with concrete rather than being pulled up and the problems investigated. The determination to do a detailed analysis of the problems, causes, and how to prevent recurrance seems to be primarily American and those that are willing to or choose to learn from us.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2011)

George Harris said:


> The determination to do a detailed analysis of the problems, causes, and how to prevent recurrance seems to be primarily American and those that are willing to or choose to learn from us.


Actually the Brits are pretty good at it too. The investigation of the mysterious crashes of Comet 1s come to mind.



Anderson said:


> *sighs* Napierville. This is Napierville, almost to a "t". 64 years later, but the incident profile is almost identical. Mind you, this isn't to deny the 79 MPH speed limit, but where was the damn ATS with a super-fast train like that?


That would be "Naperville" on the CB&Q (now BNSF) triple track railroad heading west from Chicago.



> Edit: To be clear, I suspect that the Chinese aren't using any form of ATS on their HSR lines...which is just plain stupid from top to bottom.


According to their literature they are using an ATS system design based on ERTMS 2 (actually a version of ERTMS 2 produced in China ostensibly under license from Siemens, with "improvements"). The two questions in my mind are:

1. Is it deployed on this second tier HSR? Maybe it is maybe it isn't. I don;t know. Incidentally, before we go all high and mighty on criticizing China, train operate in the UK at 200kph on many segments protected only by cab signal and warning system, no ATS. So if that bothers you stop riding trains in the UK too.

2. Don't know what the "improvements" incorporated in ERTMS 2 are. If said improvement includes removal of fail safe features for failure modes, to improve "efficiency", that could lead to such events too.

An ATS system is supposed to fail to a safe mode. I.e. failure will lead to automatic speed reduction and eventually fail to "stop" mode. That is why absence of any pulse code in continuous coded track circuit based systems codes restricting speed.

Anyway, as stated by others the lack of transparency in China will probably cause the results of the investigation to be not published except in a very whitewashed form. So we'll probably never know for sure what happened.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 25, 2011)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The determination to do a detailed analysis of the problems, causes, and how to prevent recurrance seems to be primarily American and those that are willing to or choose to learn from us.
> ...


Very true. Failed to give credit where credit is due.

The Chinese government is circling the wagons. From Rueters:



> "The major theme for the Wenzhou bullet train case from now on will be known as 'in the face of great tragedy, there's great love'," the department said, according to a copy of the directives posted on a web site called the "ministry of truth", that regularly posts copies of government orders.


*"Ministry of Truth"* George Orwell's 1984 in action. 



> "Do not question, do not elaborate."
> Reporters with state media who saw the directives confirmed to Reuters the propaganda department's media guidance on the crash.
> 
> The department also told media not to "investigate the cause of the accident", and reminded journalists that "the word from the authorities is all-prevailing".


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2011)

Yeah, I think that the coverup and lack of any transparency is even more damning than the original incident in my mind.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 25, 2011)

This is a new line. The station for Wenzhou is Wenzhou South and is on the south side of the city. It appears that one or both trains were running late looking at the schedule. The departure times at Wenzhou South were supposed to be:

.D381....19:08

D3123....19:38

*.D301....19:44*

*D3115....19:59*

D3121....20:25

Thus, train D301 was supposed to be in front of the train it hit.  On the other hand, if on time it should have been close behind train D3123.

On the assumption that the vehicles are the same or close to the Shinkansen cars in dimensions, that is 25.0 meters over couplers, 24.5 m over the body and 17.50 m truck centers, it wold appears reaonable to say that the deck of the structure was around 18 meters above the ground, that is, about 60 feet.

A look at google maps was insufficient to determine with any assurance the location of the crash, but a location a few km north of Wenzhou South station might fit what is seen in the pictures. This would make all trains involved behind schedule. Not by much by Amtrak long distance standards, but not acceptable for what is supposed to be the nation's best foot forward.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 25, 2011)

*sighs* As much of a fan as I am of HSR, I'd like to see a _very_ nasty international bad note dropped on this horse-you-know-what (i.e. "Yet another Chinese coverup").

Also, George, I'm willing to bet that the ATS probably wasn't properly tested out. It's probable that they gave some of the lines the bum's rush in what could politely be called "over eagerness".


----------



## tp49 (Jul 26, 2011)

George, delays and equipment problems have been a massive issue on CHR services particularly on the recently opened Shanghai-Beijing service. Having been on both CHR and Taiwan HSR the Taiwanese operation is far better run than its mainland counterpart.

I am also willing to speculate that the Chinese government will find a way to tie the failure into the impending bribery trial of the former head of the Railway Ministry and make him the big scapegoat for everything. As they say it's just another day in the PRC.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 26, 2011)

tp49 said:


> George, delays and equipment problems have been a massive issue on CHR services particularly on the recently opened Shanghai-Beijing service. Having been on both CHR and Taiwan HSR the Taiwanese operation is far better run than its mainland counterpart.


No accident at all. Taiwan is an open society. And, the systems, that is track, eqipment, signals, and communications were contracted to a Japanese consotorium. The Japanese Railway Technical Service (JARTS) was heavily involved. These are some truly impressive people who not only know a tremendous amount about what is being done in the railway world, they know what works, what does not, and why. (The system also had 9 years of me.  )



> I am also willing to speculate that the Chinese government will find a way to tie the failure into the impending bribery trial of the former head of the Railway Ministry and make him the big scapegoat for everything. As they say it's just another day in the PRC.


Sounds about right. The chances of getting to the real bottom of the issue I regard as nil.


----------



## Spokker (Jul 26, 2011)

Taiwan is the China that China could be. They have their own problems, of course, but they are in a much better position to face the future.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 26, 2011)

The Taiwanese system had numerous delays caused by bugs and other issues that turned up during testing. Better to have those problems crop up during testing than after the system is up and running with hundreds if not thousands of passengers' lives possibly at stake at any given moment.

Is it possible that problems similar to the ones the Taiwanese experienced cropped up during testing on the mainland but were either ignored or improperly "corrected"?


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2011)

DET63 said:


> The Taiwanese system had numerous delays caused by bugs and other issues that turned up during testing. Better to have those problems crop up during testing than after the system is up and running with hundreds if not thousands of passengers' lives possibly at stake at any given moment.
> 
> Is it possible that problems similar to the ones the Taiwanese experienced cropped up during testing on the mainland but were either ignored or improperly "corrected"?


Anything is possible and given the traditional Chinese opacity we will possibly never know for sure.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Jul 26, 2011)

Were having a nice conversation over here on CHSR thread....theres now a media blackout.....

China High Speed Rail


----------



## AC4400 (Jul 28, 2011)

I have taken a lot of passenger trains in China, including the high-speed trains (D8 and D11). But I prefer the ordinary trains to the high-speed ones. CRH began service in 2007, and only 4 years later, over 6,000 miles of high-speed rail lines were built. And the Railway Ministry is planning another 10,000 miles in the near 5 years! That's too fast! I strongly doubt the safety measurement of these lines.

More info:

D3115 carried 1072 passengers, while D301 carried 558 passengers on 7/23.

There are two passenger train stations in Wenzhou:

1) Wenzhou Station: In downtown Wenzhou. The depot for 26 daily ordinary trains.

2) Wenzhou South Station: In the southern suburb of the city. The depot for 78 daily high-speed trains.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2011)

I have searched around through multiple sources in an attempt to get somewhere close to accurate information. Here it is for what it is worth:

*General:*

The line is not a dedicated high speed railway, but a mixed purpose new line.

China’s railways operate left-handed despite driving on the right-hand side of roads.

Three railway officials were fired immediately following the accident.

Damaged equipment has been removed, either to Wenzhou South Station or other sites not given.

The line was returned to service on July 25.

Premier Wen Jiabao has promised a full investigation.

The true cause and cascade of events leading to this collision is unlikely to ever be clearly explained, despite the statement made by the Premier.

*The line:*

The line is known as the Yongtaiwen Railway. It opened on September 28, 2009 between Ningbo East and Fuzhou South, 564 km (350 miles). By rail, Ningbo is 333 km (207 miles) south of Shanghai. The line is double track, designed for mixed traffic operation and a maximum passenger train speed of 250 km/h (155 mph). (From timetables and the Railway Gazette)

*Track:* Track is ballasted track, including on long viaducts (based on pictures)

*Train Control System:* The line is equipped with lineside signals overlaid with CTCS-2 to provide automatic train protection. This has a similar functionality to ETCS Level 1, using balises to provide intermittent updates to the on-train equipment. (Source: Railway Gazette)

*Equipment:* (from the Railway Gazette and elsewhere)

Train D3115: The first train, running Hangzhou to Fuzhou. 16-car CRH1-046B EMU

Train D301: The second train, running Beijing to Fuzhou. 16-car CRH2-139E EMU

Passenger loading: 1072 passengers on D3115 and 558 passengers on D301

*Accident location:*

The collision occurred about 4.9 km (3.1 miles) north of Wenzhou South Station. At this location the track is on a 15 to 20 meter (50 to 65 feet) high viaduct located between the crossing of the Oujiang River and a short tunnel through Daping Mountain. (From accident scene photographs and Google maps and aerial views)

Wenzhou South is 270 km (168 miles) south of Ningbo East. (Enter the railroad station name into Google maps and work north along the railroad and you can find the location in the sattelite view that matches the surrounding seen in aerial shots of the accident)

*Pre-accident events and chronology:*

The description and chronology of events leading up to the collision are given by multiple sources, not all of which are in agreement or compatible with each other.

The time of the collision was 8:30pm Saturday July 23, 2011 local time, give or take a few minutes. (This is 8:30am Saturday July 23 US Eastern Time.)

That lightening struck train D3315 as some sources stated, appears to be incorrect. Whether by lightning strike or other cause, there was a signal and train control system failure or malfunction on the northern approach to Wenzhou South, the length of affected area not clearly stated.

The Railway Gazette states, "…train D3115 between Hangzhou and Fuzhou had apparently been brought to a stand by a lightning strike further along the line. Around 20 min later it was hit from the rear by Beijing – Fuzhou train D301…"

From the China Daily of July 28, 2011: "After being struck by lightning, the signal system at the Wenzhou South Railway Station failed to turn one of its green lights to red, which caused the rear-end collision, said An Lusheng, head of the Shanghai Railway Bureau, at an investigatory meeting held by the State Council, or China's cabinet, in Wenzhou."

A more detailed and also fairly reasonable scenario was found, but it does not agree with the statement in the Railway Gazette and elsewhere that train D3115 was stopped for 20 minutes.

This scenario is as follows:

Time	_	Event

19:39 - Signals near Wenzhou South were found to be malfunctioning, all showing red.

19:51 - D3115 arrived at Yongjia (18 km [11 miles] north of Wenzhou South) 4 minutes late

19:53 - A decision was made that the signals were to be over-ridden and manual operation commenced controlled from the Wenzhou South control center

19:55 - Manual operation commenced from Yongjia control center

20:06 - D301 was informed of manual operation and made an unscheduled stop at Yongjia at 20:12 (this would make it approximately 38 minutes late)

20:15 - D3115 departed from Yongjia 27 minutes late, instructed to run past red signals at 20 km/hr (12.4 mph)

20:22 - D301 was given the clear to proceed

20:23 - D3115 reached the start of signal failure area and stopped

20:24 - D301 departed from Yongjia at high speed, with his signals all showing clear (9 minutes after the departure of D3115. This would make it approximately 50 minutes late)

20:25 - D3115 began running towards Wenzhou South at 20 km/h

20:30 - D3115 driver reported a passenger operated emergency stop, unaware that the stop was because his train has just been rear-ended.

Discussion:

Assuming an approximate 4.0 minutes run time for the 4.9 km between the accident point and Wenzhou South Station, at the time of the collision train D3115 would have been 37 minutes late and train D301 would have been 46 minutes late.

Assuming the times in the above chronology are correct, the average speeds over the 14 km between Yongjia and the collision point were:

Train D3115, 15 minutes = 56 km/h = 35 mph

Train D301, 6 minutes = 140 km/h = 87 mph

At impact the train speeds were:

Train D3115: either stopped or 20 km/h, with 20 km/h being more likely.

Train D301: variously reported as being "around 90 km/h" to "very high."

Upon impact, train D301 rode up over the top of train D3115. All cars off the bridge were part of train D301. All cars of train D3115 remained on the structure, with the last car significantly damaged and the top crushed in. The next to last car had significant damage.

The first 3 cars of train D301, including the driving car went completely off the structure to the ground. The fourth car ended up on end leaning against the structure at an angle of about 15 degrees from vertical. The fifth car of D301 stopped about half over the top of the last car of train D3115. This indicates a stopping distance of about 110 meters (360 feet) for train D301.

*Injuries and fatalities:*

Based on the July 28 article in the China Daily reporting Premier Wen Jiabao’s site visit, the official toll has become set at 39 deaths and 192 injuries. These numbers are likely to be significantly understated given the obvious equipment damage and the reported passenger loading. This understatement is probably deliberate since it has been reported that the word has come down that official pronouncements are not to be questioned.

*Other information:*

The accident site was on a viaduct between the Oujiang River and Wenli Expressway to the north and a short tunnel is through the spur of Daping Mountain to the south. Wenzhou South Station is beyond the mountain. There are a sufficient number of unique features to enable precise determination of the location on Google Maps which also enabled the distance from this point to Wenzhou South station to be scaled.

Train schedules can be found on www.chinatrainguide.com/schedule/

enter station names or train numbers to find whatever information you want


----------



## DET63 (Aug 2, 2011)

Thanks to George, we probably "know" about as much about this event as anyone. Of course, given what jis called "Chinese opacity," we can never be sure if what we think we know is the truth.


----------

