Slashdot Mirror


Bullet Train Derails In China

chrb writes "Xinhua is reporting that a Chinese bullet train has derailed, resulting in two of the train's coaches falling off a bridge. This comes only a few months after officials at the Railways Ministry expressed concerns that builders had ignored safety standards in the quest to build faster trains in record time — a claim that was subsequently retracted."

184 comments

  1. Collision by robertl234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to reports, a lightning strike caused the first train to lose power and was subsuequently rear-ended by a second train.

    1. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You and your fancy "facts". Go away, we are trying to get a good rant going on the hubris of Chinese industrialization.

    2. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't there someone in charge of monitoring the position and speed of every train, and communicating to each train whether they should slow down or stop to avoid a collision? If so, that's the system that failed -- not the trains.

    3. Re:Collision by alen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      how come this never happens in the US? all our train accidents are caused by engineers texting their wives and girlfriends

    4. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texting should be banned for the good of humanity

    5. Re:Collision by Aboroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Presumably, there should have been some kind of safety system in place to deal with a relatively common natural phenomenon called lightning. Or, just the amazingly easy to predict general problem of power loss. But clearly, you are correct, the Chinese can do no wrong here.

    6. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Riiiight, it was a "lightning strike" that caused the problems.

      Not like the Chinese would ever release false information to save face or anything, nope, they never do that.

    7. Re:Collision by Keruo · · Score: 1

      Mostly because there aren't trains which travel at/over 200mph in USA
      There are only ongoing plans to renovate rail sections to accomodate those speeds.

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    8. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The standard system for the US and, as far as I know for most of the world, is called "block signals". These red/amber/green lights show if a train is in the section of track ahead and has been used for over a hundred years. Have the designers in China abandoned this?

    9. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most high speed rail isn't suing this system, because at high speeds it's not sufficient.
      On the other hand, this was a 'normal' train, traveling at speeds where block signals are normally in use.
      With a power failure at night, a failed block signal might not be detectable though.
      In France the TGVs carry explosives (fireworks, basically) to put on the rails one kilometer ahead of a failed train, to warn the oncoming train of a problem. This requires getting out of the train and one kilometer ahead of it in time though.

    10. Re:Collision by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it happened on Washington, DC's Metro system two years ago. A problem with a train proximity sensing system resulted in a failure to engage automatic braking on one train when it approached another train farther ahead that had broken down. In that case, there was evidence that the operator, shortly before her death, had attempted to stop her train manually, but didn't have enough advance warning to stop in time. Eight other people were killed, and in response, WMATA ordered operators to run their trains in manual mode at all times.

    11. Re:Collision by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1, Troll

      Isn't there someone in charge of monitoring the position and speed of every train, and communicating to each train whether they should slow down or stop to avoid a collision? If so, that's the system that failed -- not the trains.

      There's an easy way to fix that. Strap a safety engineer, or politician who wants more and faster trains, to the front of every bullet train. I guarantee you that they will find ways to improve the safety and reporting systems.

    12. Re:Collision by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have the designers in China abandoned this?

      No, they just haven't copied it yet.

    13. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Texting should be banned for the good of humanity

      The same could be said about wives and girlfriends.

    14. Re:Collision by phobos512 · · Score: 2

      I know this is /. so you obviously didn't RTFA, but the articles pointed out that these were older D-series trains that only travel around 100 mph (the articles said they top out just shy of 100 mph).

    15. Re:Collision by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      What good is that going to do? You can't stop one of those trains that fast.

    16. Re:Collision by Chep · · Score: 5, Informative

      you can't actually read the signals, when the train travels > 250km/h. Even in 1980, designers of the TGV (270 then, 320-350km/h now) knew this, and the signalling is done using what is called cab-signal, which puts the display within the cabin.

      Some slower but WAY busier lines also need to get away with the old block system, in order to reduce the spacing. In Paris, the two primary suburban lines (RER A and B) use what is called 'permissive' spacing, (SACEM on A, KVBP or KCVP on B), in order to reduce space between trains -- SACEM can space trains under 5 meters apart under stressed conditions.

      But the key point of these advanced signalling systems is that the train-spacing software MUST be perfect. Not just "bug-free, we tested and deployed and ITIL'd the thing to death" but "mathematically proven bug-free". And even that doesn't cut it. Read up on how the SACEM hardware works, for instance. Or on the "Methode B" used to design the SACEM and the SAET (the latter of which powers automatic lines such as M14 and now M1 in Paris. SAET can safely take even a 110 year-old manually driven train within the robotic shuttle traffic, and get everyone safe there).

      Back to China, perhaps the strike broke some communication line, making the position of the stopped train 'unknown'. But if that happened, someone much worse must have happened as well.

      Perhaps, by cutting corners everywhere, they've also cut on the provably bug-free programming which one MUST use to build the train-spacing software. THAT, if that happened, is criminal.

      Perhaps they've cut corners on brakes. Or whatever.

      Hopefully for them, that's a fixable bug....

    17. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because there aren't trains which travel at/over 200mph in USA

      There are only ongoing plans to renovate rail sections to accomodate those speeds.

      Very good point. I was wondering when someone would bring this up.

    18. Re:Collision by milkmage · · Score: 2

      at least it matches the weather report
      http://www.weathercity.com/cn/33/shuangyu/?u=i

    19. Re:Collision by milkmage · · Score: 1

      why waste a train to get it done?

    20. Re:Collision by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      To make it more convincing. They're fiendishly cunning, them there inscrutable orientals.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Collision by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You can see a lit flare from quite a bit of distance, several kilometers away usually.

    22. Re:Collision by ultranova · · Score: 0

      you can't actually read the signals, when the train travels > 250km/h. Even in 1980, designers of the TGV (270 then, 320-350km/h now) knew this, and the signalling is done using what is called cab-signal, which puts the display within the cabin.

      You can simply put several signal posts in a row, and read the red/amber/green streak that goes by the cabin.

      Some slower but WAY busier lines also need to get away with the old block system, in order to reduce the spacing.

      Ah, the good old "throw safety out of the window to increase profits" way of managing things.

      In Paris, the two primary suburban lines (RER A and B) use what is called 'permissive' spacing, (SACEM on A, KVBP or KCVP on B), in order to reduce space between trains -- SACEM can space trains under 5 meters apart under stressed conditions.

      Seeing how this is less than the length of a single train car, why don't you just join the trains? Or build more rails, or if that is impossible, build a subway?

      5 meters is an insanely close spacing even for regular cars in suburban speeds; for trains, it's insane.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Collision by Relayman · · Score: 0

      This is a uninformed comment by an AC so I'm not responding.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    24. Re:Collision by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Then why the need to place them a kilometer away from the train?

    25. Re:Collision by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      Why is apologizing for how underwhelming the US rail system a good point?

      On another point.. there is a huge problem with high speed rail in developed countries. There is a market for moving people from A to B. Creating highspeed trains will displace planes from that market. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe not. Trains make much more sense if they are time competitive (emissions wise). Although the real issue is you end up with plane routes that are cannabilized and underused rail networks.

      So its very possible to end up with two uneconomic transport links. And if the goverement is subsidizing the cost of the construction of the rail network, it makes even less sense. You could just be paying to drive airlines on that route out and have an uneconomic rail link.

      With a socialist / communist goverement central planning lets you make a choice to remove planes from a route and replace it with rail (if that is a better choice). Especially in china which has almost no domestic air travel compared to the USA.

      I think we should definately invest in high speed rail, just pointing out how it probably will not be sucessful :) Goverment competing with private industry is a bad idea. But private industry will never invest in large public works. We wouldnt even have a real road network if it was left to market forces.

    26. Re:Collision by Chep · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You can simply put several signal posts in a row, and read the red/amber/green streak that goes by the cabin.


      well, you can. But the cab-signal system also gives you an advantage, as you have a continuous

      A missed Square (double-red, absolute stop, whatever it is rendered as in your neck of woods) should trigger an immediate emergency stop of all trains in the vicinity, cab-signal or not, anyway.

      <blockquote><blockquote>Some slower but WAY busier lines also need to get away with the old block system, in order to reduce the spacing.</blockquote> <p>Ah, the good old "throw safety out of the window to increase profits" way of managing things.</p></blockquote>
      Well, no. The system removes (actually <b>disables</b> unless a non-equipped or faulty train comes) the static, side-mounted block system; <b>replacing</b> it with a dynamic, moving block system. Each train knows where the previous train is, its own speed (obviously) and the speed of the previous. And of course, the brake distances.

      SACEM (and the like) computes the safe stopping distance, and can cause everything from slowing down all the way to hitting the brakes, in order to keep the safe distance held.

      The "5 meters" (actually, I saw a couple times even closer) obviously can happen only when one train is stopped (in station) and the next train approaches. Nowadays, they've tuned the system with more space, not because it was particularly unsafe, but because it was occasionally freaking out passengers... The damn thing has been working, cramming LOTS of commuter trains daily for 20 years. It's working fine, thank you very much :)

      Now about joining the trains, it might work, until you want to do things such as stop in station or drive fast between the stations...
      Obviously, when trains run their 'normal' 70-80km/h, the software spaces them several hundreds of meters apart. AT LEAST (dunno what the emergency braking distance from 80km/h for a MS61 or MI2N is, but the commercial deceleration is enforced).
    27. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully for them, that's a fixable bug....

      Hopefully for us, its not.

    28. Re:Collision by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the rest, but I can think of a few answers to these:

      (background: no technical experience in the area, but I've been using New York City's subway system for over 25 years, so a fair amount of 'hands on' watching how they work)

      Seeing how this is less than the length of a single train car, why don't you just join the trains?

      You can't just join two trains, because you are limited in terms of platform that can accommodate the cars. If your platforms can only accommodate 10 cars, then the longest train you can put on that line is 10 cars (so all doors open at all stations). You can get away with a couple of stations not using all doors (for instance the "South Ferry station on the "1" train where only the first 6 out of 10 cars can platform), but it has to be the exception.

      Or build more rails, or if that is impossible, build a subway?

      Building more rails sounds nice, and in an ideal world you would, but that takes time, space and money. Time is actually the least problematic. The space and money though (for the rails, and stations), especially in an already established urban environment can be incredibly challenging (even leaving aside the politics of it). Take a look at the history of the 2nd Avenue Subway line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway

      meters is an insanely close spacing even for regular cars in suburban speeds; for trains, it's insane.

      Yes, it is, but the spacing also depends on speed.
      5 meters at 5 miles an hour might be enough to stack the trains up so after one clears the station block, the next can just pull in, unload, load and be off, while the next train behind it slowed to a crawl and is waiting as close as possible to repeat the process.
      I would be surprised if the "under 5 meters" was for trains running a full speed which would be just as insane as for regular cars. On the other hand, when you stop at a red light, most people don't leave that much space between them and the car in front of them.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    29. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone that lives in the area, I can remember it happening. Amazingly, I thought it happened last year. My, how time flies!

      Not in the Wiki summary: they originally blamed the operator and claimed that she must have been texting during the accident. Honestly, the operator may have been, but the entire failure boiled down to the automatic system failing, and thus probably a massively delayed, and unexpectedly necessary reaction on the part of the metro operator.

      Of course, this was also with a much older system and older track cars (following the accident, they retired the 1000 series of track cars that had substandard, by today's standards, crash preparedness). And it was not a system that just got stamped within a year of its creation.

    30. Re:Collision by wan9xu · · Score: 1

      some updates on the incident, if you guys care to know. sources are in chinese.

      a train rider confirmed that operator of the second train apparently did his best to brake the train manually. (source: http://roll.sohu.com/20110724/n314348071.shtml). according to a microblog, the operator was found in the badly deformed cockpit, impaled by the brake lever. (source: http://weibo.com/michaelwangsg)

      from official xinhua news: another train, D3212 was struck by lightning a mere 5km away from the derail site under discussion here (the two trains involved are d3115/d301). d3212 lost power and stopped, too.

      source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/society/2011-07/24/c_121711520.htm

    31. Re:Collision by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      You can simply put several signal posts in a row, and read the red/amber/green/blue streak that goes by the cabin.

      While you're going at ludicrous speeds, don't forget Doppler.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    32. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, semaphore signals in the UK are actually red/blue aspect, not red/green as most people think.

    33. Re:Collision by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      Yeah... let's see here. Massive earthquake that kills more than 18,000 people in Japan leading to Fukushima (where nobody died due to the meltdown) is incontrovertible proof that capitalism is a complete failure. Meanwhile, a single lightning strike leading to a derailment is an act of God beyond anyone's possible comprehension and China is perfect. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    34. Re:Collision by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Curves? Margin of Error?

    35. Re:Collision by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "In France the TGVs carry explosives (fireworks, basically) to put on the rails one kilometer ahead of a failed train, to warn the oncoming train of a problem. "

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    36. Re:Collision by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Presumably, there should have been some kind of safety system in place to deal with a relatively common natural phenomenon...

      That's for sure. The Japanese have done well with a much more complex safety issue, rapidly shutting down their high speed trains upon notice from their Earthquake Early Warning system.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Earthquake_Early_Warning_(Japan)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record

      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/earthquake-derail-japan-high-speed-trains.php

    37. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself Relayman.
      (YAAC)

    38. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing about racists is how uninformed they always are. The Chinese wanted high-speed rail tech, the tech holders wanted access to cheap Chinese labour. The invisible hand of the free market wins again. If you don't like the free market, you can piss off to Ch ... err i mean Cuba.

    39. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the US they have train conductors like denzel washington and rookies like chris pine, that's why.

    40. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If those "reports" come from the Chinese goverment, obviously they're covering for themselves even further. It's easy to blame it on lightning instead of their own crappy construction. That sounds exactly like what they'd say but this said "train derailed" not "trains collided." Sounds like they're lying to me.

    41. Re:Collision by jnork · · Score: 1

      "Or build more rails...?"

      Whoa! Dangerous, you could end up bending space/time! http://www.iblist.com/book12352.htm

      --
      Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
    42. Re:Collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in response, WMATA ordered operators to run their trains in manual mode at all times.

      ...and replace a flawed automated system with a flawed organic one? Technology can fail, but technology can be corrected. We can't fix human brains to prevent them from making the same errors in the future, and we can't correct human behavior, or natural human responses to various situations. This is why I prefer automated systems over manual control when people's safety comes into play, so long as the safety and reliability of these systems has been sufficiently tested.

    43. Re:Collision by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Why is apologizing for how underwhelming the US rail system a good point?

      On another point.. there is a huge problem with high speed rail in developed countries.

      You should probably say "in the USA", since the situation is very different in Europe and Japan, and there's no evidence for what will/might happen in North America (or elsewhere).

      What tends to happen in Europe is the new high speed train route captures a significant part of the market, although some planes still fly the route, probably with transfer passengers. It should be simple for the airlines to plan for this.

      Building anything new (or upgrading something) changes the market, whether that's a new railway, road or runway.

  2. Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by vinng86 · · Score: 5, Informative

    During the Shinkansen's 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions,[13] despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record

    1. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Link refers to trains in Japan only -- not the Chinese one that derailed.

    2. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they update the article about Japan's bullet train?

    3. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Contrary to the South Park episode, Japan and China are in fact two different countries

    4. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 lulz, !y?

    5. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      During the Shinkansen's 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions,[13] despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record

      Definitely a good comparison.

      This is obviously a big tragedy, many lives were lost. But it's hard not to see something symbolic in this as well - China's economy moving forward too fast, ignoring safety warnings, and ending in catastrophe. That last part hasn't happened yet, but the first has, and more and more people are starting to worry about some sort of bust. Hopefully that won't happen, but if it does, this train derailment may end up as a metaphor in the history books.

    6. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus there's ice cream and beer.

    7. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In almost three decades of high-speed operation, the TGV has not recorded a single fatality due to accident while running at high speed. There have been several accidents, including three derailments at or above 270 km/h (168 mph), but in none of these did any carriages overturn. This is credited in part to the stiffness that the articulated design lends to the train. There have been fatal accidents involving TGVs on lignes classiques, where the trains are exposed to the same dangers as normal trains, such as level crossings

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

    8. Re:Compare to Japan's Bullet Train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but there are other serious train accidents in Japan,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_rail_crash

  3. BULLETS KILL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so should bullet trains

  4. Lightning involved by MagikSlinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if it is necessarily corner cutting, but one would have thought lightning protection would have been one of the obvious things they would have engineered. From the articles, the lightning strike disabled the train and the train behind slammed into it. Also, if a train is stalled on the track, one would think there would be someway of knowing; either through telemetry or the driver radioing "Help! My train's stuck!". So if so, why didn't the other train stop? Lots of questions... I wonder if we will ever truly learn the answers or will this become another of China's "let's sweep it under the carpet" moments?

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Lightning involved by retroworks · · Score: 1

      "Train stopped ahead of your train involved." Braking, more relevant than lighting.

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:Lightning involved by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      Thus my follow up: Why didn't the second train brake? Not enough lead time? Communication breakdown? Will we ever be allowed to know?

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Lightning involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was proposed (by Siemens Signals gmbh) that a modified TVM430 system be used in China. This is what is used on the more modern TGV lines in France. It was rejected by the Chinese Railways as being too expensive so they came up with their own.
      The TVM430 uses a moving block system. This means that this accident could never have happened. This system leaves at least one complete signal section between trains. The sections are also long enough for a SPAD (signal passed at danger) that will cause an application of the brakes to AUTOMATICALLY happen to stop the train from well in excess of the normal line speed before it would slam into the back of the train that was stopped on the line.

      If my experience with the Chinese Bullet train lines is anything to go by, the phrase 'held together by duck tape' seems very apt.
      The trains themeselves might be good but the PW (Permanent Way) is very sub standard. The last time I travelled on one the ride quality remined me of the line from Euston to Rugby in the 1980's. Think bucking bronco.

      This was an accident waiting to happen.

      Anon, ex staffer with Westinghouse/Siemens Signal Systems (UK) but still employed in the Railway Business.

         

    4. Re:Lightning involved by todrules · · Score: 1

      These aren't the trains you're looking for. Move along.

    5. Re:Lightning involved by sjames · · Score: 1, Redundant

      More to the point, no matter the reason, a reasonable safety system wouldn't allow 2 trains to come together. That has been part of railroad design for over a century.

    6. Re:Lightning involved by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 2

      Automated control system and/or safety checks failure, most likely - at that speed manual braking is useless (by the time you have visual on the obstacle it's too late to brake). The automated control system should have detected that one train was no longer moving or no longer in contact and should have slowed down/halted all other trains on the same track approaching the area.

    7. Re:Lightning involved by DaScribbler · · Score: 1

      I would venture to guess "Communication Breakdown". It's not like the lead train came to an instant stop when it lost power, as stopping a train takes a considerable effort. One would speculate that if a train lost power, it would only apply enough brake to ensure control on the track because it knows there's another train rapidly approaching from behind. And only then come to a complete stop when it's safe to do so.

    8. Re:Lightning involved by bsane · · Score: 1

      That has been part of railroad design for over a century.

      That explains why there have been 0 train collisions in the west for almost a hundred years!

    9. Re:Lightning involved by sjames · · Score: 1

      There have been very few considering the amount of rail traffic, and it certainly takes a lot more than one train coming to an unplanned stop to cause it.

      Any that have happened eventually come down to understaffed and over cheaped maintenance.

    10. Re:Lightning involved by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      When the train and track got struck it probably knocked out all power on the train. It may also have knocked out telemetry on the track. No power for the radio, no telemetry and the train just disappears from the control display. Even if they have a backup battery radio they have to find it, call in, identify their train, and identify their location. That takes time. In that time the train behind them could have been too close to stop.

      Passenger trains are not freight trains in that passenger trains are much lighter and stop much faster due to much less inertia. So no they probably couldn't just not apply brakes and coast a while.

    11. Re:Lightning involved by Aczlan · · Score: 1

      When the train and track got struck it probably knocked out all power on the train. It may also have knocked out telemetry on the track. No power for the radio, no telemetry and the train just disappears from the control display

      And when that happens, the following train should assume that the train in front of them has hit a brick wall and is stopped at the last known position. They should immoderately slow down to the point where they can stop within their line of sight and continue with caution. Doing anything less is foolish. Aaron Z

      --
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
    12. Re:Lightning involved by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      If losing contact causes a train to disappear from the control display then the system is broken by design.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:Lightning involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mainland Chinese have the worst "Not invented here" syndrome. When it comes to non-safety issues, I'm willing to go "China's an idiot, but let them learn from their stupidity", but safety systems for Planes, Trains, Hydro-electric and Nuclear Plants are better off using whatever the rest-of-the-world uses, and let them improve upon it if there is opportunity. Like, I don't care that much if someone buys a Chinese made TV or toaster, because if it breaks they'll next time know better and not buy Chinese. But when people buy chinese made cell phones (eg counterfeits) they're putting their health at risk since they lack safety measurements. Chinese toys and candy is already on the garbage-list.

    14. Re:Lightning involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was proposed (by Siemens Signals gmbh) that a modified TVM430 system be used in China. This is what is used on the more modern TGV lines in France. It was rejected by the Chinese Railways as being too expensive so they came up with their own.
      The TVM430 uses a moving block system. This means that this accident could never have happened. This system leaves at least one complete signal section between trains. The sections are also long enough for a SPAD (signal passed at danger) that will cause an application of the brakes to AUTOMATICALLY happen to stop the train from well in excess of the normal line speed before it would slam into the back of the train that was stopped on the line.

      If my experience with the Chinese Bullet train lines is anything to go by, the phrase 'held together by duck tape' seems very apt.
      The trains themeselves might be good but the PW (Permanent Way) is very sub standard. The last time I travelled on one the ride quality remined me of the line from Euston to Rugby in the 1980's. Think bucking bronco.

      This was an accident waiting to happen.

      Anon, ex staffer with Westinghouse/Siemens Signal Systems (UK) but still employed in the Railway Business.

       

      Duck tape, seriously? Unless you are going to put a trademark symbol next to that to indicate you know what you are talking about, turn in your man card.

      Duck tape... sheesh.

    15. Re:Lightning involved by budgenator · · Score: 1

      How hard do you think it is to stop a powerless bullet train? I'm imagining that they have numerous power-assist and servo systems, pulling on the manual brake lever is probably an act of futility, as likely to stop the train by derailment as not.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Lightning involved by adolf · · Score: 1

      Lightning "protection" is always engineered into projects of this scale, whatever type of project it may be. Much of it consists of good and pervasive grounding (which should be easy on a train, almost by default), along with transient voltage suppression (which generally relies on good grounding). Sometimes, more active elements are used (lightning rods, which is a whole school of practice unto itself).

      But, you know: Shit happens.

      As we say in the RF world: Lightning goes where it wants to.

    17. Re:Lightning involved by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      As we say in the RF world: Lightning goes where it wants to.

      Interesting. So does that mean it is impossible to make something lightening strike proof? What I mean is that in any lighting protection system, there will always be some weird or unexpected failure mode that is not humanly possible to protect against?

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    18. Re:Lightning involved by Plainswind · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell, yes.

    19. Re:Lightning involved by karnal · · Score: 1

      The problem here is just like most other problems in the real world: Do you cover 90% of the cases for 10% of the "100% case" cost; or do you go higher?

      And even then, the 100% case doesn't exist but on paper.

      --
      Karnal
    20. Re:Lightning involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. The train in front lost power, and was hit by another coming up behind that hadn't.

    21. Re:Lightning involved by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yes. Always.

    22. Re:Lightning involved by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      He's already said he's in the UK - we don't have "duct tape" here.

  5. Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, this maybe the feelings from the people of Siemens....

    1. Re:Schadenfreude by quantumphaze · · Score: 1

      The Siemens trains sold in Melbourne had shoddy brakes among other problems, yet I see cars and other shit advertised as "German engineered" on TV.

    2. Re:Schadenfreude by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At least they had brakes.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they had brakes.

      Yes the trains stopped after passing the station, so safe, but not always useful, now fixed.
      European engineering does not always mean the best and it not always transportable to other environmentally different places. Deserts and 40C temperatures are not found in Germany.

  6. Design difference with TGV by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My cynical nature seems to be not surprised about "that builders had ignored safety standards", in China.

    One thing that should be mentioned is looking at the photos of the Chinese bullet train, is that the design did not inspire itself on one of the key advantages of the French TGV. That advantage being that the bogies are between the carriages and not under each carriage. Apparently the French designed it that way because it reduces the scope of damage due to derailment. The TGV has derailed, but it always derails in a straight line.

    ref: Nova: Looking down the track at very fast trains

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Design difference with TGV by MORB · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And it works incredibly well. The TGV had several high speed derailment that all caused only minor injuries.

      It includes the world's fastest derailment at 294kph (182mph) where only one person was slightly injured.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents

    2. Re:Design difference with TGV by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Our bosses say, "We need 60 hours of work in the next three days" "we really don't want to burn out our employes so make sure we take care of them".

      They are in the clear-- it's just not possible to achieve the goals without working nights and weekends.

      I'm sure the chinese do the same thing.

      We want TOP quality in LESS time for NOT ENOUGH money.

      It's the usual "choose 2 of three option".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:Design difference with TGV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is if the TGV rolled down a bridge while in the process of derailing things might be slightly different.

      In any case, it's good to know the TGV's have a tendency to derail all by themselves without being rear ended by another train.

  7. 11 Dead. Missing from summary by quantumphaze · · Score: 2

    At least 11 people have died and 89 people injured

    You would think this important information would be in the summary to give perspective on the disaster.

    1. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by isorox · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least 11 people have died and 89 people injured

      You would think this important information would be in the summary to give perspective on the disaster.

      The number of deaths isn't what makes it interesting to Slashdot -- the Oslo shooting + bombing (rightly) didn't get reported here. This derailment leads to a discussion of safety standards of high-tech systems, especially in emerging countries, and how technology could have prevented or caused the crash, hence it's newsworthiness.

    2. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by __aagbwg300 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was. In fact, at least one slashdotter was nearby when the bomb went off.

      Maybe this will lead to new standards (or maybe, they'll pay better attention to the old ones) but those standards exist to protect people. The GP was right - the summary could have been a little more helpful in describing the extent of the tragedy.

    4. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      the Oslo shooting + bombing (rightly) didn't get reported here

      Uhh... yes it did

      But besides that your point stands.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    5. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That's bunk. Technology is also used to reduce the number of fatalities.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      But the Oslo bombing did get reported on Slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/1556211/Terror-Attack-On-Norwegian-Government

      I think it would have been good to mention the fatalities. It adds a whole another scope to the story, from just a equipment malfunction to something far more serious (lives were lost due to it). That's just my opinion though.

    7. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of deaths isn't what makes it interesting to Slashdot -- the Oslo shooting + bombing (rightly) didn't get reported here. This derailment leads to a discussion of safety standards of high-tech systems, especially in emerging countries, and how technology could have prevented or caused the crash, hence it's newsworthiness.

      Wrong. It is the "China bad" angle that makes this story worth of /. The same with any news about Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. /. had became the equivalent of a tabloid long ago. Whatever story that can grab the most views (and thus ad revenue) with get posted, never mind any inaccuracies, outdatedness, etc.

      Take this story for example. Not only did the author neglected to mention that the derailing is due to a collision, where the front train was stopped most likely due to lightning hitting the rail (causing power outage). Another neglected fact is that the derailed train is of the "D" series, which are older bullet trains running on existing rails, as opposed to the "G" series, which are the newer high-speed trains that run on entirely new tracks. Note that it is the "G" series is the one criticized as unsafe by the former official of the railway ministry, and one of the reason is due to the time pressure to get the "G" series going ASAP, which obviously did not apply to the "D" series. Mentioning it in the summary is purely to highlight the "China bad" angle, which got it a place in the /. front page.

      The is no different from someone posting an accident on the Delta V rocket and then saying it came weeks after someone criticizing the Space Shuttle being unsafe due to reusable design. I.e. Even the criticized point did not apply.

    8. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Or very, very old.

    9. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The number of deaths isn't what makes it interesting to Slashdot -- the Oslo shooting + bombing (rightly) didn't get reported here.

      You'd have a point, if it weren't for the extensive reporting of Columbine, 9/11, et al.

    10. Re:11 Dead. Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the death count/injury count kind of a key point of the story, though?

      You wouldn't discuss the Therac-25 without actually talking about the deaths involved.

  8. Not a "bullet" train by mrsam · · Score: 3, Informative

    From TFA:

    "D" trains are the first generation of bullet trains in China, with an average speed of just short of 100mph (160km/h).

    Feh. Amtrak, and even some commuter trains in the Northeast, routinely exceed 110-125mph.

    1. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But is that "average speed" ?

    2. Re:Not a "bullet" train by dwater · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      African or European?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:Not a "bullet" train by isorox · · Score: 4, Informative

      From TFA:

      "D" trains are the first generation of bullet trains in China, with an average speed of just short of 100mph (160km/h).

      Feh. Amtrak, and even some commuter trains in the Northeast, routinely exceed 110-125mph.

      Commuter trains in the UK tend to go upto 110mph, but average nearer 50-60. Eurostar from London to Paris peaks at 186mph (186.1 according to the iphone gps), but only averages 136mph.

      The Acela Express might peak at 150, but it averages 70mph.

    5. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African or European?

      Asian, apparently.

    6. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I took the D135 two months ago, travelling from Bejing to Anyang. (the trip back is another line, D132)

      while TFA is about train D3115, my experience was very pleasant.

      the train was slow to start 70-100km/h, but after leaving Beijing, the train got to 202 km/h (125 mph), and kept that speed for a good part of the 3,5 hour trip.
      1st class was pretty cheap (18€), and extremely comfortable, better than most economy airline seats. 2nd class(15€) was equal to an avarage airline seat.
        I didn't do the math, but Anyang, Henan province and Beijing are about 500 km apart.

    7. Re:Not a "bullet" train by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      D is just the prefix of any long distance, high speed service in China, not a type of train. CRH1, the first generation of bullet trains in China can travel at up to 250kmh and frequently do.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    8. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Commuter trains in the UK tend to go upto 110mph, but average nearer 50-60. Eurostar from London to Paris peaks at 186mph (186.1 according to the iphone gps), but only averages 136mph."

      Eurostar is a french Alstom train ;);) , its average speed between London and UK is 175 kmph.

      http://ezinearticles.com/?Eurostar---Catching-Train-to-Paris&id=6357394

    9. Re:Not a "bullet" train by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Maximum speed of these on the route is about 155mph. (250 km/h). But yes, these are the "slow" ones. The fast "G" trains travel at 300km/h.

    10. Re:Not a "bullet" train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually D is referring to a newer trainset, it could be run at either high speed or non-high speed. In China there are three level of train service designation:

      1. P (normal) service uses traditional passenger trains. Most Amtrak trains other than Acela would be equivalent to this category. Namely the engine provides sole drive power and there is no power at individual cars. Passenger cars in a P train could be hauled by either diesel or electrical engine. Green painted P train has no air condition and red painted ones have.

      2. D (moving trainset) are first generation Chinese EMUs moving at high speed or sub-high speed (<= 250 km/h). EMU stands for electrical multiple unit, which distributes power unit in EVERY car. This is common all over the world's subway and electric trains. The name "moving trainset" refers to the EMU trainsets having relatively fixed and unchangeable combination, comparing traditional dumb cars that could be detached and attached to any engine on the fly. Trainsets for D service were the first generation CRHs, (Model CRH1,2,3,5) D trains could run on dedicated high speed rails or on traditional electrified rails. D service is Chinese railway's first step towards high speed rail.

      3. G (high speed) services are running up to 350 kmph on dedicated high speed track. Usually it uses newer generation EMUs (Model CRH380A/B/C/D) that looks like those used in D service, since G trains are derived from D trains. Since train/track for G service are derivative of those for D service, it is possible and probable that that they share similar flaws.

    11. Re:Not a "bullet" train by isorox · · Score: 1

      "Commuter trains in the UK tend to go upto 110mph, but average nearer 50-60. Eurostar from London to Paris peaks at 186mph (186.1 according to the iphone gps), but only averages 136mph."

      Eurostar is a french Alstom train ;);) , its average speed between London and UK is 175 kmph.

      http://ezinearticles.com/?Eurostar---Catching-Train-to-Paris&id=6357394

      Not any more, that might have been the speed when it went into Waterloo.

      1) London is in the UK
      2) Paris to London takes 2h15. The journey is 307 miles. That's 136mph, or 219kph.
      3) Brussels to London, 232 miles, takes 1h55. That's 121mph, or 195kph.

      The average speed includes the slow 31 miles in the tunnel at about 90mph.

      http://www.seat61.com/London-to-Paris-by-train.htm

    12. Re:Not a "bullet" train by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Typical journalist bullshit lack-of-fact-checking. The D trains go to 251kph, I've seen it on the in-car display.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  9. Sounds like N Korea soccer team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the excuse the the N Korean soccer team used for why they lost?

  10. "All this part of your test plan is not necessary" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can easily imagine that 10 second conversation taking place in some Chinese ministry a couple years ago. That is a very hierarchical, abrupt society.

  11. Collision and *then* derailment. by Arakageeta · · Score: 2

    The reports currently are that the train cars detailed because of a collision, not because they were simply going too fast and took a sharp turn on faulty rails. Can you really expect cars to remain on the tracks after a collision?

    1. Re:Collision and *then* derailment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be posting this as if it somehow exonerates the manufacturers. As if the collision itself is not the result of severe failings somewhere within the system.

    2. Re:Collision and *then* derailment. by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      The reports currently are that the train cars detailed because of a collision, not because they were simply going too fast and took a sharp turn on faulty rails. Can you really expect cars to remain on the tracks after a collision?

      If you use strong enough magnets...

    3. Re:Collision and *then* derailment. by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      fucking strong enough magnets. How does that work?

    4. Re:Collision and *then* derailment. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No but I can expect a rail control system that prevents something as simple as a train running up the back of another train.

      Not a complex network with multiple tracks and one train switching to the wrong track. Not a case of a train colliding with another object on the track. Just one train moving on one track ran up the back of another train not moving on the same track.

  12. Not a surprise by Ogive17 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's about as surprising as Amy Winehouse being found dead in her apartment...

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's apartment ?

    2. Re:Not a surprise by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      Topical, well played.

    3. Re:Not a surprise by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Yes, quite odd that two similar stories pop up like that. We've got a horrible trainwreck that will result in a media circus, and a train crashed as well.

    4. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my guess is that this is no simple coincidence.

    5. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes Winehouse the founding member of the "Chinese Bullet Train Club".

    6. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One high speed train wreck, one slow speed train wreck.

    7. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too soon

  13. Well I guess they're safe now by outsider007 · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows lightning never strikes the same train twice.

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  14. We all knew it... by dotbot · · Score: 0

    There's a culture where safety does not come first on the priority list. One suspects authoritarianism is ultimately to blame: individuals afraid to make decisions themselves perhaps?

    1. Re:We all knew it... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Greed is ultimately to blame. Authoritarianism just makes it easier to shrug it all off when things go to shit like this.

      In any other country where this happened there would be a few mea culpas and some compensation to pay, a few internal enquiries finding failures that were "unfortunate" and "avoidable", but ultimately nobody goes to prison and everybody (but the victims) moves on with nothing having changed. Beyond these theatrics of conscience there is no difference between the Chinese method and that practiced in the West.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:We all knew it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If rule of law were explicit and consistent, then regulations and greed should work together towards greater safety -- no manufacturer would dare risk cutting corners when they know the financial consequences of failure. Not so in countries where the people making the laws are the same people making money off the rail system.

  15. subsequently "retracted" ?! by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, a "retraction" means taking back, by the original commentators. In this case, some other official merely denied the claims of the whistleblower.

    1. Re:subsequently "retracted" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think in China a "retraction" means the whistleblower no longer has the option of taking it back, or making more claims, or doing much of anything besides feed the worms.

  16. or some basic railway safety like a working signal by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    or some basic railway safety like a working signal system that stops a train on the same track from hitting one in front of it with a block size that gives it time to slow down and or stop before it even gets to the block that the train in front of it is in. Also do they have a treat a black signal as a red one?

  17. Once again china still shows why big is bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A big government doesn't work because it causes the government to always be directly involved with conflict of interest. This means any failure of anyone to do what is both legal and morally right is a failure of the government to do the same. The worst part is the governments #1 job is to decided and enforce the ideas of what is right and wrong as decreed by it's ruling body. This is why people agreed to be governed in the first place because they would have deputes with their fellow man and someone with authority was needed to solve this disputes. But if half the people work directly for the government and the other halve indirectly there are very few times the government is not involved as party in a dispute. You can see how this happened here, one member of the government said the trains weren't as safe as had been previously thought but the rest of the government decided that makes us look bad so we better go back on that.

    1. Re:Once again china still shows why big is bad. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      OTOH, Hey - China has bullet trains. I bet their safety record is still better than commuting on the 405

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    2. Re:Once again china still shows why big is bad. by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight. What about the 'big governments' in Europe and their bullet trains? Pinnacles of human achievement or an example of how it 'doesn't work'?

  18. alot of them come from have a car on the trackes by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    alot of them come from have a car on the tracks when the gates are down.

  19. the railway signal system should do something by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the railway signal system should do something but the driver may be under presser to go as fast as they can and not stop.

    1. Re:the railway signal system should do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the TVM430 if there is danger ahead the driver can't override it. The train will be brought to a stop automatically.

      There are many rail systems around the world that cope with high frequency (ie small time gaps between trains) movements on a daily basis.
      A dedicated high apeed line is actually less dense working than slower speed lines. The higher speed means that you have to leave a longer gap between trains. At line speeds a TGV will take more than 1Km to stop even with a full brake (emergency) application. In normal conditions, the distance is more like 5km. Add a 50-80% contingency and you need more than 8km between trains. The TGV Nord from Paris hardly ever sees trains more than 15km apart when they are running a full line speed.
      Simple calc with approximations
      186mph = 300kph = 5km per minute
      A moving block of 15km would be perfect. Sadly you can't do this with a fixed block system as employed by the Chinese.
      With a fixed block, if a train fails just after it has entered a block there is sometimes not enough distance for the following train to stop.

  20. Wait until the airlines get ahold of this story... by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    Their lobbyists will use it to ensure that we go another several decades without an alternative to air transport for getting across the country faster than you can in your own car.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  21. Signaling system by Hollysys by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hollysys claims to be the main supplier of signalling and train protection equipment for China's high speed rail lines. There are two separate systems - classic track circuits, and a data link between units at the head and tail of each train to a train control center. Either is normally able to prevent collisions. However, in a power failure, the data link system would probably not be functioning. The track circuit system should continue to work on battery power, or, if that fails, indicate STOP.

    Track circuit failures resulting in a false proceed signal are rare, but have occurred. The WMATA transit crash in Washington, D.C. was due to a track circuit failure. The US Federal Railroad Administration keeps records of all reported false proceed signals. There have been two recorded events in 10 years of false proceed indications due to lightning damage.

    1. Re:Signaling system by Hollysys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think these safety systems should be virtually fail-safe.

      But then there wouldn't be Fukushima I guess.

    2. Re:Signaling system by Hollysys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they go for the cheaper (older)safety solution while trying to keep the faster (newer) trains on it....

      It no surprise they would have issues with this. Just happened sooner then expected.

    3. Re:Signaling system by Hollysys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, it seems like the ATP (on board signalling systems) was provided by Hollysys and TCC (on track signalling systems) was provided by someone else. Given the lightning strike, is it possible that the TCC systems would have communicated a go ahead signal to the ATP of the second train? If the TCC system loses its power, is the ATP system supposed to be fail safe and apply the emergency brake?
      Thanks.

  22. Bad summary by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 2

    I don't like the summary - from the article: A Chinese high-speed train derailed Saturday when it was hit by another express, state media said, throwing two carriages off a viaduct and killing at least 16 people.

    Still I don't understand all the details of the situation.

    1. Re:Bad summary by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't like the summary - from the article: A Chinese high-speed train derailed Saturday when it was hit by another express, state media said, throwing two carriages off a viaduct and killing at least 16 people.

      When I wrote the summary a few hours ago the information regarding a lightning strike and collision was not available.

  23. Good thing this will never happen here! by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    I am certainly glad that here in the United States of America, blessed by God and common sense, that we will never experience a tragedy of this magnitude. Thanks to our sensible legislators and their neverending compassion for the people whose livelihood depends on the exploration, excavation, processing, shipping, and selling of fossil fuels, we will never have to see one of these "bullet" trains derail in this country! Our citizens will remain safe! Why, the very name of these things, a "bullet" train, brings to mind only the horror and tragedy of random school violence. Not, of course, that this has anything to do with the abundance of firearms in our nation, no, but the analogy is still valid.

    These trains must be banned. We need a constitutional amendment to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening here.

    --
    sig not found
  24. Re:or some basic railway safety like a working sig by canadian_right · · Score: 2

    Or the lightning is the new official story because they don't want to admit the train derailed due to shoddy construction caused by rampant corruption.

    Need some confirmation of what happened.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
  25. The nature of failure by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You would think these safety systems should be virtually fail-safe.

    But then there wouldn't be Fukushima I guess.

    You can design systems to be fail-safe all day long, but eventually nature has a lot more fail to offer than you can every reasonably design for.

    That was true for Fukushima (which survived way more than it was designed to handle, resulting in only minor radiations leaks) . And it may be true for this situation as well, if we find the lightning led to a false proceed signal.

    It does seem like it must be possible to design a more robust train on track detection mechanism though, or some fallback that is immune from local effect - like a GPS transmitter on each track, that if you lose signal for is an automatic stop for all trains behind. But then perhaps that raises the risk of too many false stops...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Patronizing much? by fnj · · Score: 1

    I see a flood of patronizing posts and many of them xenophobic. Look, I'm not crazy about the Chinese regime/economic system (or the US regime/economic system), but train accidents occur all the time and even in the most "superior" societies. Here are some derailments in the last decade involving injuries.

    Hatfield, UK, 2000, 4 dead, 70+ injured - exposed sloppiness in privatized infrastructure and poor oversight.
    Potters Bar, UK, 2002, 7 dead, 76 injured - poor maintenance.
    Waterfall, Australia, 2003, 7 dead, 40 injured - driver heart attacked, train failed to automatically stop, deadman's pedal insufficient and may have been defeated, guard failed to take action, training shortcomings found.
    Grayrigg, UK, 2007, 1 dead, 88 injured - points mis-set.
    Jiao-Ji, China, 2008, 70+ killed, 400+ injured - excessive speed, collision
    Larissa, Greece, 2008, 29 injured - possible human error or points failure.
    Orissa, India, 2009, 9 dead, 150 injured - cause unknown.

    1. Re:Patronizing much? by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Err... one of the incidents you mentioned occurred in china, and not only was it worse than the others put together, it doesn't even have a firm fatalities figure (70+, wtf kind of lack of transparency is that?).

      You're not exactly helping your point.

    2. Re:Patronizing much? by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      Not a single one in Japan...

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  27. In news nobody wrote or cared about ... by tp1024 · · Score: 2

    ... in addition to 10 people dieing in a train, another 200-300 died in other traffic accidents in China on the same day. If you ask me, I'd take the Chinese bullet train. (China has 1.3bn people and 7.6 out of 100.000 die each year in traffic accidents.)

    1. Re:In news nobody wrote or cared about ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      About 10 people fall off the commuter trains and die every day in Bombay. They tend to ride outside the train cars standing on the window sills (toes going inward) and fingers clinging to the rain gutters while the electric poles carrying the overhead wires whizz by. Get tried, lean a little outward ... death by falling from the train. Trains don't stop, relatives have to pay a fine to get the bodies from the morgue. But usually they can bribe their way out of the fine. http://bombaystreets.com/archives/tag/trains http://hubpages.com/hub/trainsinindiasomemodernsomeancientfastandslow

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:In news nobody wrote or cared about ... by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

      > About 10 people fall off the commuter trains and die every day in Bombay. They tend to ride outside the train cars standing on the window sills (toes going inward) and fingers clinging to the rain gutters

      Shhhhh! Don't give those cheap bastards at Ryanair any ideas.

  28. but by fireylord · · Score: 1

    In France the TGVs carry explosives (fireworks, basically) to put on the rails one kilometer ahead of a failed train, to warn the oncoming train of a problem.

    At one kilometre ahead of the stopped train, they arent going to warn of anything coming up behind the stopped train

  29. It's *NOT* a bullet train by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

    Again, journalists have it wrong. The one and only bullet train that is in production in China, is in Shanghai. This train is made out of German technology, can reach 430 km, and links the city (Long Yang Lu station) center to the Pudong airport. Then you have "Gao Tie", the Chinese TGV. Such trains would be marked as "G" then a number. "Dong Chi" would be D, and they are all but bullet trains. How come the journalist wrote "bullet trains" for these "Dong Chi" is a mystery!!!

    1. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by leenks · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This is the first factual comment in the discussion...

    2. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This train is made out of German technology, can reach 430 km

      That's not very far - it's only about from Paris to Amsterdam!

    3. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      BZZT wrong, the one in Shanghai is a maglev. I use bullet trains as a translation of dongche all the time.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      I use bullet trains as a translation of dongche all the time.

      Then you got it wrong all the time. How come you're calling a 200 km/h train a "bullet train"? That's how fast the slow trains are running almost everywhere, it's far from running at bullet speed!

      the one in Shanghai is a maglev.

      Yup, and it's also called "bullet train", because it's kind of flying in the air thanks to the magnetic levitation, just like a gun bullet also flies... Last time I checked, DongChe are touching the rails!

    5. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You seem to have your definitions confused. The whole world doesn't use your arbitrary distinctions. I have never ever heard the Shanghai maglev called anything but the maglev. Bullet train, by contrast, is in wide use to describe the dongche.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      I actually live in Shanghai, 20 minutes driving from from both ends of the maglev, and I think I know what I'm taking about, regardless of what the western world journalists are (wrongly) using to call it.

      And by the way, the only thing you are pointing at is a Google search that shows results about that last event (with subtitle "X hours ago"), with journalists repeating the same crap, probably written by a single (bad) news agency. That's not very helpful...

    7. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by matmota · · Score: 1

      Don't the Japanse bullet trains also touch the rails?

    8. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      OH, you're one of THOSE. Pfft. Shanghai foreigners. Pudong, no less. You're either a teacher or a multinat, and in either case a total douchebag. Please don't confuse Shanghai with China, and please don't offer me translation hints in the future.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:It's *NOT* a bullet train by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      So fast to make assumptions and spitting at others. You know nothing about me. I'm not any of what you wrote above.

  30. This message brought to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paid for by republicans for america

  31. Re:or some basic railway safety like a working sig by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
    All signals are black on high speed lines, the relevant clearances are transmitted to the trains directly.

    Which brings me to the main problem: I know the Chinese use the European Train Control System and not something a few interns came up with during a coffee break. I can't imagine that the system doesn't default to having all trains come to a full stop, not to mention that the system still uses blocks and the second train should never have gotten the clearance for that block unless the first train had cleared the next one. (fully, both axle counters and the data bus on the train itself is used to confirm integrity. That wasn't an issue here, my point is that it requires an active confirmation so a blackout defaults to the safe state)

    Oh well, their maglev also burned down after they had done some "inspections" on the electronics.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  32. What about Japan then? 45 yrs, no accidents... by fantomas · · Score: 1

    How does your argument stand up when looking at Japan, which has had bullet trains for 47 years and no fatalities? (state run for the first 23 years and no accidents then)

  33. trains use safety systems to prevent collisions by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Even if a train stops on the tracks.

    At least they are supposed to.

    Even though this failure doesn't appear to have anything to do with the previous concerns about cost-cutting on track construction, it does show a huge screw-up that may be attributable to improper safety standards or not following them.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  34. Isn't it great when the conversation starts here by leenks · · Score: 0

    When the place everyone starts reading is here.

    Not confusing in the slightest.

  35. CTCS Chinese Train Control System? by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    China has many different railway suppliers and systems. Does anyone know if it was CTCS the Chinese Train Control System used on this line? These systems are expensive so China developed their own version of the European train control system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Train_Control_System

    For high-speed trains they pass the signals too fast for the drivers to see so they rely on computer control. Trains are supposed to communicate so if one in front stops or slows the other behind it knows where it is and so can slow down and stop. If the lightning fried the first train it could explain why the second didn't stop, but these systems are supposed to be design so if the first time suddenly goes quiet the second train assumes the worst and slows down to a stop until it is clear to proceed. Maybe they didn't think of that?

    Yes, slashdot summary isn't good. Derailing is the end result. A collision between two bullet trains is what caused it. Maybe OP was in a rush to submit the story.

  36. Germans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will the Germans abandon bullet trains like they did nuclear power? What's the next problem in Asia which will cause Germans to overreact?

  37. Reducundant Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they use redundant safety measures throughout the train? Separate sensors and kill switch systems.

  38. games are much easier now by netfun81 · · Score: 0

    yeah right... ai will make people smarter...how come the games now are much easier than the games ten years ago. go play oddworld or any of the older adventure games (monkey island, beneath steel sky) they are much harder than anything produced in the last ten years.. If anything games are making people dumber not smarter. Dumb article...

  39. Re:or some basic railway safety like a working sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You really don't expect block-mode operation on new track. It's the steam equivalent of signalling; you waste like 50% of the capacity (assuming double track, but that is the standard for high-speed railroads anyway). Block signalling is a natural match for trackside signals, but you can't use those on high-speed rail. You pass them too quickly. So, high-speed rail invariably uses in-cab signalling, in which case there's no natural block size.

  40. Re:or some basic railway safety like a working sig by black+soap · · Score: 1

    When the group of people who decide the official version of the story are the same group of people who are likely to benefit from bribery and under-table dealings, AND are the group of people most likely to get punished if word of corruption and under-table dealings gets out, it is hard to believe anything they say.

  41. I'm Picturing a Train Flipping in the Air.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....god damn Chinese.... It's like Abbot & Costello over there.