Shinkansen expert Satoru Sone: Unbelievable China is disassembling and burying train carriages

I just added this website to my favorites. I really enjoy reading your posts.I essentially enjoy your website..

"The Shinkansen has not had a single major accident like the Wenzhou crash in its 47-year history, despite regular earthquakes and typhoons in Japan."

Whilst the Shinkansen has an exceptional safety record, the above sentence in the posted article is an oxymoron.

During severe weather conditions, you shut down the line, so it is highly unlikely that there will be a derailment during a typhoon. As for the earthquake part, there was indeed a derailment due to a 2004 Chuetsu earthquake. After that incident, the Japanese authorities added an earthquake detection device, which would stop the train quickly when an earhquake occurs (motion sensors?) .

"As for the earthquake part, there was indeed a derailment due to a 2004
Chuetsu earthquake. After that incident, the Japanese authorities added
an earthquake detection device, which would stop the train quickly when
an earhquake occurs (motion sensors?) ."

Wrong. The shinkansen has had an eathquake detection device (Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm System -UrEDAS) since 1992. After the Chuetsu earthquake they introduced a new anti-derailment device.

So it appears you don't know everything after all.

Good to know, then it means the first design didn't work. Also, your post also validates my point that a Shinkansen train had indeed experienced an accident by an earthquake.

Note we didn't say there hasn't been a derailment before. But it's on the record that there has been ZERO fatalities arising from a derailment with the Shinkansen. And by the way, earthquakes can strike without giving you any sort of warning.

A derailment is an accident. A major accident does mean there has to be fatalities. Yes, Earthquakes can strike without warning, that's why I was skeptical that the Shinkansen is major accident free even when there are eahrtquakes in Japan. You see, my suspicion made me do a quick google, and indeed an earthquake did cause an accident. And the Shinkansen of course learnt from this and installed earthquake motion sensors on their trains, which at least took care of this scenario.

Some people swear... KNOW IT ALL... LOL...love it..."the prosecution rest your honor" need say more :)

"Very Backwards" is all I need to understand in this article.

It would seem odd thay would bury the carriages. The most important part of the wreckage would be the lead car of the second train (where the cockpit is located) and the backside of the second carriage. The circumstances of how the collision occurred is quite clear, unlike the German ICE disaster which killed 108 persons which was much more difficult to construct. The most important question is to determine why the safety redundancies failed. Did the aural and visual alarms in the cockpit of the second train go off? (the recorders shud be able to reveal this information), why did the system not automatically slow down the train when the front train stalled? I am not mentioning the power outage by lightning here, as it can be considered as a secondary cause and can be fixed easil by hardware design changes or procedural changes.

 "it's still important not to move about the carriages as far as possible, so you can analyse the situation from multiple angles. Disassembling the trains and burying them -- that's just unbelievable," he told Phoenix TV."
Here I raise the Bullshit flag on Satoru Sone. Analysing the situation from diffiferent angles is not necessary in this situation. The crash was caused by multiple system failures, most likely pinpointing to the safety features itself, such as the warning systems, where the key is to determine why these systems failed, what caused it. Is it a hard or software problem? Is it a reliability or a maintenance problem? Is it a procedural issue? Or sometimes, it's just bad luck, aka Swiss Cheese theory.

Hopefully the authorities will be forthcoming with the investigation. It is in their interest that this is done correctly to restore confidence in the High Speed Rail.

Very well written? Did you learn that in journalism school? LOL!!!1 Way to deflect criticism with that ICE placement. Yeah, it's pretty clear what happened, just an easy fix! Just take 2 months to tighten some screws! ROFL!

And every one knows its best to bury trains immediately after they die, if you can. They start to smell! HAHAHHAH!

And BTW, the chain of events leading to the crash was quite obvious, unlike the ICE, where months of investigative work finally revealed a cracked disk causing the fateful chain of events. In the Wenzhou case, it was very obvious the signalling system did not work as advertised, and redundancies failed, that is where the investigation will focus on, while on the ICE train, it was a mystery on what caused the train to derail, until painstaking investigative work found the cause. Sone's talk on carriage is clear BS, as it alone is useless in determining the probable primary cause of the crash, which is why the coming train failed to stop or warned of the stalled train.

Your comment about tightening 2 screws is very disappointing. I was expecting an intellectual debate, yet all I got are 1 sentence hubris or some irrelevant attacks like wumao. At least I was expecting something to rebuke me about the carriage placements, but then, I don't expect much from dimwits.

"I was expecting an intellectual debate, yet all I got are 1 sentence hubris or some irrelevant attacks like wumao."

Says you who calls the statement of a Shinkansen expert BS and who calls the problems with the train "obvious" with no proof, experience, or way of knowing what really happened. LOL!! Keep deluding yourself. With cocksure people like you, China will surely have many more disasters to come. ROFL!!!

Your reply basically confirms what I said.

Oh, BBC_Redux knows everything anyone needs to know about this, and nobody else knows anything.

Then prove that I am wrong. And you can't.

Prove you wrong about what? That Sone doesn't know what he's talking about, despite his 40 years' experience? That we shouldn't examine every piece of evidence to work out what went wrong (and what went right)? Or that the design of the carriages had no influence whatsoever on the loss of life (for better or worse)?

Again you are using counter arguments that Sone has 40 years experience. Can't you even think for yourself and analyze the situation? You haven't offer anything of substance. Sigh! Such is the pathetic state of American high school education!

Well the position of the fallen carriages could tell investigators quite a bit about the speed of the second train when it hit, and there could be issues regarding the quality of the construction of the carriages or the viaduct, or other issues. I'm not a train expert, but Sone is. I think to call his comments pure BS is misplaced and a touch arrogant, if I may say so. The point is that the investigators ought to find out as much as they can about the crash and how to prevent similar incidents from occurring again. Sone is correct when he says the crash scene should be preserved.

" and there could be issues regarding the quality of the construction of the carriages or the viaduct, or other issues"

Well, you are not kidding me, right? Videos and eye witness accounts point to the crash caused by the rear train hitting the rear of thestalled front train, it has nothing to do with the carriage design or the quality of the viaduct. Do you not agree with me?

No I am not kidding you (I wouldn't assume you have a sense of humor). Yes, videos and eye witness accounts are important. So are observations by experts. From different angles. And even if the cause of the crash is known, it's also important to examine the question of whether the carriages could have survived the impact, whether the crumple zones worked the way they're supposed to, whether there was any damage to the viaduct as a result of the impact, or whether the viaduct design contributed to the severity of the crash. Everything. The location of the carriages is just one piece of evidence that needs to be collected before jumping to any conclusions.

Observations by experts are of course very important, but why waste resources on the obvious non relevancy of the carriage placements??? The fact that Sone neglected this part is truly baffling. The focus is on the signalling systems. The placement of the trains in this instance is irrelevant to why the train crash. The chief focus is to find out why the signalling systems failed, and the events leading to it. The secondary investigation is to determine if the power system on the lines are adequately protected from wild power differentials, like from a lighteneing strike etc. It will be interesting to see what the US NTSB will say as I am sure they will be involved as GE also make some of the signalling equipment. I standby my contention that Sone is not completely aware of the situation leading up to the crash.

I do not agree with you. The crash was not caused by the rear train hitting the stalled train, the crash was the rear train hitting the stalled train.

The meaningful question of what caused the crash is really asking, Why did the crash occur? The most obvious cause is the stall of the first train, which was allegedly caused by a lightning strike, but how certain of this are we? Is this based on evidence (video of the strike hitting the train, scorch marks, etc.) or just conjecture based on the occurrence of lightning before the stall? Was the train designed to endure a lightning strike without stalling? If yes, it raises the question of how the trains failed to meet design specs (which implies an investigation into mechanical, electronic, and structural elements). There is also a question of why the second train failed to stop. The black box provides useful information, but if there was a failure in the warning system or another critical system, the recording mechanisms may also have been compromised, meaning that physical evidence should be used to corroborate the information.

Furthermore, there are often more important questions than what caused a particular crash. People rear-ended Ford Pintos for a number of reasons, usually related to human error, but the most important question ended up being, "Why did these cars keep exploding?" I am not familiar enough with train crashes to know whether it's typical for so many to be hurt in a crash of this sort at these speeds, but perhaps there were deficiencies in the train or the tracks that made the accident much worse than it could have been. Even if not, more information can potentially have value in making future crashes safer. Even if you or I can't personally see an immediate use for it, it seems irresponsible to destroy that information so quickly and so thoroughly without a compelling reason. I can understand moving wreckage that is close enough to obstruct or endanger the operation of other trains, which many Chinese rely on. However, I do wonder why the wreckage needs to be disassembled and buried without allowing more time for study.

Also, there's also the issue of transparency. The authorities basically control the data recorders, and could potentially take control of most, if not all, of the video evidence. So long as the wreckage lies in plain view, there is public evidence that could potentially be used by specialists to support or refute the official story.

I do agree with hamster on another point: Whether you intend to or not, you come across as somewhat condescending and rather uncivil in the way you've addressed some comments. If you're really looking for "intellectual debate," you may wish reconsider the way that you phrase your own posts.

Also, another point on the recorder. Since the incident also involved equipment made by Bombardier and General Electric, their representatives and the relevant national safety authorities from Canada and the US will also be present when they check the recorder. This is standard practice. I don't think the Canadians and Americans will standby quietly and do nothing if the evidence is tampered or falsely reported.

In light of my response, I suppose this now seems pretty pointless, since it seems intended to refute some accusations against the Chinese authorities that I didn't actually make. I am surprised that the U.S. would send NTSB officials to help with the investigation, however. I understand why the expertise of the companies that made the train and the recorder would be required when the recorder was checked, and naturally, anyone with a stake in making train travel safer would want to see the information coming out of the crash, eventually, but it's interesting that U.S. and Canadian authorities would have an official presence, apparently for its own sake.

"Also, there's also the issue of transparency. The authorities basically control the data recorders, and could potentially take control of most, if not all, of the video evidence. "

You stated very clearly your intent, which sounds like an accusation.

The US will of course send the NTSB, since American equipent is involved, but also to gain insight into the causes of the crash. If a Boeing crashes anywhere, the FAA and the NTSB will be onsite to assist and ensure the investigation is carried out thoroughly and satisfactorily, since Boeing is American and built to the FAA Cert Basis. When the Air France Airbus A330 crashed over the Atlantic, GE and Airbus + EASA (Europe's equivalent to the FAA) and DGAC (French Authority) were present when the recorder was put through the data reader for the first time after the crash. The FAA was also involved because the European aircraft carried General Electric engines and some avionics equipment made by Honeywell and Rockwell Collins, all American companies, although the most suspect part, the speed indicating pitot tubes, were made by Thales, a French company.

"The crash was not caused by the rear train hitting the stalled train, the crash was the rear train hitting the stalled train."

Well,it doesn't change the fact that the aft train had contact with the stalled train, right? And yes, a lightening strike could damage the power supply to the train. I am not sure whether it is valid to say whether the power supply or safety systems meet design specs or not, as the design specs might be met but perhaps they need to be further improved, as per this incident. Lightning was widely witnessed and confirmed. The front train stalled, something caused it. That's why I had said many times in the preious posts, is that the critical devices and crash articles, including the front cars, must be secured and documented, to determine indeed the cut power to the stalled train is caused by a lightening or not. Right now, it is up to the investigators to prove this point, like burn or scotch marks.

With regards to the black boxes, perhaps you are not familiar with their design. They are built ruggedly to survive crashes and they have internal battery power, what is the use of them if power is cut off when the train crashes. The internal battery also helps to transmit a signal for a certain period of time, so investigators can locate the box. The Air France recorder was recovered with its data intact over 2 years after it sank to the bottom of the sea off Brazil. I doubt you are familiar with this.

You mentioned the Pintos exploding. But note that this model of Chinese train has been in service for a while and have done some significant time, it is not a bunch of trains exploding. This is the first incident and it is not yet clear which systems or procedure failed. So your analogy is not useful.

And basically when you rearend another train even at moderate speeds, you will still derail the carriages. Whether you believe the recorders will be checked in a transparent manner is really up to conjecture, Isn't it? By saying this, you have basically convicted the authorities before hey are proven innocent. On the other hand, they need to conduct a thorough investigation. There is no shame to admit design faults, but the most important is to regain the confidence of the public. The Germans are some of the most thorough and brilliant engineers around, yet a design flaw in their ICE train caused it to crash Enschede. The Germans went the extra mile to incorporate improvements so that another incident of such nature does not occur.

And I totally agreed with you on the issue of them burying some of the carriages, I made that clear many times in my comments. But then, the key is to ensure that they keep the relevant parts of the train which are focal in the cause of the investigation.

Finally, the main contention of my lead post is that Sone BS'd on the placement of the trains, since it was irrelevant to the way the crash happened. Salvaging the parts and maintaining the crash scene, yes. Placement as a key reason, no.

And as you can see, I can carry on a logical debate, but when flamers blab, they will get what they deserve from me.

I really appreciate your answer and a meaningful discussion.

Regarding black boxes, you have told me nothing that I didn't already know.  The problems I refer to are not in the data stored, but in how they are recorded. The box does not do it through magic, and if the means by which it receives the information are compromised, then it is possible for the data to be as well. For example, we say hypothetically that the crash occurred because a proximity alarm failed. The data recorder notes when an alarm is given. If the device that detects proximity to a train ahead works, but there is a defect upstream from the signal. Of course, this is just an example, as I imagine a smart designer would have the box recording as close to what the engineer sees as possible, in addition to the the relevant outside information.

Also, my Pinto analogy is quite relevant, but you are correct in that it's not useful if you failed to understand the point. To put it more explicitly, there is an issue of what causes a crash, and the issue of what happens once a crash occurs. I don't know about Chinese train crashes, but if this is, as you say,an unprecedented crash, then my position is even stronger: There is no other source of real information about what happens when this type of train crashes, and it seems foolish not to take the opportunity to evaluate the accuracy of any models of a possible crash and to try to make future crashes safer. By your stated reasons for rejecting my Pinto analogy, it seems that you believe that it is not worth trying to make crashes safer until we have more crashes occur. I disagree.

Also, your conclusion that I have "convicted the authorities" really doesn't reflect my beliefs at all, but it speaks volumes about your own. You seem very quick to interpret "I believe in transparency" as "I don't trust the government not to lie to us." I'm an American, and even though I value transparency for both idealist and pragmatic reasons, I still trust my government to be among the most open and honest in the world. In case you haven't read that part of the news coverage, the Chinese media are the ones asking "why is the government [quite literally] burying the evidence?" You noted in your response that maintaining the public confidence is of utmost importance. Why is it then that when I note that leaving the wreckage in plain view would reassure the public that nothing is being hidden from them, you get defensive?

Perhaps this would help to explain things--there are different levels of trust that we must place in different sorts of evidence. 1) If I see a herd of elephants in New York City, I can rely on it without placing much trust in other parties. 2) If I see video of it, I can reasonably believe that there are elephants in the city if i trust that the source of the video didn't fake or doctor the footage. 3) If a technician, who I believe to be disinterested, reads the information from the elephant sensor box and states that it shows the presence of elephants in New York, I can believe that there are elephants if I trust that the equipment is sound, the technician is truly disinterested, and that nobody made a mistake anywhere. 4) If a spokesperson that manufactures elephant repellent tells me that the elephant sensor box has detected elephants in the city, and that two independent elephant sensor technicians can corroborate the data, even more trust is required. Now, if I say that in situation 1), I will feel more assured that there are elephants in the city than in situation 4), am I "convicting" the spokesperson of lying to me before he/she is "proven innocent?" If I say that I'm more reassured by 2) than 3), does that mean that I trust the news media but distrust scientific experts, or does it merely reflect the human tendency to trust their own eyes (even once removed by video recording) somewhat more than information that must be told to them.

Again, you do not understand how blackboxes are built. I am sure the box on the train is of foreign origin. When power is cut to the blackboxes, the internal battery cuts over in a smooth power transfer, so the recording is continuous, until after the crash, when all data input to the box is cut .

Well, you used the mass burnings of the pinto to describe the Wenzhou incident. As I pointed out to you, the Pinto's problem is a clear indicator of serious design flaws with the car, wherever the Wenzhou incident is a single incident, with the cause not yet known, so a fix when defined, shud stop the same flaw from happening again. The pinto, they didn't do much about it. A better analogy will be the Cargo Door design flaw on the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 flaw. The cause was finally pinpointed after the Turkish Airline crash at Paris. The flaw was then fixed, no further cargo incidents occurred after that.

You are an American, I know that, you don't have to tell me. I was an American too, now a proud Hong Kong SAR passport holder. And again, you are not reading my posts. I already told you multiple times that I consider the burying of the debris as a mistake, but I also pointed out that that shud not be a major hindrance to the investigation as long as the critical items are kept. You trust your government, the US government? I am not sure, and many outside US will agree with me. Just look at the Iraq war WMD, full of lies. The respected Pew Report showed that over 80 percent of Chinese approved of their government, that is much higher than what Obama got, so you have to give the Chinese government some credit. As I mentioned, it is in the Chinese authorities' best interests to be transparent, because if the public is not convinced, the confidence will not come back. And videos do exist to show the exact moment of the collision, it has even been posted in this blog. Hu Jintao came clean after the cover-up during SARS by taking a more open stance, it he won plaudits for it. The Chinese media has already heaped frank criticisms of the burying of the trains, which shows the authorities are keen to take a more open approach. Why can't you wait for the progress of the investigation before making assumptions? Your Elephant explanation is interesting, but again, it doesn't really explain your point clearly. Points 1 and 2 requires to physically see the evidence. So far the video of the moment of the actual crash exists. The sensors had worked as designed in previous occasions, but somehow didn't work this time? Why? There must be a reason, and that's the job of the investigators to find out, what kind of proof do you want that they are doing their job. Certainly, experts will scrutinize the report and will pick out any irregularities. You also questioned the black box's operation, I clarified that. It seems we are going in circles.

Again, as I pointed out in my lead comment, Sone doesn't make sense when he talked about the placement of the train carriages, since the fallen carriages were caused by the crash of the rear train into the forward stalled train, and there is video evidence.

Or perhaps you will understand this better. Let's say you are riding a bike blindfolded on a bridge and you hit another cyclist in front of you who stopped because he had a flat tire. So is the quality of your bike to blame for the crash, or the quality of the bridge? In this case, the aft train is you, the front train the biker with the flat tire. The viaduct is the bridge and the blinfold is the failed safety systems and procedures.

And do you care where the bikes ended up flying to after the collision? Because you know the crash was caused by you wearing a blindfold (failed safety systems, human error, or procedures).

It's a silly example, but I'll play along.

The quality of the bike may affect the severity of my injuries. The bridge design may be the difference between my falling off the bridge or remaining where I am. The placement of the bikes can tell experts many things about the crash. So even if I didn't care (after all, I was reckless enough to be wearing a blindfold), others may.

How could the quality of the bike affect yiour injuries. Do bikes have restraints to keep you from falling off your seat?? Even cars' crash ratings are based on a max speed of 60 kph (Eurocap), anything above that is beyond the design of the capability of the car to protect the passenger. If you hit another train in front of you at speed, the train carriages will derail, as simple as that. Amtrak has many records of derailment, so is that an indictment of America's rail design??? How can the placement of the carriages tell you about the crash??? Speed data is available from the Black boxes. Video evidence showed the rear  traian backending the front train, that's what caused the train to derail and crash from the viaduct, as simple as that. The focus is clearly on the signalling equipment, not a hardware failure of the carriages itself, like its wheels etc. The blindfold analogy is to simulate the situation of the aft train, which was basically driving blind because of the failure of the signal systems. This is my last explanation to you, but then you are just too stuborn to see the obvious truth here.

You sure are an arrogant SOB, aren't you? Don't worry, I won't take up any more of your precious time. Obviously you know more about railway crashes than a railway expert with more than 40 years experience, and nothing else I say will change that. My point is that everything should be investigated. High speed rail crashes are extremely rare, so it's important to collect as much data as possible about the cause(s) and the aftermath, including where the train carriages ended up.

Evrything shud be investigated, 100 percent agree!

Investigating non-related leads, NO! Only a retarded dimwit would consider this route.

High speed rail derialments infact do happen and not rare as you say!

If you have no counterpoints to my comments, I have no issue with you calling me arrogant. Good riddance, pal!

Just look at this tally from French TGV:

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpag...

05 January 2001: Derailment
Trainset involved: Atlantique, unknownService: 8720, Brest - ParisLocation: Standard line near Laval (Mayenne)Injuries: none.
Following a winter storm, a mudslide covered the tracks. The engineer/driver of the 6:49 AM TGV out of Brest, headed for Paris, saw the slide about 300 m ahead and was able to slow to 120 km/h before hitting the mud. A minor derailment of the power car ensued due to the emergency stop.
05 June 2000: High Speed Derailment
Trainset involved: Eurostar 3101/3102Service: 9047, Paris - LondonLocation: LGV Nord Europe, near Croisilles (10 km south of Arras)Injuries: 14, slight
Photo: Associated Press
Belgian trainset 3101-3102 was covering Eurostar 9047 (Paris to London), travelling northbound on track 1 of the LGV Nord high speed line at 300 km/h with 501 passengers on board. The engineer detected an anomalous vibration and reduced speed to 200 km/h, before resuming full speed a short time afterwards. At 5:54 PM local time as the trainset passed 290 km/h near the small town of Croisilles (a bit south of Arras), at the level of the track switch for the link to Arras, a transmission assembly failed. A reaction link on the rear bogie of the leading power car became separated from the bogie frame, leading to catastrophic failure of the transmission assembly with parts impacting the track. The failure and ensuing emergency stop caused the failed bogie 2 (numbered from the front), bogie 3 and bogie 23 on the trailing power car to leave the rails. The partly derailed train came to a stop safely 1500 m further, causing some damage to the track. 14 people including the British engineer were treated for light injuries or shock, and passengers resumed their trip to London on busses. Once again, as in the 1993 TGV derailment, the articulated trainset architecture was credited with maintaining stability and integrity of the train as it came to a stop. How closely disaster was averted is again debatable. While the train remained mostly aligned on the trackbed, it was a matter of luck that it did not foul track 2.
The photo shows Eurostar power car 3102 (the front of the train).
28 November 1998: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: Atlantique, unknownService: unknown, Brest to ParisLocation: Grade crossing 303, near Guipavas (29)Injuries: none
Photo: Eugene Le Droff/Le Telegramme
On a day when rail workers were on strike, a double TGV trainset that had left Brest at 8:54 AM struck a stranded semi-truck/lorry just 8 minutes into its journey near Guipavas. The 23 year-old driver of the truck jumped out of the way and escaped uninjured after losing his way and getting stuck on the crossing while attempting to turn around. Travelling at less than 120 km/h (75 mph) the TGV struck and destroyed the vehicle, throwing debris onto a waiting car whose occupant also escaped unharmed. The lead power unit sustained heavy damage (see photo).
9 May 1998: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: 4345 (Thalys PBKA)Service: train 9344, Amsterdam to ParisLocation: near Hoeven, southern NetherlandsInjuries: 6, slight
Photo: Arie Kievit/Volkskrant
A truck attempted to cross the tracks at an unprotected grade crossing when the train arrived. The truck driver was killed in the impact and the train's power unit and first two trailers derailed. The trainset was heavily damaged. Six passengers were injured and tracks and catenary were damaged in the incident. The photo shows the damage to trailers R1 and R2, which had to be scrapped. The trainset was later repaired with the R1 and R2 trailers from TGV trainset 502, involved in the 25 September 1997 accident.
19 November 1997: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: Atlantique, unknownService: Brest to Paris, unknownLocation: D140 road at Neau, near LavalInjuries: 6, slight
Photo: Valéry Hache (AFP)
A tractor-trailer combination carrying a load of calcium carbonate became disabled on a grade crossing. The driver was able to escape from the vehcile before the train hit it at 140 km/h, derailing one bogie and damaging tracks and catenary.
11 October 1997: Fire
Trainset involved: PSE, 15 (or 45?)Service: train 644, Lyon to ParisLocation: near Montchanin, LGV Sud-Est high speed lineInjuries: none
Photo: AFP
The train developed a fire in the engine compartment. An emergency stop was performed, and fire services began extinguishing the blaze a half hour later. The fire was confined to the leading power unit of the double trainset formation. The unit involved was a recently renovated PSE set, although it is unknown if this was a factor. The 621 passengers were transferred to another trainset and experienced a five hour delay.
25 September 1997: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: 502 (Réseau)Service: train 7119, Paris to DunkerqueLocation: Bierne, 10 km south of DunkerqueInjuries: 7, slight
Photo 1: Pascal Rossignol (Reuters)Photo 2: Pascal Rossignol (Reuters)Photo 3: Dernieres Nouvelles D'AlsacePhoto 4: LCI Television
Synopsis: An asphalt paving machine became stranded on a grade crossing near Bergues. TGV 7119, running 80 minutes late because of a strike, hit the machine at 130 km/h (81 mph). The leading power unit left the rails, spun around to the left, and came to rest on its side down the track embankment. The engineer suffered minor injuries, and the unit was destroyed. Four trailers derailed and two left the track bed. None of them rolled over thanks to the articulated design of the train; very few passengers were injured.
Trainset 502 was withdrawn from service and stored. The trailing power unit serves as a spare, and trailers R1 and R2 may be used to repair Thalys 4345, involved in the May 1998 grade crossing collision.
Photo 1 is a view of the crash site looking northbound. Photo 2 shows the unit's nose after the crash. The rectangular impact shield is visible, and nothing remains of the nose shrouding. Photo 3 shows the rear of the unit, with its roof broken open. Photo 4 is an aerial view of the wreck, with the power unit at left (between the yellow crane and the trailer), and the first two trailers in the woods.
10 August 1995: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: 394 (Atlantique)Service: train 8737, Paris to BrestLocation: Near Vitré, Kilometer post 342, PN 172 grade crossing with road D34Injuries: 2, slight
Photo: David Adémas (Ouest France)
Synopsis: A tractor-trailer combination with farm equipment became stuck on the grade crossing in a relatively tight, canted curve of the Paris-Brest line. The automatic crossing gates came down and the train, approaching at 140 km/h (87 mph), hit the unoccupied vehicle. The train did not derail and came to a stop about 1.6 km after the impact following an emergency brake application. Damage was limited to the nose of trainset 394, as well as a catenary mast and grade crossing gates.
21 December 1993: High Speed Derailment
Trainset involved: 511 (Réseau)Service: train 7150, Valenciennes to ParisLocation: TGV Haute Picardie station, Kilometer post 110.5, LGV Nord (Paris-Lille) high speed lineInjuries: One, slight
Photo: Jean-Marie Hervio / Le Parisien Libéré
Synopsis: This was probably the most spectacular accident involving a TGV, and set a record for the world's fastest derailment. It occured before the TGV Haute Picardie station was built, near the southern end of where the platforms are located today. After a period of heavy rains, a large sink hole opened under track 2 (southbound). Two trains had already passed this spot and detected no anomaly, as late as 10 minutes before the accident. At 7:06, TGV 7150 was bearing down at 294 km/h (182 mph) on a muddy hole 7 meters long by 4 meters wide and 1.5 meters deep, bridged by a section of unsupported track (see picture above). The engineer felt a slight bump and made a service brake application. The last four trailers and the rear power unit derailed, and the train came to a rocky stop over a distance of 2.3 kilometers (somewhat less than it takes for a conventional emergency stop). It was fortunate that the train did not jackknife or leave the track bed; this is credited in part to the stiffness that the articulated design lends to the train. Only one passenger was injured, and another treated for shock. The sinkhole was traced to unstable terrain beneath the track bed, possibly caused by galleries and trenches from World War 1. How closely a disaster was averted is a matter of debate; however, the trackbed has since been carefully inspected to prevent similar occurences in the future.
14 December 1992: High Speed Derailment
Trainset involved: PSE, unknownService: train 920, Annecy to ParisLocation: Mâcon-Loché TGV station, Kilometer post 334, LGV Sud-Est high speed lineInjuries: 27, slight
Synopsis: The accident trainset had been involved in an emergency stop previously, which resulted in a significant wheel flat. At 7:33 AM, the flat spot caused one bogie of the trainset to derail as it passed through the Mâcon-Loché station at 270 km/h (168 mph). Projections of ballast stones caused injuries to people standing on the station platform waiting for train 970. The train came to a stop safely.
23 September 1988: Grade Crossing Accident
Trainset involved: 70 (PSE)Service: train 736, Grenoble to ParisLocation: PN 74, VoironInjuries: 2 dead, 60 injured
Synopsis: A special road transport with a weight of 80 tons became stranded on grade crossing 74. Train 736, rounding a curve toward the crossing, plowed into it at 110 km/h (68 mph). The large mass of the road vehicle made this crash much worse than it might otherwise have been; the engineer and one passenger died, and many more were injured when the first trailer was ripped open by debris. Only the leading power unit derailed. This wreck, the most violent to date, became a reference for the design and crash testing of safety features for the next generation of TGV, as embodied by today's Duplex trainsets. These newer trains have several deformable sections, at the front and rear of the power unit and at the front of the first trailer, to manage and absorb crash energy without damage to passenger compartments. Trainset 70 was never returned to service, and the trailing unit 23140 became a spare in the PSE fleet.
31 December 1983: Terrorist Bombing
Trainset involved: PSE, unknownService: Marseille to Paris, unknownLocation: Near Tain-l'Hermitage, south of Lyon in the Rhône ValleyInjuries: See below
Photo: APIAV
Synopsis: The bomb was placed in a luggage rack in a trailer vestibule. It exploded at about the same time as another bomb which was placed in a baggage locker in the Marseille St-Charles station. The toll from both bombs totalled 5 dead and 50 injured. Both bombs were the work of the famed terrorist Carlos the Jackal.
Sources: Chemins de Fer, La Vie du Rail, TF1 television, Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsace

German ICE system, with worst accident at Eschede in 1998, over 100 dead:
ttp://eriksrailnews.com/archiv...

"Investigating non-related leads, NO! Only a retarded dimwit would consider this route."

So Sone, a railway expert with over 40 years experience, is a retarded dimwit. Okaaaay. You've got me there.

"High speed rail derialments infact do happen and not rare as you say!"

You certainly know how to cut and paste, I'll grant you that. But forgive me for not being precise. What I meant to say is that derailments on high speed systems of this type (with dedicated lines, based on the Japanese shinkansen) are rare. In fact, Japan has never had a fatal crash on any of its shinkansen routes - ever. Since 1964. Now, I wonder why - could it it be that Sone's approach is superior to the "oh-we-know-what-happened-let's-ignore-everything-else attitude that you're displaying?

"I have no issue with you calling me arrogant."

Yeah, I suspect I'm not the first person to call you that. Have you ever wondered why that might be? The discourse has been entertaining. Now I've got better things to do than cross swords with arrogant engineering students.

So far, your only defence against my arguments is that Sone has 40 years of experience. The facts on the ground clearly showed that he was wrong. However, it was very foolish and extremely crazy for the railway authorities to bury the trains, this has always been my POV, but Sone's contention about train placement is extremely stupid.

The fact that the Beijing institute who worked on the signal systems has candidly admitted they were at fault validates the points that I have made so far.

What is wrong to cut and paste if it rebukes what you say, it is perfectly fine. Yes, folkss getting humbled certainly would say I am arrogant. There are many of your types here. That is fine with me.

LOL - you're a real piece of work, that's for sure. Yes, I'm very humbled by your presence, heh heh.

Look, I'll say it one more time so even you can understand. It is wrong to assume anything about a crash such as this. Even if the evidence points to something specific, it's extremely important to preserve the site as it was, which I believe you acknowledge. But I would not only be interested in the cause of the crash, but also why the death toll was 39. Why not more? Why not less? What factors came into play to make this disaster worse or less worse? And in that respect, the placement of the carriages is important. It is arrogant and short sighted to dismiss the opinions of an expert as BS. Unless you are really not interested in learning more about how to prevent such events from happening again.

Typical Ah Q mentality.

First, see my comment in the other post (reply to Shanghaiist).

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/07...

The speed could be gathered from the black box recorder. Yes, modern trains do carry these. And speed is not a determining factor why the aft train hit the front train. It was a clear the failure of the safety redundancies caused the accident, or perhaps even human error. Only a proper investigation will determine the exact causes, but speed in this instance is not critical. And when Sone he said the crash scene shud be preserved (or documented), I am in complete agreement with him, but I raise the BS flag on him when mentioned the placement of the trains a key reason for preserving the crash scene. And I agree the rail company (not investigators) made a very dumb mistake by burying the trains and their subsequent actions were a PR fiasco and despicable.

Actually I did agree it was strange to bury the trains. I have no disagreement with Shanghaiist with that, but then, I guess you just jump to conclusions. The ICE is a good example here, it had a catastrophic crash and the investigation revealed what happened and a design flaw was corrected. The same will be done for the Wenzhou train. What was the response of the railway industry? It was a PR disaster. I look at the things the way it is. But then, folks like you from US look at everything in China with colored lenses.

"Analysing the situation from diffiferent angles is not necessary in this situation"
VS
"Hopefully the authorities will be forthcoming with the investigation"
= The prosecution rests, your honor (but not before having said, "I may just be a small town lawyer, but...)

I heard small town lawyers from where you come from are paid lousily. LOL! But given your talk here, I agree they shudn't pay you more.

Since General Electric provided the critical signalling eqipment for the line, their expertise will be heavily relied on in the investigations.