China HSR trains collide; 11 dead

gprimr1 wrote:Moderator Speaking Here:

I deleted the posts about hot air balloons and Alex Jones radio show. I do not think that sort of conspiracy theory material belongs on railroad.net.

While it is certainly permissible to discuss different possibilities, please at least back them up with a few facts from the incident.

I would only add to Greg's note to please keep your remarks tasteful.

Why wouldn't Chinese HSR lines have automatic train stops? That little bit of century old technology should have prevented this sort of accident? Actually, do European and Japanese HSR lines have automatic train stops? I'm really starting to wonder if this issue is specific to China, or if there is a general disregard for passenger rail safety outside of the United States?

In any case, passenger rail safety was a major issue in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, and as we all know, the Park Avenue Tunnel collision of 1902 was the most important catalyst for rail safety and modernization in the New York.

I think that China is bordering on the the period in United States history when safety improvements in many aspects of life began to come about.

I remember when I was in Japan, watching the train operators work. They will actually point to each wayside signal. Apparently this is to make sure they see it correctly.

I agree here about wack conspericy theorys but why are they digging a hole there? and crushing the cars up? Remember that China is still a totatalian police state with not the greatest human right record.(We armt the greatest either) We can not allwys take the official line. If you also notice there is a WAMTA style telescoping railroad car wreck here. Unlike US railroad cars which are built like tanks the High Speed China cars are a lighter design.

gprimr1 wrote:I think that China is bordering on the the period in United States history when safety improvements in many aspects of life began to come about.

I think so. China is in the same position that the United States was in over a century ago.

gprimr1 wrote:I remember when I was in Japan, watching the train operators work. They will actually point to each wayside signal. Apparently this is to make sure they see it correctly.

Fine and dandy, but if a train is operating at 220 MPH, I'd like to know that there are automatic train stops. There should be a mechanical and/or electronic backup.

gearhead wrote:I agree here about wack conspericy theorys but why are they digging a hole there? and crushing the cars up?

Why did they let the media film the work crews pushing a wrecked coach off the bridge with a crane. I know that they were simply clearing the wreckage, but to an uninformed viewer, it looked like an accident in progress. I'm getting the impression that the Chinese media was entirely free to report this tragedy and it was only after the public uproar that the censors started sending out memos.

gearhead wrote:If you also notice there is a WAMTA style telescoping railroad car wreck here. Unlike US railroad cars which are built like tanks the High Speed China cars are a lighter design.

Yes, FRA regulations would have saved lives in China, much in the same way that they would have saved lives in Washington D.C. I think there's a lesson here for all passenger rail operators, not just China, because I doubt that Chinese strength requirements differ very much from European norms.

China is in the same position that the United States was in over a century ago

The USA was never an imperialistic communist state.

amtrakowitz wrote:

China is in the same position that the United States was in over a century ago

The USA was never an imperialistic communist state.

Way to miss the context.

NE2 wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:

China is in the same position that the United States was in over a century ago

The USA was never an imperialistic communist state.

Way to miss the context.

I don't think so. There's a very strong point in what I said. One cannot even compare the USA to any communist state, especially when on the rise.

While the USA and China have different economic systems, they did both have a time when safety was thrown out the window. With China, it is the government throwing safety aside, in America it was business throwing safety aside.

In the USA, we were able to advance to include worker safety in most of what we do, China is now coming to that window when I think there will be a growing demand for better safety.

Many differences, many similarities.

if the trains were built to american heavy standards , i think there would have been more casualities , not less . Perhaps it would have looked better in as far as less damage to the carriages , but i'm sure more people would have been hurt . you just cant come to a sudden stop and not get injured , the more cushioning the better . in fact i would go as far to say the fact theat it was on a bridge may have reduced injury compared to been in a tunnel or cutting .

Here is a useful discussion of the political implications of the China HSR train crash. Will Hutton writes about economics and politics and has been quite influential in Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

China, as I once was memorably told by a group of lawyers in Beijing, is a volcano waiting to explode. It is difficult for those not familiar with the country to comprehend the scale of corruption, the waste of capital, the sheer inefficiency, the ubiquity of the party and the obeisance to hierarchy that is today's China. The mass of Chinese are proud and pleased with what has been achieved since Deng Xiaoping began the era of the "socialist market economy". But there is a widespread and growing recognition that the authoritarian model has to change, a fact that every disaster dramatises.

The railway ministry is a classic example. It is a state within a state, making its own rules and with its own well-honed, corrupt hierarchy commanding unquestioning obedience. Charged with building 9,000 miles of high-speed rail by 2020, as well as developing an allegedly indigenous high-speed rail capability better than Japan's or Europe's, it has pulled all the familiar levers to achieve its task. Huge loans from state-owned banks, directed to lend to the ministry in effect for free, have been thrown at the project. Technology has been purloined and stolen from abroad. Productivity, efficiency and safety are secondary to two overwhelming needs: to complete the network fast, so creating crucially needed jobs, and to be able to boast that China's capability is cheaper than anybody else's.

I think China's economy is fundamentally unsound and we will all be affected when it collapses.

David Benton wrote:if the trains were built to american heavy standards , i think there would have been more casualities , not less . Perhaps it would have looked better in as far as less damage to the carriages , but i'm sure more people would have been hurt . you just cant come to a sudden stop and not get injured , the more cushioning the better . in fact i would go as far to say the fact theat it was on a bridge may have reduced injury compared to been in a tunnel or cutting .

That's just not true. Fatalities could have been avoided in the WMATA crash if the cars had been built to FRA standards. When under built, European style rolling stock is involved in a collision, lives are lost as a consequence of slipshod safety standards. In the United States, we learned about safety through experience at the turn of the last century.

Far more research has gone into passenger train safety in Europe than in the USA in THIS Century . You probably think your safer in a Hummer than a small european or japenese car too . The fact is at high speed , it doesnt matter how strong the car is , the human body cant handle the sudden stop . Ive seen pictures of large Auto accidents where there's not a mark on the body , yet they died of brain injuries , ( in that case The brain actually rotated in the skull , severing all nerves ).

David Benton wrote:Far more research has gone into passenger train safety in Europe than in the USA in THIS Century . You probably think your safer in a Hummer than a small european or japenese car too . The fact is at high speed , it doesnt matter how strong the car is , the human body cant handle the sudden stop . Ive seen pictures of large Auto accidents where there's not a mark on the body , yet they died of brain injuries , ( in that case The brain actually rotated in the skull , severing all nerves ).

You're confusing automotive safety with passenger rail. Again, FRA standards would have averted casualties in the WMATA collision of 2009, and most likely would have saved lives in the recent Chinese HSR disaster. Much like the WMATA collision, this Chinese accident proves that buffer strength is still an important factor in rail safety. In Europe and Asia, safety is typically ignored or given less attention because of lower standards of legal liability.

Moreover, your understanding of automotive safety is also highly flawed and dated. European safety standards are centered on offset collision testing, so often a car designed to solely European standards decelerates the occupants too quickly by American safety standards. The SUV reference you made is also dated. The Hummer brand is defunct, and in recent years, with the nearly universal adoption of stability control, large SUVs are now receiving insurance discounts due to lower fatality rates than smaller vehicles. Much like passenger rail, American automotive safety standards were adopted earlier and by statutory requirement, and while a couple of European brands, namely Mercedes and Volvo, were early innovators in safety, such moves were solely corporate initiatives and mainstream European cars lagged in terms of safety until the last decade.