Talk:Wenzhou train collision

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pcllin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fuzhou South Railway Station = "Fuzhou Railway Station" ?
Fuzhou South Railway Station = "Fuzhou Railway Station" ? 99.112.214.167 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. These are two different railway stations. Those two trains were supposed to terminate at different stations. Fuzhou South Railway Station is the new one opened in 2009. Wo.luren (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * they are two stations for people in fuzhou,fuzhou south station, fuzhou station.

fuzhou south station was built in recent year. I live in fuzhou. --Lxr1234 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sources
Just wanted to post a link to a Google News Feed for possible details as this story emerges.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular there seems to be an article alledging that the chineese government are trying to stop the media asking the all important question http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/25/us-china-train-censorship-idUSTRE76O1IG20110725 . Plugwash (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Burying the trains?
I don't know anything about this specific incident, but the end of the article states that the train cars were being broken apart by backhoes and buried. Is that common practice for accidents like this? I've never heard of part of an accident scene being deliberately broken apart and buried by the government, and I was wondering if it warranted further elaboration. DeiKobol (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the official statement from Rail Ministry from a 7/24/11 10:40PM news conference. and my translation

问：为什么要拆解车厢，掩埋出事动车残骸？

王勇平：当时是从接机人员那听到网上有这样的质疑声，“我问他，怎么会发生如此愚蠢的问题呢？这么举世都知道的事故掩埋得了吗？ ”“他告诉我，不是想掩埋，事实上这个事情是无法掩埋的. ”对于为什么要掩埋，他们给出了这样的解释：因为当时在现场抢险的情况，环境非常复杂，下面是一个泥塘，施展开来很不方便，还要对其他的车体进行处理，所以他们把车头埋在下面，盖上土，主要是便于抢险. 他们给出的解释是这样，你们信不信？我反正是信的. (Link here http://news.sctv.com/shxw/msmy/201107/t20110725_742466.shtml I have no idea how wiki markup works)

(Reporter) Asks: "Why breakup the carriages and bury the train sections?"

(Rail Ministry Spokesman) Wang Yongping: "I heard about this from local officials quoting questions from the internet. I asked him 'Why would there be such stupid question. Could a thing like this be buried/covered* up?' He said, '(I'm) not trying to bury it, and such a thing can't be buried/covered up.' As for why burying the train section, the expansion is this: At the time of rescue, the environment is very complicated. There is a pond (under the bridge), and it's difficult to maneuver (heavy equipment), and the (passenger sections) needs to go though and processed, thus they dug a hole and placed the driver section in it and covered it with earth. It's is for ease of rescue. You can believe it or not. But I believe (this explanation).


 * Note: The Chinese word for physically burying something underground, and cover up an event are the same.

This is actually the first response from Rail ministry about burying the trains and so far this is the story they stick to. I have no idea where NYTimes got their source for "to prevent privileged and sensitive information from leaking to the public". I recommend that sentence to be changed to reflect the actual response from rail ministry. Xingfenzhen (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the original Chinese. I have no way of verifying this though.
 * 【掩埋動車殘骸是為防止洩密】溫州記者拍到7、8輛挖土機抵達事故現場，挖了幾個直徑10米左右大坑，並對車廂破拆、碾壓後推入坑中掩埋. 對此，鐵道部將在稍後的新聞發佈會上作出如下回應：鑑於我國動車屬自主研發，且領先於世界，屬國家級機密，為防止洩密，故緊急採取掩埋措施，此為正常和必要之舉.
 * Translation: [Burying train wreck to prevent leaking secrets]Journalists from Wenzhou filmed 7-8 diggers arriving at the accident scene and dug a few large holes around 10m in diameter. The diggers dismantled and crushed the carriages before burying them in the holes. The Rail Ministry made the following response at the press conference: our trains are designed by our country and they are the most advanced in the world. Accordingly, they are a national secret. To prevent the secret from getting out, emergency burying measures were carried out. This is a normal and necessary action.F (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I write is just translate from chinese wikipedia.

--Lxr1234 (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * okay you just made me to watch the entire new conference. (This the first, and so far the only news conference given by ministry of rail. You have watch it here: http://tech.ifeng.com/telecom/detail_2011_07/25/7914203_0.shtml ) No where did the state secrets are mentioned. The part I quoted can be found beginning 14:30. So please correct it in the main wiki page. Xingfenzhen (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the Chinese paragraph you post used the following words "Rail Ministry will made the following response at the press conference" what does will made means here? as in the actual conference which was live on TV, the MOR didn't response like the paragraph indicated.

--tigersandys (talk) 9:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Japanese TV carried news film footage of them being broken up and buried with bodies still inside. WatcherZero (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How did Japanese TV entered the accident scene as they claim there is a media ban?Tigersandys (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest development, the buried train section has been dugged out and carried away. News Link: http://gb.cri.cn/27824/2011/07/26/2225s3318941_1.htm Xingfenzhen (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which viaduct?
China has some of the longest bridges in the world. Most of them are high speed rail viaducts in Eastern China. Is it possible the accident happened on one of the super long viaducts? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From my limited knowledge of this railway, this viaduct might be "Oujiang Grand Bridge" which crosses Oujiang River with a length of 6244.34 meters, which is not in this list. -- Siyuwj (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Discussion?
Editor Wipsenade has posted this flag in the article.

But I do not see any relevant discussion in the talk page. Is it proper to delete the flag? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it since most appears to be in Chinese, so I can’t understand it, but by what I can gather the user is trying to accuse the Chinese government of a cover up. I was wondering if it was true, a political attack, off topic or just needs to be translated in to English?Wipsenade (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's gon now.86.24.28.3 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2011年7月25日 (一) 17:54 60.242.159.224 (讨论) (15,644字节) (removed POV section) remove it, but why so quickly, shall I cover it? --Lxr1234 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can recover what you write and put it back up. It was a bit strange to read. You have a good point about Media control. It has been found on other, English speaking, Google news pages that the Media is being controlled. I was personally only confused and needed translations.

Someone else has added this to the page and it covers Media control.Wipsenade (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Official media directives-

The Chinese authorities have been accused of attempting to silence reports into the cause of the crash. The Communist Party's propaganda department has reportedly ordered the media not to send reporters to the scene, not to report too frequently and not to link the story to high-speed rail development. Reuters reported that the propaganda department issued directives to the nation's media instructing them to not question or elaborate on reports of the train crash. In their coverage, media were directed to promote the theme 'in the face of great tragedy, there's great love.' Both the China_Digital_Times and Boxun.com, had received attention from the Propaganda_Department_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China, saying they were required to do this.

Wipsenade (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Technology in use"
This section needs less info on patent issues and more info on the signalling system. E.g. was the track equipped with CTCS or something similar? Were there optical railway signals? Whether the trains were very modern or very old seems to be of little relevance to the cause of this particular disaster. Yaan (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I AGREE VERY STRONGLY ! THE RELEVANT 'TECHNOLOGY' QUESTION IS: WHY DID THE SIGNAL SYSTEM MALFUNCTION? WHAT SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY IS INSTALLED ON THE HANGZHOU-WENZHOU-FOUZHOU LINE? WHO WAS THE SUPPLIER OF THE SIGNAL SYSTEM? The accident gives every indication that it is due to a SIGNAL FAILURE. EVERY SIGNALLING SYSTEM is designed to prevent any train from entering space already occupied by another train - but that is exactly what happened here, the second train was sent at full speed onto track already occupied by the first train.

'Lightning strikes' don't explain anything. Lightning strikes everywhere in the world. But I have never heard of a French TGV high-speed train being disabled by lightning (and there are plenty of thunderstorms in Burgundy, on the LGV Sud-Est), nor have I heard of a Japanese Shinkansen train being disabled by lightning.

Now, if the high-speed line in Wenzhou is equipped with Chinese Train Control System CTCS-3 which is the Chinese version of European Train Control System, Level 2, then train detection involves the train's on-board computers, which report the train's location (received from a Balise) to the Control Center. And if the train's on-board computers (in Europe, three redundant computers!) were disabled because on-board power vanished, then yes, tragedy could strike. But this would represent incredibly negligent design - trains carry batteries for back-up power in emergencies, and the first and most important pieces of equipment which should have back-up power are the signalling computers. If these are allowed to become inoperative, then we have a simply incredible failure to design a fail-safe system.

Apparently a train also lost power on the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway around July 11th, and came to a halt, blocking the line. This could be a similar defect.

NO WONDER THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS WORRIED ABOUT LOSING EXPORT MARKETS. You can't sell unsafe engineering.

WHAT IS THE SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY ON THE HIGH-SPEED LINE IN WENZHOU? IS IT Chinese Train Control System CTCS-2 OR CTCS-3? WHO SUPPLIED IT? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY INFORMATION? Prospero10 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this line use CTCS-2 system Tigersandys (talk) 6:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tigersandys, you are extremely helpful. I also found a reference on the Chinese Train Control System: http://www.emsd.gov.hk/emsd/e_download/about/symposium/2011/session/fullpaper/M4_Full%20Paper_CL%20Wang.pdf It's written in very flawed English, but contains much useful information. I have incorporated this new information in the 'Technology' section of the article.Prospero10 (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In an interview with CCTV. Jiongjia station chief (the station just before the accident) indicated the control system at the station encountered computer problem, and they switch to manual command and control of the train. Video of the interview here http://jingji.cntv.cn/20110727/115024.shtml, transcript here http://politics.gmw.cn/2011-07/27/content_2354816.htm 24.4.166.245 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added information from this article, in which a company has claimed responsibility from failed signals on the track.   –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find the explanation from this reuters article even more unsatisfying than the initial lightning strike one. Maybe the reporter did not understand the institute's statement correctly, but where I live, signals are supposed to turn from green to red as soon as a train passes them (as long as the succeeding piece of track is occupied), not as soon as some other train on the track indicates that it has a problem. And also Chinese Railways hopefully would not normally run a high-speed line on optical signals alone?
 * This manual train control hinted on above, on the other hand, looks entirely plausible. Too bad my Chinese is not good enough to try and verify the source for myself. Yaan (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone upload the photos?
Although it is a big acccident, but it don't have any photos about that. Should we request someone to upload it in commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.80.58 (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can.82.27.16.66 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that there are few of photos that can be used on wikipedia. There is a photo on the Chinese Wikipedia but it's not original one licensed with CC but a one copied from other websites. There are few wikipedia users in Zhejiang Province.--SamiZhan (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Death toll
Are there any other numbers floating around other than Xinhua's? Some Chinese people I know don't believe the 39 and keep asking me what foreign media are saying, but as far as I can tell all the foreign media articles I've found just repeat what Xinhua said. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All Ive seen other than the 39 figure was that there was a group formed of 5 families (looking for more) who claimed they had familiy members on the train but which cannot be found amongst the lists of hospitalised survivors or in the morgues. WatcherZero (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the latest number is 40. One cannot expect foreign media to have any better access than the domestic media, though the foreign media are reporting on the bizarre controls being placed on reporters. Chinese netizens, who compiled a list of confirmed dead before the official list was released, have also compiled the names of over 40 missing passengers who are not among those confirmed dead or injured. Earlier on in the week there was some equivocation on the official count; Xinhua at one point named 43 people as having died, if memory serves (can't find the source now) Homunculus (duihua) 15:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Translating Chinese source headlines
For the sake of the references, could someone translate the headlines of these Chinese sources into English?



Thanks.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 21:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. "政府对温州动车追尾事故下封口令" means "Chinese government restricted reports about Wenzhou train collision";

"一座城市的爱与暖――直击“7·23”事故伤者救治现场" means "The love and warmth of a city-- the sense of rescuing of the 7.23 accident";

"爱心在这里升华——见证“7·23”甬温线特大事故救援" means "deep love here -- we witnessed the rescuing of the 7.23 Wenzhou train collision accident";

"高铁体风行：“我反正信了”" is a bit difficult to translate. This title means the sentence "anyhow I believe it" become popular in China. To understand this title you need a bit of background knowledge. After the accident, the train sections are buries. Public hold the view that Rail Ministry did that to eliminate the evidence about why the train collided but Wang Yongping from the Rail Ministry said they did it to help the rescuing. Then he added:"I do not care whether you believe it or not, anyway I believe it" ("至于你信不信，我反正信了. " from http://www.ycwb.com/ePaper/ycwb/html/2011-07/28/content_1172112.htm) And this kind of sentence was called "高铁体" in China now. "高铁" means CRH high speed train. "体" means a format of poets or articles. Many people wrote a host of similar sentence such as "Chinese Football Association said that Chinese National Football Team could attend 2014 World Cup. I do not care whether you believe it or not, anyway I believe it." --SamiZhan (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This article could be made clearer. Was one train standing still?
If one train was standing still, and the other train crashed into it, I think the introduction of our article should reflect that. Now it just says the trains ”collided”, and anyone reading only the introduction may get the impression of a frontal collision with two trains going in opposite directions on the same track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.190.243 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Wenzhou train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110803054828/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8674824/Chinese-rail-crash-scandal-official-steals-2.8-billion.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8674824/Chinese-rail-crash-scandal-official-steals-2.8-billion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wenzhou train collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/china-forced-papers-scrap-rail-crash-coverage-023036493.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f978586e-b5e3-11e0-8bed-00144feabdc0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116235739/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/24/c_131004951.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/24/c_131004951.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)