Board logo

標題: 人禍國恥 訊號失靈避雷欠奉 高鐵豆腐渣賴天災 [打印本頁]
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-24 20:51     標題: 人禍國恥 訊號失靈避雷欠奉 高鐵豆腐渣賴天災

【東方日報專訊】溫州前晚發生釀成二百多人死傷的高鐵慘劇，令內地高鐵系統的奪命弊端徹底曝光。鐵道部昨強調是雷擊導致事故，意圖諉過於「天災」，惟中港專家矛頭卻直指「人禍」，包括中央列車調度系統訊號為何失靈、列車區間系統無效及列車無避雷裝置等。當局昨日急急將主管該線的上海鐵路局局長、黨委書記、副局長三人免職圖平民憤，惟拒絕承認高鐵質量出問題，再挑全國民眾怒火，狂斥好大喜功的高官謀財害命，直言「這是中國人的國恥日！」

前晚八時半發生在浙江溫州的高鐵追撞出軌墮橋事故，截至昨晚當局修正後的死傷人數為四十三人死亡，二百一十一人受傷。鐵道部發言人王勇平昨向民眾鞠躬道歉，但他解釋事故原因時，堅持是由於雷擊造成前車設備故障停駛，而後車追撞導致。至於詳細情況，他指要等待進一步調查，未有交代。
監管有問題 專家斥兒戲


官方雖然將慘劇定性為「天災」，但實際上多名中港專家提出對事故原因的看法，矛頭均直指「人禍」，當中最主要的五大禍因，許多專家直指「太兒戲」。包括中央調度訊號系統為何失靈，鐵路中央控制室理應知道列車運行情況，就算列車因為系統故障未能傳回訊息，控制室亦不應指揮後車繼續前行。本身是港鐵車長的葵青區區議員梁志成表示：「今次意外令人匪夷所思，似乎由訊號系統至監管都出咗問題。」

第二，高鐵路軌絕大部分架設在空曠路面或架空橋，風吹雨打屬意料中事。香港理工大學機械工程學系工程師盧覺強指出，列車車身和鐵路沿線都應該裝有避雷裝置，事故反映避雷裝置或出現不足。至於涉事列車的質量問題，事發時前車D3115次列車因受電擊失去動力，通訊系統亦無法運作，反映列車配備缺乏雙重保障。

第四，列車運行區間的設計太密。內地○七年自行研發出自動閉塞系統，該系統將鐵路劃分為不同運行區間，系統能在短時間內偵測出有兩輛列車駛入同一區間，理應在五十五秒內將時速二百公里的列車緊急煞停。但當時後車D301次列車以高速追撞，而當局指後車司機曾緊急煞車，顯示區間距離太密而煞不及。
獨家供應商 毛利率五成


最後也有人質疑大橋護欄設計存在缺陷，因事發路段高架橋護欄高度不及列車一半，而且在衝力不算太大之下，仍被撞出缺口，導致四節車廂直插橋下。北京交通大學經濟管理學院教授趙堅更認為，有機會是管理跟不上硬件發展的「人禍」。另外內地媒體揭發，鐵道部訊號系統的獨家供應商，其毛利率逾五成，暗示當中或涉黑幕。

北京理工大學經濟學教授胡星斗向本報表示，這次高鐵事故徹底粉碎了當局宣稱中國高鐵是「世界上最安全高鐵」的言論。

鐵道部、上海鐵路局和溫州市政府代表，昨晚十時許在溫州市舉行記者會，逾百名記者到場採訪，但當局在記者會上無法解釋事故原因，善後措施亦未能交代清楚，引起記者不滿。
各界質疑的五大禍因


一：中央調度系統失靈
二：竟無安裝避雷裝置
三：涉事列車質量存疑
四：運行區間設置太密
五：大橋護欄設計缺陷
作者: rainbow-davie    時間: 2011-7-24 23:26

hmm very interested what peter will say..
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-24 23:30

回復 2# rainbow-davie

I would rather he can keep silent for a while on this matter...
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-7-24 23:54

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-7-24 23:58 編輯

I also strongly believe this is a 人禍 instead of 天災.

On top of the the questions being asked, I would like to ask one more question - where is the automatic and manual fault protection mechanism?

I can smell the taste of "大跃进".
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-24 23:57

唔希望換兩三個局長就當解決左個問題。
作者: rockypath    時間: 2011-7-25 00:05

北京理工大學經濟學教授胡星斗向本報表示，這次高鐵事故徹底粉碎了當局宣稱中國高鐵是「世界上最安全高鐵」的言論。
lo_pak 發表於 2011-7-24 20:51


是否是「世界上最安全高鐵」不是自己說的，而是由時間和數據來證明的。

這些言論根本就是可笑不自量。 車都還沒跑就說自己最安全。

As I said before, operation and management is more critical factor to ensure the safety of the railway.
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 01:04

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 01:17 編輯

From what I read from other websites.

The first train that stopped: D3115 is CRH1046B.

CRH1 trains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH1

The CRH1 EMU is a Chinese high-speed train based on Bombardier technology and built by a Chinese-Canadian joint venture between Bombardier and Sifang at Bombardier Sifang Power Transportation factory in Qingdao, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 01:33

自動閉塞系統不關是什麼車子事，是路軌訊號系統的事。前軌有車，後車實會於6公里外會有危號，什至系統強制刹停。
如訊號因打雷消失，而控制中心不停下後車，什至付近同軌所有列車，就是人為了。
作者: sheep    時間: 2011-7-25 08:38

車都還車都還沒跑就說自己最安全。
rockypath 發表於 2011-7-25 00:05



    絕對係正確嘅
都未行
點會有意外呢
100％零意外
點會唔係最安全
作者: satil    時間: 2011-7-25 08:53

[50cents mode]

首先 '個天' 整停第一架車
'個天' 改晒所有電腦警告訊號
繼而 '個天' 推第二架車撞埋去

全是天災! 不是人禍!
作者: sheep    時間: 2011-7-25 09:01

我都係 好希望係 天災
人禍 都可以接受
一個係 無得預防
一個係 可以撥亂反正
如果 係先天性 設計 建造嘅缺陷
咁就大碌
作者: Catpiano    時間: 2011-7-25 09:36

There is no 人禍 in China, only 天災..

All the roads and transportations in China ..  are designed for PERFECT DAY ..

Not for Rain .. not for snow .. not for thunder .. not for hot day .. not for cold day ...  not for ..
作者: news    時間: 2011-7-25 10:25

typical mainland...it will always look good on the outside...but sht in the inside
作者: ricrick    時間: 2011-7-25 11:28

勃起的強國，盛世的風光，到頭來只是一pat屎，這就是國情，但此情此景，叫真正愛國者情何以堪。
作者: blue20ae    時間: 2011-7-25 12:51

From what I read from other websites.

The first train that stopped: D3115 is CRH1046B.

CRH1 trains ...
peter236 發表於 2011-7-25 01:04



You need to read further down...

Basically the red line was removed from the original Bombardier design.

CRH1B

On October 31, 2007, the Chinese MOR ordered 20 sets of CRH1B trains (CRH1-041B～CRH1-060B). CRH1B is a fleet-extended CRH1A. Each CRH1B consists of 16 cars, including 3 first class coaches (ZY), 12 second class coaches (ZE) and 1 dining car (CA). CRH1B, however, have not such restriction on the operational speed, the maximum speed is still 250 km/h (155 mph).CRH1B first come into commercial use on April, 2009, between Shanghai-Nanjing & Shanghai-Hangzhou.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH1


Granted this is the train that was stopped and got rear ended.  Still, looks like some of the safety features were taken out.
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2011-7-25 13:59

請問現在行使的高铁列車，是不是中国自行研發的和諧号呢？
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 14:08

被命名為「和諧號」的高速動車組列車均為CRH系列，是中華人民共和國鐵道部向龐巴迪、川崎重工業、阿爾斯通和西門子公司購買動車組技術，並透過技術轉移方式，在中國國內生產有關高速鐵路車輛，達到一定程度的國產化。
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 14:13

屌你老味，真係拆車!！
作者: 老友四號    時間: 2011-7-25 14:16

被命名為「和諧號」的高速動車組列車均為CRH系列，是中華人民共和國鐵道部向龐巴迪、川崎重工業、阿爾斯通 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2011-7-25 14:08

咁算唔萛係 山寨版 嘅 龐巴廸&川崎音 重工？
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 14:22

咁算唔萛係 山寨版 嘅 龐巴廸&川崎音 重工？
老友四號 發表於 2011-7-25 14:16

That's is called licensed production.
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 14:24

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 14:31 編輯
You need to read further down...

Basically the red line was removed from the original Bombardie ...
blue20ae 發表於 2011-7-25 12:51

Safety features were not taken out. Why would anyone "take out" safety features?
Safety measure just malfunctioned at some point.

Maybe the Bombardier battery backup just failed to function, that caused it to stop.
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 14:28

There is no 人禍 in China, only 天災..

All the roads and transportations in China ..  are designed for PERFECT DAY ..

Not for Rain .. not for snow .. not for thunder .. not for hot day .. not for cold day ...  not for ..
Catpiano 發表於 2011-7-25 09:36

Just stop you bullsh*t here.
It is clear that there is an element of human error in this incident.
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 14:29

the control centre fail to recognize the problem and take over.
and it is the "track" responsibility to send signal, not the car.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-25 14:32

回復 22# peter236

It's not human error, it's human mistake...

To be honest, your concept is so unclear all the time... Can't expect you can distinguish the difference...
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 14:53

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 14:55 編輯
回復  peter236

It's not human error, it's human mistake...

To be honest, your concept is so un ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-7-25 14:32

Please clear up your concepts. I realize you are sometimes talking in a confusing and self-conflicting way.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error

er·ror
   [er-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech: His speech contained several factual errors.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-25 14:55

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-7-25 14:56 編輯

回復 25# peter236

For you Seems like you would like to ease out the responsibility...

An 'error' is a deviation from accuracy or correctness. A 'mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment, carelessness, or forgetfulness. Now, say that I run a stop sign because I was in a hurry, and wasn't concentrating, and the police stop me, that is a mistake. If, however, I try to park in an area with conflicting signs, and I get a ticket because I was incorrect on my interpretation of what the signs meant, that would be an error. The first time it would be an error. The second time it would be a mistake since I should have known better.
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 14:59

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 15:00 編輯
回復  peter236

For you  Seems like you would like to ease out the responsibility...

An 'error'  ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-7-25 14:55


According to the dictionary, error is mistake,
I have no interest in arguing with you on this. You can argue with the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error

er·ror
   [er-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech: His speech contained several factual errors.
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-25 15:00

回復 27# peter236

That's why you can only be our Peter...
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 15:03

回復  peter236

That's why you can only be our Peter...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-7-25 15:00

Go argue with the dictionary.
作者: 布小熊    時間: 2011-7-25 15:33

So now they 拆車 right away... that's 天災  too!
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-7-25 15:35

Safety features were not taken out. Why would anyone "take out" safety features?
Safety measure jus ...
peter236 發表於 2011-7-25 14:24

Previous news reports have already revealed that Grandfather has reduced the safety margins imposed by Germany and Japan in order to raise the top speed la. How different is it for Grandfather to further eat into any additional safety measures in exchange for further benefits of some sort (eg. cost savings).

Eat shxt la, PK!

-Lik
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 18:57

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 19:06 編輯
Previous news reports have already revealed that Grandfather has reduced the safety margins imposed ...
Lik 發表於 2011-7-25 15:35


The safety margins they were taking about was related to operational speed safety margin, not some parts that you can take out of the train, therefore not related to money at all. Trains operate a certain % below maximum tested speed.
But this line is not even the 300km highspeed line.
This line is 200km, and the location of incident is quite close to Wenzhou south station. The first train was not moving and the second train slowed to 100km when approaching closer to the station.

The safety measures in question should be those components along the tracks that sends signals to the dispatch center and following trains.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-7-25 19:00

Moron,

What I'm saying is, since Grandfather has already been caught cutting corners in one area of safety, would I be surprised to see them cutting other corners in safety or even other areas as well?

-Lik
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 19:09

Moron,

What I'm saying is, since Grandfather has already been caught cutting corners in one area of ...
Lik 發表於 2011-7-25 19:00

They don't cut corners when it comes to safety. There is no indication they intentionally cut corners.
作者: Lik    時間: 2011-7-25 19:12

They don't cut corners when it comes to safety. There is no indication they intentionally cut corne ...
peter236 發表於 2011-7-25 19:09

Right. And that's why the accident was purely an act of God, not a result of human error.

Go eat shxt la, cocksxxker!

-Lik
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 19:31

Right. And that's why the accident was purely an act of God, not a result of human error.

Go eat s ...
Lik 發表於 2011-7-25 19:12


You are wrong. Even with the best technology, there is still human factor.
In this case, it looks like human factor.
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 19:38

how with the self-claimed best signal system still allow human factor to involve?
One conclusion: they turned it off.
作者: satil    時間: 2011-7-25 20:35

yes, news just told us, 列車司機come out and said, a three months training was shorten to 10 days.
it is human factor..
what kind of human ????? Chinese? Japanese? or Canadian? ... or NON-Chinese (as Peter always said?!)... looks like must be Japanese... or us...Canadian-Chinese.
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 21:29

the safety protocol should be well written and go through a numbers a trial and error to eliminate all the "human factor". it should not be override in any circumstances and any occasion.

If this incident is an "human error/mistake" , those high speed train system  doesn't worth a ****.(tho they already put in billion yuen in this system development)
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 21:51

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-7-25 21:59 編輯
yes, news just told us, 列車司機come out and said, a three months training was shorten to 10 days.
...
satil 發表於 2011-7-25 20:35


Any links to prove your claim about their training? This is not the time for you to make things up, just for misleading the public.
You lie as much as the CCP. You always lied on this forum.

These Chinese train drivers have years of experience, starting with diesel trains and moving up to higher speeds trains. The second train's drivers had 18 years of driving trains experience.

工友缅怀动车殉职司机

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-07-26/092822877926.shtml

据郑振治介绍，潘一恒2009年6月取得动车组驾驶证，同年10月走上动车组司机岗位，是动车组技师。发生事故牺牲前，他安全驾驶动车238262公里，从事机车乘务工作18年从未发生任何行车事故。

潘一恒1973年出生，1993年8月从广州铁路机械学校毕业后分配到福州机务段，一直从事机车乘务工作。

　　2008年5月，为迎接温福线动车组开通运营，他报考了动车组司机，2009年6月份取得动车组驾驶证。从参加动车组司机选拔考试、铁道部面试、西南交大理论培训考试到最后的实作培训考试，潘一恒都取得了良好成绩。2009年10月份走上动车组司机岗位后，他始终努力钻研业务知识，熟练掌握动车CRH1A、CRH1B、CRH1E、CRH2A、CRH2E型号动车组的操作技能，是动车组技师。
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 22:15

作者: emailyahoo    時間: 2011-7-25 22:35

網評員（五毛）工作守則
第七條－某些論壇人氣不錯，網友信用度比較高，這時首先要做的是製造一種混亂，通過似是而非的文章進行干涉，跟貼作非理性的故意曲解、製造誤會和爭辯，轉移網民注意力。
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 22:42

注:此相片出現於6天前，事故發生之前。
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-25 22:45

回復 43# MoiRhapsody

The linkage is broken...
作者: lo_pak    時間: 2011-7-25 22:47

回復 42# emailyahoo

受人錢財 替人消災
應該既 應該既

[attach]11601[/attach]

作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 22:51

[attach]11602[/attach]
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 22:54

SEE IT NOW?
作者: peter236    時間: 2011-7-25 23:13

Do you know the name of the person who wrote the article?
Any Weibo account to contact the person? We will try contact the person involved and see if it is trustworthy.
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2011-7-25 23:23

http://weibo.com/1640511280/xfjScogqO
隨你個便
作者: blue20ae    時間: 2011-7-26 04:31

...You lie as much as the CCP. ....
peter236 發表於 2011-7-25 21:51



No one can lie, or even close, to CCP.



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2