China News Service, April 4th. Taiwanese media reported that the Taiwan Railway "Taroko" was hit by a construction vehicle in the Qingshui Tunnel in Hualien on the 2nd. The prosecutor in Hualien, Taiwan adjusted the number of victims to 48 on the 4th. , There were 198 injured and 45 hospitalized.
The person in charge of Taiwan’s transportation authority said that the train’s car recorder images have been brought back for analysis, including images taken from the key cabs, etc. There will be preliminary analysis results on the 6th at the latest.
In response to this derailed accident that caused heavy casualties, many life insurers in Taiwan have successively confirmed the status of their policyholders.
According to statistics from the three companies of Cathay Life, Global Life and Fubon Life, there are 37 insured households killed in the accident, and the amount of compensation for the deceased exceeds NT$81 million.
On the morning of the 2nd, there were 408 derailment accidents on the Taroko Taiwan Railway.
Photo Source: Photographed by Wang Yanhua, reporter of "United Daily News" in Taiwan
Department of Transportation: Preliminary identification of hazards and prevention of negligence
Li Mou, site director of the construction company for slope improvement (Dongxin Construction) outsourced by the Taiwan Railway Administration, drove a construction truck around 9 am on the 2nd to patrol the construction site, parked it on the construction road, and after entering the work station, he slipped 20 meters away for some reason. The construction road slid down to the east line where the incident occurred, and was hit by the 408 train of the Taiwan Railway "Taroko", causing a derailment accident.
On the evening of the 3rd, Taiwan Railways held a press conference to explain the latest situation. Deputy Director Du Wei said that the contract stipulates that fences and access control should be set up around the work area. Currently, they are all confirmed, but this time there is no express provision next to the slope.
Du Wei said that in the contract, there are requirements for the safety and protection of the work area, regarding the track operation, and the safety and health of the construction site. Temporary road construction sites without fixed guardrails should prevent vehicle accidents from happening.
In the danger notification part of the contract, hazard prevention measures should be taken for the train passing through and will be hit by flying objects. Therefore, whether the manufacturer has any irregularities, will further clarify.
As for whether the manufacturer violated the contract provisions, Du Wei said that we still need to look further at the situation. The Yunan Association is already investigating, and Taiwan Railways will cooperate with the Yunan Association to clarify the truth.
Taiwan’s transportation department pointed out that whether there is any violation of the contract should be discussed after the National Transport Safety Committee and the inspection unit have a clear investigation result, but the hazard prevention initially believes that there is an error.
Is standing ticket sales related to the number of casualties? 7 major doubts to be clarified
Why did the site director stop work and return to the scene?
Who is dereliction of duty in the supervision unit?
The funds are arranged for fences, why are they not set up on site?
Does the Taiwan Railways have a clear specification?
The construction manufacturer said that the handbrake was pulled, but the wreckage of the construction vehicle was parked in neutral; the construction vehicle kept on leveling but stopped on the slope, and the heavier vehicle headed downhill; did the builder submit a construction disaster prevention plan and a traffic maintenance plan?
Why can a manufacturer win the bid if it has a fraudulent record? Does Taiwan Railway know about it?
Is standing ticket sales related to the number of casualties?
There are still seven major doubts in the accident that have not been clarified.
Yu Lie, chairman of the Taipei Civil and Architectural Society, emphasized that public works will require manufacturers to submit construction disaster prevention plans and traffic maintenance plans. “If they were submitted at the beginning and sent for external review, I believe there will be no trouble with the Taroko” .
He explained that in accordance with the site environment, a guardrail should be made on the left side of the climb, and the guardrail should not be made casually; as for the traffic maintenance plan, it is necessary to ensure smooth traffic on the north and south during the construction time.
Yu Lie said that now it is clear that there is no guardrail on the slope of the accident site. Taiwan Railway, as the owner of the accident, is very responsible for the accident and cannot be blamed. Therefore, the question is whether the construction manufacturer had submitted these two plans in the first place. ?
Assuming there is a submission, should the plan be sent for external review, or the Taiwan Railways will review it itself?