3rd train mishap in 4 months: Rail safety in question as 14 dead in Andhra

3rd train mishap in 4 months: Rail safety in question as 14 dead in Andhra

The death toll in the rear-end collision between two passenger trains in Andhra Pradesh rose to 14 and the number of injured stood at 50.

The Sunday evening accident was the third fatal railway mishap in the past four months.

Between the deadly triple-train crash in Balasore in June, the derailment in Buxar earlier this month, and the latest accident in Vizianagaram, over 310 people have died and more than 1,100 people have been injured.

On Monday, the East Coast Railway, the zone where the accident took place, said tracks had been restored and movement of the first passenger train took place in the afternoon.

On Sunday evening, around 7:10 pm, the Visakhapatnam-Rayagada passenger special (08504) collided with the Visakhapatnam-Palasa passenger train (08532). Among the dead were three crew members, including the loco pilot S M S Rao, along with the additional loco pilot and guard.

According to a prima facie probe, it is a case of signal passed at danger (SPAD) by the Rayagada special train’s loco pilot, railway officials said.

According to reports, a prima facie statement on the accident claimed that the train should have stopped at the defective auto signals for two minutes, and then started off at 10 kilometres per hour (kmph), which it failed to do.

Experts said a full investigation needed to take place as it was unlikely that the loco pilot missed the red signal due to common reasons like visibility or lack of attention, since the accident took place in the evening, ruling out fog or drowsiness on late night duty.

“We cannot depend on Kavach (automatic train protection system) where the progress, in spite of all the noise made, is around 1 per cent of the total network,” said Lalit Chandra Trivedi, former general manager of the Indian Railways.

He said duty hours of the crew should be checked for the last week and it should be analysed whether hours of employment regulations (HOER) were followed in this case.