12 railways found to be of inferior quality
- By Ma Yujia
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, August 8, 2012
![12 railways found to be of inferior quality.[ File photo ]](http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20120808/001372acd0b5118c53c101.jpg "12 railways found to be of inferior quality.[ File photo ]") |
|
12 railways found to be of inferior quality.[ File photo ] |
An August 1 document from the Ministry of Railways states that a total of 12 railways are facing major construction safety problems, the 21st Century Business Herald reported. An insider close to the ministry has confirmed this news.
Among the 12 railways, seven lines- including the Ningbo-Taizhou-Wenzhou railway which saw a high-speed train slam into a stalled train, leaving 40 people dead and 172 injured- are already in use, whereas the other five are still under construction.
According to the document, these quality flaws mainly consist of cracks and casts in the tunnel arches; disordered cable wiring design; water leakage and cut corners, which the insider said will severely affect the safety of China's railways. It is absolutely necessary that measures are taken in order to make correct the aforementioned mistakes.
Those in charge of the relevant railways construction companies and institutions will be punished, the document said.
Wang Mengshu, deputy chief engineer with China Railway Tunnel Group, said that this manifestation of problems regarding railway quality is closely related to the competitive and illegal workings of those railways construction companies. Their tactics include under-the-table payments plus the lending and transferring of qualification certificates.
On July 17, the state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission ordered five companies, including China Railway Engineering Corporation, China Railway Construction, China Communications Construction Company, China Electric Power Construction Group and China Energy Engineering Corporation, to take effective measures to prevent any further illegal and unfair market competition.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)