冲突 · 基辅大桥遇袭

列车驶过时，俄罗斯无人机袭击基辅大桥；地铁连接仍中断

乘客未受伤，初步检查后公交车也恢复通行。但道路重新开放并不意味着铁路通道获准恢复使用，基辅绿线因此一分为二。

播出 文字 阅读需 9 分钟87 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 4 天

1 篇报道47 家媒体87 个来源

  1. 第 1 次更新列车驶过时，俄罗斯无人机袭击基辅大桥；地铁连接仍中断当前位置

在俄罗斯对乌克兰发动的战争中，对民用基础设施的袭击即使没有摧毁目标结构，也可能打断日常生活。2026年10月1日星期四，两架俄罗斯无人机击中基辅南桥桥墩附近，当时一列地铁列车正驶过第聂伯河。桥体仍然屹立，公路通道也恢复通行，但根据最新经核实的消息，绿线连接河流两岸的线路仍处于停运状态。1 76

据市政交通部门通报，乘客和列车司机均未受伤。初步桥梁检查未发现严重结构性损坏。这些结果令人安心，也很重要——但都不代表铁路通道已经完成安全检查并获准通行。截至10月1日晚间，尚无经核实的消息确认跨河地铁服务已全面恢复。55 76 6

基辅市长维塔利·克利奇科确认，无人机两次击中桥梁支撑结构附近，并暂停了跨越桥面的地铁和地面公共交通。这并非桥梁已确认坍塌。直接后果是，正在使用的交通连接中断，而当时已有平民在列车上。20

市政府通报称，行驶中的列车遭遇冲击波的时间约为基辅时间上午11:30。灰尘经通风系统进入车厢；车窗和车厢结构均完好。随后列车被送往电力机车段接受进一步检查，但尚无已完成检查的结果。55

5频道电视台记者玛丽安娜·米基坚科（Mariana Mykytenko）当时在列车上。她告诉BBC，一名乘客先喊出“沙赫德”，随后灰尘涌入车厢。她所在车厢无人受伤。她的讲述记录了这趟原本普通的旅程突然遭遇的冲击。1

列车把乘客送到右岸的维杜比奇站，之后就没有再往前开。

玛丽安娜·米基坚科 1

社交媒体上早期关于列车车窗被震飞的说法未经核实，且与市政府通报相矛盾。车厢内的灰尘是遭遇冲击波的证据，并不能证明车厢被击穿或结构受损。同样，确认乘客和司机无人受伤，不应被扩大解读为已独立确认桥梁周边所有地点的伤亡人数。47 55

一条线路，两个互不相连的区段

受影响的是锡列茨科-佩切尔斯克线，也称绿线或M3线。跨河通行中止后，列车分别在锡列茨站至维杜比奇站之间，以及奥索科尔基站至切尔沃尼胡季尔站之间运行。基辅地铁并未全线停运，绿线也没有全部停运。河流两岸的服务仍在运行，但两岸之间的贯通服务中断了。2 8

对乘客来说，这一区别关乎实际出行，而非文字表述。一列列车可以仍在运行，一个车站可以仍然开放，但乘客仍可能无法乘坐这项服务横穿城市。到达一个运营区段的终点，不再意味着能乘同一条线路继续跨河前行。

市政部门的通报比最初流传的视频更清楚地展现了应对过程。以下时间均为基辅当地时间；通报记录的是公开确认时间，不一定是每项运营调整实际发生的准确时刻。76

10月1日：市政府的交通应对

  1. 基辅时间12:41

    市政记录了克利奇科确认桥墩附近遭两次击中，并宣布暂停桥上交通。

    76
  2. 基辅时间13:16

    地铁服务调整通知说明了绿线的限行安排。

    76
  3. 基辅时间14:25

    确认地面公共交通恢复；地铁结构仍在检查中。

    76

早期报道中出现的约中午12:20这一时间，包括《基辅独立报》的报道，属于最初报道和视频确认的时间段。市政部门后来发布的列车事件通报称，时间约为上午11:30。这些不同的时间戳并不能证明另有一次袭击或另有两次击中。45 55 76

22路和91路公交车最初改道，改走达尔尼茨基铁路桥。基辅桥梁道路维修局（Kyivavtoshliakhmist）的专家检查了南桥，初步评估未发现严重损坏。根据市政府14:25的通报，两条公交线路均已恢复经由南桥的常规路线；LB.ua在14:30发布的消息也反映了同一恢复情况。76 26

据BBC报道，道路交通也已恢复，但所有道路车辆的确切重新开放时间尚未确定。14:25这一时间戳意味着当时已经宣布恢复通行，并非精确的重新开放时间。1 76

《乌克兰新闻》在17:49发布的报道仍称铁路通道处于关闭状态。最新经核实的市政交通通报仍是14:25发布的公告；此后截至18:23，市政府的通报均未宣布跨河地铁服务恢复。尚无经核实的最终检查结论、恢复时间或完成检查的时间表。6 76

武器型号仍未确定

乘客喊出“沙赫德”，描述的是车上有人认为正在逼近的物体，并非取证鉴定。克利奇科确认有两次击中，以及对列车和桥梁的评估，都不能确定使用了某一特定型号的沙赫德无人机、Geran-5或其他喷气动力设计。BBC明确报道，袭击桥梁的无人机型号尚不清楚。1 20

前一天的一项技术评估说明了为何需要注意这一界限。9月30日，谢尔盖·别斯克列斯特诺夫（Serhiy Beskrestnov），外号Flash，据报道是无偿或自由职业的总统国防技术发展顾问，他评估了俄罗斯首次在喷气动力无人机上使用KRSN切割弹头的情况。他称，该弹头有一个40公斤的主战斗部和四个打击模块，设计用途是摧毁高压输电塔和钢结构桥梁。34 37

这是对先前所述能力的一项有归属的评估，并非对南桥所用武器的鉴定。旨在攻击钢结构的弹头可能是相关背景信息；但其存在并不能证明它击中了这座特定桥梁。1 34

袭击已核实的结果比最令人担忧的早期说法范围更窄，但仍造成了重大影响：没有确认桥梁坍塌，未报告列车上的人员受伤，跨河地铁连接中断。初步检查后，地面交通恢复。尚未作出的安全决定是：进一步检查会否批准地铁结构恢复使用、发现需要维修的损坏，或使绿线分成两个运营区段的状态持续更久。55 76

来源及支持材料

BBC新闻 1；乌克兰通讯社 2；Mezha 3；《乌克兰新声音》 4；UNN 5；《乌克兰新闻》 6；BBC的另一版本文章 7；国际文传电讯社乌克兰分社的服务报道 8及市长确认 9；Inkorr 10；RBC-Ukraine 11。

其他桥梁报道：Yahoo 14；《水星新闻》 15；《基辅独立报》 16；《曼谷邮报》 17；UNITED24 Media 18；法新社帖子 19；国际文传电讯社乌克兰分社 20；Glavcom 21；《乌克兰新闻》 22；RBC-Ukraine乌克兰语报道 23；BBC乌克兰语 24；《基辅邮报》英文版 25和乌克兰语版 27；LB.ua 26；HMH 28；Meduza 29；Glavcom视频报道 30；VRT 32；Censor.NET 33。

武器评估参考资料：乌克兰通讯社 34；Euromaidan Press 35；LB.ua英文版 37；Ground News 39；UNN 40；ANTIKOR 43；《乌克兰新闻》 62；TheDefenseWatch 63；Ukrmedia 64；UNITED24 Media 65；Oslobođenje 66；L’Indépendant 67；Mezha 68。

更多交通及检查情况报道：Glavcom 54；乌克兰通讯社乌克兰语版 55；DSnews 56；国际文传电讯社乌克兰分社专家报道 57；Novyny.live 58；Rubryka英文版 59；Forbes.ua 60；Babel 61；国际文传电讯社乌克兰分社恢复通行通知 69及限行通知 70；UA.NEWS 71；Kashtan Media 72；TSN 73；Life Kyiv 74；Ukrmedia 75；基辅市政府10月1日通报 76；Telegraf 84；Focus 85；Censor.NET乌克兰语版 86；Rubryka乌克兰语版 87。

经查阅的社交媒体账号及流传说法：DNusina 44；《基辅独立报》 45；TV Rain 46；breakingUAnews 47；维塔利·克利奇科的个人主页 50。这些与市政交通部门的检查结果各不相同。

背景资料及其他参考材料，并非此次袭击结果的证据：《每日电讯报》2022年的桥梁报道 12；BBC关于另一起袭击的报道 13；《乌克兰新声音》关于另一起无人机事件的报道 31；Espreso 36；《乌克兰新声音》的视频分析报道 38；RBC-Ukraine 41；《乌克兰新闻》 42；Bykvu 48、Glavcom 49、Kyiv TV 51、克利奇科 52和Denys Sokolov 53此前发布或与此事无关的帖子；基辅市政府关于桥梁限行和交通规则的通知 77 78 79 80 83、北桥指南 81及行人限行通知 82。

播出原貌 11 行
  1. Two Russian drones struck a bridge in Kyiv while a metro train was crossing. Passengers and the driver escaped injury, but the attack broke a working cross-river metro connection.
  2. A preliminary inspection found no critical structural damage, and buses returned. The railway crossing remained closed in the latest verified updates. What still has to be cleared before trains can cross the river again?
  3. The train’s windows and carriage structure remained intact. The two drones hit near the support structure of Pivdennyi, or Southern, Bridge in daylight on October first, twenty twenty-six, while the train crossed the Dnipro River. The blast wave sent dust into a carriage through its ventilation system. A passenger shouted “Shahed” before the dust poured in, but that shout did not establish the weapon’s identity. The train continued to Vydubychi station on the right bank, where the journey stopped. Nobody in the eyewitness’s compartment was hurt, and passengers and the driver were unharmed. That establishes the outcome aboard the train, not a comprehensive casualty count for every location around the bridge.
  4. Early claims that the train’s windows had been blown out were unverified and contradicted by the finding that the glass and carriage structure were intact. Dust inside the carriage did not prove that the train had been penetrated or structurally damaged. The train was taken to an electric depot for additional inspection; no completed result of that inspection was available.
  5. The train encountered the blast wave at approximately eleven thirty in the morning, Kyiv time. The two-hit confirmation followed at twelve forty-one, and the metro service-change notice at one sixteen. An approximately twelve twenty time appearing in early coverage belongs to the first video and reporting window, not a separate confirmed attack time. Those different timestamps do not establish another attack or another pair of strikes. They distinguish the event itself from the public response and confirmation that followed. Nor did the two hits establish a bridge collapse: no collapse was confirmed.
  6. The Green Line kept running on both sides of the river, but no longer connected them. The affected route is the Syretsko-Pecherska line, also called the Green Line or M3. Trains operated between Syrets and Vydubychi, and separately between Osokorky and Chervonyi Khutir. This was not a shutdown of the entire Kyiv metro, or even the whole Green Line. It removed the through connection while preserving service on two disconnected sections. For passengers, reaching the end of an operating section no longer meant being able to continue across the city on that train. Surface public transport across the bridge was initially stopped too.
  7. Buses twenty-two and ninety-one returned to their usual routes across Pivdennyi Bridge after initially being diverted over the Darnytskyi railway bridge. Their return followed a preliminary inspection by bridge-maintenance specialists from Kyivavtoshliakhmist, who found no critical structural damage.
  8. The two twenty-five afternoon update confirmed that surface public transport had resumed. A two thirty update reflected the same restoration. Road traffic also resumed, but the exact reopening time for all road vehicles was not established. Two twenty-five marks when the restoration had been announced, not the precise moment the crossing reopened. More importantly, road reopening did not clear the railway structures. “No critical damage” was a preliminary finding, not a declaration that there was no damage at all, and not a completed safety clearance for every part of the bridge. The metro structures continued to be examined even as buses crossed again.
  9. The railway crossing was still closed in the latest verified status at five forty-nine that afternoon. The last verified municipal transport update remained the two twenty-five announcement. Later city updates through six twenty-three did not announce restored cross-river metro service.
  10. Neither drone that struck this bridge has been identified. The passenger’s shout of “Shahed” does not establish a particular Shahed variant, Geran-5, or any jet-powered design. A separate technical assessment dated September thirtieth concerned Russia’s first use of a KRSN cutting payload on a jet-powered drone. The described configuration was a forty-kilogram main warhead with four strike modules, intended to destroy high-voltage pylons and steel bridge structures. The claimed first use, configuration and purpose belong to that earlier assessment, not to a verified identification of these two weapons. A design intended to attack steel bridge structures is not proof that it was used against this bridge.
  11. The remaining clearance is for the metro structures themselves. Surface transport returned after the first inspection, but no final inspection conclusion established whether the railway structures were safe to reopen or needed repairs. By the evening of October first, no full restoration of cross-river metro service, restoration time, or timetable for completing those checks had been verified.

来源

87 个来源45 家媒体5 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。