• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat Cracks on MRT trains: Khaw addresses key issues raised

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I don't normally read the PAP controlled Straits Times but some may find the gov't excuses interesting:smile:


http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...n-mrt-trains-khaw-addresses-key-issues-raised

The cracks found on China-made MRT trains came under scrutiny in Parliament yesterday, with eight MPs questioning Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan on the issue. Here are the key points:

WHY WAS THE ISSUE NOT MADE PUBLIC EARLIER?

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir) asked why the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT did not inform the public about cracks on the bolster - an aluminium alloy structure under the train carriage - after they were discovered in July 2013, or the subsequent decision to ship them back to China for repair

Mr Khaw said the LTA did not publicise the hairline cracks for three reasons:

• There was no safety risk to commuters.

• Manufacturer Kawasaki-Sifang took immediate and full responsibility for the defects and said it would pay for all replacement works, including replacing the bolsters with a new set made in Japan and welding them to new car bodies in China.

• The manufacturer accepted LTA's replacement work schedule, which meant that train services and capacity levels are not affected by the incident.

The LTA would have publicised the defects if any of these factors had not been satisfactorily dealt with, said Mr Khaw.

WAS THERE A SAFETY RISK?

Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh asked if the defects not being "safety-critical" meant they pose zero safety risks for commuters.

Mr Khaw said the trains can take more than three times the maximum stress they may experience during operations, and the cracks have not reduced this safety margin. An independent assessor, TUV Rheinland, confirmed that the trains are entirely safe to operate.

WHAT DID TUV RHEINLAND FIND AND WILL ITS REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC?

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang) asked about TUV Rheinland's technical report. Mr Khaw said the consultant found that "an inherent defect" in certain batches of bolsters was the primary cause of the hairline cracks. The report will be published on LTA's website if the firm agrees.

WHY DID KAWASAKI-SIFANG WIN FURTHER CONTRACTS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINS?

Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan asked about the consortium clinching subsequent orders for new trains. Mr Khaw said concerns about the defects had been resolved when tenders, which are based on quality and price assessments, were called.

"Kawasaki-Sifang won the subsequent tenders fairly," he said.

WHAT IMPACT HAS THE ISSUE HAD ON THE MRT SYSTEM?

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) and Mr Sitoh asked if the issue has affected operations as well as plans to improve rail reliability and increase capacity.

Mr Khaw said 124 out of 140 trains for the North-South and East-West lines are put on service during peak hours. Only one train is sent back to China at a time, well within the standard 10 per cent buffer of trains for repairs, upgrading and standby. It does not affect the planned capacity expansion on these lines.

The Kawasaki-Sifang train incident has not affected the reliability of the system, as no train delays were caused by the bolsters' hairline cracks, Mr Khaw added.

HOW LONG IS THE WARRANTY PERIOD FOR TRAINS?

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang GRC) asked about the duration of warranty.

Mr Khaw said there is a defects liability of one year, then an extended warranty of four years.

This period is reset after the bolsters and car bodies are replaced, but the reset applies only to those train components.

WHY ARE THE BOLSTERS FROM JAPAN?

Mr Goh asked why the decision was made for bolsters to be supplied from Japan rather than China and if there is a confidence issue with train parts made in China.

Mr Khaw said the manufacturers had decided to use new bolsters from Japan, and his ministry had agreed. He said the first-generation Kawasaki trains are all on Japanese bolsters. "I don't think we need to read anything more than that into this," he said.

There were no cracks in those earlier trains.
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Don't panic.....Cow$8 came clean, but he did not volunteer harakiri?...If this was LTK in charge of this, you bet, he will demand he come clean on the bolster & commit harakiri from hiding the fiasco from the public...but then again, DON"T PANIC....this one from Penang, indeed a HOLEY MAN....ommmm!
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
He gives the impression that Kawasaki was magnanimous in their approach when they were not obliged to. Cracks that require an entire train to be sent back to the factory is not a minor issue. These are contractual legal obligations unless we drew up a half baked contract.

They were caught hiding the issue and question of transparency and trust went out of the window where LTA and MOT are concerned. Removing the LTA CEO but not making accountable in public is not the way of good governance.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I was taking the train yesterday & of course it was packed. If 26 trains are being sent back to China for a few years then what is SMRT going to use :confused:

Just imagine the stress being placed on the old trains as they are called on to carry an ever increasing number of passengers.
 

Brightkid

Alfrescian
Loyal
$8Cow did not tell the whole truth in Parliament yesterday when queried why the issues was not raised earlier.

In the media response when news first broke, I recalled he said so as not to cause panic. Why was this not said as a key reason in parliament yesterday?

Can we assumed this minister either; do not know what's happening on the ground, do not understand the main issue, or he just wanted to lie his way out, or all the above?
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
WHY DID KAWASAKI-SIFANG WIN FURTHER CONTRACTS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINS?

Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan asked about the consortium clinching subsequent orders for new trains. Mr Khaw said concerns about the defects had been resolved when tenders, which are based on quality and price assessments, were called.

"Kawasaki-Sifang won the subsequent tenders fairly," he said.

The question was why and his answer was a non-answer. And the questioner just tiam tiam. What kind of parliament is this? Waste of money.
 

Yamato

Alfrescian
Loyal
The honorable Minister Khaw had answered very well - at no time was there any safety risk to anyone and no disruptions were affected. People are making a mountain of a molehill. I hope we should just move on for a job well done by LTA.
 
Top