• 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 Why didn't you say so from the start?

crazyMod

Alfrescian
Loyal
Singaporean government explains why secretly recalled China-made subway trains are still safe
mrt_sg_madeinchina.jpg


After FactWire, a crowd-funded media source in Hong Kong, revealed that 35 Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) trains in Singapore were being shipped back to their Chinese manufacturer, Qingdao-based CSR Sifang, allegedly because cracks had been found on their bodies, public outcry erupted online, questioning the safety of Singapore's metro, as well as the transparency of public transport operator SMRT.
To address the controversy, Singapore's Land Transport Authority released a statement yesterday, only 3 years late. The statement says that in 2013, when routine checks were conducted, it was discovered that out of the 35 trains ordered from a consortium, 26 of them had hairline cracks on the car body bolster, which is displayed in the image below.

sg_metro_followup.jpg


Lab tests showed that the cracks are due to "localized impurity in the aluminum car-body" and the most effective way to fix this would be to replace the entire car-body shell. However, they reassured the public that there is nothing to worry about because they are not structural cracks and pose no operational risk to the actual function of the train.
As the Ministry of Communications and Information eloquently echoed: "These are superficial cracks (like those that show up on the walls of a new house)." Well, we don't know what kind of houses Ministry members live in, but should they be worried? A home certainly can't be shipped to China for repairs.
If the LTA and the Ministry of Communications and Information aren't enough to assure you, they also asked TÜV Rheinland, a global provider of technical, safety, and certification services in Germany, to conduct tests. The company also confirmed that the trains are safe to operate.

sg_metro_followup2.jpg


The trains are still under warranty and will be shipped back to China for repairs, with all costs being borne by the contractor. Looks like the cheap train, averaging to less than 14 million RMB, isn't so cheap anymore. The trains are being shipped back one at a time in order the minimize the impact on train operations in Singapore, but starting from next year, two trains will be shipped at a time. Each train will take around 4 months of repair time and the LTA estimates that the trains will all be fixed by 2019.
Despite the government shedding light on the details of the case, many are still not content. One Facebook user commented:
The public appreciates the further clarifications by LTA. However, their focus seems to be on the technical aspects of the defective trains only. There is still no clarity why such matters of intense public interest was not disclosed in a timely manner until it was called out by a foreign media. The key issues of transparency and accountability have not yet been addressed.
Fortunately, we don't have those kinds of problems over here.
By Sarah Lin
[Images via Land Transport Authority]
 
Last edited:

po2wq

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
... they reassured the public that there is nothing to worry about because they are not structural cracks and pose no operational risk to the actual function of the train.

If the LTA and the Ministry of Communications and Information aren't enough to assure you, they also asked TÜV Rheinland, a global provider of technical, safety, and certification services in Germany, to conduct tests. The company also confirmed that the trains are safe to operate.

The trains are still under warranty and will be shipped back to China for repairs ...
mor touch up, mor bracker ... 越描越黑 ...

if ok 2 operate, send back 2 repair 4 wat? ... contractor oso never replace hairline cracks in ur haus ...
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
What about the manpower needed to transport the trains to the port?and the time the 24 trains are going to spend offline?its like operating an airline and having 25% of ur fleet down for 3 years.every day the train is not operating is lost revenue.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
If its just hairline cracks,why not just send a bunch of tiong engineers down to fix it?why the need for secrecy for the past 5 years?
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Smrt trying to kid who.

Minor defects needing touch up need to do from 2013 till 2019.

It takes 2013 to 2019 to touch up it is minor, if it comes back in the year 2525 it is major & it takes 52 man years to check the books also....
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
there's a lot of bs spewed here by laymen and lazymen who don't know jackshit about transit rolling stock.

allow me to clear some of the false and wrong info speculated, plagiarized and regurgitated by a few dimwits and train expert wannabes, especially one who claims to know it all.

first of all, the entire weight of the car body rests on two bolster assemblies which are in direct contact with bogies, i.e. the undercarriage of the car usually comprising 2 bogies. bolster assemblies provide suspension, balance and swing tolerance capabilities for various loads on the car. the car body is made of aluminum to lessen the loading weight and the car body is not the bolster. the bolster assembly is obviously made of various and different stronger materials. reporting on this is so poor that both reporters and readers are confused with "car body bolster" as though bolster assemblies (there are 2 per car) are one and the same with the car body. in heavy loading conditions the energy on the bolster (function) assemblies is transferred, spread to and absorbed by the car body. any micro impurities on aluminum panels or plates on the car body will manifest themselves with stress which leads to hairline cracks. the quality of aluminum panels and plates is in question. if the same questionable material is used in the sub-floor of the car body, i.e. the floor beneath the passenger-bearing floor of the car holding electrical parts and wiring, it becomes a structural or frame issue no matter which way the cat is skinned. for any officials to say it's not a structural issue is not altogether correct if indeed the sub-floor is impacted with hairline cracks. but if the sub-floor is not impacted, the structural integrity of the car is not a serious issue. if hairline cracks are only on car body panels, then it is just a cosmetic issue. sinkies like to create mountains out of molehills without doing the necessary technical deep dives and scientific fact-checking - a reason why i don't hire sbf sinkies because they don't do rca's objectively and can't solve anything without first shooting from their arseholes.
 
Last edited:

Seee3

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Putting in a layman's way, a train is actually separated into 2 main parts, bottom & top. The bottom part consists of the 'wheels' assembly that runs on the track and is called the bogie. The top part is where the passengers are, and is called the car body. Connecting the top part to the bottom are cross beams called bolsters. There is a bolster in the bottom part (bogie) and another bolster on the top part ( car body).

LTA has stated that cracks were found in the car body bolster (top part). So we shall not talk about the bogie or its bolster. The body bolster helps to transmit centrifugal force during turning motion to the bottom part so as the improve passenger comfort. Any mechanical part that is used to transmit energy will be subject to greater stress which probably explained why the cracks appeared on the car body bolster first. This cracks will propagate to other parts of the car floor subsequently. Without full knowledge of the quality of the actual material used, a PE can declare that the crack is ok if he is over 60 years old.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Looks like you bought Govt story hook, line and sinker.

There were cracks on the bolster which is made of steel and not aluminium. There were cracks on car body made of aluminium. There are cracks and defects on the bogies itself. All 3 components can be separated easily at any service dept. These are modular in nature.

Yet the entire train is being returned. New car bodies will be fitted and all the bogies and bolsters will be replaced.

Govt well known for what is stated and what has been omitted. Common sense will tell you if its only the bolster, they should have been fitted in a matter of days. It only 2 per car and modular construction. New ones can be sent to Singapore.

Why change the entire car body. Why even sent the heavy bogies back? You got to learn to ask question to clear your own doubt.


Putting in a layman's way, a train is actually separated into 2 main parts, bottom & top. The bottom part consists of the 'wheels' assembly that runs on the track and is called the bogie. The top part is where the passengers are, and is called the car body. Connecting the top part to the bottom are cross beams called bolsters. There is a bolster in the bottom part (bogie) and another bolster on the top part ( car body).

LTA has stated that cracks were found in the car body bolster (top part). So we shall not talk about the bogie or its bolster. The body bolster helps to transmit centrifugal force during turning motion to the bottom part so as the improve passenger comfort. Any mechanical part that is used to transmit energy will be subject to greater stress which probably explained why the cracks appeared on the car body bolster first. This cracks will propagate to other parts of the car floor subsequently. Without full knowledge of the quality of the actual material used, a PE can declare that the crack is ok if he is over 60 years old.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
If the SMRT just stuck to buying trains from Ang Mohs all these problems would never have arisen.

This is because when it comes to building trains Ang Mohs are the best!
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think many of the well known train manufacturers are now moving to China to do the heavy and labour intensive work. It inevitable for cost consideration.

Singaporeans have learnt to tell their bosses good news. Even if it not their fault but the supplier's fault, they will help cover it up and sometimes it becomes a hole they keep digging as in this case.

The local press has also become the "official certifying authority on all facts" that readers lap it up. Poor critical thinking has made this a vicious cycle.

If the SMRT just stuck to buying trains from Ang Mohs all these problems would never have arisen.

This is because when it comes to building trains Ang Mohs are the best!
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
If its just hairline cracks,why not just send a bunch of tiong engineers down to fix it?why the need for secrecy for the past 5 years?

If its hairline crack only, why need 4 months to fix? They can build an entire brand new carriage in 4 months. Must be more serious then that. Also ST Aerospace is specialist in refurbishment of aircraft including testing and fixing of structural metal fatigue problems in planes, which after all are made of ..................ALUMINUM ALLOY!! So, if it cannot be fixed in singapore, its way more serious then they say. Lying pieces of dogshits.
 
Top