- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
According to Mr Yeo, SMRT records showed that there has been a reduction in the number of wheel-profiling works between 2009 and last year even though there has been an increase in incidents of wheel defects over the same period. He also said that SMRT's maintenance budget had not kept pace with the increasing ridership.
SMRT also "could do better" in terms of record-keeping, especially in the tracking of defects. "That would in turn enable any lapses or deficiencies in maintenance work to be easily detected and rectified," Mr Yeo added.
Mr Yeo's comments drew a response from SMRT's lawyer Cavinder Bull. The Senior Counsel from Drew & Napier asked: "Whose duty is it to do what?"
He pointed out that the infrastructure was technically owned by the LTA. Also, any modifications to the infrastructure "must be submitted to the LTA for their review and approval", Mr Bull said.
Alluding to findings from a team of experts, Mr Bull said that the SMRT has acted with "appropriate due diligence" in terms of its maintenance and engineering regimes.
Mr Bull added that any wheel defects or third rail gauge variation - which may have contributed to the higher vibrations, which in turn may have contributed to the dislodgement of claws - "did not occur due to a lack of maintenance".
In fact, he said, the SMRT's maintenance regime has been more stringent than what is recommended by the manufacturers: The various checks on the third rail are done every three or six months, which is more than the yearly inspection which manufacturers recommended.
Mr Bull also stressed that the dislodgement of the multiple claws which led to the breakdowns was caused by "a rare confluence of factors, none of which individually could have resulted in the incidents".
- http://www.todayonline.com/Singapor...-pointing-on-Day-1-of-train-breakdown-inquiry
SMRT also "could do better" in terms of record-keeping, especially in the tracking of defects. "That would in turn enable any lapses or deficiencies in maintenance work to be easily detected and rectified," Mr Yeo added.
Mr Yeo's comments drew a response from SMRT's lawyer Cavinder Bull. The Senior Counsel from Drew & Napier asked: "Whose duty is it to do what?"
He pointed out that the infrastructure was technically owned by the LTA. Also, any modifications to the infrastructure "must be submitted to the LTA for their review and approval", Mr Bull said.
Alluding to findings from a team of experts, Mr Bull said that the SMRT has acted with "appropriate due diligence" in terms of its maintenance and engineering regimes.
Mr Bull added that any wheel defects or third rail gauge variation - which may have contributed to the higher vibrations, which in turn may have contributed to the dislodgement of claws - "did not occur due to a lack of maintenance".
In fact, he said, the SMRT's maintenance regime has been more stringent than what is recommended by the manufacturers: The various checks on the third rail are done every three or six months, which is more than the yearly inspection which manufacturers recommended.
Mr Bull also stressed that the dislodgement of the multiple claws which led to the breakdowns was caused by "a rare confluence of factors, none of which individually could have resulted in the incidents".
- http://www.todayonline.com/Singapor...-pointing-on-Day-1-of-train-breakdown-inquiry
