Impact of Sending 26 MRT Trains Back to Manufacturer on Service Reliability

Madam, as I said earlier, currently, we are deploying up to 124 trains during peak hours, out of the 140 trains we have for the North-South East-West Lines. So, we have 140 trains altogether, but actual deployment, at the maximum, that means, during peak hours, 124. It is standard practice in all subway systems to have a buffer, about a 10% of trains for repairs, upgrading and standby.

By "standby", we are talking about both cold standby and hot standby. Hot standby means the trains are ready to be launched if you want to. This is because sometimes, for example, yesterday, when you have this train with the air-con problems, you can immediately deploy a new train into the system. This is called "hot standby". At any one time, there is only one train sent back to China for the manufacturer to replace the bolsters and, therefore, we are well within the 10% buffer.

The Kawasaki-Sifang train incident has not affected the reliability of the system. None of the delays on the trains was due to the bolsters' hairline cracks.

Madam, just following up on part (c) of my question and I am really referring to the future batches of trains ordered from CSR Sifang and Kawasaki. What pre-emptive action, if any, is the Ministry taking to ensure that the C151C batch of trains and CT251 batches of trains that were ordered, even as the manufacturing defects were discovered which affected the C151A batch, what is the Ministry doing to ensure that this would not be repeated in future?

As I said, the problem was with certain batches of aluminium which are manufactured and used for the bolsters. So, when the manufacturer offered to say from now on, all bolsters will be manufactured in Japan, that settles the issue.

Just one supplementary question to the Minister. I think when these defects occurred, would the Minister acknowledge that the main contractor, which is Kawasaki-Sifang, bears some responsibility for the quality control of the metallurgical process of the supplier because there was some impurity in the alloy, there were metallurgical issues from the supplier of the bolster. So, would not some responsibility have to be borne by the main contractor, that is, Kawasaki-Sifang, and, if so, what then is the Land Transport Authority (LTA) doing to make sure that they had done the necessary corrections to their quality control process for all suppliers?

If the Member has listened carefully to what I have said over the last half an hour, he would note that Kawasaki, at great cost to themselves, has taken full ownership of the problem − not in denial, "not my problem", "somebody else's problem". They went all out to protect their reputation, make certain decisions, not at our request, but on their own, volunteered to have the bolsters replaced, to completely replace the car-bodies, extended warranty, restarted the warranty commencement. That is part of the reason why LTA originally decided to release one train at a time even though the whole process would then drag on to 2023. What it means is that we have free use of the trains for several years and a prolonged warranty period.

I think that is much more than one can hope for from any manufacturer. Indeed, all organisations should try to emulate, including all of us in positions of responsibility, let us say, for running Town Councils. That should be the attitude we take when we confront a problem. Take ownership, rectify it to the satisfaction of your customer.