Replacement of MRT Parts and Systems

Mdm Speaker, the recommended lifespan of train components and systems is taken into account when decisions have to be made as regard their replacement. In practice, many components are replaced before their expiry, for safety and reliability reasons. This is because how long they will actually last depends on many other factors, such as how often they are used, how they are treated and maintained, as well as the operating environment.

It is the responsibility of the train operators to make this detailed assessment and replace deteriorated components earlier than their end of life if necessary, to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the system. This is especially so for critical components and those with safety implications. This expectation of the operators is set out in the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the Licence Agreement with the operators and the Code of Practice on Maintenance, amongst others.

To further ensure timely replacement and upgrades, LTA has been working with the operators to install condition-monitoring tools – tools that can continuously monitor the condition of the components that they are interested in – as well as sensors, when they become available in the market. They also jointly monitor and analyse data and trends to try to anticipate any asset deterioration so as to eliminate such risks. LTA will continue to work with the operators to further tighten the maintenance and replacement regime. This is a top priority for us.

I thank the Minister for providing the answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions. The first is a clarification: I am not sure I heard the Minister correctly as to whether he has answered the first part of my question on whether any of the MRT's components or systems are operating past the manufacturers' recommended end-of-life date and end-of-line operating cycle.

My next supplementary question: if a certain part has already expired according to the manufacturer's recommendation, but for some reason SMRT has still decided that they are in working condition, what will be the margin of tolerance that the Minister feels may be acceptable? Would it be six months to a year or more?

My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider requiring the transport operator to have a proper rail asset renewal schedule for the expired or soon-to-be expiring parts, even if the parts do not seem to be breaking down yet, so that we can stay on top of the curve as far as system performance is concerned?

My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider publishing input KPIs to measure parts replacement and maintenance works, setting targets and benchmarks against other MRT systems to track not just that the inspections are done regularly but also indicators like the ratio of engineers to the length of tracks and proportion of parts past their end-of-line dates?

My last supplementary question: under the new contracting model, who pays for and is responsible for triggering parts replacement. Is it LTA or SMRT? If there is a change from the current situation, when will this take place, given that negotiations between LTA and SMRT have dragged on for two years or so?

I thank the Member for the questions. It is quite a number of questions, but actually my reply has contained the essence of what I wanted to say. Trains are a very complicated system, much more complicated than, say, cars that most people are familiar with.

Madam, I hope the Member was in this House when my GRC colleague, Minister Ong Ye Kung, gave his speech, which I thought was an excellent speech. He talked about evolution and the way going forward. He said we should have "faster legs, bigger hearts and wiser minds", and in particular, the point about wiser minds. His point was that when things are simpler, it is possible to distill it into one figure or one rule, and then, we just go "law by law". But when the situation becomes more complicated, then you would require judgement, which requires hands-on experience and with time, you will develop judgement because you cannot just simply go "law by law".

So, if we applied it to preventive maintenance, cars, especially new cars during their first five years, it is simple. Anyone who buys a car knows that the dealer will give him a book: first 5,000 kilometres, send the car into a workshop; the next 10,000 kilometres, do this; the following 10,000 kilometres, do that.

When it becomes more complicated, like a train, which requires interactions between many components, systems and parts, it is no longer so straightforward. That is why I said that a manufacturer's recommendation is just a reference, a guide. Specifically, when do you replace it? That must take into account various other factors which are included in my reply.

In fact, we have gone beyond this. It is just no longer a case of "Well, just replace those parts because manufacturers say year x". We are now often in situations where parts are replaced, not because they are going to reach or about to expire, but because of obsolescence. Just this morning, I read an industry article talking about German trains. The knowledgeable analyst made a comment that because trains took many years to manufacture and trains nowadays contain a lot of electronic components, and, dramatising a little, he said that there are occasions when as soon as a new train is delivered to the operator, some of the components are already in obsolescence, to the extent that the supplier of the components may no longer maintain them.

The report talked about the development in Germany where they have an engineering firm who decided to set up a factory to take care of these obsolescent components where no more suppliers want to deal with them. In layman terms, you know that some of the early-generation PCs are still functional but nobody maintains them anymore. In that case, the operators do have some problems.

In short, sometimes, we have to replace before the expiry date, even though they are still functioning, because of obsolescence and sometimes, better, more reliable and easier to maintain parts are now available. That is the situation we are working in.

On asset replacement and who does it, that depends on ownership. If I own the assets, then, I take charge and I decide on when I should replace them. But you must have a reason if you want to vary or adopt a particular approach, to decide if you want to keep it for a longer or shorter time. There must be valid engineering reasons for doing so and that has to be captured and explained if you are confronted by the regulator.

The Member asked can we publish KPIs for every component: when are you going to replace this, and so on and so forth? I suppose you can. But, Madam, as you probably know, I have been spending a lot of my time visiting depots because I wanted to talk to the people on the ground and also see their working life.

The first time I visited one depot, I was curious to look at their warehouse where they stocked all the spare parts. It was a huge place. They have to make use of automated warehousing with computerised forklifts to move the stock. I asked, "How many items?" It is a five-digit figure. Tens of thousands of components, which just shows how complex a train system is. So, if you publish for each item and track when you are going to replace this, and so on, I think it would be such a mass of data that I do not think it conveys much useful information.

The bottom line is this. Rail reliability is an engineering problem. Let us let our engineers solve it the engineers' way. As users, commuters, commentators and some armchair critics, you can just look at it from the outcome point of view; say to yourself, "When I need a train, is it there?" Yes, we are not quite where we want it to be, but we are making improvements. This is a top priority for myself, for my Ministry. Members could just look at me; look at my hair! I think it is mess of duckweed, multiple colours! I promised my wife last night that I will make time to go and dye it before Chinese New Year.

Just to conclude the story. Yesterday, I talked about my cholesterol. This morning, when I went to see the cardiologist, I expected it. He upped my dosage again. Over lunch just now, I was chatting with some colleagues and they asked, "Well, what has changed in the last few months?" They asked if I had changed my lifestyle or diet. I said, "No, nothing". But I can think of one change, which is I changed my job. So, maybe that is the reason. I believe I have answered the questions, Madam.