[Bigiron]

First sign of fault that sparked MRT disruption surfaced almost 2 hours before train stalled

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/t...9xRa40Qs7Q&sfnsn=mo

[Bigiron]

🔍 1. On Delayed Public Communication

> If the fault was detected two hours before the disruption, how would you feel being on that train — knowing that no alert was issued, and no precautions were taken earlier?

Should we accept this as normal, or should there be accountability for delayed communication that risks commuter safety?




---

🚨 2. On Downplaying the Severity

> Why do you think terms like “dislodged axle box” were used instead of plainly saying the train may have nearly derailed?

Does the way incidents are framed affect how seriously the public demands answers?




---

🛠️ 3. On Lack of Technical Clarity

> Would you feel confident commuting daily if you knew that root causes of critical faults like this are not transparently explained to the public?

What level of transparency should we demand in exchange for our trust in public transport?




---

🧓 4. On Old Trains and Maintenance

> If this fault happened on an older train, do you think enough is being done to modernize and maintain our ageing train fleet?

Would you accept this level of risk if it were an airplane or hospital equipment instead of an MRT train?




---

🏛️ 5. On Systemic Trust

> When incidents like this are downplayed or vaguely explained, what does it say about how much the system values your right to know — as a citizen, taxpayer, and daily commuter?

Is silence a sign of responsibility — or of a system protecting itself from scrutiny?




--

[Bigiron]

⚠️ 1. Flaw: Delayed Public Communication

> Imagine your flight shows engine trouble during pre-checks, but the airline lets you board without telling you anything. Would you feel safe?

If SMRT saw a serious train fault nearly two hours before a breakdown, why weren’t passengers similarly warned? Shouldn’t public transport follow the same safety culture we expect in aviation?




---

⚠️ 2. Flaw: Downplaying Severity

> When your car tire suddenly bursts on the highway, you don’t call it a “minor vibration,” do you? You call it a dangerous fault.

So why do our public agencies avoid using the word “derailment” when a key train part dislodged and damaged the track? What happens to public trust when terms are softened?




---

⚠️ 3. Flaw: Lack of Accountability or Technical Analysis

> If your phone caught fire from a factory defect, wouldn’t you expect the company to publicly explain the cause, issue recalls, and name responsible vendors?

So why do we accept less transparency when a national train system has a mechanical failure that affects thousands of commuters?




---

⚠️ 4. Flaw: Ageing Train and Maintenance Gaps

> Would you ride a 20-year-old rollercoaster if you weren’t sure when it was last serviced?

Then why do we continue riding older MRT trains with minimal explanation on their maintenance status or upgrade plans? Shouldn't the same principle of safety apply?




---

⚠️ 5. Flaw: Culture of Withholding Information

> When a doctor withholds critical health test results until you’re already collapsing, would you see that as care or neglect?

If faults are detected early but not escalated until something breaks down, are our transport operators managing risk — or simply managing headlines?

[red3]

Dun understand? What happen?

[Bigiron]

Dun understand? What happen?

Title: First sign of fault that sparked MRT disruption surfaced almost 2 hours before train stalled
 
Source: The Straits Times, June 3, 2025
 
Author: Not specified
 
Article Summary:
 
Theme: This news article reports on the findings of an investigation into a major MRT disruption on the East-West Line in September 2024, highlighting a critical delay in detecting a faulty axle box that ultimately led to the derailment.
 
Core Points:
 
- A sensor detected an abnormally high temperature (118°C) in an axle box of a train near Lavender station at 7:23 am, significantly higher than the typical operating temperature (30-65°C).

- Due to system issues, the SMRT's heat detection system failed to identify the affected train. The rolling stock controller dismissed the warning as a false alarm.

- Subsequent reports of smoke and burning smell around 8:30 am led to the train's withdrawal, but it ultimately stalled at 9:20 am due to a traction power trip.

- The investigation revealed that a faulty axle box and its chevron springs had dropped onto the tracks, causing the derailment of the train's front bogie. This damaged 2.55km of track and trackside equipment.

- The investigation could not pinpoint the root cause of the axle box failure due to the extensive damage, but two scenarios are suggested: axle bearing failure leading to heat generation or chevron spring failure causing the bogie frame to impact the axle box.

- The report criticizes SMRT's maintenance practices, including infrequent grease leakage checks and less frequent overhauls than recommended by the manufacturer (Kawasaki Heavy Industries). Documentation for extending overhaul intervals beyond the mandated 500,000km was also lacking.

- SMRT has since rectified the system issues, allowing for train identification, and plans to install more trackside infrared sensors alongside the Land Transport Authority (LTA).

- Experts suggest a review of rail maintenance decision-making, increased LTA oversight, and closer collaboration between authorities, manufacturers, and operators.
 
Phenomenon: The article details the specific case study of the East-West Line disruption in September 2024, analyzing the contributing factors and highlighting the consequences of inadequate maintenance practices and system failures. The failure to identify a critical temperature anomaly in a timely manner serves as a central phenomenon illustrating the potential dangers of insufficient monitoring and maintenance regimes in complex railway systems.

[Bigiron]

The Straits Times article highlights several flaws that contributed to the MRT disruption:
 
1. System Failure and Inadequate Response to Early Warning Signs:
 
- Heat Detection System Failure: The SMRT's heat detection system, despite detecting a critical temperature increase (118°C) in an axle box almost two hours before the train stalled, failed to identify the specific train experiencing the problem. This resulted in the rolling stock controller dismissing the warning as a false alarm. The system's inability to pinpoint the affected train was a major flaw, rendering the early warning system ineffective.

- Lack of Controller Training: The investigation revealed that controllers lacked training on how to handle situations where the system couldn't identify the train with the overheated axle box. This lack of training directly contributed to the delayed response and ultimately the failure to take preventive action.

- Desensitization to False Alarms: Repeated instances of the system failing to identify the affected trains likely desensitized the controllers to the alerts, leading them to dismiss the warning as another false positive. This highlights a flaw in both system reliability and the training protocols for handling alerts.
 
2. Inadequate Maintenance Practices:
 
- Insufficiently Frequent Maintenance Checks: SMRT's maintenance procedures fell short of the manufacturer's (Kawasaki Heavy Industries) recommendations in several areas. Grease leakage checks were performed only every three weeks, instead of the recommended weekly visual inspections. Overhauls were conducted less frequently than the manufacturer suggested. This lack of adherence to recommended maintenance schedules increased the risk of component failure.

- Gap Checks for Chevron Springs: Gap checks for chevron springs, performed to assess their weakening, did not determine the actual quality of the springs. A spring could weaken without causing a significant droop in the train car, thus potentially missing a critical indicator of failure.

- Lack of Documentation for Extended Overhaul Intervals: SMRT extended the overhaul intervals beyond the manufacturer's recommendation without proper documentation or senior management approval. This lack of transparency and procedural oversight increased risks and undermined the integrity of maintenance practices.
 
3. Insufficient Oversight and Collaboration:
 
- Lack of inter-agency collaboration: The report suggests a need for greater collaboration between authorities (LTA), manufacturers (Kawasaki Heavy Industries), and operators (SMRT) to share information, promote open dialogue, and implement preventive measures. The siloed approach hindered proactive identification and resolution of potential problems.

- Insufficient LTA Oversight: There's a suggestion that increased LTA oversight of maintenance regimes is necessary to ensure adherence to best practices and prevent potential risks. The current oversight structure appears to be insufficient to prevent deviations from recommended maintenance schedules.
 
In summary, the flaws involved a combination of systemic failures, inadequate maintenance procedures, insufficient training, lack of robust protocols, and insufficient oversight and collaboration, all contributing to the significant disruption. The report emphasizes the need for improved system reliability, enhanced training, adherence to manufacturers' recommendations for maintenance, stronger oversight, and better collaboration to prevent future incidents.

[Bigiron]

Based on the Straits Times article, here's a list of contradictions or inconsistencies identified in SMRT's maintenance practices and responses to the early warning signs:
 
- Contradiction 1: Early Warning vs. Delayed Response: The heat detection system detected a critical temperature anomaly almost two hours before the train stalled, yet due to system limitations and inadequate training, this warning was dismissed as a false alarm. This directly contradicts the purpose of having an early warning system.

- Contradiction 2: Manufacturer's Recommendations vs. SMRT's Practices: SMRT's maintenance practices deviated significantly from the manufacturer's (Kawasaki Heavy Industries) recommendations. Grease leakage checks were performed less frequently, overhauls were conducted less often, and the detailed visual checks were performed less frequently than recommended. These actions contradict the manufacturer's guidelines designed to ensure optimal system reliability.

- Contradiction 3: Frequent Gap Checks vs. Inadequate Spring Assessment: SMRT performed gap checks on chevron springs more frequently than the manufacturer recommended. However, these checks only assessed the droop in the train car, not the actual quality or potential weakening of the springs. This means that more frequent checks were performed, but they did not provide a complete assessment of the spring's condition.

- Contradiction 4: Extended Overhaul Intervals without Documentation: SMRT extended the overhaul intervals beyond the mandated 500,000km without proper documentation or approval from senior management. This contradicts established procedures for extending maintenance intervals and raises questions about the justification and oversight of this decision.

- Contradiction 5: Claim of No Axle Box Problems vs. Actual Failures: SMRT reported to TSIB that it had not encountered problems with axle boxes and bearings, yet the incident clearly demonstrates a major failure of the axle box and its components. This shows a contradiction between SMRT's assessment of its own maintenance effectiveness and the reality of the situation.
 
These contradictions point to systemic flaws within SMRT's maintenance procedures, training protocols, and overall response to early warning indicators. They highlight a disconnect between stated practices, manufacturer recommendations, and actual performance, ultimately contributing to the serious MRT disruption.

[Bigiron]

根据《海峡时报》的文章，以下是SMRT维护实践和对预警信号的响应中发现的一些矛盾或不一致之处：
 
- 矛盾1：预警与延迟响应: 热检测系统在列车故障前近两个小时就检测到严重的温度异常，但由于系统限制和培训不足，该警告被忽略为误报。这与预警系统的目的直接相悖。

- 矛盾2：制造商建议与SMRT的实践: SMRT的维护实践与制造商（川崎重工）的建议存在显著差异。润滑油泄漏检查的频率较低，大修的频率也较低，详细的目视检查的频率也低于建议频率。这些行为与制造商为确保最佳系统可靠性而制定的指南相矛盾。

- 矛盾3：频繁的间隙检查与不充分的弹簧评估: SMRT进行的斜撑弹簧间隙检查频率高于制造商的建议。然而，这些检查只评估了列车车厢的倾斜度，而不是弹簧的实际质量或潜在的弱化。这意味着进行了更频繁的检查，但并没有对弹簧的状况进行全面评估。

- 矛盾4：未经记录的延长大修间隔: SMRT将大修间隔延长到规定的500,000公里以外，而没有适当的记录或高级管理层的批准。这与延长维护间隔的既定程序相矛盾，并引发了对其理由和监督的质疑。

- 矛盾5：声称没有轴箱问题与实际故障: SMRT向TSIB报告称其没有遇到轴箱和轴承问题，但事故清楚地表明轴箱及其部件发生了重大故障。这显示了SMRT对其自身维护有效性的评估与实际情况之间的矛盾。
 
这些矛盾表明SMRT的维护程序、培训协议和对预警指示的整体响应中存在系统性缺陷。它们突出了既定实践、制造商建议和实际绩效之间的脱节，最终导致了严重的地铁中断。