Terry Xu
The Online Citizen first reported on the train fault that took place on Monday evening. A photo of a huge crowd building up at the Jurong East MRT Interchange was shared. Passengers were informed of possible train delays due to the train fault at Buona Vista MRT station.
crowd at SMRTNo official updates were made on the SMRT Facebook page nor the company’s twitter account to inform passengers of the delays while many complained on social media about the crowd and the delays they were experiencing.

Local media eventually reported on the train fault later in the night when Mr Patrick Nathan, Vice-President of SMRT’s Corporate Information and Communications department, spoke on the incident.

Mr Nathan said,  “The brake fault resulted in an additional 20 minutes of travel time, with normal operations resuming at 6.40pm. SMRT does not provide bus bridging services unless the disruptions last more than an hour.”
However, the spokesperson seems to have gotten it wrong on bus bridging service as SMRT does activate the service if there is a delay of more than 15 min during peak hours (“ORANGE1” incidents).
Referring to the COI report on the disruption of train services, Chapter 8 – 12, p. 47/226, the Rail Incident Management Plan (RIMP) states that:

“445 The RIMP is only activated for ORANGE 1, RED 2 and RED 1 incidents. When the RIMP is activated, key personnel and additional resources are mobilised into action. Each key appointment holder has a portfolio and a role to play under the RIMP and the applicable  Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the RIMP oversees the proper implementation of the RIMP and the measures which have to be taken to restore train services. The activation of the RIMP is supported by a Bus Bridging Plan which is maintained by SMRT…”

There were also past incidents where bus bridging was activated when the disruption lasted less than 60 minutes:

  1. SMRT: Train fault disrupted service between Tampines and Pasir Ris on 24 Aug 2013
  2. SBST: Power fault disrupted service between Dhoby Ghaut and Potong Pasir on 6 Apr 2014
  3. SBST: Power fault disrupted service between Hougang and Dhoby Ghaut on 21 Mar 2014
  4. SBST: Power fault disrupted service on the Downtown Line on 7 Mar 2014
  5. SBST: Power fault disrupted service between Bugis and Chinatown on 27 Dec 2013

To note, this is not an exhaustive list. From the sample, it would seem that SBS Transit (SBST) is more likely to activate bus bridging than SMRT. A possible reason could be that SBST owns a much larger bus fleet. Nevertheless did the Land Transport Authority (LTA) synchronise the incident management plans between the two companies? And also, assuming that the spokesperson is correct in his statement, why is there a difference between SMRT’s and SBST’s bus bridging protocol?

The failure to inform members of the public about the disruption of service warrants further questioning. In Exercise Greyhound (2012) carried out jointly by LTA, SBST and SMRT, social media was identified as one of the evaluation criteria for public communication during service disruptions:

“LTA, as the exercise coordinator, assessed SMRT and SBST’s arrangement for free travel on existing public bus services, and the operation of bus shuttle services to provide transport service between the affected MRT stations. They were also tested on public communications, which included promptly informing the public of a service disruption and providing regular updates at the stations and through the media and social media channels such as twitter until normal service is resumed.”

TOC had contacted LTA to seek their response on SMRT’s failure to make public announcement of the train fault. LTA has yet to respond at time of publication.
Image by Eugene Chong, data from Failrailsg.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疑GPS故障走错地点 女私召车司机大雨中轰乘客下车

手机程序中的导航系统出现纰漏,乘客也告知送错地点了,但是女私召车司机却不顾外面下着倾盆大雨,强迫乘客下车。 署名本杰明的网民指出,上述事件发生于周二(10月22日)上午。 他于当天上午要从位于杨厝港路嘉城林的住家,前往工作地点,即位于巴耶利峇路155号的Lotus 诊所。 “当时约早上7时30分,我已经迟到了……天空下着大雨,所以我就在家预约了私召车Gojek服务。” 曾多次反映皆被无视 他对网络新闻网站《Stomp》指出,在路上,他发现有关女私召车司机没有照正确路线行驶,虽然尝试告诉女司机,但是她仍坚持跟着导航走。 本杰明表示他多次反映,但女司机最终竟要求他在比莱1号路下车,而该处距离其目的地仍有1.3公里。 “虽然我不断尝试说服她,说她到达了错误地点,但是她却威胁我说,若我不下车,她就报警。” 本杰明指出,他当时无奈地在大雨中下车,随后还要另外花费八元,预订Grab私召车服务,从比莱路前往诊所。 他表示,当他回顾此事,意识到或许是Gojek应用程序中的GPS出现了故障所致。“这是可以理解的,类似事件时有发生。” 惟,令他震惊和难以接受的是,许多私召车司机都缺乏基本常识,而且工作时过于依赖GPS。…

AWARE Op-Ed on decriminalisation of suicide

Suicide law deters treatment, not attempts Corinna Lim, Executive Director, AWARE Porsche…

w w w . H e l p N a z a n i n . c o m

Go to the website here to learn how to help Nazanin. On…

受害者逾40人、5000元被卷走! 一对男女网上售金诈骗被逮

两名青年涉嫌在网上购物平台Carousell,以出售黄金珠宝首饰行骗而被逮捕。 警方于周三(5月20日)的新闻发布会上指出,嫌犯为一对19岁的男女,受骗人数超过40人,涉及金额超过5000元。 警方指出,在本月接获不少人报案,指他们被一名网上卖家欺骗了。卖家声称正在举办开斋节促销活动,在Carousell上以折扣价出售黄金首饰。然而在买家通过银行转账付费后,就再也无法联系上卖家了。 两名嫌犯是于周二落网。警方在进一步调查后,发现两人曾经向警方做出虚假投报,声称女子的个人物品遗失了,其中包括含有银行户口资料的证件。案件尚在调查中。 一旦欺诈罪名成立,他们将有可能面对不超过10年的监禁和罚款;向公务人员提供虚假情报,若罪名成立也将被判入狱不超过两年、或罚款、或两者兼施。 警方提醒民众,在网上购物时需要提高警惕,尽量避免提前付款或直接转账付款给卖家。 当局表示,欺诈分子会诱使买家直接透过交流平台和他们联系,并以更多优惠或更快速的交易服务,吸引买家通过转账服务付款,因此希望民众不要掉入类似陷阱内。 他们补充道,尤其是在进行昂贵物品交易时,消费者应该选择在交货时才付款,或选择和经授权的卖方进行交易,才更有保障。