Bukit Panjang LRT ( Source : blog.smrt.com.sg)

SMRT has just issued its response in regards to a passenger’s experience involving a run-away light-rail train at Bukit Panjang LRT line (BPLRT) that sped past three stations on Thursday last week (28 July).

Ms Jacqueline Bong had earlier shared with TOC on how the train that she and her friend at Sengar station,  sped past three stations without stopping, failing to respond to the emergency button and how the train was stopped only after a female passenger managed to get to the control station via her mobile phone.

Read: LRT sped past three stations non-stop with passengers at Bukit Panjang LRT line

Ms Bong wrote a letter to SMRT and subsequently posted the same message on SMRT’s Facebook page after being told that she will only be contacted 7 days later.

In her letter, she recounted the incident and asked the following questions:

  1. Why is the emergency button not working?
  2. Why no one notices the train moving non-stop till 4th station?
  3. Why was the emergency phone also not working at that moment?
  4. Why the train moved non-stop with much faster speed as usual?
  5. How frequent SMRT checks the emergency button and phone to ensure its functionality?

She also wrote that everyone were so scared especially when they saw another train ahead and that they can’t imagine what will happen if they couldn’t get the train to stop.

In its Facebook clarification on the incident, SMRT wrote that the BPLRT train skipped Jelapang station at 11.51 am due to a fault on the train’s antenna that ensures trains stop accurately at each station. The train was hence not able to pick up the signal to stop at the next three stations.

It said that it has confirmed that the train did not exceed 55 km per hour during this incident and assured commuters that BPLRT trains operate at a speed range of 30 – 55 km per hour depending on the gradient and turn of each section of the BPLRT network. It also added that the system is also equipped with an independent Automatic Train Protection System that ensures safe separation between trains.

Ms Bong had recounted in her experience that when her friend failed to stop the train by pressing the emergency button, she went to the other side of the cabin to press the emergency button with all her might but the train still did not stop.

In regards to Ms Bong’s account of pressing the emergency button, SMRT clarified that the button can only be activated when a train comes to a complete stop at a station, to prevent it from moving off again.

However, Ms Bong feels that SMRT’s explanation is nonsensical as the button clearly had written emergency stop button.

SMRT noted that its BPLRT Operations Control Centre (OCC) received separate alerts from commuters through the station intercom, the train’s emergency phone and through the OCC hotline.

It went on to state that an automatic alert is immediately triggered to the OCC when either the station intercom or the train’s emergency phone is used. When its OCC responded to the call from the station intercom, the call from the train’s emergency phone was put on queue. It noted that its OCC also received a call from a commuter’s mobile phone at the same time. When the OCC subsequently responded to the call from the train’s emergency phone, no response was received.

TOC asked Ms Bong for clarification on the matter and according to her recollection, there had been no attempts to reach the passengers.

SMRT wrote that its OCC imposed a speed code restriction, which allowed the train to stop before the Phoenix station and said that its staff boarded the train and drove it to Phoenix station where commuters alighted safely at the platform.

This is contrary to what Ms Bong recall, as there had been no SMRT staff at the station awaiting their arrival or to check on the status of the passengers.

The train was later withdrawn to the depot for further checks.

When asked if SMRT had answered her questions, Ms Bong said, “What can I do if it doesn’t answer my questions?”

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

F-16 makes emergency landing at Changi Airport

The Ministry of Defence (Mindef) said A Republic of Singapore Air Force…

A difference of opinion between the Gov’t and the Court of Appeal?

By Ariffin Sha Does Article 12 of our Constitution guarantee equality before…

人权观察轰新法赋部长独断权 律政部反讥对方去年不敢出席听证会

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》在国会经过一读,遭来国际”人权观察组织”(Human Rights Watch)抨击,该法涉及层面广泛,恐扼杀网络讨论,且部长不应赋予独断权力来裁定消息真伪。 对此,我国律政部在昨日发文告指出,直到人权观察组织准备好捍卫他们观点前,不会作进一步回应。 律政部批评,去年的蓄意散播假消息特选委会召开听证会,也有邀请该组织,但对方不敢出席面对特选会,因为自知他们的观点是“偏激、无法抗辩且毫无事实根据”。 人权组织日前发声明抨击,防止假消息法允许部长,只要认为有关消息不实,就可对全球范围任何网络内容发出“更正指示”,但是,却没有阐明部长是依据什么准则,来判断消息真伪。 “不应赋予部长独断权力” 人权观察组织亚洲助理总监罗博申称,不应赋予部长独断权力,来裁定消息真伪。再者,新加坡政府长期打压对政府、政策和领袖的批评,可见担忧“网络假消息”和“选举被操纵”的说辞是荒谬的。 在新法草案中提及,若部长认为基于公共利益,可指示相关部门对涉散播假消息者,发出更正指示。 新法案赋予政府更大权力,可强制发出假消息的个人/网路平台,更正或撤下假新闻。不愿遵守指示的机构,可被判罚款高达100万元。 此外,恶意散播假消息、损害公共利益者,可被判坐牢长达10年、罚款最高10万元。 罗博申也指出,新加坡政府似乎希望成为仲裁者,来裁定世界各地对新加坡的言论。“这项草案公然公然违反言论自由,侮辱互联网自由,世界各国政府和企业应立即呼吁新加坡撤回。”…

Police: No evidence on election official telling elderly voter whom to vote for

Previously in July, a Facebook post surfaced on the internet, alleging that…