LRT failure raises many questions. It's crucial to get to the bottom of the matter before something big happens.
- ST ILLUSTRATION: MANNY FRANCISCO
THE almost 24-hour shutdown of full services on the Bukit Panjang LRT has proven once again that major incidents can be caused by seemingly insignificant elements.
A relatively small component called a tie-breaker - a form of electrical circuit breaker - at Senja station burst into flames on Monday evening.
This caused inconvenience to thousands of commuters during the evening peak and subsequently the morning peak the next day.
Beyond inconvenience, the incident throws up troubling questions about the integrity of our rail system, such as why was there a fire despite the circuit breaker tripping?
A circuit breaker is a device that "breaks" an electrical connection when there is high resistance, a surge or a stray current.
If it was working properly, there would have been no chance for heat to build up in the circuitry, and hence no fire.
What's more puzzling is that the breaker that was engulfed was a new one that had just been installed on Sunday. It replaced an old unit that had arcing problems.
Arcing is an electrical discharge that jumps across a gap in a connection. It can stall trains or, in extreme cases, spark a fire.
The very next day, a fire broke out, destroying the entire control panel housing the breakers.
This begs another question: Did SMRT find out what caused the arcing in the first place? If not, replacing a component will not solve the problem. And as events have shown, it did not.
But if it had done a thorough check and found no plausible cause besides a malfunctioning breaker, what are we to make of the episode?
Do we need to check all the breakers in our rail network? Should we change all of them?
Or perhaps even review our entire electrical infrastructure to ensure other electrical parts are working?
Or is this yet another symptom of an LRT system that has been problematic from the word "go"?
Or could the failure be - as the authorities often say - an isolated incident?
Whatever the case may be, we need to get to the bottom of it.
After all, the mid-launch explosion of the US space shuttle Challenger in 1986, killing seven on board, was caused by a tiny and seemingly insignificant gasket or seal that failed to work properly.
While it may be overdramatic to compare the Challenger blast to the spate of rail failures we have been experiencing, it goes to show that the robustness of an entire system is only as good as its weakest link.
In Singapore's case, a fire in our highly utilised and largely underground rail network could spell disaster. The fact that there had been at least two other rail fires underscores the seriousness of the matter.
Two years ago, a fire broke out near the Newton station, disrupting service for nearly 18,000 commuters. Although our tunnels are equipped with powerful ventilation fans that can extract smoke, the operator switched on the wrong fan and blew smoke into the station.
In 2004, another fire disrupted service at Newton. Like Monday's incident, it is not known why the previous fires happened despite the circuit breakers.
Just two months ago, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew assured Parliament that our trains and tunnels have features that will protect passengers in case of a fire. But that is cold comfort when it appears that a crucial component that prevents electrical fires from happening in the first place does not seem effective.
It is of the utmost urgency that answers be found. Even more so now that we are ramping up the capacity of our rail network, adding more and more trains in response to soaring demand. It is not merely a matter of buying more trains and upgrading the signalling system to cater to higher service frequency.
The electrical and mechanical systems have to be robust enough to cope, too. If not, we will end up with breakdowns of a scale we have not seen yet.
Now, three fires in 11 years could be viewed as negligible, especially when none resulted in human casualties. Or they could be the writing on the wall.
Like the commuter complaints that reached fever pitch but were downplayed just before the two massive MRT breakdowns in December 2011, the operator and the regulator will do well to heed these warnings.
For there may not be a fourth.
The Straits Times / Home Published on 12 March, 2015
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent christan@sph.com.sg
THE almost 24-hour shutdown of full services on the Bukit Panjang LRT has proven once again that major incidents can be caused by seemingly insignificant elements.
A relatively small component called a tie-breaker - a form of electrical circuit breaker - at Senja station burst into flames on Monday evening.
This caused inconvenience to thousands of commuters during the evening peak and subsequently the morning peak the next day.
Beyond inconvenience, the incident throws up troubling questions about the integrity of our rail system, such as why was there a fire despite the circuit breaker tripping?
A circuit breaker is a device that "breaks" an electrical connection when there is high resistance, a surge or a stray current.
If it was working properly, there would have been no chance for heat to build up in the circuitry, and hence no fire.
What's more puzzling is that the breaker that was engulfed was a new one that had just been installed on Sunday. It replaced an old unit that had arcing problems.
Arcing is an electrical discharge that jumps across a gap in a connection. It can stall trains or, in extreme cases, spark a fire.
The very next day, a fire broke out, destroying the entire control panel housing the breakers.
This begs another question: Did SMRT find out what caused the arcing in the first place? If not, replacing a component will not solve the problem. And as events have shown, it did not.
But if it had done a thorough check and found no plausible cause besides a malfunctioning breaker, what are we to make of the episode?
Do we need to check all the breakers in our rail network? Should we change all of them?
Or perhaps even review our entire electrical infrastructure to ensure other electrical parts are working?
Or is this yet another symptom of an LRT system that has been problematic from the word "go"?
Or could the failure be - as the authorities often say - an isolated incident?
Whatever the case may be, we need to get to the bottom of it.
After all, the mid-launch explosion of the US space shuttle Challenger in 1986, killing seven on board, was caused by a tiny and seemingly insignificant gasket or seal that failed to work properly.
While it may be overdramatic to compare the Challenger blast to the spate of rail failures we have been experiencing, it goes to show that the robustness of an entire system is only as good as its weakest link.
In Singapore's case, a fire in our highly utilised and largely underground rail network could spell disaster. The fact that there had been at least two other rail fires underscores the seriousness of the matter.
Two years ago, a fire broke out near the Newton station, disrupting service for nearly 18,000 commuters. Although our tunnels are equipped with powerful ventilation fans that can extract smoke, the operator switched on the wrong fan and blew smoke into the station.
In 2004, another fire disrupted service at Newton. Like Monday's incident, it is not known why the previous fires happened despite the circuit breakers.
Just two months ago, Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew assured Parliament that our trains and tunnels have features that will protect passengers in case of a fire. But that is cold comfort when it appears that a crucial component that prevents electrical fires from happening in the first place does not seem effective.
It is of the utmost urgency that answers be found. Even more so now that we are ramping up the capacity of our rail network, adding more and more trains in response to soaring demand. It is not merely a matter of buying more trains and upgrading the signalling system to cater to higher service frequency.
The electrical and mechanical systems have to be robust enough to cope, too. If not, we will end up with breakdowns of a scale we have not seen yet.
Now, three fires in 11 years could be viewed as negligible, especially when none resulted in human casualties. Or they could be the writing on the wall.
Like the commuter complaints that reached fever pitch but were downplayed just before the two massive MRT breakdowns in December 2011, the operator and the regulator will do well to heed these warnings.
For there may not be a fourth.
The Straits Times / Home Published on 12 March, 2015
By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent christan@sph.com.sg
No comments:
Post a Comment