Summary of Article: LTA – Draft 1
In the article “TRAINS ON THE
NORTH-SOUTH AND EAST-WEST LINES SAFE FOR SERVICE”, the Land Transport Authority
(2016) wrote that the North-South and East-West Lines (NSEWL) trains that have
been in the media spotlight are safe for service. According to the Land
Transport Authority (LTA), testing is conducted on all new trains, including
the Kawasaki Heavy Industries and CSR Sifang (KHI-CSR) trains in question,
before they are put into service. For these trains, immediate action was taken
to prevent issues with battery housing as well as cracks of the draughtscreen
from resurfacing during train operation. Hairline cracks were discovered on the
car-body bolster of the train during inspection. These were confirmed by LTA to
not affect operational safety. Nevertheless, all the affected trains were
gradually being sent back for modification. To ensure that there are sufficient
trains for commuters, only one train was sent back at a time due to “time
consuming and labour-intensive” rectification works. These replacements can be
completed as early as 2019 as more trains will be sent back concurrently
starting next year. LTA stated that they would perform stringent checks
regularly to ensure operational safety of all trains.
TRAINS ON THE NORTH-SOUTH AND
EAST-WEST LINES SAFE FOR SERVICE (2016, July 6). In LTA news page. Retrieved
from https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=0f8b1220-0289-4bef-99c9-b2455f17a66c#_ftn1
Group
Members for Summary Part:
Chris,
Ali, Ike
Reader Response to Article: LTA –
Draft 1
While the LTA was seen to
exercise diligence and accountability in their corrective processes for the
defective trains in question, there would have been no need for such action if
they had improved their pre-deployment processes.
The LTA’s article suggests that they
took well-planned steps to eliminate the possibility of future problems for the
battery housing component by improving the housing design as well as engaging a
different supplier. However, the article fails to describe in similar fashion
the steps to rectify the issue of the cracked draughtscreens. They could have
better described their “appropriate action” taken by including details, instead
of leaving them to the reader’s conjecture. One such example could be adding the
conclusion of whether it was the manufacturer’s installation process that had
to be subject to proper review and revision or if it was negligence from the
manufacturer, for the sake of convenience, that led to the installation error
despite the installation process being reviewed and approved. The omission of
details such as these may inadvertently lead to speculation with regards to the
stringency and efficiency of LTA’s inspection processes in general.
The LTA’s article also attempts
to alleviate any concerns from the public by asserting that there were no
adverse effects of the hairline cracks, which were discovered during routine
inspection, on operational safety. To substantiate this statement, the LTA claims
to have sought advice from their engineers, as well as the contractor and an
external assessor. To further show that the LTA prioritizes safety over
deployment availability, the article mentions that despite presenting no risk
to operational safety, the defective trains are being sent back to the factory
for replacement works. However, the discovery of such a defect only serves to
show that there have been lapses in quality control, as these hairline cracks
were caused by impurities in the material used during manufacturing. Therefore,
the LTA should have conducted pre-deployment inspections with greater scrutiny,
so as to ensure that defective trains are not being hastily approved in order
to meet operational needs.
In conclusion, although the
article strives to show that the issues with the defective trains are swiftly
dealt with by the LTA, it is important that the LTA continually endeavours to
maintain high safety standards. Commuters’ expectations regarding public
transport are increasing, and the LTA must consider that the investment of resources
into pre-deployment processes is more efficient in the long run, as compared to
expenditure on corrective processes to fix a problem that could have been
prevented in the first place.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to share any thoughts and questions you may have on the post.