The BIG Breakdown or Meltdown

[Oppsgal]

After reading down the thread, is only a delay.


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/trains-on-n-s-line-slow--sometimes-stall.html

\"Trains have to drive slower for safety reasons (due to the rain).\"

[Chenonceau]

shinri:

Not sure whether you guys can see this:

http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=45496

It's said the claws were fastened using cable ties??

Let's not jump to conclusions eh?

[Oppsgal]

Chenonceau:

shinri:

Not sure whether you guys can see this:

http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=45496

It's said the claws were fastened using cable ties??

Let's not jump to conclusions eh?

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111219-316944/2.html

\"The claws have since been put back in place and secured with steel plates and plastic cable ties. \"

[snowman.022851697]

MRT running slower on rainy days is really a safety issue. imagine metal wheels on metal tracks. with normal amount of power applied, the wheels will slip, acceleration becomes unsmooth and announcement goes out of sync cos they are played according to wheel revolutions. and braking force has to be reduced too for the same reasons. trains enter the station at 40 km/h for your safety, not for the sake of entering at 40 km/h. it’s not like our metro system is the only one that operates at reduced speeds during rainy days anyway. this isn’t something to complain about cos it seriously is for your safety

[snowman.022851697]

i’m not saying it’s wrong to complain… i’m pissed about how they handled thurs’s disruption too. but seriously, asking the ceo to resign won’t solve any problems. it’s not like the faults will go away when she resigns. and 1 month compensation for 127000 pax is too much. that will simply translate to a lower standard of maintenance works.


seriously we should consider planned disruptions for maintenance. 3.5 hours a day is barely enough. but then we’ll have more complaints…

[3Boys]

snowman.697:

seriously we should consider planned disruptions for maintenance. 3.5 hours a day is barely enough. but then we'll have more complaints...

Perhaps they just have to take a leaf from London Underground and just shut lines for maintenance, and provide bridging bus services during those periods? Inconvenient, no doubt, but at least there is predictability to the closures and one side benefit is that commuters get used to managing with line closures, which in reality, are a feature of all metro systems worldwide. By trying to please commuters with 21+hours of operations 365 days a year, SMRT may have overreached itself.

[corneyAmber]

3Boys:

snowman.697:

seriously we should consider planned disruptions for maintenance. 3.5 hours a day is barely enough. but then we'll have more complaints...

Perhaps they just have to take a leaf from London Underground and just shut lines for maintenance, and provide bridging bus services during those periods? Inconvenient, no doubt, but at least there is predictability to the closures and one side benefit is that commuters get used to managing with line closures, which in reality, are a feature of all metro systems worldwide. By trying to please commuters with 21+hours of operations 365 days a year, SMRT may have overreached itself.

There you go...some light is coming up... but probably needs some improvisation to the plan.

[Chenonceau]

Trains don’t run at night. Isn’t that when they normally do track and train maintenance?


How about parallel bus routes to complement the planned route closures, and take the pressure of the rail? They took these away and put in long circuitious routes. This enables buses to pick up more passengers AND it increases train ridership. Very profit efficient but not commuter efficient.

Putting back parallel bus routes would take the pressure of the rail.

[Oppsgal]

Chenonceau:

Trains don't run at night. Isn't that when they normally do track and train maintenance?


How about parallel bus routes to complement the planned route closures, and take the pressure of the rail? They took these away and put in long circuitious routes. This enables buses to pick up more passengers AND it increases train ridership. Very profit efficient but not commuter efficient.

Putting back parallel bus routes would take the pressure of the rail.

And also drive safely, increase the frequency of buses. Give more training to bus drivers, so none lost their way again.

With these, will they increase the fare :?

[Chenonceau]

Oppsgal:

And also drive safely, increase the frequency of buses. Give more training to bus drivers, so none lost their way again.

With these, will they increase the fare :?

If they agree to live with the same quantum of profits as when SPH took over... they should not have to increase the fares. Profits have CLOSE TO TRIPLED since she took over. That is where your money goes to. NOT more training. NOT more maintenance. NOT new trains nor more trains. NOT bus routes that are less than packed but convenient for commuters. Your increased fares goes into PROFIT.

Bring down that profit.

\"Under her leadership, SMRT's net profit grew from $56.8 million in 2002 to $161.1 million this year. Rail ridership has also gone up, averaging a combined 1.79 million a day in September.\" (Straits Times, 19 Dec 2011)