Independent Report on Hairline Cracks Found on 26 MRT Trains
Ministry of TransportSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns Mr Png Eng Huat’s inquiry regarding the TUV Rheinland report on hairline cracks in 26 MRT trains and its public availability. Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan stated the report confirmed the trains are safe and identified manufacturing impurities in the bolsters as the root cause. He noted that the Ministry would seek the consultant’s permission to publish the report, which is currently restricted by a confidentiality clause. Minister for Transport Khaw Boon Wan further clarified that the manufacturer, rather than the report, decided to replace the car-bodies for practical efficiency. This decision was made because the process of replacing only the bolsters was deemed more complex and time-consuming than producing entirely new units.
Transcript
13 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what did TUV Rheinland's report on the hairline cracks found on defective MRT trains reveal; and (b) whether the Ministry will make the entire report public in the interest of transparency.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): TUV Rheinland's technical report assessed that the trains are safe to operate. It also assessed that the primary root cause of the hairline cracks is the inherent defect in certain batches of the bolsters. We have no objection to make public the consultant's report. However, as the contract contains a confidentiality clause whereby written permission from the consultant has to be granted, we will put the request to them. If they have no objection, we will have it published on the Land Transport Authority website.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, just one supplementary question. Did the report also make similar recommendation that you all should replace the body as well? Did the report also recommend that? Or is it just Kawasaki's decision to replace it on goodwill?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Relying on memory, I do not think the report talked about car-body. The report was purely to check firstly, what is the reason for the bolster defect and it established that there was impurity during the manufacturing process. Secondly, is it safe to use the train with the crack still on the bolster?
The consultants focused on these two issues. The decision to rectify this problem by getting new bolsters and to get the new car-body was made by the manufacturers. I can understand, as an engineer, why they decided to take this course of action. It is a little bit like when you extensively renovate your house. Sometimes, the contractor will tell you, I think, in all honesty, it is better you tear it down and rebuild. If it is massive renovation, they find that it is more troublesome and, perhaps, it may even take longer and, sometimes, they do recommend to simply tear it down and rebuild.
Let us understand a little bit of the process here. The bolster is welded, as I said, to the car-body and then the car-body carries all the engines, the seats, glass windows, and so on. The bolster is the one that has some problem. To replace the bolster is straightforward. You must replace the bolster because it has impurities in it. If you were to reuse the car-body, then what it means is that, first, you got to cut out the bolster from the car-body. And then when you receive the new bolster, you got to find a way to weld it to the car-body. Of course, they do not speak Singlish, but they probably said, "Aiyah, so 'leceh'. Let's just produce a new car-body and get a new piece of bolster and weld it on."