Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CRRC Qingdao Sifang (KSF) C151A
A C151A train approaching Khatib station, 2020
Interior of a C151A train
In service27 May 2011 (2011-05-27) – present
Manufacturer
Built atQingdao, Shandong, China
Constructed
  • 2011 – 2012 (Batch 1)
  • 2013 – 2014 (Batch 2)
Entered service27 May 2011 (2011-05-27)
Number built210 Vehicles (35 Sets)
Number in service210 Vehicles (35 Sets)
Formation6 per train set
DT–M1–M2+M2–M1–DT
Fleet numbers
  • 501/502 – 543/544 (Batch 1)
  • 545/546 – 569/570 (Batch 2)
Capacity296 seated; 1,624 standing; 2 PIW spaces
OperatorsSMRT Trains (SMRT Corporation)
Depots
Lines served
Specifications
Car body constructionAluminium-alloy double-skinned construction
Train length138.86 m (455 ft 6+7⁄8 in)
Car length
  • 23.83 m (78 ft 2 in) (DT)
  • 22.8 m (74 ft 10 in) (M)
Width3.2 m (10 ft 6 in)
Height3.7 m (12 ft 2 in)
Doors1,450 mm (57+1⁄8 in), 8 per car, 4 per side
Maximum speed
  • 90 km/h (56 mph) (design)
  • 80 km/h (50 mph) (service)
Weight
  • 226.8 t (223.2 long tons; 250.0 short tons) (unladen)
  • 335.9 t (330.6 long tons; 370.3 short tons) (laden)
Traction systemFuji Electric IGBT–VVVF (output 415 kVA)
Traction motors16 × Fuji Electric MLR109 140 kW (188 hp) self-ventilated 3-phase AC induction motor
550V 193A 1760 r/min
Power output2.24 MW (3,004 hp)
TransmissionWN Drive
Acceleration1 m/s2 (3.3 ft/s2)
Deceleration
  • 1.2 m/s2 (3.9 ft/s2) (service)
  • 1.3 m/s2 (4.3 ft/s2) (emergency)
AuxiliariesFuji Electric auxiliary inverter with battery charger
80 kVA + 16 kW
Electric system(s)750 V DC third rail
Current collector(s)Collector shoe
UIC classification2′2′+Bo′Bo′+Bo′Bo′+Bo′Bo′+Bo′Bo′+2′2′
Braking system(s)Regenerative, rheostatic and electro-pneumatic
Safety system(s)Original: Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company FS2000 ATP fixed block ATC under ATO GoA 2 (STO), with subsystems of ATP and ATS[1]
Current: Thales SelTrac® moving block CBTC ATC under ATO GoA 3 (DTO), with subsystems of ATP, NetTrac ATS and CBI[2][3]
Coupling systemScharfenberg
Track gauge1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge

The Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang C151A is the fourth generation electric multiple unit rolling stock in operation with majority operating on the North-South Line, with a few operating on the East-West Line of Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system, manufactured by Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) and CRRC Qingdao Sifang under Contract 151A. Their introduction to the network has increased the capacity of both lines by 15%.[4][5][6]

They are the last batch of rolling stock on the two lines to be painted in the "Blackbird" livery. Developed from the Kawasaki Heavy Industries & Nippon Sharyo C751B sets, further developments of the type include the C151B and C151C featuring design updates and changes. The C151A was the first rolling stock on the MRT network to be manufactured in China. The initial contract of 22 trainsets of 6 cars each was awarded to KHI and Sifang by the Land Transport Authority.

In 2013, a further order of 13 trainsets under was placed, with all 35 trainsets in revenue service as of 2014.[7] In 2016, an investigative news report from Hong Kong's FactWire alleged that C151A trainsets were discreetly being shipped back to Qingdao for rectification due to multiple defects, including an exploding battery and cracks on trains. The Singapore government subsequently acknowledged the trains were returned for rectification works, and have since published official statements to address FactWire's specific allegations.

History

On May 6, 2009, the Land Transport Authority announced that KHI and Sifang had won over Hyundai Rotem, Bombardier Transportation and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to secure the contract at a cost of S$369 million, despite Hyundai Rotem offering the lowest bid at S$323 million for the order of 22 trainsets under Batch 1. Sifang handled the manufacturing and testing of the rolling stock, while KHI oversaw the project and design. The C151A contract was the first successful joint venture between these two companies in the international market.[8]

With the delivery of C151A trainsets, trains were actually operated on the East–West Line until October 2013. C151As were temporarily suspended from the North–South Line during the MRT disruption in 2011, starting from 7 May 2012 all the way until 23 October 2013.[9] SMRT engineers detected arcing problems on one of the C151As, but no evidence was shown that it was the root cause of the service suspension in 2015.

During the suspension of the C151A running on the North–South Line, SMRT had investigated and found impurities in aluminium bodywork caused the cracks found in structural components, including the sub-floor, which is a compartment located under passenger floor. Its role is to hold equipment box and electrical wires and bolster function parts connecting the car body to the bogie. Affected trainsets were sent back to China progressively between July 2014 and January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tender

The tender for trains under the contract turnkey 151A was closed in January 2009. The tender results were published in May 2009.[10]

S/N Name of tenderer Amount ($S)
1 Bombardier (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Bombardier Transportation GmbH Consortium 373,327,788.00
2 Kawasaki Heavy Industries,/ Kawasaki Heavy Industries (Singapore) /CSR Qingdao Sifang Locomotive and Rolling Stock 368,997,888.00
3 Mitsubishi Corporation 393,301,698.52
4 Hyundai Rotem 322,729,548.00

Equipment

Main propulsion controller

The C151A trains are the third commuter type Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) made in Japan to feature electric systems fully manufactured by Fuji Electric. Propulsion is controlled by VVVF Inverter with 2-level IGBT semiconductor controller, rated at 415 kV. Each inverter unit controls two motors on one bogie (1C2M), and one motor car features two of such units. Motors are three-phrase AC induction type, model MLR109, with a maximum output of 140 kW. However, the main difference is that the traction for the trains is higher pitched than the ones from C751B trains which are lower pitched.

Bogies

The C151A trains use the monolink axle box type bolsterless air spring bogie. There are no major technical differences between a trailer and motor car bogie other than additional electrical components for the latter.

Auxiliary systems

A break from tradition, the C151A trains features auxiliary inverters for its electrical systems on all six cars of the train. Previously, auxiliary inverters were mounted only on motor cars. The VVVF Inverter is controlled by IGBT semiconductors and rated at 80 kV. A battery charger is built with the inverter and provides 16 kW output.

Train formation

The coupling configuration of a C151A in revenue service is DT–M1–M2+M2–M1–DT.

Cars of C151A
Car Type Driver Cab Motor Collector Shoe Car Length Wheelchair Bay
m ft in
DT✓✗✓ 23.83 78 ft 2.2 in✗
M1✗✓✓ 22.8 74 ft 9.6 in✗
M2✗✓✓ 22.8 74 ft 9.6 in✓

The car numbers of the trains range from x501 to x570, where x depends on the carriage type. Individual cars are assigned a 4 digit serial number. A complete six-car trainset consists of an identical twin set of one driving trailer (DT) and two motor (M) cars permanently coupled together. For example, set 535/536 consists of carriages 3535, 1535, 2535, 2536, 1536 and 3536.

  • The first digit identifies the car number, where the first car has a 3, the second has a 1 & the third has a 2.
  • The second digit is always a 5, part of the identification numbers
  • The third digit and fourth digit are the train identification numbers. A full-length train of 6 cars have 2 different identification numbers. For example, 535/536 (normal coupling) or 535/548 (cross-coupling).

Operational problems

On 5 July 2016, a Hong Kong-based non-profit news organization FactWire had broken the news of the C151A trains suffering from multiple defects[11] relating to Chinese-made materials and posted the entire investigative works in YouTube.[12]

Factwire allegations

These are the list of allegations mentioned in their YouTube video since C151A entered into revenue service in 2011 (27 May 2011).[12]

This list compiles the initial response from the authorities are compiled from the first SMRT press release on 5 July 2016, 4:30pm (GMT+8) by SMRT Trains managing director Lee Ling Wee [13] as well as the first Land Transport Authority press release at an hour after first SMRT's press release.[14] and also the subsequent official position on Singapore government's online FAQ portal 'Factually' which quotes sources from the Facebook page of Land Transport Authority hours after the initial press release.[15]

List of alleged flaws on C151A by Factwire and the response from authorities.
No. Date of issue First appeared Alleged issues & consequences Alleged actions taken by the authorities Initial response from SMRT[13] or Land Transport Authority[14] Subsequent response by Singapore Government portal 'Factually' [15] Additional Notes (Including any subsequent press release from the authorities)
1 2011 A C151A battery used for uninterruptible power supply exploded during a repair work but caused no injuries or deaths. All Chinese made batteries were replaced into German made instead. No comments Issue was caused by gases building up in the battery housing cover, causing the cover to fly open. The design for battery housing was since improved to rectify this issue immediately on all affected trains. The authorities eventually admitted some flaws in the battery housing design, but did not confirm whether the suppliers for the batteries were changed as well as if the batteries installed on other C151A trains were replaced or not.
2 15 & 17 December 2011 SMRT suspects that C151A trains are responsible for the twin MRT breakdowns on North–South Line during the evening peak hours. Worst disruptions in entire Singapore MRT history.

Furthermore, according to a CSR Sifang anonymous subcontractor, he claimed to FactWire that SMRT had reduced the deployment of C151A trains and requested payment delay for the extra C151A trains after the breakdowns. As a result, the cash-flow of the subcontractor is heavily impacted.		 No comments Not mentioned
3 2013 Impurities in aluminium bodywork caused the cracks found in structural components, including:
  • 1) Sub-floor, which is a compartment located under passenger floor. Its role is to hold equipment box and electrical wires.
  • 2) Bolster function parts connecting the car body to the bogie.
 FactWire alleged the shipment of defective trains is part of a cover-up by both Singapore (SMRT, Land Transport Authority) and the train manufacturers (Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CRRC Qingdao Sifang) as the defective trains are wrapped in a green cover and transported during late night.


Moreover, an unnamed source from CRRC Qingdao Sifang claimed to FactWire that since 2015, 5 or more affected trains have already been replaced. This source claims that the entire process to rectify the issue will take 4 months to complete. This 4 months process begins with shipping the trains from Singapore to Qingdao, getting the defective train disassembled before parts are to reassembled into new aluminium train car body manufactured by Kawasaki Heavy Industries as well as testing and ending it with the rectified trains returned to Singapore.

  • Issue was acknowledged by SMRT Trains managing director Lee Ling Wee. The process to recall 26 of 35 C151A trains back to China for repair by the manufacturer CRRC Qingdao Sifang started after the cracks issue was discovered in 2013. As for the 9 remaining trains, they were rectified during the production before being shipped to Singapore.
    Lee said that the issue would be fixed by 2023 and ended with an assurance that all trains will need to pass a monthly safety assessment by both LTA and the train manufacturer before being deployed into revenue service.
  • In a separate press release by Land Transport Authority (LTA), it confirms the defects but insisted that these are not safety-critical and do not affect the performance of the trains. LTA reiterates that the manufacturer will have to fix all defects found on the trains which are still under warranty.
  • Further explained that the cracks are hair-line cracks which are NOT structural cracks, as opposed to what FactWire claimed.
  • The entire repair works has also been brought forward to 2019 instead of 2023 as said by Lee Ling Wee originally, due to two factors:
    • 1) LTA has managed to negotiate with CRRC Qingdao Sifang to rectify the issue faster
    • 2) After the newer (C151B) trains and upgraded trains (Older trains being compatible with the new Thales SelTrac® Communications-based train control (CBTC) moving block signalling system[16]) are ready for revenue service by late 2016, 2 affected trains can be sent for repair at a time. Before this (As of 2016 June), SMRT can only send 1 train to the manufacturer in Qingdao at a time.
  • This arrangement of sending defective trains in batches instead of all at once is meant to minimize the inconvenience to the passengers on the train availability.
  • The entire time taken for rectifying the defects in each C151A train would take about 4 months. However the portal 'Factually' did not confirm when the transporting of first affected C151A train from Singapore took place and how many affected C151A trains had the issues rectified before the issue was made to the public on 5 July 2016.
  • The transportation of train cars during the late night is to reduce inconvenience to motorists and past deliveries of new trains were also conducted at night as well while the wrapping of trains is similar to how people protect their electronic item that will be shipped from overseas.
    However, the claim is disputed by some members of the public because there were photo evidence of new trains being shipped into Singapore during day time without the protective covers in the past as well.[17]

Opinions from Railway Experts and Analysts:

  • Samuel Lai Man-hay who is former Kowloon–Canton Railway Corporation acting chief executive officer had questioned the quality control of the entire manufacturing process if the allegations defects from Factwire for a relatively new train were to be true.[11]
  • A senior lecturer at SIM University and analyst, Dr Park Byung Joon told Channel NewsAsia (CNA) that this incident could be due to 'some critical and technical issues that nobody has an immediate solution yet' based on the 7 years (2016 - 2023) needed to rectify the defects. Dr Park's opinion was reported in the CNA report along with the LTA press release.[14]

Reactions

This incident was a source of public concern among Hong Kongers because subway operator MTR had ordered fleets of a new train from the same manufacturer CSR Sifang. The news was quickly reported in other Hong Kong media.[18] The incident also created a public uproar in Singapore, generating a public reaction. Some of these discussions included criticism of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT for the cover-up about the defective trains, while others questioned the quality of the Chinese-made trains.[19] The LTA released more technical details on 6 July 2016 claiming that 5 of the 26 defective trains had been rectified, including photos illustrating the 'hair-line crack'.[20][21] The authority also named an independent third-party assessor, TUV Rheinland who shared the same opinion that the defects are "not safety-critical".[20][21]

During the same period, a rumour posted on 4 February 2015 alleging misconduct of CSR Sifang faking technical data involving almost 70 people from multiple departments since November 2010 for failing to meet the standards set by Kawasaki Heavy Industries[22] gained traction amongst the public.[23] The consortium refuted the rumor on 7 July 2016 and threatened to take legal actions.[24] The LTA also publicly dismissed the allegations in a press statement.[25] The link to the original rumor was deleted soon after the response from the authorities.[22] On 7 July 2016, the LTA also stated that "no brackets were added at any time to the underframe"[26] in order to refute a subsequent FactWire report claim.[27] LTA also stated that it "considered that the contractor was able to quickly identify the cause of the defects, take responsibility and carry out the necessary action promptly to rectify the fault" and gave the consortium the "highest quality score" as the basis for awarded them subsequent train contracts (C151C and T251) in 2015 despite the defects were discovered since.[26] The contract for C151B trains had been awarded to the same consortium in 2012, prior to the knowledge about the faults being known.[13][14]

On 9 July 2016, a Singapore-based alternative media[28] republished a CaiXin Online article originally published in March 2016 by the China Railway Construction Corporation blaming the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation for the decline of quality standards.[29] According to the former, 60% of all railway incidents in China and 90% of all railway disruptions during 2015 can be attributed to CRRC manufactured trains not meeting quality or maintenance standards, with 210 instances resulting in death or injuries.[29] The equivalent of the English article is also provided by CaiXin Online as well.[30]

Political furor in Singapore

The incident became a political issue as opposition politician Gerald Giam from the Workers' Party questioned the transport authority for awarding the consortium a "top quality score", among other statements in his Facebook page.[26][31] The party later issued a second statement that their MPs would file 17 questions in Parliament about the issue.[32]

Official statement from Transport Minister

On 12 July 2016, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan released an extensive statement about this issue. These are the key points that Khaw have made:[33]

  • The reason that this incident was not reported earlier in 2013 is because going public for something that was "not a major event" might have caused unnecessary panic to the layman since any engineers would have known that not all cracks are the same. However, he admitted that sometimes routine matters can be spun out of control, just like in this incident.
  • Land Transport Authority would have consulted with Ministry of Transport and go public if this incident happens to be a safety issue OR affected train capacity even if the incident does not affect safety because they need to explain the slowing down on the goal of increasing mass rail transit capacity.
    In this case given that only one train is sent for rectification at a time,[15] the train availability is not affected at all since the East–West Line and North–South Line has a total fleet of 140 trains (As of 2016) while only 124 trains are needed to meet the operational demand.
  • He said that the entire train would be removed from service even if just one out of the 6 train cars formed cracks.
  • Explained that the reason for Kawasaki-Sifang to win subsequent tenders like T251 trains for the upcoming (As of 2016) Thomson-East Coast Line is because the consortium showed a high level of responsiveness and strong sense of responsibility in addressing the issue and the authorities are satisfied that the issue was resolved conclusively.
  • Explained that a total of 4 tenders including Kawasaki-Sifang out of the 6[34] planned to assemble their trains in China with Hyundai Rotem and Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles the exceptions who will assemble their trains in South Korea and Spain respectively should they have won the T251 tender.

Reaction from the Analysts and FactWire after Minister statement

  • Senior Transport Correspondent for Straits Times, Christopher Tan[35] published an article on 14 July 2016 in a response to the entire saga. He started with both LTA and the train manufacturer are addressing the flaws head-on deserves credit[35] but took an issue with how the authorities communicated with the public over the debacle did little to restore confidence.[35] Specifically the points mentioned were:[35]
    • The oldest rolling stock C151 does not have cracks despite nearly 30 years of service and the first batch of trains used in the Singapore's most problematic railway, Bukit Panjang LRT Line showed cracks only after 16 years of service. Therefore, he said that the crack issue surfaced on the C151As are not routine as what minister have said earlier.
    • Transport Ministry risks giving the public an impression of taking the issue lightly by comparing the hairline cracks occurred on the trains to those that frequently appear on a newly plastered wall.[15]
    • Took issue with the train manufacturer for not showing public remorse because no apology was made while threatening to take legal actions against people who spread the rumors critical of them.
    • Engineers knows that impurities in aluminium-alloy is a grave concern in any industry as its durability is certain to be compromised over time. The authorities had earlier admitted that the cause of hair-line cracks in train car body is due to impurities.[15]
    • Questioned the authorities were quick to declare that no reviews are necessary despite Sifang was rejected by Massachusetts transport officials due to the technical, manufacturing and quality assurance components of its bid were "unacceptable" in 2014 among other issues surfaced by rival Chinese railway manufacture in the overseas projects as well as the authorities had appeared to downplay the episode.
  • On 14 July 2016, FactWire made a Facebook post[36] which regretted the false statements that Singapore minister had made 2 days ago.[37] Specifically, FactWire regrets the minister has suggested that FactWire could be part of politically motivated anti-China factions in Hong Kong and as a result Singapore become a convenient bullet and collateral damage during the press release on 12 July 2016.[37] FactWire also reiterates that it is an entirely crowded funded news agency being independent of any commercial or political interests.[36]

Incidents

On 15 November 2017 at approximately 8.18am, 2 C151A trains collided at Joo Koon MRT station. 29 passengers were conveyed to various hospitals following the incident and a further 7 walked in themselves. This is the second of such incidents after 5 August 1993, with the first being when 2 C151 trains collided at Clementi.[38][39][40]

References

  1. ↑ Woodland, Daniel (August 2004). "Optimisation of Automatic Train Protection Systemstion Systems" (PDF). p. Appendix C Page 32 to Page 33. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  2. ↑ "THALES Urban Rail Signalling Singapore – North-South / East-West Lines" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 16 June 2020.
  3. ↑ Fang, Joy (2 February 2012). "Coming: $600m upgrade for MRT system/New train measures a 'catch-up'". My Paper. pp. A2, A6. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
  4. ↑ "Extra metro trains for Singapore". Railway Gazette International. 2009-05-07. Archived from the original on 2009-11-13.
  5. ↑ "Five new trains added to boost capacity of North-South and East-West Lines" (PDF). SMRT Corporation. 2011-05-16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-27.
  6. ↑ "Train capacity to rise by up to 50% in 4 years". Archived from the original on 2012-02-29. Retrieved 2011-11-13.
  7. ↑ "Both orders for Singapore Subway Train 132 LTA". 29 August 2012. Archived from the original on 23 October 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2012.
  8. ↑ "CSR Sifang and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Won the Bid in the Subway Vehicle Project of Singapore". May 13, 2009. Archived from the original on July 23, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  9. ↑ "REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE DISRUPTION OF MRT TRAIN SERVICES ON 15 AND 17 DECEMBER 2011" (PDF). Ministry Of Transport. 4 July 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
  10. ↑ "Tender Information". 2009-09-02. Archived from the original on September 2, 2009. Retrieved 2016-07-07.
  11. 1 2 China manufacturer for MTR secretly recalls 35 SMRT subway trains after cracks found (Report). 2016. Archived from the original on 8 July 2016. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
  12. 1 2 China manufacturer secretly recalls Singapore MRT subway trains after cracks found (Report). 2016. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
  13. 1 2 3 "26 China-made MRT trains sent back to fix defects". The Straits Times. 5 July 2016. Archived from the original on 12 March 2022. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
  14. 1 2 3 4 "Defects on SMRT trains 'not safety-critical', to be repaired by manufacturer: LTA". Archived from the original on 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2016-07-05.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 "Why are MRT trains being shipped back to the manufacturer?".
  16. ↑ "Thales awarded signalling contracts for Singapore North-South, East-West lines and Tuas West Extension". Archived from the original on June 30, 2015.
  17. ↑ "Archived copy". Facebook. Archived from the original on 2023-02-08. Retrieved 2016-07-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  18. ↑ "Mainland manufacturer for MTR secretly recalls 35 trains from Singapore due to crack". HKPF. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
  19. ↑ "LTA: Defects of trains not safety-critical, SMRT: Defects will be repaired by 2023 - The Online Citizen". 2016-07-05. Archived from the original on 2016-07-06. Retrieved 2016-07-06.
  20. 1 2 "LTA | Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service". www.lta.gov.sg. Retrieved 2023-02-13.
  21. 1 2 Defective SMRT trains were still fit and safe for service: LTA Archived 2016-07-06 at the Wayback Machine - Channel NewsAsia, 6 Jul 2016
  22. 1 2 "关于举报中国南车青岛四方机车车辆股份有限公司在四方川崎联合体新加坡地铁C151A项目首列车试制中CR试验表格中数据造假事实". Sina. 4 February 2015. Archived from the original on 9 July 2016.
  23. ↑ Whistle-blower alleges CSR Sifang submitted fake test data to LTA Archived 2016-07-07 at the Wayback Machine - The Independent, 6 July 2016
  24. ↑ Consortium in train controversy breaks silence Archived 2016-07-11 at the Wayback Machine - Today, 11:41 PM, JULY 7, 2016 (GMT +8)
  25. ↑ Consortium that built MRT trains 'had top score for quality' Archived 2016-07-12 at the Wayback Machine - The Straits Times, 8 July 2016
  26. 1 2 3 No brackets added: Structural integrity of defective trains unaffected, says LTA Archived 2016-07-09 at the Wayback Machine - Channel NewsAsia, 7 July 2016
  27. ↑ "HK Government Tipped Off About Singapore Subway Trains Crackings A Year Ago, Emails Reveal". FactWire. 5 July 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-08-16.
  28. ↑ Even China’s own railway operator condemns CSR Sifang Archived 2016-07-10 at the Wayback Machine - The Independent SG, 9 July 2016
  29. 1 2 独家|车辆事故数上升 铁总质疑车辆质量 (Exclusive|Rise of Train Car Incident CRCC doubts the quality of train cars) Archived 2016-07-01 at the Wayback Machine - CaiXin Online, 22 March 2016 08:46 am (GMT+8)
  30. ↑ CRC Blames Rise in Problems with Trains on Manufacturer Archived 2016-07-03 at the Wayback Machine - CaiXin Online, 22 March 2016 19:31 (GMT+8)
  31. ↑ So the vendor's dismal track record can become a point in their favour? Archived 2023-02-08 at the Wayback Machine - Gerald Giam Facebook page, 8 July 2016 9:35 am (GMT+8)
  32. ↑ Parliamentary questions filed from WP about C151A issue Archived 2023-02-08 at the Wayback Machine - The Workers' Party of Singapore, 8 July 2016 18:17 (GMT+8)
  33. ↑ Going public on train cracks could have caused undue panic: Khaw Archived 2016-07-13 at the Wayback Machine- Channel NewsAsia, 12 July 2016 16:49 (GMT+8)
  34. ↑ TENDER INFORMATION Archived 2016-08-20 at the Wayback Machine - Land Transport Authority, 28 May 2014
  35. 1 2 3 4 Nothing routine about MRT cracks Archived 2016-07-15 at the Wayback Machine - Straits Times, 14 July 2016
  36. 1 2 An Open Letter to Singapore’s Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan Archived 2020-11-08 at the Wayback Machine - FactWire, 14 July 2016
  37. 1 2 Train cracks: Routine matter spun into controversy, says Khaw Archived 2016-07-15 at the Wayback Machine - Today, 12 July 2016 6:15PM (GMT+8)
  38. ↑ "MRT train collides with stationary train at Joo Koon station: Reports". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 2020-09-19. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
  39. ↑ hermesauto (2017-11-15). "SMRT train hits stationary train at Joo Koon MRT station; passengers taken to hospital". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2017-11-15. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
  40. ↑ "Second train delay hits EWL commuters on Wednesday morning". Archived from the original on 2017-11-15. Retrieved 2017-11-15.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.