Allen & Gledhill's head of litigation and dispute Andrew Yeo, representing LTA, acknowledged that SMRT's maintenance regime is "generally" comprehensive and satisfactory, but said that there are areas for improvement.
Mr Yeo said that flat spots on the trains' metal wheels, which is under SMRT's care, was the main cause of the strong vibration, which was in turn cited as the main cause for the claws holding the power-supply third rail to come dislodged.
He dismissed suggestions that heavier new-generation China-made trains were the source of the problems, or any link between the floating slab track and track vibration levels.
He also mentioned that SMRT's incident management procedures could have been better.
Lawyer for SMRT Cavinder Bull from Drew & Napier spoke after lunch, and firmly refuted these allegations.
The senior counsel argued that SMRT had stringent maintenance intervals that either equalled or exceeded manufacturer's recommendations.
He said the flat spots on train wheels is an issue faced by all train operators. Mr Bull also warned that over-emphasis on vibration alone will lead the investigation astray.
He instead countered that the December incidents were the result of "a rare confluence of factors".
He noted that the claws used on the North-South Line are first-generation claws. Metros using the later generations encountered no problems with them.
He told the court that all the third-rail claws are to be changed to the latest fifth-generation model.
The inquiry also revealed sabotage being ruled out.
The inquiry was chaired by Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye. He asked for the examination of more effective ways of managing incidents, as he foresaw bus bridging efforts to be always inadequate in view of the sheer number of train passengers.
ORIGINAL SOURCE
Content used in this not-for-profit blog remain the property of their respective owners.
No comments:
Post a Comment