In the following article, “Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service”, Land Transport Authority (LTA) (2016) addressed the problems that they faced and actions taken to resolve the issues in regards to the North-South and East-West lines trains. One of main focus was that battery housing flew open due to pressure. Secondly, cracks were also found on the draughtscreen of five trains. Operations of train services were not affected as these problems were rectified immediately. Lastly, hairline cracks were found but as it was impossible to repair, affected trains that were under warranty were sent back for replacement. To complete the rectification programme by 2019, LTA expressed they would send two trains at a time for servicing. Nevertheless, it’s dependent on the arrival of new trains along with the current ones which are undergoing re-signalling. However, the lack of information given regarding the hairline cracks in LTA’s article made it incomplete.
The first reason that makes the web page incomplete was that LTA didn’t address the issue about why the issues weren’t disclosed earlier, considering this was the focal point of the matter of the moment. The news was first publicized through a Hong Kong investigation news website, FactWire (2016), where they captured multiple photos of affected trains being transported out of a train depot and at Jurong Port. The leak of the news caused an uproar as to why the information wasn’t made known to the public initially and only after the news been leaked. Lim (2016) reported, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan said “if there was a safety issue, LTA would have gone public”, which leaves the question whether they are hiding anything else from us. Though after that incident, LTA announced that multiple trains in both Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT) line and Sengkang-Punggol LRT (SPLRT) line were found with cracks. The case for 19 affected trains for BPLRT trains were released just 2 days after the initial news release. The cracks were found by the makers of the train, Bombardier, during their routine check in 2015, and currently majority of them are fixed, through welding methods (Tan, 2016). SPLRT trains, was the most recent case, 2 months after the first press release, the defects were found during the countrywide inspection from the July incident. Manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japan, of 11 trains, six were back for operation while the leftovers are expected to return by middle October (Tan, 2016).
Additionally, the article is incomplete as some information were not mentioned. In light of the situation happening, Lim (2016) revealed KSF won another contract from LTA, in addition to the contract 151A they were awarded with in 2009, just because they felt the problem was handled decisively. Interviewed by Lim and Siong (2016), a senior lecturer at SIM university, Dr Park, explained that 7 years for repairs is too long unless there is any risk yet to be solved. Taking into consideration how fast the LRT trains were being fixed, furthermore being able to repair with only welding in Singapore, one might consider if LTA had acted too hastily with another contract. Another consideration they failed to mention would be the material being used as during the bidding of the contract, listing that the quality of the material was one of the criteria (Lim, 2016). Former Hong Kong Railway Corporation acting chief executive officer claims the quality of the trains was under question due to the high frequency of issues (Factwire, 2016). Another point they failed to address is, if trains were safe to operate with cracks, why was there the need to replace the trains, also if there is a safety limit for the cracks. Lastly, other than assuring public that checks were conducted, there were no prevention measures mentioned.
In conclusion, while LTA’s article covered the 3 main concerns, it is considered incomplete due to the fact they left out several information, including why the details about the faults weren't revealed by LTA earlier. The web page also failed to explain the quality of the trains, considering the fact that they awarded the contract to them, yet hairline cracks became appeared more frequently than before.
References:
FactWire. (2016). China Manufacturer for MTR secretly recalls 35 SMRT subway trains after cracks found.
Retrieved September 25, 2016 from https://www.factwire.news/en/MTR-securetly-recall.html
Land Transport Authority. (2016). Trains on the North-South and East West Lines Safe for Service. Retrieved September 20, 2016 from
Lim, K. (2016). Going public on train cracks could have caused undue panic: Khaw. CNA News.
Retrieved September 25, 2016 from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/going-public-on-train/2950576.html
Lim, K and Siong, O. (2016). Defects on SMRT trains 'not safety-critical', to be repaired by manufacturer: LTA. CNA News. Retrieved September 25, 2016 from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/defects-on-smrt-trains/2931802.html
Tan, C. (2016). US-made LRT trains also had cracks. The Straits Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016 from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/us-made-lrt-trains-also-had-cracks
Tan, C. (2016). Hairline cracks found on 11 Sengkang-Punggol LRT trains. The Straits Times. Retrieved September 28, 2016 from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/hairline-cracks-found-on-11-sengkang-punggol-lrt-trains
Brad Blackstone has left a new comment on your post "Summary + Thesis + Reader Response - Draft 2":
ReplyDeleteYou have provided a comprehensive summary and a very detailed reader response, Daryl. I appreciate the investigative nature of your analysis and the many articles that you read to explore this issue. Your thesis is also well focused. There are a few problems, however. One is that I'm not sure how your two body paragraphs' topic sentences are so very different. The second one seems to be more general than the first, and it could very well include the details mentioned in the first body paragraph. The way to deal with this is to make that second topic sentence more specific.
The other main problem is phrasing and language use in general. Please see my comments below:
1) In the following article, “Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service”, Land Transport Authority (LTA) (2016) addressed the problems that they faced and actions taken to resolve the issues in regards to the North-South and East-West lines trains.
>>> (phrasing)
In the article, “Trains on the North-South and East-West Lines Safe for Service”, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) (2016) addressed the problems that it HAS faced and actions taken to resolve the issues in regards to the North-South and East-West lines trains.
1.1) article >>> news release
2) One of main focus >>> (one of a group/PLURAL NOUN)
3) hairline cracks >>> where?
4) this was the focal point of the matter of the moment >>> ?
5) where they >>> "they" who?
6) The case for 19 affected trains for BPLRT trains were released >>> (subject verb disagreement)
7) SPLRT trains, was the most recent case, 2 months after the first press release, the defects were found during the countrywide inspection from the July incident. >>> (punctuation)
8) Manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japan, of 11 trains, six were back for operation while the leftovers are expected to return by middle October (Tan, 2016).
>>> (phrasing: Take note of the changes and ask yourself why)
Manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japan, the trains were returned to operation on varying schedules: of 11 trains, six were back for operation 9when?) while the remaining were expected to return by middle October (Tan, 2016).
9) some information were not >>> (subject verb disagreement)
9.1) LTA didn’t address the issue about why the issues >>> (phrasing/ repetitive word use)
10) Additionally, the article is incomplete as some information were not mentioned. >>> (repetitive: this topic sentence's focus seems to be the same as the other's)
11) In light of the situation happening, Lim (2016) revealed KSF won another contract from LTA, in addition to the contract 151A they were awarded with in 2009, just because they felt the problem was handled decisively. >>> (comma splice)
see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/1/34/
12) because they felt the problem >>> Who is they?
13) furthermore being able to repair with only welding in Singapore, >>> (odd phrasing)
14) they failed to mention / they failed >>> 'they'
15) Another point they failed to address is, if trains were safe to operate with cracks, why was there the need to replace the trains, also if there is a safety limit for the cracks. >>> (comma splice)
16) Lastly, other than assuring public that checks were conducted, there were no prevention measures mentioned. >>> Who is assuring the public?
Let's work on this!
Thanks!
Posted by Brad Blackstone to SIE2016 - Effective Communication at 6 October 2016 at 21:12